Benefits

**Ocean1** · 15th November 2011, 11:00

Originally Posted by oneofsix

And we got out of the olden days be building social systems like benefits for the unfortunate.

Incorrect. We are able to afford benefits for the unfortunate because mass produced manufacturing techniques, modern logistics and, increasingly microprocessor based organisational systems make the necessities of life so affordable that the productive workforce can afford that charity.

Originally Posted by oneofsix

Why do you want to take us back to the bad old days?

I don’t. But handouts are a luxury only a wealthy society can afford. If enough people believe otherwise and vote in policies we can’t afford then the first thing that’ll happen is discretionary income will be squeezed as earners focus their dwindling resources on essentials. Guess what that does to funds available to charity?

Persist with policies that represent a disincentive for the productive to produce a surplus and we’ll be back to the bad old days in a generation. Less.

**Winston001** · 15th November 2011, 16:13

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Incorrect. We are able to afford benefits for the unfortunate because mass produced manufacturing techniques, modern logistics and, increasingly microprocessor based organisational systems make the necessities of life so affordable that the productive workforce can afford that charity.

But handouts are a luxury only a wealthy society can afford.

Persist with policies that represent a disincentive for the productive to produce a surplus and we’ll be back to the bad old days in a generation..

Exactly. 10+

**steve_t** · 15th November 2011, 16:26

No benefits to those on drugs...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...gh-on-benefits

**mashman** · 15th November 2011, 16:35

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Incorrect. We are able to afford benefits for the unfortunate because mass produced manufacturing techniques, modern logistics and, increasingly microprocessor based organisational systems make the necessities of life so affordable that the productive workforce can afford that charity.

Oh the irony. We wouldn't need to put so much into the "charity" pot if the "advances" in business hadn't replaced the jobs that those people used to earn a living from. Hey ho.

Originally Posted by Ocean1

I don’t. But handouts are a luxury only a wealthy society can afford. If enough people believe otherwise and vote in policies we can’t afford then the first thing that’ll happen is discretionary income will be squeezed as earners focus their dwindling resources on essentials. Guess what that does to funds available to charity?

Persist with policies that represent a disincentive for the productive to produce a surplus and we’ll be back to the bad old days in a generation

Isn't that happening at the moment? We pay the "same" amount of tax, it just doesn't go as far anymore.

Is that why people choose a "career" on the dole? No incentive

**jonbuoy** · 15th November 2011, 17:39

Originally Posted by mashman

Oh the irony. We wouldn't need to put so much into the "charity" pot if the "advances" in business hadn't replaced the jobs that those people used to earn a living from. Hey ho.

Isn't that happening at the moment? We pay the "same" amount of tax, it just doesn't go as far anymore.

Is that why people choose a "career" on the dole? No incentive

Benefits are supposed to be an emergency fund, not a career choice.

**Ocean1** · 15th November 2011, 17:57

Originally Posted by mashman

Oh the irony. We wouldn't need to put so much into the "charity" pot if the "advances" in business hadn't replaced the jobs that those people used to earn a living from.

So let's ask the poor unemployed if they'd rather pick cotton for their benefit cheque, or not...

Dude, you need to read some history books. Big thick ones without pictures. The industrial revolution was responsible for the single biggest improvement in our working lives ever, you REALLY don't want to wind the clock back past that point, trust me.

Originally Posted by mashman

Isn't that happening at the moment? We pay the "same" amount of tax, it just doesn't go as far anymore.

Hard to say, sure feels like less of us are paying more but the effects of the recession distorts the picture.

Originally Posted by mashman

Is that why people choose a "career" on the dole? No incentive

Insufficient data. You'd have to offer them that job picking cotton to find out which ones felt incentivised and which ones didn't, eh?

**mashman** · 15th November 2011, 18:51

Originally Posted by jonbuoy

Benefits are supposed to be an emergency fund, not a career choice.

Whilst I agree with you, I know shocker eh, there aren't enough jobs and haven't been for some time and where people don't want to work, yes don't want to, for little over what the benefits provide, there's hardly an incentive for them to not make a career out of living with next to no cash. Some people may well be happy living that way, enjoying the time over the money and I can't really blame them for that as I wish I had their time. There's also the need to control inflation, and I believe one of those measures is having a portion of your population on the dole...

