Monday, March 25, 2013

Two items that are not unrelated


Item 1One in five babies welfare dependent by year-end

Data released under the Official Information Act shows that 21.2 percent of babies born in 2012  were dependent on a caregiver receiving a welfare benefit by the end of the same year.

Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said that, "Over one in five babies reliant on welfare by year-end is a sobering and sad statistic. But it's worse for Maori at over 1 in 3 or 35.9 percent." 
As ever, when it comes to this subject, Lindsay Mitchell is doing NZ social scientists' jobs for them.  They should all be having a whip-round for her, but the chances of that happening is about as likely as a rich prick paying the proper tax on his income. 


Item 2Dole queues are long but bosses can't get workers


 Dave Connell, vice-president of the New Zealand Contractors Federation and managing director of Connell Construction, who is juggling operations in the Waikato and for the Christchurch rebuild, said 100 people responded to a Trade Me job advertisement for a junior construction role, but not one was suitable to hire.

"We are letting seven people go for every one we keep," he said. 

A commenter at The Standard quite fairly describes this item as "a propaganda piece based on negative and unsubstantiated employer anecdotes attacking the unemployed," but there aren't any media reports on this subject that aren't propaganda for one group or another.

What's the relationship between these items?  Well, duh - the one fucking leads to the other, doesn't it?  If we've got a significant percentage of children who are either meal tickets or considered to be just some shit that happens if you're promiscuous and don't bother with contraception, we're eventually going to have a significant proportion of job applicants whose approach to employers is as described in item 2:

"I had one guy ring me up and say ‘A mate told me about this job, I've been told it is piss easy'.

"After I described it to him he said ‘Oh yeah, I'd be able to piss all over that'."

Jacinda Adern, unsurprisingly, has only platitudes to offer:

"It is important to provide skills and training for the jobs that exist."

But  as one of the employer reps interviewed for item 2 points out, many of these wasters "...allegedly have skills. They just don't have civic skills; they don't know how to be citizens."

Which is exactly the point.  As long as we've got a fifth of babies being born into environments that are high risk for producing wasters, we're going to have a lot of wasters.  There's nothing particularly complicated or difficult to understand about it.  Of course, understanding the problem is one thing, fixing it's quite another - so, although it's easy to sneer at Paula Bennett announcing ineffectual social welfare "reforms," the vexed question of how to get wasters to put a bag on it when fucking each other isn't one anyone has a useful answer to so far.


14 comments:

ConnyPN said...

You're up early, Milt.

PM of NZ said...

Milt, you've been reading too many of Adolf's posts and finally come over to the dark side - the Right.

A pleasure to read on a Monday morning.

Andrei said...

You were doing quite well until the end when you deployed the lefty meme
that condoms are some sort of universal panacea for all the worlds ills if only people would use them.

Hah life is never that easy

Psycho Milt said...

Condoms may not be some sort of universal panacea, but they do a pretty good job as a contraceptive, especially in the sense that both parties have visible evidence that contraception is being used - not to be underestimated in situations where both parties are untrustworthy wasters.

...you've been reading too many of Adolf's posts and finally come over to the dark side...

I don't think there's anything particularly right-wing about paying attention to what the stats are telling you and not lying to yourself about it. Problem is, much of the left these days essentially consists of hippies.

JC said...

One of the notable things about these babies both here and in America is that they are being born to women in their 20s.. and late 20s as well.

Why? Well, one reason is the women recognise the men they use for impregnation are not up to marriage and responsibility, and unlike in the past these women can't marry upwards because the college goers marry among themselves.

Being young, male, Maori and under-educated is not an attractive proposition for a 20ish women.. sure she can satisfy her biological urges with him but he's not financially worthwhile as a marriage or permanent partner.

So there's the present and increasingly the future.. the educated will marry among themselves and reap the economic benefits, the young uneducated woman wont be able to marry upwards and nor will she find a decent partner amongst the shiftless young men.. but she will be able to root him and use the State as her economic partner through the DPB.. and inequality will get worse.

JC

Tinman said...

Milt, you'll never enforce the wearing of condoms because, in fact, the wearer doesn't get pregnant whether socialists like it or not.

However, large corks, hammered into place .........

Anonymous said...

Hey JC - Just finished reading The Bell Curve, have we?

JC said...

"Hey JC - Just finished reading The Bell Curve, have we?"

Nope. The Bell Curve is about intelligence.. I'm talking about young women making intelligent (or maybe better called "rational*) choices about having babies, not marrying their under-educated and poorly employed impregnators.. and using the financial clout of the State to provide the necessities of life.

If the Govt provides an alternative financial structure via the DPB to young women you can hardly complain when they use it.

JC

Nick K said...

