Sapient, I don’t really agree with your point on the perception thing. First its the perception of children raised up in lower income household areas which is important and they are not responsible for anything more than taking advantage of what opportunities they do have. Whether they have a sense that society is not fair, or simply that they have a less than equal chance, is not a problem provided they focus on taking up what opportunity they do have. This speaks to the most important thing about income disparity whether it perpetuates across generations.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Sapient

Some bold and sweeping claims Sapient. Now you bring in the evidence based positions line – implying yours have evidential support and mine do not. Is that really the case – assertions are cheap. And I hope you don’t mean anecdotal evidence.

In future let me know when you are claiming to provide evidence to dismiss my position when you do it. Usually you make claims about what happened on other threads some time afterward.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

SPC,

It is the perception of equality of opportunity by those less well off that is important. So long as they realise that they are where they are as a result of their own failure then the social problems do not arise. It is when they blame others that the problems become real.

No, I am not happy in my own mind as to what is correct. That is why my posistion is constantly changing. That is why I participate on this blog. I am deliberately encountering those with opposing views in the hope that they can provide me with insight so as to change my views. I am doing a 8-year degree such that I may be well informed on the matter and I have every intention of spending the rest of my life studying the human such that I may understand. I am not certain that I am correct and I have no claim to objective truth, but there is not a shred of evidence to support your positions. No evidence and yet you cling in the face of counter-evidence; it is pretty much the definition of a dogmatic individual.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Sapient

So you are happy in your own mind as to what is so about correct public policy. So are all other voters to the point they choose to become informed. I suppose you are a little unique in relating your own opinion to objective truth and variations on it being ascribed to dogma beyond appeal to your semblance of what is reason/reasonable.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Sapient, perception is two edged, it can be the perception of the society that it provides equality of opportunity (the UK has safety nets but is declining in this area for some reason), or it is the perception of those from lower income families (living with the societal disfunction that flows around this) that they have equality of opportunity. I’d aspire for a society less complacent about the “equality” of that opportunity and where those with a less than equal chance at least recognising that they did have some and hopefully enough opportunity.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

SPC,

It is not just myself. It is just that I am the only one whom still bothers. All of your points have been totally slaughtered by others on this blog many times over. Many of the party policies have received the same treatment. Not once has a coherent argument been launched against the critiques.

Frustration is a valid response to dogma.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The debate between economists on the economic growth side of the equation alone is quite fierce (that there are adverse societal problems consequent from income disparity is not really in dispute – the question is over whether this disparity results in a lack of a real equality of opportunity, and if so, what negative impact occurs for economic growth prospects).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

SPC,

Yes, it is true that there is a general trend toward dysfunctional characteristics in societies with greater income inequality. We have, however, been over this before; human society is complex.

We can not be compared to the USA and Portugal, even the UK is a stretch. Our societies are fundamentally different and our income inequality is for fundamentally different reasons. All of these societies, New Zealand included, fail when it comes to equality of outcome; something I, as a psychologist, would consider desirable. The top three fail substantially in equality of opportunity; the UK is not as bad as the others as its public provisions are substantially more advanced but the class system -and the money and education associated with that class system- work against that. New Zealand is better, though still far from ideal, when it comes to equality of outcome. As much as I hate to admit it, an education vouchers system would actually go far toward promoting equality of opportunity.

In a society with a high degree of equality of opportunity, a child born to a poor drug-addict can become someone at the top of the pay scale. In a society with a high degree of equality of opportunity, that which separates the rich from the poor is not inheritance but effort. Ultimately, we can not eliminate inequality of opportunity in its entirety but we can do our best to try; we are already pretty far on our way. I can think of many approaches which would increase equality of opportunity and achievement and I promote those at any chance I get; food in schools and affordable childcare are examples of that.

Our society as it stands presently is not an ideal but it is sufficiently close that effort can get you anywhere. In my personal opinion the greatest problem in our society, and that which causes the discontent, is people whom say to the not-well-off that it is not their fault and that they are being exploited. It is the people whom instill a sense of helplessness or futility in them. It is the people whom turn them in to victims of others rather than of themselves.

Incentives are important. It is incentives that drive someone to succeed. For some the incentives will be money, for others it will be the security money can buy. For this reason it is important that there is a large income disparity for without it there is no motive to work and the society itself will begin to degrade. When you give more money than is needed to those whom do not work you incentivise sitting on ones arse and disincentivise the investment that is up-skilling and effort in general. The ideal inequality for a society is cited as between 25 and 40. New Zealand is 35 and most of the Northern European are about 30, we are not that bad on inequality of outcome despite being good-ish on equality of opportunity. Ultimately though, the two can not exist together. With equality of opportunity people start at the same level but some individuals will work more than others and some have more skills than others, to have these people all receive the same -or similar- rewards is to pursue equality of outcome whilst sacrificing equality of opportunity and prosperity.

The perception of class mobility is what is important, not disparity in equality of outcome.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Sapient

Do you think your use of the word retard to describe those who support party policy on incomes and employment is one reason why few party members choose to support them here in debate?

