Monday, October 14, 2013
Hypocrisy Watch!
I was amazed to hear Greg Hunt talk today about the faceless men choosing Shorten...Last time I checked the Coalition elected their leader in a caucus vote with no votes at all from the coalition part members...So it anything the new Labor model is far more democratic than the coalition model for selecting a leader....How can he stand up and sprout such BS????
My favourite example however is this...stay with me here.
So the facts are that when Labor was in power and a boat (with Asylum seekers) arrived the Govt notified all and sundry..The Coalition would jump on each an every arrival talking about the failure of the Labor policy to stop the boats.
Now the Coalition is in Govt and they refuse to notify when a boat arrives because they do not want to give the people smugglers intel on what is going on as this will be damaging to Australia's security. They ,instead, rely on weekly, data free, updates.
Ok so Morrison has two choices here.
Either he truly believes that making public the details of a boat arrival is damaging to our national security in which case why didn't he appeal to the Labor Govt to stop issuing information when each boat arrived. Was he really happy to see our national security breached just to give himself political fuel???
Or perhaps is this security BS a smokescreen to allow him to not have to keep informing the Australian population of the flow of boats and (most likely) show that (surprise, surprise) Tony has not stopped the boats...
There are only two choices...He is either someone who doesn't really care about our national security or he is someone that doesn't like the whole concept of transparency in govt.
Stay tuned for more hypocrisy watch!
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
How do North Shore schools perform?
Schools fulfill multiple purposes for our children. They provide an environment that allows our children to develop their social skills, sporting skills and attitudes with regard to a variety of local and global issues.
They also provide our children with an education (in the classic sense). i.e. Our kids are taught basic skills (reading, writing and arithmetic -albeit less of this) but also how to apply their creative juices to a range of subjects and how to think about a problem, research it, develop a position and articulate this position.
At the end of their school journey they have to survive the HSC exams through which University selection is mediated. For all the shortcomings of the HSC system we all want our children to do as well as they can in and to get the highest possible mark - albeit NOT at the cost of their physical and mental health and with their self-esteem, love of learning and love of life intact!
Obviously the higher your ATAR the more choices you have in terms of University courses. Given we would all like our children to have the broadest set of choices available (subjects and institutions) it seems reasonable to want our schools to help our children do the best they can. By using the term "the best they can" I do not mean either force feeding nor overly pressuring the students with the single goal of a high ATAR. Rather providing a rich and diversified life journey through school, learning a lot about themselves and the world around them WHILE ALSO getting a mark that reflects their effort and capability.
In short I am sure both parents and students would both want and expect a school to provide them with the best chance at the highest ATAR possible (thus providing the broadest range of tertiary education choices).
Schools need to show that they can add value to the student base and provide great learning outcomes. Private schools have a greater need to prove out their case - if they are going to continue to charge in excess of $20,000 per year.
Given that academic performance is NOT the only measure of a school (have I provided enough caveats ?) it IS STILL a REALLY important measure of how a school performs and it is very interesting to reflect on the data that the recent (and past years) HSC performance highlights.
Much has been written about how to compare the academic performance of schools and with regard to the HSC, the best measure would be a scaled average mark. Sadly this is not available. However one statistic is provided, for HSC students, that remains a very useful measure of a school's overall academic performance.
The statistic is the number of subjects attempted at a school where a mark above 90 was obtained. The statistic is presented in two forms. Firstly as an absolute number (which is both meaningless and misleading as I will outline later) and secondly as a %. So this statistic works this way. If your School (A) has 350 students and they sit 6 exams each then you have (350x 6) 2,100 marks to log. If 200 of these marks are above 90 then your raw statistic is 200 and your % is 9.5%. So this means that of all the subjects sat for the HSC the student body achieved a mark of 90 or above in 9.53% of subjects sat.
The raw/absolute score is misleading and meaningless because it does not solve for school size. Take School A above and compare it to School B. School B has 100 students who sat 5 exams each. Therefore school B has 500 marks to log. Let's suppose that School B achieves an absolute mark of 175. i.e. of the 500 subjects that the students sat they achieved a mark of 90 or above in 175 of them. This 175 converts to a % score of 35%.
if you ranked schools academic performance on the raw number then school A (with a score of 200) would be seen to perform better than School B with a score of 175. Yet clearly School B has a much better academic performance, overall. At School B 35% of subjects attempted end up with a score of 90 or above whereas for school A only 9.5% do.
If you rank actual schools HSC performance (http://bettereducation.com.au/Results/Hsc.aspx) interesting things pop out.
Of the top 42 slots (cut off of 26% being the % of subjects achieving a mark of 90 or above) 20 schools are academically selective (Private and Public), 13 are Private non-selective Girl's schools, 4 Private non-selective Boy's schools and 5 co-ed schools.
The first observation is that Girls seems to do much better than boys academically in the HSC. This is not "new" news" and there are educators all over Australia and the world grappling with the issue of apparent under performance of boys up to their late teens. It is however quite impressive to see the performance of the non-selective girl's schools on the North Shore of Sydney.
The balance of this blog deals with a comparison of North Shore Private schools. The specific cohort of interest is Abbotsleigh,Barker,Knox,PLC Pymble, Ravenswood, Roseville, Wenona, Shore and Queenwood with a paricular focus on the area of North Sydney to Waitara. The reason for this focus is that there is a significant overlap of families with children at both boy's and girl's schools in this area and so when comparing schools two variables (socio-economic setting and family background) and somewhat normalised.
First I need to cover one more statistic...only because often families attending the schools mentioned above talk about how their cohort is much more varied than their competitor school. So let's deal with that little chestnut.
The Federal Government SES scores (providing a school with a score that is meant to represent the socio-economic status of the parent body) gives some indication as to the "range" of different cohorts schools have in their parent and student body. Note that an SES score of 132 (max score) basically means you have a wealthy parent body and your school will get the lowest possible Federal Government subsidy..
The main girl's schools in this North Shore catchment area (non-catholic) are (with their SES score in brackets) Abbotsleigh (126) , Pymble Ladies College (128) , Ravenswood (129), Roseville College (128), Wenona (129) and Queenwood (130). The main boy's schools are Barker College (although some 33% of their Yr10-12 cohort are girls - minority but a significant one) (127), Knox (128) and Shore (128).
Simple observation....All these schools have very similar socio-economic cohorts..... Further all of these schools are non-selective....OK to be exact Abbotsleigh does apparently select a portion of their cohort so they are not 100% non-selective...Ravenswood, Roseville, Wenona and Queenwood are ,as are Knox, Shore and Barker..Therefore these schools provide a very good comparison set.
Now the interesting part....
Firstly the raw data. Over the past 2 years some schools have shown quite significant variances in performance while others have remained relatively constant. Using the 2 year average tries to solve for soem fluctuations.The average (over the past 2 years 2009 and 2010) % score (i.e. subjects attempted etc etc) are;
Abbotsleigh 38%
PLC 39%
Ravenswood 37%
Roseville 31%
Wenona 32%
Queenwood 30%
Knox 29%
Shore 28%
Barker 23%
How do these schools do?.. The girl's school average was 36% and the boy's school average is 27%. As expected girls do better than boys, on average, at non-selective schools in the HSC.
There is some variability between the upper North Shore Girl's schools (Abbotsleigh, PLC and Ravenswood) and the lower North Shore Girl's schools (Wenona and Queenwood). However this geographic variability does not translate to the boy' schools where lower North Shore Shore school ranks along side upper North Shore Knox Grammar with Barker a reasonable level behind.
Yet there are more compelling observations that can be made with regard to the performance of the Barker cohort. Barker is wonderful school with incredibly impressive facilities and a wide range of offerings for its very large student base. It is also an interesting school as it is co-ed for the last three years.
Given Barker is 1/3 girls in years 10-12 some assumptions have to be made as to the academic performance of the girls that go from Abbotsleigh/Ravenswood/PLC/Roseville etc to Barker and some assumptions have to be made about the underlying Barker boy performance (before the girls came). By assumptions I refer to what academic performance mix do you assume if you need to end up at Barker's 23%. If 1/3 of your students are girls and 2/3 are boys how do you look at the performance of each group to end up with an overall performance of 23%.
Scenario 1
Let's assume that all the girls going to Barker perform as well as they would have if they stayed at their Year 7-9 school. Thus 1/3 of Barker's Year 12 group (the girls) would register a score of 36% (the girls average). Yet if this were true and the overall Barker HSC cohort ends up with a score of 23% then it would mean (simple maths...no magic or bias) that the underlying performance of the barker boys was 17%. This would suggest that the Knox cohort performs 70% BETTER than the Barker boy cohort (at 17%) . I think this is highly unlikely.
