So, I talked to 3rd-generation welfare dependants overnight about their problem

[TheDemonLord]

The workforce is plenty big enough. It's how they're "deployed" that's the problem. You're always going to be robbing Peter to pay Paul in a country that has a finite amount of $. It is almost unavoidable.

I'm not so sure - for example - when a major event is being put on in the City, all the people in that area do a bit of Spit and Polish to spruce the place up a bit - but this takes time, Effort and Money - imagine if we did this all the time - how much nicer would our communities be to live in?

How are you going to enforce your "Work or be Punished" policy? Jail for non-compliance? ... and you're obviously ok with the social consequences coz you can afford to jail more people? Which in turn will mean more budget going into "security" and being sucked from healthcare or education etc... and you reckon the lesson to be learned will be "you can't get something for what society deems as contributing nothing"? bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Chur bro.

Simple - they get no Money - if someone refuses to do 10-15 hours of work to earn their benefit then they clearly don't need it.

If they turn to Crime instead of working, they go to prison (again, its not like we are asking them to find a job, tasks will be assigned to them to do, if they refuse to work and turn to Crime, then we will imprison them)

If they keep offending after release, we will have a 3 strikes and they are out - they get shot in the head.

I reckon that would very VERY quickly put a stop to the generation of entitled career Dole Bludgers.

On the plus side however - those that work might learn new skills to make themselves more employable, furthermore the supervisors would be able to provide references.

Another section that would help this would be that all businesses would be required to advertise new positions to WINZ for a minimum period of time before advertising to the private sector - we could also do incentives for businesses to take a punt on hiring people who are currently on the Dole.

Think of it like a 'Carrot and Stick' approach.

[TheDemonLord]

Except that could mean the babies get no nappies/kids no dinner so daddy can have his beer.

Then the Father gets taken out and Shot (for being a useless sack of human waste) and the kids have to go through CYFs (which okay CYFs needs a lot of work too, but maybe with all the money we would save, we can invest more in CYFs)

or The dole is given in such a way that Daddy can only purchase nappies and kids dinner and can't buy Beer (with the advances in Technology, such a system would be easy to implement)

[mashman]

I'm not so sure - for example - when a major event is being put on in the City, all the people in that area do a bit of Spit and Polish to spruce the place up a bit - but this takes time, Effort and Money - imagine if we did this all the time - how much nicer would our communities be to live in?

I agree. Tell you what, remove the money component from your example and you could indeed organise things in such a way that it would be like that all the time.

Simple - they get no Money - if someone refuses to do 10-15 hours of work to earn their benefit then they clearly don't need it.

If they turn to Crime instead of working, they go to prison (again, its not like we are asking them to find a job, tasks will be assigned to them to do, if they refuse to work and turn to Crime, then we will imprison them)

If they keep offending after release, we will have a 3 strikes and they are out - they get shot in the head.

I reckon that would very VERY quickly put a stop to the generation of entitled career Dole Bludgers.

On the plus side however - those that work might learn new skills to make themselves more employable, furthermore the supervisors would be able to provide references.

Another section that would help this would be that all businesses would be required to advertise new positions to WINZ for a minimum period of time before advertising to the private sector - we could also do incentives for businesses to take a punt on hiring people who are currently on the Dole.

Think of it like a 'Carrot and Stick' approach.

But there is no Carrot. You still haven't dealt with the financial ramifications of your policy... which is by far more important as it will let you know what resources you have at hand with which to implement your policy.

[mashman]

Where do people come up with this kind of garbage. Inflation is a monetary phenomenon it has nothing to do with unemployment.

Unemployment isn't an monetary phenomenon?

[sidecar bob]

Unemployment isn't an monetary phenomenon?

No, its a motivation phenomenon.
I don't know any motivated people that are unemployed.

[TheDemonLord]

I agree. Tell you what, remove the money component from your example and you could indeed organise things in such a way that it would be like that all the time.

We both kNOW that you and I have vastly different views on that - I'd even go so far as to do a little cheap shot and point to the Beneficiary problem and say that NOW in an RBE situation, the problem would be exponentially worse.

