My child your taxes

There is a cut to government spending on early childhood education and quite a few people are upset about it, specifically and predictably the workers in the sector who stand to lose their jobs and the parents of the users who stand to either pay more or cease having or using the service.

So no one likes having thier free stuff taken away from them so ignoring that, the question is, is this a good idea? How does subsidising child care or early childhood education, as the sector participants prefer, help society.

First up lets tackle that one about child care versus early education. Do kids under five need "educated" there doesn't seem to be much evidence that they do. Clearly there is a lot of evidence that they need interaction with adults, a secure enviroment and so forth but formal education?
Worldwide the age at which people commence formal education varies a lot, however the outcomes appear to me to be very similar in terms of education. In Northern Ireland they start at 4 years old  and in Sweden they wait till they are 7 but I don't think that people from Ireland / Sweden are considered that differently in terms of education at the end.

This paper http://www.eale.nl/Conference2010/Programme/PaperscontributedsessionsF/add129051_MLbgtSeX9b.pdf
specifically looks at the question from an economic view and concludes that as an "investment in human capital" the early the better.
So to be clear early childhood education is about ensuring that your child is an effective unit of production for our industrialised society.

So as I have asperations for my child that mostly revolve around her having a happy and fulfilling life and nothing about her being a unit of production I vote for child care and lets ditch the idea of formal education for 2 year olds. A sand pit and a bucket is going to teach them a heap all by itself.
This education argument may seem irrelevant but it goes somewhat to the heart of the debate as the previous government was pushing for an increase in the number of formally trained teachers employed in this area and the current government does not see this as so important. Further this goes to the level of funding that you think is required as trained teachers cost more than lesser trained staff.

But why is the government involved at all in this area ? A couple of  comments stuck with me, one was "we are reluctant to ask our parents for more money" this from one of the teachers at a child care facility and variations were echoed by other teachers. Why they were reluctant was not canvased but we are led to presume that they would be unable or unwilling to pay.
The solution though was that "the tax payer" i.e. people without kids presumably should pay so that the people with kids, the users of the service didn't have to. I really don't understand the logic for this, unless there is a social good at work, i.e. society is better off by having children in child care than having them at home with their parents.... hmm can't imediately see how that could be unless we are saying that the state (via childcare facilities) is a better parent than actual parents.

The othe comment that struck me was "one of our parents has had to give up work to look after her children as the child care fees made working uneconomic" This was a truely strange comment from where I sat as this was presented as a bad thing. I suspect the economic argument was that the work undertaken was clearly of lower economic benefit than child minding and so by giving up this job society is in fact better off economically.
However never mind that, was the suggestion that we should all pay higher taxes (government money doesn't come from no where) so that this person could continue to work and therefore have a higher standard of living (us lower, her higher) because she chose to have a child? Can't make that work in my mind either.
This view also undervalues the role of stay at home parents as some how this was a "bad" choice.

So the more I think about it the less convinced I am that government has any role at all in early childhood "education" Do people need an organisation and government to help them organise some play friends for thier kids? Is staying at home and raising your kids a bad thing to do? (by all accounts it is a very rewarding activity, I unfortunately have not had the privilage) And do you want your child to be an efficient "unit of production" or are you aiming at happy like most parents. Just some things to think about.

If you can't stand the heat.....

So Global Warming is no longer the phrase de jour of the Henny Penny Brigade (the fable about the sky falling in case you missed it) as surveys told them that this mostly didn't bother people, the idea of the planet being a bit warmer, it especially didn't bother people in cooler climates (read most of the industrialised world) So we now hear about Climate Change. You can tell by my reference to Henny Penny that I remain unconvinced that this is real but you will be pleased to know I don't propose to go into all that right now, for the purpose of this discussion lets assume that this is true, carbon is bad and we should do something about it.

What I wonder at is the "solution" that all these brilliant folks have come up with, in a phrase it is known as Cap and Trade. Or to expand they want the levels of carbon in the atmosphere Capped (Cap) and for people wishing to emit additional carbon to buy that right off someone who no longer needs it (Trade) so as the total amount of cargon emitted remains constant.

Effectively this is another version of the "Ban It" school of problem solving and yes I conceed they haven't banned carbon emission altogether but presumably carbon emission isn't the problem is it, it is the growth in carbon and that is what they are trying to ban. I would also wonder if this is the thin end of the wedge and long term the proposal is to lower the limits.

