Break in the inter-generational cycle of social dysfunction

Lindsay Mitchell blogs on one of National’s significant achievements – breaking the inter-generation cycle of social dysfunction:

. . . I asked MSD how many sole parents were on any benefit in 2008, 2011 and 2014 (June quarter).
Knowing they would provide working age numbers (18-64) I also asked for sole parents aged 16-17.

The results are graphed below. 18-64 year-olds follow an expected pattern – up during the recession. Though it should be noted that today the numbers are lower than after the economic boom period up to 2008.

Most interestingly though, the 16-17 year-old numbers have just plummeted. Across all ethnicities! Exactly what National wanted to achieve. And it’s not a the result of more 16-17 young parents being denied assistance. The teenage birth rate is also tracking down quite significantly.

This development cannot be overstated in importance. It means fewer children at risk of ill-health, under achievement, neglect or abuse, disaffection and drop-out, ending up in state care, and ultimately convictions and imprisonment – all most common among children with very young parents.

It represents a break in the inter-generational cycle of social dysfunction. Truly good news. . .

It is indeed truly good news for the people who are not trapped on welfare with all the negative consequences that is more likely to lead to.

It is also good news for the rest of us – more people in work and fewer on welfare saves us the long term social and financial costs of benefit dependency.

If people are looking for just one reason to vote for National this is one of the better ones because it is determined to carry on addressing the causes of problems like this rather than just throwing money at the symptoms.

A strong economy means more jobs, higher wages, and fewer people on welfare. #Working4NZ

49 Responses to Break in the inter-generational cycle of social dysfunction

  1. Dave Kennedy says:

    I totally agree that the Government shouldn’t have to provide as much as it does in income support. Around $5 billion a year goes to Working for Families and the accommodation supplement. Most of this money goes to working families whose incomes are too low to live on. The Government should not be subsidising wages or the incomes of landlords as it does at present and 40% of those children living in poverty have working parents.

    We now have a demographic called the working poor and we have recently heard that those working in home care are finally going to be paid something while they travel between jobs and have their car running costs covered. It is unbelievable that such workers not only had to survive on a minimum wage but also had to personally absorb the costs of doing their job.

    There should be an expectation that anyone working a 40 hour week should be able to live comfortably on that income, but this is no longer the case. We have become a low waged economy with the worst record for child health and welfare in the OECD. The recession well and truly ended in 2011 and yet almost 50% of workers received no pay rise over the last year despite rising food, power and housing costs.

    The median income (according to the census) in Mangere-Otahuhu actually dropped by 16% in real terms over the last seven years and similar has happened in many other areas. $19,700 as a median wage in for Mangere is shocking, $378 a week would just be the food bill for those families living in more affluent areas. Pushing people off welfare and into work is not going to help unless employers pay livable wages.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11170255

    To suggest the cause of poverty is intergenerational social dysfunction is pure nonsense, as Nigel Latta clearly explained in his excellent programme on poverty, communities that suffer large job losses rapidly become demoralized and family violence and substance abuse levels rise. There is dignity in work but only if that work, and the worker, is properly recognized and rewarded for their contribution to our society and economy. Currently we have a few people becoming extremely rich on the backs of many hard working New Zealanders whose wages have been held down for too long.

    Like

  2. TraceyS says:

    “Currently we have a few people becoming extremely rich on the backs of many hard working New Zealanders whose wages have been held down for too long.”

    So you’re going to dramatically raise the minimum wage and in doing so affect every employer in New Zealand (not just businesses) in order to get to the “few”.

    95% of us are pawns aren’t we Dave?

    Like

  3. Dave Kennedy says:

    No Tacey, we are going to incrementally increase the minimum wage so that especially small and medium enterprise owners (who have the tightest margins) can benefit from the increased spending generated from increased wages. SMEs make up 97% of all enterprises and yet the larger enterprises (3%) employ the most workers (almost 70%). We have become almost like a communist state when the Government has to top up wages to the extent it currently does. Corporate welfare has to stop!

    We must break the cycle of ever tightening wage increases causing less money to be in circulation to support local businesses. I can’t believe you support the $5 billion drain on government revenue to subsidise businesses when that same money could be spent on education and hospitals. We have had a ‘Rock Star’ economy for at least three years, when are ordinary workers going to get their share of the increased productivity they have generated?