But there is no Carrot. You still haven't dealt with the financial ramifications of your policy... which is by far more important as it will let you know what resources you have at hand with which to implement your policy.

The Carrot is preferential hiring, work experience, Employee references, contributing to society, sense of self esteem via a job well done etc.

as for the Financial ramifications - I did some lazy maths once (not particulaly air tight, but enough to show how such an idea could work) and basically when you look at just the unemployeed benefit (so excluding super annuits), we are spending about the same that we spend on our Military, that coupled with the number of people on it (about 240,000 I think from memory) we could certainly implement such a system.

[mashman]

No, its a motivation phenomenon.
I don't know any motivated people that are unemployed.

I'm unemployed

[mashman]

We both kNOW that you and I have vastly different views on that - I'd even go so far as to do a little cheap shot and point to the Beneficiary problem and say that NOW in an RBE situation, the problem would be exponentially worse.

You are correct in regards to RBE. I expect about 50% of the population to become unemployed within 5 years.

The Carrot is preferential hiring, work experience, Employee references, contributing to society, sense of self esteem via a job well done etc.

as for the Financial ramifications - I did some lazy maths once (not particulaly air tight, but enough to show how such an idea could work) and basically when you look at just the unemployeed benefit (so excluding super annuits), we are spending about the same that we spend on our Military, that coupled with the number of people on it (about 240,000 I think from memory) we could certainly implement such a system.

All those things no one can achieve without working huh?

So it'd cost $24 million per year to give an extra $100 to every unemployed person... and in return they swear not to commit a (financially related) crime and that if they do they will happily go to jail for a year. Is that more or less than the defense budget? Sounds like a real Carrot... and without the need for a stick

[TheDemonLord]

You are correct in regards to RBE. I expect about 50% of the population to become unemployed within 5 years.

and you know my thoughts on that....

All those things no one can achieve without working huh?

So it'd cost $24 million per year to give an extra $100 to every unemployed person... and in return they swear not to commit a (financially related) crime and that if they do they will happily go to jail for a year. Is that more or less than the defense budget? Sounds like a real Carrot... and without the need for a stick

That's $24 Million that could be spent on other things (roading, PenLink, Fibre Roll out, New Hospital ward, New Cancer drugs etc. etc.)

I wouldn't mind spending it if it was a short term thing (ie they lost their job, went on to the dole for a short period of time before getting a new job) - I take big issue with Career Beneficiaries - and giving them more money is not going to solve the problem, its not going to motivate them to work, if anything - it is going to re-affirm their sense of entitlement that the Govt and everyone else who pays tax, owes them a living.

[Akzle]

Being a bit defensive on this issue arnt you. Wonder why.

its a simple question.

Im only responsible for what i say, not what you (dont) comprehend.

[sidecar bob]

I'm unemployed

Maybe we need to compare motivation levels.

[mashman]

and you know my thoughts on that....

Not really, but I'll go with, you really don't know whether that 50% of the population will work or not. Same as me actually, but it'd be good to kNOW, don't you think (obvious current unthinking jibe aside )?

That's $24 Million that could be spent on other things (roading, PenLink, Fibre Roll out, New Hospital ward, New Cancer drugs etc. etc.)

I wouldn't mind spending it if it was a short term thing (ie they lost their job, went on to the dole for a short period of time before getting a new job) - I take big issue with Career Beneficiaries - and giving them more money is not going to solve the problem, its not going to motivate them to work, if anything - it is going to re-affirm their sense of entitlement that the Govt and everyone else who pays tax, owes them a living.

Thing is though, career beneficiaries are a requirement of the economy. Why are you trying to force them into jobs that would better suit someone actually looking for work in a marketplace where there isn't a job for everyone? Then there's the huge wast of resources that goes into devising schemes to punish the unemployed. It's much more than a short term thing... coz unemployment is not just for christmas. Fuck 'em, if it kept people away from others' stuff enough to save the country money and social "pain", then give 'em the extra hundy. In fact, take it out of the education budget coz firstly, ye olde technological advancement is gonna create more unemployed people... and secondly, the education received is barely useful for our present let alone our future... and fourthly, too many of you rely on it to do your thinking for you

[mashman]

Maybe we need to compare motivation levels.

heh heh heh... I lose.

