Data:
NZ Statistics Website provides data on unemployment rates in New Zealand.
ACE Pay provides historic data for employers on minimum wage rates with dates of change.

Method:
Minimum wage rates are indicated on the graph of unemployment.

Results:
Unemployment decreased for the first five increases in minimum wage from the period of 2000 to 2004. In 2005, 2006 and 2007 unemployment was relatively steady while minimum wage increased in each of these years. In 2008 and 2009 unemployment increased strongly while minimum wage increased.

Conclusion:
Minimum wage has increased for each year for which data was found from 2000 to 2009. Up to 2007 unemployment decreased, thereafter it strongly increased. There seems to be no direct relationship between an increase in minimum wage and the rate of unemployment in New Zealand.

There is a common myth, repeated so often that most people seem to believe it, that any increase in minimum wage rates would result in an increase in unemployment. This seems to very clearly not be correct. The rate of unemployment is more likely as a result of economic strength of the country. If the economy is expanding unemployment will reduce, and if the economy contracts unemployment will increase.

Resources:

http://www.acepay.co.nz/minwage.htm

http://www.stats.govt.nz

I’m following the OWS movement with interest. Mostly, so far, with reading responses on various blogs because the small town I live in is way to small to have any protest. It’s full of retired people and holiday homes anyway.

I concerned that the focus is on corporate greed and the gap between rich and poor, without adequate analysis of WHY this is so. Because these are outcomes of how our economy works, they are symptoms of the illness and not the root cause of the illness. And if you don’t understand the cause then you’ll be unlikely to find an adequate cure.

I’m completely in agreement that the gap between rich and poor is something which is unjust and unsustainable. It’s undemocratic. When the gap gets too large, and the unemployment rate too high, this is destabilising for society. A stable society is a less violent society, and generally a better place to be. So social stability is a desirable thing to aim for. Currently, we are seeing a trend towards less stability.

I think that OWS may be just the start of something bigger. And I have a glimmer of hope that something better eventually may be built from the ashes, unfortunately in order to make ashes you’ll have to have fire. It may not be pretty at the bottom of the curve.

I hope that we can understand that the structure of the monetary system itself is the root cause of our huge gap between rich and poor. I don’t think it’s the ONLY cause, but I think that it is such a major factor that without change of this system any other change is just tinkering around the edges.

We need an interest free monetary system where money is not based upon debt, but productivity. I wonder if this is being discussed and considered by those involved in OWS?

I wonder also as the movement grows, whose voices will be heard? Will this again be taken over by white guys? I see many women and POC involved at this stage, and some of their voices are being heard. The Arab Spring also seemed to have a large proportion of women involved. Are their voices part of the new structures too?

*thanks to Jen Corbett for using creative commons licence on Flickr

Too many women and girls are raped and sexually abused. These crimes damage a persons sexuality which is a fragile and complicated thing. Once damaged its bloody difficult, if not impossible, to repair to an undamaged condition.

I’m bloody sick of rape being the exceptional crime in that the victims are held to scrutiny like no other crime victims. We do not think first of a household robbery in terms of how well was the house protected? Our first question and thought is not was the door left wide open? But with rape our first questions focus on the victim; what was she wearing, what time or day / night was it, had she been drinking etc.

When we do this we remove some of the responsibility for the crime of rape from the perpetrator and place it upon the victim.

Lets be clear. Rape is a crime and it’s one of the worst crimes. Rapists make a conscious choice to rape against the will of the victim. It doesn’t matter what she was wearing or where she was or what time it was, if they think they can get away with the crime they’ll do it. If we allow victim blaming then it makes it easier for rapists to know they are even MORE likely to get away with it! That is the danger.

The whole madonna / whore dichotomy is a trap for women. If we reduce women to one of these two categories we reduce them to their sexuality. This reduces whole human beings to vessels for male penises. We are whole people and more than that!

