Thursday, 28 July 2016
The Visual toolbox
Develop your initial concepts (thumbnails) further by exploring the different techniques:Juxtaposition, Subversion, Substitution/Addition, and Pastiche/Parody
Tuesday, 26 July 2016
Monday, 25 July 2016
Friday, 22 July 2016
Housing
After further research and also class choice, I have chosen to look at the issue of housing in NZ. As you can see from above, there are more areas of inequality in relation to housing than equal situations. I would really like to dig-deeper into the 'over-crowded' or 'housing-conditions'.
Thursday, 21 July 2016
Master Mind Map - EQUAL or UNEQUAL
Wednesday, 20 July 2016
Debating
Rebuttal Points
- Its allg to look in the past but we are talking about the 21 century not the 20th century. What are we doing to make NZ equal in the 21st century?
- Point rasied by the first speaker talked about looking at ourselves. Yet compares NZ to other countries. Look at ourselves, what about the rest of NZ. the non designers, the older or younger people im sure. Students are not equal as the amount of money we are entitled to from the government are different amounts of money based on what our parents earn etc etc. Our small voice does have a lot of power but what are we doing with our ‘small voice’ is the question. What are we doing to make NZ equal in the 21st century?
- Comparing health care to the rest of the world, what about just the comparison between 1st world countries, where do we rank in that group?
- This debate is focussed on if New Zealand is an equal society, other countries have different governments and different factors to attribute for.
- Comparing racism to other countries doesn’t make it any better it’s like saying murder in NZ is fine because it’s worse in America.
Feedback
Overall, people sided with the negative teams; NZ is not a completely equal society.
Inequality a New Zealand Conservation
UNDERSTAND INEQUALITY
in income inequality.
As the graph (at left) shows, in that time, the average income of someone in the richest 1% has doubled, from just under $200,000 to nearly $400,000 (adjusting for inflation). In contrast, the average disposable income for someone in the poorest 10% is only slightly higher than it was in the 1980s. (More details and the source of this graph can be found in Wealth and New Zealand, published by BWB.) That means many New Zealanders struggle to pay their bills and lead a decent life.
Another way to put it is that someone in the richest 10% used to earn five times as much as someone in the poorest 10%; now they earn eight times as much.
Wealth is also very largely in the hands of a few. As the graph (below) shows, in New Zealand the wealthiest tenth own nearly a fifth of the country’s net worth, while the poorest half of the country has less than 5 per cent. That leaves many people in poverty, lacking the resources they need to participate in society and follow their dreams. (Again, further details are available in Wealth and New Zealand.)
In this way, inequality connects both ends of the spectrum. Poverty doesn’t exist in isolation: people are poor in part because the economy directs much of the country’s resources to those who are already doing well. For instance, within a company, pay for ordinary staff can be low because so much of the company’s income goes to senior management and shareholders. Wealth and poverty are connected.
Are people worried about inequality?
Polling shows New Zealanders have consistently rated inequality as the single biggest issue facing the country since 2014. Over 80 per cent of the country say they are concerned or very concerned about income and wealth imbalances. Internationally, all the world’s major economic bodies – including the IMF, the OECD and the World Bank – have argued for some time that inequality is a major problem and must be addressed.
What are the impacts of inequality?
For some people, inequality is fundamentally unfair: if people get such very different rewards for their work, there must be something wrong. There are also practical reasons to be concerned about inequality.
Unequal societies are less functional, less cohesive and less healthy than their more equal counterparts. The damage inequality does falls under five headings: trust and cohesion; health; opportunities; open politics; and the economy.
When it comes to trust and cohesion, in an unequal society, people lose touch with how ‘the other half’ lives. Growing income imbalances breed distrust and eat away at the bonds between people, weakening our sense of each other’s lives and our ability to pull together to tackle difficult problems.
On the health front, more unequal societies are more materially competitive, more hierarchical and more stressful. This leads to higher rates of stress-related illness.
Opportunities are damaged as well: inequality means that people’s chances are limited by who their parents were. In a society like America, you can predict half of a person’s income from what their parents earned, because huge inequality leads to such different starts for rich and poor kids and the government doesn’t offer much support for adults. Advantage and disadvantage are passed on from generation to generation.