[TheDemonLord]

Not really, but I'll go with, you really don't know whether that 50% of the population will work or not. Same as me actually, but it'd be good to kNOW, don't you think (obvious current unthinking jibe aside )?

Whilst it may be interesting to know, good to know is debatable - what is the cost of finding out? For example it would be good to know the limits of the Human body in order to help Trauma teams - but the cost of finding out.....

Thing is though, career beneficiaries are a requirement of the economy. Why are you trying to force them into jobs that would better suit someone actually looking for work in a marketplace where there isn't a job for everyone? Then there's the huge wast of resources that goes into devising schemes to punish the unemployed. It's much more than a short term thing... coz unemployment is not just for christmas. Fuck 'em, if it kept people away from others' stuff enough to save the country money and social "pain", then give 'em the extra hundy. In fact, take it out of the education budget coz firstly, ye olde technological advancement is gonna create more unemployed people... and secondly, the education received is barely useful for our present let alone our future... and fourthly, too many of you rely on it to do your thinking for you

This is a false dichotomy - If you assume that for a given community service - the current workforce is X, and the current Level of service provided is Y. We will assume also that Y represents the minimum acceptable level of service. With the assistance of the recently 'motivated' workforce - we get X + D (where D is the Dole people) and the level of Service is Y + P (where P is a function of D x productivity)

In order to retain the minimum level of service, we still need our Workforce X.

Then you talk about if you just give people more money, they will stop them from stealing - I have to ask, since you have made negative comments about the Corporate world 'Stealing' (ie engaging in unethical business practices to increase their profit at the expense of others) - If having more doesn't stop White Collar crime, why would it stop Blue collar crime (hint the answer is - it won't)

And finally - Taking money out of the Education system to fund the dole....

10/10

I think you just lost all fiscal, Economic, Financial and Logical credibility there....

Sure the Education system has problems (and I would suggest a large part of that is due to funding cuts and having to provide an education for the lowest common denominator) but that statement is just retarded.

[mashman]

Whilst it may be interesting to know, good to know is debatable - what is the cost of finding out? For example it would be good to know the limits of the Human body in order to help Trauma teams - but the cost of finding out.....

All you have to do in order to find out is ask those who arrive at WINZ. You'll already have them at the desk, a simple question is all it would take?

This is a false dichotomy - If you assume that for a given community service - the current workforce is X, and the current Level of service provided is Y. We will assume also that Y represents the minimum acceptable level of service. With the assistance of the recently 'motivated' workforce - we get X + D (where D is the Dole people) and the level of Service is Y + P (where P is a function of D x productivity)

In order to retain the minimum level of service, we still need our Workforce X.

Then you talk about if you just give people more money, they will stop them from stealing - I have to ask, since you have made negative comments about the Corporate world 'Stealing' (ie engaging in unethical business practices to increase their profit at the expense of others) - If having more doesn't stop White Collar crime, why would it stop Blue collar crime (hint the answer is - it won't)

And finally - Taking money out of the Education system to fund the dole....

10/10

I think you just lost all fiscal, Economic, Financial and Logical credibility there....

Sure the Education system has problems (and I would suggest a large part of that is due to funding cuts and having to provide an education for the lowest common denominator) but that statement is just retarded.

Show me how it is a false dichotomy? Coz when you have less Y you don't need so much X and can potentially re-task that X to a place that has more Y than it knows what to do with.

Fucking brilliant... corporate world v's the life of a doley ... one stealing billions and the others between them not even being able to match that. Comparing Monkey Shit and Apples there strawman.

Financial credibility? bwaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. You'd have been better served by asking where thirdly went. You always have to rob Peter to pay Paul. That you don't recognise that this practice currently goes on today, and with the education budget, renders any outcomes that you have "calculated" moot. A 100% margin for error does not good sense make