UK - Slave work schemes [Archive]

Banditbandit

14th February 2013, 09:38

You do realise they way they 'forced' them to work, was by not paying them so much benefit right? So, they get more money for doing the work, which doesn't sound like working for free at all.

THat's not what the stroy says.

Its not for free is it? Someones paying for benefits.

Yes - the continue to get the benefit while the do this work.

It's a tricky one. If they are working in a shop, as this woman was, then the Government benefit scheme is subsidizing private enterprise ... the shop makes more profit because it is getting productive work for free. If there is work there to be done, then it should be paid work. How many people would get off the benefits if the work was paid for by the employers and not on benefits? The unemploymetn rate remains high while the Government subisides private enterprise ...

Now if peopel were doing truly community work, whoch would not subsidize private enterprise, then I have no issue with uemployed peopel doing that. IT does reduce the aount of time they can spend lookign for a job if they are required to work 8 hours a day while on the dole ... but there are ways and means ...

But in the end, I object to taxpayer money subsidizing businesses ..

bogan

14th February 2013, 09:40

THat's not what the stroy says.

Really, what does this bit mean then?

She was told she would lose jobseeker's allowance if she refused and spent two weeks stacking shelves and cleaning floors.

jonbuoy

14th February 2013, 09:43

Which looks better on your CV - 6 months sat on your arse watching daytime TV or 6 months on a work scheme?

oneofsix

14th February 2013, 09:46

Which looks better on your CV - 6 months sat on your arse watching daytime TV or 6 months on a work scheme?

neither, plus the time spent on the forced labour scheme could have been spent job hunting or developing skills. Instead the poor slobs in low paid work are having their taxes go to subsidise some employer that is too cheap to employ the workers the need and to keep their wages down.

Banditbandit

14th February 2013, 09:47

Really, what does this bit mean then?

It does not mean the same as "they get more money for doing the work" ... it means they get less money if they don't do the work ...

(Fuck - I want a higher literacy level than you have when I employ people ...)

jonbuoy

14th February 2013, 09:53

neither, plus the time spent on the forced labour scheme could have been spent job hunting or developing skills. Instead the poor slobs in low paid work are having their taxes go to subsidise some employer that is too cheap to employ the workers the need and to keep their wages down.

They would have had 9 months to do that already... Do you know anything about the scheme other than the posts on here? 9 months out of work I would be climbing the walls.

bogan

14th February 2013, 09:57

It does not mean the same as "they get more money for doing the work" ... it means they get less money if they don't do the work ...

(Fuck - I want a higher literacy level than you have when I employ people ...)

Are you new to the whole maths thing? More money for doing work, is the same as less money for not doing work; hint, it all depends what you are comparing it to. You're thinking about it from the biased viewpoint that they already deserve the benefit, ie, they don't get more money than they deserve for working, but they get get less if they don't. Try and be a bit more objective before calling my literacy level into question.

Banditbandit

14th February 2013, 10:05

Are you new to the whole maths thing? More money for doing work, is the same as less money for not doing work; hint, it all depends what you are comparing it to. You're thinking about it from the biased viewpoint that they already deserve the benefit, ie, they don't get more money than they deserve for working, but they get get less if they don't. Try and be a bit more objective before calling my literacy level into question.

Yes - I know where you are coming from .. My position is that these people get a base benefit - if they work they get that money - if they don't work they get less money ... I can't see how you can argue that they get more money if they work .. they get the same money if they work ...

jonbuoy

14th February 2013, 10:14

bogan

14th February 2013, 10:16

Yes - I know where you are coming from .. My position is that these people get a base benefit - if they work they get that money - if they don't work they get less money ... I can't see how you can argue that they get more money if they work than if they didn't and the money was taken off them.. they get the same money if they work than they would get on the benefit than if they didn't and the benefit wasn't taken off them...

:facepalm: Lets try just qualifying those answers, I've put them in red.

Under the scheme in the OP, its more money if you work than if you don't. Without that scheme, of course there is no incentive to do the same work. Comparing pre-scheme and scheme situations isn't favorable for those who can't find work, but is that relevant?

Banditbandit

14th February 2013, 11:20

So - it's a matter of perception and not reality ...

Of course the wider picture is relevent - in considering the moral and ethical considerations (which is what this thread is about) then the wider context is completely relevent ... ethics is always applied contextually ... and so should be considered contextually.

The world is not as black and white as you seem to think it is ..

bogan

14th February 2013, 11:23

mashman

14th February 2013, 12:55

The future is looking like a bigger budget deficit. Workshy slobs.

:rofl: She was working voluntarily at the museum. So instead of leaving her there, they decided that she should go and clean someone's shop for them for free. Hmmmmm. I wonder if the shop were receiving govt assistance for her placement? At least she found herself a part time job at the supermarket. And as the gent says, why should he work as a cleaner if it isn't going to give him the skills "promised" to re-enter the work place?

T'would seem, as BB puts it, that private enterprise has become a lazy bludger expecting tax payer money to be used to fund jobs to help them instead of using the money to help the heavily indebted govt. Even at that it's nothing more than slave labour at less than minimum wage. An excellent incentive for business to start letting people go and replacing them with transient dirt cheap staff.

Some fuckers just don't get it. If there is a job to be done, a person should be paid market rates for that job. Not everyone can "make it", coz if they did, who would do the minimum wage jobs that those who "make it" have relied upon all these years. And all because those "slaves" are going to cut into some selfish cunts profit if they have to pay them.

Welcome to the future.

jonbuoy

14th February 2013, 17:58

:rofl: She was working voluntarily at the museum. So instead of leaving her there, they decided that she should go and clean someone's shop for them for free. Hmmmmm. I wonder if the shop were receiving govt assistance for her placement? At least she found herself a part time job at the supermarket. And as the gent says, why should he work as a cleaner if it isn't going to give him the skills "promised" to re-enter the work place?

T'would seem, as BB puts it, that private enterprise has become a lazy bludger expecting tax payer money to be used to fund jobs to help them instead of using the money to help the heavily indebted govt. Even at that it's nothing more than slave labour at less than minimum wage. An excellent incentive for business to start letting people go and replacing them with transient dirt cheap staff.

Some fuckers just don't get it. If there is a job to be done, a person should be paid market rates for that job. Not everyone can "make it", coz if they did, who would do the minimum wage jobs that those who "make it" have relied upon all these years. And all because those "slaves" are going to cut into some selfish cunts profit if they have to pay them.

Welcome to the future.

Welcome to the real world of no free lunches. You can thank professional dole bludgers for milking the system for generations. Try living in the real world where everything you need to have to pay for yourself with no government blanket to wrap yourself in. UK has one of the best benefit systems in the world, it's being used and abused to a point that's crippling the country.

mashman

14th February 2013, 19:19

Welcome to the real world of no free lunches. You can thank professional dole bludgers for milking the system for generations. Try living in the real world where everything you need to have to pay for yourself with no government blanket to wrap yourself in. UK has one of the best benefit systems in the world, it's being used and abused to a point that's crippling the country.

Ahhhh yes... reality. You do realise that you missed a few bits out. Like someone is always going to be unemployed as there aren't enough jobs. And that leaving people to fend for themselves without money will turn the country into a total and utter basket case instead of just the half way house that it currently is. Perhaps the fact that some people have settled for not having jobs, meaning that those who do want jobs can have them as there's less competition, is actually doing the workforce a favour by not having seriously disinterested people in jobs that they don't. There's a whiff of reality for ya. Although you're gonna have to pay attention to notice that that side of life exists dear. Please see my avatar for further information.

jonbuoy

14th February 2013, 20:04

Ahhhh yes... reality. You do realise that you missed a few bits out. Like someone is always going to be unemployed as there aren't enough jobs. And that leaving people to fend for themselves without money will turn the country into a total and utter basket case instead of just the half way house that it currently is. Perhaps the fact that some people have settled for not having jobs, meaning that those who do want jobs can have them as there's less competition, is actually doing the workforce a favour by not having seriously disinterested people in jobs that they don't. There's a whiff of reality for ya. Although you're gonna have to pay attention to notice that that side of life exists dear. Please see my avatar for further information.

There will always be people unemployed temporarily (exluding people with medical problems or learning difficulties). I´ll explain how the western benefit system should work as you seem to struggle with the concept. The majority of people get up and go to work - even though they might not feel like it. They pay a portion of their wages into a pot. The minority of people that can´t work because of temporary ill health or are currently between jobs take money from that pot to help them live. This system works as long as more or the same money is put into the pot as is taken out. The problem is some people think its OK to take from the pot without ever putting anything back in. Which camp are you in - are you full time employed?

Ocean1

14th February 2013, 20:16

Which camp are you in - are you full time employed?

He's from the camp that thinks that pot shouldn't exist, that everyone should just give everyone else everything they own and it'll all work out in the wash. Or some such shite.

mashman

14th February 2013, 20:31

There will always be people unemployed temporarily (exluding people with medical problems or learning difficulties). I´ll explain how the western benefit system should work as you seem to struggle with the concept. The majority of people get up and go to work - even though they might not feel like it. They pay a portion of their wages into a pot. The minority of people that can´t work because of temporary ill health or are currently between jobs take money from that pot to help them live. This system works as long as more or the same money is put into the pot as is taken out. The problem is some people think its OK to take from the pot without ever putting anything back in. Which camp are you in - are you full time employed?

I've spent next to no time on the dole, but did spend 6 years in dole town Glasgow. As for the camp I'm in. It's the one marked real world. So, ok you ignored my initial real world look behind the curtain that seems to scare the shit out of your ideology, let's try something different. Take the mechanic from the OP for instance. He possibly has a house, mortgage, pays rates, pays his insurances, was used to a certain standard of living, is probably applying for jobs with a certain level of salary so that he can afford to pay his mortgage, rates, insurances etc... He likely needs to do this so as not to lose everything he has worked for to this day. He may be on the dole for 10 years and be able to keep what he has. Is he a bludger if he can't get that job within 2 years?

What are the likely consequences of removing benefits from the long term beneficiary?

I'm fine with long term beneficiary's for the reasons mentioned in the earlier post. According to a quote from a UK Minister in another thread around here somewhere, there are 5 people for every job. 65 million population, 4+ million on the dole, meaning that there are approx 1 million jobs available. Obviously could be way out with those numbers, irrespective though, let's say that 50% of those 4+ million are "bludgers", there's still 2 people going for every job. Now consider that you're an employer. Would you rather have 1 of the 2 million that "bludge" and don't want to work or 1 of the 2 million who do want to work as an employee? and why?

There still needs to be 2 million on the dole due to lack of jobs. There will always be 2 million unemployed irrespective of who they are... so you're going to be paying exactly the same amount of tax to feed, cloth etc... 2 million people. To me it sounds like you're seeking some form of retribution because people are taking that which you wish them to be greatful for. How do you know they aren't greatful? That's the real world. However you're personal bias also crucifies the mechanic for having worked hard all his life and then having fallen on bad times and anyone that ends up on the dole that doesn't want to be there and all to appease your fucked up sense of morals/ethics/superiority etc... Quality that you ignore that as fantasy.

mashman

14th February 2013, 20:33

He's from the camp that thinks that pot shouldn't exist, that everyone should just give everyone else everything they own and it'll all work out in the wash. Or some such shite.

At least put a little conviction into trying to get it right ya grumpy anal fuck nugget.

Ocean1

14th February 2013, 21:08

At least put a little conviction into trying to get it right ya grumpy anal fuck nugget.

I would. If I wasn't utterly shagged from working to pay for dole bludgers. Do you know how long it's going to take me to pay this years tax? Fucking July 16th, that's how long.

So, while I'm still paying for someone else's free lunch I'm off for a wee sojourne up country. Wine, Bourbon, more wine, bit of beach racing in the Jag, Bourbon...

Later.

mashman

14th February 2013, 21:59

I would. If I wasn't utterly shagged from working to pay for dole bludgers. Do you know how long it's going to take me to pay this years tax? Fucking July 16th, that's how long.

So, while I'm still paying for someone else's free lunch I'm off for a wee sojourne up country. Wine, Bourbon, more wine, bit of beach racing in the Jag, Bourbon...

Later.

Awwwwwwwwwww... it's a hard life, suck it up. Have a fun jaunt and remember, don't drink and drive.

Banditbandit

15th February 2013, 09:07

Awwwwwwwwwww... it's a hard life, suck it up. Have a fun jaunt and remember, don't drink and drive.

+1 ... beach racing, wine bourbon ... shit it must be really hard to pay that tax bill !!!

mashman

15th February 2013, 09:57

+1 ... beach racing, wine bourbon ... shit it must be really hard to pay that tax bill !!!

bwaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa... cannot spread again etc...

Tigadee

15th February 2013, 10:31

Try living in the real world where everything you need to have to pay for yourself with no government blanket to wrap yourself in.

Already am... :dodge:

Brian d marge

15th February 2013, 14:36

There are generations of families in the UK scrounging off benefits. Too many hands in the pot and not enough hands putting in. Its unsustainable. The money cold be used for health and education (assuming your even remotely interested in being educated of course). If you want to take money from the pot you should work for it.

Do you cloth, feed and give your kids pocket money without ever asking them to help around the house?

If , As Ive shown before , the uk is like NZ then over half of the money spent on support goes in the form of pensions

What this is , is the old divide and demonize technique , pick one group make them out to be the bogie man and societys problems are magically solved

The system is flawed , and in the area of work , just after WW2; women, then emerging nations and finally the computer really gave the job market the boot

Stephen

Ocean1

15th February 2013, 18:04

+1 ... beach racing, wine bourbon ... shit it must be really hard to pay that tax bill !!!

Deductible. And in passing let me heartily recommend mission estate's 2011 Syrah, superb.

jonbuoy

15th February 2013, 19:23

If , As Ive shown before , the uk is like NZ then over half of the money spent on support goes in the form of pensions

What this is , is the old divide and demonize technique , pick one group make them out to be the bogie man and societys problems are magically solved

The system is flawed , and in the area of work , just after WW2; women, then emerging nations and finally the computer really gave the job market the boot

Stephen

Pensions would take a huge chunk - unless you execute everyone at retirement age how can they not?? Everyone is going to retire and stop working someday. Hopefully those people have already contributed to the retirement fund over their working lives. Problem is now we are living longer than we have planned for in the past. Modern obesity should even things up in a few years when it catches up.

scumdog

15th February 2013, 19:28

"A graduate who was forced to work at Poundland for free has won an appeal, in a blow for the Government's back-to-work schemes.