In contrast, in more equal societies like Denmark, all parents have enough income to buy their kids a computer for school and heat their home properly, and strong public services help out those struggling in later life. People can make their own way in life rather than being heavily influenced by their parents’ status. New Zealand is currently somewhere in between these two extremes, but probably becoming more like America.
When it comes to politics, inequality allows wealthy people to influence politicians, who rely on them for donations to fund their campaigns. That means some people get more access than others – a violation of the ideals of democracy.
Finally, when it comes to the economy, recent OECD and IMF research shows that more unequal countries have worse economies, because poverty deprives them of the full talents of some children and the economy becomes prone to asset bubbles and instability.
In these five areas, the failings affect all of us, no matter where we are on the spectrum.
What causes inequality?
Inequality has many causes, and they vary from country to country. Global trade agreements play a role, by shifting manufacturing and other jobs to countries with lower pay. But many of the causes are purely domestic. In New Zealand, in the 1980s and 1990s, taxes were cut for top earners, while benefits were reduced by up to 30 per cent for the poorest families.
Thousands of people lost their jobs as companies moved overseas, and the number of people in trade unions – which traditionally pushed up the wages of ordinary workers – fell from 70 per cent of the workforce to 20 per cent.
In addition, some inequality is down to things like household types (we have more single parent families than before, and they tend to be poorer), though these factors are probably not as important as those above.
When it comes to wealth, the sale of public assets will have increased the wealth of those at the upper end, while declining home ownership means fewer and fewer people have that most important kind of asset. Data shows that most saving – a key way to build up wealth – is very difficult except for those who have large incomes or work in the property sector.
How are the terms defined?
Income inequality is usually calculated based on after-tax income (since that’s what people can actually spend) and on a household basis (since people spend money as part of a larger family unit, in most cases).
The sections above described how incomes in New Zealand have diverged in the last few decades. Another key way to look at income inequality is the Gini coefficient, which in essence takes all the income gaps in a country – all the gaps between how income is distributed and how it would be distributed in a perfectly even society – and adds them together. As the graph (below) shows, New Zealand’s Gini coefficient rose rapidly in the 1980s and 1990s.
It fell a little in the 2000s, thanks to Working for Families and a higher minimum wage, but since the global financial crisis it has started rising again.
For wealth inequality, the measure is individual (or sometimes household) net worth, which is someone’s assets (what they own) minus their liabilities (their debts, or what they owe).
http://www.inequality.org.nz/understand/#!prettyPhoto
What is inequality?
There are many kinds of inequality – of gender, ethnicity, sexuality, and so on. This site focusses on inequality of income and wealth, sometimes known as economic inequality or resource inequality, because income and wealth are both things (resources) that the economy produces.
Income is the money that comes in week to week or month to month, while wealth is people’s stored up assets, like houses, KiwiSaver investments, or cash in the bank. Income is what people need to get through the present, while wealth allows them to plan for the future and make investments.
Income and wealth inequality is about who gets what – the fact that some people have much more or much less of these things than others.
Why this kind of inequality?
Income and wealth aren’t the only things that matter for a good life and people’s ability to pursue their dreams and participate in society. But they do make a big difference to the kinds of lives people can lead. And the size of a society’s income and wealth imbalances has a strong effect on the nature of that society, and how healthy and connected it is. So it matters how income and wealth are shared out.
How unequal is New Zealand?
In New Zealand, income (and probably wealth) was being shared out more and more evenly from the 1950s up until the 1980s – but for the next two decades we had the developed world’s biggest increase
As the graph (at left) shows, in that time, the average income of someone in the richest 1% has doubled, from just under $200,000 to nearly $400,000 (adjusting for inflation). In contrast, the average disposable income for someone in the poorest 10% is only slightly higher than it was in the 1980s. (More details and the source of this graph can be found in Wealth and New Zealand, published by BWB.) That means many New Zealanders struggle to pay their bills and lead a decent life.
Another way to put it is that someone in the richest 10% used to earn five times as much as someone in the poorest 10%; now they earn eight times as much.
