Ministry for Women’s Affairs and their Dodgy Calculations
The previous post Minimum Wage and Feminist Entitlement opens up the discussion about how feminist monetary policy is driving men backwards into a slave culture.
Now let’s have a look at the good work The Ministry of Women’s Affairs does to help out.
Without getting into the pros and cons of part-time work, we do have a healthy part-time employment industry. It suits some people, often women who have been stay-at-home mothers, who don’t need or want a full time job. Like all jobs some pay well and some don’t; some part time workers are paid better than others.
[If you’re a separated man with children, you’re not allowed to work part time – you’ll be made to pay child support based on an assessment of your potential income]
Particular industries are well known for part time work, hospitality for example; which is also well known for paying low wages.
When it comes to hospitality the girls get the bulk of these jobs. They’re lucky in that respect; it is a good source of work in the evening for students, and it’s also a good training ground for those wanting to travel. It has it place.
Now, what Women’s Affairs does is this.
Rather than looking at part-time work as an employment situation, they take all workers on minimum wage, including the all part time workers and they ‘estimate’ (and I’m working off their 2012 figures here) that 60% of minimum-wage workers are women, and this is not acceptable because there should be more men on minimum wage, surely.
But there already are. If you take away all those thousands of students and lifestyle part timers there are already more men on minimum wage and this is set to get worse.
Then they start playing with averages and they ‘estimate’ (by including all the poor disadvantaged girls in part time work) that the average wage of women is only 87% of that of men.
Do you see the con here?
If you took away the thousands of part time hospitality workers alone, this would make a huge difference to the percentage – some credible analysis may put it over 100% already, it’s now 2014.
This ministry receives millions of dollars to provide ‘official advice’ on how financially disadvantaged women are, and why would they want to tell the truth and see their ministry closed down and lose their own jobs because they’ve become redundant in women’s ‘struggle for wage parity’ with men.
Yet, as MOWA freely admit, their primary focus is trying to help women catch up to men in their pay packets.
We have political parties basing their policy decisions on feminist propaganda and tax-funded miscalculations that only serve to reduce men’s financial equity in society, and participation in society.
New Zealand media are dining out on MPs personal waste of tax payer funds at the moment.
Will they be questioning the wasted tax-payers funds going into the Ministry of Women’s Affairs anytime soon?
It’s election year isn’t?
[ … and the media did report on the proposal to resurrect the moa.]
Why isn’t the existence of this dinosaur ministry being questioned?
Yes Winston, as my explained to me by my IRD Case Manager, Helen Clark, 2+2 really does equal 5.
Comment by Soothsayer — Fri 1st August 2014 @ 2:38 pm
There is only one way to adequately ascertain numbers of individuals (of both genders) on the minimum wage:
(1) Count all people full time on benefits: this should be easy enough, given the billions poured by us lowly taxpayers into Government computer systems over the years. All of these, when divided by 40 hours per week will give an hourly wage. They will most likely all be below the minimum wage (except for the professional DPBers)
(2) Count all people on no income. This too is easy enough. Their hourly wage is 0.
(3) Take all other annual incomes, as declared to IRD, and divide by 2,080 (52 weeks @ 40 hours), to give an hourly wage.
THEN: (4) From each of the above subtract and/or add the annual child support taxes, each divided by 2,080, to adjust the hourly wage by the Child Support tax paid or received.
Actually, this gets me to thinking (about the 87%-bit)
Given men are overwhelmingly the payers of child support tax (typically 18 or 24% on earnings over approx. $16,000), their average hourly earnings will be lower than women’s earnings.
Statisticians tell us that half of all children at some stage live in single parent households – mostly with their mothers; ergo at 87% reputed average incomes compared to men, when you then reduce the average fathers income by say 15 or 50%, and pass that over to the mothers, it is likely for all these men, that they are now earning maybe 80% of the average mother’s income.
Think of this another way.
There are around 2.55M adults (excluding children and retired) in NZ,
Each earning an average income of maybe $44,000)
Therefore the annual wage bill is $112B
If women’s income average income is 87% of men, then men earn some $60B of this; women earn some $52B.
There are some 1,174M children (under 20) in NZ. (last census). If at any one time, 1 in 5 are living in fatherless homes, this could be some 235,000. Because some factors are very unknown [we can use IRD CS stats, but they don’t cover all fatherless kids or CS arrangements; also, many kids will be siblings] the next calculation is purely speculative.
If we assume the average CS percentage for each of these kids was just 7.5% of each and every man’s income (remember, some men pay 30% for 4 or more kids), this would reduce men’s total wage income to around $55.5B, and increase women’s to $56.6B, – or 102% of men’s income.
Specifics would work out at a $4.5B CS wage bill, or an average $19,000 for each of maybe 235,000 fatherless kids. I know this sounds a bit high – yes, there are men paying up over $19,000 for one child, myself included, however most do not.
But you start to get the idea. CS is a MASSIVE redistribution of men’s income to women. I dare say the MOWA does not account for this, because it doesn’t favour their cause.
Comment by OMG! You're *(&^*$^&* — Sat 2nd August 2014 @ 8:43 am
Just to prove the point of this political stupidity, here’s Labour’s Policy Platform Document.
It’s a copy and paste straight from Ministry of Women’s Affairs.
Comment by Downunder — Sun 3rd August 2014 @ 10:36 am
Is it worth discussing Labour’s policies, more than a brief mention? I think not.
National’s policies are more likely to be driving the next Government, so they need very close scrutiny.
Similarly, for the bits and pieces parties, who might be part of a working coalition.
As Downunder has mentioned in earlier posts, voting/non voting patterns in young voters will be a large unknown factor in this election outcome. Also, married men’s perceptions of whether they need to fight for men’s human rights could be an important factor, if their fears are sufficiently aroused?
Family First have released a summary of existing MP’s voting patterns on many family issues…..
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 3rd August 2014 @ 11:21 am
I am really not concerned which political party’s policy it is. I just looked in the obvious place first.
The point I am making, is that we have a tax-payer funded women’s propaganada unit and political parties that base their policy positions on that source of misinformation.
If you had any other ministry producing and supplying misinformation to benefit particular voters you’d expect media coverage, oh, and don’t forget the apology from the minister.
Comment by Downunder — Sun 3rd August 2014 @ 11:57 am