Belt-tightening 101

I guess it's not news that Joe Hockey is out of touch. 

The man who insisted that "poor people don't drive" is now coaching first home buyers through the property bubble with the advice to get a well-paying job. Good idea Joe! I mean, why do so many people stick with their low or average wage jobs when they should just get a well-paid one? It just shows, people are not rational.

But more to the point.

As fascinating, in a train-wreck way, as these gaffes are, Joe Hockey's are usually explicable by remembering that instead of talking like a savvy politician, he usually talks like an economist, which can seem insensitive to a regular person. ("If housing were unaffordable in Sydney, no-one would be buying it," he said.)

What I find more interesting is how governments never - inexplicably in my view - offer to tighten their own belts while they claim the need to cut back on public spending.

It's quite amazing how many of our parliamentary leaders - one is tempted to say "all of them" - claim every monetary allowance their jobs entitle them to, even while: 

(a) they are rich 

(b) their claims are not really in the spirit in which the allowances were intended, and 

(c) the same politicians are operating a nation-wide belt-tightening manifesto and do not hesitate to chastise less well-off people for claiming less ambiguous entitlements.

Let's let point (a) slide, as I know, everything's relative. The richer you are, the more expenses you have, so sure, none of these guys feels rich I am sure.  And they work hard for us, right?

On to point (b). Sorry to harp on Joe Hockey, but I will anyway. Thanks to Nick Xenophon, we learn that Joe Hockey, like many other MPs, claims a $270 per day travel allowance while he's staying in Canberra, and uses that money (as he is allowed to), to pay off the mortgage on his Canberra home. 

Obviously, travel allowances for MPs to go to Canberra make sense. And maybe even this usage of them does too - when you get into the detail, it's hard to draw a line in the sand on these things.

But - point (c) - politicians don't find it hard to draw a line in the sand when it comes to entitlements paid to other people. Things like maternity payments, single-parent allowances, Newstart allowances, pensions, schoolkid bonuses, and all the rest that are paid to the leaners and double-dippers and bludgers of this nation, who neglected to secure themselves a well-paid job and a chauffeur and travel allowance.

In a liberal democracy where votes are bought with tax cuts and spending programs, the tax system and the government transfer system always get messy. Periodically a review is done over the whole system and changes are proposed, and by and large they never happen.  That's one of the drawbacks of the system and it will probably never be fixed.  Likewise, whether a particular payment is "middle class welfare" or "tax justice" for bracket creep, to what degree payments are undermined by rorting and to what level benefits should be paid, are all never-ending debates. 

But people are fairly reasonable. They won't buy a "budget emergency", but they will agree on the general necessity to limit spending and maintain a working budget. Disregarding the diehard left and right, most people agree that governments should not tax unreasonably, should support the needy and provide basic services, and should maintain a strong economy. 

So here is what I don't understand. If governments want to get people to accept spending cuts and a "belt-tightening" regime, why don't they ever reduce their own entitlements?  I mean just a little??  In my living memory, only Mark Latham ever did anything along these lines, when he cut MP super entitlements to match the public rate. (Maybe only the more... ah... out-there politicians attempt this stuff).

I would think that if Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott got up and said, "Look, we're cutting all these things, but also, we're cutting these travel allowances / placing a moratorium on any MP study tour that can't be managed with a couple of Skype calls / freezing MP salaries for three years", that they would win a lot more hearts and minds.

So why don't they do it? Just a little? Cutting just a few things would at least show MPs are tightening their belts too. They wouldn't even need need to cut that much - just offering SOMETHING would arguably only reduce their total compensation by a little, and yet would pay off hugely in the form of much-needed public support.

Seriously, I don't understand why this is never done. Can anyone enlighten me?

"Politics" according to a 9gag user

The end of austerity?

So Greece is trying something new. The government swept to power on promises to stop the crippling austerity regime that has not improved Greece's debt or credit rating one bit and has brought the country close to ruin.

After a bit of a stand-off, Greece and the Eurozone and the IMF reached a compromise agreement on Friday which was less than the PM wanted but enough to (just) allow him to save face and present it as the first step in an ongoing campaign to end the austerity regime.