Wealth is also very largely in the hands of a few. As the graph (below) shows, in New Zealand the wealthiest tenth own nearly a fifth of the country’s net worth, while the poorest half of the country has less than 5 per cent. That leaves many people in poverty, lacking the resources they need to participate in society and follow their dreams. (Again, further details are available in Wealth and New Zealand.)
In this way, inequality connects both ends of the spectrum. Poverty doesn’t exist in isolation: people are poor in part because the economy directs much of the country’s resources to those who are already doing well. For instance, within a company, pay for ordinary staff can be low because so much of the company’s income goes to senior management and shareholders. Wealth and poverty are connected.
Are people worried about inequality?
Polling shows New Zealanders have consistently rated inequality as the single biggest issue facing the country since 2014. Over 80 per cent of the country say they are concerned or very concerned about income and wealth imbalances. Internationally, all the world’s major economic bodies – including the IMF, the OECD and the World Bank – have argued for some time that inequality is a major problem and must be addressed.
What are the impacts of inequality?
For some people, inequality is fundamentally unfair: if people get such very different rewards for their work, there must be something wrong. There are also practical reasons to be concerned about inequality.
Unequal societies are less functional, less cohesive and less healthy than their more equal counterparts. The damage inequality does falls under five headings: trust and cohesion; health; opportunities; open politics; and the economy.
When it comes to trust and cohesion, in an unequal society, people lose touch with how ‘the other half’ lives. Growing income imbalances breed distrust and eat away at the bonds between people, weakening our sense of each other’s lives and our ability to pull together to tackle difficult problems.
On the health front, more unequal societies are more materially competitive, more hierarchical and more stressful. This leads to higher rates of stress-related illness.
Opportunities are damaged as well: inequality means that people’s chances are limited by who their parents were. In a society like America, you can predict half of a person’s income from what their parents earned, because huge inequality leads to such different starts for rich and poor kids and the government doesn’t offer much support for adults. Advantage and disadvantage are passed on from generation to generation.
In contrast, in more equal societies like Denmark, all parents have enough income to buy their kids a computer for school and heat their home properly, and strong public services help out those struggling in later life. People can make their own way in life rather than being heavily influenced by their parents’ status. New Zealand is currently somewhere in between these two extremes, but probably becoming more like America.
When it comes to politics, inequality allows wealthy people to influence politicians, who rely on them for donations to fund their campaigns. That means some people get more access than others – a violation of the ideals of democracy.
Finally, when it comes to the economy, recent OECD and IMF research shows that more unequal countries have worse economies, because poverty deprives them of the full talents of some children and the economy becomes prone to asset bubbles and instability.
In these five areas, the failings affect all of us, no matter where we are on the spectrum.
What causes inequality?
Inequality has many causes, and they vary from country to country. Global trade agreements play a role, by shifting manufacturing and other jobs to countries with lower pay. But many of the causes are purely domestic. In New Zealand, in the 1980s and 1990s, taxes were cut for top earners, while benefits were reduced by up to 30 per cent for the poorest families.
Thousands of people lost their jobs as companies moved overseas, and the number of people in trade unions – which traditionally pushed up the wages of ordinary workers – fell from 70 per cent of the workforce to 20 per cent.
In addition, some inequality is down to things like household types (we have more single parent families than before, and they tend to be poorer), though these factors are probably not as important as those above.
When it comes to wealth, the sale of public assets will have increased the wealth of those at the upper end, while declining home ownership means fewer and fewer people have that most important kind of asset. Data shows that most saving – a key way to build up wealth – is very difficult except for those who have large incomes or work in the property sector.
How are the terms defined?
Income inequality is usually calculated based on after-tax income (since that’s what people can actually spend) and on a household basis (since people spend money as part of a larger family unit, in most cases).
The sections above described how incomes in New Zealand have diverged in the last few decades. Another key way to look at income inequality is the Gini coefficient, which in essence takes all the income gaps in a country – all the gaps between how income is distributed and how it would be distributed in a perfectly even society – and adds them together. As the graph (below) shows, New Zealand’s Gini coefficient rose rapidly in the 1980s and 1990s.