    Almost 50% of workers got no pay increase last year when it was our most profitable year for some time and food parcels to the working poor have increased…how does that work?

    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/4-000-food-parcels-auckland-s-working-poor-5981509

    Like

  4. TraceyS says:

    “Small and medium enterprise owners (who have the tightest margins)” – reference please? Shouldn’t be too hard for a small business expert like you.

    I can’t take seriously a Green Party candidate who is encouraging increased consumption. It just doesn’t fit. And therefore I don’t believe the ambition is genuinely to help SME’s make better profits. Rather, it is to wield wide-ranging power over the remuneration policies of private businesses and other entities. A power that (most) unions have lost and want back..

    Like

  5. RBG says:

    Homepaddock, you are citing a fall in pregnancies in 16 and 17 year olds as a reason to vote National. Where is the evidence that National’s policies had any influence on the decrease in pregnancies in this age group?

    Like

  6. JC says:

    A little bit of realism using official figures should be interjected here..

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/09/issues_that_matter_-_the_economy.html

    DPF has put together some useful figures showing the importance of outcome as opposed to throwing money at a problem.

    JC

    Like

  7. JC says:

    A bit on health stats wouldn’t go amiss either

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/09/issues_that_matter_-_health.html

    JC

    Like

  8. JC says:

    And love that drop in the unregulated part of the electricity market..

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/08/more_on_electricity_prices.html

    JC

    Like

  9. Dave Kennedy says:

    “I can’t take seriously a Green Party candidate who is encouraging increased consumption. It just doesn’t fit.”

    Tracey, a rich person can only wear one pair of underpants and one trolley full of groceries, most of the money going to the very rich is invested into property and capital gain (see NBR rich list). Every extra dollar that goes to the lowest wage earners gets spent in the local economy. If the lowest income earners currently have only 30-50 dollars to spend on food per week after they they have paid for rent and power etc. The increased consumption will not go on luxury, overseas produced goods but on basic commodities and day to day living that will hugely benefit SMEs.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/8946000/NZs-luxury-car-sales-leave-rest-behind

    I have been on the committee of our farmers market for many years and we have noticed that we are struggling because ordinary families see our reasonably priced fresh food and homemade jams, honey, bread etc as luxuries. I know an increase in the minimum wage will boost the incomes of our stallholders hugely. We need an economy that works for everyone not just a privileged few.

    I cannot believe that you actually support growing inequity (the fastest in the OECD) that sees the bottom 50% of our population having to share only 5% of our countries wealth. This is not sustainable and, based on current projections, in a few years time the same 50% will have only 3% of our country’s wealth to survive on. Madness!

    Like

  10. Dave Kennedy says:

    I meant to say that “a rich person can only wear one pair of underpants and ‘buy’ one trolley full of groceries”, the image of a rich person wearing a trolley full of groceries is a little ridiculous 😉

    Like

  11. Paranormal says:

    So how many job losses are budgeted for the increased minimum wage DK? Your economics don’t work. There is a value for every job – if you increase the cost of an employee beyond their marginal utility there will no longer be a job. Typically the greens are approaching this from the wrong direction in mandating increased costs and completely failing to enable increased productivity that goes with increased wages.

    Like

  12. Dave Kennedy says:

    Paranormal, you are enthusiastically repeating the spin about job losses. Labour raised the minimum wage in their term with no job losses and this is the experience elsewhere. In the US those states that raise minimum wages actually have the strongest job growth. If done incrementally it ensures the extra money injected into the domestic economy supports the next round of wage increases. It is all very logical and I would love you to produce real world evidence to the contrary.

    http://www.massbudget.org/report_window.php?loc=minimum_wage_job_creation.html

    Like

  13. TraceyS says:

    The Green policy is a dramatic increase. I demonstrated that the other day on another post.

    You know what you’re doing Dave, may as well admit it.

    It’s driven by frustration with employers not giving the pay increases you want them to, so damn it, you’re gonna force everyone to review their pay structures – whether there is a problem with what they are doing or not. Ratcheting would be a reasonable description..

    Like

  14. TraceyS says:

    Dave Kennedy at 12:41 pm. Are you still on the Farmers Market Committee? Self-interest much?!

