J Adern, How will she affect the election, and is she a good leader?

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › J Adern, How will she affect the election, and is she a good leader?

1 | ... | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45

321 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1870905 22-Sep-2017 12:14

Networkn

"Throwing money at the poor doesn't solve the problem" isn't a personal opinion, it's fact."

Of course its a personal opinion which you are entitled to but some of that statements you state I wonder about your education and what school you attended.

You may have differing views from many (probably most) but you have put your foot in your mouth on many occasions.

gulfa

321 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1870909 22-Sep-2017 12:21

Throwing money at the poor doesn't solve the problem" isn't a personal opinion, it's fact.

Lets take education and lets throw some money at that and in MY OPINION we could change and solve many of our social problems Smaller classes (like Private schools) better trained and paid teachers, Specialist teachers etc.

See if that helps, your interpretation of throwing money around doesn't mean just giving dollars to pay packets or benefits which is what appears you think.

I hope you get the point but I could expand further if required.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1870910 22-Sep-2017 12:22

gulfa:

Networkn

"Throwing money at the poor doesn't solve the problem" isn't a personal opinion, it's fact."

Of course its a personal opinion which you are entitled to but some of that statements you state I wonder about your education and what school you attended.

You may have differing views from many (probably most) but you have put your foot in your mouth on many occasions.

Thank God you are here to make sure your "superior" education and knowledge about everything, can correct all of the rest of us with differing opinions who are wrong.

/me facepalm.

gulfa

321 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1870915 22-Sep-2017 12:33

You have the right to hold to your views but facts and opinions are two totally different concepts I would like you to show the facts that throwing money at problems doesn't work. There may be cases, but there would be many more where it has worked. Health Education police etc.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1870918 22-Sep-2017 12:34

gulfa:

Throwing money at the poor doesn't solve the problem" isn't a personal opinion, it's fact.

Lets take education and lets throw some money at that and in MY OPINION we could change and solve many of our social problems Smaller classes (like Private schools) better trained and paid teachers, Specialist teachers etc.

See if that helps, your interpretation of throwing money around doesn't mean just giving dollars to pay packets or benefits which is what appears you think.

I hope you get the point but I could expand further if required.

I agree, we should educate people, but for a lot of the poor it's not just about not having enough money, but how they prioritize their spending. Some of that is education, some of that is peer or family pressure, some of it is just making plainly poor choices.

There is a LOT of free education in the community. Pick up your local rag and see how many community courses are around. Now go and attend one, see how many of the people that "need" the most help are there taking advantage of it. Usually, it's full of people who could

easily pay for it themselves, who just want to improve themselves. I think for a fair percentage of the poor there is an element of "nothing you do will help". Schools are doing a fantastic job (at least the ones my kids go to) around educating people not just about math and writing and reading, but about being good world citizens, the importance of eating well, the food triangle. My kids will sometimes when I am eating junk, remind me that it's a "sometimes" food. Start of this year I was talking to a woman at my Sons school who was saying her Daughter at 7 had brought about great changes in their household around eating. The woman was saying her daughters attitude and information had helped with a change of diet and her and her husband lost 15 KG's over 5 months.

More of this is happening all the time, but some of the current generation of parents are beyond help. Once they are gone, the next generation will I believe, make better choices.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1870920 22-Sep-2017 12:36

gulfa:

You have the right to hold to your views but facts and opinions are two totally different concepts I would like you to show the facts that throwing money at problems doesn't work. There may be cases, but there would be many more where it has worked. Health Education police etc.

You seem to be struggling with comprehension. When I saw throwing money at the poor, I mean giving them a greater disposable income.

Putting money into education, healthcare etc, is NOT soley for the poor. Not sure what normal person would believe what I meant when I said don't throw money at the poor, meant no more money in Education. /me SMH.

If you can't get your head around that, I am not wasting my time posting articles on it, of which there are MANY.

You seriously need to stop trying to pick a fight. Take a deep breath, maybe walk around the block before your next reply.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1870921 22-Sep-2017 12:41

gulfa:

Networkn

"Throwing money at the poor doesn't solve the problem" isn't a personal opinion, it's fact."

Of course its a personal opinion which you are entitled to but some of that statements you state I wonder about your education and what school you attended.

You may have differing views from many (probably most) but you have put your foot in your mouth on many occasions.

Throwing money at the poor is like putting the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. In the short term it may work, but it will not fix the root problem, and will just decrease the incentive for people to better themselves, improves their skills and get into jobs.

Better idea is to:

- Teach the poor the value of money (If they have not earned it it becomes an entitlement and a right)

- Teaching the poor, and especially children that money needs to be worked for, is a very important example to set. Not just an example, its a life skill. Not doing so and these kids grow up with the same entitlement attitude that seems to be a thing these days.

- Teaching the poor how to save, Throwing money at the poor wont help unless those who are receiving it are able to use every single penny extremely wisely.

