More earth-shattering research from the Families Commission;
New Zealanders are delaying having children, as increasing living costs, debt and work demands begin to take their toll on family life, a study says.
A Families Commission report, made public today, says people are delaying having children as increasing numbers of working families struggle to make ends meet.
The report charts the change in families and conditions since the end of World War II, and shows the standard of family life has dropped dramatically since the post-war baby boom.
In 1970, before the DPB, most families were self-supporting. Let's say 97% with the other 3% relying on a sickness, invalid or widow's benefit.
Today only 80 percent of families with dependent children are 'self-supporting'(and many of those are net recipients receiving WFF assistance).
Simple maths tells us that all will be worse off as a result. If seven families are trying to earn enough productive income to support themselves and three others it stands to reason.
"If families thrive and both produce and nurture future generations, then the workforce, the economy and the social fabric of New Zealand will also thrive."
But many families are not thriving and nurturing which is exactly why the social fabric is looking somewhat worn and tattered.
Welcome to the twenty first century. This is what a socialist 'caring and sharing' society looks like.
And before you start feeling optimistic that maybe at last a government agency is 'on to it' look at their recommendations.
"If we want to maintain the population and help people to successfully balance their work and family life, then it's important to look at policies that would support parents to have children or to have more children."
Paid parental leave should be extended and workplaces made more "family friendly".
More redistribution and more central planning. I don't know how long or how much hardship New Zealanders are going to have to endure before the lesson is learnt. Government is not the cure. It is the problem.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Also in the 1970s was the rise in two income families. Correspondingly, the cost of a decent standard of living became beyond the average single income family.
As a consequence responsible parents have had to make some hard decisions. Whatever those decisions were, our society has become the poorer for it as a result.
And on whom does the burden of the welfare state fall?
In 1970, before the DPB, most families were self-supporting
Lindsay, that's simply not true. In 1970, every family received the child benefit, which was universal. And early on it was money that meant something.
More to the point - if you think NZ's state is big now, how huge was it in the 1970s? I seem to remember some independent economic commentators pointing out that Poland had more economic freedom that NZ for much of the 70s. So when everyone at NZ Rail, pointless ost offices (everywhere), state-controlled telephones, state-controlled pubs --- all of which were basically welfare.
In February 1972 the rate was $1-50 per child per week. I think I could have bought ten Big Ben pies for that. That definitely classed my family as non-self supporting. And while state-run rail, telephone and mail may have carried more workers than necessary they were providing vital services. Unlike families today whose sole source of income is welfare.
Do you class state schools and public hospitals as 'basically welfare'?
And while state-run rail, telephone and mail may have carried more workers than necessary they were providing vital services.
So I'm not sure what your point is. Are you arguing in favour of the $1 Billion buyback of the trains, and then saying we should staff 'em up, to ensure that all the men in the country are employed on wages that let them keep their wife and 2.5 kids?
Or are you - standing for the ACT party?
Do you class state schools and public hospitals as 'basically welfare'?
I think that is point 7 & 8 of the ACT Pledge card.
And I am not sure what you are saying. That if the state runs anything its employees should be considered welfare recipients and non self-supporting? I disagree with that assertion.
Yes I want a bigger private sector and smaller public sector because profit and competition bring greater efficiency.
That if the state runs anything its employees should be considered welfare recipients and non self-supporting?
Seems pretty clear to me. Also all those who use such state facilities, whether "free" (someone else is paying for it all) or with "co-payment" (someone else is paying for almost all of it) or "user pays" (someone else is carrying the capital risk and opportunity cost).
Again: this is the written policy of the party you represent.
Furthermore, the arguments for taxpayer franchise (no taxation without representation / no representation without taxation) such people should not be allowed the vote.
Post a Comment