Low income families
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-01-2015, 01:45 PM
RE: Low income families
(02-01-2015 01:32 PM)Bows and Arrows Wrote:  do you have as many libraries as you do grocery stores?

perks- libraries, healthcare, and all those other things that you listed in the first post that are paid for by NZ govt.
Yes, good point.
I think most suburbs have at least one library, but probably a couple or more grocery stores.

The small town I was brought up in had a grocery store, a couple of dairies and a library. All within walking distance of each other. Actually, it only takes about 5 minutes to walk the whole length of the town retail area.

I feel for the most part that a library will be accessible, but for some cases it may be difficult to get to one. Of course my feeling may actually differ from reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2015, 01:46 PM
RE: Low income families
(02-01-2015 01:41 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(02-01-2015 01:30 PM)Bows and Arrows Wrote:  As a parent I can handle two children pretty well, but give me 12 children and I start limiting on what is provided because I just cant manage that many even if the cost per person stays the same.
Yes, time management can be an issue. But number of children doesn't have to be related to income.
The statement was that low income families don't make use of the libraries over the summer holidays. It wasn't a statement about large families vs small families.

I'm not sure if lower income families are more likely to have large families.

I was meaning it in relation to population of our respective countries, not specifically family size. I guess I am not making myself very clear, my apologies. I think a nap might be in order for me.


"Life is a daring adventure or it is nothing"--Helen Keller
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2015, 01:51 PM
RE: Low income families
(02-01-2015 01:30 PM)Bows and Arrows Wrote:  As a parent I can handle two children pretty well, but give me 12 children and I start limiting on what is provided because I just cant manage that many even if the cost per person stays the same.



(02-01-2015 01:46 PM)Bows and Arrows Wrote:  I was meaning it in relation to population of our respective countries, not specifically family size. I guess I am not making myself very clear, my apologies. I think a nap might be in order for me.

Do you see how I got confussed?

LOL, anyway, thanks for your posts. Have a great night's sleep.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2015, 02:11 PM
RE: Low income families
(02-01-2015 01:21 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(02-01-2015 01:03 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  ...But here in the US while libraries are free they generally aren't equal across the country.

When I lived in California the libraries I had access to were huge. In poorer areas they were far smaller. But you could only take out 6 books, and you borrowed them for a month.
If you are married with two children then that is 4 accounts = 24 books. Surely you don't have to use up the full month, if you've read the books in a week, you can go back the next week? I would guess most people, even low income families travel to do the groceries every week.

But you have a fair point about not all libraries being equal. Those in big cities are likely to be bigger with more selection and those in small towns are likely to be smaller.

In NZ over a quarter of the country populous lives in just one city, Auckland. Of the Auckland suburbs there is larger poverty in Otara, Manukau, Papatoetoe, Otahuhu etc. But Auckland have now become a super city. The libraries are all connected. If you can't find a book in your library you just order it in and they ship it free of charge from other libraries around the city. The wealthy and the poor districts of Auckland offer the same rules because the libraries are part of the super city.

When I lived in California we could walk to the library. A nice outting, so yes I would go weekly at least during the summer -- sometimes twice a week. We'd stop at the park, going both ways. Smile My youngest would sleep in the stroller.

At that time my youngest was too little for a card, husband didn't go.

Here, the library was too far with odd hours to go weekly. We are also separated by county. Better libraries in other counties -- our county is too rural, so most towns don't have one. Zero fucks are given to building them here too. It's sad.

Just another reason I want to move away from here. Sad


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
02-01-2015, 02:37 PM
RE: Low income families
http://closertogether.org.nz/nzs-income-...y-problem/

According to that site, income disparity has spiked over the couple of years with some of the same issues the US has faced: increasing wages of the top margin and people in middle and low class incomes have barely budged.

