have had a really busy day today, so won't post much. just an update re the cleaners, who are on strike on wednesday, because spotless services is not paying them the contracted price of $14 per hour and the backpay that is due. hope that people will support the cleaners on this issue.
also, good on this sports club for refusing to take gambling money. i'm sure they will struggle, but it's a stance we certainly need to see more of. i have some knowledge of the inside workings of one of these gambling charities, and its not pretty. the geographical areas they take the most cash out of are not the areas that end up getting the majority of the grants. and i saaw a lot of favouritism in the allocation of grants. how widespread that is, i don't know.
pokies are just evil. electronic betting on pokies is even worse. neither do i support on-line betting for lotto. if we could only persuade people to set aside that money for charitable organisations, nz would be a much better place.
Sunday, 30 March 2008
Saturday, 29 March 2008
keeping it clean
good news today that will no doubt go unreported, as it's not a particularly important sector of the population. or is it? the signing of the "Principles for a Sustainable Property Services Industry" agreement is a significant step for cleaners.
they are really at the bottom of the heap, in terms of poor pay rates and conditions. the employment contracts act severely affected workers in this category. the move to contracted labour meant that these workers lost rights to annual leave and sick leave every time the contracting company changed hands. they are usually paid the minimum wage, so that when the minimum wage remained static throughout the 1990's, their wages in real terms continued to drop.
under a labour-led government, these workers have seen wage increases every year, as well as getting entitlement to four weeks annual leave and paid parental leave. their annual and sick leave provisions are now protected. the proposed changes to law making tea and meal breaks compulsory will also impact this group.
the new agreement goes further, and ensures that:
we sometimes forget the vital importance of these kinds of jobs. cleaners move through after hours, sometimes pretty late, doing their work quietly and efficiently. they definitely get to hear all about it when they don't do the job well. but when they do, nobody thinks about them much at all.
yet they are just as important to the proper functioning of our economy as any other group of workers. they deserve respect and appreciation, and fair pay and conditions for the work that they do. and let's not forget that the majority of workers in this industry are women. often women from low socio-economic backgrounds who are often struggling with more than one job, as well as having a family to look after. or foreign students struggling to earn a bit of income to help them survive.
i hope that the agreement does have significant impact, both in the public and private sector. i can't think of a group that deserves it more.
they are really at the bottom of the heap, in terms of poor pay rates and conditions. the employment contracts act severely affected workers in this category. the move to contracted labour meant that these workers lost rights to annual leave and sick leave every time the contracting company changed hands. they are usually paid the minimum wage, so that when the minimum wage remained static throughout the 1990's, their wages in real terms continued to drop.
under a labour-led government, these workers have seen wage increases every year, as well as getting entitlement to four weeks annual leave and paid parental leave. their annual and sick leave provisions are now protected. the proposed changes to law making tea and meal breaks compulsory will also impact this group.
the new agreement goes further, and ensures that:
- Clients receive and pay for good service;
- Reputable service providers bid and win work based on fair contracting principles and reasonable reward;
- Cleaners enjoy good jobs with sufficient hours, fair pay, reasonable work rates and safe conditions.
we sometimes forget the vital importance of these kinds of jobs. cleaners move through after hours, sometimes pretty late, doing their work quietly and efficiently. they definitely get to hear all about it when they don't do the job well. but when they do, nobody thinks about them much at all.
yet they are just as important to the proper functioning of our economy as any other group of workers. they deserve respect and appreciation, and fair pay and conditions for the work that they do. and let's not forget that the majority of workers in this industry are women. often women from low socio-economic backgrounds who are often struggling with more than one job, as well as having a family to look after. or foreign students struggling to earn a bit of income to help them survive.
i hope that the agreement does have significant impact, both in the public and private sector. i can't think of a group that deserves it more.
Friday, 28 March 2008
you want what?
i've posted before on blue chip investments, and remain totally unimpressed with the behaviour of those involved in setting up and peddling this investment scheme, including the lawyers, accountants and bank managers.
however, i was a little surprised at criticisms of the government's failure to act, levelled by olly newland and paul dale on radio nz this morning. there has been a call for government appointed statutory management. however, the shareholders have already appointed a liquidator voluntarily. the government can't just step in and over-ride that decision, unless there is some compelling evidence to do so. there is of course concern that the current liquidator will act in the interests of shareholders rather than investors. actually, the liquidator's job is to ensure that creditors get paid the maximum amount possible, and is therefore required to manage affairs to ensure that happens. as the liquidator points out:
...statutory management at this stage would harm any chance he had of recovering funds for investors...
He said he would rather have companies go into liquidation in a controlled way, and would make an announcement about further liquidations in the group by next week.
"I'm not going to use a sledgehammer. I'm not going to bring down a whole host of companies if I don't believe it's in your interests short term," he told the morning meeting.
