Category: Poverty

Posted on

Creepy behaviour from David Farrar

It wasn’t at all surprising to me that David Farrar is scathing of students who have to seek hardship grants to pay their bills, categorising them as bludgers who “say yes to free cash“. Nor that he believes that every journalist who reports on the cost of living should demand “a detailed break down of income and expenditure, so readers can judge for themselves the situation”.

(David Farrar isn’t a journalist, so he’s not bound by such ethical considerations – or he might have considered linking to the actual UCOL policy on hardship grants which makes it clear it is definitely not just “free cash”.)

It’s a typical rightwing attitude which reinforces the idea that lesser people – beneficiaries, students, parents – just aren’t allowed to have nice things. It assumes that survival is good enough – not being able to live a life with some dignity, nor understanding that human beings aren’t just automatons who you input fuel into to extract productivity.

What’s disturbing is this bit, where after completely misrepresenting an interviewees’ statements (she commented that she was speaking generally, not of her own situation; Farrar reforms this into wholesale journalistic inaccuracy):

I’ve had a look through the Facebook pages of Lauren and Karn. They both seem very cool friendly people, and in no way are they political activists for a cause. They seem very typical students. I would note however that contrary to the perception in the article of starving students (and I am not blaming them, but the story) they seem to have pretty good social lives judging by the photos, and references to Big Day Out etc.

We’ve seen this before, of course, with Paula Bennett unashamedly releasing the personal details of beneficiaries who criticised her ill-judged, mean-spirited decision to cut the Training Incentive Allowance. And there have been many similar cases of people having sick leave cut because they looked happy in a couple of Facebook photos.

It’s a really nasty intimidation tactic – silencing people by threatening to embarrass them publicly, undermining their experiences by attacking their credibility. If you’re not dressed like a Dickensian urchin covered in chimney-dust, the argument goes, you can’t really be struggling to pay bills week-to-week.

David Farrar is saying no more and no less than this: if you do have political leanings, your argument would be invalid (he pretends to be generous in pointing out that they don’t); if you do have a social life, you must be lying when you say some students are trying to get by with $2 a day to spend on food sometimes. And don’t even think about attending the Big Day Out in February if you might be short of cash in September or you deserve to go hungry, you horrid, reprehensible bludgers.

It’s par for the course for our government and its bloggers, and it needs to be named for what it is: unacceptable bullying.

Edited to add: a few responses on Twitter which highlight that this is repeated behaviour from Farrar, and why it’s irresponsible for him to expose young women to the lecherous creepiness of his commentariat (which he keeps promising to clean up).

Posted on

WANTED: new ideas on child poverty

It’s great to see John Key taking a sudden interest in addressing child poverty in New Zealand.

In Parliament in 2012, when Metiria Turei produced a graph showing how fast inequality was growing, his response was:

That graph looks like the National Party’s poll ratings while in Government, so I appreciate the member showing it to the House.

In 2013 he refused to set any target to reduce child poverty, because:

I think the view is that there are many ways you can actually define and measure poverty, so the Government would rather have a series of programmes.

(I’ve always assumed it was best practice to have clear goals and measurements so you can figure out if your programmes are actually working, but I’m just a comms nerd.)

In fact, child poverty has been such a low priority for our government that the Minister of Social Development thought the very notion of measuring child poverty in order to address it was hilarious.

But let’s be fair. When you’re dealing with an issue as serious as child poverty, of course you want fresh ideas – and Key says he’s interested in things like:

Breakfasts in schools, free doctors’ visits for young children and tax credits for low and middle income families

The only problem is, every one of these ideas is contained in the final report of the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty – recommendations 60, 52 and 5, to be precise.

That report was published in December 2012. It made five recommendations about ways to measure child poverty – which Key refused to take up. It recommended a universal child payment – which Key rejected. It recommended all homes be properly insulated – which Key dodged, while claiming credit for a policy concession the Greens negotiated. It found that there was overwhelming evidence to support investing in the early years of a child’s life – which Bill English rejected.