I’m bloody angry that victim blaming is used to control women’s behaviour in a way that men’s behaviour is not. Women are told to not wear skirts too short (and shown by the media that they’re only good for sex and men like short skirts), not to wear heels too high (and shown by the media that high heels are sexy and women had better catch a man before 30), not to wear too much make-up (but if you don’t wear any whaddareya, a hairy legged feminist?), not to walk alone at night and not to come on to men (but men then complain they have to do all the picking up). Society gives women such ridiculous conflicting messages, its no wonder young women are confused about what role they fit into!

I’m going to march tomorrow because I’m bloody pissed that stupid attitudes of victim blaming still exist.

There are viable alternatives to our current monetary system. They’ve been used in the past, and they can be revived for our benefit again. But the rewriting of history and our collective amnesia does not allow us a positive view of these systems. Let’s have a look.

First, let’s start with a brief simplified explanation of what our monetary system is and the structural biases inherent in it.

Our monetary system is based upon debt. For us to have growth, we must grow our debt. The creation of more debt creates more money in circulation. Is it any wonder then that we are seeing a “credit crunch”? Another giant burst bubble?

When you go to your bank for a loan or mortgage, the bank creates the money out of “thin air” to lend to you. They are not passing on depositors money to you, the Federal reserve 9:1 ratio allows them to create your mortgage amount with keystrokes, digitally putting the funds into your account. Only 1/10 of the funds needs to be actual money actually held by the bank in reserve.

The money you are given is now in circulation and has added to the growth of your country.

When you pay the money back the principal cancels out the amount created, but the interest you pay is now all the banks income and creates it’s profits. The interest you pay must be money found from somewhere in circulation, you have to work to earn it.

When the total amount of interest payable to all the banks by all the people who owe money to them, is greater than the total productivity of those people, then you have a musical chairs situation. There is only so much money to go around to find to pay that interest, those who cannot get their hands on enough to pay what they owe will go bankrupt. The music stops and there is not enough chairs.

The fact that interest can compound creates even more of a problem. If you have enough money for yourself that you can allow some to sit aside and earn interest, then you will get more money. If however you do not have enough money sitting around and you need more than you have to provide the necessities of life (a home is the biggest one) then you will have to borrow and pay interest. Those who have more than they need will get more, those who do not have enough for their needs will end up with less. Thus the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This has been the pattern in many western countries for a long time. If we don’t change this system it will only get worse.

So that’s how our existing monetary system works, and the two main biases inherent in it, interest and debt, create the problems that we have.

Is there a better way? Yes, and it’s easy! However, expect legal obstacles, because laws are written to protect the powerful and alternative monetary systems undermine that power like no other method.

Money originally was a medium of exchange. We need to return to that idea and move away from viewing money itself as the end and not the means.

There are three main structural aspects to an alternative monetary system for it to work better for us and to avoid the problems we now have.

1. Interest cannot be allowed. No one can loan their capital to another and require interest to be paid on that capital. And before you respond with “where will anyone get loans from then? That can’t work!” read point number 2.

2. Periodically, every several months to a year, all the money in circulation must be devalued. It must all be returned to an exchange and new money issued. The money you get back needs to be a value about 5% less than the money you hand into the exchange. This structural requirement is biased to money being circulated more freely.

Our current system encourages hoarding of money; when we enter a recession or depression there is not enough money circulating for the needs of business because it is being hoarded. Hoarding is encouraged by compound interest. If your money regularly devalued there would be no point in saving it up and every point in using it to purchase the means to increase your comfort or production or material wealth.

There will still be some people who accumulate some money and have no desire to spend it straight away. These people may loan it to others who have an immediate need of capital, at no interest. The lender is assured that it will be returned in full at agreed payment dates by the borrower, and the lender thereby avoids the periodic devaluation. The borrower gets the capital they need, and has to pay it back, but does not have the burden of interest or compounding interest. Only what is borrowed need be repaid.

3. The creation of new money in circulation needs to be tied to production instead of debt. If a community at any level (small to country wide) produces more, then the amount of money produced to circulate in that community should increase. In this way we encourage growth by increased production, not increased debt.

