Poverty causes hardship for children. Whether the parent is working or on a benefit makes no difference. It's the lack of income that matters.
My argument is that the source of income matters. A lot.
Children in households with the same low income suffer hardship disproportionately if their parent is on a benefit.
I can speculate as to why. The beneficiary household may lack in budgeting ability. It may lack the discipline of the daily routine and obligations associated with working. It will probably stay at a low income persistently as opposed to temporarily. It may develop a sense of dependence versus self-reliance which transfers into a not-getting-around-to-it mentality; not maintaining a home, neglecting a child's needs, not paying bills on time and incurring debt. It may prioritise money on expenditure that is self-destructive such as substance abuse or gambling.
Of course, the Left will say all of the above is no more than an ignorant display of prejudice. Blaming the victim. Punching down. And given Maori and Pacific feature disproportionately among beneficiary households with children, it smacks of racism too. In fact, as one of the privileged I have no right to an opinion.
But the criticism has never stopped me expressing one. And more importantly it hasn't stopped me searching for the evidence that politicians prefer to ignore.
MSD publishes a Child Poverty Report by Bryan Perry and has done so for many years. Since 2022 it has been biannual. I mention Bryan by name because I rate him and his analysis should be the gold standard for all government departments in its thoroughness and neutrality.
The latest edition features a section on Children in 'working' and 'beneficiary' households. Rather than interpret (or misinterpret) I will quote him directly:
Of course, the Left will say all of the above is no more than an ignorant display of prejudice. Blaming the victim. Punching down. And given Maori and Pacific feature disproportionately among beneficiary households with children, it smacks of racism too. In fact, as one of the privileged I have no right to an opinion.
But the criticism has never stopped me expressing one. And more importantly it hasn't stopped me searching for the evidence that politicians prefer to ignore.
MSD publishes a Child Poverty Report by Bryan Perry and has done so for many years. Since 2022 it has been biannual. I mention Bryan by name because I rate him and his analysis should be the gold standard for all government departments in its thoroughness and neutrality.
The latest edition features a section on Children in 'working' and 'beneficiary' households. Rather than interpret (or misinterpret) I will quote him directly:
Click to view
"The right-hand panel in Table E.4 to a considerable degree removes the impact of the income factor by looking only at households in the lower AHC income quintile (Q1). These low-income ‘working’ and ‘beneficiary’ households have hardship profiles that are a little less different than when looking at the whole income spectrum, though the children in low-income ‘working’ households are still better off (fewer restrictions / deprivations). The respective material hardship rates are 8% and 44% across all incomes and 17% and 47% when only those in the low-income zone (Q1) are considered – a rough means of controlling for income."
For children in poor working households their material hardship rate was 17 percent; for children in poor beneficiary households, their hardship rate was 47 percent.
That is a significant difference.
The hardship rate is derived from a list of deprivations/ restrictions such as foodbank use; inadequate income for basics; inability to keep house warm; delayed replacement or repair of appliances; borrowing from friends and family; no computer or internet; worn out clothing or shoes; inadequate protein or fresh fruit and vegetables etc.
The mean equivalised (for household size) income for the family with market income is $15,400. The mean equivalised income for the family with govt income is $15,600 - slightly higher. (Table E.5)
Perry also looked at the liquid assets and consumer durables held by each group and unsurprisingly found consumer durables considerably higher in households with market income. In his words, "working households have a higher level of resources to draw on." He suggests that a longitudinal dataset would be needed to examine income trajectories further.
In the past longitudinal studies have shown households moving within income bands over time. This type of data shows up persistent versus temporary poverty. Given the high future years dependent expectation for children on, for example, the Sole Parent Support benefit, their poverty tends towards persistent. Hence it is harder to build assets and durables.
Based on the data above a child in a poor benefit family is more than three times more likely to be in material hardship than a child in a poor market family.
Whatever the personal circumstances, it is impossible to build a broad-based case for children growing up on welfare rather than in a working household.
Repeatedly though leftwing administrations wilfully ignore the facts and implement policies that draw more children into long-term dependency. Jacinda Ardern was a prime example.