I’m sure there’s excuses already lined up – oh, we needed more information; oh, the fiscal situation’s improved so we can do more – but the fact is that time and time again, National have refused to take onboard even the most independent, well-researched, expert suggestions on how to address child poverty. They dodged the issue for the entire election campaign, only releasing a welfare policy (focused on finding new and interesting ways to “incentivise” people off benefits) three days before Election Day.

Yet inequality and poverty are issues which New Zealanders take very, very seriously. So why the sudden change of heart? Because the spin for the next three years is “centre ground”. And when you compare Key’s comments with his government’s record on child poverty? Spin is all it is.

In the post-Dirty Politics era, I feel it’s only ethical to reveal my sources. All links in this post were provided by a very well-informed source:

google search

Posted on

The cost of a bowl of Weet-Bix

One of the most dishonest arguments the right ever put forward on the subject of poverty is around one of the simplest things in life: a bowl of Weet-Bix.

Yesterday Nikki Kaye approvingly re-posted a letter to the editor which illustrates the dishonesty, saying in part:

I costed three healthy breakfasts: two free-range scrambled eggs on lightly buttered mixed grain toast with salt and pepper cost $1.39 and took five minutes to prepare; quick-cook porridge with a banana and a sprinkling of brown sugar cost 94c and four minutes’ time. And three Weet-Bix and milk with a sprinkling of sugar cost 55c and took two minutes … do we really want to accept that 55c and two minutes’ time is too high a threshold to expect for parents’ dedication to their children?

As I said to Kaye on Twitter:

It’s a truly heartless – and illogical – way to look at the question of why so many Kiwi kids are going to school hungry. Obviously you can’t buy milk in 100mL bottles or toast one piece at a time. And making breakfast for yourself is, I understand, a very different situation to preparing it with even one child, much less two or three, all in need of waking, clothing, feeding, and getting out the door – even with two parents around to run things.

On her Facebook page, you can see Kaye trying to walk herself back out of the nasty, judgemental tone, claiming she was just supporting a brave mum who did a great job in trying circumstances. But we all know exactly what message the right are sending when they approvingly tweet this kind of diatribe:

Poor people just aren’t trying hard enough. Poor people are just greedy and ungrateful. Beneficiaries are spending YOUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS on booze and fags. See, we need to crack down on them!

An excellent response came from @NoelZeng, who linked to this report by Auckland City Mission about the realities of life for people living in economic poverty:

Ten years ago people accessed food parcels when they experienced a crisis in their lives. Today, thousands of families rely on food banks as their regular source of food as money for food is considered to be discretionary spending by many. The increasing long-term use of the Mission’s food bank is a growing concern.

And, whilst we have an understanding of why people experience financial hardship, there is little understanding of what stops people moving out of poverty. With a prevailing opinion held by many that those living in poverty do so simply because they lack the initiative to free themselves from it, there is little impetus or pressure to address what is for many thousands of New Zealand families a desperate and deteriorating set of circumstances.

Of course the people who are already firmly stuck in the “55c and two minutes’ time!” mindset won’t be convinced by stories like the ones told in that report. There’s always something you’re doing wrong, some obvious area where you haven’t cut your standard of living down to the absolute bone.

The thing is, you can’t argue with the numbers.

Using WINZ’s online “check your eligibility” tool, I imagined myself as a solo mum with two kids, aged 4 and 5, living in Wellington, paying a (miraculous) $200 a week in rent. Healthy (thank god), not supporting sick or elderly relatives (thank god), but out of work (thanks, National) and definitely single (yes, WINZ, I’m sure, but thanks for popping up that dire warning about relationship fraud.)

End result: I may be entitled to Sole Parent Support of $299.45 per week, and possibly the Accommodation Supplement.