Scenario 2
Let's assume that the Barker boys perform at the same level as the Knox boys (29%). For this to be true it would mean that for Barker to end up with a score of 23% the girls in the Barker cohort would have a score of 12%....Given these girls left schools with an average score of 36% it is hard to imagine that they would have a natural performance level of 12%. So as above I think this scenario is also unlikely.
Which brings us to the most likely scenario.
Scenario 3
Here we assume that, for what ever reason, the girls that go to Barker achieve a mark that is 20% lower than the girls schools from which they came (i.e. around 29%). If you believe that the Barker boys can't be performing at 17% (Scenario 1 above) then you have to assume the girls going to Barker do worse than the girls that stay at Abbotsleigh, PLC etc because in the end the total cohort ends up at 23%.
In this third scenario with the girls performing at 29%, the Barker boys (to end up with an overall cohort performance of 23%) perform at a level of 20%. i.e. at this level the Barker boys perform 50% WORSE than their Knox friends a few kms down the road.
This scenario (or in fact the complete set) throw up some clear observations and a whole bunch of questions..
Firstly it is clear that Barker girls cohort , on average, do worse than the girls at schools from which they came. If the comparison is with the schools they came from (Abbotsleigh/PLC or Ravenswood) the variance is SIGNIFICANT. This variance can only be explained in one of two ways. Either the girls who choose Barker are the very bottom academic performers in their Yr9 schools (i.e. they were always going to average 29% or worse) OR they were tracking higher and something happened in their last 3 years of school.
Secondly it is clear that the Barker boys under perform Knox. This is not some minor variance but a huge chasm. In scenario 3 the Barker boys perform 50% worse than their Knox counterparts....The only way for Barker boys to achieve a score close to Knox would be to assume that the girls who go to Barker would of them selves rank 147 in the state. I think even the most generous, loyal Barker alumni would see this as unlikely.
Also Barker uses the same raw/absolute data to state the claim that Barker is the leading co-ed comprehensive school in the state. If they had used the % score then Barker would rank (in terms of comprehensive co-ed schools) behind Masada, All Saints College Bathurst, Reddem House and St.Marks Coptic Orthodox College with International Grammar School, St.Lukes Grammar and Cape Byron Rudolph Steiner school scoring very similar results to Barker.
Choosing a school for your child is a critical one and if you are fortunate enough to be able to choose between a raft of good private schools on the north shore of Sydney then choice should be made with completely transparent data.
Some parents will choose schools because of family links or sporting facilities or the provision of a co-ed environment. All reasonable factors to take into account. However at some level academic performance also matters and I feel it is important to get access to data that more easily presents the performance of schools. It is for this reason i have undertaken the analysis mentioned above.
In closing I should note that I am a long term Ravenswood parent and I do believe in the benefits of a girl's school. I went to a public high school and am very proud of that school and my time there. However I can also see the educational and social benefits that girls receive at a girls school.
They also provide our children with an education (in the classic sense). i.e. Our kids are taught basic skills (reading, writing and arithmetic -albeit less of this) but also how to apply their creative juices to a range of subjects and how to think about a problem, research it, develop a position and articulate this position.
At the end of their school journey they have to survive the HSC exams through which University selection is mediated. For all the shortcomings of the HSC system we all want our children to do as well as they can in and to get the highest possible mark - albeit NOT at the cost of their physical and mental health and with their self-esteem, love of learning and love of life intact!
Obviously the higher your ATAR the more choices you have in terms of University courses. Given we would all like our children to have the broadest set of choices available (subjects and institutions) it seems reasonable to want our schools to help our children do the best they can. By using the term "the best they can" I do not mean either force feeding nor overly pressuring the students with the single goal of a high ATAR. Rather providing a rich and diversified life journey through school, learning a lot about themselves and the world around them WHILE ALSO getting a mark that reflects their effort and capability.
In short I am sure both parents and students would both want and expect a school to provide them with the best chance at the highest ATAR possible (thus providing the broadest range of tertiary education choices).
Schools need to show that they can add value to the student base and provide great learning outcomes. Private schools have a greater need to prove out their case - if they are going to continue to charge in excess of $20,000 per year.
Given that academic performance is NOT the only measure of a school (have I provided enough caveats ?) it IS STILL a REALLY important measure of how a school performs and it is very interesting to reflect on the data that the recent (and past years) HSC performance highlights.
Much has been written about how to compare the academic performance of schools and with regard to the HSC, the best measure would be a scaled average mark. Sadly this is not available. However one statistic is provided, for HSC students, that remains a very useful measure of a school's overall academic performance.
The statistic is the number of subjects attempted at a school where a mark above 90 was obtained. The statistic is presented in two forms. Firstly as an absolute number (which is both meaningless and misleading as I will outline later) and secondly as a %. So this statistic works this way. If your School (A) has 350 students and they sit 6 exams each then you have (350x 6) 2,100 marks to log. If 200 of these marks are above 90 then your raw statistic is 200 and your % is 9.5%. So this means that of all the subjects sat for the HSC the student body achieved a mark of 90 or above in 9.53% of subjects sat.
The raw/absolute score is misleading and meaningless because it does not solve for school size. Take School A above and compare it to School B. School B has 100 students who sat 5 exams each. Therefore school B has 500 marks to log. Let's suppose that School B achieves an absolute mark of 175. i.e. of the 500 subjects that the students sat they achieved a mark of 90 or above in 175 of them. This 175 converts to a % score of 35%.
if you ranked schools academic performance on the raw number then school A (with a score of 200) would be seen to perform better than School B with a score of 175. Yet clearly School B has a much better academic performance, overall. At School B 35% of subjects attempted end up with a score of 90 or above whereas for school A only 9.5% do.
If you rank actual schools HSC performance (http://bettereducation.com.au/Results/Hsc.aspx) interesting things pop out.
Of the top 42 slots (cut off of 26% being the % of subjects achieving a mark of 90 or above) 20 schools are academically selective (Private and Public), 13 are Private non-selective Girl's schools, 4 Private non-selective Boy's schools and 5 co-ed schools.
The first observation is that Girls seems to do much better than boys academically in the HSC. This is not "new" news" and there are educators all over Australia and the world grappling with the issue of apparent under performance of boys up to their late teens. It is however quite impressive to see the performance of the non-selective girl's schools on the North Shore of Sydney.
The balance of this blog deals with a comparison of North Shore Private schools. The specific cohort of interest is Abbotsleigh,Barker,Knox,PLC Pymble, Ravenswood, Roseville, Wenona, Shore and Queenwood with a paricular focus on the area of North Sydney to Waitara. The reason for this focus is that there is a significant overlap of families with children at both boy's and girl's schools in this area and so when comparing schools two variables (socio-economic setting and family background) and somewhat normalised.
First I need to cover one more statistic...only because often families attending the schools mentioned above talk about how their cohort is much more varied than their competitor school. So let's deal with that little chestnut.
The Federal Government SES scores (providing a school with a score that is meant to represent the socio-economic status of the parent body) gives some indication as to the "range" of different cohorts schools have in their parent and student body. Note that an SES score of 132 (max score) basically means you have a wealthy parent body and your school will get the lowest possible Federal Government subsidy..
The main girl's schools in this North Shore catchment area (non-catholic) are (with their SES score in brackets) Abbotsleigh (126) , Pymble Ladies College (128) , Ravenswood (129), Roseville College (128), Wenona (129) and Queenwood (130). The main boy's schools are Barker College (although some 33% of their Yr10-12 cohort are girls - minority but a significant one) (127), Knox (128) and Shore (128).
Simple observation....All these schools have very similar socio-economic cohorts..... Further all of these schools are non-selective....OK to be exact Abbotsleigh does apparently select a portion of their cohort so they are not 100% non-selective...Ravenswood, Roseville, Wenona and Queenwood are ,as are Knox, Shore and Barker..Therefore these schools provide a very good comparison set.
Now the interesting part....
Firstly the raw data. Over the past 2 years some schools have shown quite significant variances in performance while others have remained relatively constant. Using the 2 year average tries to solve for soem fluctuations.The average (over the past 2 years 2009 and 2010) % score (i.e. subjects attempted etc etc) are;
Abbotsleigh 38%
PLC 39%
Ravenswood 37%
Roseville 31%
Wenona 32%
Queenwood 30%
Knox 29%
Shore 28%
Barker 23%
How do these schools do?.. The girl's school average was 36% and the boy's school average is 27%. As expected girls do better than boys, on average, at non-selective schools in the HSC.