    Like

  15. Paranormal says:

    Real world evidence to the contrary? If you can’t follow the logic of really basic economics you really shouldn’t even consider being in a position to influence government.

    But just for you = Liarbour increased the minimum wage for school-leavers and then quell surprise we had the worst youth unemployment rates ever. And just so you’ve got a magical link with graphs showing stats: http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/labours-good-intentions-led-bad-youth-unemployment-ck-115419

    And you want to repeat the result but for all lower/minimum wage employees? Shame on you because you’re just trying to cement an unemployed voting bloc. That’s all the greens policy will achieve.

    Like

  16. Dave Kennedy says:

    “The Green policy is a dramatic increase. I demonstrated that the other day on another post.”

    No you didn’t, I corrected you at the time 🙂

    Read my last link, it is a robust analysis of increasing the minimum wage based on real evidence.

    I am not active on the farmers market committee at the moment and unless I am elected there is no conflict of interest as I do not personally profit from the role and I am a voluntary non-stallhoder member. I did resign from my role with NZEI to ensure the executive could be seen as apolitical.

    Tracey, it’s sad that you are so determined to deny workers a reasonable wage using the spin and not evidence and you seem desperate to question my character too. Of course I want farmers’ markets to prosper, just like I want to be a champion for small business.

    Don’t you think it is odd the Southland earns 12% of our export income and has only 4% unemployment yet still has a high percentage of struggling families and a shortage of affordable decent housing. We even have a problem with homelessness: http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/9414129/Homeless-problem-worsens

    Here we are leading the dairy boom (Edendale Dairy factory expanding, the biggest in NZ), the Government gave the Rio Tinto $30 million in corporate welfare and we have working families having their power cut off and relying on food parcels. http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/9972265/Food-banks-running-low-on-supplies

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/6870195/Migrant-workers-tough-start

    There is so much evidence of exploitation of workers and yet you are actively supporting this regime.

    Like

  17. Dave Kennedy says:

    “But just for you = Liarbour increased the minimum wage for school-leavers and then quell surprise we had the worst youth unemployment rates ever.”

    Nice try Paranormal, youth employment rates are directly linked to the overall economy, not to their wages. If that were so introducing the youth rate would have caused an immediate upturn in the employment statistics and it didn’t. It also had the effect of high school students in supervisory roles getting paid less than the adults they were responsible for.

    Click to access lmr-fs-youth-mar13.pdf

    Like

  18. TraceyS says:

    “There is so much evidence of exploitation of workers and yet you are actively supporting this regime.”

    How?

    Be on point please, otherwise that might look like a smear, Dave. Then I certainly would have cause to question your character.

    Over to you…

    Like

  19. Paranormal says:

    Yet again you are wrong DK. Open your closed mind, follow the link and see the proof. Liarbour abolished the youth rate with effect from April 2008. Look at the graph and see how youth unemployment grew disproportionately as a result

    Like

  20. TraceyS says:

    David Kennedy, you have said that I am “actively supporting” the “exploitation of workers”.

    I am an employer (having made that quite clear in previous comments) and you are smearing me. Why are you doing that? Please explain.

    There is absolutely no foundation to what you are saying. I absolutely do not support the exploitation of workers and never have. You will find no one who supports your claim.

    I think you should apologise immediately. If you don’t, and should I decide to take your accusation further, you’re going to look pretty silly in the lead up to Saturday. Very silly in fact.

    Like

  21. Dave Kennedy says:

    Oh dear, Tracey, I present lots of evidence of worker exploitation and unreasonably low wages and present the Green approach to lifting incomes incrementally and you say it can’t be done. You have openly stated that you support the status quo in terms of employment and that means allowing the exploitation to continue. I cannot see how it can be interpreted any other way. I am sorry that upsets you but it is just a fact.

    Paranormal, did you know that crime increases at the same time as ice-cream sales increase? The commonality is that both increase because of warmer weather. Youth unemployment always goes up in times of recession far faster than other sectors.

