Killarney
And more government is the solution is it?

BTW who’s “we”?

Malcolcm
So if I don’t agree with you that means I support bayoneting babies?

Hmm. Not sure what you were trying to get at there, but I think we’ll have to file that under amazingly crappy arguments.

Also, if you had bothered to understand what you’re talking about, you would know that libertarianism is based on the non-aggression axiom, which is the principle that no-one has a right to initiate aggression against another. That’s what you’re denying by advocating “policy” i.e. forcing people to obey your policy proposal. Otherwise what you’re proposing would be optional and there would be no policy. (It’s also why you’re contradicting yourself.)

So you’ve got it precisely back to front. Not only is it a false misrepresentation of libertarianism to suggest that it’s incapable, as a moral philosophy, of identifying the moral wrong of initiating aggression against others – that is its entire foundation and objection to your policy proposal. Furthermore you are hoist with your own petard. It’s you who, by advocating the use of “policy” – i.e. initiating aggression – need to show how you distinguish the attacking people that you agree is immoral, from the attacking people that you are advocating.

Go ahead, let’s hear it. Suppose your policy is enacted and an employer refuses to obey? Answer this: at what stage short of actually shooting him do you renounce the use of violence to enforce the policy? (Obviously to defeat the policy anyone will just have to escalate resistance up to that point, and compliance will then become voluntary. Right?)

Now putting aside your attempt at a pathetic diversionary tactic, there are a number of fatal flaws to your argument. Each of the following is a stand-alone refutation.

Firstly, there is no way for you to know better than the employer who is the more suitable candidate for a job.

Secondly, there is also no way for you to know what age discrimination is justified in terms of what is needed to do the job, for example a physical incapacity, and what age discrimination is based on sheer blind prejudice.

Thirdly, even if you could know what is based on sheer blind prejudice, then why isn’t the solution for you to employ them all?

Fourthly if the purpose of the exercise is to stop government taxing young people to support old people, then the problem is being caused by the “government-knows-best” assumption twice over:
a) in government’s deciding that everyone is entitled to a free income for no other reason than turning 65, paid for by everyone else, which it can’t sustain, and
b) all the thousand imposts on business which make it more difficult to employ people in general and older people in particular.

So your answer to the stupidity and unfairness of the government-knows-best assumption is more of the same, and when the stupidity and unfairness of it is proved against you, you launch into histrionic fallacies about bayoneting babies, while simultaneously confusing and mistaking every single fact and principle in issue!

And this guy is actually advising the government on labour market strategy?

Okay Malcolm answer these questions are admit you can’t because you’re wrong:
a) at what stage short of actually shooting people do you renounce the use of violence to enforce the policy you advocate?
b) by what non-arbitrary criterion do you know better than the employer who is the best person for the job?
c) Why don’t you employ every single one of the older workers who, according to you, are being wrongly discriminated against in the market on the ground that, according to you, they represent a huge profit opportunity that everyone else is too prejudiced to recognise?

It’s you whose drivel defies objective reality.

Malcolm and Jardine are debating an issue that has seldom been debated so that's a positive but I believe there are simple solutions out there.
I have tried to convince consecutive governments that a simple program called Maturelink will educate the over 50 job seeker about the Intergenerational Issues being debated here and allow Boomers to move forward.
As an example, after one recent workshop on the Gold Coast, a participant thanked me for enlightening him to the Boomer Dilemma (living longer and not enough Super) so he used his own money to start a business and is now employing others. He was 63.
Maturelink is one idea on www.bonza.com.au and Bush Skills is another that would employ Boomers to teach skills as they travel Australia.
Practical ideas gentlemen that DEEWR and Joe Hockey have examined closely but didn't have the courage to support.

So there is going to be an increased in the elderly population. The suggestion of increasing retirement age, would appeal to some still in the workforce. Many are still physically fit and mentally alert to continue in their current occupation. (My dad was still working in the Dept of Fair Trade at 71, until secondary cancer stopped him).
On the other hand for many, mental or physical well being can start to deteriorate well before the mid-fifties.
So as this is yet another area that cannot be generalized, if the pension age is increased, 'those who can, can and those who cant, cant'.
Perhaps there are those who could happily manage working part-time.
(Kevin Andrews, Susan Ryan)?
How about become part of the 'ten year plan' for aged care. Being employed for say ten to 15 hours a week to spend time with residents in a Nursing Facility,(much needed) a bit of conversation and or comfort. Days when staff numbers are low ie: public holidays and week ends. One person to share a couple of days with around twenty residents, an average of 120 residents per facility, six new part-time staff. Win win situation.
Assist at a child care centre where most of the staff are young and may benefit, aswell as the little ones, from a Grand motherly figure.

Mid 2012 there were 550,000 on newstart, 50,000 were 55+. Guessing the remainder were employable 16 to 55 year olds. The only stats.. I can find for the present are- 3.5% 55+ and 11.8% youth receiving Newstart allowance.

Through the many many $millions being spent now, to find a long term solution for the aging population, (if they come up with 'incentive payments' to employers GGRRRR). Why not target the very large percentage of long term unemployed who arent 'real keen' to get a job ( and No. no incentive cash bonuses of thousands to stay employed for a year and so on) Keep it real.

continued...

The expensive studies by the Govt. revealed that thanks to the aging population, labour will fall from 65% to 60% by 2060. But during their extensive, expensive studies maybe it is possible that they realize the youth of today are the solution to the problem. With an average of around 500,000 on the dole,surely there are positions to be filled even for inexperienced. A compulsory form to be filled by all,stating their reasons for failure to find employment. There will be of course genuine ones but many fraudsters of varying degrees. And these will be the target..

Whichever way you look at it, and whether provision is made by private or public means, the actuarial demography dictates one inescapable premise. The basis and ideal must be that each person can provide for his own retirement, and then some.

The ‘and then some” is because, for whatever reason, not everyone is going to be able to meet the standard and ideal of providing for his own retirement. There will always be a need for some kind of provision for this latter category.

But the important point, and what the stupidity of the socialists keeps failing to apprehend, is that the whole population can’t fall into the exception rather than the rule. At some stage, the rubber has to hit the road. Someone has to be responsible and engage in productive activity. This does *not* include working for DEEWR calling for the expansion of government, encroachments on liberty, and restriction of productive activity; which is properly characterised as parasitic consumption, not production.

While the socialists claim that taxation and regulation are necessary for reasons of an ageing population, the same socialists also claim that nothing could be more important than all the other things they want to spend public [translation: stolen] money on, including industrial relations [translation: criminalising employment], occupational licensing [translation: guilds and monopolies], monetary policy [translation: parasitism], global warming [translation: pious fraud], indoctrinating children, first class air fares for bureaucrats, foreign junketing, and all the rest of it.

Sooner or later, you have to stop attacking and bleeding the productive class and understand that government is the main cause of the problem you’re trying to solve with more government, that government cannot fix it but can certainly make it worse.

For example the government steals 40 percent of the average workers' earnings through it's many taxes, mostly hidden, and then inflates away what's left. What effect do you think that might have on would-be retirees?

Stop calling for more policies! Anyone who cannot identify 10 ways that government is causing the problem, which should be abolished, is not competent to comment.