Fun things in the FPA briefings

A slew of Fair Pay Agreement (FPA)-related briefings were released last week, available at MBIE's document library. If you want to understand the complexity of the system, I recommend taking a look. There's a hell of a lot of good analysis in there.

The most important document released, the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS), has already been covered in the media so I'm not going to rehash what has already been said. The gist, as Stuff reports, is that 'officials recommended scrapping Labour's Fair Pay Agreement plan and strengthening existing law' and the RIS highlights the significant risks and challenges with the system. Most importantly (and most damning) the RIS warns that the costs of the FPA system may outweigh the benefits. Turns out that free and frank advice isn't dead after all. You love to see it.

The briefings that were released had some fascinating bits too. The two pieces of advice that I found most interesting are: 

1) MBIE recommended a more targeted application of FPAs and pointed out the risks of not doing so; and 

2) if Business NZ hadn't agreed to be the default bargaining representative for employers then the next best option entailed significant risks to the FPA system.

MBIE recommended a more targeted application of FPAs

Remember when FPAs were sold to us as helping the poorest and most vulnerable workers in the labour market: the cleaners, security guards and supermarket workers? Unfortunately, the proposed initiation tests in the Cabinet paper for FPAs do not guarantee that these workers will be prioritised.

The threshold for what sectors/occupations get to initiate bargaining for an FPA are decided by initiation tests. Under the proposed system, the initiation test involves satisfying one of the following tests: 

1. A representation test, that would require at least 10% of the covered workforce or 1,000 employees in coverage to support initiation (whichever is lower), or 

2. A public interest test, that would require evidencing that an industry or occupation faces certain labour market issues, such that an FPA would be in the public interest. 

These thresholds seem extremely low: requiring only limited support from workers even when there is no evidence of labour market issues, and not requiring a mandate from workers if labour market issues are identified. 

But, it turns out that things didn't have to be this way. MBIE recommended having a narrower scope for FPAs and provided advice on the risks associated with the approach ultimately taken in the Cabinet paper. The previous Minister (partially) agreed to this. Here's MBIE's advice:

The briefing goes on to explain the risks of the Cabinet paper's approach of having a rather low and untargeted initiation test. First, it would make it more difficult to ensure priority for workers in sectors where there is a ‘race to the bottom’. This is pretty important if the point of the system is meant to be aimed at vulnerable and low paid workers. In fact, MBIE points out that it is the most coordinated, unionised sectors (say, in the public sector) are better placed to initiate an FPA, and could crowd out less resourced and organised sectors who are more in need. 

The lower initiation tests will also substantially increase the fiscal costs of the system. This is important given the RIS has already warned that there is a possibility that the FPA system may not produce net benefits. 

Finally, the untargeted approach makes it harder to justify the fact FPAs negatively affect human rights and international obligations. This is a biggie. The RIS covers this issues too:

Under MBIE's preferred approach, if FPAs were only able to be initiated in sectors where both tests were met, then maybe there'd be some justification for affecting human rights and international obligations. At least under MBIE's approach there'd be a stronger mandate from workers. I'm keen to see what advice comes out in the public submissions process on this point. 

What would happen if Business NZ refused to be the default employer representative?

This is a fun thing to consider: what if employers simply refused to participate in FPA bargaining? It's not really a crazy possibility, given how many employers have said they do not support the system. That's why securing BusinessNZ's agreement to be the default bargaining representative for employers if no one else steps up is so important (and yes, at the time of writing they have agreed). But I have wondered what would have happened if BusinessNZ had refused to participate in the FPA system. 

MBIE's briefing sheds some light on this. Here's the advice (excuse my bad snip and paste):

Just to reiterate although I think the advice is pretty clear: if BusinessNZ had refused to participate, the next best option has significant has significant risks, including the possibility of being legally challenged and departing from the core concept that FPAs are bargained.

The 'next best' option also comes down to how great an incentive it is to have a bargained outcome rather than a determined one. Remember, collective bargaining can be a messy and costly process. And there is still a risk of going to determination anyway if parties cannot agree. In fact, the RIS points out that:

"Although the outcome is difficult to predict we anticipate in many cases the system is likely to result in bargaining stalemates and determinations fixing terms by the Employment Relations Authority, so the added benefit of bargaining may be limited." 