Cait Reilly, 24, from Birmingham, had argued that being made to work in the discount shop for nothing while she looked for a permanent job was illegal.

Jamieson Wilson, 40, an unemployed lorry driver from Nottingham who was stripped of jobseeker's allowance for refusing an unpaid cleaning role, also won his legal challenge." (http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/graduate-wins-appeal-over-unpaid-103149658.html)

Ahhhhh the future's looking as bright as the people who are leading us there.

Cry me a river, nasty old world...

jonbuoy

15th February 2013, 19:33

I've spent next to no time on the dole, but did spend 6 years in dole town Glasgow. As for the camp I'm in. It's the one marked real world. So, ok you ignored my initial real world look behind the curtain that seems to scare the shit out of your ideology, let's try something different. Take the mechanic from the OP for instance. He possibly has a house, mortgage, pays rates, pays his insurances, was used to a certain standard of living, is probably applying for jobs with a certain level of salary so that he can afford to pay his mortgage, rates, insurances etc... He likely needs to do this so as not to lose everything he has worked for to this day. He may be on the dole for 10 years and be able to keep what he has. Is he a bludger if he can't get that job within 2 years?

What are the likely consequences of removing benefits from the long term beneficiary?

I'm fine with long term beneficiary's for the reasons mentioned in the earlier post. According to a quote from a UK Minister in another thread around here somewhere, there are 5 people for every job. 65 million population, 4+ million on the dole, meaning that there are approx 1 million jobs available. Obviously could be way out with those numbers, irrespective though, let's say that 50% of those 4+ million are "bludgers", there's still 2 people going for every job. Now consider that you're an employer. Would you rather have 1 of the 2 million that "bludge" and don't want to work or 1 of the 2 million who do want to work as an employee? and why?

There still needs to be 2 million on the dole due to lack of jobs. There will always be 2 million unemployed irrespective of who they are... so you're going to be paying exactly the same amount of tax to feed, cloth etc... 2 million people. To me it sounds like you're seeking some form of retribution because people are taking that which you wish them to be greatful for. How do you know they aren't greatful? That's the real world. However you're personal bias also crucifies the mechanic for having worked hard all his life and then having fallen on bad times and anyone that ends up on the dole that doesn't want to be there and all to appease your fucked up sense of morals/ethics/superiority etc... Quality that you ignore that as fantasy.

Mashman you seem to live in a fantasy world where the the government owes you something - they don´t! You happen to have grown up in a freindly society where you get looked after, things are changing - there are too many of us and way too many freeloaders for that to continue. The benefits systems will come to an end the more people bludge the quicker its going to happen.

If he cant get a job in two years then yes he is bludging. How many people that arent bone idle do you know that have been out of work for two years?? You never have for a start. 10 years with no job is just taking the piss - either your chosen field has dissapeared or your useless at what you do - time for a career change.

I agree on one point - the guy that has worked hard for most of his life and has paid a lot into the system is screwed if he looses his job. The benefits system in the UK is not income related - everyone gets the same payout regardless how much they have dumped into the pot. He might have been earning a very good wage supporting a wife and two kids and a mortgage, the dole will not even come close to covering the private health insurance, private pension schemes hes paying into. The benefit system is setup for long term unemployed - there are no instant benefits for decent working folk who happen to fall on temporary bad times. It should be income related on a sliding scale (like Spain), the more you have put in the more you get out. If you stop putting in your unemployment benefit stops after three years and your on your own.

mashman

15th February 2013, 19:34

Cry me a river, nasty old world...

Aye... it's a reflection of those who live in it :bleh:

mashman

15th February 2013, 19:41

Mashman you seem to live in a fantasy world where the the government owes you something - they don´t! You happen to have grown up in a freindly society where you get looked after, things are changing - there are too many of us and way too many freeloaders for that to continue. The benefits systems will come to an end the more people bludge the quicker its going to happen.

If he cant get a job in two years then yes he is bludging. How many people that arent bone idle do you know that have been out of work for two years?? You never have for a start. 10 years with no job is just taking the piss - either your chosen field has dissapeared or your useless at what you do - time for a career change.

I agree on one point - the guy that has worked hard for most of his life and has paid a lot into the system is screwed if he looses his job. The benefits system in the UK is not income related - everyone gets the same payout regardless how much they have dumped into the pot. He might have been earning a very good wage supporting a wife and two kids and a mortgage, the dole will not even come close to covering the private health insurance, private pension schemes hes paying into. The benefit system is setup for long term unemployed - there are no instant benefits for decent working folk who happen to fall on temporary bad times. It should be income related on a sliding scale (like Spain), the more you have put in the more you get out. If you stop putting in your unemployment benefit stops after three years and your on your own.

:rofl: welcome to fantasy island. They do owe me something, you too oddly enough... and as for bludgers etc... you're never going to get it are ya. There's a much bigger picture, yet your ego seems to eclipse it... Fair enough.

:killingme :crybaby:

Aye, coz Spain is in great condition. I agree, let's take benefits away from those who are unemployed and see what happens. I look forwards to it.

jonbuoy

15th February 2013, 19:45

:rofl: welcome to fantasy island. They do owe me something, you too oddly enough... and as for bludgers etc... you're never going to get it are ya. There's a much bigger picture, yet your ego seems to eclipse it... Fair enough.

:killingme :crybaby:

Aye, coz Spain is in great condition. I agree, let's take benefits away from those who are unemployed and see what happens. I look forwards to it.

Smoking too much again? I didnt say take benefits away did I? No the government owes you nothing for being born! Your parents never explained that the world didnt owe you a living? Spain is in a poor state from toxic property debt that the government absorbed.

mashman

15th February 2013, 19:54

Smoking too much again? I didnt say take benefits away did I? No the government owes you nothing for being born! Your parents never explained that the world didnt owe you a living? Spain is in a poor state from toxic property debt that the government absorbed.

"If you stop putting in your unemployment benefit stops after three years and your on your own."

... 'cept I think you should just take them away straight away as the jobs must be there to be taken... after all and the UK Minister must have been joking when he said that there were 5 people for every job and then in the same breath forcing people into the employ of private businesses for something that ohers get irrespective of their working status. So sling 'em straight away. Can't wait to see what happens.

I never said what the govt owed me and what they do owe me isn't financial... your ASSumptions are just that. No doubt the lack of money, sorry debt, that isn't being pumped into the Spanish economy has nothing to do with it... nope, nothing doing there, it's all down to the housing crisis.

jonbuoy

15th February 2013, 20:10

... 'cept I think you should just take them away straight away as the jobs must be there to be taken... after all and the UK Minister must have been joking when he said that there were 5 people for every job and then in the same breath forcing people into the employ of private businesses for something that ohers get irrespective of their working status. So sling 'em straight away. Can't wait to see what happens.

I never said what the govt owed me and what they do owe me isn't financial... your ASSumptions are just that. No doubt the lack of money, sorry debt, that isn't being pumped into the Spanish economy has nothing to do with it... nope, nothing doing there, it's all down to the housing crisis.

Step away from the joint - your posts are making even less sense than normal. Spanish crisis was a property/building bubble that burst - banks had huge toxic debts that the government absorbed. Government spending wasnt out of control like it was in greece prior to the crisis.

Back on topic - benefits are supposed to be a safety net - not a lifestyle choice. Its your choice not to work - but dont expect other people to feed and cloth you free forever.

mashman

15th February 2013, 20:42

Step away from the joint - your posts are making even less sense than normal. Spanish crisis was a property/building bubble that burst - banks had huge toxic debts that the government absorbed. Government spending wasnt out of control like it was in greece prior to the crisis.

Back on topic - benefits are supposed to be a safety net - not a lifestyle choice. Its your choice not to work - but dont expect other people to feed and cloth you free forever.

How does a housing bubble burst? What stops a housing bubble from inflating? Lack of investment/money to buy houses. That's what exposes the bubble... no "market" bursts whilst money is still being pumped in. Stop the money, expose and blame the bubble... Where does new money come from?

As I said before. Stop the benefits and see what happens. Will people just drop dead? or will they do what it takes to stay alive/feed their families etc...? 5 people for every job. 2.5 million unemployed. 2 million people left to fend for themselves and lots of them packed in together in housing estates etc... I'm sure they'll just accept death. I suppose the knock on affect of them not spending money will see a few hundred thousand more out of work and no doubt they'll just curl up and die too... aaaaaand of course those few hundred thousand not spending anymore will mean that a few hundred thousand more will have to be good little people and go out with dignity... damn we could be here for a while. Essentially there are more economic benefits to having people on the dole than not.

blue rider

15th February 2013, 20:46

Pensions would take a huge chunk - unless you execute everyone at retirement age how can they not?? Everyone is going to retire and stop working someday. Hopefully those people have already contributed to the retirement fund over their working lives. Problem is now we are living longer than we have planned for in the past. Modern obesity should even things up in a few years when it catches up.

Those people now retiring, would have paid taxes? This alone should allow them to receive the standard super?

I know i am a so called "rote socke" as purple wearing unshaven hippie does not really describe me adequately enough, but I always thought that we pay a certain amount of taxes so that should harm befall us, i.e. unemployment, sickness or heaven forbid old age, we could claim a benefit that we all have already paid for.

And why, frankly why is everyone who needs welfare assistance a dole bludger? We hear every day in the news that businesses are closing down, Mainzeal comes to mind, there are a good 200 - 400 jobs on the line.....are these future dole bludgers that don't try hard enough or have not tried hard enough? I mean surely not everyone can land on their feet as quickly as the honorable Mrs. Shipley who already has found a different position. :devil2:

scumdog

15th February 2013, 20:54

Back on topic - benefits are supposed to be a safety net - not a lifestyle choice. Its your choice not to work - but dont expect other people to feed and cloth you free forever.

Yup, my take on benefits too!:niceone:

mashman

15th February 2013, 21:24

Yup, my take on benefits too!:niceone:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFBO7UT2A9k

jonbuoy

15th February 2013, 22:43

Those people now retiring, would have paid taxes? This alone should allow them to receive the standard super?

I know i am a so called "rote socke" as purple wearing unshaven hippie does not really describe me adequately enough, but I always thought that we pay a certain amount of taxes so that should harm befall us, i.e. unemployment, sickness or heaven forbid old age, we could claim a benefit that we all have already paid for.

And why, frankly why is everyone who needs welfare assistance a dole bludger? We hear every day in the news that businesses are closing down, Mainzeal comes to mind, there are a good 200 - 400 jobs on the line.....are these future dole bludgers that don't try hard enough or have not tried hard enough? I mean surely not everyone can land on their feet as quickly as the honorable Mrs. Shipley who already has found a different position. :devil2:

Yes thats my take on taxes too - whats your point?

Can you find the quote where I said ALL people needing welfare were bludgers - I dont remember writing it?

jonbuoy

15th February 2013, 22:44

Yup, my take on benefits too!:niceone:

For a while there I thought it was just me!

jonbuoy

15th February 2013, 22:50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFBO7UT2A9k

OK......:confused:

mashman

15th February 2013, 23:15

OK......:confused:

Glad we finally agree on something.

The dole is much more than a safety net for the person on the dole. It's a safety net for society. Not for individuals who become employed, but to stop unemployed individuals going that extra mile to top up their "income". You shut them off and it could be your mother that's been beaten to death while some guy who's trying to feed his family walks away with a few hundred quids worth of stuff. I understand your point entirely as I once upon a time thought pretty much the same thing. I know what these guys do to top up their "income" and when push comes to shove they will take and bury whoever stands in their way. Even if you could jail them all you're going to be paying far more than the dole on housing/clothing the person. The simple fact is that 2.5 million do not go into 500,000 jobs without there being 2 million left who will be unemployed.

Would you rather employ those who don't want to work or those who do?

Brian d marge

16th February 2013, 04:05

jonbuoy

16th February 2013, 04:10

Some on hasn't a clue,,,,
The largest chunk is the pension, and the money u think they save , for the pension, is gone
Why do u think they are pissing themselves , in 1993 , they knew that there wouldn't be enough in the kitty to pay for the oldies
Suck it up and ,live the american dream

Stephen

Someone needs to read the whole thread which is about job seekers allowance. Most pensioners have paid into the pot, the pot was badly managed and no one factored longer life expectancies. Private pension schemes are also screwed but that's another topic.

jonbuoy

16th February 2013, 04:30

Glad we finally agree on something.

The dole is much more than a safety net for the person on the dole. It's a safety net for society. Not for individuals who become employed, but to stop unemployed individuals going that extra mile to top up their "income". You shut them off and it could be your mother that's been beaten to death while some guy who's trying to feed his family walks away with a few hundred quids worth of stuff. I understand your point entirely as I once upon a time thought pretty much the same thing. I know what these guys do to top up their "income" and when push comes to shove they will take and bury whoever stands in their way. Even if you could jail them all you're going to be paying far more than the dole on housing/clothing the person. The simple fact is that 2.5 million do not go into 500,000 jobs without there being 2 million left who will be unemployed.

Would you rather employ those who don't want to work or those who do?

That's quite possibly true, as disturbing as it is to feel like there is a huge protection racket going on. You pay us the dole an we won't riot or mug you on the streets.

Brian d marge

16th February 2013, 05:41

Someone needs to read the whole thread which is about job seekers allowance. Most pensioners have paid into the pot, the pot was badly managed and no one factored longer life expectancies. Private pension schemes are also screwed but that's another topic.

, yes they paid , but its been spent , hence the worry

what u assume is that the government, aka world bank play by your rules , sorry they dont and havent been since august 1971

and Im sorry but its not the unemployed that the problem

Stephen

mashman

16th February 2013, 07:59

That's quite possibly true, as disturbing as it is to feel like there is a huge protection racket going on. You pay us the dole an we won't riot or mug you on the streets.

:rofl: I've never looked at it as huge protection racket, but yeah, whilst a safety mechanism at best, it could well be considered a protection racket... probably backed up by the Unions :eek:.

The protection racket likely works on a level or two as it keeps the powerful rich and powerful... else they might have to work for a living and would be constantly looking over their shoulder coz there'd always be someone lookin to take their place. Pretty hard to do with someone's bank account, a police force and an army protecting them ;). They know who they are :yes:.

