Posts by Sacha
-
Hard News: A few (more) words on The Hobbit, in reply to recordari,
As one of the only Aucklanders not at the Big Day Out of It, I welcome our new robot overlords
-
Up Front: Giving Me Grief, in reply to Joe Wylie,
My mother's was only a few weeks ago.
Sorry to hear that Joe. Thinking of you.
-
Hard News: A few (more) words on The Hobbit, in reply to Jacqui Dunn,
Does anything else think that PAS threads are cross-pollinating?
Oh they always do
-
Up Front: Giving Me Grief, in reply to Jackie Clark,
mum's the word, in more ways than one
-
Up Front: Giving Me Grief, in reply to Jackie Clark,
I'm spooky
a bit secret service
-
Hard News: A few (more) words on The Hobbit, in reply to Islander,
It is an artifical label, and just a convenient politcal meme.
The BBC article treats boomer as if it's a purely cultural label. Not true. Public policy and planning has to consider the big impact of the post-war demographic bulge regardless of what you call it. And the subsequent generational bulges that drive other things like employment, youth crime and school numbers.
-
Hard News: A few (more) words on The Hobbit, in reply to Jacqui Dunn,
nobody has come back to confirm it yet
Roger Douglas?
-
Beautiful beyond words (and what words). Arohanui
-
Hard News: A few (more) words on The Hobbit, in reply to andin,
Kyle sez
During the following 25+ years - their peak earning years when people pay the most in income tax, they did not fund the care of their elders as per the social contract that had built up for several decades. Within a few years their parents and grandparents were having to sell their homes to fund their hospital care.
No, not blaming them for anything, except destroying several decades of an apparent "social contract".
The problem here seems to be interpreting a statement that says "this happened" as saying "these people made this happen".
"they did not fund the care of their elders as per the social contract" is *not* the same as "blaming them for ... destroying several decades of an apparent 'social contract'".
Some of us appear to be reading "they" not as a whole generation but as discrete individuals, which naturally can lead to personal defensiveness if you're one of em.
Thing is, those decisions about funding arrangements, rules and societal expectations were made by politicians, mandated however imperfectly by citizens (including but certainly not limited to the generation in question) and challenged by public discourse and at subsequent elections.
A collective generalisation about that process does not imply individual agency. Sure, it could be expressed more clearly. Perhaps the statement above could read something like "the previous 'social contract' that taxpayers in their peak earning years would help fund care for older generations was overturned".
Because that's what happened in this country when the 40 year olds of the Lange government took over from the 60 year olds of the Muldoon one. And we're still seeing the political reverberations with Winston and others now.
-
Legal Beagle: Coalition of Losers, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
It's not five parties needing to combine to form a majority, which is what was 'feared'.
Perhaps it wasn't some of Crosby/Textor's best work, but I see your point.