"If you come in with statutory management today it's not going to get dollars for you in the next three months."
then there is the fact that the majority of investors gave "an overwhelming vote of confidence" in favour of the current liquidator.
but the other disturbing aspect about the criticisms today was the parallel drawn between blue chip investors and leaky home-owners. olly newland stated in the radio nz interview that the leaky homes problem was not the government's fault, but the government had chosen to provide compensation to homeowners. similarly, he believes that bluechip investors should get some form of compensation.
there are two major problems here. first, the leaky homes problem was a direct result of deregulation of the building industry, for which you can thank the national government of the day. the lack of oversight is something that both central and local government should have taken responsibility for, and have done so. the homeowners were defrauded, in that they were getting an inferior product and were relying on inspections made by local government.
the blue chip investors are not suffering as a result of government actions. they are suffering because many of them failed to get independent advice or failed to take that advice when they got it. they were naive, and most probably mislead. but the government has absolutely no responsibility in this case.
second, i would be really concerned if our government started handing out cash to cover poor investment decisions. that would really skew capital markets. it gives a signal that the government is willing to back bad practice, lack of due care and research. the bad players get to keep the money from their shoddy practices, and investors would become more careless in making investment decisions. there is just no substitute for putting in the work yourself or paying for some decent, independent advice before investing large sums of money.
there is a role for government, but only if fraud has occurred. currently, the liquidator says he hasn't found any evidence of fraud. he is seeking government funding to investigate further.
i do have a lot of sympathy for the people who have lost their life savings in amongst all of this. it's a very human tragedy, and having to face poverty in old age is devastating. but i don't think it's the taxpayer who is responsible for replacing lost capital. taxpayers should provide support services, in terms of decent superannuation, free public health system and so on, as would be the case for anyone suffering from poverty.
there may be a need for tighter regulation around information provided to investors. but i'd rather wait to see what is uncovered in the investigation on this case. and if there is the slightest evidence of fraud and collusion, i hope that prosecutions will abound.
however, i was a little surprised at criticisms of the government's failure to act, levelled by olly newland and paul dale on radio nz this morning. there has been a call for government appointed statutory management. however, the shareholders have already appointed a liquidator voluntarily. the government can't just step in and over-ride that decision, unless there is some compelling evidence to do so. there is of course concern that the current liquidator will act in the interests of shareholders rather than investors. actually, the liquidator's job is to ensure that creditors get paid the maximum amount possible, and is therefore required to manage affairs to ensure that happens. as the liquidator points out:
...statutory management at this stage would harm any chance he had of recovering funds for investors...
He said he would rather have companies go into liquidation in a controlled way, and would make an announcement about further liquidations in the group by next week.
"I'm not going to use a sledgehammer. I'm not going to bring down a whole host of companies if I don't believe it's in your interests short term," he told the morning meeting.
"If you come in with statutory management today it's not going to get dollars for you in the next three months."
then there is the fact that the majority of investors gave "an overwhelming vote of confidence" in favour of the current liquidator.
but the other disturbing aspect about the criticisms today was the parallel drawn between blue chip investors and leaky home-owners. olly newland stated in the radio nz interview that the leaky homes problem was not the government's fault, but the government had chosen to provide compensation to homeowners. similarly, he believes that bluechip investors should get some form of compensation.
there are two major problems here. first, the leaky homes problem was a direct result of deregulation of the building industry, for which you can thank the national government of the day. the lack of oversight is something that both central and local government should have taken responsibility for, and have done so. the homeowners were defrauded, in that they were getting an inferior product and were relying on inspections made by local government.
the blue chip investors are not suffering as a result of government actions. they are suffering because many of them failed to get independent advice or failed to take that advice when they got it. they were naive, and most probably mislead. but the government has absolutely no responsibility in this case.
second, i would be really concerned if our government started handing out cash to cover poor investment decisions. that would really skew capital markets. it gives a signal that the government is willing to back bad practice, lack of due care and research. the bad players get to keep the money from their shoddy practices, and investors would become more careless in making investment decisions. there is just no substitute for putting in the work yourself or paying for some decent, independent advice before investing large sums of money.
there is a role for government, but only if fraud has occurred. currently, the liquidator says he hasn't found any evidence of fraud. he is seeking government funding to investigate further.
i do have a lot of sympathy for the people who have lost their life savings in amongst all of this. it's a very human tragedy, and having to face poverty in old age is devastating. but i don't think it's the taxpayer who is responsible for replacing lost capital. taxpayers should provide support services, in terms of decent superannuation, free public health system and so on, as would be the case for anyone suffering from poverty.
there may be a need for tighter regulation around information provided to investors. but i'd rather wait to see what is uncovered in the investigation on this case. and if there is the slightest evidence of fraud and collusion, i hope that prosecutions will abound.
Thursday, 27 March 2008
bimbo
hi, i'm back! ended up taking a longer break than expected, cos i didn't really end up having too much of one. although i did have some fun experiences, like having lunch with a bunch of bangladeshis on saturday, and a bunch of keralites on sunday (kerala is a state of india, in case you were wondering), and attending an ethnic festival on sunday evening.
actually, the lunch with the group from kerala was interesting. mostly because, on the face of it, i was with a bunch of indians and i'm ethnically indian, so you would think we had a lot in common. but that's the thing with india - each state is like a separate country. they have their own language, style of dress, cuisine, traditions etc. so now i know a lot more than i did about traditional food from kerala - next step is to get my friends to cook some for me!
i was thinking about my last post over the weekend, and one thing that struck me was how quickly the josie bullock story died down. it was a major decision in terms of its impact on maori tikanga in the workplace, and i would have liked to see some debate in the media around that. i suspect the main reason for the lack of discussion lies elsewhere. when ms bullock first went to the media, she was immediately, publicly and very vocally supported by ms judith collins, MP. you may recall at the time that there was a pretty nasty atmosphere created by the don brash orewa speech. i do recall hearing ms collins on tv, radio and reading her quotes in the paper. but she appears to be curiously silent now. i've not seen a single press release from her on this issue. very strange, but i can assure you that i'm eternally grateful for her silence, long may it remain so. i'm also grateful that we seemed to have passed that unfortunate stage of our history - may dr brash have a lengthy and successful career in kiwifruit, and long may he continue to resist sir roger's advances.
