Posts by James Millar
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: Doing the right thing on retirement, in reply to Richard Aston,
I have been struggling to understand the other line that goes “I paid tax all my life so I deserve some back when I am old” it doesn’t feel right and as others have pointed out it does actually work like that economically.
I think the demographic issue that a lot of people are missing (not meaning to be ad hominem here - you just referred nicely to the 'commonly made argument' I wish to address) is regarding the huge baby boomer cohort relative to other cohorts.
To paraphrase the thesis of the excellent book by David Willetts a bit: if there had been no 'bulge in the snake' of increased birth rates between 1946-64 (boomers), then an unfunded pension scheme could have worked quite well at various points in time, as, say*, the 1 million workers in 1960 supported the 250,000 retirees (4:1 ratio), and then the 1 million workers in 1990 supporting the 250,000 retirees - in essence, each generation pays for its parents' retirement, and we get a nice equilibrium.
The problem lies in that there has been such a demographic bulge such that there are simply far more baby boomers than there are of other generations. Because of this, over 65s are projected to go from 12% of the population now to over 25% in a few decades, and the ratio of workers:retirees is going to plummet from about 4:1 now to 2:1.
This needs to be addressed and it's good that it's on the table now. Quite simply, later generations like mine (I'm 29) are going to be overwhelmed and face massive tax rises, huge immigration or retirement age rises. It's such a disappointment that Key is putting his head in the sand over this issue and even refusing to acknowledge it's a problem, and refusing to risk even one shred of his immense political capital facing the unpopular task of implementing one of the three solutions needed to avert a crisis.
* imaginary numbers, but you get the point
-
Hard News: Where are the foreigners?!, in reply to Simon Grigg,
Or even more narrowly: East Asian of Chinese descent.
I found it an interesting anomaly that in the UK (well, amongst Londoners I met at least) 'Asian' tends to mean South Asian (Indian, Pakistani etc), while 'Oriental' means the same as what 'Asian' means to many kiwis - namely, East Asian of Chinese descent.
-
I'm very pleased to see Auckland getting (marginally) more cycle-friendly in my absence!
I got a pleasant shock last Saturday when riding through a sunny central London, to run into these chaps and chapettes dressed in their finest tweed (although I'm not quite sure a fluoro fixie fits in...)..
The Guardian has a good bike blog too, if you haven't seen it.
There's no accounting for some stupidities, like people or cars just not seeing you and running/driving straight across your path. But yes, you should aim to not ever be taken by surprise. It takes a lot of practice.
Regular cycle commuting has really made me aware just how myopic your average driver/pedestrian is. I just assume that I'm wearing an invisibility cloak and no-one can see me, and take a very defensive approach to cycling. It's worked so far...
-
I was up at 5am to watch NZ's chase. Don't regret one minute of lost sleep :)
I do, however, regret sleeping through the second Twenty20.
His (Bond) highest ODI score (31) was an innings where NZ batted first and he got the runs in 15 balls. 3 sixes, two fours.
One of the sixes went about 20 rows back at Eden Park. It was big.
I remember this vividly - the six landed about 10m away from me!
Bond's no Martin, for goodness sakes.
If you haven't already seen it, check out Pulp Sport's 'How to bat like Chris Martin' clip. Brilliant.
-
...bidding up the price of residential property with money funded offshore is not "investment."
my understanding of economics is rather limited, but I get the gut feeling that Gareth Morgan is making a good point here about NZ's over-investment in property (given the favourable tax treatment it receives) being detrimental to our economic growth - as it comes at the expense of investment in more productive areas.
Surely this is more relevant to our lagging behind Australia than Brash's misguided notions of NZ being too regulated or over-taxed...?
-
Maybe it's to late for my 2c (well, 2p), but:
Much like 'have you stopped beating your wife yet', the referendum question contains an assumption - that smacking can be a part of good parenting (contrasting to what numerous child welfare agencies and experts believe).
I can't help but notice that in answering the question in either the affirmative or negative, the proposition that smacking can be part of good parenting is affirmed - the yes/no answer merely refers to whether this should '...be a criminal offense in NZ'.
This could have been a result of two situations - the 'cock-up' (1) or the 'conspiracy' (2):
1) The authors of the referendum lack profiency in the English language, and the NZ public spent $9 million on answering an uninformative, loaded question, or:
2) The authors of the referendum deliberately and cunningly asked a loaded question, and everyone who returned the referendum, in the affirmative or negative, has (consciously or not) affirmed that a smack can be part of a good parenting - differing only on the question of whether this should be a crime in NZ.Explanation (2), if it is the case, would have to be a PR masterstroke - it frames the issue, and drags attention away from the real debate:
(a) whether the law as it stands has led, or will lead, to a gross miscarriage of justice, and (perhaps more importantly)
(b) whether smacking is actually an effective form of correction.Both (a) and (b) are empirical questions, able to be answered by lawyers and scientists/health professionals respectively. It would seem that the authors of the referendum would prefer that the question is framed in moral terms rather than legal/scientific terms - as involving lawyers & scientists would probably result in retaining the law as it stands. I note the parallels to the U.S. culture wars...
Of course, the scientist in me would suggest adhering to Occam's razor, and to the heuristic that a cock-up is more likely than a conspiracy. Still, I believe that there has been a conscious attempt by the 'no' movement to frame the debate in moral, populist terms rather than use rational, empirical and legal arguments.
-
One more essential 'man'-skill: never having to use a bottle opener to open a beer bottle. There are legions of items that can be used instead. Particularly:
- using a lighter (if you're good you get a nice popping sound)
- using an unopened beer bottle
- using an opened beer bottle
- fishslice - as long as you don't take the top off the whole bottle!Should I be worried that the first thought that jumped to mind (tongue-in-cheek, perhaps) on reading the original list was 'isn't there an iPhone app for that?)
-
BTW: does anyone else become irascible on hearing the phrase "PC gone mad"? Surely a bigger threat to linguistic freedom comes from the purveyors of management-speak such as "restructuring" and "down-sizing". I'd rather have a "PC-er" replacing "midget" with "little person" than a mendacious CEO talking about "expanding our global franchise".
Yes!
Actually, the thing that gets me is more the substitution of an actual argument with that loathed phrase.
"I don't agree with X, because it's... it's... PC gone mad!"
It's very hard to find people claiming to be pro-PC. I have a hat somewhere around here that would look great on that straw man...
For its sheer implanted pervasiveness across the NZ media for a particular period of time and purpose, lets hear it for ..... 'Nanny state'
I'm guessing that those who repeatedly brandish those two words have never lived in the UK...
We mustn't forget 'hockey mom'...
Any relation to Joe the plumber?
-
Pfft - screw ponies, I want pwnies...
-
There's another great souvlaki joint on Riccarton Road: Nomads.
That's next to Big Gary's - home of the biggest hotdogs in NZ!
Best by far has to be the egyptian souvlaki place on Papanui Rd. So good even us lazy students used to drive from Riccarton to eat there.
Ahem... well, first post out of the way, I'll write something serious next time, I promise! ;)