It’s not about Race or Age or Gender or Religion…it’s about Poverty

For a long time I have had a bit of an untested theory. I’ve come to a place where I don’t think the negative statistics in New Zealand are about race, age, gender or religion.  I think they’re about poverty and the by products of poverty.

Let me back up a little and give you an example of a common ‘talkback’ conversation.

The headline reads something like, “Another baby dies at the hands of its caregivers.” This is what happens on talkback; ‘Owen’ from Nelson phones in as this is his pet topic. Within 60 seconds ‘Owen’ has already told New Zealand to “wait and see…they’ll be native…their whanau will support them…you just wait.” Now sadly ‘Owen’ is right far too often, but is his underlying racist bias accurate? Is being Maori a significant factor in killing your kids? That’s where I think the conversation becomes interesting.

I would put to you that being Maori is not as much of an issue in this as many may think. Let me ask you this question. How many wealthy, well educated Maori (or any race) are killing their kids? The answer is, “Not many…if any!”

So if being Maori means you’re over represented in our sad statistics, why are not wealthy, well educated Maori over represented in this, or any, negative social issue?

Poor Maori over represented…wealthy, educated Maori not…hmmmm.

Just for context, contrary to some commentators child abuse is not an issue exclusive to Maori as I demonstrate in this post on my old blog ironically posted exactly one year ago to the day. In there you can read that former Child Commissioner Ian Hassall says…

“Roughly the same number of Maori and non-Maori children are killed in New Zealand.”

Martyn Bradbury came to  the same conclusion in a post in the middle of last year.

No one is arguing that Maori are not over represented, but my question is, “Why?”

Well lets look at another people group.

How many European/Pakeha/White (whatever word takes your fancy) are in these negative statistics? How many Pakeha lawyers or Doctors kill their kids? Again I think you’ll find the answer is, “Not many…if any!” What about Pakeha in poverty, the underclass, white trash…those guys…how do they feature in the negative statistics? Well coming back to my first point, without having had the research or data in front of me, I have assumed, and many of you would agree, that they would be over represented in those statistics, especially compared to their wealthy, educated Pakeha counterparts. I think that is a fair and safe assumption.

Well it has been an assumption…until now.

Today has seen a longitudinal paper released which has followed over 1,200 people for 30 years. The study looked at children born in Christchurch who grew up in either poor, or rich, families

Those from poor families were more likely to leave school without qualifications, have babies before they were 20, commit crimes, go on welfare and have addiction and other mental health problems in adulthood.

Most of these effects were explained by factors which tended to vary in line with family incomes, such as parents’ education, addictions, criminality and marital conflict and breakup, and the children’s own intelligence.

But study director Professor David Fergusson said the effects of childhood income on later educational and career achievement persisted even after allowing for all other factors

So if you grew up poor, you tended to stay poor. If you were poor you were also a much higher chance of being a part of those negative statistics we were talking about earlier. The key factor here is that this extensive study shows us that the main contributing factor to being a part of negative statistic in society is poverty and the by-products of that poverty. Not race.

It also showed that if you were raised in a poorer family you were also more likely to have mental health issues.

The study asked detailed questions about people’s lives which also enabled the researchers to diagnose whether they had depression, anxiety disorder, drug or alcohol addictions or anti-social behaviour.

On average, those from poor families had slightly more of these disorders than those from rich families.

Here are some of the key findings of the report

Schooling
Almost 40 per cent of those in the poorest fifth of families left school without qualifications, compared with fewer than 10 per cent of those in the richest fifth.

Pregnancy
A third of those from the poor families but fewer than a tenth of those from rich families fell pregnant, or got someone pregnant, before they were 20.

Crime
A third of those from poor families, but only a sixth from rich families, committed a violent or property crime between the ages of 18 and 30.

Welfare
20 per cent of those from poor families, but only 4 per cent from rich families, spent some time on welfare before they were 30.

Income
Those from poor families earned an average of just under $40,000 a year by age 30, while those from rich families averaged $60,000.

I wrote earlier in this post that “being Maori is not as much of an issue in this as many may think” but it does impact these negative statistics, but not because they are Maori… because so many Maori are ‘poor’.

What the mainstream media needs to understand, and needs to address, is that these issues, these negative statistics in our society, issues like crime, mental health issues, physical health issues, low education, addiction, incarceration are issues of poverty and the by products of poverty, are not issues of race, age, gender, religion or anything else.

Why are Maori over represented in these statistics…because they are over represented in ‘being poor.’ If more of them are poor…then more of them come up in the negative statistics.

So do we solve this problem?

Well I firmly believe that we cannot solve any problem until we acknowledge the issue and seeing as mainstream NZ would try to convince us these are issues of race…or religion…or age…then we are doomed to keep this sad cycle of negative social statistics going.

Let’s acknowledge the problem, then maybe together we can find a solution.

30 years…are you serious?

GNS scientists today released information that they believe that aftershocks could go on for 3 decades in Christchurch!

From TVNZ.co.nz

GNS Science seismologist Kelvin Berryman told ONE News that magnitude three aftershocks are likely to go on for a “number of years”, and that magnitude one and two aftershocks “could go for 30 years”.

Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority Chief Executive Roger Sutton said people should not be alarmed by the predictions.

Not to speak out of turn, when a Dorklander of all people shouldn’t be commenting on Christchurch, but seriously…30 years!!!

Lets flip this question then. How many people would move to a region that is being promised earthquakes for the next 30 years? I have to be honest and say I do know one, but they are moving there because of the earthquakes and to help the people suffering there.

People outside Christchurch…would you move there?

You need your head read to stay in Christchurch

I have to first put all my cards on the table. My default setting is one of cowardice and I have only ever felt one earthquake in my life, but I think people who are stubbornly staying in Christchurch need their heads read.

I understand if you are stuck there by owning a property. The value has dropped and you have a mortgage you would need to service if you left on a property you were no longer in, but those people who are choosing to stay there, especially in the East need their heads read.

The idea that your Cantabrian pride is keeping you in a situation where any moment a deadly quake may roll though your neighbourhood…again…seems just mental to me. I know what you’re thinking…”a deadly earthquake could happen anywhere at any time” or “you guys in Auckland live on volcanoes they could blow at any time”. these are actually true statements but if you take a place that has had 10,000 earthquakes in 18 months, or a place that hasn’t had a volcano go off in hundreds of years I think I’d feel safer.

I guess I am saying that hindsight is 20/20 and it’s completely feasible that if another major quake came through Christchurch people would be saying, “Yes, you’re right, we should have left, we should have known.” For those, especially in the East what are you waiting for? I am seeing the quake maps now showing some of these aftershocks of over magnitude 5 happening out at sea. What about threats of tsunamis?

As I read back over this I realise that what I have written may be taken as scaremongering, I guess that criticism is fair enough…I don’t want to ‘Ken Ring’ the people of Christchurch and actually put fear into your heads, I guess what I am trying to figure out is why you would stay other than being stuck there by owning a property.

If you look 20 years down the track do you want to be the Cantabrian who swallowed his or her pride and ‘was beaten by the earthquakes’ and left? Or the one who arrogantly stayed where you were…and have a power pole fall on you after another quake. Would you rather be a cowardly grandparent in 20 years who ran away? Or a long dead 40 year old?

I am sure I will get some critical feed back about this post, but it’s just me being honest and wondering why anyone would stay in quake ridden Christchurch if they had the ability to move out. I think you guys need your heads read.