Marsden is Here

[A quick bash out, things aren't quite as dire as they may read]

Yesterday (Friday) was the last day at work for the year. There's a skeleton crew next week leading up to Xmas but I'm not officially back until January 11th.

I say "officially" because I was back in the office today (Saturday) to make up some hours for the week, and will be next week to finish off my end-of-year cleanup. Weekend visits have become quite regular, partly because I am trying to clock more hours to earn more money and partly because life keeps getting in the way of me competing my targeted, or even my contracted hours during the week. My body clock continues to be uncooperative, and a steady stream of appointments and misadventures have been sucking away at my time as well. (For example D has sprained her shoulder for the second time this year, same shoulder, different muscle.)

I also say "officially" because I intend to spend several half-days in the office over the next few weeks off-the-clock dealing to a project which is eating at my sanity but just isn't going to get done on paid time. It's big but a lot of it is also a rebuild and I hope I can get most of it out of the way.

Combined with the long list of other things which need to be done over the "break" - including some which weren't able to be dealt with last year because we had the kids and I had limited computer access/time, and some which were just shoved into storage in the crush to get moved, and some of which are just "spend quality time with my wife" and "catch up on some webcomics/computer gaming/other me time which has simply been pushed aside" ... although I plan to take things more gently than usual I don't expect the demands on my time to recede to the point where I really feel that I am "on holiday" for more than the odd day which I dedicate to "not anything" .. and odds on those are going to be sabotaged by something.

Speaking of moving, another of the things is "find a new rental by the beginning of February, as close to Rolleston as possible". This is proving unlikely to improbable; in part because landlords really want a year-lease and we don't expect / can't /afford/ to be renting for more than 6-8 months, with prices where they are for the amount of space we "need". So there's the stress of conceptual homelessness.

The build is another sore point, the contract we signed with the building company was to begin work /on site/ in November and yet practically the end of December and they have not yet managed to get the plans into council for consent. (Which also means our mortgage approval is up in the air...) It's not clear to me if the building company are the ones stuffing us around or if as they claim the developer of the sections is stuffing them around / being incompetent by not having information on the land which is that entity's responsibility to supply.

I'm leaning towards both actually. Anyway this close to Xmas/NY shutdown means best-case scenario consents won't be done until mid-January .... which means work may start in February ... we can not actually afford this. We are not actually bleeding money as much as we were (and /that's/ going to change going into a more expensive rental) - but summer has a lot to do with that. The longer things drag on the less likely we are actually going to be able to afford to finish the build, and basically lose everything.

And even then if I can't get my f*&^ing S&^t brain/bodyclock sorted out to work better hours we're not going to be able to pay the mortgage either, because I haven't been managing the hours the calculations are based off and we will have /no/ free capital and /no/ wriggle room in said mortgage for emergencies or even unexpecteds.

So I actually really need to be able to work on recharging and resetting this break. Which is ironically why there are so many things which need dealt-to, as I've identified each of them as taking up mental/emotional resources which I want freed up.

[deep breaths]

I communicate with the pollsters by e-survey, especially since auto-dialers put me offering my phone completely. One particular company often starts with the question "What do you see as the biggest issue facing NZ today.", or something similar. This week it was beefed up a bit and led to an extended series of thoughts which I posted on FB (as being the most convenient format at the time) but am repeating here as a less ephemeral record.

The question:
What are the main social problems in New Zealand that the Government and community as a whole need to address?
My initial answer:

Inequity and poverty:
With our GDP per capita there should be no excuse for not being able to provide everyone with the basics of a warm, dry, private space to call their own and sufficient to eat; as a matter of right with no need to jump through any hoops to prove they are entitled to it.
Address this issue and a great number of other issues which stem from or are exacerbated by it will also recede.

Half an hour or so later I also wrote the following (edited a bit for clarity):
---
Ongoing thought about why our current social welfare system doesn't work very well wrt eg housing and food.

It consists of (reluctantly) giving people money and then leaving them to be able to procure the required services from "the market". But they're not dealing with /one/ market they are dealing with /many/ markets - accommodation, food, electricity ... - /each of which/
- has the goal of acquiring as much of that money as possible /without concern/ for the balance of the customers' needs
- and prices accordingly.

The result of course is that there is not and probably will never be "enough" money - see also for example how private rent increases have tracked the accommodation supplement.

The supply industries also benefit in their pricing strategy from individuals being given the money to spend rather than the services being purchased in bulk by a central authority with the clout to negotiate and keep the prices down.

For this reason I'm not opposed to government purchasing services from private providers; I /am/ opposed to the private providers being selected on the basis of lowest cost or metrics such as how fast they can get people off their books (churn). The correct metric has to be based on standard of care.

That would unfortunately require the government to care about the well-being of it's /entire/ constituency, not just those who voted for the "ruling" party or contributed to its coffers. :/
---

Back to now and a couple of other thoughts

Dealing with poverty is not a problem which can be solved by a single approach.
- Giving people money (or some form of equivalent discretionary resource) directly so they can target their own needs in their own situation is one part of the solution and has been shown to work well for getting people back on their feet. But as a sole or primary approach it risks capture as described above; where funds meant to help people into a position to better their lives end up straight in the (mostly metaphorical these days) pockets of "service" providers.
- /But/ poverty is relative and targeting the affordability of common - even "basic" goods and services is another piece of the puzzle. Not in an ad-hoc manner (eg taxes on/off fresh/processed foods - this has been a regulatory nightmare wherever it has been tried, save it for genuine luxury goods) but in a whole-of-market approach like Pharmac.
Bulk demand can shift the costs down but this is not something those already struggling with their living situation are in a position to organise. In a democratic/capitalist welfare society this should be a function of government.

One government department I think could make more of an impact here (if they were permitted) is Housing New Zealand; right now they are limited by having to use their own housing stock (which they have been forced to run down and sell down over the past decade); but if they were also able to function as a not-for-profit property management company effectively handling maintenance and property standards for those who for example
- have an investment property "retirement plan" but find the details of renting it out more effort than it is worth
- have a social conscience
- will accept a low-end-of-the-market-rent-range return

they might well be able to
- apply downward pressure on rental prices
- fill up some of those homes we hear about sitting empty
- reduce their waiting lists
- provide security for a lot of people who currently have found they can't ever trust they will still have a place to live after the next review
- upgrade some of NZ's abysmal housing stock
- and potentially be in a position to acquire some of those properties to replenish their own stocks when the bubble bursts

Yes the deal would have to be structured so as to appeal to the property owners opening it up to the criticism of being a government handout to that class; but I am reasonably certain it could be made to work for no more than is currently being handed to them indirectly via the accommodation supplement and putting beneficiaries up in motels for a week while simultaneously lumbering them with a paper debt which will, realistically, never be recovered.