Hi,

Completely respect the position – will also pop up an update on the front of the post.

To be honest, this was an understandable mistake, I have talked to a lot of other economists who were surprised at the magnitude to the population change. Data can be like that, as you well know!

Hi Matt,

I did some simulations on this structure of data over the last few days, and agree with you that it can be really quite misleading in some circumstances. I’ve posted about it here:

http://polity.co.nz/content/i-made-mistake

Thanks for pushing me on this one. Without prodding, I probably wouldn’t have gone back and double-checked it all.

Cheers,
Rob

“Undeserving poor” parents? There you go again, wishfully thinking the best of people who allow their kids to go to school hungry and shoe-less. Funny how you are crafting a narrative that supports your pre-determined solution. The parents of kids going hungry are actually good people, really, but they just arent getting enough support. Give the parents more money!

Children need a lot more in their childhood than food? But if they arent getting food then what are the chances they are getting anything else? Zilch.

NZ already has a substantial social welfare safety net designed to allow people with children to feed and clothe them. If that isnt happening now, then more redistribution isnt going to get it done. More money may, in fact, mean more children going hungry in the long run as an unintended consequence.

If a child is hungry in this country it is because the parents are neglecting them. And yet you say you would only remove a child from an environment of obvious abuse, but not neglect? Go on, I am sure the 1% can afford that.

So, first, you are the one promoting widespread removal of children from their “undeserving poor” parents. That’s the similarity with the 19th century.

Second, the issue is much wider than simply one of hunger. Children need a lot more from their childhood than just food.

So, a couple of links for you to consider:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/local-papers/wairarapa-news/opinion/5658674/Why-is-there-an-undeserving-poor

http://nzier.org.nz/publications/is-working-for-families-working-for-families-nzier-insight-27

Both of these items, particularly the second, deserve close reading because they both contain little gems of wisdom that should give you cause to rethink your approach, which is unhelpfully punitive, in my view.

Finally, my advocacy of ‘do something’ is qualified by the recommendation of seeing what works elsewhere i.e similar jurisdictions with lower rates of child poverty. I doubt ripping kids away from their parents is a favoured policy, except in extreme circumstances, such as when obvious abuse is occurring.

Cheers.

Indeed, I think we agree on a lot of substance here – especially with regards to opportunity and education being key.

It is partially for that reason that I am concerned with a blind inequality focus – as I feel like it takes away from the focus on poverty and opportunity which we should have 🙂

This post was solely on the fact that some data being shown and interpreted was being interpreted in a way that was wrong – this concerned me, as we should be trying to be open and transparent about our egalitarian preferences. I am glad that parties in NZ are becoming more willing to do this!

I might bother to conduct a cursory reading of 19th century history, but only after you explain how the world of the 19th century is in any way similar to 21st century NZ. There is enough social welfare and support in NZ that the only reason a child to goes hungry is through neglect. Perhaps you want to profile the parents of hungry children and then tell me that the kids are better off in their care?

“Doing something” doesn’t require political courage, despite what the politicians would have you believe. How much political courage are the Greens showing with this policy? “Doing something” is the only thing politicians talk about, Green politicians especially.

I guess I asked for that Kimble, so fair enough. Of course we don’t agree, and, indeed, you could be right, but a cursory reading of 19th century history would seem to contradict that possibility.

Fair comment, Matt, rhetorical flourishes are such fun, but they do tend to fall flat on the net, I admit.

As for the do something bit, the issue of the long tail in education has been around for a long time, spans several governments, and is correlated with ethnicity, which itself is correlated with decile levels. There are lessons to be learned from other successful jurisdictions, and the type of policy, and limited intervention. the Greens advocate seem to be effective in those jurisdictions, with allowance for our specific circumstances.

And just note on your other reply, I wasn’t intending to come across as arguing with you on this – we are on the same page. It was meant just as a general point for others, really. But sure, I think poverty is the problem, even of the relative kind, in the short run, at least, and the resolution must involve redistribution, by definition. But a major intervention such as a UBI, while a worthwhile long term goal that we both advocate (and not funded out of income taxes, so the Treasury report misses the mark, for me), is simply not on the cards.

Anyway, it’s good to see the political parties bringing such stuff into the open, and not just in New Zealand, and it will require political courage to “do something”, so the next few years could be interesting.