Unfortunately you can’t use the online tool to assess your Accommodation Support if you’re on a benefit (because what I need is some terrible web-design to add stress to my life) so I lied (typical beneficiary) and got an estimate of $72.

So my hypothetical alternate-universe solo mum self could hypothetically get $371.45 per week of your taxpayer dollars. But my hypothetical (very optimistic) rent was $200. And Otago University’s annual Food Cost Survey suggests that just to meet basic needs, I need to spend $137 on food per week – $59 for me, $44 for the five-year-old, $34 for the four-year-old.

Leaving me a princely sum of $34.45 to cover non-food groceries, transport, clothing, power, phone bill or prepay cellphone (need a phone number to look for work!), and any unexpected costs that might arise.

I literally couldn’t do it. Could you? Could Nikki Kaye?

 

Posted on

Raising the minimum wage

Labour and the Greens have both committed to raising the minimum wage in government.

During the last leaders’ debate I got a few tweets from people insisting that raising the minimum wage would obviously kill all small business in New Zealand.

The thing is, like a lot of rightwing excuses for not helping the workers of New Zealand to get a fair deal, it’s rubbish.

There just is no evidence that raising the minimum wage means people lose jobs.

This 2013 report found that “the minimum wage has little or no discernible effect on the employment prospects of low-wage workers” – because the “cost shock” of raising it is small relative to the overall costs of running a business; because employers can adjust other costs to balance it out; and because people work harder and turnover drops when they’re paid a decent wage.

And while I couldn’t find any data for NZ, in the United States 66% of workers on minimum wage aren’t employed by struggling mom-and-pop businesses – they’re employed by companies like Wal-Mart and McDonald’s.

John Key was very particular about his concern for the poor hairdressers of Foxton who would be rendered destitute by paying their workers a few dollars more an hour. Hairdressers are clearly on the minds of the right – here’s DPF trying to argue that we shouldn’t have fair employment law because the hardworking hairdressers of Christchurch will suffer – so maybe they’d be interested in the views of a salon owner from Levin, who talked to Labour’s candidate for Ōtaki:

Raising the minimum wage is quite simply a good and necessary idea. It helps families, it helps businesses, it helps communities, and the reason it’s a leftwing thing to do is because we care about people not money.

Posted on

How to build better beggars

In the United States, the street beggars have great patter.

Despite what South Park would have us believe, when you walk down the main street of a major city, you don’t get hordes of people shiftlessly shaking cups at you, asking for “change?”

There are a few.  But far more often, there’s a story.  I did two tours of Iraq and I just need to get my clothes dry at the laundromat.  I need 20c for the bus, or $5 to get the train to where my kids live. My girlfriend’s out in the parking lot, I just want to get us some chicken.  They are practiced, and polite, and very aware that they’re approaching a young white woman on the street and need to ensure they’re utterly unthreatening, because the lives of poor men and especially poor black men probably aren’t worth crap if a pretty white girl complains to the cops around the corner.

When a country has the kind of inequality the US does, people get really, really good at begging for money.

On the same rainy day I meet the Iraq veteran – and I have no reason to doubt that he’s served his country, and been tossed aside for his trouble – John Kerry, the secretary of state, is on MSNBC talking to Andrea Mitchell about what’s been happening in Ukraine.  He speaks in admiring tones about how the people of Ukraine have risen up against their oppressor, how they’ve had enough of a leader who sleeps in mansions and lives a life of luxury.  And to an outsider, it sounds so disingenuous.  Does Kerry not see the parallels with his own country?  Where a presidential candidate can forget how many homes he owns,  while the people who are fortunate enough to have employment waiting tables are entitled to just $2.13 an hour?

The United States is a nation thoroughly captured by the idea that we can all pull ourselves up with our own bootstraps.  That a government safety net, universal healthcare, even the right to vote is something some people just don’t deserve.

New Zealand has inequality, too.  But we still have some of the basics in place – our current government’s efforts notwithstanding – and I have faith we can turn things around with a strong progressive government, starting in 2014.