So... going straight to determination may actually save both bargaining parties a lot of time and resources if they're likely to end up in a stalemate and determination further down the line. If this becomes an expectation, then there doesn't seem to be much incentive to participate in bargaining. 

Anyway, all of this is interesting because BusinessNZ have called for FPAs to be scrapped. So while the 'next best' option is currently moot, I'm filing it away in my memory palace just in case. 

To conclude, I must end with an apology: I am sorry if you got to the end of this and discovered there was nothing fun about the FPA briefings at all. For future reference, I'm the kind of person who gets a thrill out of organising my sock drawer. But even if you find FPAs hopelessly boring and complex (they are definitely the latter), the implications for freedom and the way we negotiate employment agreements in New Zealand are massive. And all this, without requiring any evidence of a real labour market problem. Boy am I looking forward to reading the submissions on this thing.

What the LTFS does and doesn't tell us about NZ Super

I'm going to take a position that's guaranteed to sideline almost everyone: we need to tweak NZ Super (NZS), but not because the long-term fiscal position statement (LTFS) tells us so.

That was the conclusion of a report I wrote a lifetime ago: Embracing a Super model: The superannuation sky is not falling. I can't bring myself to read and repeat the whole report again, but it's worth a squiz if NZS is your thing (and my God, there are a lot of people who get jazzed about Super). The main argument in that report was that the future fiscal costs of NZS are not a cause for concern in and of itself, but there are distributional impacts to consider that support the case for change.

First, let's look at what the LTFS does tell us (based on projection based on historical trends): 

• Net debt rises from 34% of GDP to 177.3% in 2061.
• Debt financing costs rise from 0.6% of GDP to 7.6% in 2061
• And Crown net worth decreases from 11.7% of GDP to -117.6% in 2061

So, fiscally we're not likely to be in a happy position if no big policy changes are made. Regardless of your views on what level of debt is acceptable, carrying high levels of debt can harm economic growth, and can leave the country vulnerable if unexpected disasters (say, an earthquake or pandemic) hit and require even more borrowing and expenditure.

The LTFS also projects future fiscal costs based on demographic change:

• The cost of healthcare rises from 6.9% of GDP to 10.5% in 2061.
• The cost of NZS rises from 5% of GDP to 7.6% in 2061.

Are these numbers big? Are they bad? These are judgements the LTFS can't make. But I'll be honest: the rise in the cost of NZS doesn't spook me.

Here's a graph from the Embracing a Super Model report which is obviously a little old now, but shows how the costs of our pension compare to the OECD average in 2050.

I find it interesting that headlines following the LTFS focus so heavily on NZS but hardly worry at all about the rising cost of healthcare. The logic cannot be that our pension costs are out of step with most other countries, nor that NZS is particularly amenable to policy change: it's the political hot potato. I'm not implying that I know of good ways to reduce health spending while achieving good health outcomes, but it's surely something to consider even if the conclusion ends up being "nope, there's zero wriggle room or opportunities to do things better".

And as for those high debt levels in the LTFS....yes they're scary, but one has to wonder whether they are actually even feasible. It assumes that spending continues to exceed revenue over a large period of time, which is a shift away from the Public Finance Act. Here's what the Office of the Auditor General had to say about the 2016 LTFS:

There are two main reasons why, from 2016 onwards, the Government's long-term financial position is projected to become unsustainable over the long term:

• government spending continues to exceed government revenue because, as a share of GDP, tax revenue is held constant and healthcare and superannuation costs increase; and
• finance costs increase significantly because all resulting operating deficits are funded by debt.

In our view, it is difficult to imagine these assumptions would hold over a 40-year horizon because both move away from many of the principles of responsible fiscal management set out in the [Public Finance] Act. The duration of these assumptions reduces the reasonableness of the outlook and potentially the confidence that users have in the 2016 Statement's main messages – particularly when we look at how government finances have moved in the past.

Yet, in spite of all of this, I still think there are tweaks to NZS that can be made. First, because where inefficient spending can be identified, changes should be made. While the universal eligibility of NZS is definitely a strength, there are ways of better-targeting it while preserving universalism. And second, because in spite of the fact that I think there's a lot to like about the NZS model, there are still tweaks that could be made to ensure the costs are better distributed: as it stands, public spending on NZS could increasingly become a tool for regressive redistribution, transferring funds to the relatively well-off. The opportunity cost must be considered where other groups face greater hardship and/or need.