There is some variability between the upper North Shore Girl's schools (Abbotsleigh, PLC and Ravenswood) and the lower North Shore Girl's schools (Wenona and Queenwood). However this geographic variability does not translate to the boy' schools where lower North Shore Shore school ranks along side upper North Shore Knox Grammar with Barker a reasonable level behind.
Yet there are more compelling observations that can be made with regard to the performance of the Barker cohort. Barker is wonderful school with incredibly impressive facilities and a wide range of offerings for its very large student base. It is also an interesting school as it is co-ed for the last three years.
Given Barker is 1/3 girls in years 10-12 some assumptions have to be made as to the academic performance of the girls that go from Abbotsleigh/Ravenswood/PLC/Roseville etc to Barker and some assumptions have to be made about the underlying Barker boy performance (before the girls came). By assumptions I refer to what academic performance mix do you assume if you need to end up at Barker's 23%. If 1/3 of your students are girls and 2/3 are boys how do you look at the performance of each group to end up with an overall performance of 23%.
Scenario 1
Let's assume that all the girls going to Barker perform as well as they would have if they stayed at their Year 7-9 school. Thus 1/3 of Barker's Year 12 group (the girls) would register a score of 36% (the girls average). Yet if this were true and the overall Barker HSC cohort ends up with a score of 23% then it would mean (simple maths...no magic or bias) that the underlying performance of the barker boys was 17%. This would suggest that the Knox cohort performs 70% BETTER than the Barker boy cohort (at 17%) . I think this is highly unlikely.
Scenario 2
Let's assume that the Barker boys perform at the same level as the Knox boys (29%). For this to be true it would mean that for Barker to end up with a score of 23% the girls in the Barker cohort would have a score of 12%....Given these girls left schools with an average score of 36% it is hard to imagine that they would have a natural performance level of 12%. So as above I think this scenario is also unlikely.
Which brings us to the most likely scenario.
Scenario 3
Here we assume that, for what ever reason, the girls that go to Barker achieve a mark that is 20% lower than the girls schools from which they came (i.e. around 29%). If you believe that the Barker boys can't be performing at 17% (Scenario 1 above) then you have to assume the girls going to Barker do worse than the girls that stay at Abbotsleigh, PLC etc because in the end the total cohort ends up at 23%.
In this third scenario with the girls performing at 29%, the Barker boys (to end up with an overall cohort performance of 23%) perform at a level of 20%. i.e. at this level the Barker boys perform 50% WORSE than their Knox friends a few kms down the road.
This scenario (or in fact the complete set) throw up some clear observations and a whole bunch of questions..
Firstly it is clear that Barker girls cohort , on average, do worse than the girls at schools from which they came. If the comparison is with the schools they came from (Abbotsleigh/PLC or Ravenswood) the variance is SIGNIFICANT. This variance can only be explained in one of two ways. Either the girls who choose Barker are the very bottom academic performers in their Yr9 schools (i.e. they were always going to average 29% or worse) OR they were tracking higher and something happened in their last 3 years of school.
Secondly it is clear that the Barker boys under perform Knox. This is not some minor variance but a huge chasm. In scenario 3 the Barker boys perform 50% worse than their Knox counterparts....The only way for Barker boys to achieve a score close to Knox would be to assume that the girls who go to Barker would of them selves rank 147 in the state. I think even the most generous, loyal Barker alumni would see this as unlikely.
Once the HSC results are posted each year schools publish a summary of their performance. Of course the schools will highlight the areas where they have excelled and they are unlikely to put forward areas where they struggled. In essence this end of year piece is a form of Marketing.
Yet this publication also forms an important part of the information set prospective parents use to evaluate schools and it is important that the information is not only accurate but allows for cross school comparisons.
Also Barker uses the same raw/absolute data to state the claim that Barker is the leading co-ed comprehensive school in the state. If they had used the % score then Barker would rank (in terms of comprehensive co-ed schools) behind Masada, All Saints College Bathurst, Reddem House and St.Marks Coptic Orthodox College with International Grammar School, St.Lukes Grammar and Cape Byron Rudolph Steiner school scoring very similar results to Barker.
Choosing a school for your child is a critical one and if you are fortunate enough to be able to choose between a raft of good private schools on the north shore of Sydney then choice should be made with completely transparent data.
Some parents will choose schools because of family links or sporting facilities or the provision of a co-ed environment. All reasonable factors to take into account. However at some level academic performance also matters and I feel it is important to get access to data that more easily presents the performance of schools. It is for this reason i have undertaken the analysis mentioned above.
In closing I should note that I am a long term Ravenswood parent and I do believe in the benefits of a girl's school. I went to a public high school and am very proud of that school and my time there. However I can also see the educational and social benefits that girls receive at a girls school.
As can be seen in my analysis above I have not looked to promote Ravenswood ahead of other schools but rather present the data (and the sources) in an open and transparent manner. I realise that some may find the comments upsetting but I would ask that reference be made to the data and what the data tells us.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Why do they think I care?
So I sent an email to a friend.
Dear XXXX,
We are planning a dinner out with Y,Z and T. Are you guys available on Saturday August 14?
rgds
Daniel
What I expected back was either
Dear Daniel
Love to come. Count us in.
Rgds
XXXX
or
Dear Daniel
Sorry we can't make it. Maybe next time.
Rgds
XXXX
or responses along similar lines...However what I received was this.
Dear Daniel
Thanks for the invitation.
On August 14 Bob has his selection trial for the Wallabies in the afternoon and we are not sure what time the trials end. Amazing for a 15 year old but we always knew he was a gifted athlete...Really it is amazing to have a son who is both brilliant and a gifted athlete. Did we mention that in the Year 9 NAPLAN tests he was in the top band for everything and he was recently voted the "most gifted" in the Gifted and Talented programme at his school.
Clearly those early intervention classes we instigated when he was 3 have paid off. That and have an amazing gene pool to start with.!!
Also Mary has the lead in the school dance festival at the Opera House in September which of course leads to selection trials for the Australian Ballet or a role on Home and Away and August 14 is the first rehearsal and so again it might be tight. We are quite stressed at whether to let her pursue her love (and obvious talent) with dance and her love (and obvious talent) with drama while undertaking 24 units for the HSC ( I just feel 10 units is too limiting for such a child) or we get her to focus on one activity. Her LA baed acting agent believes we should skip school and have her at castings tomorrow but her London based Ballet agent is convinced that the Royal Ballet is her destiny. How she will cram all this in along with her role in the Youth United Nations Summit in Beijing next month is anyone's guess.
Little Quentin is attending the "maths for fucking geniuses" workshop in the city also the morning of August 14 and normally he needs some quiet time in the sensory tent at home when he gets back. I just do not understand why they won;t allow him to undertake advanced pure maths..Just because he is a tad young (at 4) should not limit his opportunities. Of course he is still terrribly jetlagged from his recent trip to the World Chess Championships in Moscow. He was inconsolable with his second place finish in the open competition but we reminded him that disappointment is part of life...Not that such a gifted child will have much more disappointment in his life!
Finally my darling Stefan (the husband) is competing in the olympic trials on the Sunday afternoon - we are so amazed that he got in given he i2 52 and has had 2 hip replacements - I guess he is just one of those gifted athletes. Having dinner the night bfore may disrupt his pre-race preparation...It's so fortunate that he completed his double PhD in record time and still had time to write the definitive work on the development of democracy all within the 6 month sabatical from his role as Professor, Smarted Guy in the Room Dept at the London School of Economics...I guess some peopel can just rise to the challenge.
So as you can imagine with all that on and the fact that I need to undertake Australia's first multiple organ transplant and mood alteration surgery in the morning it would be hard to make it to dinner on the 14th.
Thanks again for the invitation..Oh...and how is your family...you have 2 children or 3?and someone died recently?.your mother/father/sister... I can't quite remember.
Rgds
Beatrice
Why do people feel the need to list their achievements and those of their children at every opportunity? Why do they think I would care? Of course I hope that all children enjoy fulfilling and happy lives and I wish the same for all adults...I just don't need to know every bowel movement undertaken by every child within a 100km radius..
Perhaps just maybe, yet again, the insecurities of the adults are playing out. They feel that they must prove beyond any shadow of doubt that their child is special and therefore so are they. Special and BETTER.
Another friend told me the other day about their recent holiday to NY. Great!. Did you all have a good time? We had a wonderful time....Especially little jonathon. He was desparate to go to MOMA (Museum of Modern Art but always referred to as MoMA) as he is so artistic...Geezzz. Give me a break...Little jonathon is 8. Just how gifted can he be and even if he is gifted at art why did you feel the necessity to tell me?...Ahhhh...... to make sure I understand that Jonathon is special and better and therefore you are special and better.
Just to be clear.
I don't think the possession of any skill, success in any particular profession, level of intellect or wealth, selection to any sporting team or macrame group makes you a better person than anyone else.
The only truly better people in our society are those who live their lives in humble service of those around us, while maintaining humility with regard to their achievements and those of their family. They genuinely understand that life is a lottery and for whatever reason they, or their children, are enjoying success and for this they are be HUMBLY grateful as their lives will be easier. They are thankful that their child does not have a life threatening illness nor a lifelong, debilitating condition that will make for a tougher journey.
So in summary dear friend next time I ask you over for dinner just say you can't make it ...please
Dear XXXX,
We are planning a dinner out with Y,Z and T. Are you guys available on Saturday August 14?
rgds
Daniel
What I expected back was either
Dear Daniel
Love to come. Count us in.
Rgds
XXXX
or
Dear Daniel
Sorry we can't make it. Maybe next time.
Rgds
XXXX
or responses along similar lines...However what I received was this.
Dear Daniel
Thanks for the invitation.
On August 14 Bob has his selection trial for the Wallabies in the afternoon and we are not sure what time the trials end. Amazing for a 15 year old but we always knew he was a gifted athlete...Really it is amazing to have a son who is both brilliant and a gifted athlete. Did we mention that in the Year 9 NAPLAN tests he was in the top band for everything and he was recently voted the "most gifted" in the Gifted and Talented programme at his school.
Clearly those early intervention classes we instigated when he was 3 have paid off. That and have an amazing gene pool to start with.!!
Also Mary has the lead in the school dance festival at the Opera House in September which of course leads to selection trials for the Australian Ballet or a role on Home and Away and August 14 is the first rehearsal and so again it might be tight. We are quite stressed at whether to let her pursue her love (and obvious talent) with dance and her love (and obvious talent) with drama while undertaking 24 units for the HSC ( I just feel 10 units is too limiting for such a child) or we get her to focus on one activity. Her LA baed acting agent believes we should skip school and have her at castings tomorrow but her London based Ballet agent is convinced that the Royal Ballet is her destiny. How she will cram all this in along with her role in the Youth United Nations Summit in Beijing next month is anyone's guess.
Little Quentin is attending the "maths for fucking geniuses" workshop in the city also the morning of August 14 and normally he needs some quiet time in the sensory tent at home when he gets back. I just do not understand why they won;t allow him to undertake advanced pure maths..Just because he is a tad young (at 4) should not limit his opportunities. Of course he is still terrribly jetlagged from his recent trip to the World Chess Championships in Moscow. He was inconsolable with his second place finish in the open competition but we reminded him that disappointment is part of life...Not that such a gifted child will have much more disappointment in his life!
Finally my darling Stefan (the husband) is competing in the olympic trials on the Sunday afternoon - we are so amazed that he got in given he i2 52 and has had 2 hip replacements - I guess he is just one of those gifted athletes. Having dinner the night bfore may disrupt his pre-race preparation...It's so fortunate that he completed his double PhD in record time and still had time to write the definitive work on the development of democracy all within the 6 month sabatical from his role as Professor, Smarted Guy in the Room Dept at the London School of Economics...I guess some peopel can just rise to the challenge.
So as you can imagine with all that on and the fact that I need to undertake Australia's first multiple organ transplant and mood alteration surgery in the morning it would be hard to make it to dinner on the 14th.
Thanks again for the invitation..Oh...and how is your family...you have 2 children or 3?and someone died recently?.your mother/father/sister... I can't quite remember.
Rgds
Beatrice
Why do people feel the need to list their achievements and those of their children at every opportunity? Why do they think I would care? Of course I hope that all children enjoy fulfilling and happy lives and I wish the same for all adults...I just don't need to know every bowel movement undertaken by every child within a 100km radius..
Perhaps just maybe, yet again, the insecurities of the adults are playing out. They feel that they must prove beyond any shadow of doubt that their child is special and therefore so are they. Special and BETTER.
Another friend told me the other day about their recent holiday to NY. Great!. Did you all have a good time? We had a wonderful time....Especially little jonathon. He was desparate to go to MOMA (Museum of Modern Art but always referred to as MoMA) as he is so artistic...Geezzz. Give me a break...Little jonathon is 8. Just how gifted can he be and even if he is gifted at art why did you feel the necessity to tell me?...Ahhhh...... to make sure I understand that Jonathon is special and better and therefore you are special and better.
Just to be clear.
I don't think the possession of any skill, success in any particular profession, level of intellect or wealth, selection to any sporting team or macrame group makes you a better person than anyone else.
The only truly better people in our society are those who live their lives in humble service of those around us, while maintaining humility with regard to their achievements and those of their family. They genuinely understand that life is a lottery and for whatever reason they, or their children, are enjoying success and for this they are be HUMBLY grateful as their lives will be easier. They are thankful that their child does not have a life threatening illness nor a lifelong, debilitating condition that will make for a tougher journey.
So in summary dear friend next time I ask you over for dinner just say you can't make it ...please
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Why our wealthy do not give?
For some time I have been trying to understand why Australia's wealthy give so little to charities when compared to their counterparts in the UK, US and Canada and when compared to normal, average Australians.
Just to be specific, from research our foundation has funded over the last 7 years (http://www.petrefoundation.org.au/) it seems that the average wealthy American allocates about 14.5% of their wealth to charity and the best guess we have is that the average very wealthy Australian allocates LESS THAN 1% of their assets to charity. Interestingly only 65% of tax payers earning more than $1m per year claim any ts deduction for giving...So either the other 35% are giving but not claiming (unlikely) or they are earning >$1m a year and not making any donations (more likely). For Australians on the average wage it seems they allocate around 0.5% to charity..So some nice, normal Aussie is allocating at best the same proportion and in some cases MORE than our most wealthy Australians.
Below are the most often proferred excuses I have been given by wealthy people, justifying their appalling lack of generosity and complete lack of a social conscience. None of this is made up.
1) It's the government's reponsibility
While our governments are responsible for providing a social safety net blind freddy can see that more needs to be done and governments can't be expected to meet the needs of all those in society that require help.
2) Our taxes are too high. If they were lower I would give more.
Ok so firstly OUR TAXES ARE NOT HIGH. When compared to the OECD average (including all levels of tax paid) you find (surprise, surprise) that Australians actually are NOT that highly taxed and in fact we are pretty much in the middle of the pack..Further as net taxes have come down over the years we have seen NO MATERIAL increase in the general giving from our most wealthy. So this is a myth on two counts.
3) I pay my taxes etc etc (revert to point one)
Most of the very wealthy that I know DO NOT pay anywhere near either the full marginal tax rate nor the full company tax rate. Their affairs are structure through trusts, locally and overseas thus minimising their tax dramatically..So again the average Aussie is paying a HIGHER tax rate than our wealthy.
4) Charities are so inefficient. If they were more efficient I would give more.
Charities are perhaps slightly less efficient than businesses. This is often due to a lack of funding available to fund the infrastructure of the charity. When money does come in the donors more often that not want the money to go directly to the cause and do not want money to go to "admin" or "infrastructure". Yet without well funded administrative resources and services charities will continue to be somewhat inefficient in their delivery of services...So just give more!
5) I worked hard for this money...and it is mine (this is one of my favourites)
Let me start with a quote from Warren Buffet.
"My luck was accentuated by my living in a market system that sometimes produces distorted results, though oevrall it servces our country well.. I've worked in an economy that rewards someone who saves the lives of others on a battlefield with a medal, rewards a great teacher with thank-you notes from parents, but rewards those who can detect the mispricing of securities with sums reaching into the billions. In short, fate's distribution of long straws is wildly capricious"
I have worked hard all my life (ok so perhaps not so hard the last few years) but I have never felt my effort was greater than that of the wonderful doctors or nurses I meet at the Children's Hospital at Westmead nor the many wonderful teachers I have met through our daughters' schooling, nor the shopkeepers whose businesses I interact with.