In regards to pensions, have at it here, why not as it's all linked. If there were no pensions you'd probably have OAP's running the protection rackets. I saw a programme, may have been the money programme, newsnight, horizon or any number of what once where (even if I didn't appreciate it at the time) honest in-depth current affairs programmes, when I was 18ish (late 80's). There were a couple of economists that were interviewed and were discussing the future of the pension. There was enough info for me to decide that I was never going to save for my old age as pensions would eventually be worth next to nothing as they're not really protected pots of money. My late step dad used to work the trains and the company that had taken them over had borrowed from the pension scheme ($2 billion from hazy memory) to fund their activities. I'm sure they thought they would be able to claw it back, but they didn't/couldn't. Pushing the pension back a couple of years won't make that much of a difference. Sure it will make a difference, but with constant inflation and cost of living prices saving 1/4 of my salary for my old age just isn't viable. especially when I'm not actually paying for my pension, but for the pensions of others... I object to paying huge amounts of money for someone who has been earning an overly inflated salary through their working career (hypocritical cunt eh)

It's a fucked system as it can't pay for itself without borrowing as there are too many of us that simply can't afford to put in as much as is needed to cover the unemployed and aged. The UK are trying to index link pensions for the limiting of medical care they are allowed to receive (75k I think they're proposing). The US health system by stealth. It's FUBAR. Sorry you've already reached your limit, you're going to have to tap into you savings/your future pension/borrow from the bank to pay for your next round of treatment. If that's how the future is going to be, likely, then the logical progression will be that in another 30 years time (ass hat figure), that figure will come down to 55k (and 55k won't buy diddly, maybe a pain killer and a plaster cast) and you'll be allowed to retire at 75 (yet another asshat figure). System el fuckoed and in ways I hope I get to see it... coz that protection racket you spoke about will vanish and all hell will break loose. But that's just one view ;).

Road kill

16th February 2013, 10:22

Ocean1

16th February 2013, 14:16

, yes they paid , but its been spent

That's true. Whats more the ongoing protection racket has prevented us from simply working twice as hard to make up for it. Which is why I don't lose too many sleepless nights over the measures taken to prevent them thieving my funds for a third time.

Wish I could start again, they'd have got fuck all from me right from the get go. Arseholes.

jonbuoy

16th February 2013, 18:55

Yet they still have "Royalty",,,Pakastanis,Arabs,Nigerians,,and the odd Pom that couldn't afford to immigrate to NZ.

And it's all the fault of the under class that were born under the UK system to stay exactly where they are.

Your real world ?

Sorry you might have to expand on that, are you saying people on full time benefits were denied schooling? Why is it so many pakistani/indian immigrants manage to be successful and get good jobs or run small businesses?

mashman

16th February 2013, 19:08

That's true. Whats more the ongoing protection racket has prevented us from simply working twice as hard to make up for it.

You do realise that they could print more money at anytime meaning that you wouldn't have to work harder. So it ain't thems at the bottom who are making it hard for you, it's thems at the top.

jonbuoy

16th February 2013, 20:06

mashman

16th February 2013, 21:13

That didn't work out well in Germany.....

It hasn't worked out in many country's... but it has worked well around the globe for millenia. Do you think we just find stashes of $1 billion bundles just lying around? Someone prints it because they decide that it is ok to be printed. Are the major producers of money audited by anyone? No they're not. Why don't they print more money then as no one will ever know?

Brian d marge

16th February 2013, 21:42

That didn't work out well in Germany.....

special reasons why it didnt work,

Stephen

jonbuoy

16th February 2013, 21:58

It hasn't worked out in many country's... but it has worked well around the globe for millenia. Do you think we just find stashes of $1 billion bundles just lying around? Someone prints it because they decide that it is ok to be printed. Are the major producers of money audited by anyone? No they're not. Why don't they print more money then as no one will ever know?

Because it raises inflation, devalues your currency and can trigger hyper inflation. They have had to do it with quantative easing in the States and UK they do it very gradually - print money - pay government workers with it, let it filter into the economy and see what effect it has. Major "producers" of Money - you mean like the federal banks and the Bank Of England? Ever been to a country and wondered why you have to hand over thousands of the local currency units for a beer when you only have to hand over $6NZD for a beer?

mashman

16th February 2013, 22:05

Because it raises inflation, devalues your currency and can trigger hyper inflation. They have had to do it with quantative easing in the States and UK they do it very gradually - print money - pay government workers with it, let it filter into the economy and see what effect it has. Major "producers" of Money - you mean like the federal banks and the Bank Of England? Ever been to a country and wondered why you have to hand over thousands of the local currency units for a beer when you only have to hand over $6NZD for a beer?

That's strange. Coz like I say, they've been doing it for millenia and the US, the largest money producer?, hasn't suffered. QE/CE? Can you explain how that combats inflation?

jonbuoy

16th February 2013, 22:10

That's strange. Coz like I say, they've been doing it for millenia and the US, the largest money producer?, hasn't suffered. QE/CE? Can you explain how that combats inflation?

Yes they have been that's why every year your dollar is worth less- inflation. But you cant suddenly print billions of NZ or US dollars without lowering the value of the dollars already out there triggering massive inflation. NZ dollar would drop like a stone because no other country would want it, great for exports terrible for anyone wanting anything not made in NZ.

mashman

16th February 2013, 22:17

Yes they have been that's why every year your dollar is worth less- inflation. But you cant suddenly print billions of NZ or US dollars without lowering the value of the dollars already out there triggering massive inflation. NZ dollar would drop like a stone because no other country would want it, great for exports terrible for anyone wanting anything not made in NZ.

Rubbish, the UK printed GBP350 billion last Jan and by August inflation was up 0.1%. QE/CE, why does it combat inflation?

GrayWolf

16th February 2013, 22:24

Awwww poor little darling(s)

They have to work for their Dole? well hard F***kn cheese.

Social aide has been around in one form or another in the UK since to 1500's the poor law.
What is now considered a local body property rates to pay for services was actually started as a tax called the poor rate... yup each local area (parish) was responsible for supporting it's own 'UNABLE' poor.. Almshouses etc. Able bodied were expected to work.

If you read on the Irish Potato famine, they had to work for a daily pay that was just a little over the amount needed to feed a family with the basics.
Not bloody cigarettes, booze, DVD.s pokies, TAB, a car........

The Victorian Workhouses? just that, you want to be fed, somewhere to sleep, be clothed? You work for it. What the OP is likely not going to read in the story is your 'job' when receiving Dole is to look for work. They expect to see job applications, interview proof etc that shows you ARE at least trying.... I'll bet some of those who are being made to work are not doing that.
As for the person in the story?? WTF? She works in a Museum for free, voluntary, but winges when asked to do an actual 'job of work' for the same conditions? Cry me a river!!!
The benefit is 'enough' for those on it to afford, ciggies, booze etc,,,, but they still complain? And before you start on it,I HAVE been unemployed and on the Dole.. I took a job earning minimal hourly rate, it didnt leave me with much more than the dole had been paying, BUT I was able to apply for other jobs with EMPLOYED as my work status, and believe me, it helped considerably....

poor duckies, have to get out of bed before midday, and EARN what my/OUR friggin taxes are paying for......

mashman

16th February 2013, 22:29

As for the person in the story?? WTF? She works in a Museum for free, voluntary, but winges when asked to do an actual 'job of work' for the same conditions? Cry me a river!!!

poor duckies, have to get out of bed before midday, and EARN what my/OUR friggin taxes are paying for......

She was already working according to you... however you've decided that she wasn't. Hmmmmmm, make your mind up.

I know, lucky lucky people getting to keep their own hours... I'm sorely tempted to join them and reap the benefits of the taxes that I've put into the system. You wouldn't begrudge me that would you?

jonbuoy

16th February 2013, 23:07

Rubbish, the UK printed GBP350 billion last Jan and by August inflation was up 0.1%. QE/CE, why does it combat inflation?

:facepalm: Eh? I said it INCREASES inflation not DECREASES. For someone who wants to build a "new world order" I would have thought you need to get your head around the system that's in place now Mashman.

Historically Spain, Portugal Greece and Italy have all got out of financial troubles like this in the past by their central banks printing more money - devaluing their currency and encouraging foreign spending. Foreigners snapped up holidays and cheap properties and businesses. They cant do that now as they aren´t in control of the Euro. Its also the reason why people used to wander round with 50000 pesetas just to do the weekly shopping.

mashman

16th February 2013, 23:16

:facepalm: Eh? I said it INCREASES inflation not DECREASES. For someone who wants to build a "new world order" I would have thought you need to get your head around the system that's in place now Mashman.

Historically Spain, Portugal Greece and Italy have all got out of financial troubles like this in the past by their central banks printing more money - devaluing their currency and encouraging foreign spending. Foreigners snapped up holidays and cheap properties and businesses. They cant do that now as they aren´t in control of the Euro. Its also the reason why people used to wander round with 50000 pesetas just to do the weekly shopping.

And you didn't answer the question, again ;)... I didn't say that it decreases (even though inflation has decreased). To make it a little clearer. How does QE/CE work in that it doesn't cause hyperinflation. As highlighted above the UK did this with hundreds of billions of pounds and inflation barely burped. How is that possible? After all, it's money that is printed and thrown into the system. And it's a New Ordered World, not new world order, there is a rather large difference.

Oh I understand why some country's have large denomination notes.

jonbuoy

16th February 2013, 23:33

And you didn't answer the question, again ;)... I didn't say that it decreases (even though inflation has decreased). To make it a little clearer. How does QE/CE work in that it doesn't cause hyperinflation. As highlighted above the UK did this with hundreds of billions of pounds and inflation barely burped. How is that possible? After all, it's money that is printed and thrown into the system. And it's a New Ordered World, not new world order, there is a rather large difference.

Oh I understand why some country's have large denomination notes.

Jesus I knew I shouldn't have posted on one of your threads. Your question was "QE/CE, why does it combat inflation?" My answer was it doesn´t combat inflation - it INCREASES inflation. Question answered!

"How does QE/CE work in that it doesn't cause hyperinflation" - Is that a question - you want me to tell you why QE/CE hasn´t caused hyperinflation in the UK - if you do too much QE/CE it WILL cause Hyperinflation. - So does that answer your strangely worded question??

When currency markets get wind of QE happening they get a bit nervous - if the US printed a huge amount of money people would start selling off their US dollars even before the QE money had reached peoples pockets anticipating a drop in the currency value.

Just do a search on quantative easing and inflation.

mashman

17th February 2013, 07:47

Jesus I knew I shouldn't have posted on one of your threads. Your question was "QE/CE, why does it combat inflation?" My answer was it doesn´t combat inflation - it INCREASES inflation. Question answered!

"How does QE/CE work in that it doesn't cause hyperinflation" - Is that a question - you want me to tell you why QE/CE hasn´t caused hyperinflation in the UK - if you do too much QE/CE it WILL cause Hyperinflation. - So does that answer your strangely worded question??

When currency markets get wind of QE happening they get a bit nervous - if the US printed a huge amount of money people would start selling off their US dollars even before the QE money had reached peoples pockets anticipating a drop in the currency value.

Just do a search on quantative easing and inflation.

:rofl: stop being such a drama queen. The first question was poorly worded and the second was missing a bit... I ain't perfect, go figure. Yes I understand, as far as I dare to, QE/CE vs printing money, but I was trying to find out your terms of reference so that a "discussion" could take place on the "differences". Essentially they're both a different reason to produce new money. Yet for some unknown reason one is acceptable and doesn't really hurt inflation and the other is just a no no, that which shalt not be named. That's it boiled down for me. Yes I understand the concept of imports vs exports in relation to the value of the $.

We're losing jobs to the high $ (more on the dole competing for limited positions, the current govt having promised 170,000 new jobs). We have an almost historic low in terms of inflation. We've borrowed 50+ billion (potentially 70+, not looked in a while but have seen the figure thrown around) so far for something I've yet to see (I'm going for the miracle turn around so that the nats can secure a 3rd term :yes:). To stem the flow of job losses and the borrowing that we're going to be saddled with, why aren't we printing more money to help create more jobs?

Jobs are needed for people to fill. If private enterprise can't create them, then someone has to. At least the money printed would go to people who were working in NZ? No doubt the majority of the unemployed are looking for jobs, but if you've applied for every job in the region with the only 3/4/5 who are going for those jobs and for what ever reason don't get them, then in all likelihood you could end up on the dole for a long long time... especially if you have a certain level of $ needed to cover your ever increasing in price outgoings. So why bother forcing people into what should be paid jobs that don't/won't/can't/shouldn't (single parents) work when there are more than enough jobs to go around for those who will go the extra mile to find them? The only difference being that one group are looking and the others aren't.

As mentioned in an earlier post. There will always be unemployment. Why not leave that too the professionals instead of creating a cycle where a person works for a year, then spends a year on the dole, then works for a year, then spends a year on the dole? Why not bypass that working year and leave those jobs available for those that want work? It would seem like a no brainer to me given that there will always be unemployment and the tax payer will always be funding that unemployment. Much better than using a sledge hammer to crack a nut and hammering the honest job seekers, just because they're in with a small portion of people that you're trying to punish for being unemployed by choice (quite possibly being realistic in their choice)?

Ocean1

17th February 2013, 21:14

You do realise that they could print more money at anytime meaning that you wouldn't have to work harder. So it ain't thems at the bottom who are making it hard for you, it's thems at the top.

They could, but on this point Johnny baby's perfectly correct, printing 5% more cash doesn't alter the economy's net worth, it just knocks 5% off the value of the currency. You no listen.

mashman

17th February 2013, 21:39

They could, but on this point Johnny baby's perfectly correct, printing 5% more cash doesn't alter the economy's net worth, it just knocks 5% off the value of the currency. You no listen.

...I did listen... and as I pointed out, where we currently have a historically high $ that hurting exporters, are borrowing billions extra, are losing jobs etc... then why no do just that?

Ocean1

18th February 2013, 08:07

...I did listen... and as I pointed out, where we currently have a historically high $ that hurting exporters, are borrowing billions extra, are losing jobs etc... then why no do just that?

Generally exchange rates are a product of the variables affecting the relationship between economies, not a variable you should fuck around with in some attempt to distort related variables.

You're correct in that unemployment fluctuates with the general health of the economy, not because of any evel capitalist scheme but simply because charity suffers along with every other facit of the budget when the overall value in hand shrinks. And again, you can print money, not value.

superjackal

18th February 2013, 08:45

Its not for free is it? Someones paying for benefits.

