Every now and again a new table is published purporting to show the most “deprived” areas in this fair land. A recent such report, compiled by health policy researcher Peter Crampton and published in the NZ Herald, listed the variables used “to describe the underlying concept of deprivation”. People who fit into these “variables” are deemed to be “deprived” to some degree. Really?? Here’s how I see it:
Variable 1 – people aged less than 65 with no access to the internet at home.
I am under 65. Like many I know I got rid of my home internet connection a couple of years ago when I realised that I really only go home to sleep. Like many I am able to check my emails, social media sites etc during the long hours for which I am at the office. If I do have a burning need to Tweet or check my Facebook page at 3am I can use my phone. Many of those who claim to have no internet access at home will, in fact, have access via their phones. Many, like me, simply choose not to pay for something they don’t need! Deprived? Hardly!
Variable 2 – people aged 18 – 64 receiving a means tested benefit
Now nobody is saying that it’s easy living on a benefit but those who do so are no worse off than many who work! Then there are those who choose to live on a benefit so that they can pursue their artistic or alternative lifestyle ambitions. With no need to spend on good clothing or transport and all day in which to potter in the garden, read a favourite book and indulge one’s creative talents there are many indeed in this group who would scoff at the notion that it is they who are deprived of the ability to live life to the full!
Variable 3 – People living in “equivalised” (complicated – Google it) households with income below an income threshold
Again this is often by choice. There are many who prefer to judge their “richness” and quality of life according to the time they have to spend together rather than the number of material possessions they can afford to buy. If I prefer to stay home, without a wage, and look after my children, spending endless leisurely hours happily tending the food garden with them, walking hand and hand with them to the shops instead of driving, etc etc – I would be most offended to hear myself and my children described as “deprived”.
Variable 4 – People 18 – 64 unemployed
As per variables 2 & 3
Variable 5 – people aged 18 – 64 without any qualifications
Goodness – I thought it had been long since established that many of the most successful business people and entrepeneurs had no formal qualifications at all! They have far too much drive and energy to sit behind a desk all day! Dropouts include Thomas Edison, Ben Franklin, Bill Gates, Albert Einstein JD Rockerfeller and Richard Branson.
Variable 6 – people not living in their own home.
Goodness again – financial advisers have been telling us for years that your own home is a liability, not an asset and that to be sitting on money that could be working for you does not make financial sense! Of course we tend to like the security of having our “own” roof (even if, in fact, it belongs to the bank) – we feel secure in knowing we will have a freehold roof over our heads in our dotage. But the fact is that some of the richest in the world do not “live in their own house”. By this definition Kim Dotcom is deprived!
Variable 7 – people aged less than 65 living in a single parent family
Really? How is a single parent earning $40k any worse off than a married parent earning $40k in a one income household ie the married parent surely has another adult as well as the children to feed and house? And who says the single parent isn’t earning $100k? Or isn’t a billionaire for that matter? Support is mentioned here – how does one’s marital status define the level of support one has? Sometimes a spouse might be supportive. Sometimes a spouse is a more of a drain than a support. A spouse isn’t necessarily any more or less supportive after separation – financially or otherwise. A single parent might have all sorts of family support available and a married parent have none.
Variable 8 – people living in an equivalised household below a bedroom occupancy threshold
If people choose to have eight children when all they can afford is a three bedroom house that is their choice. Nobody is “depriving” them. In many countries families live four or six to a room. Given the high level of family support payments (if the residents are minors) or the high wage or benefit incomes (if the residents are adults) and the low accommodation costs an “overcrowded” family chooses to maintain it is hard to think of them as deprived.
Variable 9 – people with no access to a car
Work and Income NZ will give people an allowance of $54 per week to pay off a car if they need it for work or childcare and there is no public transport. Many people choose not to have a car. Many choose to live close to their workplace – to walk or bike – to use public transport. Not having access to a car does not signal deprivation!
Nobody is forced to live in a ” deprived” area if they perceive it to be so. And to define an area as “deprived” based on the above criteria is, in my view, irrational and misleading.
Posted in community wellbeing, finances
Tags: deprivation, poverty, self responsibility
Rubytoos 