Site Meter

Friday, August 24, 2012

Microscopic news

Can you find it? Bottom right-hand corner. 

So tiny, you can barely see it, slipped in beside some Father's Day advertising at the bottom of page 2 in today's Southland Times, this seemingly uninteresting, headline-less report:

"Inequality is at its highest level in New Zealand as low earners' pay packets fall and high earners get more, a report suggests. Median household incomes fell 3 per cent, taking inflation into account, between July 2010 and June 2011, the Household Incomes in New Zealand; Trends in Indicators of Inequality and Hardship 1982 to 2011 report said. That trend was the worst trend in more than a decade, the Minister for Social Development report revealed. It said low earners' pay fell between mid-2000 and mid-2011, while high earners' pay increased. It also said 21 per cent of Kiwi children were living in poverty."

What do you think of that? The 'tucking-away' of such information? The significance of the findings?
I'm fuming.


Anonymous said...

I love citations. They inspire confidence in the information I am recieving.

Truth is that incomes have been undergoing a "long and strong rise in the median from the mid 1990s to 2008-09". This 3% drop could be considered a simple correction.

The report blames inequality changes on "GFC". Try getting angry at that. Gosh darn it globe....!

The bottom decile incomes were flat. No change. Child poverty rates were flat and the report consider this a "good result in the circumstances"

"Redistribution through the tax and transfer system reduces inequality very significantly compared with what it would otherwise be."

Gosh darn global financial crisis.... Good job NZ government. All your "fuming" might be creating a different global crisis Robert... Less Fumes please.

robertguyton said...

"This 3% drop could be considered a simple correction."
A convenient excuse, I'm sure and there's no reason indicated in the 'clip' to show that that might be the case.
Who are you anyway? Should I be especially respectful of your views? I mean that in a way that's less agressive than it sounds (smiley face)
"The report blames inequality changes on "GFC". Try getting angry at that."
I'm angry at the placement, lack of headline and brevity of the 'news item'. In any case, the GFC is something that should be countered as much as possible by a Government, for the sake of its most vulnerable citizens, not used as an excuse to dodge the implications of a greater divide in wealth.

Gosh darn global financial crisis.... Good job NZ government."

You make me laugh.

Armchair Critic said...

Another item to add to the list of weak excuses put forward by the defenders of our government
"It could have been worse"
Uh huh, that makes it ok, then?

Anonymous said...

Nobody said that Armchair critic. I can see you are looking for a villan.

Anonymous said...

Robert @ 11.44pm
Who am I? A constituent. Up to you if you respect your constituents views.... Perils of being a councillor.

I can see the news tomorrow... 'Councillor tries to influence media'. My crystal ball said so...

robertguyton said...

I don't care what your name is, Anonymous. I just wondered if you had any particular authority to comment on the inequality issue. Seems not.
As for trying to influence the media, I've done that for years and years and will continue til the day I expire, at least, that's my plan.
And I note you have a crystal ball - do you share Bruce Wills'?

Armchair Critic said...

Nobody has said that, anon? Sounds like you are suggesting I try to find Russell's Teapot.
They might not have said exactly those words, but the underlying meaning is there for all but the dullest mind to see.
Make my day and move straight to "oh well, there's nothing else they could have done, and anyway, it's all in the past, things are about to pick up." they must be next in the rotation of stock standard excuses.

Anonymous said...

It has been said before that we tend to interpret things according to our prejudices. Yours are clear for all to see AC. Nothing wrong with that, but a good man or women recognises his or her shortcomings.

Anonymous said...

Robert @2.28pm
No authority? Are you being pedantic? I feel tables turning.
My crystal ball is stronger than his. And I would suggest a competition to become the wizard of Invercargill but the crystal ball advises against it.

Armchair Critic said...

Get back to me when you've finished reading Cheap Philosophy for Dummies, anon. Tell me if it says prejudices are not necessarily shortcomings.
I'm well aware of my prejudices and I stand by them. Yours, on the other hand, are masked by your refusal to accept a pseudonym so there's extra uncertainty for readers of your thoughts. Perhaps you are unaware of them, too.

robertguyton said...


No authority? Are you being pedantic?

Seems I'll have to be, in order to prevent you from making stuff up. I asked if you had authority, not claimed you had none.
I feel tables turning.
Then stop drinking.I note it's 3:41 in the afternoon.
My crystal ball is stronger than his.
Bruce and you share a primitive fascination with reflections. Those that come from the glistening surfaces of animals innards are reputedly just as valid as those from a sphere of crystal. Your Tarot cards have obviously failed you somewhere along the line - you've not cited them even once!
And I would suggest a competition to become the wizard of Invercargill but the crystal ball advises against it.
You would lose. My positioning is already well advanced.

Anonymous said...

Stuff up? I asked "no authority?" I made no claims about you.
Stop drinking? What are you suggesting by this?
Reflections? My crystal ball doesn't work that way.