    Your graph actually weakens your own argument because in 2001 and 2002 the youth rate increased substantially and your graph actually shows that unemployment dropped.

    http://www.dol.govt.nz/er/pay/minimumwage/previousminimum.asp

    And to round it off here is the Dept of Labour’s own findings:

    “We first show that, by 2008, minimum wages had a substantial effect on the wages of 16-17 year-olds and, to a lesser extent, 18-19 year-olds. Although we find no evidence
    of adverse employment effects immediately following the policy change in 2008, we conclude that it lowered the employment rate of 16-17 year-olds by 3-6 percentage points in the subsequent two years. Most of this employment loss was borne by students: in fact, the employment rate among non-students increased, there is no evidence of an increase in the percentage of 16-17 year-olds who were unemployed, and the overall inactivity rate of this age-group decreased following 2008. We also find evidence of employment substitution towards 18-19 year-olds, again largely among students. In addition, relative to 20-21 year-olds, we estimate the average hours worked by 16-17 and 18-19 year-olds fell after 2008, as did their earnings and total incomes.”

    Click to access impact-2008-ymwr.pdf

    Like

  22. TraceyS says:

    Oh dear Dave, I gave your fair opportunity. I’ve never openly stated what you say at all – and you won’t be able to quote me saying that because I haven’t – and never would. I simply favour a more tentative approach to raising the minimum wage like National and Labour (mostly) have taken in the past. You see this as “actively supporting” the “exploiting of workers”. That is defamatory, primarily, because it is not justified.

    Gosh you have no idea what you have said do you? You need to be able to stand by your assertion and in this instance you cannot because it is absolutely untrue! As such, you are totally unsuited to politics as a career.

    Like

  23. Paranormal says:

    DK, clearly you do not read (or is that fail to understand) the links you provide: “we conclude that it [the abolition of youth rates perchance] lowered the employment rate of 16-17 year-olds by 3-6 percentage points in the subsequent two years”. Even DOL acknowledge that youth unemployment was impacted, even though they understate the impact.

    “In addition, relative to 20-21 year-olds, we estimate the average hours worked by 16-17 and 18-19 year-olds fell after 2008, as did their earnings and total incomes.” – And I wonder why that was?

    DK – You are also being willfully blind. Anyone looking at the graph can see the relationship between youth and adult unemployment rates until the youth rate is abolished. Then look at how, following youth rates re-establishment, the youth unemployment rate has fallen back to expected levels.

    “crime increases at the same time as ice-cream sales increase” – and, if true (wheres your facts Mr Evidence Based) that’s possibly a seasonal thing then. That’s nothing like the correlation we’re seeing here.

    When it all boils down your policy is all around maintaining people in poverty to ensure your continued voter base.

    Like

  24. TraceyS says:

    Think very hard about your next move Dave. An apology would be the easy path.

    Like

  25. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey if you vote for the current Government and the status quo you are actively supporting increasing inequality and the exploitation of workers, sorry no apology from me (I provided heaps of evidence and you didn’t challenge one). If you vote to change this Government I would take it back. 😉

    Paranormal, sorry it is you who can’t read his own graph and the evidence I provided from the Labour Dept’s own research. Here is the relevant quote again for you to read: “in fact, the employment rate among non-students increased, there is no evidence of an increase in the percentage of 16-17 year-olds who were unemployed.” Your graph doesn’t even show those who are students or in training.

    In these comments I have been accused of wanting to take away the profits of SME’s by increasing spending (I had to chuckle), having a conflict of interest for being on a ‘not for profit’ committee while a candidate, giving the unemployed a collective voice, accused of smearing another person’s character, looking silly, being unfit for politics and being willfully blind…goodness gracious!

    Like

  26. TraceyS says:

    Dave, you don’t get away with things that easily. Making a late blanket statement that all National voters are supporters of worker exploitation does not divorce you from the fact that you accused me, personally, of supporting the exploitation of workers. The way I choose to cast my vote makes no difference at all to my behaviour. I am not an exploiter of workers and never will be, no matter how I cast my vote.

    In fact, I consider that what you are saying borders on blackmail – change your vote or else you will continue to be slandered. I am free to cast my vote how I wish and announce it from the rooftops if I feel like it. You have not more justification for slandering me than if I voted your way and kept quiet about it. You may not be aware but in New Zealand we have such a piece of legislation called the Human Rights Act which forbids discrimination based on political opinion among other things.

    Your behaviour is absolutely despicable. If you think I wont go further, think again. The way you behave here in respect of those who disagree with you is appalling.