I doubt those who support the party on incomes and employment issues would appreciate finding beneficiaries and low wage workers called retards either. Or those who are beneficiaries and low wage workers supporting party policy would enjoy coming here and reading it either.

I note how you explain that use of the word is a privilege/entitlement that only a few superior people such as yourself are able to qualify for. If we responded in kind of course that would lower the tone of the debate.

Your explanation for your inability to debate without resort to the petty slights of those who hold to a position you disagree with, is that they keep holding to it after you say why you don’t agree. The Green Party also holds to policy positions despite your disagreement with them and I suppose by transference you attack personally who are supportive of the existing party policy line.

You conclude by claiming that Green Party policy destroys society, children, your friends, their children, and your unborn children. That it is an assault on all you value, that it’s dogma on economic and social policy is an atrocity. And in frustration you lash out at any individual who dares defend it in debate on their own blog.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

On the matter of growth, income disparity is associated with a disfunctional society and is related to a lack of equality of opportunity. This ultimately undermines growth.

Some rich countries sustain growth, some don’t – the question is why is that. Of the OECD we rank 4th for income disparity – the three above us -USA, Portugal and UK have it worse than we do at present – in terms of growth forecasts (and deficits). The UK has less equality of opportunity today than it had back in the 1950′s.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

SPC,

No, I say that your support of these positions indicates that you are either a retard -as you fail to understand the effects that such policies would have- or you hate workers -as hurting workers is all your proposals ever do-. I have made the same critique of the party many times over. As have others here whom have given up the futility of arguing with the deaf. I have made the same critique of one particular MP on many occasions, including to her face. She has never come up with a rebuttal that is anything other than ‘right’, ‘entitlement’, and ‘exploitation’.

I did not state that they were retards, at least not in that post. That is for the next paragraph.

If we use the definition of retardation as starting at two standard deviations bellow the norm then retardation is set at an IQ of 70. If we set the norm at my level of 160 (the tests max at four standard deviations, so it is probably higher) then anyone bellow 130 may be defined as mentally retarded. That is over 97% of the population. So, technically, compared to myself, and some other commentators here, the population is very much composed of retards.

It is not those whom do not support me that I have a problem with. People are free to not support me all they like. I love debate more than I love sex (and, considering I am presently trying to curb my sex addiction, that is something). It is when people hold firm to stupid and naïve ideologies which harm society that I get angry. It is for that which people whom do so over many debates -only you and sofistik- end up receiving the retard designation. These people destroy society and hurt the children already born, they hurt my friends, they hurt my friends offspring, and they hurt any offspring I may one-day have. It is an assault on all that I value; a dogma in any form is an atrocity.

In terms of a psychological need to make demean others; it is not so. As an artefact of my upbringing I constantly find myself seeking the approval of others; my resorting to such words acts against that, it is a failure of myself to contain my frustration toward you. That said, it is a rather succinct way of summarising your arguments and suits the purpose well.

As to the growth, it is irrelevant. One can not compare the growth of a foetus to the growth of a teen to the growth of a senile fart. A economy not well developed is grown vastly more easily than one which is developed and is already exploiting its advantages at full bore. This is even easier with foreign technology and investment. Basic economic literacy (or biological understanding at that).

Like or Dislike: 2  0 (+2)

Who cares if their wage is more equal if they’re all living in poverty.

The large majority (about 80%) of the most equal societies are poor countries.

You’re desperately trying to link two simple factors in complex web of economic factors – when they bear little relationship to each other.

Some of the most equal countries are poor, some are rich.

Some of the most unequal countries are rich, some are poor.

Countries growing the fastest include very unequal, and very equal countries.

The one thing in common with fast growing countries, is that they are all relatively poor – rich countries (whether equal or unequal) do not grow fast.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

photonz

If most of those countries with the most equal incomes have better economic growth than us and are catching us in per capita incomes – why the silly claim earlier that the list of those nations with more equal incomes disproved the merit of a more equal society?

I doubt any has a market any freer than our own, and as to the minimum wage issue their incomes are more equal than our own.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

spc says – most of the rest have better growth records than us since 1990. And most are catching us on per capita.

You reckon they’ve had much better growth since 1990….hmmmm…..thats the year they all dropped left wing idealology for a free market.

Or perhaps they have good growth because they have very low minimum wages?

(there’s not s single high wage country in the top 35 GDP growth rates)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Sapient

So let’s simply note the obvious,

I support Green policy direction on income and employment issues and you say that I am therefore a retard and that I hate workers.

You also say that all those on welfare are retards “for not planning for their possible need”. You make similar attacks on low income workers being retards “for not getting skills to be worthy of higher pay”.

Apparently to you, society is full of retards.

And you say those who don’t support you on free food for all in all schools are also retards.

So welcome to frogblog where people are called retards for receiving welfare, being in low wage jobs, supporting Green Party policy in support of them, or simply not supporting your ideas.

Is retard the default word you resort to to demean others by group association profile or to launch personal attacks on those who don’t agree with you? Or is there something more to it than that, perhaps some psychological need to present some academic/intellectual superiority, something to be maintained by slighting “lesser people” as retards?