However the situation the US is in is much worse, especially with a lack of support systems (no free health care, libraries lacking, infrastructure crumbling). The government is absolutely paralyzed to actually regulate anything and federal minimum wage hasn't moved.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Kaepora Gaebora's post
02-01-2015, 04:10 PM
RE: Low income families
(02-01-2015 02:37 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  http://closertogether.org.nz/nzs-income-...y-problem/

According to that site, income disparity has spiked over the couple of years with some of the same issues the US has faced: increasing wages of the top margin and people in middle and low class incomes have barely budged.

However the situation the US is in is much worse, especially with a lack of support systems (no free health care, libraries lacking, infrastructure crumbling). The government is absolutely paralyzed to actually regulate anything and federal minimum wage hasn't moved.
Interesting site. I clicked on the What is income inequality link

Quote:Income inequality measures the gap between the rich and the poor. It tells us how well incomes are shared out amongst us.

There are many different measures of income inequality, some are more accepted than others. The most common is called the Gini index, a number between 0 and 1 representing the distribution of income in a country. If a country had a Gini index of 0 that would mean everyone received exactly the same income; a Gini index of 1 would mean that just one individual received all the income.

I do think it is strange to focus on income equality as if this ought to be the goal.

It just assumes all people should have the same income regardless of other factors such as skill (supply and demand), danger, risk etc.

What would be the point in working hard, or taking risks or sacrificing entertainment time by studying and hard work if ultimately it has no impact on your future income. If we had guaranteed income equality, then many people will pick the easiest, least demanding job, perhaps being that guy that presses the elevator button, or that guy that opens the door, or that guy that holds the stop/go sign at a road work site. There would be no incentive to work overtime, no incentive to start up a business, no incentive to make albums or movies.

Shouldn't the success of an economy come down to the unemployment rate, the GDP, the ability of people to save beyond cost of living, the ability for people to afford a house.

Shouldn't equality be measured in terms of opportunity, e.g. quality free schools, access to libraries, access to health care, ability to get a decent job regardless of wealth or regardless if schooling was free or private?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2015, 04:20 PM
RE: Low income families
(02-01-2015 04:10 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(02-01-2015 02:37 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  http://closertogether.org.nz/nzs-income-...y-problem/

According to that site, income disparity has spiked over the couple of years with some of the same issues the US has faced: increasing wages of the top margin and people in middle and low class incomes have barely budged.

However the situation the US is in is much worse, especially with a lack of support systems (no free health care, libraries lacking, infrastructure crumbling). The government is absolutely paralyzed to actually regulate anything and federal minimum wage hasn't moved.
Interesting site. I clicked on the What is income inequality link

Quote:Income inequality measures the gap between the rich and the poor. It tells us how well incomes are shared out amongst us.

There are many different measures of income inequality, some are more accepted than others. The most common is called the Gini index, a number between 0 and 1 representing the distribution of income in a country. If a country had a Gini index of 0 that would mean everyone received exactly the same income; a Gini index of 1 would mean that just one individual received all the income.

I do think it is strange to focus on income equality as if this ought to be the goal.

It just assumes all people should have the same income regardless of other factors such as skill (supply and demand), danger, risk etc.

What would be the point in working hard, or taking risks or sacrificing entertainment time by studying and hard work if ultimately it has no impact on your future income. If we had guaranteed income equality, then many people will pick the easiest, least demanding job, perhaps being that guy that presses the elevator button, or that guy that opens the door, or that guy that holds the stop/go sign at a road work site. There would be no incentive to work overtime, no incentive to start up a business, no incentive to make albums or movies.

Shouldn't the success of an economy come down to the unemployment rate, the GDP, the ability of people to save beyond cost of living, the ability for people to afford a house.

Shouldn't equality be measured in terms of opportunity, e.g. quality free schools, access to libraries, access to health care, ability to get a decent job regardless of wealth or regardless if schooling was free or private?


I think it is measured that way with all benefits included though you are correct, it isn't an exact measure of class mobility.

