4 ms·

She claims there are "hundreds of thousands of children living in homes without enough to survive." NZ population: 4.8 million, of which 900,000 are under the

• mr_toad 9y ago
  It's ~ 1/3. Poverty is _defined_ as the bottom third of households. It's defined that way because the poverty researchers quite literally want to create a society in which everyone has the same income. I've worked with these researchers. I'm not sure that the politicians and media who report on these things fully comprehend what these researchers are saying. In fact, from what I've seen most of the media and politicians in New Zealand lack basic maths skills.
  • oerpli 9y ago
    >In fact, from what I've seen most of the media and politicians lack basic maths skills. FTFY. Or maybe even: >In fact, from what I've seen most people lack basic maths skills.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • Turing_Machine 9y ago
    > It's ~ 1/3. Poverty is _defined_ as the bottom third of households. Yes. It's fundamentally a rhetorical trick. If the bottom third had a median income of $500,000 per year, they'd still be counted as being in "poverty". I strongly suspect that Zimbabwe, Haiti, or Bangladesh-level poverty (i.e., real poverty) doesn't exist anywhere in New Zealond.
    • cam_l 9y ago
      if the bottom third has a median income of 500k, the average rent would be 475k.. and they would still be in poverty. so yes, money is fundamentally a rhetorical trick.
      • Turing_Machine 9y ago
        No, a rhetorical trick is what you are doing by using words like "poverty" without defining what they mean. Do you have any evidence that Haiti, Bangladesh, or North Korea-level poverty (i.e., what most people think of when they see the word "poverty") exists on any meaningful scale in New Zealand? Hint: no, you don't. Because it doesn't. Are you deliberately using the word "poverty" to mislead people? Hint: yes, you are.
        • cam_l 9y ago
          in your haste to be hostile and patronising I think you entirely missed the point. the dollar amount of money is irrelevant. talk to someone from Zimbabwe.. money is a rhetorical device which describes power. if the spread of wealth or income is relatively flat, the power is mitigated. if it is sufficiently broad as to cause significant inequality, money can be used to enforce poverty. so, let's say for the sake of argument I am using poverty to mean whatever it means where you live, let's assume the US, and $500k as the buying power of whatever it means where you live. give everyone a half million, give it a few weeks and then tell me how much it costs to get a place to live, or a cup of coffee for that matter..
          • Turing_Machine 9y ago
            > in your haste to be hostile and patronising I think you entirely missed the point. No, you are missing the point. People pushing an agenda use the word "poverty" as an emotional appeal, because it makes people think of starving kids in Africa covered with flies, etc. It wouldn't have nearly the impact if it was made clear that someone in "poverty" can have a house, a car, and plenty to eat. > money is a rhetorical device which describes power. The word "rhetoric" does not mean what you apparently think it means.
  • cisanti 9y ago
    I'm poor but never understood why people are so jealous of rich and want equality. I rather do okay and let the rich have a lot, than be all equally miserable. Maybe it's because I dysentery have food to out on the the table when I was a child.
  • dingo_bat 9y ago
    That's just stupid. Unless everyone earns exactly the same amount down to the centre, there will always be a bottom third.
  • Ono-Sendai 9y ago
    From a quick browse/research, I don't see anyone in NZ using that definition of poverty. I see "below 60% of the median income", I see "Poverty should be defined as a situation where: a person or family lacks the material resources to meet their minimal needs as recognised by most New Zealanders." (https://maxim.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2.Temp-Poverty-Policy-Paper.pdf https://maxim.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2.Temp-Pover...), but not that.
  • MaysonL 9y ago
    Not by everybody in New Zealand: see the definition at the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services: 60% of the median household disposable income after housing costs. Based on that definition, the poverty rate in 1984 was 9%, rose to 22% in 2004, rose even more in the global recession, and has fallen since to 15% in 2016. See their site "Facts about Poverty in New Zealand" http://nzccss.org.nz/work/poverty/facts-about-poverty/ http://nzccss.org.nz/work/poverty/facts-about-poverty/ Note that I am an American who found that site after one DDG search, and have no idea whether it's full of BS or fully factual. The incomes they state for the poverty line (after housing), based on current exchange rates, were about 20K for a family of 4 (2 adults) and 14K for a one parent, one child household.
• norswap 9y ago
  > Are there examples of countries that have embraced socialism, and thereby improved their lot? Just about most of Europe, by the American definition of socialism. And it's quite clearly much better to be poor in Europe than in the US.
  • Cyberdog 9y ago
    And it seems to be much better to be rich in the US than in Europe.
    • dingo_bat 9y ago
      I've always felt we should incentivise being rich over poor. So for example your tax rate should go down as you get richer. That will push poor people to work harder and get rich. Otherwise we end up with a situation like Europe where life is better if you're poor or a criminal (see Norway jail's).
    • oliyoung 9y ago
      and it is much worse to be poor in the US than in Europe
  • surfmike 9y ago
    Sure there are some hysterical interpretations of the term “socialism” by American politicians, but European welfare states are still decidedly capitalist.