Some people talk loudly when debating to assert dominance and others simply use the net to launch attacks on the “retards” in society.

A challenge, try debating the issues without using the word. If you can.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

photonz

Dare to show the economic growth rates for the countries you listed and compare them to us since say 1990?

You will find some of them have passed them in per cpaita levels and others are catching up.

“Czech Republic, Bosnia, Hungary, Slovenia, Ukrane, Krygyzstan, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Slovakia, Veitnam, Bulgaria, Albania, Croatia, Bangladesh, Romania, Indonesia, South Korea, Tajikastan, Armenia (all 19 are in the top 25 of most equal countries for top 10% compared to bottom 10% of income).

A single list of the world’s most equal countries smashed the premise for the whole book.”

Really and exactly how does it do that?

Excluding Pakistan and Bosnia for obvious reasons – most of the rest have better growth records than us since 1990. And most are catching us on per capita.

And PS – you should check what the book’s actual focus was. It spoke to the issue of why lack of equal opportunity exacerbates society disfunction and that lack of equal opportunity arises out of income inequality.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

SPC – So there’s a book about why countries with more equal incomes almost always do better – is that the communist handbook renamed?

Lets look at the worlds most equal countries, like Czech Republic, Bosnia, Hungary, Slovenia, Ukrane, Krygyzstan, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Slovakia, Veitnam, Bulgaria, Albania, Croatia, Bangladesh, Romania, Indonesia, South Korea, Tajikastan, Armenia (all 19 are in the top 25 of most equal countries for top 10% compared to bottom 10% of income).

A single list of the world’s most equal countries smashed the premise for the whole book.

What we need are equal opportunities – not equal income.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

SPC,

I am for a railways style safety net. This means full employment, self-respect, and some actual income to offset the cost.

You are for a high minimum wage. That means less jobs which means greater unemployment. It also means less investment.

You are for an even more progressive tax system. That means less investment. Less investment means less jobs; more unemployment.

You are for higher benefits and more tax credits. That means less incentive to work, more incentive to not strive for betterment, and more government expenditure.

The only logical conclusion is that you are either a retard or you hate workers.

You seem to think that costs are all passed on. They are not. The profit margins are cut, this decreases investment and the creation of new jobs. To maintain profitability fewer workers are employed for the same job, increasing the workload and increasing unemployment. These people stay unemployed because there are no new jobs to go in to because you killed the investment. Those companies which are not totally inelastic go bust and there is more unemployed and less jobs. The reason that so few jobs (if you call 8,100 a few) would be lost with a move to $15 is because the recession has already ensured that those whom were not inelastic have gone bust. If it was in a better time more would become unemployed, instead you are just preventing people from finding employment again.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

SPC,

You are presumably aware that most of the 100,000 on the DPB are there only a few years and this after losing jobs or working partners.

Yes, they have lost jobs and working partners; this indicates they can not plan -or at least pre-empt- or do not carry through on plans. The description holds.

So your profile of the 150,000 or so parents on welfare is about those people. Do you think this accurately reflects those women losing their jobs or working partners? Or those who are on IB, or those on SB?

You are forgetting the big one; WfF. If you are on the minimum wage and expect to raise family then you are simply irresponsible. If you do so and do so poorly such that you need support then you are scum. If you fail to plan for a divorce or the loss of a supporting partner then you are stupid. If you fail to obtain a secure job or sufficient income to save for an eventual job loss then you are lazy. If you intend to support children and you have an illness that would stop you doing so properly you are scum. If you have children and fail to plan for the chance that you will need to go on the IB or the SB and account for this by ensuring an alternative source of income then you are an idiot. It is all there fault, it is all there stupidity. The citizen whom actually bothers to plan for this stuff should not have to pick up after the inept. We only provide an equal start for children for the childrens future, giving the parents money will do nothing for the well-being of the child.

Use your academic skills, why would people who are not on welfare, whose children are well-fed, and who do not need to use subsidised childcare spend their tax money that way? A false version of the nature of those on welfare is going to somehow convince them?

I think anyone with half a brain would realise that there is a benefit to children in having a cooked lunch available to their children. I think anyone above the retard level would realise that this is a far more effective means of enhancing the welfare of those worse off. Accepting that they must do so anyway I believe many would support such moves. The child care would be rather inexpensive after initial set-up costs as the money would be only slightly more than that paid on the DPB -and paid mostly to those whom would otherwise be on the DPB- and would allow many on the DPB to work.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

As for your claim to be for full employment and that I am for unemployment …

Oh please explain.

Is your reasoning that you support a lower minimum wage and that support for a higher one would result in higher unemployment?

What exactly is the relation of rate of unemployment to the level of the minimum wage? Many economists no longer think there is much of a link. In a word globalisation – reducing price sensitive production jobs leaving lower wage jobs in the service sector which society requires and or chooses – and generally the word inelastic applies. All those providing the services are affected by the same minimum wage so they pass on costs to those requiring the services.

Did you support the Greens jobs programme?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)