So what will be the result of this idea?
Well more stuff the HPB (Henny Penny Brigade) and I can agree on, the rise of industrialisation is tied to the ready supply of energy at affordable levels. Before coal came along energy was provided by horses and people, which provided limits to what was acheivable.
Further not only did this lead to industrialisation but after a patchy start a higher standard of living (lets face it the early industrial period wasn't much chop for those at the bottom of the heap)

So lets stop increasing our use of carbon based fuels, pretty obvious what's going to happen. The increasing standard of living will halt and because of the trade angle either every one will average out as the haves give up some of thier standard in favour of the have nots (think USA and China sort of leveling out) an idea I find completely unlikely or the haves will buy up the credits to the detriment of the have nots, which I find much more likely. (or third not everyone is going to sign up to this which makes it a dead duck)

So the HPB will reject this idea (of stagnant or declining standards of living, which they know is unsaleable) as they see a "switch" to other forms of energy, however it has been shown time and again that the alternative energy sources such as Wind, Solar or Bio Fuels simply can't supply enough to meet the demand (for existing levels never mind future levels). In fact we have already seen some disastourous consequences of land being switched from food production to bio fuels and increase in food prices potentially leading to some people starving to death. (the chain of connections is obviously difficult but there is no doubt the higher food prices don't help feed poor people)

All and all the Cap and Trade model (like all "ban it" solutions) is doomed to failure based on a few simple observations of supply and demand and human behaviour.

How about some things that will work, well there is Nuclear power which is effectively unlimited and produces no carbon emissions, but as Climate Change is a polished version of the "Green Religion" this is not allowed as it is against church doctrine. If HPB really believed the world was going to end soon if we don't take action (something they are fond of telling us) why are they not promoting the hell out of the only near term solution readily available. Even if Cap and Trade works it will take forever to impliment by comparision.

OK so if you don't like that one, how about the London School of Economics paper that shows the most cost effective solution to Climate Change is to provide free contraception to all the women of the world, which of course limits population growth.
Because this is the real problem (to a number of global problems) too many people for the amount of resource, potentially including carbon emission if you want to view this as a resource but again this is against some (or probably all ) religions, not to mention the "human rights" folk.

So potentially the solution to climate change rests in the hands of religious leaders which is a bit frightening. One thing I know for sure is that "Ban It" never worked before and it won't work this time either.

Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!

I have refered to the following poem a couple of times recently and the reference was lost on my audience on both occassions. As I think it is even more relevant now that when it was written in  1818 I though I would reproduce it to introduce it to a slightly wider audience.

Ozymandias

Percy Bysshe Shelley

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away".


I often think of this when I see or hear of misplaced priorities. So some things do need taken care of but ask yourself sometime who will look upon this mighty work and therefore should you care.

Money can't buy you love..

The Teachers negotiations with government are back in the news with another impasse in negotiations and more threatened strike action.

This is not peculiar to them right now and it seems to be a period of discontent among workers at the moment with teachers, doctors and nurses among others either having been on strike or threatening to strike. The claim is always the same we are either underpaid or our working conditions are unacceptable. (Which is the same thing dressed up differently)

A big part of this discontent seems to revolve around the current pay levels not delivering the level of lifestyle that these groups believe themselves entitled to.

So firstly some facts, the groups I mentioned are paid around $50k per annum (as a wide sweeping generalisation with some paid quite a bit more and a few being paid a small amount less) So how does place you in the NZ scheme of things? Quite well as it turns out, referring to the IRD for the most recent stats I could find http://www.ird.govt.nz/aboutir/external-stats/income-distribution-income-bands this puts them in the top 20% of income earners in NZ. So it is impossible to argue that they are poorly paid relative to others.

So assuming for a moment that you pay packet dictates your lifestyle then the alternative explanation is that they think they should be higher up than the to 20% and real life is failing to meet their expectations and this is leading to unhappiness as manifested by their demands.

So what we have is an external item (your pay packet) and the agency that pays you (in this case mostly the government) controlling your happiness levels.

I think this happens to a lot of us and it is a major source of dissatisfaction in our lives. It is a comparative happiness at work, we judge ourselves by those around us and if we come up short we tend to be unhappy. The important part of that phrase is “those around us” so for example if we lived in Cuba where cars are hard to get and we had one when none of our neighbours did then I suspect we would be happy about that. However in NZ we almost have a car each (2.7M in 2007) so having any old car doesn’t make a lot of us happy, having a “good” car does and again it depends who you are what that means, for some it is a tricked out Subaru WRX for others it is the latest Mercedes.

But in all cases we are judging our worth and associated happiness by the people around us. Now if you happen to be at the top of your local tree then this will work fine for you but most of us never are and in fact as soon as we are we tend to move trees and start comparing ourselves to a “higher” group.