There are several contemporary examples of alternative monetary systems in use at this time. There are many historical examples, the middle ages from about 1100 to 1300 was prolific with them and they worked very well indeed. They worked so well at distributing wealth more evenly that they undermined the status of the aristocracy, who felt under threat, and therefore they were outlawed.

I am convinced by long and careful reading and thought that the reason for our current economic ills has it’s basis in our monetary system, and our allowance of corporate power. If we can change our monetary system and remove some power from corporations over people we may be able to build a better world.

Further reading (and watching):
The excellent “Money as Debt” on YouTube explains how our monetary system works.
“Life Inc.”, by Douglas Rushkoff.
“Interest and Inflation Free Money”, by Margrit Kennedy.
Read about alternative monetary systems both contemporary or historical here.

Meatballs:
1kg New Zealand lamb mince
1 egg
1 t salt
1 T chopped fresh thyme
1 red onion
3 cloves garlic
butter for frying
1 t french dijon mustard
1 t cumin seeds
1 t coriander seeds
1 t sea salt
freshly ground pepper

Finely chop the red onion and garlic. Sweat the onion very gently in butter. Add garlic, continue to cook on lowest heat until translucent.

In a stainless steel mixing bowl put the mince, egg, mustard, salt, pepper and thyme. Grind the cumin and coriander seeds in a mortar and pestle. Add to the mince mix. Add the onion and garlic when it is done. Mix it all very well with clean hands. Shape into small meatballs. Tip: use wet hands to shape balls, it’s easier.

Fry meatballs in a little oil and butter until browned all over and cooked through. This is best done in batches in a very heavy bottomed pan. Set aside in a warm oven.

Sauce:
1 T paprika
150g punnet sour cream
1 T chopped fresh coriander

Lower heat on the pan. Scrape the bottom of the pan to loosen scrapings. Add sour cream. Stir until melted and warmed through. Add coriander just before serving.

Serve with boiled in jackets baby potatoes and a fresh green salad.

I have a lovely friend, Ed Simperingham, who lives in the pursuit of decadence. At least that’s what I like to joke to him. So this one’s for you Ed! Enjoy!

There are many possible fillings for this brioche, the only limiting factor is your imagination (although if those limits prevent you from putting anything pickled in brioche then those limits are good).

This brioche recipe will not appeal to purists as it’s a ‘quick and easy’ version, but I like it and it passes my taste test (and that of my family too).

Quick Brioche

Ingredients

1/2 cup warm milk       1 teaspoon yeast        1 tablespoon sugar       2 egg yolks       1 egg        2 cups flour       75g softened butter

Method

1. Mix milk, yeast and sugar. Place in a warm spot until it’s frothy, about 10 minutes.

2. Lightly whisk egg yolks and egg. Add to the yeast mixture.

3. Measure flour into a large bowl, make a well in the centre and add the wet ingredients and butter. Mix to a dough.

4. Turn out onto a floured bench and kneed for about 10 minutes. It should become smooth and elastic. Don’t be lax about this kneeding time, if you get tired keep going. You really want it to be very smooth and elastic for the brioche to have a good texture.

5. Put back into the bowl, cover with a damp clean cloth and leave it in a warm place about an hour to rise. It should double (at least) in bulk.

6. Punch down, remove from bowl, turn out onto the floured bench again and kneed for about 1 minute.

7. Roll out with a rolling pin to about 30 cm by 40 to 50 cm. It should be reasonably thin. Cut into 12 squares. Place a square in a muffin pan, spoon about 1 teaspoon dulce de leche in the middle and fold up gently, squeasing the top together like a package.

Alternatively: when rolled out spread with a filling, roll into a long roll starting with the shortest end and cut into 12 pieces. Place each piece cut side down in a muffin pan. This method works best for the cinnamon filling idea.