i really hate to be agreeing with family first on anything when i oppose almost everything they stand for, but i find myself doing so on the issue of the "my bimbo" website. i totally refuse to link to it. to quote the family first press release (refuse to link to that too!) :
The website encourages girls to use plastic surgery and extreme dieting to get the perfect figure and children can earn “bimbo dollars” to buy plastic surgery, diet pills, facelifts, lingerie and fashionable nightclub outfits.
there was a bit about this at the end of world watch on radio nz today. i guess i'm feeling more annoyed about this because of coverage in the waikato times in the last week regarding the v8s. there are apparently jobs for about 35 attractive young women who have to be comfortable wearing hotpants, very short skirts and swimwear. these young women are apparently known as "grid girls". ok, i'm showing my ignorance - i've never watched motor racing before, so didn't know the terminology. but am well aware of the assigned roles for males and females. the boys get to drive the cars, the girls get to...
yes, i know there are some female drivers, but very few i expect. i hate that women get to be nothing more than eye-candy. i hate that the first story on this was on the front page of the waikato times, and the second story a few days later had a big picture of the girls on page 3. how is this even news? i'm sure the agency hiring these young women could pay for an ad in the situations vacant section of the paper. why all the free publicity?
i often feel like i'm one of the few women who would like to see more positive female role-models in the news - women who are celebrated for their academic, sporting or professional achievements (and no, i don't mean the "oldest" profession). it still annoys me that we have so little coverage of female sports in the sporting pages of our major newspapers, but for something like this they apparently have lots of space.
i know i've had a little rant before about the fixation on physical appearance. but "grid girls" and the "my bimbo" site go beyond a fixation - it's more of an active encouragement of women to spend little time thinking about serious issues, to be aware of gender disparities, to be politically active. instead, we should continue to be obsessed with our appearance, and to spend our hard-earned cash on cosmetic products and procedures.
sad.
actually, the lunch with the group from kerala was interesting. mostly because, on the face of it, i was with a bunch of indians and i'm ethnically indian, so you would think we had a lot in common. but that's the thing with india - each state is like a separate country. they have their own language, style of dress, cuisine, traditions etc. so now i know a lot more than i did about traditional food from kerala - next step is to get my friends to cook some for me!
i was thinking about my last post over the weekend, and one thing that struck me was how quickly the josie bullock story died down. it was a major decision in terms of its impact on maori tikanga in the workplace, and i would have liked to see some debate in the media around that. i suspect the main reason for the lack of discussion lies elsewhere. when ms bullock first went to the media, she was immediately, publicly and very vocally supported by ms judith collins, MP. you may recall at the time that there was a pretty nasty atmosphere created by the don brash orewa speech. i do recall hearing ms collins on tv, radio and reading her quotes in the paper. but she appears to be curiously silent now. i've not seen a single press release from her on this issue. very strange, but i can assure you that i'm eternally grateful for her silence, long may it remain so. i'm also grateful that we seemed to have passed that unfortunate stage of our history - may dr brash have a lengthy and successful career in kiwifruit, and long may he continue to resist sir roger's advances.
i really hate to be agreeing with family first on anything when i oppose almost everything they stand for, but i find myself doing so on the issue of the "my bimbo" website. i totally refuse to link to it. to quote the family first press release (refuse to link to that too!) :
The website encourages girls to use plastic surgery and extreme dieting to get the perfect figure and children can earn “bimbo dollars” to buy plastic surgery, diet pills, facelifts, lingerie and fashionable nightclub outfits.
there was a bit about this at the end of world watch on radio nz today. i guess i'm feeling more annoyed about this because of coverage in the waikato times in the last week regarding the v8s. there are apparently jobs for about 35 attractive young women who have to be comfortable wearing hotpants, very short skirts and swimwear. these young women are apparently known as "grid girls". ok, i'm showing my ignorance - i've never watched motor racing before, so didn't know the terminology. but am well aware of the assigned roles for males and females. the boys get to drive the cars, the girls get to...
yes, i know there are some female drivers, but very few i expect. i hate that women get to be nothing more than eye-candy. i hate that the first story on this was on the front page of the waikato times, and the second story a few days later had a big picture of the girls on page 3. how is this even news? i'm sure the agency hiring these young women could pay for an ad in the situations vacant section of the paper. why all the free publicity?
i often feel like i'm one of the few women who would like to see more positive female role-models in the news - women who are celebrated for their academic, sporting or professional achievements (and no, i don't mean the "oldest" profession). it still annoys me that we have so little coverage of female sports in the sporting pages of our major newspapers, but for something like this they apparently have lots of space.
i know i've had a little rant before about the fixation on physical appearance. but "grid girls" and the "my bimbo" site go beyond a fixation - it's more of an active encouragement of women to spend little time thinking about serious issues, to be aware of gender disparities, to be politically active. instead, we should continue to be obsessed with our appearance, and to spend our hard-earned cash on cosmetic products and procedures.
sad.