Specifically can an investment banker that made $8m (because he "helped" convince one large company to buy another large company) really believe this remuneration is justfifiable compared to (say) the peadeatric surgeon who just operated on (and saved the life of) a baby ..where the surgeon may be earning around $200K....Does the "I worked hard" bullshit really hold water when you compare how financial rewards in our society seem to go not to those that provide society with the greatest benefits but rather to those who make money for others!.
You worked no harder than most of the population but ended up with more money than most. Just be thankful that this is how our society works, give more to charity and going forward perhaps be a little more humble.
5) I might need this money later in life
This came from a guy with investment assets of more than $500m. Someone whose regular giving is of the order of $10,000 a year..His specific concerns seems to be medical..What if he gets sick when he is older...Gee, tough one....However I am guessing that you could meet your future medical needs with ALOT LESS than $500m.
6)I do give but in a quiet way.....
This is the great urban myth of Australian philanthropy. Some would have us believe that our wealthy are backing the trucks up daily to needy causes all over the country, flooding their coffers with gzillions BUT only on the premise that nobody leaks information on the amazing acts of philanthropy...
Some wealthy do give anonmymously however IF there was this, across the board, flood of LARGE donations (given anonymously) then the money would appear in the statements of the major charities...Guess what the statements do not show that this is occurring?? Why?? Because it is not happening....For the most part our wealthy are NOT giving large donations either quietly or with the accompaniment of a full orchestra, brass band and marching girls.
7) When I was on my way up the press kept having a go at me..Now that I have money..bugger them...I am keeping it.
So let me get this right...
For whatever reason some journalists have at some time written pieces critical of you while you were building your career. Now that you have made your pile you feel the appropriate response is to not give money to charity..Where is the connection? It may well be that the journalists were not justified in their attack and you have been mistreated but this does not now give you a leave pass from your responsibility to give back to the broader society. OK. Make a stand. Do not donate to any journalists retirement home but I am pretty sure there are other causes, not related to journalism or the media, that you could give your money to.
8) I already give to society. I run a business and employ people.
This little beauty is often trotted out by sycophants of the rich and powerful. Somehow in their twisted, parallel universe the building of a business (which requires the hiring of people) is a charitable act....For most I am pretty sure that they built their business to make money and as part of the building their business they needed to hire people to do stuff. Employment was not a charitable act but rather a way for them to make (more) money..To suggest that hiring people is some form of social giving is really bizzarre.
Most of the rich people I have met became rich either through (as Buffet suggests) being members of the "lucky sperm club" (ie having money passed down to them) or they have built businesses. The business builders have done so through a mix of smarts (street or intellectual or both), a strong work ethic, highlty tuned competitive approach and focus. Generally they are people you would consider at best reaonably talented and at worst not stupid.
So why, when asked about their lack of giving to charity, do they come out with such a range of fundamentally flawed answers. Answers that are easy to bat back. Answers that do not bear up under the slightest scrutiny...How can people who are so smart for most of their day seem so stupid when it comes to justfiying their greed.
My sense is that for most of our wealthy money embodies everything they want to be. With money they now have access to people they would not previously had access to. With money people treat them as special (car companies. airlines, hotel, restuarants, shops etc). With money people assume they have qualities such as wisdom, compassion and a level of intellect that may not in fact exist...In short because they have alot of money they are treated as special, better than the rest.....Therefore anything that diminishes the pot of money in some way diminishes how special they are....
En masse our wealthy are not necessarilly, smart, wise, compassionate, caring, clever,nice or worth spending any time with..They are just rich.
They do however have a responsibility to give back generously to the society that provided them the platfrom from which they made their pile..It should not be a choice but a responsibility and society should expect our most successful/lucky to contribute their fair share..Quite simple really.
Just to be specific, from research our foundation has funded over the last 7 years (http://www.petrefoundation.org.au/) it seems that the average wealthy American allocates about 14.5% of their wealth to charity and the best guess we have is that the average very wealthy Australian allocates LESS THAN 1% of their assets to charity. Interestingly only 65% of tax payers earning more than $1m per year claim any ts deduction for giving...So either the other 35% are giving but not claiming (unlikely) or they are earning >$1m a year and not making any donations (more likely). For Australians on the average wage it seems they allocate around 0.5% to charity..So some nice, normal Aussie is allocating at best the same proportion and in some cases MORE than our most wealthy Australians.
Below are the most often proferred excuses I have been given by wealthy people, justifying their appalling lack of generosity and complete lack of a social conscience. None of this is made up.
1) It's the government's reponsibility
While our governments are responsible for providing a social safety net blind freddy can see that more needs to be done and governments can't be expected to meet the needs of all those in society that require help.
2) Our taxes are too high. If they were lower I would give more.
Ok so firstly OUR TAXES ARE NOT HIGH. When compared to the OECD average (including all levels of tax paid) you find (surprise, surprise) that Australians actually are NOT that highly taxed and in fact we are pretty much in the middle of the pack..Further as net taxes have come down over the years we have seen NO MATERIAL increase in the general giving from our most wealthy. So this is a myth on two counts.
3) I pay my taxes etc etc (revert to point one)
Most of the very wealthy that I know DO NOT pay anywhere near either the full marginal tax rate nor the full company tax rate. Their affairs are structure through trusts, locally and overseas thus minimising their tax dramatically..So again the average Aussie is paying a HIGHER tax rate than our wealthy.
4) Charities are so inefficient. If they were more efficient I would give more.
Charities are perhaps slightly less efficient than businesses. This is often due to a lack of funding available to fund the infrastructure of the charity. When money does come in the donors more often that not want the money to go directly to the cause and do not want money to go to "admin" or "infrastructure". Yet without well funded administrative resources and services charities will continue to be somewhat inefficient in their delivery of services...So just give more!
5) I worked hard for this money...and it is mine (this is one of my favourites)
Let me start with a quote from Warren Buffet.
"My luck was accentuated by my living in a market system that sometimes produces distorted results, though oevrall it servces our country well.. I've worked in an economy that rewards someone who saves the lives of others on a battlefield with a medal, rewards a great teacher with thank-you notes from parents, but rewards those who can detect the mispricing of securities with sums reaching into the billions. In short, fate's distribution of long straws is wildly capricious"
I have worked hard all my life (ok so perhaps not so hard the last few years) but I have never felt my effort was greater than that of the wonderful doctors or nurses I meet at the Children's Hospital at Westmead nor the many wonderful teachers I have met through our daughters' schooling, nor the shopkeepers whose businesses I interact with.
Specifically can an investment banker that made $8m (because he "helped" convince one large company to buy another large company) really believe this remuneration is justfifiable compared to (say) the peadeatric surgeon who just operated on (and saved the life of) a baby ..where the surgeon may be earning around $200K....Does the "I worked hard" bullshit really hold water when you compare how financial rewards in our society seem to go not to those that provide society with the greatest benefits but rather to those who make money for others!.
You worked no harder than most of the population but ended up with more money than most. Just be thankful that this is how our society works, give more to charity and going forward perhaps be a little more humble.
5) I might need this money later in life
This came from a guy with investment assets of more than $500m. Someone whose regular giving is of the order of $10,000 a year..His specific concerns seems to be medical..What if he gets sick when he is older...Gee, tough one....However I am guessing that you could meet your future medical needs with ALOT LESS than $500m.
6)I do give but in a quiet way.....
This is the great urban myth of Australian philanthropy. Some would have us believe that our wealthy are backing the trucks up daily to needy causes all over the country, flooding their coffers with gzillions BUT only on the premise that nobody leaks information on the amazing acts of philanthropy...
Some wealthy do give anonmymously however IF there was this, across the board, flood of LARGE donations (given anonymously) then the money would appear in the statements of the major charities...Guess what the statements do not show that this is occurring?? Why?? Because it is not happening....For the most part our wealthy are NOT giving large donations either quietly or with the accompaniment of a full orchestra, brass band and marching girls.
7) When I was on my way up the press kept having a go at me..Now that I have money..bugger them...I am keeping it.
So let me get this right...
For whatever reason some journalists have at some time written pieces critical of you while you were building your career. Now that you have made your pile you feel the appropriate response is to not give money to charity..Where is the connection? It may well be that the journalists were not justified in their attack and you have been mistreated but this does not now give you a leave pass from your responsibility to give back to the broader society. OK. Make a stand. Do not donate to any journalists retirement home but I am pretty sure there are other causes, not related to journalism or the media, that you could give your money to.
8) I already give to society. I run a business and employ people.
