Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
13149 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6171

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1478985 26-Jan-2016 13:24
7 people support this post
Send private message

The reality is very few here would have the slightest clue what it is like being a sole parent and fighting your way out of poverty and raise the kids and put up with self righteous BS.

I may not have been a sole parent but I worked with the situation for a long time. Some people need to get off their pompous pedestals and get real.

Now if my anger here gets me banned then so be it.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


2459 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1205

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1478988 26-Jan-2016 13:27
Send private message

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.

 

 


2459 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1205

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1479014 26-Jan-2016 13:36
5 people support this post
Send private message

MikeB4: The reality is very few here would have the slightest clue what it is like being a sole parent and fighting your way out of poverty and raise the kids and put up with self righteous BS.

 

I think the problem is that some people have had it far too good. They believe that their situation is down to their 'skills' or 'intelligence' or 'hard work' or whatever, when in reality it's pure, dumb luck.

 

It would be interesting to calculate how much 'work' is done in a lifetime by a beneficiary, solo parent, or whatever, to subsist against those who believe that their own 'hard work' got them where they are today. My own view is that precious little 'hard work' is done by company directors and Chairmen of the Board.

 

 


803 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 357


  Reply # 1479032 26-Jan-2016 13:53
Send private message

Geektastic:

 

sir1963:

 

Geektastic:

 

networkn:

 

I saw this article;

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/76103313/blenheim-motherofthree-struggling-to-survive-since-coming-off-the-benefit

 

I don't want this to become a beneficiary bashing topic, however, I think more effort needs to go into helping people understand that working is more than just income. 

 

I have a few friends who were made redundant or left jobs for various reasons, who over time, due to being unable to find replacement work, became incredibly anti-social, focused on negative things and generally in not a good state. It got worse and worse.

 

One guy I knew nearly lost his wife and kids, until she basically said, go and find "any" work or I'm outta here. He got work paying minimum wage, and within 7 days the change in his entire outlook had changed. He is now back in high paid work which took just a matter of weeks.

 

Also, obviously benefits are not supposed to be a long-term solution for the non-ill, and getting back to work and not continuing to take from the state should be the ultimate goal. 

 

I wonder how we get the message across in a non punative manner.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

No, your house would probably be burgled more often, as would your locals businesses etc.

 

There would be a LOT more resentment and a LOT more crime.

 

But if we are going to go into user pays that dramatically then of course the victim of the crime can pay from the criminal to be incarcerated. It was NOT my house, its nothing to do with me, why should I pay anything to solve YOUR problem ?

 

Of course those earning an income as cleaners, window washers and the like will be able to join the dole and do the same job for less, because that is what WILL happen.

 

Maybe we can change the way incomes are calculated , if they were perhaps based on value to the society.....

 

Accountants may get paid less than aged care workers

 

Lawyers may get paid less than those working with the handicapped/disabled 

 

Business leaders may get paid less than nurses.

 

Teachers could be among the highest paid.

 

Realestate agents would be classed as shop assistants 

 

 

 

etc etc etc.

 

 

 

 

At least sports players would have to live on beans on toast in that scenario...! cool

 

 

 

 

Actually they may get paid more, same for actors, musicians and other entertainers / entertainment.

 

As the working hours per week falls, or/and the number of people who have no employment increases then more entertainment will be needed.

 

I know that I would continue to work, even if I did not need to because "work" would be my hobby, I could pursue things that interest me and also give to society, ie helping with the disabled. And  I think most people would too.


Glurp
8256 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3794

Subscriber

  Reply # 1479034 26-Jan-2016 13:55
3 people support this post
Send private message

frankv:

 

MikeB4: The reality is very few here would have the slightest clue what it is like being a sole parent and fighting your way out of poverty and raise the kids and put up with self righteous BS.

 

I think the problem is that some people have had it far too good. They believe that their situation is down to their 'skills' or 'intelligence' or 'hard work' or whatever, when in reality it's pure, dumb luck.

 

It would be interesting to calculate how much 'work' is done in a lifetime by a beneficiary, solo parent, or whatever, to subsist against those who believe that their own 'hard work' got them where they are today. My own view is that precious little 'hard work' is done by company directors and Chairmen of the Board.

 

 

 

For many years I was close to a solo mum and her young children. I saw how hard she worked, day and night, trying to raise her kids and do at least minimal housekeeping while studying full-time for her degree. I stepped in to help out where I could, mainly acting as a surrogate parent to her children and taking them to activities when she just did not have the time. 

 

Eventually she found a partner, finished her degree, went to work full-time, saw her kids off as they grew up. Today she is very much enjoying the fruits of all that hard work and paying her taxes as well, but she did not have an easy time of it. Her single parent benefit was what made it possible (barely) for her to pull herself up in the way described, but she did the hard slog all by herself. The family struggled for years. I did help out but they had it much harder than they should have, especially the children. Yet they were better off than many in a similar situation.