We shouldn't change NZS because of what might happen in the future. We should tweak it because the model already has a regressive element and it's only likely to get worse when there is a higher ratio of superannuitants to working age people.

These are the recommendations in the Embracing a Super Model report with some further additions in italic brackets because I'm not confident the report was clear enough about this:

• Recommendation 1: Link the pension age to health expectancy (while acknowledging that there are huge variations in health expectancy both between population groups and within population groups. This will require better support from the welfare system for those people who have not reached pension age but cannot work. I think there's more work to be done about compensating the losers of this approach, but that's not a reason to avoid action IF there are net benefits).
• Recommendation 2: Index NZS to CPI only rather than both CPI and wages (again, while ensuring that those on lower incomes are not worse off under this new arrangement, with support via the welfare system).
• Recommendation 3: Contributions to NZ Super Fund should not be at the expense of paying down debt (yep, I don't have much to add to this except that it is infuriating that this isn't happening, not even in response to Covid). 
• Recommendation 4: Productivity growth will make NZS – and everything else – more affordable (this is a cute recommendation. I mean, it's right and important, but no one should be deceived into thinking this is a straightforward task).

Rightly or wrongly, the LTFS has sparked the semi-regular debate on what to do about NZS. Refusing to touch the system in order to provide certainty to those approaching the pension age isn't really an excuse: starting the conversation early means you can ensure a smooth transition rather than a sharp shock if the need arises in the future.

And, if governments (plural, because neither major party has made much progress when in government) really really do not want to even look at NZS, then we at least need to have a conversation on what does need to give. It is not likely that NZ will reach the very scary debt levels in the LTFS projections because something will need to give. It would be great to know there is a plan for what that something might be, and that this is something governments are proactively thinking about, rather than reacting to when the time comes to take action.

*One thing I would change in the Embracing a Super Model report is the denial that there is a looming fiscal crisis or that NZ is sitting on a fiscal timebomb. Overall, it kind of looks like we are if nothing changes. But the point I was trying to make is that NZS itself is not yet looking like a timebomb.

Top 10 foods that have brought me comfort and joy in Wellington

I am not a foodie. This is not a list of the best eats in Wellington. I want to make that clear because I believe food preferences are deeply personal. They are shaped by our cultures, our childhoods, our social interactions, our moods, our bodies and our palates. It's why I get so rarked up when governments or experts try and regulate what we should and shouldn't eat.

This is a list of food experiences I have had in Wellington that gave my soul exactly what it needed in the moment.

In no particular order...

1) Kera-la-carte: thali (plate)

Thalis are the best way to eat Indian food: you get a little taste of everything, and it is the way Indian food is supposed to be eaten. Here's what in their meat version: travancore fried chicken, butter chicken, lamb mappas, rasam, kallappam, pappadom, raita, pickle, rice, gulab jamun. All of this in one meal for one person! It makes me happy just remembering how happy I was eating this meal. There are other things on the menu that also look good, but if you're new to Kerala cuisine this is where to start.

2) Taste of Home: hand-pulled noodles in chicken broth 

I ate these noodles recently, just before the shortest day of the year. It was dark, blowing a mean southerly and raining outside. But I was lucky enough to get a seat inside Taste of Home (they have extremely limited seating but eating in is highly recommended for the full aesthetic experience) and I immediately felt like I was onto something special. The noodles are what this place is famous for (and for good reason!) and the broth warmed me to the bone. By the time I'd finished my bowl I felt so at peace I hardly noticed the weather walking home.

3) Curry Pot: masala dosai

I cannot believe there are people who claim they love food but have never tried a masala dosai before. It looks like a giant crispy crepe stuffed with curried potatoes but tastes even better than a crepe. Plus, there are chutneys. I feel Curry Pot in Newtown is extremely underrated. Everything I've eaten there has been great but unfortunately I haven't sampled as much of their menu as I want to because I just cannot go past the dosai. If you are trying this for the first time please invite me so I can watch you eating it. Or maybe don't, as I won't be able to hide my disappointment if you don't love it.

4) Scopa: hot chocolate

Liquid happiness. Like consuming a cup of endorphins.