It fell a little in the 2000s, thanks to Working for Families and a higher minimum wage, but since the global financial crisis it has started rising again.
For wealth inequality, the measure is individual (or sometimes household) net worth, which is someone’s assets (what they own) minus their liabilities (their debts, or what they owe).
http://www.inequality.org.nz/understand/#!prettyPhoto
http://www.inequality.org.nz/understand/#!prettyPhoto
Housing Perspective
BILL ENGLISH ON HOUSING AND INEQUALITY
By Max Rashbrooke on Oct 8 2014,
Bill English is quoted in the Herald today as saying, a propos of rising house prices and low housebuilding numbers:
It’s clear that the lowest-income households have been the most affected so our planning processes have probably done more to increase income inequality in New Zealand than most other policies and it does remain a challenge to make progress.
But while it is true that housing does have an impact on inequality, I’m not sure there’s evidence to justify that claim.
Rising housing costs are affecting people on low incomes, certainly. The international standard is that no one should spend more than 30% of their income on housing costs, otherwise there just isn’t enough left for other things. But the percentage of New Zealanders spending more than that on housing has risen from 11% in the 1980s to 27% now. Most of these will be the poorest New Zealanders.
So when you look at the figures on inequality produced every year by the Ministry of Social Development, it’s clear that housing costs do make inequality worse. But – and this is the real problem for English’s argument – inequality is already very high, and has risen hugely since the 1980s, even before housing costs are taken into account. It’s not at all the case that, if you took housing out of the equation, everything would be hunky-dory. In fact, the gaps caused by other things swamp the gaps caused by housing.
So it seems unlikely that New Zealand’s planning processes have “probably done more” to increase inequality in any other. Far more important factors, in my opinion, would include reduced taxes on top earners, lower benefits, weaker union bargaining power and the influence of globalisation and technology.
And, even if you think housing is driving inequality, it’s not clear that planning processes and councils are to blame. Well over 90% of resource consents are processed without any notification or anything else to slow them down. And council development charges make up a fraction of housing costs. The bigger problems are likely to be the fact that we have almost no firms that build more than 100 houses a year, so hardly anyone can get economies of scale to drive down prices; and local opposition (as I see locally in, say, Johnsonville) to building more in urban centres.
Wealth inequality
As a final note, English’s argument ironically points to facts that his opponents, notably Labour’s David Parker, want to stress.
One of the big things that has probably happened in the last decade is a major increase in wealth inequality, in terms of the assets that people own.
Fewer and fewer people own their own home; those that do have seen the value of those homes increase sharply. Since half of all our assets are held in the form of housing, this (along with other things) means that wealth inequality has almost certainly been increasing (although we haven’t been measuring, so it’s hard to be sure).
Anyway, this is the point that Parker makes every time English claims that inequality isn’t getting worse. Inequality of income may have been relatively flat in the last few years, but inequality ofwealth probably hasn’t.
In other words, talking about housing as a contributor to inequality may not help English as much as he thinks it does.
Education Perspective
Why New Zealand is Not an Equal Country
The metromag nz states that deciles dont matter — “They reflect nothing more than the income level in the students’ homes: the greater the wealth, the higher the decile.”
If this is the case then why did a student from a decile 4 school place top in the cambridge exams in the world last year and win a $100,000 scholarship to study at Cambridge University..
*Rebuttal point if they push that it is a reflection of quality educationDecile 4 Avondale College also produced the top Cambridge exams scholar in the world last year. He won a $100,000 scholarship and will soon be studying at Cambridge University.
New Zealand children do not get fair and equal access to educational opportunities. Our schools are increasingly separated on socio-economic and ethnic lines.
http://www.metromag.co.nz/city-life/education/24-things-to-know-before-you-choose-a-school/
Gender Perspective
Why New Zealand is Not an Equal Country
Even though New Zealand was “the first country to give women the right to vote in 1893”, and be one of the “first countries to have a woman as prime minister” (1999 Helen Clark) it seems that nowadays people still need to state those facts to prove a point about gender equality when bigger issues are being undermined.
The universal declaration of human and civil rights states “men are born and remain free and equal in rights” yet it has never been the case for women.
