Beneficiary contraception plan 'intrusive'

[FJRider]

What he said,

Oh how the world Changed when the contraceptive Pill was made readily available, no more responsibility.

At that time ... women of the world were overjoyed by it's introduction ... NOW ... goverment departments can't give them away ...

[flyingcrocodile46]

I dare say this will result in lower overheads for brothels, and it makes good sense to ensure proper preparedness of the next generation of the service industry providers.

[FJRider]

I dare say this will result in lower overheads for brothels, and it makes good sense to ensure proper preparedness of the next generation of the service industry providers.

The "New generation" will probably give it away ... as well ...

[flyingcrocodile46]

The "New generation" will probably give it away ... as well ...

I hope not. If we can move them all into taking on careers in the service industry they will become productive taxpayers

Only the really ugly need be unemployed

[scracha]

Jesus H,"the best answer" for many would be keep your fucking legs closed until your ready and able to accept the consequences of not doing so surely its not that hard,and if it is indeed to hard and beyond there capability then surely something as complicated as using contraception free or not will be way beyond them.

What are you...a monk? Here's a newslfash for you:- People like to drink, people like to fuck. Advising them not to will not stop them doing it.

I have no problem with free contraception for beneficiaries (I mistakenly assumed it was already. I do however think it should be free for everybody.


My other theory for deadbeat dads. Don't pay for child one....you lose a testicle. Don't pay for child two...you lose a testicle. Don't pa......oh....

[Paul in NZ]

Its an interesting debate all right. I watched a little of Sue B debating it with the Ex Solo Mum who helped draft the legislation. Personally I think Sue B was just falling back on her 'caring socialist' persona (yeah right) and didn't really have much constructive to add.

The issue this will face is that while it will be embraced by those who have fallen on hard times, been betrayed or accidentally ended up in this place yet are still of sound mind. It won't be embraced by the alternate society we are nurturing. In the same piece their was an interview with a nice tidy looking young solo mum who thought the govt must think we are all thick. She apparently planned her pregnancy and not having a job isn't going to be a factor in her having another baby.... um....... Shit.... As a payer of considerable tax dollars I object...

And that's the real issue. There are two groups of people undermining this. Ones that see a benefit as a legitimate entitlement and a valid career path and ones that are so off in a different place for our 'capitalistic society' that they couldn't find their way back with a gps and a compass. (yet they still take the hand outs capitalism brings)

So yes - this will be good for some but will not stem the tide overwhelming us all.

[oneofsix]

Yes Paul, I think it will be good for those that don't want to breed whilst on the benefit to have their choice subsidised and therefore the rest of us not having to support any more mistakes.

Differing views in this article on Stuff http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6884...fare-in-Huntly show that, like the rest of society, those at the bottom have different aims and some of them make others of us

I suspect Sue B is on her anti govt control band wagon and trying to equate the offer with the forced sterilization of some previous totalitarian governments. (Godwits law avoided?)

[SimJen]

"In an economy, policy changes are about tradeoffs. With inflation the tradeoff is with unemployment. The Phillips curve, pioneered by New Zealand economist Bill Phillips, showed that when inflation rises unemployment falls and vice versa.
High levels of inflation are undesirable. However, if inflation is reduced by choking economic growth, this will lead to a rise in unemployment. Mass unemployment is also undesirable. Hence the RBNZ is charged with the delicate task of balancing inflation and unemployment."

Unemployment is a requirement, otherwise everyone's money becomes worth less. The unemployed are doing you a favour by filling those positions... but by all means don't change your mind

Like I said though in an earlier post, the rules of economics need to change to avoid future world meltdowns! Just because Bill Phillips pioneered some curve does not make it the best or most popular view on the matter.

Most economists no longer use the Phillips curve in its original form because it was shown to be too simplistic. This can be seen in a cursory analysis of US inflation and unemployment data 1953-92. There is no single curve that will fit the data, but there are three rough aggregations—1955–71, 1974–84, and 1985-92—each of which shows a general, downwards slope, but at three very different levels with the shifts occurring abruptly. The data for 1953-54 and 1972-73 do not group easily, and a more formal analysis posits up to five groups/curves over the period.

In the 1970s, many countries experienced high levels of both inflation and unemployment also known as stagflation. Theories based on the Phillips curve suggested that this could not happen, and the curve came under a concerted attack from a group of economists headed by Milton Friedman.