Friday, 21 March 2008
sexism or cultural expression?
in listening to josie bullock and margaret mutu on radio nz this morning, i've been finding it really hard to figure out where i stand on this issue. for those who may have forgotten, ms bullock was the woman working in the dept of correction who refused to move from the front row during a departmental powhiri.
the human rights review tribunal has decided that the treatment was sexist, but it has refused to reward damages, because her dismissal was not deemed to be so. the two interviews this morning were a clear case of cultures colliding, as they seem to do much more regularly now that maori have started to reclaim their culture. maori are no longer in a framework where they have to feel cultural cringe, as was the case for much of the twentieth century. the development of maori media and maori political activism has meant that there are many voices in the public domain which can present the maori point of view in a coherent way. we, the public, are no longer getting such a one-sided story.
so who is right and who is wrong in this case? the personalities tend to cloud the issues somewhat. i found myself to be quite sympathetic to ms mutu's assertion that ms bullock had not taken the trouble to learn about and understand maori culture, nor had she chosen to engage with maori on this issue. certainly, ms bullock's responses to kathryn ryan gave the impression of someone who was never interested in negotiation or compromise, and didn't much care about causing offence. mostly because she herself was so busy feeling offended.
i could identify with the issue of cultural imperialism, of ms bullock viewing the whole situation through her own cultural lens, and not being prepared to accept that there might be another way to view the same set of circumstances. on the other hand, i can also identify with the view that culture is never an excuse for misogyny or inequality. in order to change cultures that are inherently misogynistic, one has to challenge them.
i have had to deal with this problem in another context. having grown up in nz, i find that my own views of the world often clash with women who have been brought up overseas. i look at the lives of some of the ethnic women i know, and find it appalling [i emphasise "some" - there are many ethnic women who don't live in this way]. i just don't think it's right. i don't believe that women were put on this planet to serve men. i hate it when i see these women refusing to make a decision but deferring to their husbands. in every way, their manner of living offends me.
on the other hand, by any measure, these women are much happier with their lives than i am with mine. they are confident, sure of their own identities, sure of their own place in the world, and love the life they're living. if i should challenge them, they would tell me in no uncertain terms about how they are right and i am wrong. some of their arguments would be religious, some would be cultural.
is it for me to say, then, that they need to be liberated? what would liberation mean for them? a likely divorce, leading to a life of poverty as they struggle to bring up children on their own, and find that they now have to do things they never had to bother with before - like paying the bills for example, or taking the car to a mechanic, or any number of small tasks that their husbands currently do for them. they would have face loneliness and exculsion. and to what end? maybe they would be free, but they certainly wouldn't be happy.
the question is: am i viewing their lives through my own cultural prism and making judgements that are arrogant (in that i'm assuming my way of thinking is better than theirs)? let me make it clear that the women i'm talking about don't suffer any abuse - no physical violence, no mental torture, no constant putdowns. they just live in a patriarchal framework where the man is the head of the house, and the household revolves around him.
i remember very vividly a conversation i had with an ethnic woman a few years ago. she said "you know, i fell into all that liberation bullshit. i accepted it, and left my husband. i had a really difficult time. and all those women who would spend all day talking about women's rights and equal opportunity, none of them wanted to know me after 5pm. none of them ever came to help me when i was struggling, they just didn't care."
trying to achieve cultural change is never an easy thing. one thing i do accept is that the change has to come from within the community, ie the people within the situation have to want to change, otherwise it's a waste of time. i remember watching an interview with some saudi women last year, who basically said "we need the rest of the world to leave us alone, and to let us work out our own solution. we don't want western feminism imposed on us. let us find our own way to deal with the current situation, and find solutions that we feel comfortable with."
i also believe that challenging the current status quo is not always helpful. because it puts people in a defensive position, and when they're defensive, they're not ready to listen and they're not prepared to consider change. sometimes, by being challenging, you actually entrench the status quo. it's better to build up a strong relationship, build up trust, and achieve change through dialogue and encouragement.
so was josie bullock right to do what she did? on balance, i think it wasn't. it just hasn't helped anyone, and if anything, has been pretty divisive. i understand her point of view, but i don't agree with her approach. was the human rights review tribunal right in its decision, basically saying the powhiri was sexist? at this stage, i just can't say. i'm just glad that it wasn't me who had to make the decision.
whew, that was a long post. it's going to have keep you guys going for a few days, cos i am having a break over easter! hope you all have a good break too.
the human rights review tribunal has decided that the treatment was sexist, but it has refused to reward damages, because her dismissal was not deemed to be so. the two interviews this morning were a clear case of cultures colliding, as they seem to do much more regularly now that maori have started to reclaim their culture. maori are no longer in a framework where they have to feel cultural cringe, as was the case for much of the twentieth century. the development of maori media and maori political activism has meant that there are many voices in the public domain which can present the maori point of view in a coherent way. we, the public, are no longer getting such a one-sided story.
so who is right and who is wrong in this case? the personalities tend to cloud the issues somewhat. i found myself to be quite sympathetic to ms mutu's assertion that ms bullock had not taken the trouble to learn about and understand maori culture, nor had she chosen to engage with maori on this issue. certainly, ms bullock's responses to kathryn ryan gave the impression of someone who was never interested in negotiation or compromise, and didn't much care about causing offence. mostly because she herself was so busy feeling offended.
i could identify with the issue of cultural imperialism, of ms bullock viewing the whole situation through her own cultural lens, and not being prepared to accept that there might be another way to view the same set of circumstances. on the other hand, i can also identify with the view that culture is never an excuse for misogyny or inequality. in order to change cultures that are inherently misogynistic, one has to challenge them.
i have had to deal with this problem in another context. having grown up in nz, i find that my own views of the world often clash with women who have been brought up overseas. i look at the lives of some of the ethnic women i know, and find it appalling [i emphasise "some" - there are many ethnic women who don't live in this way]. i just don't think it's right. i don't believe that women were put on this planet to serve men. i hate it when i see these women refusing to make a decision but deferring to their husbands. in every way, their manner of living offends me.
