No incentive to work

Forums › Off topic › No incentive to work

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

903 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1479303 26-Jan-2016 19:30

What in the heck is this woman talking about? She lives in blenheim but clearly has no clue about it.

Shes making it out to be a bloody scumville where there is poor areas like in south auckland. I havent seen any poverty down here at all.

It makes me very mad people like her. There are people who legit need a benefit and she is complaining that shes only slightly better off!

gzt

17159 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1479305 26-Jan-2016 19:39

I didn't get that from the article. Where does it say that?

ludez

903 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1479308 26-Jan-2016 19:45

gzt: I didn't get that from the article. Where does it say that?

She said she is only $34 better off each week and asked if it was actually worth working.

Geese

1028 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1479312 26-Jan-2016 20:02

The math doesn't add up to me?

$580/week on the benefit. Only $34/week better off working, so pay must be $614.

Yet 29 hours at $21.90... is $635 gross, or $501 if student loan is taken out?

gzt

17159 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1479319 26-Jan-2016 20:11

ludez:
What in the heck is this woman talking about? She lives in blenheim but clearly has no clue about it.

Shes making it out to be a bloody scumville where there is poor areas like in south auckland. I havent seen any poverty down here at all.

It makes me very mad people like her. There are people who legit need a benefit and she is complaining that shes only slightly better off!

ludez:
gzt: I didn't get that from the article. Where does it say that?

She said she is only $34 better off each week and asked if it was actually worth working.

Yeah I meant the bit where you claim she is making out it is 'scumville'.

ludez

903 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1479325 26-Jan-2016 20:20

Oh no it wasnt directly quoting her about that. It's just the way she was wording stuff like it's low paying work and the rich get richer etc. i skim read as it got my abit mad

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1479460 26-Jan-2016 23:17

Brendan:

The last thing I thought I would ever see on Geekzone was this level of elitist medieval drivel. I wont even bother going into the myriad practical, political, or historical reasons your wet dream will never work as I do not believe for one second you would understand any of it. I am simply registering my incredulity.

Do please explain why you think people ought not to contribute in return for being supported. My IQ is 141 so I am fairly confident I will understand it as long as you do not use big words.

If your IQ really was 141, you would realize I would not be caught out by such a poor attempt to re-frame my argument.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1479462 26-Jan-2016 23:26

sir1963:

Given the rise of automation , globalisation etc there are actually going to be MORE people unemployed long term, not just low paid manual jobs, but some of reasonable skill and increasing.

That has always annoyed me also. I have reached a point now that I no longer believe they do NOT know of the impending job-pocolypse but are doing a classic politician manouver I call stick-your-head-in-the-sand.

Just as annoying however is the mantra I always hear in any of these debates from the neo-liberals: "new jobs will materialise out of thin air JUST BECAUSE!"... I have never heard a satisfactory explanation of how or why, but I HAVE heard a lot of FAITH-based arguments extrapolated from historical precedents - it starts to sound very sermon-y very quickly.

The truth is that there will be less 'jobs', just as you say. We have lots of unemployment all over the world, even in rich countries, even with high levels of education. Pretending it's the people's fault is stupid and destructive and serves only to exclude such a commentor from being taken seriously.

We need to start looking past the wage economy and start deciding what/how the "startrek" economy is going to look like.

There will be a LOT of resistance from those at the top, because they enjoy the power and privilege that wealth gives them.

...

Too often the word "responsibility" is used when what is meant is "blame".

The "trickle down theory" of economics has failed

Lower taxes has meant even more money has shifted from the poor to the rich. Howard Hughes and others managed to become billionaires even when paying substantially higher taxes, so that was never an impediment to people becoming rich.

Could not have said it better myself.

MadEngineer

4295 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1479463 26-Jan-2016 23:27

Geektastic:

Brendan:

Geektastic:

I'll bet anyone would find work PDQ if it was that or starve.

One thing I think they could do is actually have the modern equivalent of the Victorian Poor House, where those requiring benefit are 'employed' to do, make, fix or whatever in government controlled facilities. If society is going to pay people instead of them earning, it seems logical to me that there is plenty of useful work that could be done in return.

For example, many elderly people perhaps cannot clean their own windows due to reduced mobility or perhaps cannot afford a window cleaner. Some unemployed people could be put together for a few hours of training, transported by minibus and go and clean said windows for a few hours per day. It would also help maintain a 'working frame of mind'.

Obviously they can't all clean windows but there are plenty of other bits of useful work that they could be doing.

The last thing I thought I would ever see on Geekzone was this level of elitist medieval drivel. I wont even bother going into the myriad practical, political, or historical reasons your wet dream will never work as I do not believe for one second you would understand any of it. I am simply registering my incredulity.

Do please explain why you think people ought not to contribute in return for being supported. My IQ is 141 so I am fairly confident I will understand it as long as you do not use big words.

Because we are all equal but some are more equal than others

You're not on Atlantis anymore, Duncan Idaho.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1479469 26-Jan-2016 23:37

frankv:

Geektastic:

The fundamental issue to be faced is that there are or will be too many people for the available work.

Depends on your definition of 'work', I guess.

I recall that some years ago, the number of 'information workers' exceeded the number of 'industrial' workers (in the same way that in the Industrial Revolution the number of 'industrial' workers exceeded the number of 'agricultural' workers). So now most people's work does not directly produce any physical product. Instead, they work with information, essentially managing and optimising those that do produce stuff. I see no reason why that kind of work wouldn't continue to be useful.

I'm sure it will be valuable for some time yet. It just wont be done by PEOPLE. It'll be done by machines, far more quickly and accurately and tirelessly than any group of humans could. And it'll be CHEAP.

It's not about too many people for too few jobs. Well, it is, but that is ignoring the real question: HOW do you distribute the wealth of our civilization in a fair way that achieves maximum benefit for maximum people?

It's quite the optimisation problem...

What I can tell you is that what we are doing NOW is not it. It is not even a part of it. It bears no likeness to a working system.

Indeed, I think you could argue that our current world economy more closely approximates a complex MULTI NODE FAILURE MODE rather than a working economic system. It is fault intolerant, buggy and prone to hacking. If it was an OS, we'd call it Windows.

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1479471 26-Jan-2016 23:40

Geektastic: Do please explain why you think people ought not to contribute in return for being supported. My IQ is 141 so I am fairly confident I will understand it as long as you do not use big words.

You know it's on when someone pulls out their Mensa membership card like it actually means something! Nice one, have a gold star!

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1479674 27-Jan-2016 10:12

bazzer:

Geektastic: Do please explain why you think people ought not to contribute in return for being supported. My IQ is 141 so I am fairly confident I will understand it as long as you do not use big words.

You know it's on when someone pulls out their Mensa membership card like it actually means something! Nice one, have a gold star!

I wouldn't get in, the required score is 150.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1479679 27-Jan-2016 10:18

Interesting to read today that in Denmark, which I presume most people would class as socially progressive, they require benefit claimants to sell any assets they own above a certain limit before they can get benefits.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1479695 27-Jan-2016 10:26

Brendan:

frankv:

Geektastic:

The fundamental issue to be faced is that there are or will be too many people for the available work.

Depends on your definition of 'work', I guess.

I recall that some years ago, the number of 'information workers' exceeded the number of 'industrial' workers (in the same way that in the Industrial Revolution the number of 'industrial' workers exceeded the number of 'agricultural' workers). So now most people's work does not directly produce any physical product. Instead, they work with information, essentially managing and optimising those that do produce stuff. I see no reason why that kind of work wouldn't continue to be useful.

I'm sure it will be valuable for some time yet. It just wont be done by PEOPLE. It'll be done by machines, far more quickly and accurately and tirelessly than any group of humans could. And it'll be CHEAP.

It's not about too many people for too few jobs. Well, it is, but that is ignoring the real question: HOW do you distribute the wealth of our civilization in a fair way that achieves maximum benefit for maximum people?

It's quite the optimisation problem...

What I can tell you is that what we are doing NOW is not it. It is not even a part of it. It bears no likeness to a working system.

Indeed, I think you could argue that our current world economy more closely approximates a complex MULTI NODE FAILURE MODE rather than a working economic system. It is fault intolerant, buggy and prone to hacking. If it was an OS, we'd call it Windows.

Why do you need to distribute it fairly? I don't understand this need for fairness at all. Some people do better than other people. That's called life. Roman Abramovich has more money than a small country. Bill Gates has twice the entire annual tax take of NZ. I don't regard that as 'unfair' - it merely 'is'.

They are very lucky but I feel no need nor see any particular reason to force them to give their money to other people. Making everyone equally poor strikes me as a bad idea. Yes, some are more equal than others and personally I am fine with that. It's been that way since time immemorial. It will always be that way I suspect, in some form or another.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1479750 27-Jan-2016 11:59

Geektastic:

Why do you need to distribute it fairly?

It provides a more stable society. It prevents disease and crime. It promotes achievement and progress.

I don't understand this need for fairness at all.

That is a lacking that is very evident.

I suggest you read up on some scientific papers, perhaps start with an experiment called "the prisoner's dilemma", it's a classic of Game Theory. It will explain in a simplified manner the benefits of co-operation vs competition.

Some people do better than other people. That's called life. Roman Abramovich has more money than a small country. Bill Gates has twice the entire annual tax take of NZ. I don't regard that as 'unfair' - it merely 'is'.

Declaring a situation as 'merely is' is an appeal to the status quo; it is, in effect a declaration of defeat and a plea to avoid examination.

Not only is it unfair, it's destructive.

They are very lucky but I feel no need nor see any particular reason to force them to give their money to other people.

I am glad you understand their wealth to be factored by luck.

I DO see a reason to force them to share their good luck. Why should everyone else tolerate them otherwise? Some vauge notion of property rights?

Making everyone equally poor strikes me as a bad idea.

Except it makes everyone equally rich.

It's not like it's some idea that's never been tested Marcus. It's already being done, and the results are in: a far healthier, more productive world is the result.

Yes, some are more equal than others and personally I am fine with that. It's been that way since time immemorial. It will always be that way I suspect, in some form or another.

The aristocrats in France during the French Revolution though the same way.

The 'less equal' responded by inventing the Guillotine. Is there a lesson in that for you at all?

Progress for humanity seems to be slow, but punctuated by short bursts of violence - largely involving the removal of a ruling elite wealth structure.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9