    Like

  27. RBG says:

    You are anonymous TraceyS. You can’t smear or defame an anonymous person.

    Like

  28. Dave Kennedy says:

    Oh dear, Tracey, you have accused me of all sorts of odd stuff and yet have taken offense at this, my original accusation:

    “There is so much evidence of exploitation of workers and yet you are actively supporting this regime.”

    You even accuse me of blackmail and that I am slandering you. I really think you should take some deep breaths, read carefully all that I have written and compare it to your own raft of accusations. Also please note that a winking face after a comment also gives an indication of the intent.

    Actually I am highly flattered that you think so highly of my opinion that you feel forced to change your vote so that I will think better of you 🙂

    Please provide examples of my “absolutely despicable, appalling behaviour”, I await with great interest to see what you can produce.

    Like

  29. “In fact, I consider that what you are saying borders on blackmail”

    There ya go, Dave. A generous serving of looney, here in the home paddock. Any rational commenter, offering a view that is anything but hard-core Key-love, ends up accused of one ridiculous charge or other. You’ve collected a few in just this one thread but borders on blackmail is the clincher. I even feel you’ve done better than me, and that’s something! Must be RBG’s turn to be accused of something heinous; shop-lifting, parking in a Disabled-person’s space, tax-avoidance, who knows? Could be anything at all, plucked from who-knows-where!

    Like

  30. Paranormal says:

    DK you need to read wider than your own propoganda. read the article I linked to.

    The evidence is clear. You are clearly willfully blind if you can’t see in the quote you provided that even DOL are saying the abolition of youth rates increased youth unemployment.

    As for despicable behaviour – how about you are guilty of wanting to implement a structure that stops individuals achieving their full potential, compounding inter generational welfare, increasing inequality (whatever that means), all just to keep people in poverty that perpetuates a left voting bloc. This on top of your ardent unionism at NZEI that adversely impacts children’s outcomes speaks volumes.

    Thankfully the Greens won’t be near the treasury benches this election.

    Like

  31. RBG says:

    It wouldn’t matter what they accused me of, because like TraceyS I choose to be anonymous. Thats why I think her threatening Dave Kennedy that she could take it further is so funny. WHO has he smeared and defamed? Duh!

    Like

  32. TraceyS says:

    Dave, to point out the obvious, your despicable and appalling behaviour is for you as a candidate in the General Election to accuse me of actively supporting the exploitation of workers, a blatant untruth, and refusing to retract that accusation until I vote for the Greens. Gee your party must be hard up for support if you’ve got to resort to those sort of tactics.

    My reputation as an employer is what you are attacking. That record is not influenced at all by how I vote and it’s my democratic right to vote how I choose. It certainly doesn’t make the difference between being an exploiter or not being an exploiter because the important thing is my actual treatment of workers.

    How I vote won’t change what sort of employer I am, but if too many people vote Green it will certainly damage our business – perhaps to the point that we won’t be able to employ anyone. So your task would be accomplished. What a clever man you are! 🙂

    I trust the good people of Invercargill will be able to see you for what you are.

    Like

  33. TraceyS says:

    RBG – let me get this straight – if YOU don’t know my full name it’s OK to say whatever untruth you like about me? Where this line falls down, of course, is that you are assuming others don’t know me.

    I don’t see a blog being that different to any other public forum such as a public meeting.

    It isn’t OK to accuse a person of something that is untrue even if you don’t know them personally. In fact it is probably worse.

    Like

  34. Dave Kennedy says:

    Paranormal, I guess it comes down to who is the most reliable source, the NBR whose readers profit from low wages or the Department of Labour that is charged with advising the Government with accurate information to determine policy. I think I’ll go with the latter thanks 😉

    Like

  35. TraceyS says:

    Robert – looney is believing that anyone could use the OIA to get a person’s personal details from a private entity. Especially when that belief is held by a person in public office.

    But it is ultimately more of an insight into personal values rather than mental state.

    I think you have inadvertently revealed some values which most people would find unpalatable, if not a tad scary.

    Like

  36. RBG says:

    This blog is nothing like a public meeting, unless public meetings where you are have 3/4s of the people in disguise or with bags over their heads.