5) Mekong cafe: pho

Pho is what I eat when I want something flavoursome but know that any food that is too rich or heavy is likely to make me awful. Like when I feel a cold coming on. It is the perfect inoffensive food: delicious and substantial enough to make you feel satisfied, without making you want to curl up and nap afterwards. As a consistently solo diner, I also like the vibe at Mekong cafe: full of other solo diners or families who just want a decent meal. 

6) Mother of Coffee: beef and lamb combo

Food just tastes better when you eat with your hands. As an Indian, I especially like eating with my hands as a small rebellion against fork colonisation. And scooping up the earthy flavours of various dishes with the spongey and sour injera is the ultimate comfort. Ethiopian food has a unique spice profile that makes it distinct from other cuisines. I am extremely grateful this food is available in Wellington.

7) El Matador: steak

I have only ordered steak a handful of my times in my life. I didn't grow up eating beef, and as an adult I've never been impressed with this food others seem to swear by. But after watching a bunch of Parks and Rec and a desire to tap into my inner Ron Swanson, I decided to give steak another go. It turns out, I'd been eating steak completely wrong. El Matador is where you go for good steak. Enjoy with glass of red and bask in the smells from the wood-fire. A perfect winter treat.

8) Little Manila: Filipino flatbread

I found this gem at the Queensgate mall foodcourt but there are apparently branches at the Capital Markets and the North City mall. Now, I didn't go to the mall for an excellent dining experience. I was looking for something cheap and easy so that I could get on with my shopping mission. But on a whim I decided to give Filipino food a go as I was curious. Reader, I was not disappointed. The flatbread was like a Malaysian roti and the fillings were a perfect balance of textures and flavours. The food absolutely hit the spot but even better, I was positively glowing with smugness that I had discovered such an affordable hidden treasure.

9) 1154 Pastaria: trottole alla zozzona 

Short (coil) pasta. Soft egg yolk sauce, Italian sausage, cured pork, chilli, pecorino. What is soft egg yolk sauce? It is what heaven tastes like. An unfussy, completely satisfying dish. The wines at 1154 are also good, so you know what to do.

10) Arobake: pastries, sourdough, sausage rolls

I'm not cool enough or green enough to live in Aro Valley. But I do live within walking distance, and Arobake is the only reason I need to get out of a bed on a Saturday morning. Any weekend that begins with pastries to accompany my morning coffee is going to be a good weekend. The folk at Arobake seem like good people, and their sourdough only confirms my belief that this is one art I'm happy to leave in their expert hands rather than trying to master. And, not that you need any other reason, it's also convenient to the Garage Project so stop by there too if you're planning a really good weekend.

Food for thought: books and shows about food and culture

These days, if you ask me what I'm thinking about at any given time, it's normally food. I like eating food. I like reading about food. I like looking at pictures of food. And I love watching people eat food that makes them happy. Forget corny romance movies or over-rehearsed sex scenes. My favourite kind of voyeurism involves those intimate moments of people expressing the unadulterated pleasure of eating something that brings them comfort and joy.

I will also do a writeup on the best food experiences I've had in Wellington. But for this piece, I want to do a roundup of some of the books and Netflix shows that have influenced my thinking about food. And in the process, taught me new things about international trade and culture and history and economics and mindfulness and nutrition and food production processes and marketing and the diversity of personal experience.

Trigger warning: some of these books and tv shows will make you want to travel and will make you feel sad when you remember you can't just book a flight and start fantasising about your next trip. 

1) I'll start with this Atlantic piece by economist Tyler Cowen on the Six Rules for Dining Out (I was not lying when I said this blog would pretty much be a Tyler Cowen fangirl site). Cowen confirms what I had already suspected: there are very few aspects of life that economic reasoning cannot enhance. The approach maximises two things I care about: discovering excellent food and feeling like I'm getting value for money. Here's the opening excerpt: 

A bad or mediocre meal is more than just an unpleasant taste, it is an unnecessary negation of one of life’s pleasures—a wasted chance to refine our palates, learn about the world, and share a rewarding experience. Virtually every locale offers some good meals at a good price. But too often, amidst the clutter of our days, we don’t find them—at least not consistently.

I would only add one caveat which is that sometimes I spend too much effort thinking about what would be the optimal food experience for me at any given time. That gets stressful. Don't be like me and overthink it. If you like the general approach in the Atlantic piece, Cowen's book An Economist Goes to Lunch is also full of gems.