This little beauty is often trotted out by sycophants of the rich and powerful. Somehow in their twisted, parallel universe the building of a business (which requires the hiring of people) is a charitable act....For most I am pretty sure that they built their business to make money and as part of the building their business they needed to hire people to do stuff. Employment was not a charitable act but rather a way for them to make (more) money..To suggest that hiring people is some form of social giving is really bizzarre.
Most of the rich people I have met became rich either through (as Buffet suggests) being members of the "lucky sperm club" (ie having money passed down to them) or they have built businesses. The business builders have done so through a mix of smarts (street or intellectual or both), a strong work ethic, highlty tuned competitive approach and focus. Generally they are people you would consider at best reaonably talented and at worst not stupid.
So why, when asked about their lack of giving to charity, do they come out with such a range of fundamentally flawed answers. Answers that are easy to bat back. Answers that do not bear up under the slightest scrutiny...How can people who are so smart for most of their day seem so stupid when it comes to justfiying their greed.
My sense is that for most of our wealthy money embodies everything they want to be. With money they now have access to people they would not previously had access to. With money people treat them as special (car companies. airlines, hotel, restuarants, shops etc). With money people assume they have qualities such as wisdom, compassion and a level of intellect that may not in fact exist...In short because they have alot of money they are treated as special, better than the rest.....Therefore anything that diminishes the pot of money in some way diminishes how special they are....
En masse our wealthy are not necessarilly, smart, wise, compassionate, caring, clever,nice or worth spending any time with..They are just rich.
They do however have a responsibility to give back generously to the society that provided them the platfrom from which they made their pile..It should not be a choice but a responsibility and society should expect our most successful/lucky to contribute their fair share..Quite simple really.
Monday, May 3, 2010
The BIG issues in life
So I have taken Bella to the park and pulled up along side another car. On the car there is one sticker.....Now I think it is reasonable to assume that if someone has one sticker on their car that is related to some activity/political view/hobby etc then this is probably an issue that is core to their beliefs and something that they think about alot.
Sure you see stickers that are annoying (Baby on Board) but you just have to smile and disregard the stupidity of them (Oh I was going to ram your car off the road and kill you and your occupants but then I saw you had a baby on board so I decided to let your car pass and get the next guy) and just celebrate the love of their child...
So anyway if you think of all the issues facing our world today...from continued unrest in the middle east, systemic issues with regard to the health and welfare of indigenous Australians, decades of unaddressed hunger and poverty in the African continent, the need to add more courts to deal with the increased number of activities of rugby league players, through to the potential for environmental calamity with global warming and yet the woman who parked next to me felt that this was her biggest concern.
So she is not just worried about (I guess) dogs and cats being made available to purchase by loiving families....No she wants all animals protected from those....those...those pet shops...What about those poor goldfish,living a life of being looked at every day by thousands of people they don't know..No privacy, no quiet place to swim off and contemplate their lot in life.
And what about the poor mice....Ok they still get to procreate (alot!) but is this really a life that we should subject them to.
Oh and not only is there a sticker that can be proudly displayed by the couple of people who truly care about pets being available in pet shops...These supporters of all that is wrong with our society also have a web site!!
As I drove away I wanted to turn back and run up to the woman and say how envious I was of her life. Imagine if, in all the troubled areas of your life and the world around you, the one thing that you feel SOOOO passionate about is that pets are available in pet shops..........You must have a truly wonderful life.
Sure you see stickers that are annoying (Baby on Board) but you just have to smile and disregard the stupidity of them (Oh I was going to ram your car off the road and kill you and your occupants but then I saw you had a baby on board so I decided to let your car pass and get the next guy) and just celebrate the love of their child...
So anyway if you think of all the issues facing our world today...from continued unrest in the middle east, systemic issues with regard to the health and welfare of indigenous Australians, decades of unaddressed hunger and poverty in the African continent, the need to add more courts to deal with the increased number of activities of rugby league players, through to the potential for environmental calamity with global warming and yet the woman who parked next to me felt that this was her biggest concern.
So she is not just worried about (I guess) dogs and cats being made available to purchase by loiving families....No she wants all animals protected from those....those...those pet shops...What about those poor goldfish,living a life of being looked at every day by thousands of people they don't know..No privacy, no quiet place to swim off and contemplate their lot in life.
And what about the poor mice....Ok they still get to procreate (alot!) but is this really a life that we should subject them to.
Oh and not only is there a sticker that can be proudly displayed by the couple of people who truly care about pets being available in pet shops...These supporters of all that is wrong with our society also have a web site!!
As I drove away I wanted to turn back and run up to the woman and say how envious I was of her life. Imagine if, in all the troubled areas of your life and the world around you, the one thing that you feel SOOOO passionate about is that pets are available in pet shops..........You must have a truly wonderful life.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Generation One - really??
So let me first acknowledge that I agree with the view that our indigenous fellow Australians continue to suffer life conditions that are below that in many third world countries. The unemployment rate, health issues and general lack of opportunity is something that all Australians should find appalling and unacceptable...Every effort should be made to find sustainable solutions to these issues and all Australians should see such redress as overdue as necessary.
It is also impressive to hear that Twiggy Forrest has had a lifelong interest in the plight of our indigenous Australians and that he wants to do something about the lack of opportunity available to them....Good on him for voicing his concern and trying to get something done...However..........
So we have this GenerationOne launch at the Opera House with the usual political support from both sides and the nauseating appearance of showbiz celebs (Does anyone seriously give a shit that our Russell or our Cate are at the Opera House?...Iwas not going to support this cause but when I saw our Russell there I had to change my mind and give money....really???) and the sprinkle of rich people there supporting the cause....
It is all about the "Average Australian" getting involved....hey I am all for all of us taking this issue to heart but I actually think that our rich folk...especially those who seem more impacted by the issue than others...could lead by example....real example!!
So what actually is everyone supporting...beyond the Rah Rah, the hand wringing and angst filled faces and PR spin.....Twiggy says the initial goal was to find 50,000 jobs for indigenous people...What does this actually mean and what type of jobs?
Is it just that 50,000 low paid, menial jobs will be taken from one level of the poorer end of the socio-economic scale and given to a group even further down (ie bias in job selection) or does it mean that 50,000 jobs will be created where there were no jobs?? Help me understand this second version...Does it mean that businesses that do not need extra people will now hire 50,000 people they did not need???Surely this can't be the case so it must be version 0ne....ie of the current or next batch of 50,000 jobs to be made available (ie businesses need these people) the next 50,000 or so will go to indigeneous people.....yet given for the most part the people that this scheme is trying to help are low skilled therefore the jobs will be low skill jobs.....and some other poor low skilled worker misses out.
The nauseating notes from our latest premier (KK) about committing to hire 2229 indigenous people...what does this mean??How many was she going to hire anyway??are these new jobs?? If so where and if so why??..What is it about KK...Not only would she go to the opening of an envelope...she will send out the invitations asking people come and she will present a speech on the making of the invitation to the event where an envelope was being opened...My first 50 days opening envelopes.....anyway....
I am NOT against a positive bias towards indigenous job selection and it might just be something needed but can someone be honest and explain that this is what is going on.......Can somone also explain how this creates a systemic and sustainable fix to the problems that exist for indigenous Australians.
50,000 jobs is around 0.46% of the total Australian Job market...According to the ABS 2001 data there are (recorded) around 410,000 indigenous Australians so 50,000 out of 410,000 seems an impressive goal...ABS reports the unemployment rate for indigenous people at 14% - 17% so again 50,000 is a reasonable goal to hit....and yet how are jobs created in a sustainable way and hwo do you ensure you create jobs that are not just ones at the bottom of the socio-economic scale..
I can't help but think that a) If the rich folks wants to really help there is a more meaningful approach they could take and b) alot of this Generation One programme is PR Spin, tokenistic and debasing. It offers promise to those that want to address the appalling situation that our indigenous Australians are in but it does so with more style than substance...
So here is an idea...Twiggy has made around $3bn (it goes up and down a bit) over the last few years and Twiggy SAYS that he is personally very troubled by the lack of opportunity for our indigenous Australians...Seems James Packer and Kerry Stokes agree......So given you VERY rich guys care so much why not try this on for size...Twiggy you put in $1b (still leaves you with $2b or more) and James and Kerry you guys put in another few hundred million ( in both cases you will be left with gzillions so you should be ok)...So now we have around $1.5b to invest in sustainable programmes to help indigenous Australians.....
If you assume the $1.5b invested could return around $150m a year FOREVER and assume that it costs around $15K- $20K per year to put someone through an apprenticeship or Uni degree.