- Teaching the poor how to budget properly, If you can't manage the little you have, how are you going to manage more?

The main issue here is that it takes the incentive away for people to work. The country can't survive without the working class, Many people in NZ are in jobs they hate, start throwing money at the poor and these same people will quit their jobs.

Nobody should be entitled to "free money" ever.

* Sidenote: Above does not include the mentally ill, disabled, and physically challenged few.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

allio

885 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1870923 22-Sep-2017 12:52

"Giving money to the poor doesn't help to lift them out of poverty" is not a fact. It is an opinion. You're entitled to hold it, but please don't claim that you're speaking the truth while the rest of us aren't.

There is in fact plenty of evidence that no strings attached cash payments are the most effective kind of intervention:

It’s easy to see that a nice injection of cash would make people better off. But in principle, the long-term impact could be ambiguous. Give money to a person whose only job prospects are low-paying and unpleasant, and perhaps he’ll simply respond by working less. That kind of income support would increase human welfare, but not really create any economic growth. That’s not what happened in Uganda. The government selected 535 groups—a total of about 12,000 people—for the experiment. Of the 535 groups, about one-half were randomly selected to actually get the money, and the rest were denied. Blattman, Fiala, and Martinez then surveyed 2,675 youths from both the treatment and the control group before dispersal of money, two years after dispersal of money, and four years after dispersal of money. The results show that the one-off lump-sum transfer had substantial long-term benefits for those who got the cash. As promised, the people who received the cash “invest[ed] most of the grant in skills and business assets,” ending up “65 percent more likely to practice a skilled trade, mainly small-scale industry and services such as carpentry, metalworking, tailoring, or hairstyling.” Consequently, recipients of cash grants acquired much larger stocks of business capital and thus earn more money—a lot more money. Compared to the control group, the treatment group saw a 49 percent earnings boost after two years and a 41 percent boost after four.

There are also studies that compare cash grants to "strings attached" food grants etc:

When governments give people in-kind support like food, it frequently costs more to deliver that support than it would to distribute cash—and for the same or even a lesser impact. Jesse Cunha of the Naval Postgraduate School conducted a randomized trial of cash versus in-kind transfers in rural Mexico. In addition to finding that cash recipients didn’t spend more on tobacco or alcohol, Cunha learned that those who received cash experienced the same improvements in nutrition and child-health measures as those who received food. But the food program cost at least 20 percent more to administer, and the cash program led to significantly higher non-food consumption by recipients. In other words: At less cost to the government, cash programs led to the same health outcomes as food-based programs, but also provided additional resources for recipients to spend on schooling, medicine, and transport.

This is not a one-off finding. In many cases, cash programs are simply much more effective than in-kind transfers at turning dollars spent into positive nutritional outcomes. A 2013 survey by Sarah Bailey for the Canadian Foodgrains Bank—involving Zimbabwe, Ecuador, Malawi, and Yemen, among other countries—found that cash transfers usually led to far greater increases in a “food consumption score” of dietary diversity and food frequency than did similarly priced food delivery. In Malawi, the food consumption score increased by 50 percent for cash recipients compared to 20 percent for food recipients. This despite the fact that households in the countries surveyed only report spending between 45 and 90 percent of the cash they receive on food, with the rest going to expenses like debt repayment, household items, and school fees.

I'm sure you will be able to dig up studies from some right wing think tank that say the opposite. But that's the point.

networkn: it sounds as though your views are shaped by some personal experiences you have had with people on welfare. I can understand that - but there's a reason we don't make policies based on anecdotes.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1870924 22-Sep-2017 12:54

gulfa:

I would like you to show the facts that throwing money at problems doesn't work. There may be cases, but there would be many more where it has worked. Health Education police etc.

Gulfa, your logic is flawed. Because if we throw money at everyone, people would no longer need to work, which ultimately means there is no more money to throw at everyone. - Bad idea.

I'm keen to hear your answers on these two questions:

- Why should people work if we can afford to pay them nothing?

- What in your opinion should be the incentive for people to work?

gulfa

321 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1870935 22-Sep-2017 13:18

Wiggum:

gulfa:

I would like you to show the facts that throwing money at problems doesn't work. There may be cases, but there would be many more where it has worked. Health Education police etc.

Gulfa, your logic is flawed. Because if we throw money at everyone, people would no longer need to work, which ultimately means there is no more money to throw at everyone. - Bad idea.

I'm keen to hear your answers on these two questions:

- Why should people work if we can afford to pay them nothing?

- What in your opinion should be the incentive for people to work?

Question 2 People who are well educated will always want to extend themselves and look after their families (opinion)

I don't understand your first question

As I have said all along education is the key We must from the very first stages get students to be able to read, write, do maths, have opinions, be able to research and be creative. To do this we need to change some of our approaches to education which I believe today we have greater opportunities than ever with technology right at our hands. But we turn some of these young people off by setting topics that some of them are not interested in. Why shouldn't a person who has a love of a topic be encouraged to research that topic whether it be BMX riding or even some topics that some may find unsuitable. I once had a group students who locked into graffiti and was amazed at how their research skills developed. This then changed their attitudes towards learning.