on the other hand, by any measure, these women are much happier with their lives than i am with mine. they are confident, sure of their own identities, sure of their own place in the world, and love the life they're living. if i should challenge them, they would tell me in no uncertain terms about how they are right and i am wrong. some of their arguments would be religious, some would be cultural.
is it for me to say, then, that they need to be liberated? what would liberation mean for them? a likely divorce, leading to a life of poverty as they struggle to bring up children on their own, and find that they now have to do things they never had to bother with before - like paying the bills for example, or taking the car to a mechanic, or any number of small tasks that their husbands currently do for them. they would have face loneliness and exculsion. and to what end? maybe they would be free, but they certainly wouldn't be happy.
the question is: am i viewing their lives through my own cultural prism and making judgements that are arrogant (in that i'm assuming my way of thinking is better than theirs)? let me make it clear that the women i'm talking about don't suffer any abuse - no physical violence, no mental torture, no constant putdowns. they just live in a patriarchal framework where the man is the head of the house, and the household revolves around him.
i remember very vividly a conversation i had with an ethnic woman a few years ago. she said "you know, i fell into all that liberation bullshit. i accepted it, and left my husband. i had a really difficult time. and all those women who would spend all day talking about women's rights and equal opportunity, none of them wanted to know me after 5pm. none of them ever came to help me when i was struggling, they just didn't care."
trying to achieve cultural change is never an easy thing. one thing i do accept is that the change has to come from within the community, ie the people within the situation have to want to change, otherwise it's a waste of time. i remember watching an interview with some saudi women last year, who basically said "we need the rest of the world to leave us alone, and to let us work out our own solution. we don't want western feminism imposed on us. let us find our own way to deal with the current situation, and find solutions that we feel comfortable with."
i also believe that challenging the current status quo is not always helpful. because it puts people in a defensive position, and when they're defensive, they're not ready to listen and they're not prepared to consider change. sometimes, by being challenging, you actually entrench the status quo. it's better to build up a strong relationship, build up trust, and achieve change through dialogue and encouragement.
so was josie bullock right to do what she did? on balance, i think it wasn't. it just hasn't helped anyone, and if anything, has been pretty divisive. i understand her point of view, but i don't agree with her approach. was the human rights review tribunal right in its decision, basically saying the powhiri was sexist? at this stage, i just can't say. i'm just glad that it wasn't me who had to make the decision.
whew, that was a long post. it's going to have keep you guys going for a few days, cos i am having a break over easter! hope you all have a good break too.
Thursday, 20 March 2008
sub-prime
this piece by greg palast was posted by daleaway on public address system today - a piece about the sub-prime mortgage mess in america, and what it had to do with eliot spitzer. for those who don't understand what sub-prime mortgages are about, this presentation posted on "the standard" is really quite good.
sub-prime mortgages basically seem to be loans made at a lower-than-market interest rate. why would they do it? because they were in the same situation that i've previously mentioned about nz banks - they had too much cash and had to lend it out. so they got creative about how they could get people into debt who wouldn't normally qualify for a loan.
that it is all collapsing is hardly surprising. what is really appalling though is the $200 billion dollars of (presumably) taxpayers money put into these financial institutions by the federal reserve bank, to save their butts. this massive amount of money did not go to the people who are now unable to pay their debts and are losing their homes. no, it's going to the lenders who were prepared to loan money recklessly.
you may say that the ones losing their homes were stupid to take on debt that they couldn't afford to pay. and yes, i could sympathise with that view. but on the other hand, i think about the nz situation, and there have been countless numbers of "financial experts" holding seminars up and down the country in the last 5 years, persuading people to invest in rental properties, with 100% financing. for those who weren't financially savvy, the dream of success was put in front of them and made to look so sweet and easy. the capital gains would take care of it all, soon the amount you lend would be a much lower proportion of the total value of the property.
the racial aspect of this is very disturbing:
Now, what kind of American is ‘sub-prime.’ Guess. No peeking. Here’s a hint: 73% of HIGH INCOME Black and Hispanic borrowers were given sub-prime loans versus 17% of similar-income Whites. Dark-skinned borrowers aren’t stupid – they had no choice. They were ‘steered’ as it’s called in the mortgage sharking business.
‘Steering,’ sub-prime loans with usurious kickers, fake inducements to over-borrow, called ‘fraudulent conveyance’ or ‘predatory lending’ under US law, were almost completely forbidden in the olden days (Clinton Administration and earlier) by federal regulators and state laws as nothing more than fancy loan-sharking.
But when the Bush regime took over, Countrywide and its banking brethren were told to party hearty – it was OK now to steer’m, fake’m, charge’m and take’m.
i don't know where he gets his figures from, but if true, this means that poverty becomes entrenched among the targetted racial groups, as they lose whatever assets they previously had. that poverty cycle tends to insure a good supply of cheap labour, as these people will take on whatever job they can just to feed their families. often they are working two or three jobs.
the current american administration is not interested in helping them out of that poverty. it could have taken the option of providing targetted mortgage rebates or assistance for the people who are defaulting. the end result would have been that they could keep their homes and the financiers would still get their money, thus halting the collapse of the sub-prime market. but they have chosen not to do that.
how on earth is it that this not heading the news? why do we get 5 minutes on heather mills, and not 10 minutes on this? i go back to my post about zimbabwean new zealanders, and wonder why our media wants to highlight $900,000 spent on the healthcare of some hundreds of people, yet is much quieter on the "one fifth of a trillion dollars" being paid to crooks.
