Civil Conscription

Discuss politics and current affairs here.

Hot topic: The scourge of negative gearing, Friends of the NBN and wrecking lives.  The economy and Poll tracking— all the polls. New! ELECTION 2016, Issues and Leaders

Special Feature 1: Peter Costello and our current deficits.
Special Feature 2: Dr Turnbull and the wrong NBN prescription
Special Feature 3: The Denigration of science, technology and education.
.
Forum rules
The rules for this board are in the Charter of Moderation. Politics is for serious discussion of politics, economics and current affairs.

Re: Civil Conscription

Postby Auggie » 02 Feb 2018, 21:15

johnsmith wrote:when I was younger school leavers were invited to sit an government entrance exam

your result would determine where they offered you a position. I sat this exam after I finished the HSC and was offered a job as a customs officer at Sydney airport (something that up to that point I had never considered).

I instead opted, at the behest of my father, to do an Assoc.Dip in Accounting course at TAFE. It proved to be total waste of two years. I wasn't qualified enough for accounting work, I was overqualified for clerical type work.

My one regret in life is that I didn't take the customs job.


Government entrance exam. Wish they had those now.

Looks like you had more opportunities than we do now.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 2050
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Civil Conscription

Postby Auggie » 02 Feb 2018, 21:17

johnsmith wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:
Aussie wrote:Implies a 'big brother' data base of all the people available, that they have the necessary skills and have been given whatever security etc clearance is required.

Big change.....but I would not be at all surprised if Orwell was not right on the money.


Well, that's true, I won't deny it. The only thing is that it applies to a specific group of people.

Either this is the way, or another alternative is to allow more flexibility with the minimum wage and let people in those situations work for as much or as little as they want.

For e.g. at the moment, there is something called the 'Supported Wage Scheme.' This allows an employer to pay an employee at a certain percentage of the minimum wage depending on their 'productivity'. This requires a Work Trial, attended by someone from Centrelink, and then this reviewed every now and then.

What SHOULD happen is that Centrelink gives permission (in the form of letter) to such person, who can then use this letter to go from employer to employer, using it as an 'incentive' to gain work. The employer then can decide to employ that person at lower than the minimum wage notwithstanding their disability, etc...

What do you think?



those sorts of schemes ALWAYS end up being abused.

I don't know if they still do it, but years ago the govt. used to offer me subsided wages if I offered a long term unemployed person an apprenticeship. From memory, I think I got about $5000 back on a first year apprentice, after that it may have been a couple of grand the second year then the subsidies stopped.
I know many employers who as soon as the subsidies stopped, the parson was sacked for no reason, and another long term unemployed hired to take their place, purely so they could get their subsidy. I wasn't one of those, I keep all my apprentices through to the end, except one, who I had to let go because apart from his 3 week trial, called in sick every single Monday for about 6 months.


The purpose of the scheme is to increase the chances of a person gaining experience. Don't you think that having 6-12 experience under your belt can help increase employment opportunities?
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 2050
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Civil Conscription

Postby johnsmith » 02 Feb 2018, 21:47

CaesarAugustus wrote:
johnsmith wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:
Aussie wrote:Implies a 'big brother' data base of all the people available, that they have the necessary skills and have been given whatever security etc clearance is required.

Big change.....but I would not be at all surprised if Orwell was not right on the money.


Well, that's true, I won't deny it. The only thing is that it applies to a specific group of people.

Either this is the way, or another alternative is to allow more flexibility with the minimum wage and let people in those situations work for as much or as little as they want.

For e.g. at the moment, there is something called the 'Supported Wage Scheme.' This allows an employer to pay an employee at a certain percentage of the minimum wage depending on their 'productivity'. This requires a Work Trial, attended by someone from Centrelink, and then this reviewed every now and then.

What SHOULD happen is that Centrelink gives permission (in the form of letter) to such person, who can then use this letter to go from employer to employer, using it as an 'incentive' to gain work. The employer then can decide to employ that person at lower than the minimum wage notwithstanding their disability, etc...

What do you think?



those sorts of schemes ALWAYS end up being abused.

I don't know if they still do it, but years ago the govt. used to offer me subsided wages if I offered a long term unemployed person an apprenticeship. From memory, I think I got about $5000 back on a first year apprentice, after that it may have been a couple of grand the second year then the subsidies stopped.
I know many employers who as soon as the subsidies stopped, the parson was sacked for no reason, and another long term unemployed hired to take their place, purely so they could get their subsidy. I wasn't one of those, I keep all my apprentices through to the end, except one, who I had to let go because apart from his 3 week trial, called in sick every single Monday for about 6 months.


The purpose of the scheme is to increase the chances of a person gaining experience. Don't you think that having 6-12 experience under your belt can help increase employment opportunities?


