Egalitarianism was dealt its last blow by Bill English

Whether they admit it or not, most economists are wedded to structural inequalities, beholden to the idea of the CEO as the oracle, supported by the great unwashed.

Bill English’s superannuation announcement has thrust retirement and remuneration into the media spotlight.

There have been a range of responses.

At least one commentator has bemoaned the way the issues have become a ‘‘political football’’, as if such things were somehow beyond the cut and thrust of debate or the input of those most directly effected, the people themselves.

Others have pointed out the inconsistency of English’s decision to raise the retirement age with that of his immediate predecessor, the legendarily popular John Key.

Given Key and the National party were returned to power on the promise of not raising the age, is this not a betrayal of the electorate?

Still more have savoured the irony of English appropriating the one-time policy of the Labour opposition, a policy that proved so unpopular with voters that it was dropped like the proverbial hot potato when Andrew Little assumed the mantle of Mickey Savage.

Socialists – even pretend ones – had no luck selling an older age of retirement.

The idea is more properly housed in a Tory portfolio, a fact demonstrated by the ACT party’s enthusiastic support.

ACT want it implemented overnight. What a miserable bunch.

We are told that the country cannot afford to sustain the pension in its present form.

Given Baby Boomer demographics, the numbers just do not add up. Best to leave such things to the economists.

They will lead the way to fiscal enlightenment, even if that means keeling over at your work station at age 72, still dreaming of that holiday in Rarotonga.

What can or cannot be afforded of course is a matter of priorities and political expediency.

The same economists who want us all to toil to 67 are the ones who supported a 36% pay rise for Superannuation Fund boss Adrian Orr in 2016.

We can somehow afford to pay Orr a million dollars a year yet not find the readies for those at the bottom to earn a living wage?

Whether they admit it or not, most economists are wedded to such structural inequalities, beholden to the idea of the CEO as the oracle, supported by the great unwashed, one inherently deserving the big bucks, the other plebeian scum.

Minority groups are disproportionately represented in the latter group.

According to 2013 Census figures, while the medium personal income of Pakeha New Zealanders was $30,900 per annum, their Maori brethren had to get by on $22,500.

If you are a Pacific Islander the figure slips to $19,700.

In other words, in just over a week, Orr earns what it takes your average Pacific Islander a year to accumulate.

So much for New Zealand being an egalitarian paradise.

I mention these figures not just for their amusement value. Such ethnic breakdowns have relevance to the superannuation debate.

Not only do Maori and Pacific Islanders labour in lower paying jobs, partially as a consequence they do not live as long as the rest of us.

Non-maori females have a life expediency of 83.9 years. Maori women only live on average 77.1 years.

Non-maori males are with us until they are 80.3 years, whereas Maori men generally shuffle off the mortal coil aged 73.

Given this seven-year disparity in lifespan, it is clear that raising the retirement age even slightly will have a disproportionate effect on our indigenous population, reinforcing still further the institutional and economic racism at play in New Zealand society.

Unless these types of gaps narrow significantly, come 2040, a Maori man will get to draw his pension for a mere six years before kicking the proverbial bucket. Meanwhile, Joe Pakeha has 13 summers up his sleeve.

In countries such as Brazil, the retirement age is indexed against the type of employment you are engaged in.

Those that do dangerous or harmful work are eligible for earlier retirement. Denmark has also come up with an equally useful idea. From 2030, the age of retirement will rise only in proportion to life expediency.

Would it not be a fine thing for New Zealand to draw on these wise policies? Why not set ourselves a goal of ensuring each of our citizens enjoy at least 15 years of life post retirement? This would mean that Maori men retire at 58 and Maori women at 62.

Given how poorly we pay them, it’s the least we can do. There is no equality in either income levels or life expediency at present, so why should there be in terms of retirement age?