sub-prime mortgages basically seem to be loans made at a lower-than-market interest rate. why would they do it? because they were in the same situation that i've previously mentioned about nz banks - they had too much cash and had to lend it out. so they got creative about how they could get people into debt who wouldn't normally qualify for a loan.
that it is all collapsing is hardly surprising. what is really appalling though is the $200 billion dollars of (presumably) taxpayers money put into these financial institutions by the federal reserve bank, to save their butts. this massive amount of money did not go to the people who are now unable to pay their debts and are losing their homes. no, it's going to the lenders who were prepared to loan money recklessly.
you may say that the ones losing their homes were stupid to take on debt that they couldn't afford to pay. and yes, i could sympathise with that view. but on the other hand, i think about the nz situation, and there have been countless numbers of "financial experts" holding seminars up and down the country in the last 5 years, persuading people to invest in rental properties, with 100% financing. for those who weren't financially savvy, the dream of success was put in front of them and made to look so sweet and easy. the capital gains would take care of it all, soon the amount you lend would be a much lower proportion of the total value of the property.
the racial aspect of this is very disturbing:
Now, what kind of American is ‘sub-prime.’ Guess. No peeking. Here’s a hint: 73% of HIGH INCOME Black and Hispanic borrowers were given sub-prime loans versus 17% of similar-income Whites. Dark-skinned borrowers aren’t stupid – they had no choice. They were ‘steered’ as it’s called in the mortgage sharking business.
‘Steering,’ sub-prime loans with usurious kickers, fake inducements to over-borrow, called ‘fraudulent conveyance’ or ‘predatory lending’ under US law, were almost completely forbidden in the olden days (Clinton Administration and earlier) by federal regulators and state laws as nothing more than fancy loan-sharking.
But when the Bush regime took over, Countrywide and its banking brethren were told to party hearty – it was OK now to steer’m, fake’m, charge’m and take’m.
i don't know where he gets his figures from, but if true, this means that poverty becomes entrenched among the targetted racial groups, as they lose whatever assets they previously had. that poverty cycle tends to insure a good supply of cheap labour, as these people will take on whatever job they can just to feed their families. often they are working two or three jobs.
the current american administration is not interested in helping them out of that poverty. it could have taken the option of providing targetted mortgage rebates or assistance for the people who are defaulting. the end result would have been that they could keep their homes and the financiers would still get their money, thus halting the collapse of the sub-prime market. but they have chosen not to do that.
how on earth is it that this not heading the news? why do we get 5 minutes on heather mills, and not 10 minutes on this? i go back to my post about zimbabwean new zealanders, and wonder why our media wants to highlight $900,000 spent on the healthcare of some hundreds of people, yet is much quieter on the "one fifth of a trillion dollars" being paid to crooks.
Wednesday, 19 March 2008
shama
shama means a lighted candle. in urdu poetry, it is a very strong symbol for the feminine. the male is the moth who is drawn to her flame, gets burnt, blah blah blah (sorry, i really don't have a romantic bone in my body, and am totally not into poetry!). the lighted candle is also a symbol for guidance and support - a light in the dark, to help you on your way.
shama is the name we chose for the hamilton ethnic women's centre. it was a symbol that south asians, arabs and north africans could identify with, and best suited our vision for the centre as a place of support for ethnic women who were struggling. the centre was established in 2003, though the work to establish it began well before that.
today, i had occasion to sit around with a couple of other founding members and reminisce. we talked about the struggles in the early days; the problems with communication across various cultures, across employment levels and across various levels of proficiency with the english language. we talked of the on-going struggles with funding, the difficulty of finding and keeping volunteers and staff.
as we talked through the history, it reminded each of us of how little we had known about basic things (filling out funding applications, starting and running programmes, conducting interviews for prospective staff etc) and how much personal commitment is involved in establishing and runnning a community-based service organisation. the skills all have to be built up, and we certainly did a lot of learning from our mistakes.
as we worked at building up the centre, each of us was going through our own personal crises. but the work we did helped us to support each other during the difficult times in our own lives. we have developed strong bonds, a connection that can't be broken, even though we have often argued over various issues.
one of the most wonderful things about voluntary work is the people you get to meet. i have so much respect and affection for the women who have been involved with shama in one way or another over the years. we kiwis don't often realise what a depth of talent we have in this country, what wonderful people we have working away quietly at their chosen issue without asking for anything in return.
one thing i've learned from working with shama is that everyone has a story to tell. everyone has been through some personal tragedy or some difficulty. we are so quick to judge people in many ways. i remember an older woman who works with refugees in hamilton, who i had always thought of as a bit of a fusspot (see, i have my prejudices, just like everyone else!). but i heard her speak one day of a daughter of hers who had died at the age of 8. as she talked of how she had held this dying girl in her arms, then how she had coped afterwards, i was simply amazed at the courage and strength of this woman.
if i had my way, i'd make it compulsory for everyone to do 2 hours of voluntary work every week. except that i know it would defeat the purpose. voluntary work builds a sense of community and of social responsiblity, but that only happens when it's comes from the heart, from a personal conviction and desire to be involved. but i can truly say that the rewards are much greater than the time and effort you put in.
shama is the name we chose for the hamilton ethnic women's centre. it was a symbol that south asians, arabs and north africans could identify with, and best suited our vision for the centre as a place of support for ethnic women who were struggling. the centre was established in 2003, though the work to establish it began well before that.
