Labour govt 2020-23

[fungus pudding]

I genuinely do not understand the point you are making. Please explain further.

In a society where almost everyone is wealthy, the mid point is not poverty. I posed the question 'Is relativety to mid-income a sensible way to measure poverty?' Clearly it isn't. The benefits of equality as detailed in The Spirit Level, for all its merits, will not solve the problem of poverty where it doesn't exist.

[Bjauck]

In a society where almost everyone is wealthy, the mid point is not poverty. I posed the question 'Is relativety to mid-income a sensible way to measure poverty?' Clearly it isn't. The benefits of equality as detailed in The Spirit Level, for all its merits, will not solve the problem of poverty where it doesn't exist.

it depends on what you understand by poverty. Is it a relative term? What does being without adequate resources mean, according to time and place? Being unable to afford to buy and use an internet connected laptop or big screen smart phone in NZ in 2022 may be a sign of poverty, and would put you at a relative disadvantage to your compatriots.

[dobby41]

it depends on what you understand by poverty. Is it a relative term? What does being without adequate resources mean, according to time and place? Being unable to afford to buy and use an internet connected laptop or big screen smart phone in NZ in 2022 may be a sign of poverty, and would put you at a relative disadvantage to your compatriots.

I agree.
One definition is

1. What is the definition of poverty?
Essentially, poverty refers to lacking enough resources to provide the necessities of life—food, clean water, shelter and clothing. But in today’s world, that can be extended to include access to health care, education and even transportation. In government circles, poverty is often further defined as “absolute poverty” and “relative poverty” (more on that below).

Every country has its own measure for poverty. However, a widely recognized authority on the topic of “extreme poverty” is the World Bank. The Bank keeps a metric called the International Poverty Line and, as of 2015, set the definition of extreme poverty as those who live on less than US$1.90 per day. (Those living on between $1.90-$3.10 per day are classified as the “moderate poor.”) This number is based on the monetary value of a person’s consumption rather than income alone.

Relative poverty is tricky.
If you said it was income below 60% of the median income (say) then you would always have it to some degree.
Even if the median was $200k/year there would be people on less than $120k.
From here (10yrs old now)
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/rese...ty-and-poverty

New Zealand does not have an official poverty measure. However, low-income thresholds or poverty lines can be used. The ‘fixed line’ measure anchors the poverty line in a reference year, then adjusts it each survey with the Consumer Price Index. The ‘moving line’ or ‘relative’ measure sets the poverty line as a proportion of the median income.

The fixed line measure (60 percent of median income) adjusted for housing costs indicated 15 percent of the total population lived in poverty in 2010, the same as in 2009. This ended a decline in poverty started in 1994. Child poverty rates were 22 percent from 2007 to 2010, following major falls from 2001. According to the MSD this was due to improving employment, income-related rents and WFF. Poverty rates for older New Zealanders (7 percent) were lower in 2010 than for any other age group (13 percent for 25 to 64 year olds and 22 percent for dependent children).

The poverty rate also remained unchanged on the moving line measure after adjusting for housing cost. The rate remained 18 percent from 2007 to 2010, as during the mid 1990s, but was double the 1984 rate. Based on OECD and European Union 2008-2009 figures, New Zealand’s population and child poverty rates were close to the overall medians.

(my bolding)

[moka]

Attachment 13377

I think everyone, whatever political persuasion, wants NZ lower on this list.
The question is how do we get there. Increased productivity seems one of the obvious answers.

Increased productivity is not the answer because the benefits would flow through to the business owners not to the workers.

Roll back neoliberalism including its policy of ‘labour market flexibility” which reduced wages and conditions for workers. Neoliberalism makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. A lot of the risk in business has been pushed onto workers, or contractors, including those who would have been employees 40 years ago.

https://allanjjgillies.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/zero-hour-contracts-labour-flexibility-and-other-euphemisms-of-the-neoliberal-agenda/

“Recent stories of ‘zero-hour contracts’ should come as no surprise. They are but one consequence of the rise of neoliberalism. Profits are prioritised over people; workers’ rights are eroded under the banner of ‘labour flexibility’; and the social safety net is recast as an unaffordable luxury.

Risk, that Big Mac sales will be down for McDonalds for example, is absorbed by the company’s minimum wage employees, with hours reduced to reflect downturns in sales. Generally, financial institutions and businesses would be expected to account for their share of market volatility, paying-out smaller dividends, for example. Now, employers such as McDonalds and Sports Direct have sought to shift a large proportion of this uncertainty onto their workers. Low-pay employees are left to wonder whether they will earn enough this week to pay their bills, while the profit margins of their employers are sustained.

Labour rights are virtually non-existent. Demonised trade unions, hounded and marginalised under the weight of statute, offer little protection. Under such conditions, workers are forced to ‘take-it or leave-it.’ And that is really no choice at all.”

[artemis]

Increased proctivity is not the answer because the benefits would flow through to the business owners not to the workers......

While probably true, decision makers should bear in mind that people with assets have choices. Including where to live, who to employ (within the law) and what to do with those assets.

France found out the hard way.

[Bjauck]

While probably true, decision makers should bear in mind that people with assets have choices. Including where to live, who to employ (within the law) and what to do with those assets.

France found out the hard way.

Brexit may well have been in part a reaction to this global elite. Conservative PM Theresa May's push for Brexit, after the UK referendum voted for Brexit, referenced the International elite and their really being "Citizens of Nowhere."

If disparities in wealth and the rights and pay of the lower-paid continue to comparatively erode in NZ, then NZ may face an equivalent of a Brexit or Trump moment.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ades-of-hitler

[Panda-NZ-]

Brexit may well have been in part a reaction to this global elite. Conservative PM Theresa May's push for Brexit, after the UK referendum voted for Brexit, referenced the International elite and their really being "Citizens of Nowhere."

With Luxon around to remind us about the out of touch nature of the elite (from birth in his case) it shouldn't be a problem here.

[Balance]

With Luxon around to remind us about the out of touch nature of the elite (from birth in his case) it shouldn't be a problem here.

Same Luxon you lied about paying no tax?

Panda_NZ - confirmed liar & paid Labour shill.

[Panda-NZ-]

https://twitter.com/ClintVSmith/stat...33109203722248

Good point by clint really.

[Balance]

https://twitter.com/ClintVSmith/stat...33109203722248

Good point by clint really.

What about your lie that Luxon paid no tax?