this post was submitted on 22 May 2025
10 points (100.0% liked)
NZ Politics
704 readers
12 users here now
Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!
This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi
This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick
Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Oh, yeah I agree with the gist of this. I think you are right. In our legal system we have the principle that jailing innocent people is worse than accidentally letting a guilty one go unpunished, and I really wish we could apply that same logic to social programmes.
The kind of witch hunting that goes on mostly affects and hurts those in need.
I think my problem is I have a mindset of scarcity and should probably study macroeconomics or something.
Sadly we can see an example of it in action with the rubbish Family Boost scheme National came up with. They've spent more money administering it than actually providing rebates. Poor people can't afford to pay for ECE first and then apply and wait weeks or months for a rebate. Was the original free ECE hours perfect? No and absolutely a lot of private ECE centers were abusing it. But Labour's plan to extend free ECE hours to two year olds would have benefited far more people.
I don't think this is uncommon, particularly in western culture as a lot of western society places importance on individual wealth building rather than society as a whole.
I always think of this proverb:
We need to try to build a future society for those that come after us. Not just to reap the benefits in our own lifetimes.
One of my parents was very fond of that proverb. <3 Literally as well as metaphorically.
I meant more I have a mindset in terms of society's scarcity.
The messaging drilled into me is always that the government can't afford to give us all the things we need. So when people say the government should give everyone, say, a UBI, part of me panics thinking at that rate the day when the government decides it can, say, finally afford to help people like me to get a wheelchair, or help the homeless people up the road get shelter, or cut hospital wait times to under 12 months, will never come because all the money will go to UBIs.
But that's a false dichotomy.
I get the impression this happens a fair bit with change to social programmes that is designed to send project an ideology. Sometimes it almost feels like there are two NZs, one that wants to help everyone become a prosperous society and one that wants to not have social support at all.
I don't know if we'll ever get a UBI, but we don't have one now and is the Govt helping you right now?
I think social media, algorithms and the huge influence American media and culture has is what has driven a lot of this. It's definitely gotten worse over time. I really do wonder what the future holds for the next few generations.
I think you are right. It's bizarre the number of US "culture war" talking points and polarizations seem to be creeping in. I think the other thing is probably a huge number of New Zealanders now have spent their entire lives in the neoliberal economic paradigm and it's hard for them to imagine alternatives to things like SOEs and revenue-driven media.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this question. It feels rhetorical but I'm not sure what conclusion I'm intended to come to? The answer is in some ways and not in others.
Ah sorry, it wasn't very clear. I meant - you have some concerns about the Govt. affording to help people in the case we ever have a UBI. We don't have one right now and are enough people currently getting helped in those ways? I guess my point is, having a UBI doesn't rule out other assistance in the future should the need arise. Incremental progress is better than none at all. "Perfect is the enemy of good" and all that.
You could argue If there was a UBI there would be far less people requiring that kind of help as they would have some form of predictable income outside of other means of earning money.
Definitely not. Which I keep seeing as scarcity, whereas it's actually a result of priorities.
Having this conversation makes me feel a bit ashamed as I'm realising I've been brainwashed over the years by internalising what Work and Income and Ministry of Health keep telling me.
Thanks for being patient in your explanation!