As long as that employer isn't paying them, then yes, they are getting labour for free. It doesn't matter the employee is receiving a benefit. No company should benefit from free labour. The tax payer is subsidising that company to get free labour. Disgusting.

Having worked briefly on "work experience" for free during study, I'd like to say that any employer that does that is a total w*nker.

Reminds me of a similar thing. When an employer gives you a promotion but no extra pay for your "development". Yeah right.

jonbuoy

18th February 2013, 11:21

As long as that employer isn't paying them, then yes, they are getting labour for free. It doesn't matter the employee is receiving a benefit. No company should benefit from free labour. The tax payer is subsidising that company to get free labour. Disgusting.

Having worked briefly on "work experience" for free during study, I'd like to say that any employer that does that is a total w*nker.

Reminds me of a similar thing. When an employer gives you a promotion but no extra pay for your "development". Yeah right.

I despair. The West only has itself to blame when we end up at the bottom of the heap overtaken by hardworking, driven workers from other countries hungry for the opportunities we piss away, moan and gripe about.

Banditbandit

18th February 2013, 11:24

http://forums.watchuseek.com/attachments/f2/784400d1344294505-open-apology-wus-community-regarding-my-last-thread-forum-boring.jpg

jonbuoy

18th February 2013, 11:28

Sorry BB, no pictures for you to follow. You'll have to get an adult to explain it to you.

Banditbandit

18th February 2013, 11:33

Sorry BB, no pictures for you to follow. You'll have to get an adult to explain it to you.

I don't need an adult to explain this shit ... it's not rocket science ... Oh .. maybe that's why it is boring ..

mashman

18th February 2013, 11:38

Generally exchange rates are a product of the variables affecting the relationship between economies, not a variable you should fuck around with in some attempt to distort related variables.

You're correct in that unemployment fluctuates with the general health of the economy, not because of any evel capitalist scheme but simply because charity suffers along with every other facit of the budget when the overall value in hand shrinks. And again, you can print money, not value.

I'm sure there's a really really really complicated and uninteresting formula that goes into deciding why the $ has a particular value on a particular day. In regards to the distortion, tell that to the Soros's and Kreiger's of this world. Having said that there are plenty of govts around the world doing just that... actually it isn't limited to govts as many company's around the world are "revaluing" their worth. Why not leap on the bandwagon to cull some of the borrowing and help the export sector out?

:rofl: Did I ever say it was an evil capitalist scheme? or is that just your furtive imagination demanding that that's what I said? I have an RBNZ document around here somewhere, that states that employment is used as part of monetary policy, albeit it's more of an indirect consequence these days (not that the document said that) :facepalm:... a rose by any other name. The value in printing money is economic benefits, not $ value, as you say. One begets the other non?

Either way... there will still be X people unemployed that will need to be paid for by the tax payer die to there being only Y jobs. What does it matter what the motivation of those on the dole? when there are more than enough who want to work?

mashman

18th February 2013, 11:39

I don't need an adult to explain this shit ... it's not rocket science ... Oh .. maybe that's why it is boring ..

It is rocket science, otherwise you wouldn't need experts to deal with the fine print for ya... how wude.

Banditbandit

18th February 2013, 11:52

It is rocket science, otherwise you wouldn't need experts to deal with the fine print for ya... how wude.

Bwhahahaha ... the fine print ? You just need glasses and good dose of pragmatism ... why waste money on overtrained and overpaid monkeys posing as "experts"? (Ex-pert = what was once a small spert?)

And I once heard Don Brash, in answer to a question, say that we only have economic forcasters to make weather forecasters look good ..

and have a look at these - lot's of economic truth here .. and other from the same pair ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJmTCYmo9g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWDdcD-1xoo

Swoop

18th February 2013, 12:26

we only have economic forcasters to make weather forecasters look good...

So: gareth ("gutterwhiskers") morgan = bad.
Toni Marsh = good.

Yup. The theory seems to hold true!:niceone:

Just "print more money"? FFS!:rolleyes::facepalm:

I wonder if I can get the 50 million I recently brought back into the country exchanged 1:1 into NZ dollars then?

Banditbandit

18th February 2013, 13:05

So: gareth ("gutterwhiskers") morgan = bad.
Toni Marsh = good.

Yup. The theory seems to hold true!:niceone:

Who's Toni Marsh ???

mashman

18th February 2013, 13:10

Bwhahahaha ... the fine print ? You just need glasses and good dose of pragmatism ... why waste money on overtrained and overpaid monkeys posing as "experts"? (Ex-pert = what was once a small spert?)

And I once heard Don Brash, in answer to a question, say that we only have economic forcasters to make weather forecasters look good ..

and have a look at these - lot's of economic truth here .. and other from the same pair ...

You waste the money because they're the experts... it doesn't matter that they stick their finger in the air and hope that they've got it right or not, coz you can then blame them, and not yourself, when it all goes tits. Who me, no, I didn't lose any money, I was just given bad advice, it's someone else's fault.

Will watch B&B later... pretty sure I've seen them before as they are fuckin hilarious and I always wished that they'd show those and then have a panel of economists to deny that that's the way it is. Could be fun if done in a sort of TISWAS styleee.

mashman

18th February 2013, 13:14

Just "print more money"? FFS!:rolleyes::facepalm:

I know right. It's not like anyone else is doing it or has been doing it for centuries if not millenia. Psst, Swoop, just in case you didn't know, we don't find billions of $ hidden in small corners to pay for the growth that we have experienced since forever... they print that shit all the time. Our secret though eh <_<

Swoop

18th February 2013, 13:33

... they print that shit all the time. Our secret though eh
Correct. It is the rate that they print it, and how much "used" money is removed from circulation, that is the critical aspect.

Brian d marge

18th February 2013, 15:03

Generally exchange rates are a product of the variables affecting the relationship between economies, not a variable you should fuck around with in some attempt to distort related variables.

not sure it does anymore , the classic smith econimics you quote , doesnt factor in the money markets and the volume of money trading which was really given its head of steam in 1982

You're correct in that unemployment fluctuates with the general health of the economy, not because of any evel capitalist scheme but simply because charity suffers along with every other facit of the budget when the overall value in hand shrinks. And again, you can print money, not value
The New Zealand government uses unemplyment to control adjust inflation ( cant remember the exact method , and I havent time to ferret it out of me info box so Im sorry but bear with me on that one ) , True you cant print value. you can peg it to something valuable ( gold ) but you cant print it ,,,which is WHY im dead set against america and nixons fk up )
.

I despair. The West only has itself to blame when we end up at the bottom of the heap overtaken by hardworking, driven workers from other countries hungry for the opportunities we piss away, moan and gripe about.

It comes in cycles , england collapsed so is Japan , china or india are on the rise .. ( I think india ) or even a south ameican country . Japan I can tell you is contracting faster than one can bail the water .......

Stephen

Ocean1

18th February 2013, 15:34

Either way... there will still be X people unemployed that will need to be paid for by the tax payer die to there being only Y jobs.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's simply not true, if they want work bring 'em here, I've got work for any of them that actually want it.

What does it matter what the motivation of those on the dole? when there are more than enough who want to work?

You're right, their motivation is completely irrelevant, their capacity to work is all that matters. If they can't work, fine feed and house 'em, if they can work then hand them a shovel, there's plenty of work needing to be done. As for enough wanting to work? Work for what? Fuck all people I know working are happy to work the extra for those that don't.

Banditbandit

18th February 2013, 16:00

You waste the money because they're the experts... it doesn't matter that they stick their finger in the air and hope that they've got it right or not, coz you can then blame them, and not yourself, when it all goes tits. Who me, no, I didn't lose any money, I was just given bad advice, it's someone else's fault.

Mate - I don't pay someone to take responsibility for my bullshit ... Taking responsibility yourself is free and you get to sleep better at night ..

mashman

18th February 2013, 18:26

Correct. It is the rate that they print it, and how much "used" money is removed from circulation, that is the critical aspect.

No fuckin way... you mean there's rules that need to be followed. Right, I demand to know who makes the rules :wait:

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's simply not true, if they want work bring 'em here, I've got work for any of them that actually want it.

You're right, their motivation is completely irrelevant, their capacity to work is all that matters. If they can't work, fine feed and house 'em, if they can work then hand them a shovel, there's plenty of work needing to be done. As for enough wanting to work? Work for what? Fuck all people I know working are happy to work the extra for those that don't.

Of course it's not true... that's why the govt are wanting to create 170,000 jobs. Must be desperate to import people.

There is plenty of work needing to be done, but if you're not going to pay them a decent rate, I see no reason why they should work. As a duly designated member of the I've paid shitloads of tax too brigade, I remove them from their obligation of having to look for work. Awwwwwww that's right, I forgot that there's people who bemoan those of a lower socio-economic status... usually the same folk who'll pay as little money as they can get away with to their employees whilst structuring their finances to limit their tax liability... and if they're lucky, they'll claim any benefit that they are "entitled" too. I've met at least two of them thar folk so far. Their choice.

Mate - I don't pay someone to take responsibility for my bullshit ... Taking responsibility yourself is free and you get to sleep better at night ..

Oh crap... I wish that's all it took to have a good nights sleep... but alas, I find it hard to be out just for myself. Still sleep relatively well though.

Ocean1

18th February 2013, 18:58

There is plenty of work needing to be done, but if you're not going to pay them a decent rate, I see no reason why they should work.

They should work for whatever they can get for the simple reason that the natural alternative is that they don't eat.

Granted; some of 'em could manage that for quite some time. And THEN gat of their fat lazy arses and earn their own keep.

mashman

18th February 2013, 19:49

They should work for whatever they can get for the simple reason that the natural alternative is that they don't eat.

Granted; some of 'em could manage that for quite some time. And THEN gat of their fat lazy arses and earn their own keep.

But isn't the natural alternative survival?

:rofl: on the plus side there would be more KFC for me... then again without the clientele they may shut the local one down and I'd end up going without. I'm sure there's an analogy in there :innocent:

Ocean1

18th February 2013, 20:34

But isn't the natural alternative survival?

How do you work that out? The natural consequense of failing to provide for yourself isn't survival, is it? It's fucking dead, innit?

mashman

18th February 2013, 20:42

How do you work that out? The natural consequense of failing to provide for yourself isn't survival, is it? It's fucking dead, innit?

Only if you're willing to curl up and die. Ain't many that will do that with shut rich weak pickings at every turn.

Ocean1

18th February 2013, 21:34

Only if you're willing to curl up and die. Ain't many that will do that with shut rich weak pickings at every turn.

Meh, we've done all this shit before, if you think people will pay the dole as some sort of protection scheme think again. If the fuckers won't work but they're prepared to take someone else's stuff then they're due a wee remedial lesson in effort vs return behaviour, and one final pointer in optimumum survival tactics. A fatal one.

Keep the available funds for the worthy cases, and you can't do that if it's being siphoned off by fucking dole bludgers.

Brian d marge

18th February 2013, 21:52

If you remove my means of a reasonable life , I will steal your tv

it isnt rocket science

Stephen

Ocean1

18th February 2013, 22:00

If you remove my means of a reasonable life , I will steal your tv

it isnt rocket science

Stephen

This presupposes that you're better prepared to do so than I am to prevent you.

Stick to rockets, Stephen, much safer and a fucking sight less work.

mashman

18th February 2013, 22:25

Meh, we've done all this shit before, if you think people will pay the dole as some sort of protection scheme think again. If the fuckers won't work but they're prepared to take someone else's stuff then they're due a wee remedial lesson in effort vs return behaviour, and one final pointer in optimumum survival tactics. A fatal one.

Keep the available funds for the worthy cases, and you can't do that if it's being siphoned off by fucking dole bludgers.

We have indeed... and it's all fine and well you believing that you'd not fall foul of the rabble that decided to borrow the TV. How many other productive members of society would? No man is an island.

Beautiful sentiment that I may well once upon a time have agreed with. But it's fuckin impossible to decipher which is which. As the fulla on the telly said, kill the rich then there's no one to owe money to and more money ends up in the economy... because the money that you say they have "earned" is keeping very hard working Kiwi's on the poverty line. And no, I don't accept that that is the way it should be for a moment, I don't accept that that is the only way it can be for a moment, especially where the morals (tui) of the money worshipers are akin to those of psychopaths.

Brian d marge

19th February 2013, 00:40

This presupposes that you're better prepared to do so than I am to prevent you.

Stick to rockets, Stephen, much safer and a fucking sight less work.

You dont have a 50 inch plasma do you ......in which case your safe

Stephen

Ocean1

19th February 2013, 07:20

We have indeed... and it's all fine and well you believing that you'd not fall foul of the rabble that decided to borrow the TV. How many other productive members of society would? No man is an island.

Indeed, any help the productive members of society need to maintain their hard earned assets should be freely available from your suitably armed local policeman.

Beautiful sentiment that I may well once upon a time have agreed with. But it's fuckin impossible to decipher which is which.

Wrong. It's simply not politically expedient.

As the fulla on the telly said, kill the rich then there's no one to owe money to and more money ends up in the economy... because the money that you say they have "earned" is keeping very hard working Kiwi's on the poverty line. And no, I don't accept that that is the way it should be for a moment, I don't accept that that is the only way it can be for a moment, especially where the morals (tui) of the money worshipers are akin to those of psychopaths.

What fulla on TV? He must live in there, out here the only hard working Kiwis I've met anywhere near the a poverty line are professional charity workers. Whatever, I can tell you he's not only factually challenged but I've a sneeking suspicion you'll find he's firstly a failure and secondly one of the noisy minority that's happier blaming others for his failure.

You dont have a 50 inch plasma do you ......in which case your safe

Stephen

No, it's a 40" LCD. I hardly ever use it, it's there for the benefit of other people. Much like my 12swg.

Banditbandit

19th February 2013, 07:44

:rofl: on the plus side there would be more KFC for me...

And you wonder why you don't sleep ??? All that shit floating around in your body ???

Banditbandit

19th February 2013, 07:46

oneofsix

19th February 2013, 08:14

That assumes that you are better than them and get them before they get you ... I would not put my money on you ...

And then there is the old numbers game, there are more of them than him, it is not even a risk more a case of him being certain to loose. :lol:

GrayWolf

19th February 2013, 10:54

That assumes that you are better than them and get them before they get you ... I would not put my money on you ...

Are you really prepared to kill ??? Do you really think so ???