Austerity, in 2010, seemed the natural and only solution. Greece was, in the words of George Papandreou at the time, 'on the edge of the abyss'. Successive governments over the decades had run the economy on a toxic mixture of socialism, neglect and corruption, and the mess had been steadily exacerbated by its inclusion in the Eurozone. (Greece expected a free kick - instead it lost the little control it had over its crappy economy and got pummeled).

The first time I felt angry on behalf of Greece was when some Eurozone countries suggested kicking Greece out of the Eurozone in punishment for obviously cooking the books to get in in the first place. That made me angry because, HELLO, when Greece got into the Eurozone so early and so easily everyone KNEW they had obviously cooked the books, including EVERYONE IN THE EUROZONE. The fact was Europe wanted to get all the major countries in quickly and to build up its base and power and was quite prepared to overlook the fact Greece could not possibly, under any true test, have met the economic conditions required.

The second time was when the IMF advised the UK in 2013 to go easy on austerity measures because, hmm, as it turns out, austerity is damaging; the IMF then admitted to having underestimated the damage the Greek bailout conditions would wreak on the country.

I have also felt angry on behalf of the Greek people, most of whom, like any other people, are hard working and honest and have nothing to do with the crap their governments have created.


Of course, as a non-Greek who has learned Greek, married a Greek, lived in Greece and generally been steeped in Greek culture for many years, my feelings about Greece are complicated.

During the time I lived there, I liked and admired the Greek lifestyle, but find the spontaneity and constant socializing exhausting (what do introverts do in Greece?). I liked how hard working people are in small businesses and at home, but could not fail to notice the bloated incompetence rampant in the public service. (Go to a post office, or any government department, in 1996 and you will see what I saw. Ten people behind every counter smoking cigarettes and ignoring or yelling at the public).

When we visited in 2012, the country was visibly, badly struggling, Closed shop faces were everywhere, even down at prime real estate like on waterfront strips.

But, three anecdotes:

(1) When I broke my arm at Athens Airport I was treated initially at the airport's first aid clinic, a gleaming, impressive facility massively overstaffed and under-medecined. The people were all very nice but didn't seem to have a lot to do. While we waited outside for an ambulance to take us to hospital, two of the paramedics came outside and waited with us, smoking cigarettes and chatting to us the whole time, which was almost an hour.

(2) The ambulance workers and people at the hospital all did a great job. Even the scary bone-setter who I never want to see again. The hospital was terrifying, grimly under-resourced with the air of a third-world clinic. But even so, my treatment there was good - and completely free. Even though I am not a Greek citizen and I had full travel insurance, I wasn't charged anything for the clinic treatment, the ambulance ride or the hospital treatment, nor the follow-up hospital visit one week later.

(3) I still remember the wide-eyed horror on a friend's face when we told her that in offices in Australia we all work eight-hour days. "Like Germany," she said. "You must all fall into your beds exhausted each night!"

Of course, things are not so simple under the surface. Greek office workers might start work at 8 and finish at 2, but they come home and scrub their houses from top to bottom and cook two meals a day. Oh, I mean the women of course. But also, who knows what was going on behind the scenes of the things I could see? I can admit that one day's observation of the Athens Airport clinic is not a good enough basis from which to make any observations at all. And when a country is that far down the plug hole, who's to say that hanging onto too many staff isn't better than adding to the massive unemployment?

But even so, these three things all made me think, Holy shit, Greece, no wonder you're in trouble!

But, like France attempting the 36-hour work week, it is admirable at the same time, isn't it? I love the audacity of resisting the capitalist juggernaut, at least a little. God knows, we all do work too hard and too much, and some changes would be nice.


But the problem is, much as we lament the hamster wheel of working hard to pay for things we suspect we might not quite need, there doesn't seem to be an economically sustainable way to operate otherwise.

Or is there?  In recent times, thanks to the longest, deepest global recession since the 1930s, and thanks in part to poor, poor Greece, the tide has appeared to turn against 'austerity politics'.