8. Bake for 15 to 20 minutes at 180 degrees celcius.

Other ideas for filling: spread with a mix of softened butter (about 25g), brown sugar (about 1/4 cup) and cinnamon (about 2 teaspoons). Also, you can cut small squares of the dough and fill with white chocolate buttons and berries. These three are my favourites.

How to make dulce de leache: boil unopened tins of sweetened condensed milk for 2 1/2 hours. Keep the tins covered by water and turn them a couple of times. Be warned though, this stuff is so totally moreish that once a tin is opened you will really need to keep small sticky fingers away from it!

His evidence? Women make up almost none of the world’s top 100 chess players. Chess is a game of logic and strategy. Therefore men are better at logic and strategy and women are lacking in this area.

To add insult to injury he added that women are better bridge players than men. Bridge requires cunning and manipulation. Therefore women are cunning and manipulative.

He told me this a the local club as we were having a drink after a nice game of bowls. He told me this in an almost confrontational manner. I thought he was actually quite rude, but like a person who jumps a queue right in front of you it seemed to be difficult to believe he could be that rude at the time. Or was it that a queue jumper would be called out more quickly and insulting women for simply being female is an acceptable sport?

So I looked up women and chess online to see what explanations I could find, to look into this further. I discovered that there are many and varied reasons for women not being represented amongst top chess players in proportion to their numbers in the population.

Chess is not seen as a female game to play. At least not competitively. Parents, teachers, friends and family may think a girl who wants to play chess at a high level as odd.

If girls do show promise as competitive chess players they must invest a lot of time into the game with many trips away from home for competition. What parent would let their teenage daughter go away from home repeatedly for competition with a group of teenage boys and chaperoned most likely by a man they don’t know? Seriously? If the girl is still keen she’s up against some very heavy resistance right there. She also may feel somewhat uncomfortable with the situation.

These seemed to be the most logical explanations I found for the dearth of women amongst the worlds top chess players.

If we follow the old guy’s logic then we must also conclude that people with brown skin in my country; Maori and PI mostly, are less capable academically because  proportional to their numbers in our population they achieve less high school passes than Pakeha. To say such a stupid thing is obviously racist, and uses the same faulty logic.

I must use logic to do what I do professionally. I have a science degree. When this was pointed out to him he replied with a very patronising “I’m sure you think so dear”. Oh well. I guess I’ll just realise I’m actually not logical enough to do what I do and leave it alone.

You may wonder why I bother blogging about this seemingly irrelevant incident. I write about it because it is a small illustration of the idiotic and offensive attitudes women must face still today. It’s a small example of sexism alive and kicking and illustrates the kind of dumb attitudes and rude behaviour we all need to open our eyes to and publicly challenge if we are to move to a friendlier and more just society. I love Harry Enfield and I think this clip uses humour to illustrate my point nicely. Being on the receiving end of public rudeness however is not funny (okay, maybe a little in retrospect).

So if you see a woman on the receiving end of such stupid rudeness go to her aid. She’s probably feeling very uncomfortable and may only come up with the right words of reply several hours later. I think it’s a shared community effort that’s required to confront and eliminate such horrible attitudes.

When I watched this advert for Method cleaning products, I initially had two responses.

My first response was ‘ick!’. Immediately after that my second response was ‘what dickhead thought this dumb ad was good to sell to their target market: women?’

Judging by many comments in the blogosphere about this advert, I’m not the only woman who thinks it’s icky. I’m not the only woman who will assiduously avoid Method products as a result of this ad. I’m exactly their target market and this ad turned me off buying their products. That’s not a good way to spend advertising revenue Method.

Surely the first thing advertisers need to do is to understand their target market. Talk to them. Find out what makes them laugh, find out what makes them buy. It seems that the boys (?) who put this one together did not get much further than thinking that this ad would push buttons of their target market. Exactly what reactions they expect from those pushed buttons does not seem to have been understood at all.