Friedman argued that the Phillips curve relationship was only a short-run phenomenon. He argued that in the long-run, workers and employers will take inflation into account, resulting in employment contracts that increase pay at rates near anticipated inflation. Unemployment would then begin to rise back to its previous level, but now with higher inflation rates. This result implies that over the longer-run there is no trade-off between inflation and unemployment. This implication is significant for practical reasons because it implies that central banks should not set employment targets above the natural rate.

More recent research has shown that there is a moderate trade-off between low-levels of inflation and unemployment. Work by George Akerlof, William Dickens, and George Perry implies that if inflation is reduced from two to zero percent, unemployment will be permanently increased by 1.5 percent. This is because workers generally have a higher tolerance for real wage cuts than nominal ones. For example, a worker will more likely accept a wage increase of two percent when inflation is three percent, than a wage cut of one percent when the inflation rate is zero.

[Genestho]

Its an interesting debate all right. I watched a little of Sue B debating it with the Ex Solo Mum who helped draft the legislation. Personally I think Sue B was just falling back on her 'caring socialist' persona (yeah right) and didn't really have much constructive to add.

The issue this will face is that while it will be embraced by those who have fallen on hard times, been betrayed or accidentally ended up in this place yet are still of sound mind. It won't be embraced by the alternate society we are nurturing. In the same piece their was an interview with a nice tidy looking young solo mum who thought the govt must think we are all thick. She apparently planned her pregnancy and not having a job isn't going to be a factor in her having another baby.... um....... Shit.... As a payer of considerable tax dollars I object...

And that's the real issue. There are two groups of people undermining this. Ones that see a benefit as a legitimate entitlement and a valid career path and ones that are so off in a different place for our 'capitalistic society' that they couldn't find their way back with a gps and a compass. (yet they still take the hand outs capitalism brings)

So yes - this will be good for some but will not stem the tide overwhelming us all.

I couldn't watch as I knew it would fire up my angry meter on so many levels.
She won't add anything to the debate as her reasons for being there are not genuine.
Isn't it ironic that someone that speaks out on poverty wouldn't support a self motivated reduction of 'generational benefit breeders'? That right there tells me her aims are not true to her cause and that she's happy to speak on behalf of the minority of blatant bludgers, and encourage their obstinance while taking the cash.

I really feel like putting her over my knee and slapping her on the behind.

[Paul in NZ]

I suspect Sue B is on her anti govt control band wagon and trying to equate the offer with the forced sterilization of some previous totalitarian governments. (Godwits law avoided?)

Ironically if Sue B was in charge I think that it would feel a lot more like a totalitarian state....

[mashman]

Like I said though in an earlier post, the rules of economics need to change to avoid future world meltdowns! Just because Bill Phillips pioneered some curve does not make it the best or most popular view on the matter.

Agreed, but irrespective of the methodology used there will always be a requirement for people to be unemployed , which was the initial point that you called bullshit... hence my stance on "bludgers" not being the cunts ... they're just people caught in the economic crossfire and yet they're treated like shit. Yes some of them deserve it, but if financial policy keeps a percentage of the population unemployed, which it obviously does and contrary to your belief, then it would seem a tad unfair to kick them whilst they're down? As mentioned, they help to keep our money worth what it is worth and being unemployed is absolutely unavoidable in some respects.

[Zedder]

Ironically if Sue B was in charge I think that it would feel a lot more like a totalitarian state....

It would not be good if she got that sort of power, but she is currently working on a PhD in Public Policy so she's probably gearing up for something along those lines.

Incidently, it was Len Brown who suggested strongly that she run for Auckland Council last time 'round.

[Usarka]

I'm told it's going to be an injection, because the excuse they always hear when bene's get pregnant is that the pill fell out.

[schrodingers cat]

I propose we dismantle the do-goodery industry.
Net result - more unemployment but lower inflation (lower wages for workers with more competition for jobs you see)
Less government funding so less tax (Tui)

Win win win I say

Mind you the pressure to be able to afford food might drive crime up but we'll liberalise our gun laws and the right to defend personal property and she'll be right.

Its working in Detroit!

[XxKiTtiExX]

I'm told it's going to be an injection, because the excuse they always hear when bene's get pregnant is that the pill fell out.

The pill fell out?