It will be very interesting to see what happens in four months time, in the next round of negotiations between Greece and the Eurozone.  I am sure another compromise will be found, that will allow both sides to claim a win to their constituents. And if the compromises continue, as the tide continues to turn against the punishing austerity paradigm, then perhaps we'll start to see, some steady accumulation of relief for Greece as well.


As for the photo below, I don't know where it originally came from but I got it from @Circa on Twitter and it seems just perfect for meme treatment. Caption suggestions, anyone?
I'll start:

'How long are we going to play chicken?'
'I don't know, I wasn't thinking past the election.'

Trickle-Down Economics

The trickle-down theory, also known as supply-side theory, is the idea - largely hated but still beloved by policy makers - that wealth 'trickles down' from the top to other levels of society.

The theory goes that if you provide tax cuts and investment incentives to business and the wealthy, business and investment increase and thereby provide economic benefit to everyone else.

There has always been opposition to this theory, and it has always been up for parody. Since the GFC, dissent has grown with the Occupy Wall Street movement and its powerful theme: "We are the 99%" . Current bestseller 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century' posits that instead of trickling down, wealth tends to accumulate at the top and stay there, forcing an ever-growing gap between rich and poor that threatens political and social stability.

Policy makers have a hard job these days. The world is more difficult to run because we all know now how complex it is. The digital world (24-hour news, social media, democratised commentary) doesn't give politicians a break. The Great Recession continues and shows no real sign of ending. And following the ambiguous results of stimulus programs since 2008, stimulus is out and economic tough love is back in.

We know we can't go back to high levels of taxation and over-regulated economies. Having lived in a stagnant, isolated economy (New Zealand pre-deregulation) I remember it doesn't work. But I also lived in an economy going through the throes of deregulation (New Zealand under 'Rogernomics') and it was painful to see the impacts: people suffering the blows of sudden, wrenching change and the government seemingly heartless in response.

So the market can't be left to run unfettered. Some level of 'tax-and-spend' is necessary to regulate, ensure a modicum of fairness, and pay for necessary infrastructure and services.

The trickle-down effect may work a little, but it's not very effective and it's not a solution in itself for managing an economy.

Here's my view of the trickle-down effect:

Confession

Two things caught my eye in blog posts this week:

This post on Freakonomics about a study on the effects on a marriage and a woman's work inside and outside the house when the wife can earn more than the husband (short answer: bad);

and this post on Blue Milk about a confessional essay by a feminist man examining his own hypocrisy. In referencing this essay Blue Milk posted:

"[O]ur personal relationships are usually where our most brutal hypocrisies present themselves. I wish we talked more about that part of our lives."

I am glad to hear that this is not just me.

So okay, I'll start:

• I resent the fact that I do more at home than my husband does, but I also sometimes do a bit more to help him feel more masculine and me feel more "wifely"

• It is very important to me that I, the children's mother, be their primary carer - even though it makes more sense economically for their father to do it

• I am sometimes resentful - against all fairness, logic or even what I actually want - that I didn't marry someone with a career which would allow me to be a stay-at-home mother

• when I read blog posts by feminists I admire I often wonder about their partners, how they make their partnerships work and how many of these feelings and compromises they deal with and what if any non-feminist measures they take to "improve" their relationships

I am sure most of us have these feelings. And I am sure the important thing is how you act on them and how you talk yourself down, not the fact that you have them.

What about you?

Division of Labour - Sick Days

Look, I know this has all been said before, and I don't want to come off as a giant middle class whinger - but  I'm agonna risk that to post this because I just can't resist.

Three days ago my husband was sick. I was working that day so here is what he did:

• got the kids ready and took them to before-school care where breakfast was provided for them (I'm going to throw in the bonus fact that he did pony-tails with unbrushed hair and sent M off in her summer dress and ankle socks on the coldest wettest day this autumn)
• slept in bed
• picked up kids from school
• turned on TV for kids
• lay in bed

Now when I think about it that is probably what you are SUPPOSED to do when you're sick - even if it means your partner has to rustle up dinner, feed the dog and cat, clean up the kitchen, sort schoolbags and prepare lunches and clothes when she gets home from work, and play ball with the dog in the backyard because he's been alone and outside and going mental all day.  And I still prepare the lunches, clothes and schoolbags, and feed the dog and cat in the morning.