I have a sense of humour, really I do. I just don’t find this ad funny at all. I fail to see what is funny about a woman, naked, cowering in her bathtub trying to have a shower to get ready for work and having a bunch of male voices make sexually suggestive leering comments at her naked body. That’s not funny at all. Trying to make an abusive situation funny is not even clever black humour. It’s just lame (at best). There’s nothing funny about normalizing sexual harassment which is what happens when adverts like this appear in the public realm.

What do you think?

This article in this mornings New Zealand Herald, and blog reply, misses an important point.

Michel Odent, a ‘childbirth specialist’ tells us that birth would be so much easier if men, both doctors and fathers, were not present during labour, with his focus on the presence or absence of fathers. We are told this is because labouring women sense the anxiety of their male partners and become nervous. This nervousness upsets hormones, and slows labour. While this seems logical, and if the men present are not helpful and supportive, then it surely could be a hindrance to labour. However, it is the focus on fathers presence that is problematic in both the original article and the blog reply.

The masculinisation of the birth environment is more about male doctors and specialists than fathers being present. The cesarean rate, which is relatively high in New Zealand, is more about the medicalisation of birth driven by a largely male dominated medical system. The usual story goes something like this: labouring woman enters hospital, monitoring equipment is strapped to her and she is left alone for some time. The use of monitoring equipment has been shown to increase cesarean rates. Monitoring equipment hinders movement and is not supportive of labour, it is unnecessarily intrusive. With pain relief, gas is followed by pethidine, followed by an epidural. By the time she has to push, when the epidural wears off, she has built up no natural reserves of endorphins to help cope with strong contractions. If the epidural has not worn off, she may be able to push enough to allow a forceps delivery. If not, a cesarean may be called for.

The very male environment and medicalisation of labour, as Odent says the ‘industrialisation of labour’ probably has a lot more to do with difficulties in childbirth than a father’s presence. For many women, the presence of a support person who knows their needs and wants and is able to speak for them when they are at in a very vulnerable position is to be encouraged (if that’s what the woman wants). To blame difficult labours on fathers being present seems somehow like an attempt to remove support for women in labour, and leave them further to the mercy of Odent’s ‘industraialised labour’.

The article even goes so far as to insinuate that it is all womens fault anyway, because they are the ones forcing men to attend during labour and birth, with Mary Newburn of the UK’s National Childbirth Trust stating “There’s such a feeling among women that ‘you got me into this, I have carried the baby for nine months and now I have to go through labour and birth, so the least you can do is be with me, and if you feel a bit squeamish, then tough’ “.

Further, we are told that men witnessing childbirth can ruin sexual attraction between couples and lead to divorce. Men may go of and play golf and computer games, to avoid their reality. This probably has more to do with the problems of a nuclear family than men’s presence during childbirth! And if that’s how men are behaving, they really need to put on some big boy pants and grow up.

At the end of the day it is the woman’s needs during labour that must be paramount. It is she after all who has to do the work (it’s called labour for a good reason). If she wants the support of the father, she should have it. If she wants the doctors to stop fussing and monitoring and actually help rather than hinder, they should.

This article is problematic in the insinuation that it is women (and to some degree, their partners) wanting fathers present during childbirth that has led to problems of masculinisation of the process. No where in this article is the issue of the male dominated and technology dominated medicalisation of childbirth given any weight or mention.

The biggest problem feminist on facebook seems to have is trolls. Trolls who post ridiculous discussion topics as ‘women must obey and be told what to do and when to do it’ and ‘women don’t deserve rights’. This would be laughable and easily shrugged off for older more secure feminists, but it gets more than annoying when admins are very slow to remove such posts. Trolls repeatedly derail discussion topics, and if not directly abusive their posts are not removed by admins.

And this post by an admin: ‘petiti0n for mens equal rights as a feminist also looking out for womens rights’ really takes the cake.

So, apparently women need to look out for mens equal rights as well as fight their own battle for equality. Poor disadvantaged men. They really need our help.

Why does this bother me so? Because sites like feministe will not be the first port of call for young women beginning to think critically about issues affecting women. Facebook feminist group is way more likely. And that is sad.