Listening and debating has great value if people don't become locked into their own points of views we must be prepared to change our views where necessary I found that as I have got older my views have changed greatly

I was once a believer in treating criminals severely and against some human rights but have changed my beliefs ( same sex relationships) I now see that we need to deal with criminals using a different approach

We must keep personalities out of our debates (name calling Dress etc) deal with the issues My comment on Networkn's education was rather borderline, but was questioning what facts are and what opinions are which we should all be very clear on

I shall now go for another walk which I have already done today (10 kms)

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1870938 22-Sep-2017 13:27

networkn: it sounds as though your views are shaped by some personal experiences you have had with people on welfare. I can understand that - but there's a reason we don't make policies based on anecdotes.

I have pretty reasonable personal experience in this area. It's not anecdotal, it's stuff I have actually seen and experienced over quite a long period of time.

If I were to attempt to solve this issue it would be based on something along the lines of leaving incomes the same or slightly increasing it, but subsidising services like healthcare (Further), public transport,school fees and stationery, school uniforms and the like. I am not in favour of food stamps and the like, because it creates a them and us scenario which isn't good socially. By the same token, I can't think of a completely better way.

You are right, there are plenty of studies that show the opposite to what your one does. I don't think a Study in Uganda is especially applicable, because of completely different cultural and economic specifics.

Forcing people to get educated creates issues, but the uptake of free educational opportunities amongst the poor is generally pretty low in my experience and understanding. However, without better education and a willingness to make better choices, money will not resolve much if anything.

As mentioned, to some degree kids who are educated now to eat better, understand the downsides of smoking/drinking etc, and this will have flow on effects in the medium and longer term. It does have a lot to do with family support though.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1870979 22-Sep-2017 14:21

gulfa:

Question 2 People who are well educated will always want to extend themselves and look after their families (opinion)

But surely it will be better, to stay at home and be with families, and not work? I certainly would consider doing this. As more family time IMO is better than me being at work, and perhaps can be regarded as even a better way to look after my family than being at work all day.

gulfa:

I don't understand your first question

Let me rephrase it then, worded it incorrectly.

- Why should people work if government can afford to pay them to do nothing and not go to work?

gulfa:

As I have said all along education is the key We must from the very first stages get students to be able to read, write, do maths, have opinions, be able to research and be creative.

I agree education is key. But good education also makes people wiser. Many wise /well educated people would opt to not go to work if the incentives were greater to stay at home and get free money. I certainly would not consider myself stupid/uneducated if I chose to rather take payouts, and stay home with the kids.

There should be limits in place on what handouts those that stay home are entitled to. I personally believe throwing cash at them it a terrible option. It makes better sense to provide them with the necessities etc, ie some sort of card that can only purchase certain items. Cash should be earned, and so should the privilege of being able to purchase from it at will.

gulfa

321 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1870991 22-Sep-2017 14:40

I'm afraid my belief in people is a lot stronger than some people who tend to think less of others. Perhaps I'm a dreamer but I have a strong belief you give people education and confidence and they will respond well

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1871032 22-Sep-2017 14:55

gulfa:

I'm afraid my belief in people is a lot stronger than some people who tend to think less of others. Perhaps I'm a dreamer but I have a strong belief you give people education and confidence and they will respond well

No you're right.

Some of the neo-liberal and conservative lexicon / memes presenting opinion as if it was fact, like "if you make welfare too easily available, people won't want to work" or "if you provide support for solo parents - it just encourages them to breed" belong back in the 19th century or earlier.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1871052 22-Sep-2017 15:11

Wiggum:

Throwing money at the poor is like putting the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. In the short term it may work, but it will not fix the root problem, and will just decrease the incentive for people to better themselves, improves their skills and get into jobs.

Better idea is to:

- Teach the poor the value of money (If they have not earned it it becomes an entitlement and a right)

- Teaching the poor, and especially children that money needs to be worked for, is a very important example to set. Not just an example, its a life skill. Not doing so and these kids grow up with the same entitlement attitude that seems to be a thing these days.

- Teaching the poor how to save, Throwing money at the poor wont help unless those who are receiving it are able to use every single penny extremely wisely.

- Teaching the poor how to budget properly, If you can't manage the little you have, how are you going to manage more?

The main issue here is that it takes the incentive away for people to work. The country can't survive without the working class, Many people in NZ are in jobs they hate, start throwing money at the poor and these same people will quit their jobs.

Nobody should be entitled to "free money" ever.

* Sidenote: Above does not include the mentally ill, disabled, and physically challenged few.

How do you teach someone to save who has a deficit every week after just paying for the essentials?

The second highlighted point is deeply offensive and your condescending side note makes it worse

1 | ... | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45