Reading the fine print

From Toby Manhire at The Spinoff, quoting Reuters

“New Zealand’s dairy-fuelled economy has for several years been the envy of the rich world, yet despite the rise in prosperity tens of thousands of residents are sleeping in cars, shop entrances and alleyways.”

There was something similar in the Guardian, too. As Toby says

The juxtaposition is compelling and well made. The number is compelling and nonsense.

I’ve posted about this issue before. The OECD report that people use (directly or indirectly) as source, says

Australia, the Czech Republic and New Zealand report a relatively large incidence of homelessness, and this is partly explained by the fact that these countries adopt a broad definition of homelessness…..In New Zealand homelessness is defined as “living situations where people with no other options to acquire safe and secure housing: are without shelter, in temporary accommodation, sharing accommodation with a household or living in uninhabitable housing.

That’s much broader than ‘sleeping in cars, shop entrances and alleyways.” One of the researchers behind the NZ figure said, in a Herald interview in 2016

“If the homeless population were a hundred people, 70 are staying with extended family or friends in severely crowded houses, 20 are in a motel, boarding house or camping ground, and 10 are living on the street, in cars, or in other improvised dwellings.”

Homelessness is a real problem in New Zealand. Because it’s a real problem, it’s important to focus on what the problem actually is, and not to make up a different problem.

Reuters has corrected the figure but hasn’t otherwise changed the story.  The fact that reducing the figure by a factor of ten doesn’t otherwise change the story might tell you something about the story.

(update: ok, now I’ve actually read all of Toby’s post, not just the first few paragraphs, he basically says all this already)