Now based on my limited knowledge of the world’s religions and philosophical musings I have never encountered a system that suggests fulfilment comes from external sources, all of them to the best of my knowledge tend to suggest we look to ourselves and our inner person for fulfilment and happiness. This is often expressed in spiritual terms within religion and in “moral codes” in more secular writings but the message is the same, happiness comes from within.

This makes sense to me as the world, the people in it, the weather, even my dog are only within limited control by me but presumably I do control me. So I can look to my employer to deliver happiness to me (via a bigger pay packet or whatever) or I can look to my motivations and be content that being in the top 20% isn’t that bad.

So I have heard it said that “Money can’t buy you love, but it can buy you a better class of misery” and I think that is true in the way it was intended to be read and also the way I would suggest you read it. No external source can make you happy for long.

I am a Rock

I am a rock or so sang Simon & Garfunkel in their 1966 hit (well it got to number 3 does that count) For those that don’t know that song and given that it is approaching 50 years old there may be some, it discuss an individual who has decided to close himself off from love and friendship and become “a rock”.


This of course is unusual within the context of the human condition because we are by nature social creatures, we seem to have a built in need to communicate and interact with others and people who choose a solitary life are not well regarded by the rest of us. Being referred to as a “loner” is seldom found in a complimentary sentence.

On the other hand all of us exhibit a bit of the “Greed is good” attitude of Gordon Gecko from the 1980’s film Wall Street (now that I have started with the old cultural references why stop). To paraphrase the theme of this speech he credits “greed” for love, life, etc with being the driving force of humanity. To gather to oneself that which you desire if you will.

To put it another way there is a bit of selfishness in most of us, which at a minimum desires that those we love are first among equals.

But the people who have impact on us and that we eulogise are the unselfish, Jesus, Ghandi, Mother Theresa and the homeless guy on the TV the other night who gave a silly TV presenter one of his few dollars when he asked for some cash as a prank. To name but a few.

And what about Eugene Gifford Grace, who I hear you ask, he was the President of Bethlehem Steel for almost thirty years from 1916 – 1945 at which time this was the second biggest company in America employing 283,000 workers and Eugene was the highest paid person in America (the taxes at that time were crippling claiming two thirds of what he got paid). So in his day a prominent and powerful man who most of us have never heard of because he was not focused on helping his fellow man he was a business man. Before any one thinks I am maligning Eugene I am not, apart from a business man he was also very philanthropic and supported many charities and the like.

My point is that we are social beings by choice and we cherish the people who improve our society at the most human level and scale.

So why then do I get the feeling that we are forgetting the social contract which is implied in this arrangement?

That is that you need to put back in at least as much as you take out or the system won’t work, or it may continue to work but you are relying on someone else to put in additional effort to make up for your lack of effort.

If we think of our society as a bank account to maintain status quo then as much money needs to go in as is drawn out, otherwise we are eroding our balance (quality of our society) if we all contribute a little extra then the balance will increase and our “societal capital” will improve. Too much “greed is good” and not enough Ghandi and the society we live in becomes very unpleasant.

My challenge for today is what did you give back today, it doesn’t need to be a big thing because all the little things add up, just think about your contribution to your corner of the world are you a contributor or a spender.

Murder is Wrong?

It is unlikely that many people would disagree with the title phrased as a statement but the idea of it as a question will vex some.

Most of us (including me) would hardly stop to consider the question "is murder wrong" as it seems such an obvious statement. But why?

Why is it obvious is the question.

Clearly society doesn’t have a problem with killing per se as we routinely involve ourselves in wars with NZ troops currently involved in at least a couple of armed conflicts at this time. We sometimes make heroes out of those who involve themselves in active service such as Willie Apiata (who has succeeded Sir Edmund Hillary as “most trusted New Zealander” according to his Wiki entry and he certainly looks like a great successor) however we need to recognise the Willie was not “playing tiddlywinks” and received his VC because people were shooting at him and more than likely he shot back.

Some societies also sanction the death penalty for certain crimes (including NZ who still retains the death penalty for treason for some odd reason) most notably of course for murder which seems a touch ironic.

So in the right circumstances killing people is ok but not murdering them. So is the difference knowing the possible outcome, i.e. you go to war you know you might get killed, you do the crime you know the potential punishment so therefore these things are ok.

What about civilians that get killed in wars, presumably then that is not ok. Clearly the world was very concerned with Hitler’s attempts to wipe out Jews, presumably because they were innocent civilians who did not volunteer to be part of his war. On the other hand many innocent lives were presumably lost by the bombing of Hamburg and Dresden during WWII. This campaign was carried out with the explicit objective or weakening the populations resolve to keep fighting. i.e. civilians were the targets. Of course we all know about the atomic bombing of Japan. These examples seem to be covered by the greater good theory, i.e. some civilians killed today will save the lives of many others tomorrow. So killings ok as long as you have a good reason.