And then there is the old numbers game, there are more of them than him, it is not even a risk more a case of him being certain to loose. :lol:

That's a 'mutual' question, is the person 'invading' the house to steal also prepared to kill? it's all very well to say you would, but if killing was THAT easy??? All it means is those who work and earn a living/reasonable wage, will, just like the USA, sleep with a pistol by the bed/under the pillow... So you the 'stealer' have to be prepared to risk dying to steal the 40 inch plasma, jewellery, etc..... Again, how many people are REALLY prepared to risk dying in that circumstance?

oneofsix

19th February 2013, 11:04

That's a 'mutual' question, is the person 'invading' the house to steal also prepared to kill? it's all very well to say you would, but if killing was THAT easy??? All it means is those who work and earn a living/reasonable wage, will, just like the USA, sleep with a pistol by the bed/under the pillow... So you the 'stealer' have to be prepared to risk dying to steal the 40 inch plasma, jewellery, etc..... Again, how many people are REALLY prepared to risk dying in that circumstance?

Not quite mutual, remember who the aggressor is, it aint mr sleepy. Also remember that most of those that sleep with a gun under their pillow but end up losing are killed with their own gun.
You presume a reasonable living wage but the thread is about working for nothing, the state feeding the profits of the businesses instead of ensuring the survival of its citizens so more than a TV is at steak for the invader, it is steal or die. If you are goign to die by not stealing why not risk having to kill someone you blame for killing you and your friends? Not a way I would want to live but obviously some people think that forcing others to starve and calling on the police for free protection is the way to go.

Ocean1

19th February 2013, 11:10

That assumes that you are better than them and get them before they get you ... I would not put my money on you ...

A couple of times I've failed to prevent thieves making off with my stuff, true, but my batting average so far suggests you could do worse. On the other hand if someone with a good case simply asked if they could have my TV they'd have a much better chance of actually getting it. It's happened once already.

Are you really prepared to kill ??? Do you really think so ???

Dunno, never had to, like most people I try to organise my life so the chance of having to do so is pretty slim. If pressed I suspect I'd give it a damned good nudge.

Ocean1

19th February 2013, 11:17

Not quite mutual, remember who the aggressor is, it aint mr sleepy. Also remember that most of those that sleep with a gun under their pillow but end up losing are killed with their own gun.

Still a damed sight fewer than thieves, though.

You presume a reasonable living wage but the thread is about working for nothing, the state feeding the profits of the businesses instead of ensuring the survival of its citizens so more than a TV is at steak for the invader, it is steal or die. If you are goign to die by not stealing why not risk having to kill someone you blame for killing you and your friends? Not a way I would want to live but obviously some people think that forcing others to starve and calling on the police for free protection is the way to go.

Actually the thread is about asking those already getting a free lunch to earn some of it. So the choice isn't quite starve or kill to eat, is it? It's work for your lunch or go hungry. You can decide to kill someone anyway, but lets not pretend you haven't already had shitloads of opportunities to avoid that choice.

mashman

19th February 2013, 11:47

Indeed, any help the productive members of society need to maintain their hard earned assets should be freely available from your suitably armed local policeman.

Wrong. It's simply not politically expedient.

What fulla on TV? He must live in there, out here the only hard working Kiwis I've met anywhere near the a poverty line are professional charity workers. Whatever, I can tell you he's not only factually challenged but I've a sneeking suspicion you'll find he's firstly a failure and secondly one of the noisy minority that's happier blaming others for his failure.

What are you going to do... station a police officer at every house?

PC or not, all they have to do is attend the odd interview to circumvent the rules, or at least set up the odd interview and purposefully fuck it up.

He were a very well off comedian. Some people don't stop thinking just because they have money.

And you wonder why you don't sleep ??? All that shit floating around in your body ???

Once a week/fortnight and I generally sleep very well with a belly full of grease tyvm.

mashman

19th February 2013, 11:50

Banditbandit

19th February 2013, 12:16

What are you going to do... station a police officer at every house?

Yeah ... Great Idea ... creates lots of jobs ... (as long as you don't expect them to work for free ...)

Can I please have a policewoman insted of a police man? This one ... those legs will keep my neck warm ...

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcROCTvrXU05aKEFcMj9oB-rAkk1rr1N87xxJU88RQsFTadMj4Cej_t92ObgRg

davereid

19th February 2013, 12:18

Actually the thread is about asking those already getting a free lunch to earn some of it.

I grew up when every factory had a help wanted sign.

And pretty much we had full employment, only a handful would have been on the dole.

I think it shows that if the jobs are there, virtually everyone will find their way into employment.

But most of the western world has lost its way.

We have kept prosperity for many by using virtual slave labour. Instead of going to foreign lands, and bringing people in chains to work our lands, we use border control to keep them as low wage slaves in their own lands.

The catch is, that those in our own country who used to make those T shirts, work as process workers, or factory hands, are now not required, as the foreign slave labour is cheaper.

So we put them on the scrap heap.

Its easy to blame them for not having a job, and that's what we are doing. But its a mess we created, and kicking the bloke who is down won't fix it.

The solution isn't easy, and it will lower the standard of living for those who are still in the workforce - that's why we don't do it.

(1) Lower age of retirement. This takes the old guy out of the work force, and puts the young guy in. And its essentially fiscally neutral, as the dole and super or of similar value, but the old guy is likely on higher wages than the new chap. And old guys seem to manage on the OAP without wander around stealing raping and robbing.

(2) Bring back penal time. Many employers work current staff hard rather than take on new staff. Penal rates work two fold, giving better paid to the skilled who simply must work, while encouraging employers to take on new staff.

(3) Simplify compliance. Make it easy and safe for employers to take on new staff and grow their businesses.

(4) Accept that some people have limited skills. Use tariffs to create some protected industries to ensure there are financially viable industries for those with minimal skills to move into.

NZ is now stuck with 3rd and 4th generation beneficiaries. Many simply wont have any interest in getting back into the work force. Once a job is available for everyone who wants one, THEN its time to bring back the stick.

But in the mean time, we are flogging an already dispirited horse.

oneofsix

19th February 2013, 12:29

Actually the thread is about asking those already getting a free lunch to earn some of it. So the choice isn't quite starve or kill to eat, is it? It's work for your lunch or go hungry. You can decide to kill someone anyway, but lets not pretend you haven't already had shitloads of opportunities to avoid that choice.

Most would love to have work but as you say they are already getting a free lunch so why work as well? If there is work there then pay them to work and stop sucking on the tit of the welfare system (you wont understand that), the people you want to work for free would rather not be on welfare. So if their choice is work to be called a welfare freeloader, no increase in status or selfworth, why not become a crim, at least crims get more respect, if you become a big enough crim you can call yourself a business man or politician.
If every job currently available in NZ was filled their would still be a boat load of unemployed and a lot of those employed still would not be able to afford to live so what opportunities? You indicate you have an opportunity to avoid the need to kill, what are you doing with it? Hoarding it?

Ocean1

19th February 2013, 13:00

NZ is now stuck with 3rd and 4th generation beneficiaries. Many simply wont have any interest in getting back into the work force. Once a job is available for everyone who wants one, THEN its time to bring back the stick.

But in the mean time, we are flogging an already dispirited horse.

Can't disagree with much of that. But I'll say that if you're the age I think then your golden age was based on exactly the effect your low wage economies have on us here, now: New Zealand produced stuff cheaper and better than the UK, so much so that we beat not only their product prices but their tariffs. I don't recall too many Kiwis complaining that they were slave labour for the UK market then, and I don't think many third world labourers would complain about an income that beats the shit out of what they had before their current job. The world is indeed changing, but, then, it always has.

As for an interest in going back to work? A wee excercise: compare the average Kiwi's lifestyle from those years to one on a low wage now. Our grandparents would have seen todays unemployed benefit as extremely generous, better than most of them managed to earn.

Solutions 2, 3 should be obvious. They're certainly obvious enough to the productive private sector.
4 is an option. It's just a differtent way of linking some form of minimum effort with an agreed minimum reward. Can't argue.

No 1 isn't anywhere near fiscally neutral. All of the older professionals I know my age earn far more for the economy than any combination of younger alternatives. Gen X and Y simply don't cut it, they've got little idea of that nescessary link between effort and reward. They won't when the old fuckers eventually do go, either, but in the meantime the tax take from those oldies remains one of the largest income streams for feeding both those that can't do so and those that don't.

Ocean1

19th February 2013, 13:02

Most would love to have work but as you say they are already getting a free lunch so why work as well?

My father was eligable for the dole, over a period of several months.

He never collected it. Would have been ashamed to have done so. Strangely, we survived.

oneofsix

19th February 2013, 13:06

My father was eligable for the dole, over a period of several months.

He never collected it. Would have been ashamed to have done so. Strangely, we survived.

Bugger only several months, pity he didn't try it for several years Then again he probably also tried it at a better time than now in a more caring society than the one you represent.

davereid

19th February 2013, 14:12

All of the older professionals I know my age earn far more for the economy than any combination of younger alternatives. Gen X and Y simply don't cut it, they've got little idea of that nescessary link between effort and reward. They won't when the old fuckers eventually do go, either, but in the meantime the tax take from those oldies remains one of the largest income streams for feeding both those that can't do so and those that don't.

Sadly you are right.

It took only a few months from pushing the GO button for the mosquito, for old engineers to get the first one in the air. Two months later they were in mass production.

Its taken 5 years and $38 million for Novapay to go from concept to err not working concept.

The get-on-and-do-it machine is broken. Possibly irrecoverably.

But not all older workers are professionals.

We need to bring the young into our world of employment, work, productivity and prosperity. If we don't, they will surely involve us in their world, of hopelessness, violence, poverty and crime.

oneofsix

19th February 2013, 14:15

Ocean1

19th February 2013, 15:36

We need to bring the young into our world of employment, work, productivity and prosperity. If we don't, they will surely involve us in their world, of hopelessness, violence, poverty and crime.

My wife had a nifty wee bit of doggerel: Don’t sweat the small stuff!

Used to drive me bloody crazy, because of course the small stuff grows. It grows until you can be bothered behaving like a parent, providing your kids with boundaries and guidelines.

Just because you’ve left it late enough that the consequences are somewhat higher than making them stand in the corner doesn’t mean you get to shrug your shoulders and say “Oh well, I tried.”

Ocean1

19th February 2013, 15:41

But not all older workers are professionals.

Thought I'd left this lying around here somewhere...

Wiki:
Baby Boomers control over 80% of personal financial assets and more than 50% of discretionary spending power., July 2011 They are responsible for more than half of all consumer spending, buy 77% of all prescription drugs, 61% of OTC medication and 80% of all leisure travel.

davereid

19th February 2013, 16:38

Thought I'd left this lying around here somewhere...

Wiki:
Baby Boomers control over 80% of personal financial assets and more than 50% of discretionary spending power., July 2011 They are responsible for more than half of all consumer spending, buy 77% of all prescription drugs, 61% of OTC medication and 80% of all leisure travel.

Yes.ts the baby boomer that controls those assets that is the biggest barrier to change. He simply doesn't want to have a lower standrd of living so that others may participate in a productive society.

Trouble is, I don't want to be that baby boomer, trying to quietly enjoy my retirement, while the youth that the governments of my generation have trashed get up to all the things that troubled youth get up to.

We need to actually develop a way out, not just continue to fund those the system has failed to remain failed.

mashman

19th February 2013, 16:54

Yeah ... Great Idea ... creates lots of jobs ... (as long as you don't expect them to work for free ...)

Can I please have a policewoman insted of a police man? This one ... those legs will keep my neck warm ...

heh heh heh... nah, raise more taxes to keep people safe.

Hot Fuzz...

mashman

19th February 2013, 17:07

We need to bring the young into our world of employment, work, productivity and prosperity. If we don't, they will surely involve us in their world, of hopelessness, violence, poverty and crime.

if it wasn't for them darn kidsif it wasn't for them darn kids

Yeah, coz adults are above leading the way in hopelessness, violence, poverty and crime. Where do you think the "kids" learn it from? Time adults started to practice what they preach... but that ain't gonna happen coz there's money to be made. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you're going to run your society to a budget, then you're going to get the society that that budget can afford. It's not the problem of the kids and it's not the problem of Gen X/Y. It's an old farts problem. For some reason they seem to think that growth means progress and that the kids should learn by example and do as they're told. Blind as fuck springs to mind, but trying to be more charitable, they're just fuckin blind. Kids have always been cunts, even the employed ones... they just happen to have less time to be a cunt with.

It would seem that society is what other people want it to be and not what we want it to be. I don't blame the kids, and neither should anyone else, in fact we shouldn't be blaming the useless parents, because it isn't the monority of useless parents or the minority of bad kids that define what society is and they are currently powerless to change a thing, especially when earning the princely sum of $11 per hour. Consider this... since when did telling a kid anything, in an authoritative manner, every really accomplish anything?

It's the adults that are behind the times, the pre-baby boomers clinging on to an era of plenty and believing that it can still exist in exactly the same format as it once did and to hell with anyone who thinks it can't... and all because adults say so. Blaming kids for the mistakes of adults that have gone before them is just fuckin stupid.

Ocean1

19th February 2013, 17:40

Yes.ts the baby boomer that controls those assets that is the biggest barrier to change. He simply doesn't want to have a lower standrd of living so that others may participate in a productive society.

They're their assets, dude. And as I said, you can't buy wisdom, no matter who's money you're using.

We need to actually develop a way out, not just continue to fund those the system has failed to remain failed.

I agree, but you know damned well there's only one way to teach productive behaviour, you reward it. You don't,and you can't pay people to underperform and expect them to improve. Never happen.

The only way I can see any improvement is to re-boot NZR, MOW, NZED et al and get back into the business of making apprentices. Don' tknow what it'd cost, you'd certainly have to reassign funding from somewhere else initially, but even in the meduim term you'd have some internal returns, it'd be mildely self-funding. Long term you'd have usefull employees, as opposed to labourers. Nothing's more redundant than labourers in most industries, and that's not going to change.

foamy stuff of little coherent sense

Dude. I don't speak giberish. Not well enough to be bothered going anywhere near that lot.

Later.

mashman

19th February 2013, 17:51

Dude. I don't speak giberish. Not well enough to be bothered going anywhere near that lot.

Later.

Foamy? Usually I'd agree, but that last effort was calmly written and still makes perfect sense to me... however given what it is conveying I can see why you're having problems with it.

