I feel sorry for Mike this week.
Sometimes he makes me laugh with his deliberate provocation, other times he makes me a bit miffed with his careless use of his very big public voice.
But today I feel a bit sorry for him, for reasons that will be obvious if you read the local papers.
So, how does he get himself into these pickles, where does his thinking fall down?
How does he continue to make these tone deaf (Trump like) gaffes?
Lets look at his general idea that you cant be poor earning 100K pa.
(Considering that he can only afford some ripped trousers, for a big news show, on his huge pay check, I can see he does in fact understand the high cost of living).
The main problem I see, is that he used a straw man argument.
So lets break it down.
lets see where the wobbles set in and how.
Susan Edmunds actually said
"Statistics NZ data shows 30,000 households earning $100K said they not have enough money to live on"
Well, that's Susan's, impression of a data snapshot, of ...yes.. you guessed it, of someone's opinion.
All bent out of shape by the deliberately eye-catching, click bait headline.
"High paid families feeling the squeeze"
Somehow, Mike himself then threw in the word "poor".
Yes, somehow the spirit of poor Tiny Tim (from a Christmas carol) got thrown into the mix too.
And now I can see how mike becomes enraged.
How dare those late sipping, smashed avocado munching, gender ambiguous people that he doesn't know have cheek to compare themselves to Poor little Tim!
Except they never did.
Nor would they ever.
So in fact mike is just annoying himself and quite a few other people (by the looks of the public reaction) by simply making this up.
All I can say, is that we have to be kind to him, because those sorts of click bait headlines and crappy data snapshots are probably a bit evil and we all fall for them from time to time.
Could someone possibly start a crowd funding campaign to at least get mike some new trousers.
Give a little so he can make the ends meet.
Sometimes he makes me laugh with his deliberate provocation, other times he makes me a bit miffed with his careless use of his very big public voice.
But today I feel a bit sorry for him, for reasons that will be obvious if you read the local papers.
So, how does he get himself into these pickles, where does his thinking fall down?
How does he continue to make these tone deaf (Trump like) gaffes?
Lets look at his general idea that you cant be poor earning 100K pa.
(Considering that he can only afford some ripped trousers, for a big news show, on his huge pay check, I can see he does in fact understand the high cost of living).
The main problem I see, is that he used a straw man argument.
So lets break it down.
lets see where the wobbles set in and how.
Susan Edmunds actually said
"Statistics NZ data shows 30,000 households earning $100K said they not have enough money to live on"
Well, that's Susan's, impression of a data snapshot, of ...yes.. you guessed it, of someone's opinion.
All bent out of shape by the deliberately eye-catching, click bait headline.
"High paid families feeling the squeeze"
Somehow, Mike himself then threw in the word "poor".
Yes, somehow the spirit of poor Tiny Tim (from a Christmas carol) got thrown into the mix too.
And now I can see how mike becomes enraged.
How dare those late sipping, smashed avocado munching, gender ambiguous people that he doesn't know have cheek to compare themselves to Poor little Tim!
Except they never did.
Nor would they ever.
So in fact mike is just annoying himself and quite a few other people (by the looks of the public reaction) by simply making this up.
All I can say, is that we have to be kind to him, because those sorts of click bait headlines and crappy data snapshots are probably a bit evil and we all fall for them from time to time.
Could someone possibly start a crowd funding campaign to at least get mike some new trousers.
Give a little so he can make the ends meet.
Comment