    Tracey is not a rare name in this country, people could guess that S is for your surname (or it might be your middle name, or a nickname). Homepaddock might know who you are, but unless you told readers here more about yourself before I started reading this blog, you are an anonymous commenter (who we know happens to be an employer.)

    As for your comment today- “let me get this straight – if YOU don’t know my full name it’s OK to say whatever untruth you like about me?” NO, I didn’t say that, try and be consistent for goodness sake, last week you accused me of putting words in YOUR mouth, now here you are doing it to me!

    Get this straight- my point is whatever someone has said to “TraceyS”, you, personally have not been defamed or smeared, so you would look bloody silly if you take a complaint against Dave Kennedy.

    You said to Dave Kennedy “My reputation as an employer is what you are attacking.”- No he didn’t, because unless you decide to come out and tell us ALL who you are and the name of your business, your reputation is unaffected by comments made on this blog.

    It’s farcical that you are getting SO indignant about Dave Kennedy’s comments when only last week you told him that, as a political person, he had to accept people making assumptions about him and that “If a completely private life is what you want then just have one!”

    Like

  37. RBG says:

    From my point of view, I am guessing that Tracey S is a genuinely fair and caring employer, which is why she is so hurt and offended by Dave Kennedy’s comments. Workers employed by her should count themselves lucky. The left wing want to improve the conditions and pay for those workers not so lucky.

    Like

  38. TraceyS says:

    Look, RBG, I have given away plenty of information on this forum – not just my first name. Maybe you have missed some of it, but I am fairly certain that others haven’t.

    And I am being consistent. I accept being a political person by my own definition. So I don’t expect, nor experience, complete personal privacy and anonymity. That would be impossible.

    But that doesn’t mean someone can write lies about me personally. I draw the line at that.

    I have expressed my views on Green Party policy and the Labour Party’s to a lesser degree. If Dave takes this personally then that is more of a fault with him than me. He should be able to distinguish between a person and a thing. But he can’t, obviously, because he considers that by association with a party a person is open for attack at a personal level.

    Commenters on a blog have equal status no mater what name they use. We are all people. Using a pseudonym, nickname, or short name does change a person’s status from being a person to a thing.

    Dave has now been given the opportunity to retract what he wrote, a simple thing to do. But instead he refuses to accept that there is anything with wrong with his statement. He is therefore insisting that I am “actively supporting the exploitation of workers”.

    I am not.

    If I have to reveal more about myself to prove that I am not, and to make absolutely certain that my reputation is not tarnished from his lie, then that is what must be done. It may actually be unavoidable.

    Like

  39. TraceyS says:

    Using a pseudonym, nickname, or short name does *not* change a person’s status from being a person to a thing.

    Like

  40. homepaddock says:

    I know Tracey and have no doubts she is a good employer who treats her staff well, as do the vast majority of employers.

    It isn’t easy to get laws which protect employees from bad employers while not adding costs and complexities which hamper good ones.

    Labour’s policy which looks like it was written by unions would add costs which will constrain good employers, impact on their ability to increase wages and create new jobs.

    While that will help unions it might not help workers and could cost jobs.

    Like

  41. TraceyS says:

    “From my point of view, I am guessing that Tracey S is a genuinely fair and caring employer, which is why she is so hurt and offended by Dave Kennedy’s comments. Workers employed by her should count themselves lucky. The left wing want to improve the conditions and pay for those workers not so lucky.”

    Correct, and thank you.

    You may be surprised that most of the right want to improve things for workers too. Certainly those in the National Party do – they just approach it more conservatively.

    I would not associate with them otherwise. And as a “genuinely fair and caring employer” my choice of political opinion should absolutely be respected.

    David Kennedy needs to familiarise himself with s21(1)(j) of the Human Rights Act 1993 which says:

    “For the purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are…

    (j) political opinion, which includes the lack of a particular political opinion or any political opinion”

    For that matter, so does Robert Guyton, who recently said I could not participate in the AGW debate because of my views. There is no arguing that views on AGW are political ones these days. Exclusion on that basis contravenes the above section of the HRA as well. It’s an extraordinary claim from a person in public office, especially given that he cannot exclude the possibility that he may one day encounter me in the course of his public duties. Already he has determined that I have no voice.