Which extends to self defence, it’s ok to kill people if they intend to kill you a variation on the “good reason” school of killing. Or assassinations where you are a political power and your world view clashes with another political power.

So to sum up killing is ok, if you are politically powerful or if you participate in an activity where you know you can get killed and or the person killing you has a good reason. (glad we cleared that up)

But what about gangs? We are against them killing each other even though they presumably know the rules, after all dealing in drugs and other illegal activities has always carried a high risk factor.

Yet even the murder of a gang member by another gang member strikes us as wrong (and to be fair war etc strike a lot of people as wrong too) but there doesn’t seem to be any reason for this other than perhaps vested self interest. We don’t want to get murdered so we see it as wrong as we might be next if it was tolerated. That seems a little simplistic but I can’t identify a reason other than that.

Lucky for me many other wise minds over the centuries have pondered the same or similar questions when trying to establish the basis for our ethics or distinguishing right from wrong so not having an answer puts me in good company at least.

Multi coloured people

In 1988 the band When the Cats Away had a hit with a song called Melting Pot. The song is an anthem for the "why can't we all just get along" school of thought and suggested that if we chucked everyone in to a pot and produced "multi coloured people by the score" then life would be sweet.


It seems for any number of reasons (not least the shortage of a big enough pot) we are a long way from racial harmony.

Paul Henry's (an insignificant but well known broadcaster) recent question of the Prime Minister about the next Governor General "are you going to choose someone who looks and talks like a New Zealander" has provoked predictable and justified outrage. The current Governor General Sir Anand Satyanand is of Indian decent and I can't recall what he sounds like but judging from Henry's comments perhaps he has an accent of sorts. He was, as the Prime Minister, was quick to point out born here making him very much a Kiwi. (as an aside while recently watching a TV show a Ngapuhi representative drew a distinction between Kiwis and Tangata Whenua with Kiwis as a lower term in his mind. If we didn’t already know this shows that potential racism works in all directions)

The problem is I knew exactly what Paul Henry meant and as I don't consider myself a racist this left me a little disturbed at my own reaction. I mean we have had lots of pakeha men in the role, some pakeha women and "even" a Maori bloke none of whom gave me any pause for thought but when Henry said it a little part of me understood his comment.

This set me to think about the whole question of racism and why it persists, we all do it (yes even you dear reader) what about "Asians are terrible drivers", "white men can't jump" or probably more correctly "white men can't dance" "Maoris’ are all happy go lucky types" Yep we all do it and for the fathers of daughters out there how would you feel if they brought the "wrong" coloured boyfriend home. (for some reason we are less concerned with the choices of our sons) It’s a lot like being ok with gays and then finding out your son is gay. You may well accept it but are you sure there won't be a little part of you that reacts.

Now granted some folk are a lot more liberal than others and I can already hear the objections from a number of people to the idea that there is a little bit of this in all of us. (especially that boy friend one)

And let me state once again I don't think I am a racist and I don't condone the idea I am just asking the question why it seems at some level to be hard wired into us.

Certainly the "Asians are bad drivers" type of racism is potentially just a generalisation which helps us deal with groups. Equally you could say "all Canterbury rugby supporters are bad losers" which has been my personal experience but I put that down to them not having enough practice at losing. Or all Aucklander’s are.... (well, fill in your South Island prejudice of choice) so that doesn't seem to bad.

And then potentially it is the selfish gene theory at work, our genes wish to survive and thrive which means in some ways we want carbon copies of ourselves, think how pleased parents are to see parts of themselves in their kids (understandable for males perhaps but females seem to enjoy this also). So people who look significantly different to ourselves are a challenge to that.

Your own history, by which I really mean peer group influences, could be the cause, obviously if the people you hang around with express racist views you are much more likely to pick up these points of views yourself. We only need look at some of the long running conflicts in the world that are divided on race lines to see historic influence at work.

Skin colour and appearance are also often tied to cultural differences so potentially it is not that Anand is an Indian it is just that we don't agree with his culture. Discrimination on the basis of having cultural differences makes sense because presumably if we did agree we would do as he does so there would be no difference.

The problem with Anand is that if I read his CV without his name attached to it, I would like as not assume he was a middle class white guy (ie the same as me but way more successful). Born in Auckland, educated at Sacred Heart College then Otago and Auckland Uni, successful time in the law rising to become a Judge, married to Susan with 3 children, interested in reading, travel and entertaining.

So all this proves is one of those old and wise ideas is still true before we judge one another we should get to know them.