Before the 1960s women were expected to be wives, mothers and homemakers, abortion was illegal, and divorcing your husbands was near impossible. Rape in Marriage was not even recognized as a crime up until 1985.
Before the 19th century women did not even receive an education and even in during the 20th century women were only taught home sciences ( cooking, cleaning, sewing)
It was not up until the end of the 19th century and more precisely 1893 that women were given the right to vote in New Zealand, even now a days the ratio of men to women in the New Zealand parliament is 69 to 31, as of 2014, this is not representative of the population, this has been an issue for decades.
However Politics is not the only issue here. A gender pay gap is noticeable too. In 2015 the pay gap between men and women based on hourly earnings was of 11.8%.
- In 2014 a survey showed that women earned $300 less per week than men and also had lower lifetime incomes compared to men.
This is partly due to an unconscious bias. Stereotypical views on gender roles and about what women can and cannot do have had a strong negative influence on women’s careers in the workforce. ( women have for a long time worked low paid jobs ).
- All these inequalities have and are limiting women’s role in society.
Results from the Human Rights Commission’s Tracking Equality at Work report are shameful and show we need to do more to help women in the workplace, says the National Council of Women of New Zealand National President Rae Duff.
The report shows women have higher unemployment and underemployment than men. Woman are underrepresented in leadership roles in the public and private sectors, and make up two thirds of those earning the minimum wages.
“It’s not good enough that the representation of women in senior management positions in the private sector has sharply declined, from 31 per cent in 2014 to 19 per cent in 2015. Women’s representation on private sector boards also lags and sits at 14.4 per cent.
Pacific and Māori women are paid less per hour than European women, and disabled women have lower incomes than disabled men. This is a shame on our country and we need to reduce these inequalities for the sake of these individuals, their families and communities and for our economy.
“It is alarming that around two thirds of minimum wage earners over 25 years are women, which reflects the critical work that needs to be done to get equal pay for work of equal value and for more women to enter a wider range of professions and attain more senior roles.
“On the positive, there does seem to be a current upswing in awareness of gender issues and more employers taking action to ensure their policies and practices around recruitment and promotion, pay and conditions support diversity in the workplace. But it’s clearly not enough and more people need to do more.
Zealand women are among the most educated in the world, a new report shows, but there is a growing gap between economic opportunities for men and women - including their pay packets.
The World Economic Forum's annual report on the gender gap shows New Zealand has dropped in global rankings from seventh last year to 13th this year.
The Global Gender Gap Index ranks countries on the gap between men and women on health, education, economic and political indicators. New Zealand has improved or stayed the same on all indicators except for economic participation and opportunities, where the gap has widened. For pay equality, the country ranks 33rd out of 142 countries.
Dame Jenny Shipley, the country's first female Prime Minister and chairwoman of Global Women NZ, said the report showed there was "so much to do" to reach equality.
It was "inexcusable" for a woman to graduate from secondary or tertiary education with equal qualifications to a man and enter the workforce, only to be paid less.
The OECD's Gender Equality in Education, Employment and Entrepreneurship: Final Report also states that Woman in New Zealand do more unpaid work than paid work, gain more tertiary qualifications than men and women-owned new enterprises outperform men-owned enterprises.
Although wage inequality between men and woman has been slowly dropping, the report finds that the government funding allocated to reduce inequality in New Zealand is on the low side in comparison to other OECD countries.
So basically woman are getting a raw deal. In fact the gender pay gap in the public sector was 14.4% in 2010. If we include all areas of the workforce, woman on average earn around $10,000 less per year.
Racial Perspective
Why New Zealand is Not an Equal Country
- Many people call New Zealand their home no matter what background. people feel that new Zealand has given them a new opportunity to adjust and fit in how ever. it is rare to see someone say this without that extra ‘but’ …
- Despite being born and raised in New Zealand. If you originally come from a different culture/ look differently/ dress differently you will always get a double glance and be judged. This small action removes any sense of equality in NZ
-New Zealand has addressed a well balance regarding involving indigenous culture within the current society however it has its perks. Subtle racism is an issue i feel in terms of working, often the target is getting a ‘white person’ to be front of the house for better looks etc which in respect is racist. Small actions as such
- “The fact that Maori are so underprivileged, compared to most other people in New Zealand, is an economic issue, an issue of resources.”