 

I would also like to see some of our self-important executives and parliamentarians work the way she did, pretty much non-stop from early in the morning until bedtime, 7 days a week, year after year. We may pay lip service to the hard work of mums and caretakers, but our society does not even begin to sufficiently value them and the many others like them who quietly carry on performing essential tasks that keep the rest of us going.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


11906 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3858

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1479111 26-Jan-2016 15:42
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

frankv:

 

MikeB4: The reality is very few here would have the slightest clue what it is like being a sole parent and fighting your way out of poverty and raise the kids and put up with self righteous BS.

 

I think the problem is that some people have had it far too good. They believe that their situation is down to their 'skills' or 'intelligence' or 'hard work' or whatever, when in reality it's pure, dumb luck.

 

It would be interesting to calculate how much 'work' is done in a lifetime by a beneficiary, solo parent, or whatever, to subsist against those who believe that their own 'hard work' got them where they are today. My own view is that precious little 'hard work' is done by company directors and Chairmen of the Board.

 

 

 

For many years I was close to a solo mum and her young children. I saw how hard she worked, day and night, trying to raise her kids and do at least minimal housekeeping while studying full-time for her degree. I stepped in to help out where I could, mainly acting as a surrogate parent to her children and taking them to activities when she just did not have the time. 

 

Eventually she found a partner, finished her degree, went to work full-time, saw her kids off as they grew up. Today she is very much enjoying the fruits of all that hard work and paying her taxes as well, but she did not have an easy time of it. Her single parent benefit was what made it possible (barely) for her to pull herself up in the way described, but she did the hard slog all by herself. The family struggled for years. I did help out but they had it much harder than they should have, especially the children. Yet they were better off than many in a similar situation.

 

I would also like to see some of our self-important executives and parliamentarians work the way she did, pretty much non-stop from early in the morning until bedtime, 7 days a week, year after year. We may pay lip service to the hard work of mums and caretakers, but our society does not even begin to sufficiently value them and the many others like them who quietly carry on performing essential tasks that keep the rest of us going.

 

 

 

 

Can't speak for executives but I know that most of the Cabinet certainly work very long days. In fact when I was shooting a job recently, one of the sessions was with John Key and a session participant asked him how he balances work and life. He said it was extremely difficult as he is usually up at 0530 and rarely finishes work much before 2000 hrs, usually later.

 

That said, I would imagine being a minor party List MP could be a very cruisey job!






11906 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3858

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1479112 26-Jan-2016 15:44
Send private message

frankv:

 

MikeB4: The reality is very few here would have the slightest clue what it is like being a sole parent and fighting your way out of poverty and raise the kids and put up with self righteous BS.

 

I think the problem is that some people have had it far too good. They believe that their situation is down to their 'skills' or 'intelligence' or 'hard work' or whatever, when in reality it's pure, dumb luck.

 

It would be interesting to calculate how much 'work' is done in a lifetime by a beneficiary, solo parent, or whatever, to subsist against those who believe that their own 'hard work' got them where they are today. My own view is that precious little 'hard work' is done by company directors and Chairmen of the Board.

 

 

 

 

 

 

See how long the company stays afloat if you take them away....






11906 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3858

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1479122 26-Jan-2016 15:53
Send private message

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 don't think anyone is suggesting that there won't be any work. However, electronics and robotics are going to eat many jobs in the next 25 years. It was fine for people to have as many children as they wanted when we still needed them for farms, factories, military use, Imperial government and so forth.

 

Since the robots began taking over the car making industry in the 70's and 80's the number of employees there will have fallen and the same for many industrial things. There are factories in Germany that make pre-fab houses to the architect's design with barely a human involved until they get to the site. This sort of thing will increase.

 

I don't think politicians have quite grasped this and they are still handing out additional benefits etc for having children in many countries with apparently little thought for what all these children may actually find to do in due course when they grow up.

 

You could argue that, ignoring the few who cannot work for medical reasons etc, any amount of unemployment is indicative of the fact that your population exceeds your economic capacity since obviously the ideal is 100% employment for those that can work. No economist or politician seems to have a method to continually expand an economy to match a continually expanding population, especially in light of increases in automation and decreases in manual input.

 

Combine that with the fact that a smaller population places less stress on the planet as a whole and it seems to me that some sort of plan to achieve that is required.






2459 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1205

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1479123 26-Jan-2016 15:55
Send private message

Geektastic:

 

Can't speak for executives but I know that most of the Cabinet certainly work very long days. In fact when I was shooting a job recently, one of the sessions was with John Key and a session participant asked him how he balances work and life. He said it was extremely difficult as he is usually up at 0530 and rarely finishes work much before 2000 hrs, usually later.

 

 

I've heard that kind of thing before. Usually from politicians. But how much of that day is actual hard work? How much is opening kindergartens and glad-handing other politicians?

 

 


11906 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3858

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1479124 26-Jan-2016 15:59
One person supports this post
Send private message

frankv:

 

Geektastic:

 

Can't speak for executives but I know that most of the Cabinet certainly work very long days. In fact when I was shooting a job recently, one of the sessions was with John Key and a session participant asked him how he balances work and life. He said it was extremely difficult as he is usually up at 0530 and rarely finishes work much before 2000 hrs, usually later.

 

 

I've heard that kind of thing before. Usually from politicians. But how much of that day is actual hard work? How much is opening kindergartens and glad-handing other politicians?

 

 

 

 

I'd say running a country is hard work whatever the particular task of the moment may be. The mental weight of the overall responsibility, combined with the need to maintain impressive mental agility in the face of all manner of suddenly arising circumstances would qualify that as hard work beyond the ability of a good number of people to execute well.

 

It may not be physically hard in the manner of shovelling a pile of dirt, but then again we have machines that do that and we do not yet have machines that run countries. Fortunately.






JWR

738 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 236


  Reply # 1479160 26-Jan-2016 16:40
One person supports this post

Geektastic:

 

frankv:

 

Geektastic:

 

Can't speak for executives but I know that most of the Cabinet certainly work very long days. In fact when I was shooting a job recently, one of the sessions was with John Key and a session participant asked him how he balances work and life. He said it was extremely difficult as he is usually up at 0530 and rarely finishes work much before 2000 hrs, usually later.

 

 

I've heard that kind of thing before. Usually from politicians. But how much of that day is actual hard work? How much is opening kindergartens and glad-handing other politicians?

 

 

 

 

I'd say running a country is hard work whatever the particular task of the moment may be. The mental weight of the overall responsibility, combined with the need to maintain impressive mental agility in the face of all manner of suddenly arising circumstances would qualify that as hard work beyond the ability of a good number of people to execute well.

 

It may not be physically hard in the manner of shovelling a pile of dirt, but then again we have machines that do that and we do not yet have machines that run countries. Fortunately.

 

 

As a voter, I reserve the right to be critical of how politicians carry out their work.

 

But, I don't think the majority of them are highly paid for what they do.

 

Many public servants are paid much more than the Prime Minister and CEOs of companies, much more again.

 

 


14353 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1866


  Reply # 1479161 26-Jan-2016 16:41
One person supports this post
Send private message

Work for a lot of people is all about lifestyle.  A lot of people don't need to work, but they need something to do, and to feel worthwhile. If people want luxury stuff and living, then they may choose to work in high powered, high paying work. This may come at a cost of a shorter life though, depending on the stress. It is all about balance, and how you want to live. It is human nature to want more and more. But people can live on very little if they choose to, and enjoy life more. There is no right or wrong answer, it comes down to how people want to live.


14353 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1866


  Reply # 1479162 26-Jan-2016 16:44
Send private message

Work hierarchy, and big pay scale differences,  is such a contradiction to the PC world we live in. Supposedly everyone should be treated equally, no matter what their status. But in the work environment, this is is totally different. Some progressive companies in the USA mainly,  are removing hierarchies, and paying everyone the same. I suppose that is where a living wage comes in. 


2561 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1207


  Reply # 1479290 26-Jan-2016 19:03
2 people support this post
Send private message

Based on my experience in a past life, frontbench ministers work brutal hours and are probably underpaid for what they do. Key roles like the PM and Minister of Finance are fairly brutal 6-7 day a week roles with long hours. The opposite is true for most junior ministers and backbenchers, who are probably overpaid and don't work nearly so hard. There are also obvious exceptions in both cases.

 

Opposition backbench list MP is probably laziest and most overpaid role - no spokesperson role, electorate or other responsibilities, basically just lobby fodder.

 

Regarding value - the key thing here is that value is extrinsic not intrinsic. It doesn't matter how "valuable" you consider the job someone is to society, the economic value of that job determines their pay. And that is based on whatever equilibrates the market - determined generally by what someone is prepared to pay for particular skills (demand), what people with those skills are willing to work for (supply), and in the case of the individual their personal skills and experience which determines whether they get above or below the norm for that role.

 

That's why (for example) a bottle of water is worth less than an emerald in Saudi Arabia - despite the fact that the glass of water has a high intrinsic value (it will keep you alive in the desert), while an emerald has a low intrinsic value (its basically just rare and green).

 

There is also a global market now, especially for skilled people, and they decide whether to work here or somewhere else based at least in part on how the rates in NZ compare to global norms.

 

If I'm wealthy I'm willing to pay a lot for a tax accountant, and a great deal for a very good one of which there might only be 3-5 in the country, as the difference between average and good could save me millions. For a Nanny, where their might be 20 good applicants applying for the role ...... not so much. Whether you have a view that a Nanny is more socially useful than an accountant is essentially irrelevant to this price setting.

 

And, in short, unless you are proposing that the government essentially regulate all private agreements on what someone is prepared to pay someone else, including border controls to stop skilled labour leaving, than proposing that everyone is paid the same or that pay should be based on administratively determined "social value" is essentially idealistic hot air.

 

The world doesn't work that way.


Glurp
8256 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3794

Subscriber

  Reply # 1479296 26-Jan-2016 19:19
One person supports this post
Send private message

JimmyH:

 

 

 

The world doesn't work that way.

 

 

Spot-on. I would just make the counter-argument that the world doesn't work the way it is currently organised either. Rich get richer, poor become more dispossessed, pollution from economically-determined disposable consumer products, exponential increases in non-renewable energy consumption, imbalances in nearly everything, how long can all that go on? Our current model has no long-term stability. However the world does work, it is not like this.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.