2) Netflix's Ugly Delicious with David Chang is an aesthetic delight, and manages to cover some decent social ground. It's part of the food travel genre, and gives some good insights into the history and culture behind food traditions. My must-see episodes include the Fried Chicken episode for its discussion of African American history; the Kids Menu episode for explaining how our early food experiences shape us (and for any econ nerds out there, Emily Oster makes a celebrity appearance); and the Don't Call it Curry episode for covering the absolute scandal that Indian food is not recognised by the West for its sophistication and skill  (yeah, I'm not at all biased).

3) Also on Netflix is High on the Hog: How African American Cuisine Transformed America. I did not expect to get emotional watching this, but damn, this series moved me. I almost don't want to ruin it by writing about it because my words can't do it justice. I learnt a lot, I thought a lot, and it is a great example of the rich and complex histories that accompany the foods we take for granted every day.

4) Curry: A Tale of Cooks and Conquerors by Lizzie Collingham is, as the name suggests, a book about 'curry' (which, in case you didn't know, is a word with a colonial history of its own). Among other things, this is a story about international trade. Not just the movement of spices and other exotic ingredients, but the movement of traditions and people across India and across continents. I've read mixed reviews of Collingham's account of history, but food was an excellent pathway to pique my interest in the different accounts of the impacts of colonisation on India. 

5) Staying with the Indian theme, Monsoon Diary: A Memoir with Recipes by Shoba Narayan is as homely and comforting as the foods it describes. Where the aforementioned curry book talks about the big historical movements, Monsoon Diary is all about the personal. I particularly like how much food is treated as an occasion, and how it can shape our memories and identities.

6) Cooked by Michael Pollan can be consumed as either a book or on Netflix, and both are great. This book enhanced my understanding of nutrition, biology, food mass production practices, and (my favourite) anthropology. Here's the sales pitch:

Relying upon corporations to process our food means we consume large quantities of fat, sugar, and salt; disrupt an essential link to the natural world; and weaken our relationships with family and friends. In fact, Cooked argues, taking back control of cooking may be the single most important step anyone can take to help make the American food system healthier and more sustainable. Reclaiming cooking as an act of enjoyment and self-reliance, learning to perform the magic of these everyday transformations, opens the door to a more nourishing life.

It's no secret that I'm not interested in living a long and healthy life just for the sake of it. I would rather live a happy life. But I am absolutely sold on the pitch that eating food that works well for your body is the way to go, and that there are some foods out there that taste good but make your body feel horrible. I'm also totally sold on the idea that creating something with your own hands, and tapping into your creativity, sensory experiences and intuition is a fulfilling endeavour. 

7) I read Shark's Fin and Sichuan Pepper: A Sweet-Sour Memoir of Eating in China by Fuchsia Dunlop recently and I'm still letting it sink in. There's a lot in there and if I'd paid more attention to the title, I wouldn't have been so surprised by the sweet-sour tone. The book filled me with hope and excitement that there is good food and good people in this world that I will have to go on an adventure to discover. I learned about dishes that I can't even imagine as they are so different from my own flavour vocabulary.  

But then the other shoe dropped. The book was a reminder about the fraught politics of China. The book was published in 2009 and includes travels to Xinjiang and interactions with the Uyghur community, where tensions and discrimination were already obvious. In 2021, it makes me very sad knowing what we know now about what is going on there. Most importantly, the book acknowledges that the China of the 90s is not the same as the China of 2000s, and thanks to rapid economic growth, it is different again in 2021. The book reflects on environmental impacts, animal welfare and food waste in a time of great inequality. It raises the question: what does it mean to travel and eat with a good conscience? As I said, there's a lot there. The book is excellent. It is both delicious and sad.

8) Finally, I'll end with this Spinoff essay by Sharon Lam on What it means to miss Hong Kong which hits a similar note to the above. Here's an except:

There is still good food and there are still cool, intimidating fishmongers in Hong Kong, and perhaps there always will be. But how long can people go about enjoying everyday rituals as their rights continue to diminish, and with them their identity?... The truth is, you don’t need to leave Hong Kong to miss it. The people of Hong Kong in Hong Kong already do.

Hong Kong has fantastic food and when I visited I was treated with much generosity and kindness. I would love to go back but that was becoming a distant possibility even before the pandemic. 