This means that for $150m per year you would have 9,000 people undertaking courses at any one time (3,000 in each of year 1,2 , 3) and you would produce 3,000 fully trained and SKILLED indigenous students a year, forever....a sustainable and society changing impact on the lack of opportunity...Also these are skilled roles so the indigenous Australians coudl aspire to jobs higher up the socio-economic scale and have the ability to create a new world of opportunity for their families.
Maybe we should broaden the net further...Twiggy you put up for $1b and your other rich mates scrape together another $1b..Come on Russell, Cate you seem so committed to this surely you can give up 1 or 2 payments from a hollywood move and kick the tin for $20m or so each...So with $2b invested the opportunity programme could fund around 13,500 students...Maybe get the Govt to now match fund this programme and now we have 27,000 students being fully funded in course that will give them REAL job prospects in more than menial pay roles....And this would occur year after year after year.
So all power to Twiggy, his rich mates, Hollywood stars and random politicians for supporting the Generation One programme...but why not stop gnashing your teech about how big the problem is and PUT REAL MONEY to work to fix the issue..
While I am on this rant...So a rich guy (say someonewith $4b) give $10m to a hospital and not only does he get naming rights to the building etc but he is lauded by all as a great philanthropist...Is he really?..On the one hand $10m is alot of money however....$10m being donated by a guy with $4b is like the average Australian giving $700.....(The average Australian has, according to the ABS, a net wealth of $280K..so do the maths $10m eaquals about 1/4 of 1% of the next wealth of someoen with $4b etc etc)......
There are alot of normal Australians who give $700 or more a year to charities close to their heart and no one calls them great philanthropists..Let's not go further into this anlysis by pointing out the obvious which is $700 means ALOT more to a guy with a net wealth of $280,000 than does $10m to a guy with $4b..
So how about this for a plan...Unless you allocate more than 15% of your net wealth to charity (the benchmark for the richest americans and their allocation of wealth to charities) you do not get referred to in any ways as anything more than a normal person doing normal things...if a $billionaire wants to allocate $400m to a foundation or charity then they deserve the accolades....Further how about we REQUIRE our most wealthy to give this amount to charities...Seems they have alot lying around so could afford to kick the tin a tad more..
Full circle now...Twiggy...love the passion...agree with the concern...Nice to invite the rest of us....looking forward to you donating only 1/3 of your massive fortune to help address this issue in a sustainable way....that plus a little help from your friends...
It is also impressive to hear that Twiggy Forrest has had a lifelong interest in the plight of our indigenous Australians and that he wants to do something about the lack of opportunity available to them....Good on him for voicing his concern and trying to get something done...However..........
So we have this GenerationOne launch at the Opera House with the usual political support from both sides and the nauseating appearance of showbiz celebs (Does anyone seriously give a shit that our Russell or our Cate are at the Opera House?...Iwas not going to support this cause but when I saw our Russell there I had to change my mind and give money....really???) and the sprinkle of rich people there supporting the cause....
It is all about the "Average Australian" getting involved....hey I am all for all of us taking this issue to heart but I actually think that our rich folk...especially those who seem more impacted by the issue than others...could lead by example....real example!!
So what actually is everyone supporting...beyond the Rah Rah, the hand wringing and angst filled faces and PR spin.....Twiggy says the initial goal was to find 50,000 jobs for indigenous people...What does this actually mean and what type of jobs?
Is it just that 50,000 low paid, menial jobs will be taken from one level of the poorer end of the socio-economic scale and given to a group even further down (ie bias in job selection) or does it mean that 50,000 jobs will be created where there were no jobs?? Help me understand this second version...Does it mean that businesses that do not need extra people will now hire 50,000 people they did not need???Surely this can't be the case so it must be version 0ne....ie of the current or next batch of 50,000 jobs to be made available (ie businesses need these people) the next 50,000 or so will go to indigeneous people.....yet given for the most part the people that this scheme is trying to help are low skilled therefore the jobs will be low skill jobs.....and some other poor low skilled worker misses out.
The nauseating notes from our latest premier (KK) about committing to hire 2229 indigenous people...what does this mean??How many was she going to hire anyway??are these new jobs?? If so where and if so why??..What is it about KK...Not only would she go to the opening of an envelope...she will send out the invitations asking people come and she will present a speech on the making of the invitation to the event where an envelope was being opened...My first 50 days opening envelopes.....anyway....
I am NOT against a positive bias towards indigenous job selection and it might just be something needed but can someone be honest and explain that this is what is going on.......Can somone also explain how this creates a systemic and sustainable fix to the problems that exist for indigenous Australians.
50,000 jobs is around 0.46% of the total Australian Job market...According to the ABS 2001 data there are (recorded) around 410,000 indigenous Australians so 50,000 out of 410,000 seems an impressive goal...ABS reports the unemployment rate for indigenous people at 14% - 17% so again 50,000 is a reasonable goal to hit....and yet how are jobs created in a sustainable way and hwo do you ensure you create jobs that are not just ones at the bottom of the socio-economic scale..
I can't help but think that a) If the rich folks wants to really help there is a more meaningful approach they could take and b) alot of this Generation One programme is PR Spin, tokenistic and debasing. It offers promise to those that want to address the appalling situation that our indigenous Australians are in but it does so with more style than substance...
So here is an idea...Twiggy has made around $3bn (it goes up and down a bit) over the last few years and Twiggy SAYS that he is personally very troubled by the lack of opportunity for our indigenous Australians...Seems James Packer and Kerry Stokes agree......So given you VERY rich guys care so much why not try this on for size...Twiggy you put in $1b (still leaves you with $2b or more) and James and Kerry you guys put in another few hundred million ( in both cases you will be left with gzillions so you should be ok)...So now we have around $1.5b to invest in sustainable programmes to help indigenous Australians.....
If you assume the $1.5b invested could return around $150m a year FOREVER and assume that it costs around $15K- $20K per year to put someone through an apprenticeship or Uni degree.
This means that for $150m per year you would have 9,000 people undertaking courses at any one time (3,000 in each of year 1,2 , 3) and you would produce 3,000 fully trained and SKILLED indigenous students a year, forever....a sustainable and society changing impact on the lack of opportunity...Also these are skilled roles so the indigenous Australians coudl aspire to jobs higher up the socio-economic scale and have the ability to create a new world of opportunity for their families.
Maybe we should broaden the net further...Twiggy you put up for $1b and your other rich mates scrape together another $1b..Come on Russell, Cate you seem so committed to this surely you can give up 1 or 2 payments from a hollywood move and kick the tin for $20m or so each...So with $2b invested the opportunity programme could fund around 13,500 students...Maybe get the Govt to now match fund this programme and now we have 27,000 students being fully funded in course that will give them REAL job prospects in more than menial pay roles....And this would occur year after year after year.
So all power to Twiggy, his rich mates, Hollywood stars and random politicians for supporting the Generation One programme...but why not stop gnashing your teech about how big the problem is and PUT REAL MONEY to work to fix the issue..
While I am on this rant...So a rich guy (say someonewith $4b) give $10m to a hospital and not only does he get naming rights to the building etc but he is lauded by all as a great philanthropist...Is he really?..On the one hand $10m is alot of money however....$10m being donated by a guy with $4b is like the average Australian giving $700.....(The average Australian has, according to the ABS, a net wealth of $280K..so do the maths $10m eaquals about 1/4 of 1% of the next wealth of someoen with $4b etc etc)......
There are alot of normal Australians who give $700 or more a year to charities close to their heart and no one calls them great philanthropists..Let's not go further into this anlysis by pointing out the obvious which is $700 means ALOT more to a guy with a net wealth of $280,000 than does $10m to a guy with $4b..
So how about this for a plan...Unless you allocate more than 15% of your net wealth to charity (the benchmark for the richest americans and their allocation of wealth to charities) you do not get referred to in any ways as anything more than a normal person doing normal things...if a $billionaire wants to allocate $400m to a foundation or charity then they deserve the accolades....Further how about we REQUIRE our most wealthy to give this amount to charities...Seems they have alot lying around so could afford to kick the tin a tad more..
Full circle now...Twiggy...love the passion...agree with the concern...Nice to invite the rest of us....looking forward to you donating only 1/3 of your massive fortune to help address this issue in a sustainable way....that plus a little help from your friends...
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Ch7 Sydney News
So last night I as home in time to watch the evening News. Ringing in my ears was a conversation I had recently had with good friend from the US.