Ocean1

19th February 2013, 18:16

Foamy? Usually I'd agree, but that last effort was calmly written and still makes perfect sense to me... however given what it is conveying I can see why you're having problems with it.

Good. That's a start.

Now you just need to ditch the preconceived associations littering tho whole daitribe and you'll be on firmer ground.

mashman

19th February 2013, 19:06

Good. That's a start.

Now you just need to ditch the preconceived associations littering tho whole daitribe and you'll be on firmer ground.

bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa... that's fuckin priceless, I may even bling you for it... however you didn't highlight the preconceptions, so no, I won't... you just carry on believing that it's the kids who are at fault and I'll keep laughing, but at you, not with you.

Ocean1

19th February 2013, 20:03

you didn't highlight the preconceptions, so no, I won't... you just carry on believing that it's the kids who are at fault and I'll keep laughing, but at you, not with you.

One at a time, dude, that's about all either of us can deal with, eh?

Start with the one you misquoted me with. Re kids and blame.

mashman

19th February 2013, 22:19

One at a time, dude, that's about all either of us can deal with, eh?

Start with the one you misquoted me with. Re kids and blame.

Speak for yourself.

I didn't misquote you, I extrapolated Gen X/Y and put words into your mouth. My humble apologies.

GrayWolf

19th February 2013, 22:27

Yeah, coz adults are above leading the way in hopelessness, violence, poverty and crime. Where do you think the "kids" learn it from? Time adults started to practice what they preach... but that ain't gonna happen coz there's money to be made. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you're going to run your society to a budget, then you're going to get the society that that budget can afford. It's not the problem of the kids and it's not the problem of Gen X/Y. It's an old farts problem. For some reason they seem to think that growth means progress and that the kids should learn by example and do as they're told. Blind as fuck springs to mind, but trying to be more charitable, they're just fuckin blind. Kids have always been cunts, even the employed ones... they just happen to have less time to be a cunt with.

It would seem that society is what other people want it to be and not what we want it to be. I don't blame the kids, and neither should anyone else, in fact we shouldn't be blaming the useless parents, because it isn't the monority of useless parents or the minority of bad kids that define what society is and they are currently powerless to change a thing, especially when earning the princely sum of $11 per hour. Consider this... since when did telling a kid anything, in an authoritative manner, every really accomplish anything?

It's the adults that are behind the times, the pre-baby boomers clinging on to an era of plenty and believing that it can still exist in exactly the same format as it once did and to hell with anyone who thinks it can't... and all because adults say so. Blaming kids for the mistakes of adults that have gone before them is just fuckin stupid.

You really are thinking with a cloud over your mind..
firstly the great recession 0f the 20's? They REALLY had it hard, by comparison todays 'unemployed' have it easy..
How is it OUR fault (baby boomers)? I came from the UK, with parents who went through the war and the austerity of rationing etc. owning a car was a luxury, it's only been since the 70's onwards they have really become a 'must have'.
Kids have always been shits you are 100% right, but today's shits have no controls on them.. they run the school's not the teachers, parents are basically left 'powerless', kids can 'divorce their parents' and get an independence allowance?? Jeezus H christos, we would NEVER have back chatted a teacher, let alone told them to 'fuck off'...
Now how did telling any kid anything in an authoritative manner work? well lets see, we were better educated, could read, right and do ower sumz proprli, thats 90% of us... the minority were the kids who didnt want to learn,,, right or wrongly as to how it was acheived, we respected/feared teachers, Police, parents in the main,,, so yes I guess that the regime DID instill self control, values, morals, work ethic. Today there is a LARGE percentage who cant be arsed to learn, and the teachers have no way to control them.
As for earning $11 dollars an hour? What sort of wages do you think we got as apprentices? We did it knowing we would earn better money than average after a few years, today they want it all, NOW, adult wages for child output ability... oh and of course all at a dollar down and no repayments for 12 months.....

jonbuoy

20th February 2013, 01:10

Brian d marge

20th February 2013, 01:35

You really are thinking with a cloud over your mind..
firstly the great recession 0f the 20's? They REALLY had it hard, by comparison todays 'unemployed' have it easy..
How is it OUR fault (baby boomers)? I came from the UK, with parents who went through the war and the austerity of rationing etc. owning a car was a luxury, it's only been since the 70's onwards they have really become a 'must have'.
Kids have always been shits you are 100% right, but today's shits have no controls on them.. they run the school's not the teachers, parents are basically left 'powerless', kids can 'divorce their parents' and get an independence allowance?? Jeezus H christos, we would NEVER have back chatted a teacher, let alone told them to 'fuck off'...
Now how did telling any kid anything in an authoritative manner work? well lets see, we were better educated, could read, right and do ower sumz proprli, thats 90% of us... the minority were the kids who didnt want to learn,,, right or wrongly as to how it was acheived, we respected/feared teachers, Police, parents in the main,,, so yes I guess that the regime DID instill self control, values, morals, work ethic. Today there is a LARGE percentage who cant be arsed to learn, and the teachers have no way to control them.
As for earning $11 dollars an hour? What sort of wages do you think we got as apprentices? We did it knowing we would earn better money than average after a few years, today they want it all, NOW, adult wages for child output ability... oh and of course all at a dollar down and no repayments for 12 months.....

this is going to be a quick reply as Im fkin knackered ,
First . yes the car was a luxury ( hand made, no robots and economies of scale ) , but the"free ist" individuals were the teenagers of the late fifties toward the mid 70s disposable money and not so much in the way of cell phones ,ie free and with money ....think Mary Quant etc this of course was a reaction to the hardships imposed by war ( bacon became the thing after the war !)
those teenagers, taught their children based on their experience(s) ,,,,dot dot dot
Secondly the Economic outlook changed , ( how many times do I have to say this ) August 15th 1971 when Nixon removed the last of the gold standards and floated the dollar ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock) Since then the and even more so when clinton removed the Glass-steagull act , all hell has been let loose , esp in the world of credit and finance ( your house )http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act
Now if ( as I have said , how many times ) , if you can move money , or have an asset you can capitalize to a greater or lesser extent. If you dont, cant or are in Oamaru and the jobs just gone ...
Now people who are marginalized create " justifications " for their actions, ( we see it here oh NZ/Im struggling , because of those unemployed bludgers , solo mums , when in fact its the Oldies ( pensions ) that cost the most ( just over half ) or it must be those coons from wogistan taking the jobs !)
Taken to extremes in south auckland and some sections of society ,,,,,,,http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/59294.Five_Families
wont go on. suffice to say , chuck in a bit of USA bullying and neoclassical economics from Chicago and we arrive at today
Its not the " baby boomers " you cant blame them" for not understanding , and trying to better themselves ( some are greedy yes )99.99% of people do not understand how the world changed .....and they wont , due to the mess it will make if they did realize ..
The solution is simple ,
Challenge the TINA ( there is no alternative ) syndrome .. ( again not I am not sure )
* Promote informed debate and critique ..
* Promote participatory democracy ..
* Embrace the Treaty of Waitangi as a liberating force ..
* Encourage progressive counter-nationalism ..
* Develop multi-level strategies ..
* Hold the line ..
* Localise politics ..
* Ginger up party politics ..
* Invest in the future ..
* Support those who speak out ..
* Promote ethical investment ..
* Think global, act local ..
* Think local, act global ..

and stop blaming others when its bigger than us here in a small south pacific nation , that to be ...honest doesnt feature on the world stage ....

Stephen

mashman

20th February 2013, 07:34

You really are thinking with a cloud over your mind..
firstly the great recession 0f the 20's? They REALLY had it hard, by comparison todays 'unemployed' have it easy..
How is it OUR fault (baby boomers)? I came from the UK, with parents who went through the war and the austerity of rationing etc. owning a car was a luxury, it's only been since the 70's onwards they have really become a 'must have'.
Kids have always been shits you are 100% right, but today's shits have no controls on them.. they run the school's not the teachers, parents are basically left 'powerless', kids can 'divorce their parents' and get an independence allowance?? Jeezus H christos, we would NEVER have back chatted a teacher, let alone told them to 'fuck off'...
Now how did telling any kid anything in an authoritative manner work? well lets see, we were better educated, could read, right and do ower sumz proprli, thats 90% of us... the minority were the kids who didnt want to learn,,, right or wrongly as to how it was acheived, we respected/feared teachers, Police, parents in the main,,, so yes I guess that the regime DID instill self control, values, morals, work ethic. Today there is a LARGE percentage who cant be arsed to learn, and the teachers have no way to control them.
As for earning $11 dollars an hour? What sort of wages do you think we got as apprentices? We did it knowing we would earn better money than average after a few years, today they want it all, NOW, adult wages for child output ability... oh and of course all at a dollar down and no repayments for 12 months.....

And there are plenty in Africa/India/China who would love to have the standard of living that those in the 20's had.

Regarding baby boomers/adults in general, Edmund Blake: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.". That's why it has all gone to shit. We've relinquished collective responsibility to people of dubious character. A tad unfair perhaps in that some people are doing the best that they can given the circumstances they find themselves in... but that's where they should be changing the rules of the game and it's up to us to suggest how those rules should be changed, because they certainly aren't. It's the adults that drive us to where we need to go and we're going rapidly backwards where technological advancement, providing efficiencies and the economy come before the welfare of people. That lies at our feet. I am prepared for sweeping changes to arrest the free f(or)all.

I agree with you in regards to kids and "respect" to an extent. I despair when I see the stunned looks on parents face when I say please feel free to bollock my kids should they be out of line. Should that require being restrained, go for it. I'm more than happy for strangers to have a crack at the girls if they're being bad, but there's too many people these days who's idea of bad is making noise and it's getting harder and harder to draw that line. Again though, it's the adults who are the intolerant ones and we should know better.

Ocean1

20th February 2013, 08:08

It was a disaster - he was tearing his hair out by the end of the series. 90% of the kids still couldnt give a shit.

Got to be careful with wee snippets like that, especially where they may reinforce whatever prejudices you might already have. Nonetheless, if Jamie had bothered doing a minimum of research in developmental psych he might not have been so surprised at the results. The fact is that about the time they leave school is the worst age possible to attempt to change the behaviour at the focus of the experiment.

I can still remember from my schooldays our Chemistry teacher giving us a roasting for being ungrateful little shits for goofing around in class, he had been teaching kids from some deprived/third world country at our school during the holidays. He struggled to get out the classroom at the end of the lesson because they were so keen to get every scrap of knowledge out of him.

I was in China a few years ago, working, and in the evenings I did the tourist bit around the city. You'd find kids loitering around the museums, galleries and markets, they’d try to engage with you as you entered or left. They were invariably polite and interested in what you had to say about the place. What they wanted was to talk to someone with English as their primary language, for as long as possible.

I’d walk through the local park to dinner most nights, and end up spending an hour talking to teenagers. It grew into some sort of strange nightly outdoor English class, they'd turn up with notes from last night and want to know what was planned for tomorrow :laugh:. By the time I left over 100 kids would be there. I still have just perhaps a dozen words of Mandarin.

mashman

20th February 2013, 08:41

I was in China a few years ago, working, and in the evenings I did the tourist bit around the city. You'd find kids loitering around the museums, galleries and markets, they’d try to engage with you as you entered or left. They were invariably polite and interested in what you had to say about the place. What they wanted was to talk to someone with English as their primary language, for as long as possible.

I’d walk through the local park to dinner most nights, and end up spending an hour talking to teenagers. It grew into some sort of strange nightly outdoor English class, they'd turn up with notes from last night and want to know what was planned for tomorrow :laugh:. By the time I left over 100 kids would be there. I still have just perhaps a dozen words of Mandarin.

That sounds like a really rather amazing journey.

GrayWolf

20th February 2013, 09:25

this is going to be a quick reply as Im fkin knackered ,
First . yes the car was a luxury ( hand made, no robots and economies of scale ) , but the"free ist" individuals were the teenagers of the late fifties toward the mid 70s disposable money and not so much in the way of cell phones ,ie free and with money ....think Mary Quant etc this of course was a reaction to the hardships imposed by war ( bacon became the thing after the war !)
those teenagers, taught their children based on their experience(s) ,,,,dot dot dot
Secondly the Economic outlook changed , ( how many times do I have to say this ) August 15th 1971 when Nixon removed the last of the gold standards and floated the dollar ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock) Since then the and even more so when clinton removed the Glass-steagull act , all hell has been let loose , esp in the world of credit and finance ( your house )http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act
Now if ( as I have said , how many times ) , if you can move money , or have an asset you can capitalize to a greater or lesser extent. If you dont, cant or are in Oamaru and the jobs just gone ...
Now people who are marginalized create " justifications " for their actions, ( we see it here oh NZ/Im struggling , because of those unemployed bludgers , solo mums , when in fact its the Oldies ( pensions ) that cost the most ( just over half ) or it must be those coons from wogistan taking the jobs !)
Taken to extremes in south auckland and some sections of society ,,,,,,,http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/59294.Five_Families
wont go on. suffice to say , chuck in a bit of USA bullying and neoclassical economics from Chicago and we arrive at today
Its not the " baby boomers " you cant blame them" for not understanding , and trying to better themselves ( some are greedy yes )99.99% of people do not understand how the world changed .....and they wont , due to the mess it will make if they did realize ..
The solution is simple ,
Challenge the TINA ( there is no alternative ) syndrome .. ( again not I am not sure )
* Promote informed debate and critique ..
* Promote participatory democracy ..
* Embrace the Treaty of Waitangi as a liberating force ..
* Encourage progressive counter-nationalism ..
* Develop multi-level strategies ..
* Hold the line ..
* Localise politics ..
* Ginger up party politics ..
* Invest in the future ..
* Support those who speak out ..
* Promote ethical investment ..
* Think global, act local ..
* Think local, act global ..

and stop blaming others when its bigger than us here in a small south pacific nation , that to be ...honest doesnt feature on the world stage ....

Stephen

Stephen,
how the fuck did a financial diatribe get associated to what I said? I never mentioned the various financial meanderings of the USA et al, I/we were discussing behaviour of people either in 'dole' situation, or in general. The shenanigans of Nixon/Clinton have no bearing on twats like Sue Bradford and others who have their heads buried up their arses, and want to strip any method of controlling kids/people/crims etc then of course will sit and whinge while the 'unruly mob' they have created burns Rome.

GrayWolf

20th February 2013, 09:37

There was a TV show in the UK - Jamies Olivers Dream School. Not sure if you´ve seen it - the idea behind the show was to prove that it wasn't the kids fault they weren't learning at school it was the teachers. He took a bunch of kids who were about to leave school with no qualifications hand picked some world famous experts in every field, gave them laptops, field trips and tried to get them interested in something - anything. It was a disaster - he was tearing his hair out by the end of the series. 90% of the kids still couldnt give a shit.

I can still remember from my schooldays our Chemistry teacher giving us a roasting for being ungrateful little shits for goofing around in class, he had been teaching kids from some deprived/third world country at our school during the holidays. He struggled to get out the classroom at the end of the lesson because they were so keen to get every scrap of knowledge out of him.

yes and there was another couple of 'shows' that preceded that.. One was 'Bad boy's army' .. they got volunteer 18-22yr old's on the brink of going to jail, who agreed to do the 'boot camp' instead... Basically took them back to 1950's Conscription style Army training, complete with Seargent major's etc with the 'Correct Attitude' to suit the era,,,,
However, following from that was a show where they gave a mixed sex group of students who by today's Exam standards, were going to score highly, and gave them the O level papers that were done through the 50- 70's.. They all failed miserably.
So the second series was That'll learn em.. they took the group back to 1950/60's style teaching methods (excluding corporal punishment) even with the teacher attitute that kids today would be totally shocked with, and us old fuckers remember well, stood in front of the class and berated for getting it wrong, etc etc....
Interestingly enough? At the end of 3 months, they all passed the O level, and it seems they all excelled to an amazing level in todays exam regime.
We were NEVER allowed leeway on spelling, punctuation, grammar... Even if the exam was History, or, Geography, you got marked down for bad spelling etc.
the 50's to late 60/early 70's were called the 'golden age' of education, and it certainly showed we learnt more and at a higher standard.
But today? it's the kids who run the class, must'nt inhibit their character, must'nt control them, they'll learn self control as they get older...... Funny that, how they all suddenly get mature, grow up, and ???? Why do place's like Macca's etc do so well? Because they dont have domestic skills, cant be bothered, too fckn lazy????

Brian d marge

20th February 2013, 10:31

Stephen,
how the fuck did a financial diatribe get associated to what I said? I never mentioned the various financial meanderings of the USA et al, I/we were discussing behaviour of people either in 'dole' situation, or in general. The shenanigans of Nixon/Clinton have no bearing on twats like Sue Bradford and others who have their heads buried up their arses, and want to strip any method of controlling kids/people/crims etc then of course will sit and whinge while the 'unruly mob' they have created burns Rome.
That daitribe .has more bearing on how and why we are in "this mess" than you will ever know or want to understand one suspects..

I gave you the hows and why of the path we took to get here .

Stephen

mashman

20th February 2013, 11:03

GrayWolf

20th February 2013, 11:39

That daitribe .has more bearing on how and why we are in "this mess" than you will ever know or want to understand one suspects..

I gave you the hows and why of the path we took to get here .

Stephen

Surely not :shit:... it's the people that are the problem, not the system <_<

the world/empires have always revolved around commerce and trade, History has always shown one 'empire' rises, falls, another takes it's place. The human race just does'nt learn from the past... Rome created the biggest empire pre 'Industry'. Portugal, Spain, The Dutch, England, French all went around conquering various countries in the 14-1600's. Hitler never learnt from Bonapart's folly of invading Russia as a second front. Bonapart didnt learn from??? The Roman's tried to be 'world Police', England did the same in the days of Empire, now the USA has taken up the mantle, and still hasnt learnt from England and Rome or Vietnam/Korea/Afghanistan and now Iraq.
If you read the general history of Rome, they gave away bread to the masses, who became the 'Mob' would spend up to 100 days at times sitting in the Arena watching the Games. They didnt need to 'work' they ruled the world. yet Rome was built on discipline and rule. We have now dissolved much of that 'discipline' we had, the rules are now so lax, for christs sake I could Murder someone and be out on Parole in 7 years!
We are creating a 'Mob' and as usual the human race has it's historical head buried in the sand.... Finance may be a 'driving force' but finance doesnt pass 'anti smacking' laws...

Brian d marge

20th February 2013, 14:16

the world/empires have always revolved around commerce and trade, History has always shown one 'empire' rises, falls, another takes it's place. The human race just does'nt learn from the past... Rome created the biggest empire pre 'Industry'. Portugal, Spain, The Dutch, England, French all went around conquering various countries in the 14-1600's. Hitler never learnt from Bonapart's folly of invading Russia as a second front. Bonapart didnt learn from??? The Roman's tried to be 'world Police', England did the same in the days of Empire, now the USA has taken up the mantle, and still hasnt learnt from England and Rome or Vietnam/Korea/Afghanistan and now Iraq.
If you read the general history of Rome, they gave away bread to the masses, who became the 'Mob' would spend up to 100 days at times sitting in the Arena watching the Games. They didnt need to 'work' they ruled the world. yet Rome was built on discipline and rule. We have now dissolved much of that 'discipline' we had, the rules are now so lax, for christs sake I could Murder someone and be out on Parole in 7 years!
We are creating a 'Mob' and as usual the human race has it's historical head buried in the sand.... Finance may be a 'driving force' but finance doesnt pass 'anti smacking' laws...

Its called the (3?) ages of an empire , they last approx 500 years , bye bye america !

No finance doesnt itself pass anti smaking laws , but the product of finance does , ( five families )

Stephen

mashman

20th February 2013, 16:54

the world/empires have always revolved around commerce and trade, History has always shown one 'empire' rises, falls, another takes it's place. The human race just does'nt learn from the past... Rome created the biggest empire pre 'Industry'. Portugal, Spain, The Dutch, England, French all went around conquering various countries in the 14-1600's. Hitler never learnt from Bonapart's folly of invading Russia as a second front. Bonapart didnt learn from??? The Roman's tried to be 'world Police', England did the same in the days of Empire, now the USA has taken up the mantle, and still hasnt learnt from England and Rome or Vietnam/Korea/Afghanistan and now Iraq.
If you read the general history of Rome, they gave away bread to the masses, who became the 'Mob' would spend up to 100 days at times sitting in the Arena watching the Games. They didnt need to 'work' they ruled the world. yet Rome was built on discipline and rule. We have now dissolved much of that 'discipline' we had, the rules are now so lax, for christs sake I could Murder someone and be out on Parole in 7 years!
We are creating a 'Mob' and as usual the human race has it's historical head buried in the sand.... Finance may be a 'driving force' but finance doesnt pass 'anti smacking' laws...

I agree with most of that... however we have moved on in terms of population. Human beings should be the driving force... anything that is promoted about human beings should be removed from the equation as it's likely doing more harm than good... and commerce has been doing that for millenia. Getting rid of the financial system would go a loooooooooong way towards breaking away from the cyclic "traditions" that have taken us to where we are today. Millions of people understand that. Move over and make way for us as it's time to evolve properly for a change.

Ocean1

20th February 2013, 18:03

I agree with most of that... however we have moved on in terms of population. Human beings should be the driving force... anything that is promoted about human beings should be removed from the equation as it's likely doing more harm than good... and commerce has been doing that for millenia. Getting rid of the financial system would go a loooooooooong way towards breaking away from the cyclic "traditions" that have taken us to where we are today. Millions of people understand that. Move over and make way for us as it's time to evolve properly for a change.

Oh yeah, brilliant, remove any means of quantifying the value of individual productivity and all of the dole bludgers will be worth as much as anyone else. Chenius!

mashman

20th February 2013, 18:38

Oh yeah, brilliant, remove any means of quantifying the value of individual productivity and all of the dole bludgers will be worth as much as anyone else. Chenius!

Why would you need to quantify individual productivity if everything that needs to be done is getting done? Much better than quantifying the value of a job based on the productivity it is perceived to represent... and there would be no dole bludgers, just bludgers... and why bother wasting time and energy on them when everything that needs to be done is getting done? They become irrelevant and who knows, they may actually pout something in or indeed given that the education system becomes an entirely different entity, perhaps kids'll learn what their parents fail to "teach" them and over time they'll become what will be perceived as a valued member of society... ommmmmmmmm mutha fucka.

Ocean1

20th February 2013, 18:53

Why would you need to quantify individual productivity if everything that needs to be done is getting done?

What makes you think that everything that needs to be done would be done if you don't value individual productivity?

mashman

20th February 2013, 19:02

What makes you think that everything that needs to be done would be done if you don't value individual productivity?

Call it a hunch :rofl:... nah, people currently do crap jobs for crap pay, plenty of innovators do it for the love of it and not the money, it may be as simple as being happy with next to no crime, it could be that people value time over money etc... and the way to enjoy that lifestyle would be for as many as possible to contribute. What makes you so sure that nothing would be done if you don't value individual productivity? Would you down tools because you wouldn't consider that your contribution was being fairly valued?

Ocean1

20th February 2013, 19:32

Would you down tools because you wouldn't consider that your contribution was being fairly valued?

Yes. I'd invite people to join me in a radical new venture where people are paid according to the value of their contribution, that way I'd be responsible for my own decisions and outcomes. Who knows, maybe I'd decide to fuck around all day, but I'd do so knowing I'd be paid accordingly.

blue rider

20th February 2013, 19:33

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/69282_10152580136085434_1302887805_n.jpg

mashman

20th February 2013, 20:04

Yes. I'd invite people to join me in a radical new venture where people are paid according to the value of their contribution, that way I'd be responsible for my own decisions and outcomes. Who knows, maybe I'd decide to fuck around all day, but I'd do so knowing I'd be paid accordingly.

Who's going to earn the most? Why would not having money remove your responsibility for what you do in your life?

Ocean1

20th February 2013, 20:20

Who's going to earn the most? Why would not having money remove your responsibility for what you do in your life?

Those that produce the most value.

Money's just a measure of value, it's not having consequences that removes responsibility for what you do.

mashman

20th February 2013, 20:32

Those that produce the most value.

Money's just a measure of value, it's not having consequences that removes responsibility for what you do.

So you're ok with that if that means that you aren't earning enough to be able to fuck around by taking a day off?

There are laws for every bad thing in the world, including fraud, embezzlement, insider trading etc... yet these things still happen. It would seem that your statement isn't really true. Money is destroying the human race, it limits innovation, creates silo'd research, drives success at any cost etc... it does more damage than good.

mashman

20th February 2013, 20:40

Contract of Unemployment

Perhaps you could send that to this lady as she might need it. (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/the-bedroom-tax-letter-that-shames-david-1647647) :facepalm:

Ocean1

20th February 2013, 20:50

So you're ok with that if that means that you aren't earning enough to be able to fuck around by taking a day off?

Of course, who else should be responsible?

There are laws for every bad thing in the world, including fraud, embezzlement, insider trading etc... yet these things still happen.

Yes. What's your point?

It would seem that your statement isn't really true.

Which statement?

Money is destroying the human race, it limits innovation, creates silo'd research, drives success at any cost etc... it does more damage than good.

I don't agree. You might as well claim that because some people drown and some die of thirst we should do away with water. Taking a huge guess at what your point is, here I could agree that plenty of people make money through means other than earning it through exchange for valuable work or goods. The world's full of shysters. So what? We still need to value shit, and some of us manage that quite well using time honoured fiscal methods without bleeding cash to dodgy investments.

mashman

20th February 2013, 21:31

Of course, who else should be responsible?

So taking a day off to fuck around would be irresponsible now? all based on how much (money) you are perceived to be contributing?

Yes. What's your point? Which statement?

I don't agree. You might as well claim that because some people drown and some die of thirst we should do away with water. Taking a huge guess at what your point is, here I could agree that plenty of people make money through means other than earning it through exchange for valuable work or goods. The world's full of shysters. So what? We still need to value shit, and some of us manage that quite well using time honoured fiscal methods without bleeding cash to dodgy investments.

My point was that your statement

it's not having consequences that removes responsibility for what you do

says to me that without consequences, responsibility is removed... and yet even though there are serious consequences (re: laws), people are still irresponsible. So I didn't see your initial statement as necessarily true, in that consequences or not, you can be as responsible or irresponsible as you like. Too negative?

You're saying some, in regards to water... and those who can't swim don't go near water. You can't avoid money if you can't afford to. It touches everyone. Yes the world is full of shysters and the vast majority of that shysting is financially related. That does damage to the lives and livelihoods of joe bloggs who may well already be struggling... and all for a piece of paper that some fucker plucks out of thin air. Jobs vanish due to a lack of money. No doubt you'll have some economic "excuse" for that, but it's not a job that is lost, it's a person who has to fight an ever increasing number of job seekers that potentially faces losing everything and through no fault of their own, but due to the lack of money available to their employer. It's all money and it fucks people over... however if the stuff didn't exist, that person needn't potentially face the struggle. We can do better.

GrayWolf

20th February 2013, 23:42

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/69282_10152580136085434_1302887805_n.jpg

Now thats typical of the 'you owe me' attitude...
I want to be PAID to travel to work, AND get a free lunch? oh hang on, they are already getting one... the Dole!!

Also shoots the discussion about the 'modern idea' of things getting done without being paid....
what was it?? Oh yeh, any hours worked ABOVE I expect to be paid for, this is from one of your 'new evolved' human beings, those of us who believe in being paid the value of our ;productivity' are supposed to 'move over for'??

(Insert TUI ADVERT)

davereid

21st February 2013, 04:38

Now thats typical of the 'you owe me' attitude...
I want to be PAID to travel to work, AND get a free lunch? oh hang on, they are already getting one... the Dole!!

Yes, Sue Bradford once said "working for the dole is like getting PD because you can't find a job"

Her comments made it sound like work was punishment rather than opportunity, and it shows an attitude that many now hold.

I abhor the idea of forcing people to work for the dole, particularly while we live in a society that has exported jobs to the point that they simply don't exist. I can blame SOME of the unemployed for being unemployed, but mostly I have to put the blame on our governments, who have made the decision to export the work of the unskilled.

The next wave of exported jobs will be the IT Sector. Currently one of NZs best paid jobs, IT is also one of the easiest to export. As we slowly gain confidence in overseas providers, IT jobs will move overseas, the current trickle will become a torrent.

mashman

21st February 2013, 06:49

Yes, Sue Bradford once said "working for the dole is like getting PD because you can't find a job"

Her comments made it sound like work was punishment rather than opportunity, and it shows an attitude that many now hold.