Outbloodystanding Milt.

Anonymous said...

I see ya point Milt, but....

1) What JC said - the DPB is a worthy effort to help abandoned spouses and children that has turned into a de facto 'state spouse'. That is a separate, and hard, issue to be solved.

2) What Andrei said - telling the poor and feckless they shouldn't breed is wrong, because:
- it's immoral to try control people's breeding
- it's ineffective; wasters won't bother with contraception anyway
- it may cut the scale of the problem, but won't solve it
- it can have unforeseen adverse consequences, vis China gender imbalance in young adults population

3) Gotta call ya on the dubious employer quotes we are seeing in the Herald lately. Glad you picked the 'piss all over it' guy. Why is no-one abusing the idiot employer woman? She was hiring fruit pickers for pity's sake, and he expressed his ability to do the job easily in crude terms. So put him out there and see if he can match his words!

Instead, this half-wit woman sent him away still unemployed because she didn't like his language (ie poor comms /interview skills). Shit a brick.

I recently saw a job ad for someone to cut up cloth into cleaning rags. They demanded a CV and covering letter be sent in. Seriously. Because you couldn't ask WINZ if they had anyone hard to place because they are illiterate, and hire them, aye?

Another one - looking for a 'real fruit ice cream machine operator'; demanding applicants must have experience on real fruit ice cream machines. Because there are so many such candidates, and it is so hard to train someone to run an ice cream machine, right?

Yet another one - local boss want to hire an aluminium window assembler. Clearly doesn't want to be messed round with monkeys, so specifies 'must have 2 years experience', then thinks he'd like to help the local lads, so demands applicants must be from the suburb the factory is in. Anyone spot the problem? Well intentioned constraints, but how many unemployed experienced window assemblers do you think there are in one small suburb? Start and end at zero, say. Then boss complains he can't get staff...

Shoot, maybe I should write these up and get commission from the Herald for filling their rag pages?

Or perhaps WINZ should spend more time educating bosses on how to write a job ad, and job descriptions? Could save everyone a lot of grief...

Mad Marxist.
P.S. All examples cited above are genuine from Suburban Newspapers and WINZ job database.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and as for Dave Connell and his difficulty hiring construction staff; two points:

1) the construction industry is notorious for treating staff very badly (below min wage, long hours, no meal breaks, frantic hard work, boss screaming at (good) staff all day, etc - I speak from experience).

2) Connell contradicts himself in the space of two sentences. He says he is sacking 7 useless staff for every 1 he keeps, so 1 in 8 staff are okay. But just prior to that, he said not 1 in 100 applicants were acceptable. Does not compute, unless Connell is claiming that batch of 100 were statistical outliers of uselessness. In which case, just continue interviewing until you are past the outliers, Dave. Or Dave could be full of shit.

Mad Marxist.
Bringing you baffling boss bullshit for the last 2 minutes ;)

Psycho Milt said...

2) What Andrei said - telling the poor and feckless they shouldn't breed is wrong, because:
- it's immoral to try control people's breeding
- it's ineffective; wasters won't bother with contraception anyway
- it may cut the scale of the problem, but won't solve it
- it can have unforeseen adverse consequences, vis China gender imbalance in young adults population


What's immoral here is the increasing production of wasters, more particularly the neglect, abuse and outright murder that's involved with it. We aren't talking about abstracts here but about live humans who shouldn't be subjected to this. We may not be able to prevent it happening, but we certainly should be taking steps to reduce the extent of it - that or stop calling ourselves a society.

Re the employers, as I wrote in the piece the Herald article is a propaganda piece for employers. But it is a very effective illustration of the essential point featured in it: wasters "don't have civic skills; they don't know how to be citizens."

The guy who tells the nice employer lady he could piss all over her job is a case in point. He has no idea how to even talk to people who aren't wasters, which in turn means she can assume he's a waster, which in turn means he's very likely to be a lazy, stupid, thieving shithead and way more trouble than he's worth. That's why she doesn't hire him, not because she's prissy about rude words. Hiring people who don't know how to be a citizen is not a good idea.

Psycho Milt said...

1) What JC said - the DPB is a worthy effort to help abandoned spouses and children that has turned into a de facto 'state spouse'. That is a separate, and hard, issue to be solved.

I agree. And it's also a significant problem that it seems to have become a basic tenet of the left that this is a Good Thing. That's going to make it even harder to solve.

Blair said...

I don't think there's anything particularly right-wing about paying attention to what the stats are telling you and not lying to yourself about it. Problem is, much of the left these days essentially consists of hippies.

No, actually, that's pretty much what being right wing is - looking at the facts, telling the truth about them, and hatin' on hippies. Welcome to the dark side brother. ;-)