    I once saw Green Party people as human rights advocates. Their regression is sad to see.

    Like

  42. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey, can you please show me where I accused you personally of not treating your own employees well, you have hysterically created a huge beat up out of very little. I should be complaining about you for misrepresentation and unfounded, serious accusations.

    It is my human right to express myself in a reasonable way in a public domain and being accused of blackmail and slander is quite extreme. I am disappointed that Ele allows such accusations on her blog when I am not an anonymous contributor and do rely on my good reputation. If anyone has cause to be concerned about character damaging unfounded statements, it is I.

    The funny thing is that to slander you I would have to know who you are and I have no idea. I do know your political leanings and that was all I was commenting on. I would love to meet you in person, it is an invitation I have made to many who comment here, but none have taken it up. It appears many like yourself would rather throw abuse at me anonymously. It does seem to be the National Party way.

    Like

  43. TraceyS says:

    Dave Kennedy says:
    September 13, 2014 at 3:20 pm

    “Tracey, it’s sad that you are so determined to deny workers a reasonable wage using the spin and not evidence…”

    “There is so much evidence of exploitation of workers and yet you are actively supporting this regime.”

    For the record:

    I am not determined to deny workers reasonable wages nor am I actively supporting any regime which exploits workers.

    Given your self-righteousness in this matter I’d expect you to produce some evidence to back your claims. You are asking me to rely on evidence. Surely you expect the same standards of yourself?

    To be very clear, I expect you to provide evidence of my activity and determination in these matters. Those words – your choice of words – imply action on my behalf. I will tell you right now that no evidence of any action by me exists to back your claims. That is because the claims are entirely untrue. You made them up.

    If you can’t provide evidence that I do the things you have claimed then kindly ask Ele to redact the specific comments or apologise. It is not difficult.

    In doing so you won’t be admitting any wrongdoing – just showing that you are prepared to do the decent thing when you are wrong about something. A critical skill in your career of choice.

    Like

  44. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey, I provided heaps of independent evidence that workers under this government have been poorly treated and have been denied wage increases in line with improved productivity and an economic recovery. You could have countered that evidence with some of your own to support the opposite view, instead you resorted to rather emotive personal attacks.

    My criticism of your political stance (not your personal treatment of employees, as I don’t know you from a bar of soap) remains – supporting this government denies many workers a reasonable wage. For all I know you yourself could be an excellent employer, just politically misguided.

    I have been consistent throughout this bizarre debate and as my perfectly reasonable stance won’t change I think I had best make this my last contribution on this thread. I am sorry you feel so personally damaged by this exchange, perhaps it is unwise for you to engage in robust political discussions if it upsets you so much.

    Like

  45. homepaddock says:

    Dave – the best policies for workers are those which promote economic growth and give businesses the confidence to invest and create jobs. National has been doing that, policies espoused by Labour/Green/Internet Mana show they haven’t a clue about the importance of that let alone how to do it.

    Like

  46. TraceyS says:

    “personal attacks”? Where? Quote me! (I had the decency to quote you).

    You’re representing a political party and it was that party’s policies I was criticising, Dave. That’s what happens in the lead-up to elections!

    Your comments were mean, personal, denigrating and factually incorrect. The worst thing is that you can’t see any of this. And that you consider me politically misguided doesn’t give you any relief from the fact, I’m afraid..

    Given that I am just an ordinary individual, speaking my own views and not those of any political party (or anyone else), I think it is extraordinary that you would think you are justified in saying incorrect things about me. Do you carry on like this every time you meet a member of the public who has different views to you?

    If you do, I hope others standing nearby are listening. They will learn a lot about the chap you are.

    Like

  47. Paranormal says:

    Dk @ 10.22 “I guess it comes down to who is the most reliable source, …. or the Department of Labour … I’ll go with the latter thanks”
    DK @ 7.17 13 Sept: quote from DOL: “we conclude that it lowered the employment rate of 16-17 year-olds by 3-6 percentage points in the subsequent two years.”

    Lets get this clear. DK provides DOL quote that clearly states the increased minimum youth rate adversely and significantly impacts youth employment but Dk refuses to see it.

    Can’t see it DK? None so blind as those that won’t see. So much for ‘evidence based’. More like blind ideology rules supreme in your world.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: