Kim Dot Con

[Oakie]

A fairly high percentage of people considering voting for those parties don't have a landline so nobody is asking them who they will vote for.

And can you offer any figures to back up that statement sir?

[mada]

And can you offer any figures to back up that statement sir?

Its pretty well known that younger votes generally vote for the minor parties (greens, act, etc.) and don't have landlines.

The 2013 Census tells us that 85.5% of NZ households have a landline telephone. This means that landline RDD (random digit dialing) sample frame non-coverage is up 6.1 percentage points, from 8.4% of households in 2006 to 14.5% of households in 2013.

This isn’t the percentage of individuals not covered by landline sampling frames. It’s the percentage of households.

Between 1% and 2% of households will not have access to either a cell phone or landline, so this means the proportion of cell phone only households has increased from somewhere around 6% in 2006 to somewhere around 12-13% in 2013.

http://grumpollie.wordpress.com/2013...phone-surveys/

A survey in 2012 by Canstar Blue found that a third of Generation Y in New Zealand have abandoned landlines; 14 per cent of Generation X and 8 per cent of Baby Boomers.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/chr...for-extinction

[Katman]

That's a dress shirt plus a vest. my question is "Who gets into a spa pool covered in make up, sitting on a bad taste blow up bean bag"?

Tasted him, have you?

[Oakie]

Its pretty well known that younger votes generally vote for the minor parties (greens, act, etc.)

You've done well so far. Now can you find some figures to back that one up?

[pete376403]

related: Who do you believe - Kim Dotcom or John Key?

52% believe Dotcom, 34% for Key

http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Do-you-be...9/Default.aspx

[Sharry]

Tasted him, have you?

You obviously have nothing better to use to make your posts numbers grow

[MisterD]

Its pretty well known that younger votes generally vote for the minor parties (greens, act, etc.) and don't have landlines.

Their votes are also unlikely to count until they can vote via a Facebook "like"

[mada]

You've done well so far. Now can you find some figures to back that one up?

Cant be fucked..

Feel free to prove me wrong that is not the young voting in the Greens - instead its the old and scared voters who somehow get more benefits from the Greens rather than parties like NZ First and National.

[Laava]

You wanna stir Kims Dot Cum??


Who the fuck has a spa in a dress shirt????

Jabba the Hun

[Oakie]

Cant be fucked..

Feel free to prove me wrong that is not the young voting in the Greens - instead its the old and scared voters who somehow get more benefits from the Greens rather than parties like NZ First and National.

Nah, I suspect you're right. Mostly young and idealistic with a few aging hippies thrown in for good balance. I just like to see figures or data to back up assertions that if repeated enough seem to become accepted as fact. One I'm a bit hot on a the moment is this "1 in 4 kids in NZ is living in poverty" ... yet I've never heard anyone explain what the official definition of 'poverty' is. Still that's a topic for another thread. Back to the German shyster.

[Gremlin]

One I'm a bit hot on a the moment is this "1 in 4 kids in NZ is living in poverty" ... yet I've never heard anyone explain what the official definition of 'poverty' is.

Whatever it is, it's seriously differs from the likes of poverty in Africa...

[mada]

Nah, I suspect you're right. Mostly young and idealistic with a few aging hippies thrown in for good balance. I just like to see figures or data to back up assertions that if repeated enough seem to become accepted as fact. One I'm a bit hot on a the moment is this "1 in 4 kids in NZ is living in poverty" ... yet I've never heard anyone explain what the official definition of 'poverty' is. Still that's a topic for another thread. Back to the German shyster.

Nah fuck it bro, lets get it out of the way.

It is based on households that are below 60% of the median disposable household income (after housing costs). People often mistake it for being just 60% of the median household income which was $62,000 in 2012, but that doesn't consider tax payments, mortgages/rents etc. The median disposable household income is much lower than the median household income (which in turn is much lower than the "average household income"). Median = the point where half the population are above it and half the population are below it.

Check this out if your interested mate.

http://www.occ.org.nz/assets/Uploads...for-action.pdf

The median disposable household income (after housing costs) in New Zealand for a family of two adults and two children in 2011 was $1,000 per week (Perry, 2012). (The median varies according to family size and composition.) This means that those with incomes equivalent to 50 percent of the median were receiving $500 per week).

Income is based on the premise it will determine our access to resources and services in society. While another measure ELSI looks at material deprivation - the basics that people don't have (the figures for ELSI show child poverty slightly below the numbers from using income as a measure, but not too far off):

[mada]

The most damning thing from the report shows NZ's priorities: Look after the golden oldies, fuck the young!

Table 1.3 highlights that child deprivation rates in New Zealand are higher than in most Western European countries, but lower than in the poorer countries of Eastern Europe. Such results are not entirely surprising. They reflect the fact that living standards in New Zealand are somewhat lower than in many Western European countries while income inequality is greater. We note that the rate of material deprivation amongst those aged 65 and over in New Zealand is very low by international standards. This suggests that achieving a much lower rate of childhood deprivation is possible if this were a policy priority.

*Note this is talking about deprivation (Lack of basics, not household incomes)

[Oakie]

Nah fuck it bro, lets get it out of the way.

It is based on households that are below 60% of the median disposable household income (after housing costs). People often mistake it for being just 60% of the median household income which was $62,000 in 2012, but that doesn't consider tax payments, mortgages/rents etc. The median disposable household income is much lower than the median household income (which in turn is much lower than the "average household income"). Median = the point where half the population are above it and half the population are below it.

Check this out if your interested mate.

http://www.occ.org.nz/assets/Uploads...for-action.pdf

Thanks for that. Truly am interested. Good to know there is a methodology around it and what it is. I guess that means then that the measure of 'poverty' changes depending on where you live. There'll be a lot of people living in 'poverty' in Christchurch at present the way the rental market is here. I do wonder where the figure of 60% comes from though. (May be in the document but I only skimmed it).

Playing around with these figures then: $62k median less rent @ say the $440 a week my work colleague pays and tax at M tax rate ($243.63 pw) leaves $26541pa x 60% = $15870pa or $305.20 per week to live on after accommodation is paid. So anyone who has $300 a week disposable income after their accomodation is paid is in poverty? Add kids into the mix makes it harder but then they get tax breaks so it's a bit harder to assess the $$$ they have. I don't know if I would call $300 a week to spend 'poverty'. For some it would be a struggle, for others it would be quite manageable I guess (having lived satisfactorily on $240 a week for a year for myself, Mrs Oakie and two daughters a few years back). Obviously first world and third world 'poverty' are two completely different things!

EDIT: And in Wanganui where my daughter rents @ $220 per week, that makes their poverty line $437 per week.

[mada]

Thanks for that. Truly am interested. Good to know there is a methodology around it and what it is. I guess that means then that the measure of 'poverty' changes depending on where you live. There'll be a lot of people living in 'poverty' in Christchurch at present the way the rental market is here. I do wonder where the figure of 60% comes from though. (May be in the document but I only skimmed it).

Playing around with these figures then: $62k median less rent @ say the $440 a week my work colleague pays and tax at M tax rate ($243.63 pw) leaves $26541pa x 60% = $15870pa or $305.20 per week to live on after accommodation is paid. So anyone who has $300 a week disposable income after their accomodation is paid is in poverty? Add kids into the mix makes it harder but then they get tax breaks so it's a bit harder to assess the $$$ they have. I don't know if I would call $300 a week to spend 'poverty'. For some it would be a struggle, for others it would be quite manageable I guess (having lived satisfactorily on $240 a week for a year for myself, Mrs Oakie and two daughters a few years back). Obviously first world and third world 'poverty' are two completely different things!

EDIT: And in Wanganui where my daughter rents @ $220 per week, that makes their poverty line $437 per week.

Yeh I agree, it does depend on where you are living and how much you earning - baring in mind that the 62K is the upper most end of the scale but also as you point housing costs are different depending where you are living.

For me the stats which paint a clearer picture are those for material deprivation - where there are shit load of people who cant cope and would struggle with having to pay a $500 bill in one month. Based on them you probably wouldn't have 270,000 kids in poverty, but still over 200,000. They show the clear difference between Elderly Poverty (which is pretty much non-existant) and Childhood Poverty.

The Commissioner tends to agree:

Under the second approach to measuring poverty, surveys are used to determine the proportion of the population (or children) who cannot afford specific consumption items that most people regard as essential. Such items might include having a raincoat, sturdy shoes and warm clothes, and being able to repair or replace appliances, visit the doctor and keep the house warm in winter. A threshold can then be set, based on the number of items that a family lacks (e.g. three items out of ten), in order to determine the poverty rate. Deprivation measures of this nature provide a more direct indication of poverty than income-based measures as they are an outcome measure based on the standard of living actually achieved. Such measures thus incorporate the ability of a family to use assets, or borrow, to maintain current consumption patterns. Unlike income-based measures, they vividly convey the nature and magnitude of the hardship facing children and their families.

My guess is that INCOME is used more because it is easy to obtain info for (from Census, NZStats, DoL now MBIE Labour workforce / quarterly household surveys. The children's commissioner suggests a comprehensive recording system that involves longitudinal surveys (so going back to the same families and seeing if they have managed to progress out of material deprivation etc.) but such long term studies that involve obtaining information that is not elsewhere and in depth would require more $$$$$$.

Govt. doesn't want to pay $$$$$$ to potentially show a problem that requires more $$$$$$$ to fix.