I would wonder why someone was sacked after only 6 to 12 months.
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Mastodon
 
Posts: 6605
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 22:39
spamone: Animal

Re: Civil Conscription

Postby Lefty » 03 Feb 2018, 01:47

CaesarAugustus wrote:The whole process of looking for work by using conventional means, such as: cover letter, CV, and/or selection criteria, belong in the past. These processes were applicable for the post-war generation; but not for today. Today, people are more complex, and have unique needs. Young people are educated, but are not skilled to deal with the real-world job market. And what about people who have disabilities, such as mental health issues who might be educated but cannot complete adequately in the job market? What happens when the 'old' way of applying for a job becomes too stressful or not longer useful for such people? At the moment, you either have be on either end of the spectrum: - either a tradie or a doctor; if you're somewhere in the middle, then you're stuck there. What do we do about these people stuck in the middle? Educated, but those who cannot fit into either extreme.

What alternatives are there?

The only viable alternative in my view is civil conscription. The job-seeker gets a call from a government department asking them to rock up on Monday for their new job. No Cover Letter, no Resume, no application process. Young people are conscripted into the public service and given a job. This would reduce stress, and significantly enhance the confidence of these people.

The coercive power of the state is only viable solution for people stuck in the middle.

You may be thinking that we have something similar now, called Work for the Dole; but this programme is extremely limited, and is only available for those unemployed and on benefit for more than 12 months. People who are on disabilities are not entitled to this programme.

By asking these people to search for jobs on their own, we are condemning them to a life of continual under-employment.


You are on the right track. As HBS Guy mentions, a Job Guarantee is what is needed.

There is no reason we cannot have true full employment - we had it for several decades from WW2 as government policy. This was abandoned as neo-liberal thinking became dominant.

Note that I do think that reversing the current policy of deliberately creating and maintaining a pool of poverty and disadvantage at the bottom of society to act as a buffer against inflation (pretty much yesterdays boogeyman now) would be violently opposed by certain elements who understand that having zero involuntary unemployment empowers workers, both as individuals and as labour unions.
User avatar
Lefty
Bengal Tiger
 
Posts: 16583
Joined: 15 Nov 2009, 10:34

Re: Civil Conscription

Postby pinkeye » 03 Feb 2018, 02:14

Civil Conscription.? What fucking century do you live in.?
sleeping is good for you
User avatar
pinkeye
Jaguar
 
Posts: 2157
Joined: 01 Oct 2017, 21:59
spamone: Animal

Re: Civil Conscription

Postby pinkeye » 03 Feb 2018, 02:25

Lefty wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:The whole process of looking for work by using conventional means, such as: cover letter, CV, and/or selection criteria, belong in the past. These processes were applicable for the post-war generation; but not for today. Today, people are more complex, and have unique needs. Young people are educated, but are not skilled to deal with the real-world job market. And what about people who have disabilities, such as mental health issues who might be educated but cannot complete adequately in the job market? What happens when the 'old' way of applying for a job becomes too stressful or not longer useful for such people? At the moment, you either have be on either end of the spectrum: - either a tradie or a doctor; if you're somewhere in the middle, then you're stuck there. What do we do about these people stuck in the middle? Educated, but those who cannot fit into either extreme.

What alternatives are there?

The only viable alternative in my view is civil conscription. The job-seeker gets a call from a government department asking them to rock up on Monday for their new job. No Cover Letter, no Resume, no application process. Young people are conscripted into the public service and given a job. This would reduce stress, and significantly enhance the confidence of these people.

The coercive power of the state is only viable solution for people stuck in the middle.

You may be thinking that we have something similar now, called Work for the Dole; but this programme is extremely limited, and is only available for those unemployed and on benefit for more than 12 months. People who are on disabilities are not entitled to this programme.

By asking these people to search for jobs on their own, we are condemning them to a life of continual under-employment.


You are on the right track. As HBS Guy mentions, a Job Guarantee is what is needed.

There is no reason we cannot have true full employment - we had it for several decades from WW2 as government policy. This was abandoned as neo-liberal thinking became dominant.

Note that I do think that reversing the current policy of deliberately creating and maintaining a pool of poverty and disadvantage at the bottom of society to act as a buffer against inflation (pretty much yesterdays boogeyman now) would be violently opposed by certain elements who understand that having zero involuntary unemployment empowers workers, both as individuals and as labour unions.



Zero involuntary unemployment...?


What is that?
sleeping is good for you
User avatar
pinkeye
Jaguar
 
Posts: 2157
Joined: 01 Oct 2017, 21:59
spamone: Animal

Re: Civil Conscription

Postby Lefty » 03 Feb 2018, 02:35

pinkeye wrote:Civil Conscription.? What fucking century do you live in.?


It probably could be termed differently - that name makes it sound a bit like forced military service.

As long as we have involuntary unemployment/under-employment then we have a humanitarian problem (from the point of view of those who care at least). In our capitalist market economy, very rarely does the private sector desire to utilise all the willing available labour. It is governments responsability to step into the breach and act as employer of last resort to ensure that our society is not simply discarding human beings because the economic system cannot use them.

Government did this for decades under Keynesian economic management but then reneged as neo-liberalism became the new rage.

Having created a pool of unemployment, it then set about re-framing our understanding of the situation, portraying unemployment caused by demand deficiency as a voluntary choice exercised by the individual. This mass-deceit has been outstandingly successful, hoodwinking us into despising the victims and allowing our policy makers to continue to ignore their responsabilities.
User avatar
Lefty
Bengal Tiger
 
Posts: 16583
Joined: 15 Nov 2009, 10:34

Re: Civil Conscription

Postby Lefty » 03 Feb 2018, 02:43

Zero involuntary unemployment...?


What is that?


Exactly what it sounds like.

There have always been and will always be some individuals whose only desire is to drink piss, smoke dope and play video games - this is a fact. However, most unemployment is involuntary and is a product of the economic system.

Many of us seem to engage in a remarkable double-think regarding this situation - understanding the basic logic that there are always more people needing a job than there are jobs available yet simultaneously believing the neo-liberal lie that unemployment typically a voluntarily chosen state. We have been continuously conditioned by propaganda over the past 40 or so years to believe this fiction.
User avatar
Lefty
Bengal Tiger
 
Posts: 16583
Joined: 15 Nov 2009, 10:34

Re: Civil Conscription

Postby MilesAway » 03 Feb 2018, 20:03

CaesarAugustus wrote:
johnsmith wrote:when I was younger school leavers were invited to sit an government entrance exam

your result would determine where they offered you a position. I sat this exam after I finished the HSC and was offered a job as a customs officer at Sydney airport (something that up to that point I had never considered).

I instead opted, at the behest of my father, to do an Assoc.Dip in Accounting course at TAFE. It proved to be total waste of two years. I wasn't qualified enough for accounting work, I was overqualified for clerical type work.

My one regret in life is that I didn't take the customs job.


Government entrance exam. Wish they had those now.

Looks like you had more opportunities than we do now.

It’s dinosaurs all the way down!
User avatar
MilesAway
Jaguar
 
Posts: 1577
Joined: 27 Oct 2017, 12:01
spamone: Animal

Re: Civil Conscription

Postby MilesAway » 03 Feb 2018, 20:04

CaesarAugustus wrote:
johnsmith wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:
Aussie wrote:Implies a 'big brother' data base of all the people available, that they have the necessary skills and have been given whatever security etc clearance is required.

Big change.....but I would not be at all surprised if Orwell was not right on the money.


Well, that's true, I won't deny it. The only thing is that it applies to a specific group of people.

Either this is the way, or another alternative is to allow more flexibility with the minimum wage and let people in those situations work for as much or as little as they want.

For e.g. at the moment, there is something called the 'Supported Wage Scheme.' This allows an employer to pay an employee at a certain percentage of the minimum wage depending on their 'productivity'. This requires a Work Trial, attended by someone from Centrelink, and then this reviewed every now and then.

What SHOULD happen is that Centrelink gives permission (in the form of letter) to such person, who can then use this letter to go from employer to employer, using it as an 'incentive' to gain work. The employer then can decide to employ that person at lower than the minimum wage notwithstanding their disability, etc...

What do you think?



those sorts of schemes ALWAYS end up being abused.

I don't know if they still do it, but years ago the govt. used to offer me subsided wages if I offered a long term unemployed person an apprenticeship. From memory, I think I got about $5000 back on a first year apprentice, after that it may have been a couple of grand the second year then the subsidies stopped.
I know many employers who as soon as the subsidies stopped, the parson was sacked for no reason, and another long term unemployed hired to take their place, purely so they could get their subsidy. I wasn't one of those, I keep all my apprentices through to the end, except one, who I had to let go because apart from his 3 week trial, called in sick every single Monday for about 6 months.


The purpose of the scheme is to increase the chances of a person gaining experience. Don't you think that having 6-12 experience under your belt can help increase employment opportunities?

Theory: that makes you dangerous, potentially!
User avatar
MilesAway
Jaguar
 
Posts: 1577
Joined: 27 Oct 2017, 12:01
spamone: Animal

Re: Civil Conscription

Postby MilesAway » 03 Feb 2018, 20:05

johnsmith wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:
johnsmith wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:
Aussie wrote:Implies a 'big brother' data base of all the people available, that they have the necessary skills and have been given whatever security etc clearance is required.

Big change.....but I would not be at all surprised if Orwell was not right on the money.


Well, that's true, I won't deny it. The only thing is that it applies to a specific group of people.

Either this is the way, or another alternative is to allow more flexibility with the minimum wage and let people in those situations work for as much or as little as they want.

For e.g. at the moment, there is something called the 'Supported Wage Scheme.' This allows an employer to pay an employee at a certain percentage of the minimum wage depending on their 'productivity'. This requires a Work Trial, attended by someone from Centrelink, and then this reviewed every now and then.

What SHOULD happen is that Centrelink gives permission (in the form of letter) to such person, who can then use this letter to go from employer to employer, using it as an 'incentive' to gain work. The employer then can decide to employ that person at lower than the minimum wage notwithstanding their disability, etc...

What do you think?



those sorts of schemes ALWAYS end up being abused.

I don't know if they still do it, but years ago the govt. used to offer me subsided wages if I offered a long term unemployed person an apprenticeship. From memory, I think I got about $5000 back on a first year apprentice, after that it may have been a couple of grand the second year then the subsidies stopped.
I know many employers who as soon as the subsidies stopped, the parson was sacked for no reason, and another long term unemployed hired to take their place, purely so they could get their subsidy. I wasn't one of those, I keep all my apprentices through to the end, except one, who I had to let go because apart from his 3 week trial, called in sick every single Monday for about 6 months.


The purpose of the scheme is to increase the chances of a person gaining experience. Don't you think that having 6-12 experience under your belt can help increase employment opportunities?


I would wonder why someone was sacked after only 6 to 12 months.

T. O. U. C. H. E :beer
User avatar
MilesAway
Jaguar
 
Posts: 1577
Joined: 27 Oct 2017, 12:01
spamone: Animal

Re: Civil Conscription

Postby johnsmith » 03 Feb 2018, 20:06

CaesarAugustus wrote:Government entrance exam. Wish they had those now.


the process was outsourced to private industry

now its 'who you know'
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Mastodon
 
Posts: 6605
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 22:39
spamone: Animal

Re: Civil Conscription

Postby MilesAway » 03 Feb 2018, 20:07

Lefty wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:The whole process of looking for work by using conventional means, such as: cover letter, CV, and/or selection criteria, belong in the past. These processes were applicable for the post-war generation; but not for today. Today, people are more complex, and have unique needs. Young people are educated, but are not skilled to deal with the real-world job market. And what about people who have disabilities, such as mental health issues who might be educated but cannot complete adequately in the job market? What happens when the 'old' way of applying for a job becomes too stressful or not longer useful for such people? At the moment, you either have be on either end of the spectrum: - either a tradie or a doctor; if you're somewhere in the middle, then you're stuck there. What do we do about these people stuck in the middle? Educated, but those who cannot fit into either extreme.

What alternatives are there?

The only viable alternative in my view is civil conscription. The job-seeker gets a call from a government department asking them to rock up on Monday for their new job. No Cover Letter, no Resume, no application process. Young people are conscripted into the public service and given a job. This would reduce stress, and significantly enhance the confidence of these people.

The coercive power of the state is only viable solution for people stuck in the middle.

You may be thinking that we have something similar now, called Work for the Dole; but this programme is extremely limited, and is only available for those unemployed and on benefit for more than 12 months. People who are on disabilities are not entitled to this programme.

By asking these people to search for jobs on their own, we are condemning them to a life of continual under-employment.


You are on the right track. As HBS Guy mentions, a Job Guarantee is what is needed.

There is no reason we cannot have true full employment - we had it for several decades from WW2 as government policy. This was abandoned as neo-liberal thinking became dominant.

Note that I do think that reversing the current policy of deliberately creating and maintaining a pool of poverty and disadvantage at the bottom of society to act as a buffer against inflation (pretty much yesterdays boogeyman now) would be violently opposed by certain elements who understand that having zero involuntary unemployment empowers workers, both as individuals and as labour unions.

Hang on a minute: how did we create full employment?
User avatar
MilesAway
Jaguar
 
Posts: 1577
Joined: 27 Oct 2017, 12:01
spamone: Animal

Re: Civil Conscription

Postby MilesAway » 03 Feb 2018, 20:11

Lefty wrote:
Zero involuntary unemployment...?


What is that?


Exactly what it sounds like.

There have always been and will always be some individuals whose only desire is to drink piss, smoke dope and play video games - this is a fact. However, most unemployment is involuntary and is a product of the economic system.

Many of us seem to engage in a remarkable double-think regarding this situation - understanding the basic logic that there are always more people needing a job than there are jobs available yet simultaneously believing the neo-liberal lie that unemployment typically a voluntarily chosen state. We have been continuously conditioned by propaganda over the past 40 or so years to believe this fiction.

So, in the years that fought for ‘frugal comfort’ what was the employmemt regime then?
User avatar
MilesAway
Jaguar
 
Posts: 1577
Joined: 27 Oct 2017, 12:01
spamone: Animal

Re: Civil Conscription

Postby MilesAway » 03 Feb 2018, 20:14

johnsmith wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:Government entrance exam. Wish they had those now.


the process was outsourced to private industry

now its 'who you know'

Dinosaurs with feminazi sympathisers,... or something stupid like that :beer :bgrin :bgrin :bike :bike :bike

I dunno,.. I’m just getting started gimme a break :jump :yellow :yellow :yellow :bike :bgrin
User avatar
MilesAway
Jaguar
 
Posts: 1577
Joined: 27 Oct 2017, 12:01
spamone: Animal

Re: Civil Conscription

Postby pinkeye » 04 Feb 2018, 00:13

Lefty wrote:
pinkeye wrote:Civil Conscription.? What fucking century do you live in.?


It probably could be termed differently - that name makes it sound a bit like forced military service.

As long as we have involuntary unemployment/under-employment then we have a humanitarian problem (from the point of view of those who care at least). In our capitalist market economy, very rarely does the private sector desire to utilise all the willing available labour. It is governments responsability to step into the breach and act as employer of last resort to ensure that our society is not simply discarding human beings because the economic system cannot use them.

Government did this for decades under Keynesian economic management but then reneged as neo-liberalism became the new rage.

Having created a pool of unemployment, it then set about re-framing our understanding of the situation, portraying unemployment caused by demand deficiency as a voluntary choice exercised by the individual. This mass-deceit has been outstandingly successful, hoodwinking us into despising the victims and allowing our policy makers to continue to ignore their responsabilities.



I think I agree. I need to consider it more fully however. I could only think you meant disabled people, who are involuntarily unemployed. I can see the wider idea you refer to. Indeed I agree our govts have created an under-class of folk and sadly this too often crosses into criminal territory. We have indeed created our own demons. As USUAL. !!
sleeping is good for you
User avatar
pinkeye
Jaguar
 
Posts: 2157
Joined: 01 Oct 2017, 21:59
spamone: Animal

Re: Civil Conscription

Postby pinkeye » 04 Feb 2018, 00:23

Lefty wrote:
Zero involuntary unemployment...?


What is that?


Exactly what it sounds like.

There have always been and will always be some individuals whose only desire is to drink piss, smoke dope and play video games - this is a fact. However, most unemployment is involuntary and is a product of the economic system.

Many of us seem to engage in a remarkable double-think regarding this situation - understanding the basic logic that there are always more people needing a job than there are jobs available yet simultaneously believing the neo-liberal lie that unemployment typically a voluntarily chosen state. We have been continuously conditioned by propaganda over the past 40 or so years to believe this fiction.


OOH yes. So correct there......................... a pool of cheap labour, and ..... They'd serve as cannon fodder, in another time.
Of course, these days we are looking at jobs lost to mechanization. Umm hmm hmm robotics etc It will become harder and harder to maintain the lie when the people displaced come more and more onto the market. NOT THEIR FAULT . Whatever happened before, we are on the cusp of enormous change in the workplace.

The government will be forced to deal with this matter eventually, won't they?. :tweed
sleeping is good for you
User avatar
pinkeye
Jaguar
 
Posts: 2157
Joined: 01 Oct 2017, 21:59
spamone: Animal

Re: Civil Conscription

Postby pinkeye » 04 Feb 2018, 00:43

Lefty wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:The whole process of looking for work by using conventional means, such as: cover letter, CV, and/or selection criteria, belong in the past. These processes were applicable for the post-war generation; but not for today. Today, people are more complex, and have unique needs. Young people are educated, but are not skilled to deal with the real-world job market. And what about people who have disabilities, such as mental health issues who might be educated but cannot complete adequately in the job market? What happens when the 'old' way of applying for a job becomes too stressful or not longer useful for such people? At the moment, you either have be on either end of the spectrum: - either a tradie or a doctor; if you're somewhere in the middle, then you're stuck there. What do we do about these people stuck in the middle? Educated, but those who cannot fit into either extreme.

What alternatives are there?

The only viable alternative in my view is civil conscription. The job-seeker gets a call from a government department asking them to rock up on Monday for their new job. No Cover Letter, no Resume, no application process. Young people are conscripted into the public service and given a job. This would reduce stress, and significantly enhance the confidence of these people.

The coercive power of the state is only viable solution for people stuck in the middle.

You may be thinking that we have something similar now, called Work for the Dole; but this programme is extremely limited, and is only available for those unemployed and on benefit for more than 12 months. People who are on disabilities are not entitled to this programme.

By asking these people to search for jobs on their own, we are condemning them to a life of continual under-employment.




Hi-lighted above is another interesting comment.
I again cannot really say this is a bad option, theoretically.. The Public Service ( :roll )) as it used to be called was a GOOD JOB to get back in my day. It was a 'last resort' for those of us smart enough to pass the tests.


The MAJOR problem I see with the idea today is basically... the times have and are, changing. Much of the gruntwork has long disappeared, and will continue to do so. Especially in light of the relevant Ministers needing to CUT CUT CUT. SEE? The government knows about all this obviously, hence the cuts. But it isn't willing to do anything much about it

.The best thing the govt could do is totally commit to NEW technology, especially renewable energy generation. This is such a crucial issue, and yet the govt is a slug... or even a worm, reluctant to leave its comfy spot. It doesn't WANT to be dragged out of its lair and made to see the sun.
sleeping is good for you
User avatar
pinkeye
Jaguar
 
Posts: 2157
Joined: 01 Oct 2017, 21:59
spamone: Animal

Re: Civil Conscription

Postby BigOl64 » 04 Feb 2018, 07:48

CaesarAugustus wrote:The whole process of looking for work by using conventional means, such as: cover letter, CV, and/or selection criteria, belong in the past. These processes were applicable for the post-war generation; but not for today. Today, people are more complex, and have unique needs. Young people are educated, but are not skilled to deal with the real-world job market. And what about people who have disabilities, such as mental health issues who might be educated but cannot complete adequately in the job market? What happens when the 'old' way of applying for a job becomes too stressful or not longer useful for such people? At the moment, you either have be on either end of the spectrum: - either a tradie or a doctor; if you're somewhere in the middle, then you're stuck there. What do we do about these people stuck in the middle? Educated, but those who cannot fit into either extreme.

What alternatives are there?

The only viable alternative in my view is civil conscription. The job-seeker gets a call from a government department asking them to rock up on Monday for their new job. No Cover Letter, no Resume, no application process. Young people are conscripted into the public service and given a job. This would reduce stress, and significantly enhance the confidence of these people.

The coercive power of the state is only viable solution for people stuck in the middle.

You may be thinking that we have something similar now, called Work for the Dole; but this programme is extremely limited, and is only available for those unemployed and on benefit for more than 12 months. People who are on disabilities are not entitled to this programme.

By asking these people to search for jobs on their own, we are condemning them to a life of continual under-employment.




So 500 000 dole bludgers costing over $100 000 per year at least to sit at some desk doing fuck all in some equally useless government department.


And who exactly is footing the bill on this $50 billion per year stroke of genius?


And I have even factored in the cost of the tens of thousands of fucken paid baby sitters needed to manged these people.


Yeah fucken great plan.
User avatar
BigOl64
Pitbull terrier
 
Posts: 352
Joined: 29 Sep 2017, 11:35
spamone: Animal

Re: Civil Conscription

Postby Lefty » 04 Feb 2018, 07:51

So, in the years that fought for ‘frugal comfort’ what was the employmemt regime then?


Not sure exactly which time period you refer to but here is Australia's unemployment rate from 1900 to almost the present day. You'll note the huge spike in unemployment in the first half of the chart - that is the Great Depression.

You'll further note the period right in the middle of the chart several decades long, where the unemployment rate hovered roughly around 2% - these are the years spanned by the full employment policy.

An unemployment rate of around 2% is termed "frictional unemployment" and represents mostly workers who are moving between jobs when the survey was taken. Most of those unemployed on that day would have found employment within a few weeks. So that level of unemployment is for all intents and purposes, effectively zero.

Note yet again the sudden, sharp and permanent rise in the unemployment rate (above frictional) in the later half of the 1970's - this is when the Fraser government (in which John Howard was the treasurer) abandoned the policy of full employment. The rate has wavered up and down since (and the lower rate of today is understated by the fact that we now have much higher underemployment than previously existed) but has never returned to the lows of the full employment policy era. And never will for any sustained length of time until something resembling the policy is re-instated.


Image

Robert Menzies whose prime ministership spanned those years actually railed against the full employment policy, which had been implemented by the Curtain Labor government. He was very clear that he did not want everybody who needed a job to be able to find one because it made it more difficult for his mates in business to discipline their workforces by threatening them with unemployment...

the situation becomes radically altered when the employee can say "if you will not employ me then there is always somebody else who will"


But as much as he despised a society with virtually no involuntary unemployment because it significantly empowered labour unions, he just wasn't quite politically game enough to actually do away with the policy he had inherited. That would have to wait until the GG stood down Whitlam and installed the Fraser government.

So after a very successful run of all but eliminating the scourge of unemployment, we now live in a society where unemployment has gone from being a policy target - as close as possible to 0% - to a policy tool: the creation of a permanent pool of unemployment in order to discipline inflation (and the subsequent re-defining of what "full employment" actually means in order to make that aim sound less offensive to Joe Public).

There's nothing stopping us from once again virtually eliminating unemployment - all that is needed is the political will to overturn the established neo-liberal orthodoxy.
User avatar
Lefty
Bengal Tiger
 
Posts: 16583
Joined: 15 Nov 2009, 10:34

Re: Civil Conscription

Postby Lefty » 04 Feb 2018, 08:29

BigOl64 wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:The whole process of looking for work by using conventional means, such as: cover letter, CV, and/or selection criteria, belong in the past. These processes were applicable for the post-war generation; but not for today. Today, people are more complex, and have unique needs. Young people are educated, but are not skilled to deal with the real-world job market. And what about people who have disabilities, such as mental health issues who might be educated but cannot complete adequately in the job market? What happens when the 'old' way of applying for a job becomes too stressful or not longer useful for such people? At the moment, you either have be on either end of the spectrum: - either a tradie or a doctor; if you're somewhere in the middle, then you're stuck there. What do we do about these people stuck in the middle? Educated, but those who cannot fit into either extreme.

What alternatives are there?

The only viable alternative in my view is civil conscription. The job-seeker gets a call from a government department asking them to rock up on Monday for their new job. No Cover Letter, no Resume, no application process. Young people are conscripted into the public service and given a job. This would reduce stress, and significantly enhance the confidence of these people.

The coercive power of the state is only viable solution for people stuck in the middle.

You may be thinking that we have something similar now, called Work for the Dole; but this programme is extremely limited, and is only available for those unemployed and on benefit for more than 12 months. People who are on disabilities are not entitled to this programme.

By asking these people to search for jobs on their own, we are condemning them to a life of continual under-employment.




So 500 000 dole bludgers costing over $100 000 per year at least to sit at some desk doing fuck all in some equally useless government department.


And who exactly is footing the bill on this $50 billion per year stroke of genius?


And I have even factored in the cost of the tens of thousands of fucken paid baby sitters needed to manged these people.


Yeah fucken great plan.


And where are the unemployed right now? That's right - already in the public sector being paid a poverty-level wage to do nothing. Or perhaps we'll just cut them off entirely and wait for the wave crime as people go around smashing shop windows looking for something to eat. I doubt you've considered that " just hire more cops to blow the bludging cunts fucking heads off!!!!!" will probably cost more than simply creating meaningful employment for them to go to, to say nothing of the disruption.

Your quote of $100 000 for low-skilled positions simply because they may be in the public sector is a gross exaggeration. I seem to recall you saying you currently work on LNG. Tell me, how much do you get paid to work on gas projects that are being used to rape the arse off this country instead of adding to it's prosperity?

You don;t seriously believe that government does not already foot the bill for "tens of thousands of fucking paid baby sitters" do you? Do you understand what the job search network is? It's a giant privatised parasite that sucks vast sums of public money for the "useful" service of basically churning the unemployment queue over and over.

As usual, you just open your gob and spray bile without more than the shallowest understanding of the actual situation. People in comas do more active thinking than you.How about you come back when you've actually grown a brain.
User avatar
Lefty
Bengal Tiger
 
Posts: 16583
Joined: 15 Nov 2009, 10:34

Re: Civil Conscription

Postby BigOl64 » 04 Feb 2018, 09:07

Lefty wrote:
BigOl64 wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:The whole process of looking for work by using conventional means, such as: cover letter, CV, and/or selection criteria, belong in the past. These processes were applicable for the post-war generation; but not for today. Today, people are more complex, and have unique needs. Young people are educated, but are not skilled to deal with the real-world job market. And what about people who have disabilities, such as mental health issues who might be educated but cannot complete adequately in the job market? What happens when the 'old' way of applying for a job becomes too stressful or not longer useful for such people? At the moment, you either have be on either end of the spectrum: - either a tradie or a doctor; if you're somewhere in the middle, then you're stuck there. What do we do about these people stuck in the middle? Educated, but those who cannot fit into either extreme.

What alternatives are there?

The only viable alternative in my view is civil conscription. The job-seeker gets a call from a government department asking them to rock up on Monday for their new job. No Cover Letter, no Resume, no application process. Young people are conscripted into the public service and given a job. This would reduce stress, and significantly enhance the confidence of these people.

The coercive power of the state is only viable solution for people stuck in the middle.

You may be thinking that we have something similar now, called Work for the Dole; but this programme is extremely limited, and is only available for those unemployed and on benefit for more than 12 months. People who are on disabilities are not entitled to this programme.

By asking these people to search for jobs on their own, we are condemning them to a life of continual under-employment.




So 500 000 dole bludgers costing over $100 000 per year at least to sit at some desk doing fuck all in some equally useless government department.


And who exactly is footing the bill on this $50 billion per year stroke of genius?


And I have even factored in the cost of the tens of thousands of fucken paid baby sitters needed to manged these people.


Yeah fucken great plan.


And where are the unemployed right now? That's right - already in the public sector being paid a poverty-level wage to do nothing. Or perhaps we'll just cut them off entirely and wait for the wave crime as people go around smashing shop windows looking for something to eat. I doubt you've considered that " just hire more cops to blow the bludging cunts fucking heads off!!!!!" will probably cost more than simply creating meaningful employment for them to go to, to say nothing of the disruption.

Your quote of $100 000 for low-skilled positions simply because they may be in the public sector is a gross exaggeration. I seem to recall you saying you currently work on LNG. Tell me, how much do you get paid to work on gas projects that are being used to rape the arse off this country instead of adding to it's prosperity?

You don;t seriously believe that government does not already foot the bill for "tens of thousands of fucking paid baby sitters" do you? Do you understand what the job search network is? It's a giant privatised parasite that sucks vast sums of public money for the "useful" service of basically churning the unemployment queue over and over.

As usual, you just open your gob and spray bile without more than the shallowest understanding of the actual situation. People in comas do more active thinking than you.How about you come back when you've actually grown a brain.



That was a conservative estimate of cost, not salary genius.


Baby sitting someone at home require vastly less people than baby sitting some one in a workplace. Therefore vastly less costs


It's like you yourself have never had a job and are clueless to what happens in a workplace. But you know prolly know everything there is to know about fucken welfare, don't you?


As for my job yep still making a motsa, thanks for asking, prolly keeping you and your lefty free loading mates in welfare payments for a few years now.
User avatar
BigOl64
Pitbull terrier
 
Posts: 352
Joined: 29 Sep 2017, 11:35
spamone: Animal

Re: Civil Conscription

Postby mothra » 04 Feb 2018, 09:17

BigOl64 wrote:

That was a conservative estimate of cost, not salary genius.


Baby sitting someone at home require vastly less people than baby sitting some one in a workplace. Therefore vastly less costs


It's like you yourself have never had a job and are clueless to what happens in a workplace. But you know prolly know everything there is to know about fucken welfare, don't you?


As for my job yep still making a motsa, thanks for asking, prolly keeping you and your lefty free loading mates in welfare payments for a few years now.



You specialise in absolutely no idea at all, don't you.
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5394
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Civil Conscription

Postby Lefty » 04 Feb 2018, 10:09

That was a conservative estimate of cost, not salary genius.


Nice try :roll

Baby sitting someone at home require vastly less people than baby sitting some one in a workplace. Therefore vastly less costs


No, it requires a virtual army of heavily privately-owned but government-funded "unemployment industries" to manage the welfare dependent pool that arises as an outcome of governments choice to abandon employment creation when the private market fails to fully utilise all available labour - which is nearly always, to varying degrees depending on broad economic conditions.

And yet even after "baby sitting someone at home", you haven't solved the basic problem - they are still unemployed. Do you prefer that we continue to pay them a poverty-level wage to do nothing at home rather than pay them a basic, minimum living wage in order to engage in some productive work, however humble that may be?

Understand the choices here? Either pay them a government-funded, poverty-level allowance to do nothing while having them overseen by a largely privatised bureaucracy designed to cater for (and profit from) the results of a permanent pool of unemployment - which is what we do currently - or re-direct that spending to allow them to engage with society through paid employment at the minimum wage and conditions set down by law.

Both approaches cost public money but one puts people to work while the other entrenches unemployment - I'd like to hear a good argument as to why returning the nation to full employment is a bad idea (I don't consider "having zero unemployment would make unions stronger" to be a good argument against).

It's like you yourself have never had a job and are clueless to what happens in a workplace.


No, been fully employed for the past 21 years and on and off during the bad economic years before that.

But you know prolly know everything there is to know about fucken welfare, don't you?


Certainly not everything. I experienced it first-hand when I when I walked out of high school and straight into the 1990 recession - Australia's worst economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930's. I recall the endless training schemes to prepare us for jobs that did not exist at the time, jumping through hoops etc. I recall one such session where a professional woman hired by the government to motivate us admitted to the "class" : "Yes, these are economically hard times - there is currently one job available for every 400 applicants". She then went on to tell us - in the nicest possible terms - that unemployment was all down to our attitude, essentially all our own fault. The hypocrisy and double-think were astounding!!!! I now wonder how much public money she was being paid to regurgitate this tripe and why it was not used to just directly employ a couple of us.

Eventually, the economic cycle turned and permanent, full-time jobs became available (I had a string of temporary, casual jobs on and off over those years but nothing you could build a start on) . But I haven't forgotten and my experiences motivated me to understand the system (Professor Bill Mitchell is a great teacher). So I think I do have a basic understanding of what makes it tick.

As for my job yep still making a motsa,


Excellent! Just remember to spare a thought for the rest of Australia who are being harmed by that industry (but that isn't your fault so you're off the hook) and for those at the bottom of the heap who by design of the system are the sacrificial lambs for a very shitty politico-economic ideal.
User avatar
Lefty
Bengal Tiger
 
Posts: 16583
Joined: 15 Nov 2009, 10:34

Re: Civil Conscription

Postby Lefty » 04 Feb 2018, 10:14

mothra wrote:
BigOl64 wrote:

That was a conservative estimate of cost, not salary genius.


Baby sitting someone at home require vastly less people than baby sitting some one in a workplace. Therefore vastly less costs


It's like you yourself have never had a job and are clueless to what happens in a workplace. But you know prolly know everything there is to know about fucken welfare, don't you?


As for my job yep still making a motsa, thanks for asking, prolly keeping you and your lefty free loading mates in welfare payments for a few years now.



You specialise in absolutely no idea at all, don't you.


Good call :bgrin

But I do think there's a chance he can be saved if only he has the volition to educate himself a little on this subject.

Though I won't hold my breath.
User avatar
Lefty
Bengal Tiger
 
Posts: 16583
Joined: 15 Nov 2009, 10:34

PreviousNext

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest