Older white men paid double young ethnic women

That’s not my headline. That’s Stuff’s business section’s headline.

Middle-aged white men might be sick of being cast as villains, but a report suggests they should check their privilege.

And that’s not my first sentence, that’s business reporter Richard Meadows’ first sentence.

I’m going to try to not just copy-paste the entire article – because it’s all good and it’s all quoteable – but seriously:

Young Middle Eastern and African women are at the bottom of the heap, with median pay of just $14.75 an hour, on par with the minimum wage.

At the other end of the spectrum, white men aged 45-64 command top dollar, earning a median hourly rate of $28.77.

Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner Jackie Blue said it was only fair that wages should increase with time and experience.

These are the kinds of statements which normally get sneered at – when it’s Social Justice Warriors making them. There are cries of “ew, politics of envy!” and “that’s just because you all go off and have babies!” and “just upskill if you don’t want to flip burgers your whole life!!!”

Sorry, dudes: pay discrimination is a real, documented, mainstream idea.

The Human Rights Commission’s interactive Tracking Equality at Work tool is amazing, and I strongly encourage having a look – especially if you still want to pretend that we’re all living on an even playing field.

The only way to ignore these statistics and pretend they don’t matter is to openly admit that you really do believe that women, people of colour, and people with disabilities “just aren’t trying hard enough” and somehow “deserve” to be paid less, hired less, and promoted less.

Statement of the bloody obvious: of course different types of work and different levels of “skill” are always going to be paid differently in the economic system we currently have.

Other statement of the bloody obvious: but that cannot justify the widespread discrimination and disadvantage which is playing out in workers’ lives every day. It cannot justify paying women like Kristine Bartlett, with 23 years’ experience caring for elderly people in rest homes, $14.46 an hour.

If we took a serious look at the “value” produced by low-paid workers – the people feeding us, caring for us, keeping our workplaces and public spaces tidy and hygienic – we could not condone the miserable wages they are paid. We would not write off their jobs as “unskilled” or “women’s work”.

But the first step is admitting there’s a problem. And when it’s right there in black-and-white on a major news site – even listed as an “editor’s pick” on the front page – I think we’re ready, as a society, to take that step.

Campbell Live on poverty and school lunches

We said farewell to Campbell Live last week, and from tonight TV3 is delighting our screens with Road Cops in its place, presumably until their shiny new co-hosted totally-what-the-audience-wants current affairs show is ready to launch.

While Road Cops may involve some really gripping, in-depth reportage, I thought I’d head over to TV3’s website, where – for the time being, at least – you can still watch John and the team doing what they did best.

Here’s to you, Campbell Live, and here’s to your heartbreaking story about poverty and kids’ school lunchboxes.

Lunchbox differences in decile 1 and decile 10 schools

Childhood poverty increases the risk of poor health, poor educational achievement, unemployment, teenage pregnancy, criminality and so on.

Addressing it would not only enrich the lives of the children concerned, it would reduce the money we’re spending responding to those issues.

To illustrate the impact of child poverty, we’ve conducted a simple experiment.

Without any advance notice, we asked kids in a decile 10 school, and a decile one school, to show us what they’re having for lunch.

See the full video here.

The surplus lie

Andrew Little delivered his pre-Budget speech in Wellington yesterday, and the pullquote everyone’s talking about was some seriously no-nonsense stuff:

…[National’s] promise was clear. Their good economic stewardship would see us in surplus.

And now they’ve abandoned their promise.

National’s talk now is about how achieving surplus was an “artificial target” and that getting a surplus is “like landing a 747 on the head of a pin.” A lot of effort has gone into glossing over the broken promise. But I see it for what it is – one of the biggest political deceptions in a lifetime.

You can quibble the semantics, of course – is it not really a lie if Treasury figures predicted we’d be in surplus? Or is it still a lie because Treasury’s predictions are often laughably optimistic and wrong (when National is in power, anyway)? But come on, whose word can we rely on regarding the Budget if not Treasury’s?

The room to quibble is what makes it a lie.

Balancing a government budget is nothing like balancing a chequebook, and not just because ordinary citizens can’t print their own money at will. There are so many moving parts, so many tricks, so many points which can be manipulated ever so slightly

That’s why it was ridiculous for Bill English to say even a $1 surplus would count as “significant“. When you’re managing nearly $100 billion in revenue and spending, there’s infinite room to tinker. You can make all kinds of assumptions about how much tax will be collected. And we’ve seen the tinkering: the delay in lowering ACC levies. The interest-free “loan” to the NZTA which conveniently counts as an asset, not spending. The assumed cuts to EQC’s insurance liabilities.

The lie isn’t really about whether-we-achieve-surplus or whether-we-don’t. The lie is everything that National’s constant promises of surplus implies: that a surplus is objectively good; that a surplus proves their superior economic management abilities (but a deficit is all Labour’s fault; they had nine long years to deliver surpluses for Bill English); that a surplus proves things are back on track, the economy is doing fine, things can’t be that bad – so obviously inequality’s a myth, there’s no housing bubble, Christchurch is hunky-dory, we don’t need state houses or workers’ rights or any of that rubbish, and if you’re very, very good you’ll get jam tax cuts tomorrow.

A surplus proves National are right about everything.

That’s the lie we’ve been sold, time and time again, by this government. And given the harm it has done and is doing to the New Zealanders who can’t afford a first home, much less an investment property, who can’t find secure employment or buy the kids a new pair of winter shoes, who are living in cars and queuing for foodbanks at 3am – I don’t think it’s too strong to call it one of the biggest political deceptions of our lifetime.

So what is the Boots Theory?

With my change of Twitter handle a few people have asked about the name, “Boots Theory”. So it’s as good a time as any to re-post one of my favourite Terry Pratchett quotes, from Men at Arms.

The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes ‘Boots’ theory of socioeconomic unfairness.

(Repost) The end of the inequality debate?

Originally posted at On The Left.

Inequality has become a central political issue in New Zealand and around the world. But there’s always been some argument, from the right, that inequality just happens, or provides an incentive for people to pull themselves up with their own bootstraps.

Now, a new OECD report is fairly straightforward about the issue:

New OECD research shows that when income inequality rises, economic growth falls. One reason is that poorer members of society are less able to invest in their education. Tackling inequality can make our societies fairer and our economies stronger.

New Zealand gets a specific mention:

Figure 2 shows by how much the GDP growth rate would have increased or decreased over the period 1990-2010 had inequality not changed between 1985 and 2005 (The most recent inequality trends since then are not taken into account as they affect future growth patterns).

Rising inequality is estimated to have knocked more than 10 percentage points off growth in Mexico and New Zealand…

As Grant Robertson put it on Morning Report, “This isn’t the Socialist International. This is the OECD – the conductor of the Trickle-Down Economics Choir – saying that the show’s over.”

So you might think that’s the end of it – surely this is an unequivocal explosion of the trickle-down economics theory, and we can all turn to finding actual solutions to reverse inequality and the real harm it causes in people’s lives.

But unfortunately, our Minister of Finance has taken the John Key line of saying he doesn’t accept the findings of the report. It’s one of the great strategies of this government, acting like there’s no such thing as objective fact and the only thing that matters is how you frame something.

We’re not going to see any kind of shift in their behaviour or policies (though I’m sure we’ll definitely hear them talk about inequality more, as we did in the lead-up to the election.) But what this report gives us is another tool to use against the National/ACT narrative – that the right are pro-growth, that tax cuts and penny-pinching will lead to prosperity, that there’s no alternative to their mean-spirited policies.