The 2017 Election Thread

[Ocean1]

That we can partly agree on that least, a society should be judged on what we pay and treat the people that look after the sick elderly and children.
If you look around what the people that look after children in day care, the bus drivers that drive the children and the carers in aged care get paid its a sad indictment on how our society places these people inputs and what value we place on those needing it.
The inordinate profits generated in aged care and childcare by a small number of rather large corperates and the lowest possible tender bus contracts reflect more a society that places a companies profits of companies over the care of people.
Profit is a great thing but it should be not monopolistic, there needs to be some form of regulation. Especially when it comes to the people that we should be looking after the Old, Young and Sick.

Take it from an ex rest home / continuing care hospital owner, there's fuck all money in mainstream rest home based aged care. Fuck, the Sallies had minuscule labour overheads and they've closed a lot of their homes, mostly in the late 90's, when a bunch of new compliance requirements hit. Which handed a lot of the industry to those big corporates on a plate, by the way.

There is a lot of money in retirement villages though, but that's real estate. As far as you can describe real estate as talking old dears into swapping their $500k family home for a shonky, short term deal on a serviced bed-sit.

Whether profit's a great thing or not is moot, it's a required factor for the supply of any services. By all means regulate to ensure minimum standards, but leave the "money is the root of all evel " narrative over in Stupid World where it belongs.

[Ocean1]

Better yet, the cunt that did it could pay for it. Even if that means taking it out of his benefit 20 bucks a week or something (with lump sum from govt paid to employer ofc).

Profiling? nah that'd never happen, just a strange coincidence how some profiles don't have quite the skillset that is being looked for

But they can't pay. And a spot of profiling would demonstrate why, they typically simply cost more than they produce at every possible opportunity.

Which book had the establishment tattoo R for rapist on their foreheads? That's a social welfare initiative I'd be happy to pay for.

[Swoop]

Have you any idea what they were getting paid before that
Absolutely sweet fuck all. My mum was in aged care for years, not because she needed money. Many of her workmates did, & they were doing it hard.

I'm seeing a bit of both in Mum's rest home. There are s couple of staff who I suspect are "OK" financially and doing it for the love of the oldies there and quite a few Indian and Filipino staff who are doing it much harder. Oddly, after the payrise, there was a massive and noticeable staff turnover.

[husaberg]

Take it from an ex rest home / continuing care hospital owner, there's fuck all money in mainstream rest home based aged care. Fuck, the Sallies had minuscule labour overheads and they've closed a lot of their homes, mostly in the late 90's, when a bunch of new compliance requirements hit. Which handed a lot of the industry to those big corporates on a plate, by the way.

There is a lot of money in retirement villages though, but that's real estate. As far as you can describe real estate as talking old dears into swapping their $500k family home for a shonky, short term deal on a serviced bed-sit.

Whether profit's a great thing or not is moot, it's a required factor for the supply of any services. By all means regulate to ensure minimum standards, but leave the "money is the root of all evel " narrative over in Stupid World where it belongs.

If There wasn't but there sure as shit is now, you do the maths av care 6 hours per week per patient per week and thats not nurse std care either
the big companies have killed off the smaller competition and are making substantial profits. Thats how business works.
Profit is not a required factor for supply.... demand is.

[Ocean1]

If There wasn't but there sure as shit is now, you do the maths av care 6 hours per week per patient per week and thats not nurse std care either
the big companies have killed off the smaller competition and are making substantial profits. Thats how business works.
Profit is not a required factor for supply.... demand is.

So your premise is that if there's X revenue involved then there must be lots of profit?

Well, when you regulate for mandatory conditions that favour big suppliers then of course they're going to gain market share. But no, that's just not "how business works".

And profit is absolutely a required factor for supply, you can have all the demand in the world, but no profit: no supplier.

[sidecar bob]

So your premise is that if there's X revenue involved then there must be lots of profit?

Well, when you regulate for mandatory conditions that favour big suppliers then of course they're going to gain market share. But no, that's just not "how business works".

And profit is absolutely a required factor for supply, you can have all the demand in the world, but no profit: no supplier.

Reminds me of the story of the bloke that was dealing in watermelons. He was buying them for a dollar each & selling them for a dollar each & couldnt work out why he wasnt making any money, so he bought a bigger truck.

[husaberg]

So your premise is that if there's X revenue involved then there must be lots of profit?

Well, when you regulate for mandatory conditions that favour big suppliers then of course they're going to gain market share. But no, that's just not "how business works".

And profit is absolutely a required factor for supply, you can have all the demand in the world, but no profit: no supplier.

You are missing the practice of establishing an monopoly.
Supply= demand profit is what one expects from fulfilling said demand.
not all entities charities and Governments and trusts and councils demand a profit, others such as ethical business establish a benchmark for what is a reasonable profit.

[Ocean1]

You are missing the practice of establishing an monopoly.
Supply= demand profit is what one expects from fulfilling said demand.
not all entities charities and Governments and trusts and councils demand a profit, others such as ethical business establish a benchmark for what is a reasonable profit.

Actually, I'm not.

And yet again: if there's no profit then there's no supplier, and therefore no supply. It's somewhat incontrovertible. Honestly.

And while charities may not charge the full cost of supplying a service, the cost is nonetheless there, it's just not the user that's paying it.

Which is why governments and councils are not, and can never be run like a charity, you can't base a whole economy on giving stuff away and charging someone else for it instead.

[husaberg]

Actually, I'm not.

And yet again: if there's no profit then there's no supplier, and therefore no supply. It's somewhat incontrovertible. Honestly.

And while charities may not charge the full cost of supplying a service, the cost is nonetheless there, it's just not the user that's paying it.

Which is why governments and councils are not, and can never be run like a charity, you can't base a whole economy on giving stuff away and charging someone else for it instead.

You are just being an argumentative pillock Ocean.
I never said 4/5 of what you are claiming to reply too

[Murray]

Which is why governments and councils are not, and can never be run like a charity, you can't base a whole economy on giving stuff away and charging someone else for it instead.

What? Councils and Governments don't charge the rate payers and Tax payers

When did this start!

[Berries]

Reminds me of the story of the bloke that was dealing in watermelons. He was buying them for a dollar each & selling them for a dollar each & couldnt work out why he wasnt making any money, so he bought a bigger truck.

How did he do?

[husaberg]

How did he do?

He go the pip after he got squashed by a multinational pumpkin conglomerate.
Hes not angry about it now though, more melancholic.

[jasonu]

Oddly, after the payrise, there was a massive and noticeable staff turnover.

Not odd at all. Now the money is better the homes can attract a better standard of employee to replace some of the low level bums.

[Swoop]

Fuck, the Sallies had minuscule labour overheads and they've closed a lot of their homes, mostly in the late 90's, when a bunch of new compliance requirements hit. Which handed a lot of the industry to those big corporates on a plate, by the way.

It was the sprinkler regulations which was the tipping point for them. Being able to use smaller, converted houses (quite often "bequeathed" to them - another issue there...) became much more difficult for them.
They are a fine example of a religious organisation pretending to care about cetain sectors of society, whilst harming others. Their behind-closed-doors hate of the gay community in particular is quite impressive.

Not odd at all. Now the money is better the homes can attract a better standard of employee to replace some of the low level bums.

I wondered about that, but since it was an "across the board" raise, then the entire playing field went upwards. Perhaps the "grass is always greener" syndrome among staff?

[Ocean1]

It was the sprinkler regulations which was the tipping point for them. Being able to use smaller, converted houses (quite often "bequeathed" to them - another issue there...) became much more difficult for them.
They are a fine example of a religious organisation pretending to care about cetain sectors of society, whilst harming others. Their behind-closed-doors hate of the gay community in particular is quite impressive.

Yep, a full commercial building standards compliant sprinkler installation was worth several times their annual turnover, and that was the tip of the iceberg. Special "standards compliant" hoists for transferring patients from bed/wheelchair to bath at $18k, kitchen equipment compliance costs etc etc etc.

Until then though, they did supply a service costing less than the alternatives, to a standard their clients could afford and found acceptable. All those that cavorted on soap boxes about despicable, profiteering businesses ripping off old ladies and insisting on commercial hotel standards compliance for small rest homes really achieved is shoving those old ladies into hospitals at 10 times the cost. The taxpayer's cost.

I knew a lot of those old ladies. None of them were happy to leave what they absolutely saw as home for some institution. There's a thing called terminal drop, where old people cruise along year after year, doing just fine in an environment heavy on routine and social activity. Then something happens that forces a change, a broken arm, a cold, the death of a friend, and within a short time they decline, particularly in cognitive function and die quite quickly. Those social justice warriors literally cost many old dears their lives, but at least their anti-capitalist ethics remained unsullied.