The Dim-Post

March 6, 2012

Chart of the day, teenage sluts cause fiscal crisis edition

Filed under: Politics — danylmc @ 7:48 pm

With all the talk about the unaffordability of the benefit system in general, and the swarthy, dusky-eyed promiscuous whores on the DPB whose numbers have swollen to threaten to bring down the entire economy in specific, I thought I’d take a look at DPB and unemployment beneficiary numbers as a percentage of the total population over the last couple decades.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t get a real sense of crisis from looking at these trends. Unemployment is obviously linked to macro-economic conditions, the DPB much less so. I suspect the dip in the mid 2000s is down to the introduction of WFF rather than the global liquidity boom.

Looks to me as if the status quo for at least the last twenty-two years (the Department of Stats only serves up data back to 1990), is that at any given time roughly 2.7% of the population is a solo-mother on this benefit, that they generally transition off it pretty quickly (66% have been on for less than four years – I’d love to know what the median duration on this benefit is, but MSD doesn’t make that information publicly available).

We’re currently below the historic average, again, probably because of WFF. In contrast, the statistics around manufactured crisis seem historically high.

(And, contra the title of this post, 97.3% of DPB recipients are 20 or older.)

About these ads

22 Comments »

  1. Thank you. A breath of reality (mind you it is still statistics, wait for the lies and damn lies to kick in.)

    Comment by peterlepaysan — March 6, 2012 @ 8:42 pm

  2. So, DPB figures haven’t stayed in synch with UB40 trends….maybe there is a need for education

    Comment by stephen — March 6, 2012 @ 9:13 pm

  3. It did not take long!

    Comment by peterlepaysan — March 6, 2012 @ 10:10 pm

  4. Poor lil’ stevie’s head’s exploded.

    Comment by Guy Smiley — March 6, 2012 @ 10:16 pm

  5. Yeah Stephen, kids today don’t understand DECENT music. ‘I am a 99 in 100′ just doesn’t scan.

    Comment by insider — March 6, 2012 @ 10:20 pm

  6. I, personally, am dying to know exactly WTF stephen was talking about.

    Comment by QoT — March 6, 2012 @ 10:49 pm

  7. I will venture a guess here and say he is making a reference to the name of the dole application form (called a UB40, hence the name of the band and all) back in dim reaches of the past in the UK.

    Assuming my clever clogs radar is seeking that target right, then I would further hazard to suggest Stephen is drawing a conclusion from the divergent paths of the unemployed vis a vis the DPB claimants.

    Fucked if I know what means with that comment on education though.

    Comment by Sanctuary — March 6, 2012 @ 11:04 pm

  8. C’mon have you forgotten those 80s white reggae classics like ‘Dread, dread wine’, ‘I’m a primadonna’, ‘I got sued babe’, And ‘I’ll beat your baby tonight’?

    Nah. It’s a reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_in_Ten

    Comment by insider — March 7, 2012 @ 12:31 am

  9. Classy boys, classy.

    Comment by stephen — March 7, 2012 @ 3:46 am

  10. I suppose we can thank Roger Douglas for the downward trend.

    Comment by NeilM — March 7, 2012 @ 8:09 am

  11. It might not change anything but it would be better as a percentage of the working age population as you can’t be on the UEB or DPB if under 18 or over 65.

    Comment by dpf — March 7, 2012 @ 9:16 am

  12. C’mon Danyl………you know as well as anyone that other benefits (especially sickness) have gone up. Putting these two specific benefits on a graph is pretty selective………and misleading.

    Go on……….put the other major benefits on the graph……..

    Comment by sam — March 7, 2012 @ 9:52 am

  13. Sam, since you appear to have access to the statistics – why don’t you do it?

    Comment by The PC Avenger — March 7, 2012 @ 10:27 am

  14. I assume stephen is suggesting that, given more education, the rate of solo motherhood would be more in line with the unemployment rate.

    And – based on my vague impression of the numbers – the only reason I’m against putting other benefits on the graph is that I won’t be able to see sam’s face when he sees it.

    Comment by lyndon — March 7, 2012 @ 10:33 am

  15. Update: oh, there it is. Yes, that’s about what I thought. Incidentally, has anyone itemised what goes in to John Key’s ‘unacceptable’ grand total of working-age people recieving benefits?

    Comment by lyndon — March 7, 2012 @ 10:36 am

  16. Thanks for doing these numbers. Has anyone seen them in any mainstream media? Or are the bloggers leading the way yet again in backgrounding political stories?

    As for sickness benefits rising (if true) I can see it being plausible. A lot of work in NZ is physical labour and an ageing workforce will be less tolerant of the stresses that imposes. There is also the accumulated damage done by drugs of all kinds, leaving people unable to function. Plus the usual accidents, injuries and degenerative conditions that leave people in a state employers aren’t interested in.

    In some cases, “sickness benefit” should be renamed the “On the scrapheap” benefit. They may well want a job….but there aren’t any in their area that are suitable…and the employers offering the jobs that are there don’t want them.

    I’m sure there is a lot more to it as well…..and National’s coercive, punitive approach won’t work any better this time around than it did in the 1990s.

    People who don’t learn from their mistakes appear to have a high probability of ending up in Government.

    Comment by Steve (@nza1) — March 7, 2012 @ 1:28 pm

  17. “And, contra the title of this post, 97.3% of DPB recipients are 20 or older”
    I wonder what percentage were 20 or older went they first became recipients?

    Comment by Clunking Fist — March 7, 2012 @ 2:05 pm

  18. “A lot of work in NZ is physical labour” steve@ 17
    It has aways been thus… but surely it is less these days?

    Comment by Clunking Fist — March 7, 2012 @ 2:07 pm

  19. Well, define “physical”. Being a nurse can be pretty physical (lifting and turning patients) and back injuries are common. Sitting at a screen all day can cause hand, wrist, shoulder, neck and back pain plus eye strain and dry eye. When CAD first came out the sales reps told architects and draughtsmen they should only work at their computer 5 hours a day. Yeah, right!

    Comment by Me Too — March 7, 2012 @ 2:20 pm

  20. I’m curious what that title did to your search hits in the last 24hrs?

    Comment by garethw — March 7, 2012 @ 6:52 pm

  21. Well sussed, Danyl. Good research and insightful analysis.

    Comment by Frank Macskasy — March 19, 2012 @ 1:40 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 404 other followers

%d bloggers like this: