Monday, 17 October 2011

Poverty? [updated]

Is this really what it looks like?

UPDATE:  Welfare researcher Lindsay Mitchell kindly provides some relevant figures:

Cannons Creek School is rated Decile 1 while Newlands (nearby 'rich' neighbourhood) school is Decile 8. The decile rating substantially affects the level of government funding. For example from the 2011 operational funding budget:

Targeted Funding for Educational Achievement, Including Redistributed Decile Funding
(Decile Per student)

Decile 1
    A 871.49
    B 810.21
    C 703.59
Decile 2
    D 594.40
    E 487.80
    F 404.60
Decile 3
    G 336.98
    H 266.81
    I 212.23
Decile 4
    J 175.82
    K 144.31
    L 130.00
Decile 5
    M 111.37
Decile 6
    N 90.16
Decile 7
    O 68.93
Decile 8
    P 45.08
Decile 9
    Q 27.83
Decile 10
    Z 0.00
Special Education Grant, Base per school 1,354.69
(Decile Per student)
Decile 1 71.14
Decile 2 69.11
Decile 3 65.04
Decile 4 60.98
Decile 5 56.92
Decile 6 52.85
Decile 7 48.80
Decile 8 44.74
Decile 9 40.66
Decile 10 36.60
Careers Information Grant, for schools with students in years 9-15
(Decile Per student)

Decile 1 35.90
Decile 2 34.49
Decile 3 31.66
Decile 4 28.83
Decile 5 26.05
Decile 6 21.11
Decile 7 17.56
Decile 8 16.18
Decile 9 15.48
Decile 10 14.78



Anonymous Tribeless said...

No, no Peter. On Red Alert when I brought up the fact there was no poverty in New Zealand, and that by protecting NZ industries, Labour were actually advocating starving truly poverty stricken families in India, which free enterprise could otherwise have lifted up, she assured me there is poverty in New Zealand. Apparently the Left have a vested interest in there being poverty.

17 Oct 2011, 15:44:00  
Anonymous Hal Incandenza said...

ROFL. Great production values.

You're pointing to a successful example of social democratic policies and poverty alleviation and suggesting it all get dismantled in order to give tax cuts to people in Remuera and Roseneath. What winners. Worth 600 votes nationwide this time around d'ya reckon?

17 Oct 2011, 20:02:00  
Anonymous Mort said...

Hal, you miss the point entirely. It is the abject failure of Welfarism through its crushing of the human spirit and theft of aspiration, which leads to intergenerational welfarism, and so called poverty. The forceful taking of funds from the productive sector to give to the unproductive results in less funds available for any entrepeneurial deisres the originator of those may have had. Thus you have less jobs to employ the people who are living like parasites rather than off their own effort.
The video quite clearly shows sufficient space for these unemployed people to grow their own produce, and one would presume that given they are not having to work for the money coming into their houses, then they would have a few hours a week to be able to put into gardening and growing some produce.

Your willing blindness to see how these people refuse to help themselves harms your argument profoundly.

17 Oct 2011, 20:56:00  
Anonymous Hal Incandenza said...

"It is the abject failure of Welfarism through its crushing of the human spirit and theft of aspiration, which leads to intergenerational welfarism, and so called poverty."

What poverty? The video argues it's been successfully eliminated. Do you want it back?

17 Oct 2011, 21:03:00  
Anonymous Craig said...

Hal, the massive redistribution of wealth under the welfare state has indeed gotten rid of poverty of resources (which this video clearly shows). This is a point that needed to be made as the EPMU (today) and others claim there is an enourmous poverty problem in NZ and claim more resources must be looted.

The followup video to this one will show that despite the enormous wealth redistribution, those on welfare have the worst education, health, crime and teenage pregnancy rates.

Meanwhile those on lower incomes who have a job have much better outcomes on all these social stats than those on welfare.

It is welfare that is the problem, not poverty.

17 Oct 2011, 21:51:00  
Anonymous Hal Incandenza said...

"the massive redistribution of wealth under the welfare state has indeed gotten rid of poverty of resources..."

And this is a terrible terrible thing, which the Libbos will rectify forthwith!

18 Oct 2011, 07:50:00  
Anonymous Richard McGrath said...

Hal, you are still missing the point. Money has been taken by force from the productive, and thrown at others who are unwilling to produce or whose productivity is small. The result has been poverty of spirit in the latter, and generations of parasites who lack any sort of work ethic. They are like spoiled children. That is the inevitable result of welfarism. What you don't see are the lost opportunities for employment that occur when you impoverish the very people that are good at creating jobs for others.

18 Oct 2011, 13:22:00  
Blogger Dinther said...

Hal Incandenza, you are a troll and a dick.

19 Oct 2011, 13:03:00  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

<< Home