He used to visit Australia regaularly in the 1990's but had not been here since 1997. He visited last year and over dinner he provided a well articulate review of our commerical FTA TV news . His point was that over the intervening yars the News offerings from Ch7, 9, 10 hd become more insular, less global, less news and mre entertainment...Not really News but rather a slightly high brow version of Australia's Funniest Videos mixed with ACA or Today Tonight...
Of course I jumped to the defence of our venerable News services and was quick to attack the insular News offerings that exits in the main US TV markets.....
So here we are last night watching the Ch7 News....The telecast opens with the story about the killer of Victor Chang being released....Now the fcts are that this guy committed a terrible crime, robbing Australia of one of its true heroes. Victor Chang's murder was a tragedy of national proportions...However this guy (Lim) served 18 years in prison and was being released on parole. It was decided (I gues gy him with the sanction of the appropriate authorities) to allow him to fly bck tohis country of bith in Malaysia...
In summary...criminal leaves jail after 18 years on parole and goes home to Malaysia..short story....Noooooooo..Channel 7 start with the expected photos of Victor Chang etc then the presenter cuts to some flack at Sydney Airport (where Lim is to fly out)..chat chat chat..The we cut to...seriously...I am not making this up...we cut to Kuala Lumpur where another ch7 flack is waiting...what the fuck is he waiting for...... Why do we need to see video or Sydney Airport, refer to a flack out there who tells us again that Lim will fly out on Malaysian airlines with some federal govt staff...Why then did we need to go to flack #2 to tell us that Lim will arrive in X hrs time in Kuala Lumpur...This is not a surprise....Lim is flying home on a commercial jet after being released form jail..He is not escaping on a plane that he has hijacked......
As I watched this parody of a news story pondering why all the unnecesary BS it all became clear...Ch7 needs to pad out the 22 minutes in the 6:00pm news and to keep costs down and outrage high....so pad this story out for the maximum time possible...pad just to the edge of it looking ridiculous and stop...Well executed ch 7.
Then we go to the story about the interest rate rise. Background.....We have had historically low interest rates set by the Reserve Bank to assist in making sure we did not gon into recession..During this last year or so every commentator, politician, Reserve Bank employee ha stalked about how rates will have to get back to normal levels in the short term...So the base rate goes up from 3.75% to 4.0%...All as expected..The 4.0% rate is still well below more recent normalised levels and yet.......
Ch7 rolls out probably the most naff story construction in their history. The story focuses on a mum who talks abotu having to make cut backs...Firstly what was she expecting when rates went down to 2%..That they would stay there forever...That all the pundits, experts etc were wrong when they told her time and again rates woudl go back up??? Anyway she has a child's blackboard where she is drawing the things that they will hve to now cut out of their expenditure..She draws a lolly, then something unintelligible, then a house....So so so naff and shame on ch7 for such a pathetic and basically unhelpful story...
The Chris Bath references a video about a near accident in the US on an icy road..Roll the video once...roll the video a second time...and I think they rolled it a THIRD time...Cut to an ad break and after the ad break....Guess what...roll the video again!!!...I get it...The US Policeman on soem random US highway nearly got killed...Yes it was a close call but I am guessing there were alot of close calls around the world yesterday...This was not the most important and even if it was I only needed to see it once!
Truly this was an exact cut and paste of the approach taken by Australian Funniest Videos...which is fine except this is meant to be a serious News broadcast!!!!
So what else happened in the world yesterday..What stories failed to make the cut?? What stories fell in behind the near crash on some random US highway?
Yesterday...
The International Court of Justice commenced the trial of Karadzic - the Bosnian leader charged with genocide.
There were more aftershocks in Chile and Chile struggled to cope with the aftermath of the earthquake.
Flooding in Europe.
Issues with Malik in the upcoming and potentially world changing Iraqi elections.
Pakastini forces capture a major al-Queda cave stronghold.
Ongoing developments with the massive debts that many European countries are struggling to deal with.
The seminal US Health Care debate continued with Obama trying new tactics to get this through.
Just to name a few...Let alone slightly more important local issues such as the release of the national cutrriculm blueprint.....
It is sad to say but my friend is right...Our commercial TV news services are all style and no substance..For any of them to suggest that they take seriously the issue of News production and disseminatiion is a massive insult to the intellgence of the Australian community...Far better to re-run some sitcom..At least we then know when to laugh....
He used to visit Australia regaularly in the 1990's but had not been here since 1997. He visited last year and over dinner he provided a well articulate review of our commerical FTA TV news . His point was that over the intervening yars the News offerings from Ch7, 9, 10 hd become more insular, less global, less news and mre entertainment...Not really News but rather a slightly high brow version of Australia's Funniest Videos mixed with ACA or Today Tonight...
Of course I jumped to the defence of our venerable News services and was quick to attack the insular News offerings that exits in the main US TV markets.....
So here we are last night watching the Ch7 News....The telecast opens with the story about the killer of Victor Chang being released....Now the fcts are that this guy committed a terrible crime, robbing Australia of one of its true heroes. Victor Chang's murder was a tragedy of national proportions...However this guy (Lim) served 18 years in prison and was being released on parole. It was decided (I gues gy him with the sanction of the appropriate authorities) to allow him to fly bck tohis country of bith in Malaysia...
In summary...criminal leaves jail after 18 years on parole and goes home to Malaysia..short story....Noooooooo..Channel 7 start with the expected photos of Victor Chang etc then the presenter cuts to some flack at Sydney Airport (where Lim is to fly out)..chat chat chat..The we cut to...seriously...I am not making this up...we cut to Kuala Lumpur where another ch7 flack is waiting...what the fuck is he waiting for...... Why do we need to see video or Sydney Airport, refer to a flack out there who tells us again that Lim will fly out on Malaysian airlines with some federal govt staff...Why then did we need to go to flack #2 to tell us that Lim will arrive in X hrs time in Kuala Lumpur...This is not a surprise....Lim is flying home on a commercial jet after being released form jail..He is not escaping on a plane that he has hijacked......
As I watched this parody of a news story pondering why all the unnecesary BS it all became clear...Ch7 needs to pad out the 22 minutes in the 6:00pm news and to keep costs down and outrage high....so pad this story out for the maximum time possible...pad just to the edge of it looking ridiculous and stop...Well executed ch 7.
Then we go to the story about the interest rate rise. Background.....We have had historically low interest rates set by the Reserve Bank to assist in making sure we did not gon into recession..During this last year or so every commentator, politician, Reserve Bank employee ha stalked about how rates will have to get back to normal levels in the short term...So the base rate goes up from 3.75% to 4.0%...All as expected..The 4.0% rate is still well below more recent normalised levels and yet.......
Ch7 rolls out probably the most naff story construction in their history. The story focuses on a mum who talks abotu having to make cut backs...Firstly what was she expecting when rates went down to 2%..That they would stay there forever...That all the pundits, experts etc were wrong when they told her time and again rates woudl go back up??? Anyway she has a child's blackboard where she is drawing the things that they will hve to now cut out of their expenditure..She draws a lolly, then something unintelligible, then a house....So so so naff and shame on ch7 for such a pathetic and basically unhelpful story...
The Chris Bath references a video about a near accident in the US on an icy road..Roll the video once...roll the video a second time...and I think they rolled it a THIRD time...Cut to an ad break and after the ad break....Guess what...roll the video again!!!...I get it...The US Policeman on soem random US highway nearly got killed...Yes it was a close call but I am guessing there were alot of close calls around the world yesterday...This was not the most important and even if it was I only needed to see it once!
Truly this was an exact cut and paste of the approach taken by Australian Funniest Videos...which is fine except this is meant to be a serious News broadcast!!!!
So what else happened in the world yesterday..What stories failed to make the cut?? What stories fell in behind the near crash on some random US highway?
Yesterday...
The International Court of Justice commenced the trial of Karadzic - the Bosnian leader charged with genocide.
There were more aftershocks in Chile and Chile struggled to cope with the aftermath of the earthquake.
Flooding in Europe.
Issues with Malik in the upcoming and potentially world changing Iraqi elections.
Pakastini forces capture a major al-Queda cave stronghold.
Ongoing developments with the massive debts that many European countries are struggling to deal with.
The seminal US Health Care debate continued with Obama trying new tactics to get this through.
Just to name a few...Let alone slightly more important local issues such as the release of the national cutrriculm blueprint.....
It is sad to say but my friend is right...Our commercial TV news services are all style and no substance..For any of them to suggest that they take seriously the issue of News production and disseminatiion is a massive insult to the intellgence of the Australian community...Far better to re-run some sitcom..At least we then know when to laugh....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