We should absolutely celebrate and partake in the goodness and diversity of different cultures. But equally, we need to sit up and take notice when their rights and freedoms are abused. There is so much to lose.

Making stoicism a daily practice

Stoicism, an ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, enjoyed a comeback during the pandemic. John Brinslie-Pirie has a nice piece on how he found stoicism useful during lockdown.

Indeed, in extraordinary times stoicism can provide great wisdom on the things you can and cannot control. But I posit that stoicism is even more important in ordinary times. When's it too easy to act on autopilot. To fall into bad habits, and fail to make new good habits stick. To trade big thoughts and big dreams for the normal routines of everyday life.

To that end, I've found The Daily Stoic extremely worthwhile. 

So what is stoicism?

First of all, there's probably not a lot within the stoic philosophy that will be new to people, especially for those familiar with Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. 

As far as ancient philosophies go, stoicism stands out for its everyday usefulness. It is centred around three central disciplines: 

• the discipline of perception (how we perceive the world); 
• the discipline of action (the decisions and actions we take, and to what end); 
• and the discipline of Will (how we deal with the things we cannot change, attain clear and convincing judgement, and come to a true understanding of our place in the world).

Practicing stoicism can provide greater mental clarity, help us pursue what is proper and just, and pursue the wisdom and perspective to deal with the world around us.

A common misconception is that stoicism is all about being unemotional and unmoved. In fact, that has come to be the common usage of the term. It's really not. Instead I see it more as a way of understanding our emotions, and what our emotional responses can tell us about our underlying values.

Is stoicism ideological?

No. It is an ancient philosophy. It is neither right wing nor left wing.

Yet, I'm not blind to the fact that of the people I know who have made stoicism part of their lives, they tend to be on the freedom end of the political spectrum.

Stoicism is not ideological, but is does reveal some of the philosophical underpinnings of political issues.

There are some obvious examples: personal responsibility plays a big part in the philosophy. In my last post, I wrote about how a lot of lifestyle regulations seem to deny the fact that most people are rational and free thinking beings who are capable of making a personal choice (bar some kind of major mental impairment or illness). This is a position at odds with stoicism which doesn't pretend exercising rational choices is always easy, just that humans can work to strengthen that capability. The reason why we don't always make choices that are in our best interests is often because of a struggle between our present and future selves. Stoicism acknowledges this, and provides tools for helping to work through that.

Stoicism also encourages freedom of thought in the pursuit of truth and wisdom. This isn't necessarily an ideological view. However it does mean that ideas, even controversial ideas ought not to be censored. It's a philosophical position that trusts in the ability to reason. For people to digest information from multiple sources to make up their own minds. In a different world, this feels like it shouldn't be a radical notion. 

Finally, perhaps those to the left of the political spectrum worry that stoicism is an individualistic, selfish philosophy. And it might be, if the only end you were pursuing is professional-betterment. The Silicon Valley-types have definitely given the philosophy a bad name in this respect. But it seems like a pretty weird place to end up. Stoicism isn't a life hack. It's a deep contemplation about our place in the world and how to make the most of it.

The missing part of mental health

New Zealand society has gotten a lot better about talking about mental illness, and that's a really good thing.*

What we don't really talk about is that grey area where you may not be mentally ill, but there's still something important missing. 

That something is what I'd loosely call philosophical grounded-ness. Where you don't have a 'why' to live for, or clear values to guide decisions. Sometimes that doesn't matter, you just get on with living. For people who have religion in their lives, it might not be an issue. Sometimes, though, that void can have a huge impact on mental wellbeing.

Whether it's stoicism or not, I think it's well worth talking more about philosophy and what it means for how we live our lives.

I am not your model stoic

This feels like a weird thing to write about given I am by no means a model stoic. I am but a baby stoic who on average makes ten bad decisions before lunchtime. 

But I think that's why this book appeals so much. Even if I slip up or have bad days, the Daily Stoic's meditations are designed to keep the reader on track.

And at least the book's insights go a little deeper than that other self help book I read that taught me to make my bed, have good posture and pet stray cats.

*By the way, stoicism is no replacement for getting proper mental health support if you need it. It can certainly be a complement, but I wouldn't take it as an exhortation to continue struggling through or to feel shame in admitting you need real help.