If the Left (Labour, the Greens, TOP and the Maori Party) was sincere about reducing child hardship they'd stop ignoring crucial evidence.
Lindsay Mitchell is a welfare commentator who blogs HERE - where this article was sourced
7 comments:
Lindsay, great article and a lot to unpack here.
I have posted on this topic many times.
Interestingly someone challenged me on my efforts when I said there are very very few actual poverty cases in nz (imo). Of the dozens and dozens of families i have tried to help only one has actually implemented any meaningful change. They are now doing quite well i might add.
I can only conclude that poor people either like being poor and struggling from day to day, or cant be bothered acting in their own best interests and making the changes required to lift themselves up. I would hope its the latter but who really knows.
There has been studies done that if you gave these people a large lump sum of money it would be frittered away and they would be in the same position they are currently in. So more money will not resolve the issue, it just causes poor behavior and lifestyle creep
My conclusion with my subset of people i have helped is that they live well beyond their means. They think they are entitled to more, for still contributing nothing, they have no intention at all of wanting to better themselves. They also have an inability to adapt.
The left hold these types of people in the highest esteem as how every kiwi should strive to be - down and out living on their knees with their hands out. Then the left parties roll in , pretending to be their saviour, (when in reality they are actually the exploiter ) with their benefit handout for the week and the cycle is well entrenched.
Which is why I cant ever vote for a left party, I just don't understand their sick mentality.
For working solo parents or where both work ,life is very demanding, especially if multiple children and no accumulated funds. But does anyone know just how low income families spend every cent? Especially the non workers. How does their fully detailed spending compare with low income families in the supposedly halcyon years 1950ish? I suspect there is an attitude today of "Why should I not spend as others?" Extensive use of Mc Donalds and the like, and local dairies is considered normal and a right. I suspect previously the poor recognised the need to be especially frugal. The demise of local shopping centres and delivery services and bulky prepared foodstuffs now more or less dictates car ownership.
Comparing low-income working families with families reliant on benefits is not comparing like with like. People who choose to work are different in numerous respects from those who choose not to. They are more responsible and have daily experience of having to plan their activity cycles. It would be surprising indeed if material hardship was the same for both groups.
Look at the Dunedin Long Term Longitudinal Study, figure it out that despite the best efforts and starts in life, some people are just not self starters and are destined to fail themselves and their children.
Here I am with my educational plug . A relative married into a 'working class' family and saw first hand the complete lack of self -control on spending , the dis-interest in bettering yourself which was actually condemned , perversely as sort of snobbery , recklessness, carelessness , catering to immediate desires , entitlement ,rather than long term planning,, Frugality was an alien word . They didn't lack intelligence but simply self destructed.
Well , folks much of that , but certainly not all can be overcome by education . Telling children welfare is comparable to slavery as master teacher Marva Collins in slum schools did. . Having education which values work not the play-way as we have now. Marxism instills entitlement and destructive victim hood . Ban it .
Discussions on genuine charity and wanton handouts which do damage . Having worthwhile things to do each day that build up society rather than being a parasite .Having a return to character -building concepts as in olden times in games like snakes and ladders - greed , selfishness laziness, as opposed to self -control ,honesty - etc.
These welfare dependence people are the product of progressive education and the destruction of traditional norms . There was cruelty in the past as in Victorian times when the poor were considered the products of defective characters but we have swung far too far to far to the wrong way ..
Even Jesus recognised reality when he said “For ye have the poor always with you” Matthew 26/11. Even if you gave everyone a million dollars (UBI anyone?) someone would work out a way to determine some of the recipients were still ‘poor’
Anon 12.26, and 12.36 - my goodness I have tried to lift these people up and help them.
I see the dole as a cup of poison that drains the life and soul out of the recipients stealing their dignity and self respect , little by little, leaving the recipients nothing but a hollow shell of a human. I have NEVER seen a happy dole recipient in my life.
It's the left that promote this parasitic and damaging behavior as a way of life. But they are oblivious to the damage or even happy with the damage they inflict on these people.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.