The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > The greens leader,. Why are we paying such a fool.

The greens leader,. Why are we paying such a fool.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All
1810: Who are these people saying they are working too hard and demanding a 10 hour working day. Next they'll be wanting Saturday afternoon off! So they can sit on the couch and get fat?

1860: Who are these people saying they are working too hard and demanding an 8 hour working day. Next they'll be wanting a five day working week! So they can sit on the couch and get fat?

1930: Who does Keynes think he is predicting the working week will come down to 15 hours? What a tosser. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/sep/01/economics

1950s: Who were those idiots who told me (at school then) that the working week would be 20 hours by 2000?

In 1950 the Associated Press insisted that the people reading their article about life in the year 2000 would be able to tell their children about a primitive era when Americans worked more than 20 hours a week. http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/the-late-great-american-promise-of-less-work-1561753129

"Itís a good bet, too, that by the end of the century many government plans now avoided as forms of socialism will be accepted as commonplace. Who in 1900 thought that by mid-century there would be government-regulated pensions and a work week limited to 40 hours? A minimum wage, child labor curbs and unemployment compensation? So tell your children not to be surprised if the year 2000 finds 35 or even a 20-hour work week fixed by law."

Question: did productivity improve or decline after the 10 hour and 8 hour days and the 40 hour week come in?
Posted by Cossomby, Thursday, 16 March 2017 2:12:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Equality of total regulation, raises its serpent head again.

How about de regulating the labour market altogether?

Let folk work for as little as they want, have a tiny government, low taxes and the actual community deal with a lot of stuff, that 'social services' now ineptly rule?

De-reg-ul-ate!

Otherwise known as freedom.
Posted by fool on hill, Thursday, 16 March 2017 9:06:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sadly I agree with everything that has been said in the previous comments. The fact is that we are going to run out of work as so many jobs go. Think of driverless cars and trucks, in fact ships and planes too. We can let people descend into poverty but that will bring the elites undone too. We need a plan!
My view would be prohibit immigration and see the population plummet as Japan is doing. This may be the answer and I would value others opinions here.
Posted by JBowyer, Thursday, 16 March 2017 9:26:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why are we paying such a fool?
Well maybe foolishness is just something that's getting around these days...

Why did we pay 17bln for 'The Flying Turd' F-35?
China has hacked and copied it (J31) and has developed radar capable of making it's stealth capabilities worthless; as well as the fact it has nearly 300 problems and won't be combat capable until 2020; unless there are further delays..

Regarding Jobs,
You'll all often hear me say there's Pro's and Cons to everything.
When I consider a topic I consider every potential possibility regarding that topic (that my life experience and knowledge is aware of) in order to 'refine a better and more efficient system'.
If someone else brings up a valid or reasonable argument I simply accept it and add it to my knowledge base.
An important thing to note is that it's also as if I deliberately go looking for instances to prove the original argument wrong, and to find its 'flaws'.
If I find a 'flaw','contradiction' or 'inconsistency' of any kind then I consider the plan or strategy hasn't been 'foolproofed' and we need to go back to the drawing board to include this 'inconsistency' in order to refine the system to make it 'foolproof'.
I don't know why I do it, I just do.

With 'Free Trade' the 'con' argument I might make is that we're selling the nation out and for the benefits of foreign slave wages.
If we support 'Free Trade', we're condoning those foreign slave wages and conditions, for short term benefit and at long term expense.

So the Jobs are going to go, and we're actually supporting it, whether we realise it or not.
It's a global interconnected world today; and that's just the way it is.

[Cont.]
Posted by Armchair Critic, Friday, 17 March 2017 10:59:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Cont.]
I tried to outline a radical jobs plan on this forum last year, but I didn't get a lot of feedback on whether people thought it would actually work.

My idea was a socialist base-level jobs program where unemployed people could double their dole working instead of doing nothing and where the value from that work would reduce the current overall cost to the government.
It's the idea of simply creating a 'job' instead of all the wasted money around unemployment initiatives.
To remove the 'I cant get a job' excuse, create a 'culture of employment within the ranks of the employed' and to also allow people in existing jobs looking for more hours to participate and supplement their existing incomes just like a second job.
The work would be 'doing things to help the government save money' on new and existing projects.
The larger job component would be massive national infrastructure projects.
There would be a focus a mass training and reducing the costs of it.
The 'backbone' to making this happen is a good quality 'App' that can 'help get skills' and then match 'skills earned' with 'shift vacancies' in your local area.
There would also be incentives and rewards to keep people motivated and on the path to a real job.
The massive infrastructure projects thus result in creating more job opportunities in the private sector.
I look at the way the system's built and I don't just see any other way of fixing or improving it.
And why should we settle for such and such percent unemployment?
Why should people capable of working and who want to work and get ahead be forced to sit idle?
Posted by Armchair Critic, Friday, 17 March 2017 10:59:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AC, we have a huge disadvantage to other nations when it comes to infrastructure projects, they being One, a very very small population per Sq km and too vastly spread out, and Two , everyone loves a great road, tunnel, high speed train, or bypass, but too many arc up about having to pay to use them. I guess that's the entitlement mentality kicking in.

The other huge problem we have is that far too many jobs are paid for with other workers taxes as less and less is being produced.

The bottom line is we as a nation have all but out priced ourselves and we are now seeing the results starting to really kick in. In short, we are headed for a serious jobs crisis and one I seriously doubt we can avoid without turning back the clock by decades and reintroducing more manual labour jobs, but I seriously doubt that will ever happen, especially if stupid suggestions like this one keep getting put forward.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 17 March 2017 2:30:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy