Benefits

[mashman]

Yup, they don't have to stay on fishing boats forever, get some seatime do their tickets and they can go work anywhere in the world and earn some serious money, that is if they can see long term and put some effort in.

Nice idea. What does it take to get a ticket?

[BoristheBiter]

Nice idea. What does it take to get a ticket?

Hard work.

[FJRider]

Hard work.

Hard work will never catch on ... the financial rewards ... just aren't there ...

Oh wait ... they ARE ... but few can be bothered ...

[scumdog]

The hardest thing to close is a mouth that always opens while the hardest thing to open is a mind that is firmly closed....eh smarty pants.

MY mind is open - fill it with knowledge...

[mashman]

Hard work.

I've done the job, and it isn't that hard once you get used to it, just long hours. I meant qualifications smart ass

Hard work will never catch on ... the financial rewards ... just aren't worth there ...

Oh wait ... they ARE ... but few can be bothered ...

Is it a growth industry?

[FJRider]

The hardest thing to close is a mouth that always opens while the hardest thing to open is a mind that is firmly closed....eh smarty pants.

The easiest thing to open ... is your own front door. In search of your next occupation ...

Oh wait ... the easiest thing is to let mummy and Grandad ... go looking FOR you ...

[rainman]

Fair enough. So how do we explain the opposite end of the scale - Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain?

Struggling to see the link to my comment, here. Do you agree that a consequence of supporting global capitalism is having to support welfare and inequality, or not?

The factors that make one company or country successful and another not are many and varied. Attributing success (individual, corporate, or "cultural") to a puritan work ethic alone is way simplistic.

And what do you determine as good social policy?
Would you say Saudi Arabia has good social policy or like Aussie it is just mineral wealth?

Well, I quite like their approach to welfare and tax, and Sweden and Norway have a solid approach to state assets. But you may disagree of course.

Saudi might have effective policy just now, but they're repressive and aristocratic and their setup won't last against resource depletion and local demographics. Heads will roll at some point, and it ain't gonna be the proles, says my money..

Or is it we are such a small population we are effected by the littlest change in the world economy?

Now you have something. So what's a sane response to being small and geographically isolated, with a risky undifferentiated economy? Full market liberalisation, freely floating currency, few overseas investment restrictions, and (partial, whatever) asset sales? Of something else?

And, back on topic, which approach is better for NZ and our social welfare problem (we do have one)? Maybe we should be a bit more patriotic?

[jonbuoy]

Nice idea. What does it take to get a ticket?

Experience and some training courses and exams, either engineering or deck depending on which way they wanted to go. I've only just switched from being a contractor to crew, taken me a long time to get the experience.

[mashman]

Experience and some training courses and exams, either engineering or deck depending on which way they wanted to go. I've only just switched from being a contractor to crew, taken me a long time to get the experience.

I wonder if the govt could tout it as an apprenticeship? It was never mentioned as an option when I were a lad, short of the merchant navy that is. I enjoyed being on the ocean, although I get seasick these days, go figure.

[BoristheBiter]

I've done the job, and it isn't that hard once you get used to it, just long hours. I meant qualifications smart ass

It's still a hard job, just over time you become conditioned. When i'm out on the rigs it takes about 3 days to get used to the long hours then its fine, but then being in the engine room is a lot easier than on deck.
As for quals it depends on what job you want to do.

Well, I quite like their approach to welfare and tax, and Sweden and Norway have a solid approach to state assets. But you may disagree of course.

Saudi might have effective policy just now, but they're repressive and aristocratic and their setup won't last against resource depletion and local demographics. Heads will roll at some point, and it ain't gonna be the proles, says my money..

As for assets no we shouldn't be selling them off and like the middle east the government should keep our oil and gas fields and not let overseas company's own them, and if they do then they pay shit loads of money for the right.

The problem with the likes of Saudi is they do the "distribution" method. There is no tax and the dole is easier to hand out as they can afford it, but now they have a problem as the younger generations just sit around a do nothing as they don't need to so they have had an increase in general disorder.
Now could you imagine what it would be like if you add the NZ drinking culture into that.

Now you have something. So what's a sane response to being small and geographically isolated, with a risky undifferentiated economy? Full market liberalisation, freely floating currency, few overseas investment restrictions, and (partial, whatever) asset sales? Of something else?

And, back on topic, which approach is better for NZ and our social welfare problem (we do have one)? Maybe we should be a bit more patriotic?

Its hard to say as i am a bit of a hoarder so i say keep everything owned by NZ, stop all ownership by overseas investment and put tariffs in place to protect our own market.
This will never happen as we are such a small market and we have to open up our borders so we can access others and this i understand but when you start selling off our core assets, power, minerals or even farming land we will start to see the end of NZ as we know it as once it leaves we will never afford to get it back.(unless its worthless like Kiwirail).
Take the Craffer farms, the Chinese bid had all ready let it be known that all products and profits would go straight back to China and it was only when they thought they might loose it did they say they would give some back to NZ, not the milk products, only a bit of environmental repair.
I have nothing against overseas investment but time and time again I have seen little in the way of benefit to NZ apart from the initial payment.

As for back onto topic the problem I see it is, and yes I think there is a problem, it is now a right rather than a privilege and there is nothing expected for it.
One day a week all on a benefit, no matter what one, should be made to work. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of community work that needs doing but the funds are not there so some free labour might be helpful.
Look at Christchurch, how much is it costing to clean up the city, we are paying for them anyway so we might as well get them doing something useful.
The other one is, as has been said before, stop giving them money. Pay for all items (rent, power, phone etc) straight into the accounts of said company's. Or give them a debit card that can only be used at certain places and only for the normal essentials, no fags, alcohol, chips, biscuits or takeaways.

Let the flaming begin.

[Winston001]

Struggling to see the link to my comment, here. Do you agree that a consequence of supporting global capitalism is having to support welfare and inequality, or not?

I think your point is inevitable welfare and No, I do not agree. The reason we can afford to transfer jobs to other nations is because we are comparatively richer and better educated. If it were otherwise, we'd do the work here for the same input cost. New jobs arise and if this was not true, the OECD would be home to 50% unemployment.

That is not to say that we needn't provide welfare - there are always going to be people who struggle, who need the safety net. In the short term when jobs are lost, Yes, welfare is a consequence.

After the 1984 restructuring of the NZ economy tens of thousands of jobs disappeared - clothing and footware manufacturing in particular. Where are all those unemployed today?

As for inequality being a consequence, No I don't can't see that either. However I am sympathetic to the idea of wealth redistribution. That sympathy is a good example of changing one's thinking over time. Only 5 years ago I'd have argued against wealth taxes.

The factors that make one company or country successful and another not are many and varied. Attributing success (individual, corporate, or "cultural") to a puritan work ethic alone is way simplistic.

Certainly but this is KB. Short simple ideas are de rigour.

We learn by observation, by testing and experimenting with what others do. Not everything Scandanavian and Teutonic will be right for NZ but we'd be wise to find the key strategies which work for them.

[mashman]

It's still a hard job, just over time you become conditioned. When i'm out on the rigs it takes about 3 days to get used to the long hours then its fine, but then being in the engine room is a lot easier than on deck.
As for quals it depends on what job you want to do.

I guess if you're working for less than minimum wage, getting access to the funding required to gain the quals isn't going to be possible?

"John Key and other Ministers have promised that work is the way out of poverty. All that had to happen was a few sticks and carrots to provide the incentives."


Pay people a reasonable wage and that may well be the case. Tis a fuckin shame that people can't grasp that simple concept. Employers won't pay, because they can't, because they have profit margins to maintain (those that have extra that is) and so people stay on the dole because they'll earn more. It's a no brainer... and crying about people not being willing to put in the hard yards for fuck all doesn't help anything... especially if you're comparing life 10-20 years ago to today... things have changed, technology has rendered many manual jobs obselete. Pay proper wages. If you can't afford it, then you shouldn't be in business...

[BoristheBiter]

I guess if you're working for less than minimum wage, getting access to the funding required to gain the quals isn't going to be possible?

"John Key and other Ministers have promised that work is the way out of poverty. All that had to happen was a few sticks and carrots to provide the incentives."


Pay people a reasonable wage and that may well be the case. Tis a fuckin shame that people can't grasp that simple concept. Employers won't pay, because they can't, because they have profit margins to maintain (those that have extra that is) and so people stay on the dole because they'll earn more. It's a no brainer... and crying about people not being willing to put in the hard yards for fuck all doesn't help anything... especially if you're comparing life 10-20 years ago to today... things have changed, technology has rendered many manual jobs obselete. Pay proper wages. If you can't afford it, then you shouldn't be in business...

I trained on less than minimum wage, it's called an apprenticeship, I now own a business.

I have gone out of my way to help a few that have no quals to get a start, sure it's a package from WINZ, but without that I wouldn't be able to afford to do it. only one out of five has gone on to do anything, the others just sat around doing fuck all and that's if they ever turned up. So sorry to pour cold water on your theory but paying someone a decent wage does not mean they will sort their shit out.

If you want proper wages then put in the effort, if not stop crying about the fact you are paid shit as there are a lot more standing behind you waiting for the chance.
If you want to say on a benefit then expect to have to do something for it.
All your crying about us business's not paying our way who do you think pays the bills now?

[mashman]

I trained on less than minimum wage, it's called an apprenticeship, I now own a business.

I have gone out of my way to help a few that have no quals to get a start, sure it's a package from WINZ, but without that I wouldn't be able to afford to do it. only one out of five has gone on to do anything, the others just sat around doing fuck all and that's if they ever turned up. So sorry to pour cold water on your theory but paying someone a decent wage does not mean they will sort their shit out.

If you want proper wages then put in the effort, if not stop crying about the fact you are paid shit as there are a lot more standing behind you waiting for the chance.
If you want to say on a benefit then expect to have to do something for it.
All your crying about us business's not paying our way who do you think pays the bills now?

Don't those who don't do the job usually get sacked? So not paying a decent wage is encouraging people to do it for the love of it? the theory behind making people do something for their dole is ridiculous (even though I agree with you on that, apart from the making them bit). Why not make those who get any form govt benefit, including businesses, do the same thing. Why just those on the dole? Because they're doing nothing? I thought they had an obligation to be out job hunting? Twice (and some) as hard for the parents that they were targetting.

"Making" people do anything sets a bad precedent imho as it will encourage that sort of work to be the norm. Why have qualified people when you can grab a few doley's instead... exactly as in the FCV article. Removing benefits because people refuse/don't have the time etc... will only result in people finding less lawful ways of earning a living, which in turn sucks up more money in the form of policing and containment at her majesties pleasure.

Paying a decent wage is an incentive. If the people suck, sack 'em, they're not cut out for it and they can go back to living on the dole.

[BoristheBiter]

Don't those who don't do the job usually get sacked? So not paying a decent wage is encouraging people to do it for the love of it? the theory behind making people do something for their dole is ridiculous (even though I agree with you on that, apart from the making them bit). Why not make those who get any form govt benefit, including businesses, do the same thing. Why just those on the dole? Because they're doing nothing? I thought they had an obligation to be out job hunting? Twice (and some) as hard for the parents that they were targetting.

"Making" people do anything sets a bad precedent imho as it will encourage that sort of work to be the norm. Why have qualified people when you can grab a few doley's instead... exactly as in the FCV article. Removing benefits because people refuse/don't have the time etc... will only result in people finding less lawful ways of earning a living, which in turn sucks up more money in the form of policing and containment at her majesties pleasure.

Paying a decent wage is an incentive. If the people suck, sack 'em, they're not cut out for it and they can go back to living on the dole.

But isn't making me pay for them to sit on the dole setting a bad precedent?
And just to be clear I am including all benefits.