today, i had occasion to sit around with a couple of other founding members and reminisce. we talked about the struggles in the early days; the problems with communication across various cultures, across employment levels and across various levels of proficiency with the english language. we talked of the on-going struggles with funding, the difficulty of finding and keeping volunteers and staff.
as we talked through the history, it reminded each of us of how little we had known about basic things (filling out funding applications, starting and running programmes, conducting interviews for prospective staff etc) and how much personal commitment is involved in establishing and runnning a community-based service organisation. the skills all have to be built up, and we certainly did a lot of learning from our mistakes.
as we worked at building up the centre, each of us was going through our own personal crises. but the work we did helped us to support each other during the difficult times in our own lives. we have developed strong bonds, a connection that can't be broken, even though we have often argued over various issues.
one of the most wonderful things about voluntary work is the people you get to meet. i have so much respect and affection for the women who have been involved with shama in one way or another over the years. we kiwis don't often realise what a depth of talent we have in this country, what wonderful people we have working away quietly at their chosen issue without asking for anything in return.
one thing i've learned from working with shama is that everyone has a story to tell. everyone has been through some personal tragedy or some difficulty. we are so quick to judge people in many ways. i remember an older woman who works with refugees in hamilton, who i had always thought of as a bit of a fusspot (see, i have my prejudices, just like everyone else!). but i heard her speak one day of a daughter of hers who had died at the age of 8. as she talked of how she had held this dying girl in her arms, then how she had coped afterwards, i was simply amazed at the courage and strength of this woman.
if i had my way, i'd make it compulsory for everyone to do 2 hours of voluntary work every week. except that i know it would defeat the purpose. voluntary work builds a sense of community and of social responsiblity, but that only happens when it's comes from the heart, from a personal conviction and desire to be involved. but i can truly say that the rewards are much greater than the time and effort you put in.
Tuesday, 18 March 2008
zimbabwean new zealanders
i was going to post about something else entirely today, but i've just been stewing over this report in the dom today about the cost of AIDS treatments for zimbabwean refugees. it just made me so angry. the article had no other purpose but for us to feel angry at the amount of taxpayer's money these foreigners were soaking up. it's screaming "dogwhistle" so loudly, i practically have to put my hands over my ears.
for a start, i just don't see the purpose of measuring one particular health issue for just one community. it is targetting, of the worst possible kind and gives no useful information.
second, if we are going to take on refugees, then we take them on as they are, with all the physical and mental health problems they bring with them. these people are suffering, that is why they are refugees. if we care enough about them to bring them here, then we should care enough about them to feed them, house them, educate them and heal them. these costs will be more than for other groups, because refugees are severely disadvantaged.
third, the worst form of charity is the one that keeps reminding the recipient of how grateful they should be for our generosity. it puts the donee in a continual position of subservience, and is humiliating. better not to give at all than to do so grudgingly and carpingly.
fourth, when do these people get to shed the label of "refugee"? how many days, weeks, months or years does it take for them to be called zimbawean new zealanders, and for it to be acceptable for them to enjoy all the rights and facilities enjoyed by other new zealanders? as the article does point out, many of these people are taxpayers, so why should we grudge them the use of taxpayer funded services?
finally, when are our papers going to stop trying to teach us how to hate, how to set up one group against the others? what makes this kind of thing so despicable is that the target group is usually one that has the least ability to fight back. they already feel vulnerable and unwelcome, how can they possibly respond to an attack like this?
it is up to you and i to provide the voice that they don't have and can't have. as i've said in previous posts, we must complain to our news media that we just don't find this kind of reporting acceptable.
for a start, i just don't see the purpose of measuring one particular health issue for just one community. it is targetting, of the worst possible kind and gives no useful information.
second, if we are going to take on refugees, then we take them on as they are, with all the physical and mental health problems they bring with them. these people are suffering, that is why they are refugees. if we care enough about them to bring them here, then we should care enough about them to feed them, house them, educate them and heal them. these costs will be more than for other groups, because refugees are severely disadvantaged.
third, the worst form of charity is the one that keeps reminding the recipient of how grateful they should be for our generosity. it puts the donee in a continual position of subservience, and is humiliating. better not to give at all than to do so grudgingly and carpingly.
fourth, when do these people get to shed the label of "refugee"? how many days, weeks, months or years does it take for them to be called zimbawean new zealanders, and for it to be acceptable for them to enjoy all the rights and facilities enjoyed by other new zealanders? as the article does point out, many of these people are taxpayers, so why should we grudge them the use of taxpayer funded services?
finally, when are our papers going to stop trying to teach us how to hate, how to set up one group against the others? what makes this kind of thing so despicable is that the target group is usually one that has the least ability to fight back. they already feel vulnerable and unwelcome, how can they possibly respond to an attack like this?
it is up to you and i to provide the voice that they don't have and can't have. as i've said in previous posts, we must complain to our news media that we just don't find this kind of reporting acceptable.