- “In saying this, Maori are not the only ethnic group who have experienced forms of discrimination. Immigrants from many countries have chosen to settle and contribute to New Zealand’s society. However, it was only in the 1970s and 1980s that our immigration policy stopped favouring European descendants and began accepting immigrants on the basis of skills, financial assets and family relationships”
- “Contemporary research on racial equality indicates there are still significant ethnic imbalances. Maori, as mentioned, continue to be disadvantaged and discriminated against alongside other ethnic groups (Chinese, Korean, African, and Indian). Importantly, it has been shown that perceived discrimination can lead to negative effects such as stress, poor self and group esteem, impaired health and anti-social behaviours.”
- "As New Zealanders, if we aim to achieve a successful bicultural and multicultural national identity, we need to reassess our perspectives.”
- “Secondly, as New Zealanders we need to appreciate and respect other immigrants and encourage their integration into New Zealand. We can do this by nurturing their participation in our society and accepting the maintenance of their own heritage cultures.”
- ”If we follow these considerations, we will be working towards what is termed a “super-ordinate National Identity” where, regardless of your ethnic background, you can still consider yourself part of New Zealand its cultural identity. This will lead to increased harmonious ethnic relations and a more tolerant society.”
http://www.victoria.ac.nz/cacr/about-us/diversity-issues/is-new-zealand-an-equal-society
- “The study was based on the postal survey of 302 New Zealanders drawn from the electoral rolls. The results also showed that 44% of the respondents believed that Muslim immigrants increase the threat of terrorism in this country and 44% said that they would not want a mosque in their neighbourhood”
Monday, 18 July 2016
Ihi Wehi - Posters
Wehi Component - Relatable, Angry, Sad,
Characteristics - Formative, Straight Forward, Plain, Clean,
Rhetoric Tool(s) - Logos, Pathos
Wehi Component - We have a voice, Power, Control, Trapped,
Characteristics - Formative,
Rhetoric Tool(s) - Logos, Pathos
Sunday, 17 July 2016
Ihi Wehi in the Environment
What is the ihi?
Ihi can be described as
an individual’s essential
force, charisma, power
or charm – which
emanates throughout
the creative processes.
What is the wehi?
Wehi, on the other
hand, highlights the
internalised feelings
that occur in response
to ihi. Sometimes the
terms dread or awe
are commonly used
to describe wehi. In
this context, wehi is
taken to mean the
emotional response on
the part of the viewer.
Poster ONE
Ihi Component - Dark, Pollution, Problem
Wehi Component - Worried, Sad,
(Not strong enough to make a viewer compelled to support.)
Characteristics - Formative, Straight Forward, Plain, Grungy
Rhetoric Tool(s) - Logos
Wehi Component - Worried, Sad,
(Not strong enough to make a viewer compelled to support.)
Characteristics - Formative, Straight Forward, Plain, Grungy
Rhetoric Tool(s) - Logos
Poster TWO
Ihi Component - Humorous, Cheeky (for some) and Offensive (to others)
Wehi Component - Guilty for laughing, Makes you think about the food you eat.
Characteristics - Bright, Colourful, Perspective shot
Rhetoric Tool(s) - Pathos
Poster THREE
Ihi Component - Save Our Soul, Binge Eating, Health Issues caused by Junk Food
Wehi Component - Makes you think about what you eat, Disconnected to the poster if you do not have an eating problem
Characteristics - Clustered around letters (connection between text and food)
Rhetoric Tool(s) - Pathos and Logos
Poster FOUR
Ihi Component - Racism, Discrimination, Anger
Wehi Component - Connected (most people are apart of racism), Racism is a monster
Characteristics - Charcoal, Grungy, Fast, Harsh
Rhetoric Tool(s) - Logos, Pathos
Wehi Component - Connected (most people are apart of racism), Racism is a monster
Characteristics - Charcoal, Grungy, Fast, Harsh
Rhetoric Tool(s) - Logos, Pathos
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)