I also do want to point out complete economic equality (communism) is not what lot of people want and isn't feasible nor fair. I certainly don't mind people at the top of corporate hierarchy making so much money, but when executive salaries have gone up and up while middle and lower class wages have stayed put with inflation despite a huge increase of production, you have to admit there is something wrong. I don't have a link on me right now to show this, though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2015, 04:31 PM
RE: Low income families
As others have said -- I think your quoted article words it correctly. "limited access"

In my part of Australia (Sunshine Coast) -- there are towns, and then there are suburbs of towns. There is only one library per town (which I would think would be relatively global -- as you would only expect one library per council -- unless its a city)

So my town council, "Caloundra City Council", had one library, in the centre of town. My suburb, Currimundi, was about 30-40 minutes by public transport to Caloundra Library *one-way*. But you are in walking distance of 3 or even 4 grocery/shopping stores. It was a mid-low income zone, but neighbouring low-income suburbs were only blocks away.

To get from our suburb to the library, would be at least 1.5 hours of *travel* alone on public transport -- not to mention the time spent picking/choosing books. It would be a half-day effort. A half-day low-income families -- who often work part-time or irregular hours may not be able to spare at appropriate library hours.

Then there is a question of what to do with the kids, now we are not only talking about the cost of transport for the parents, but the kids aswell, and/or childcare.

Sure, if it important to the parent they will do it -- you need to be careful not to generalise for all low-income families. I'm sure there are many, maybe even a majority, that do make this trip for their children once a week/fortnight/month.

But it's still a reasonable statement to say that they have "limited access" to the resources.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GenericBox's post
02-01-2015, 04:38 PM
RE: Low income families
(02-01-2015 04:20 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  but when executive salaries have gone up and up while middle and lower class wages have stayed put with inflation despite a huge increase of production, you have to admit there is something wrong.
I'm not sure if something is wrong.

Corporate companies are in the business of making profit. It is not their business to make a CEO rich.

If paying a CEO 5 million gains the business 6 million i.e. surplus of 1 million then it was worth it. It would seem to be the right thing to do.
If there are plenty of worker bees willing to do low skilled work for a set price then it would seem to be the right thing to pay them that price rather than worry about adjusting wages to account for increased inflation and increased production.

Obviously in a competitive market there is much pressure to lower costs and increase profits, whilst delivering a brand or quality that consumers want. If a business can get an adequate CEO for a lower cost then that is what they will do as it may save millions, but it seem that a substandard CEO will also cost them in terms of lost profitability, it may even see them become non competitive and go bust, hence lots of people will ultimately lose their jobs and then since there is less competition in the market, the surviving businesses can raise their prices and the consumers will then find the product or service more expensive, cost of living will go up and society will be worse off.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2015, 05:29 PM (This post was last modified: 03-01-2015 08:51 PM by TheGulegon.)
RE: Low income families
(02-01-2015 04:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Corporate companies are in the business of making profit. It is not their business to make a CEO rich.

I'm only against a corporation making it's profits at the expense in well-being, and livelihoods, of the common people (low income families included) who do not have the money to buy a Senator's vote on a bill that would benefit them! Especially when the Senator should be making all his descisions based on what would be best for ALL the people of his state, or district for House Reps, (if not the whole of the country), not his campaign contributors first, then everyone else!

I think it might have been a short vid from Last Week Tonight w/ John Oliver (don't quote me on that), but it talked about how once a State has instituted a lottery, from which the State can draw funds for education, companies that used to have to provide tax money for schools and libraries & such, like everybody else, lobby to get laws passed so that they no longer have to pay that!

Now there's nothing on the surface of that that screams evil, or anything; they're not in business to put poor kids through "good" schooling! But it obviously doesn't help make that "free" library any more stocked full of good reading material! I also think once a person hears something like this their knee-jerk reaction is to blame the rich for everything, but I'll settle for calling (some of) them selfish pricks who wouldn't be missed by a middle school superintendent who actually cares about his students! Undecided

That's... not a rant, is it? Confused Hopefully not too out-of-left-field off-topic, either! Laugh out load

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheGulegon's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: