Friday, November 25, 2016

LINDSAY MITCHELL NAILS IT AGAIN.


Hot on the heels of yet another "Z" lister seeking relevance using our so called "poverty" crisis, Lindsay  at  her own blog reveals the total corrupt use that surrounds the descriptive.
Last night Sir Graeme Henry relaunches as a SJW.

Meanwhile back in the real world populated by Joe and Josephine Bloke aka ordinary descent parents, hard working, responsible, Lindsay reveals  some  figures that cause me and many others to get exercised by the high jacking.

A New Zealand resident with $2200 is in the top half of the worlds population, $71 000 puts one in the top tenth and a very ordinary home in much of the country at around a quarter of a million and the dreaded one percenters have another terrible bastard member.
Now with my cynical monitor gauge off the scale how many of the miserable true deplorables will that statistic include and nary a word of admission.

Even the Jade adorned, castle dweller, ex McGillicuddie  Serious Party, cohoncho qualifies surely as she hitches her ample ass to the tumbrel that might carry the first of the one percenters to the gallows in her discombobulated manipulateding world of outrageous claims.

Lindsay Mitchell


3 comments:

Psycho Milt said...

A New Zealand resident with $2200 is in the top half of the worlds population

Given that the quote comes from the Economist, you presumably mean an NZ resident with US $2200. Regardless, this is a grotesque and malicious misuse of statistics for political purposes.

For the record: the world isn't one country with one cost of living, which makes the figure meaningless. If you have US $2200 in Bangladesh, you can afford a hell of a lot of goods and services - if you US $2200 in Switzerland, you'd better start thinking about what you're going to live on next month.

Given that the figure is meaningless, you have to wonder why someone would peddle it. And the answer is that, although it's an egregious misuse of statistics, it has propaganda value for right-wingers wanting to claim there's no such thing as poverty in NZ. Which makes it also a malicious misuse of statistics.

Noel said...

I remember during the first rounds of the Free Trade talks the Chinese wanted a clause where the could bring in their own labour at Chinese rates of pay on their projects.

It didn't get included but it happened anyway with the train engineers and the need for Manderin speaking resteraunt student vworkers, so they could be paid below NZ minimum wage just a few examples.

Your right the cost of living varies around the globe and has to be included.

Anonymous said...

Psycho...even though you are right I suspect that most people have worked that out. The flaw is the term "goods and services". Basics like milk or milk bases products, like all sought after food, has become globalised and has no bearing on basic earnings of people in countries with a low GNP. A bowl of rice and a three inch long fish is not globalised.

Quite simply the cost of a leg of lamb or a lobster in France or Germany is the same as NZ but wages are are lot higher. But that does not answer the question of parity in "cost of living".


Lord Egbut