Monday, 17 March 2008
women's expo
had a nice restful day, today which i needed it after being so busy yesterday. i went to tauranga for their ethnic festival, which was extremely successful. there were hundreds and hundreds of people there, enjoying the food, crafts, and entertainment. events like this are so important in bringing different communities together and breaking down barriers. it was nice to catch up with members of the bangladeshi community, who won a special award for their charitable work in the community.
then i rushed back to put in a couple of hours at the women's expo. sue moroney (MP) has been advocating a law change to make sure that tea breaks and lunch breaks are compulsory. it was amazing how many people didn't realise that employers do not have to allow a tea break under the law - you actually have to make sure that it's included in your employment contract. this situation came about after the national awards were scrapped in 1991.
while most employers are responsible enough to provide breaks, (and the good ones provide free tea & bikkies), it's usually the younger workers and those in low paid jobs that are most vulnerable in this area. i talked to a 17-year-old who only got a 15 minute lunch break in a 7 hour working day. and there were plenty of teachers who signed up to our petition, saying they never got tea breaks as they spent the time kids were out tidying the classroom and preparing for the next lesson. if anyone deserves tea breaks, it's definitely our teachers!
but the most bizarre experience yesterday was talking to a woman, who did sign our petition, but told me that she believed women's rights had gone way too far in this country. while i wasn't too surprised by that view - i hear quite a lot from younger women - i was shocked when she said the country shouldn't be run by a woman leader. she believed that only men should run the country. i swear, this was a very nice, blue-eyed young white woman. it certainly took me by surprise. i pointed out to her some of the policies brought in under helen clark's leadership - cheaper doctors visits, raises to the minimum wage, paid parental leave, saving for superannuation etc etc - but it was no good. she just couldn't see any good in it, and held to her position that only men should lead the country.
i was a bit naughty, and asked if she had any religious affiliation. she told me she was christian, and i left it at that. none of my business really. but i was left feeling rather uncomfortable, and even a little sad, at her point of view. after so many women have fought so hard to open up opportunities for other women, i would hate to think any of that effort would go to waste.
then i rushed back to put in a couple of hours at the women's expo. sue moroney (MP) has been advocating a law change to make sure that tea breaks and lunch breaks are compulsory. it was amazing how many people didn't realise that employers do not have to allow a tea break under the law - you actually have to make sure that it's included in your employment contract. this situation came about after the national awards were scrapped in 1991.
while most employers are responsible enough to provide breaks, (and the good ones provide free tea & bikkies), it's usually the younger workers and those in low paid jobs that are most vulnerable in this area. i talked to a 17-year-old who only got a 15 minute lunch break in a 7 hour working day. and there were plenty of teachers who signed up to our petition, saying they never got tea breaks as they spent the time kids were out tidying the classroom and preparing for the next lesson. if anyone deserves tea breaks, it's definitely our teachers!
but the most bizarre experience yesterday was talking to a woman, who did sign our petition, but told me that she believed women's rights had gone way too far in this country. while i wasn't too surprised by that view - i hear quite a lot from younger women - i was shocked when she said the country shouldn't be run by a woman leader. she believed that only men should run the country. i swear, this was a very nice, blue-eyed young white woman. it certainly took me by surprise. i pointed out to her some of the policies brought in under helen clark's leadership - cheaper doctors visits, raises to the minimum wage, paid parental leave, saving for superannuation etc etc - but it was no good. she just couldn't see any good in it, and held to her position that only men should lead the country.
i was a bit naughty, and asked if she had any religious affiliation. she told me she was christian, and i left it at that. none of my business really. but i was left feeling rather uncomfortable, and even a little sad, at her point of view. after so many women have fought so hard to open up opportunities for other women, i would hate to think any of that effort would go to waste.
Saturday, 15 March 2008
belonging
not too much to say tonight. been a tiring week, with a busy weekend coming up. honestly, i go to work to take a break from my weekends!
tomorrow is the 5th anniversary of the war in iraq. there's not anything deep and meaningful i can say about it that hasn't been said. all i want to say is "please stop now. go home". excellent interview with joseph stiglitz on radio nz this morning, about the financial costs of the war.
i hardly ever watch close up (or campbell live for that matter), mostly because it's dinner time or i'm otherwise busy with the kids. but i watched tonight, and was in tears watching the story of the little girl with cancer. and then found i had tears in my eyes again just watching the child cancer foundation ad later in the evening. it's amazing what some people have to go through, and i wish that family all the best for the future. guess it's a reminder for the rest of us to appreciate what we have.
finally, thought this was an interesting piece in the herald today, about muslims in the west struggling to find their place. although i don't believe the dichotomy is quite so simplistic as the author presents it. it's not just a simple choice between extremism and xenophobia. there are also cultural factors to be thrown in the mix. muslims come from such a wide range of countries, each with their own cultural practices and sometimes cultural interpretations of islam. it's also a process of shedding some of that cultural baggage, and learning what to take on and what to leave from western culture, while staying true to the values of our faith. it's certainly not an easy process.
tomorrow is the 5th anniversary of the war in iraq. there's not anything deep and meaningful i can say about it that hasn't been said. all i want to say is "please stop now. go home". excellent interview with joseph stiglitz on radio nz this morning, about the financial costs of the war.
i hardly ever watch close up (or campbell live for that matter), mostly because it's dinner time or i'm otherwise busy with the kids. but i watched tonight, and was in tears watching the story of the little girl with cancer. and then found i had tears in my eyes again just watching the child cancer foundation ad later in the evening. it's amazing what some people have to go through, and i wish that family all the best for the future. guess it's a reminder for the rest of us to appreciate what we have.
finally, thought this was an interesting piece in the herald today, about muslims in the west struggling to find their place. although i don't believe the dichotomy is quite so simplistic as the author presents it. it's not just a simple choice between extremism and xenophobia. there are also cultural factors to be thrown in the mix. muslims come from such a wide range of countries, each with their own cultural practices and sometimes cultural interpretations of islam. it's also a process of shedding some of that cultural baggage, and learning what to take on and what to leave from western culture, while staying true to the values of our faith. it's certainly not an easy process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)