I abhor the idea of forcing people to work for the dole, particularly while we live in a society that has exported jobs to the point that they simply don't exist. I can blame SOME of the unemployed for being unemployed, but mostly I have to put the blame on our governments, who have made the decision to export the work of the unskilled.

The next wave of exported jobs will be the IT Sector. Currently one of NZs best paid jobs, IT is also one of the easiest to export. As we slowly gain confidence in overseas providers, IT jobs will move overseas, the current trickle will become a torrent.

Work is punishment. Some fucker treating them like a personal slave for 8 hours a day for minimum wage isn't exactly inspiring. Work is a means to an end, it's not for the betterment of yourself/self confidence etc... unless you want it to be. And I think that that is where a chunk of the issue lies. We're not allowing people to treat those jobs as a means to an end without punishing them for it, financially that is. It is seen as having a poor attitude. Quite funny when you consider that the job is getting done. So why give a shit about the attitude of the individuals doing it?

Before I came over here the UK went through a stint of moving IT jobs offshore. Consensus was that the quality wasn't great. Having dealt with some of these guys, who worked UK hours, they were smart enough and their code was good enough. So I share your fear, and they are probably maturing quite well around about now after what was seen as a shakey start.

Ocean1

21st February 2013, 07:44

So taking a day off to fuck around would be irresponsible now? all based on how much (money) you are perceived to be contributing?

Taking a day off may be irresponsible, based on how much value you've actually contributed.

My point was that your statement <> says to me that without consequences, responsibility is removed... and yet even though there are serious consequences (re: laws), people are still irresponsible.

Right. Crime exists, therefore the laws against it are to blame and we should do away with them and make everyone equally accountable.

So I didn't see your initial statement as necessarily true, in that consequences or not, you can be as responsible or irresponsible as you like.

I'd suggest that more people are irresponsible today exactly because there's far fewer consequences than was once the case. Those working their arses off to make the best life for their family they can are discouraged from doing so with a huge tax bill. Those who can't be fucked supporting themselves and their dependants are encouraged to continue that behaviour with free accommodation and food. And the further down that road we've gone the lower our overall productivity has become. Today our productive efforts mean that 55% of this country are “supported”. I'd say that was perfectly adequate proof that people are generally as responsible as the consequences of their actions encourage them to be.

You're saying some, in regards to water... and those who can't swim don't go near water. You can't avoid money if you can't afford to. It touches everyone. Yes the world is full of shysters and the vast majority of that shysting is financially related. That does damage to the lives and livelihoods of joe bloggs who may well already be struggling... and all for a piece of paper that some fucker plucks out of thin air. Jobs vanish due to a lack of money. No doubt you'll have some economic "excuse" for that, but it's not a job that is lost, it's a person who has to fight an ever increasing number of job seekers that potentially faces losing everything and through no fault of their own, but due to the lack of money available to their employer. It's all money and it fucks people over... however if the stuff didn't exist, that person needn't potentially face the struggle. We can do better.

And when we didn’t have money the shysters stole sheep. I can’t peel a couple of sheep off a pile in my pocket, though.

No need for an economic excuse for the loss of jobs. In most cases jobs are lost for the simple reason that they didn’t generate as much value as they cost. As for fault? What leads you to believe an employer would damage his business by reducing his staff unless the job wasn’t earning as much as it cost? Who’s decision was it to make a career in that particular role?

And yes, we can do better. We can arsehole the socialist bullshit and allow people to control their own lives. There are certainly people out there than need our help, I know quite a few of them. But we can’t afford to do that if the resources we earmark for that are being chewed up by those who don’t need it. And by “need” I mean those a damn sight less capable than me.

Ocean1

21st February 2013, 07:53

I abhor the idea of forcing people to work for the dole, particularly while we live in a society that has exported jobs to the point that they simply don't exist. I can blame SOME of the unemployed for being unemployed, but mostly I have to put the blame on our governments, who have made the decision to export the work of the unskilled.

No, they simply failed to make the decision to levy tariffs to protect workers. I'm not convinced things would be any different if they had, like I said I don't think shielding people from real world consequences works, I think productivity would have continued to decline untill more tariffs were needed...

Work is punishment. Some fucker treating them like a personal slave for 8 hours a day for minimum wage isn't exactly inspiring. Work is a means to an end, it's not for the betterment of yourself/self confidence etc... unless you want it to be. And I think that that is where a chunk of the issue lies. We're not allowing people to treat those jobs as a means to an end without punishing them for it, financially that is. It is seen as having a poor attitude. Quite funny when you consider that the job is getting done. So why give a shit about the attitude of the individuals doing it?

Of course, if you don't like your job you could always change it. Or even, (god forbid) start a business and employ yourself. Although, I must admit it wouldn't be quite as funny when all that work that's "obviously" getting done.... doesn't.

oneofsix

21st February 2013, 08:35

No, they simply failed to make the decision to levy tariffs to protect workers.

Simply decided to float the currency, simply decided to sell NZ assets to overseas owners, simply removed protections for the workers like making actors contractors, simply signed free trade agreements with large plays which don't have open markets and who's governments still protect their citizens. Yep a lot of things the government simply does.

GrayWolf

21st February 2013, 09:00

Work is punishment. Some fucker treating them like a personal slave for 8 hours a day for minimum wage isn't exactly inspiring. Work is a means to an end, it's not for the betterment of yourself/self confidence etc... unless you want it to be. And I think that that is where a chunk of the issue lies.

You know? I love my job, truly I do, and I get paid reasonably to do it, but it carries a high level of responsibility. You are right, lets look at so many who are 'stuck' in low paying low socio-economc work..... have they done apprenticeships? probably not, have they gained good/reasonable Qualifications at school? Doubt it. Are or do they go to evening classes (oh look self responsibility and self betterment)? Many who are in low paid work are there because they didnt frikkin bother to learn at school, have a 'you owe me' attitude, are too fuckin lazy to get off their arses and rise above the level of shit they are floating in. I will admit that there are people with high level qual's in low paid work, but thats it, they are working. I know of some youngsters who went through Uni, and when offered work, have simply turned it down as 'beneath them' They consider they should ONLY have a pay scale for a Degree holder, and nothing less..... So they'd rather sit on the rock n roll and bleat they cant fine 'meaningful employment'.

Before I came over here the UK went through a stint of moving IT jobs offshore. Consensus was that the quality wasn't great. Having dealt with some of these guys, who worked UK hours, they were smart enough and their code was good enough. So I share your fear, and they are probably maturing quite well around about now after what was seen as a shakey start.

Yes I moved here from the UK in 1991, right after the recession, poll tax, Euro bullshit, etc.. I got laid off at my firm in the mid 80's and that was a week before Xmas, so they didnt have to pay us Holiday money,,, Did I sit and cry? bleat, and whinge about how unfair it was? I was fuckin angry about it, sure.. I couldnt find a job where I lived that did the same type of Engineering I had been involved in, I took a job as night shift cashier at a bloody garage instead. I ended up as 'manager' quite quickly. Regardless of what firms do, the consumer market will always reach saturation in the what were the main centres, Asia, (china/indai/etc) Will eventually reach consumer saturation, wages will rise it's inevitable, and the world will move on to other countries to 'produce' cheaper if they can find them.
yes its a cycle, and what we need right now is a big fat World War, to thin population down, kickstart technological development, and reset some of the balance of power.

oneofsix

21st February 2013, 09:07

Ocean1

21st February 2013, 10:30

Simply decided to float the currency, simply decided to sell NZ assets to overseas owners, simply removed protections for the workers like making actors contractors, simply signed free trade agreements with large plays which don't have open markets and who's governments still protect their citizens. Yep a lot of things the government simply does.

Whereas arbitrarilly deeming your currency to be worth the same as some rare metal makes SO much sense.
And NZ's assets SO efficient, (tied as they were to completely reasonable labour performance and remuneration), that thay were massively profitable.
And calling a spade an artichoke, say, rather than a fucking shovel is entirely different from calling fixed-term specialists "employees".
And failing to negotiate trade deals is always going to improve your ballance of payments.

Yup, they'd have been far better to have ignored the real world altogether and done fuck all.

mashman

21st February 2013, 18:08

Taking a day off may be irresponsible, based on how much value you've actually contributed.

Because the value just can't wait until tomorrow? If people are in a dwam, for whatever reason, I'd rather they had a day off. I've had 1 employer recognise that and tell me to take the day off, paid, and I appreciated it more than if they had left me to sit at my desk offering half value. Was just discussing something similar at t pub, we should do this over beer one evening, and would appreciate employers/management etc... accepting that as there is no value to be contributed, that an employees time would be better served by being away from work. Not without responsibility i.e. technically on call, but more why keep an employee, that you're going to be paying anyway by virtue of them being there, at their desk/work bench/place of work when it would benefit the employee more to let them have a free day. I know that that's a shocking concept, but I think you'd find that it would go along way towards employee - employer relations that any form of financial remuneration. Yes that's a side bar, but IF I were ever to become an employer/manager, that's the sort of ship I'd run. That's what I call responsibility. Something that just doesn't exist i.e. you're paid to be here whether you have work or not. Deal with it. For more info, see blue riders form... work for us for our conditions and expect nothing in return other than money. That isn't going to make form a happy workforce.

Right. Crime exists, therefore the laws against it are to blame and we should do away with them and make everyone equally accountable.

It would certainly work in some cases, mainly drink/drug related, petty theft etc... I'd say there was a case for giving people that responsibility for that choice, but FFS you've got to pay them enough so that you can say for certain that they are clearly doing it maliciously. Like I've said before, remove money and the vast majority of crime will vanish.

I'd suggest that more people are irresponsible today exactly because there's far fewer consequences than was once the case. Those working their arses off to make the best life for their family they can are discouraged from doing so with a huge tax bill. Those who can't be fucked supporting themselves and their dependants are encouraged to continue that behaviour with free accommodation and food. And the further down that road we've gone the lower our overall productivity has become. Today our productive efforts mean that 55% of this country are “supported”. I'd say that was perfectly adequate proof that people are generally as responsible as the consequences of their actions encourage them to be.

I was read a document or two on the death penalty and murder rates. Murder rates fell after the death penalty had been removed. Bit left field as an example, but what's more precious than your life? (other than your job of course :blink:). If it's legal, what makes you think that that 55% aren't being responsible? they're taking what is on offer because it is there... same as they have always done, same as the rich folk siphoning off their "hard earned" offshore or into trusts or making use of tax legal (not necessarily moral) loopholes etc... Where's the difference? other than the top x% do more damage withholding money than the bottom y% who spend just about everything they earn. The jobs aren't there. It's that simple. I will agree that the work is there, it always will be if you work for free, but why should anyone work for free? the benefit is there to allow people to stay alive and not resort to crime and I'm more than happy for them to have that.

And when we didn’t have money the shysters stole sheep. I can’t peel a couple of sheep off a pile in my pocket, though.

No need for an economic excuse for the loss of jobs. In most cases jobs are lost for the simple reason that they didn’t generate as much value as they cost. As for fault? What leads you to believe an employer would damage his business by reducing his staff unless the job wasn’t earning as much as it cost? Who’s decision was it to make a career in that particular role?

And yes, we can do better. We can arsehole the socialist bullshit and allow people to control their own lives. There are certainly people out there than need our help, I know quite a few of them. But we can’t afford to do that if the resources we earmark for that are being chewed up by those who don’t need it. And by “need” I mean those a damn sight less capable than me.

Stealing sheep is easy to stop. You observe and them shoot at will. Stealing money is all but impossible to stop... especially when people can accrue billions without others noticing.

I get why economic "turmoil" costs jobs and I don't blame employers for it, not really. As you say it's survival for the business... unfortunately it's tough shit for the employee and that can be damaging to more than just a single family... but hey, the economy has to produce or people will go hungry :facepalm:.

:killingme... If you think that capitalism gives people control over their own lives you're going to be in fora surprise someday. But we've covered that. In regards to resources, there's huge waste out there. It's massive, unbelievably massive, fucking ginormous. 6 iCraps in 5 years? and not even recyclable. That's a serious fuckin waste. So I'm with you in regards to people using shit that they don't need... still, the economy needs such consumerism to be able to grow and to hell with the fallout. Unfortunately you can't have both... unless of course you remove money from the equation ;)

mashman

21st February 2013, 18:28

Yes I moved here from the UK in 1991, right after the recession, poll tax, Euro bullshit, etc.. I got laid off at my firm in the mid 80's and that was a week before Xmas, so they didnt have to pay us Holiday money,,, Did I sit and cry? bleat, and whinge about how unfair it was? I was fuckin angry about it, sure.. I couldnt find a job where I lived that did the same type of Engineering I had been involved in, I took a job as night shift cashier at a bloody garage instead. I ended up as 'manager' quite quickly. Regardless of what firms do, the consumer market will always reach saturation in the what were the main centres, Asia, (china/indai/etc) Will eventually reach consumer saturation, wages will rise it's inevitable, and the world will move on to other countries to 'produce' cheaper if they can find them.
yes its a cycle, and what we need right now is a big fat World War, to thin population down, kickstart technological development, and reset some of the balance of power.

I have a lovely little dark side that agree with you in regard to a world war... however given that the "powerful" will survive in their bunkers, who's going to be left to farm or treat the radioactive water or make motorcycles or produce technology etc...? As much as I like the idea of a giant reset, I can't see it achieving what you think it might. It'll be a total and utter cluster fuck with anyone anyone with an axe to grind using whatever they have left to destroy someone else.

It's not about sitting and crying etc... there are certain facts that I think people happily miss because it doesn't fit their world view. Let's take your work history for arguments sake. You became manage of the petrol station. In that there were probably a few people vying for that position, but you got it. You got it on what was perceived as merit. But what happened to the others who applied? What I'm trying to say is that there is only 1 of any given job and that job can only fit 1 person. What about those who don't get to fill those available jobs? If noone moved jobs and tech advancement carried on, the dole Q would fill up pretty quickly, as you say, it would reach a saturation point and then what? Move country again? You're right, it is a cycle, but it honestly doesn't have to be if you choose not to let it be a cycle. We can change the rules any time we like should we wish to... but every rule change that has economic trade offs which means that some people are going to suffer. The solution to that seems very simple to me. If the economy is in the way, remove it and replace it with something (for want of a better phrase) more social that still includes work and can deal with economic fluctuations without putting anyone under any unnecessary stress. Where's the harm in cooperating for a change? especially when the benefits would produce a more balanced and less volatile society.