Originally Posted by Ocean1

So let's ask the poor unemployed if they'd rather pick cotton for their benefit cheque, or not...

Dude, you need to read some history books. Big thick ones without pictures. The industrial revolution was responsible for the single biggest improvement in our working lives ever, you REALLY don't want to wind the clock back past that point, trust me.

Hard to say, sure feels like less of us are paying more but the effects of the recession distorts the picture.

Insufficient data. You'd have to offer them that job picking cotton to find out which ones felt incentivised and which ones didn't, eh?

heh, they don't have to work at all and if they do it's likely cash in hand. I guess it comes down to how much they value their time and skills. Anyways, if there are jobs picking cotton, why would they be working for their benefit? Shouldn't they be getting paid a fair rate for a full days work?

I don't need to read any history books at all (honestly not interested more than anything). I fully, well as near as dammit, understand what's wrong with "our" present situation and don't need to read history books to find out where we went wrong. I'd rather start moving forwards as we certainly haven't learned from our mistakes (over simplified I know, but from my point of view, we really haven't). I'm sure that'll be construed as conceited, I care not, I'm right

. And I see absolutely no reason why the clock would be wound back. The technology is here, may as well use it to its fullest capability... or would you prefer constant almost pointless upgrades, wasting resources and limiting engineering (amongst other things) innovation bcause there isn't the budget available to do "something", or a constant need to produce the upgrades to keep the company in profit? I think we'd leap forwards rather than go backwards.

True, and the cost of living v's rate of wage increase cutting in on that discretionary income you refer to is always gonna be felt.

Aye, or do the management thing and find out what their motivation is

**BoristheBiter** · 15th November 2011, 19:10

I just can't see where these non jobs are?

Trademe jobs 9000+
nz herald 2000+
seek 14000+

sure some are doubled up but then there are the local papers.
What I see is that most are just not qualified to do anything or are plainly unemployable (Yes I know I am generalizing).

Like has been said it is now a career choice and that's is the biggest problem. something for nothing.

**Swoop** · 15th November 2011, 19:12

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Incorrect. We are able to afford benefits for the unfortunate because mass produced manufacturing techniques, modern logistics and, increasingly microprocessor based organisational systems make the necessities of life so affordable that the productive workforce can afford that charity.

In 1860 there was a benevolent system that catered for those less fortunate, particularly the youth. This had nothing to do with modern manufacturing techniques but was part of the social structure.
This was in the earlier days of the city of Auckland, and included the princely sum of 200 pounds. Interestingly the churches were seen as the mechanism best suited to deal with the downtrodden and unfortunate, and not the government.

**mashman** · 15th November 2011, 19:28

Originally Posted by BoristheBiter

I just can't see where these non jobs are?

Trademe jobs 9000+
nz herald 2000+
seek 14000+

sure some are doubled up but then there are the local papers.
What I see is that most are just not qualified to do anything or are plainly unemployable (Yes I know I am generalizing).

Like has been said it is now a career choice and that's is the biggest problem. something for nothing.

150,000+ unemployed, dunno what the true unemployed figure is, but even at that, there's 1 job for every 5 unemployed on those numbers. Who knows if the skills aren't there, wether the employers are picky or wether the money is shit... perhaps those advertising could offer training to sweeten the deal (if they don't already)... but there just aren't enough jobs to go around and I don't see that changing for some unknown reason

.

Yeah, but it gives people something to bitch about and everyone, bar a few, seems to love a good bene bash. Perhaps those companies that make huge profits each year could generate a few more jobs?

**BoristheBiter** · 15th November 2011, 19:36

Originally Posted by mashman

150,000+ unemployed, dunno what the true unemployed figure is, but even at that, there's 1 job for every 5 unemployed on those numbers. Who knows if the skills aren't there, wether the employers are picky or wether the money is shit... perhaps those advertising could offer training to sweeten the deal (if they don't already)... but there just aren't enough jobs to go around and I don't see that changing for some unknown reason

.

Yeah, but it gives people something to bitch about and everyone, bar a few, seems to love a good bene bash. Perhaps those companies that make huge profits each year could generate a few more jobs?

I wish could but they all want shit loads of money to work, go figure.