Today I am sick. I have resolved to do NO housework, especially since I did a whole lot yesterday (emptied and cleaned appliances, baking and pots and pans cupboards, cleaned bath and toilet, usual baskets of washing, etc etc etc - what can I say, I'm a hero). So I left the vacuum cleaner sitting out where I had left it, refrained from picking up the crap from the floor that the kids had promised they wouldn't leave there, and did as little else as possible. 

But here is what I have done/am doing on the day I am sick:

• made school lunches
• sorted and packed schoolbags
• got kids up and ready for school, did breakfast, took them to school
• [skived off my classroom reading duties for today]
• bought few forgotten items from supermarket
• picked up kids' passports from the post office 
• phoned airline to sort out a problem with our tickets for our upcoming trip
• phoned Webjet to chase up the fee refund they owe me (for the third time)
• cooked dinner
• emptied and re-stacked dishwasher
• folded basket of laundry
• chucked schooldresses in dryer to "iron" them, then hung them up (yeah I'm counting this)
• prepared swimming bag
• pick up kids from school
• take kids to swimming, help them shower and wash and condition their hair
• [Y will heat and serve dinner ready for when we get home]
• read reader books with kids
• prepare next day's lunches
• go to bed at 9pm! (that's the plan anyway)

So what's the take-away? He's lazy but sensible and I'm a martyr and stupid?
Yes I think that's it. :-)


I've written two posts today  [can I count that as "work"?  ;-) ]
My other post was on how we divided our work when we were both working full-time. You can read it below this one, or here.

Thanks for visiting xx 

Division of Labour - Full-Time Work

I loved this thought-provoking post Division of Labour at In a Garden...Somewhere 


Along similar lines, more recently I also loved this post Arguing With Your Partner, and Other Feminist Work at the excellent Blue Milk


Both of these posts really crystallised my thinking around how work is divided up between partners - not just "chores" but the "mental work" which is often overlooked and discounted when tallying up lists of who does what.  Like many women I have often felt disgruntled about doing more than my partner around the house, and then felt frustrated or confused as to why I felt like I was doing more when "on paper" we have split the jobs evenly. 




When Y and I were both working full-time, here is how our division of labour looked:

Me:

• most of the cooking
• supermarket shopping
• school lunches
• after-school-care pickup 2 days
• help kids with homework
• read reader books with kids
• bathtime
• laundry - washing, drying, folding
• change sheets on beds
• tidy kids' rooms
• clean bathroom
• feed dog and cat, change kitty litter, walk dog
• rose-pruning, weeding (infrequent!)
• admin: bill paying, school notices, banking, mail, etc
• take kids to swimming
• kids' stuff planning and shopping - clothes, books, presents etc
• weekends: usually everything: on my own with the kids

Husband:

• get kids ready and do school drop-off every school day
• kids' breakfast 2 days
• school pick-up 3 days
• dishes & kitchen clean-up
• cook dinner 1-2 nights a week
• take kids to Greek school
• fruit and veg (market) shopping
• vacuum and mop
• tidy loungeroom
• hedge-trimming and lawn-mowing
• light maintenance jobs
• put rubbish out, bring bins in
• collect mail from letterbox 

I think this was mostly fair(ish), but I always felt like I did more. That's probably because I shouldered most of the "mental work" - all the planning, worrying, remembering and organising that goes around family life. And I think like most women I probably worry more about the kids - Y tells me too much, which is also probably true.  If I worry too much and he not enough, then it all evens out and the kids get looked after the right amount. 

But look what happens as a result of Mum being responsible for Worry:

• kids: GAIN (net result of too much worry from mum and not enough from dad = right amount of worry on their behalf)
• dad: GAINS (doesn't worry = relaxed)
• mum: LOSES (worries = stressed, tired, resentful)

OK, I will concede the above is not a scientific weighted analysis of all factors. But you get the idea.

I must do up another one of these for our current situation - now I'm working part-time. The division is now very different!