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 > Article Comments > Getting young people into work > Comments

Getting young people into work : Comments

By David Leyonhjelm, published 8/8/2016

On the other hand, it is just 2.5% in Thailand, about 5% in Japan and 7% in Germany. The difference is not simply attributable to good luck.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Aiden,

You should read biology, particularly the part about food chains and sustainability and carrying capacity.

http://www.sustainablemeasures.com/node/33

If, as you say, immigration increases demand for workers (an implausible theory), then we will have to constantly increase the rate of immigration so as to create a demand for workers.

Of course, this leads to total overpopulation at some time.

The country hits a wall.

Not if, but when.
Posted by interactive, Monday, 8 August 2016 6:18:12 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
interactive,

"You should read biology, particularly the part about food chains and sustainability and carrying capacity."
I'm well aware of that, thanks.
You don't seem to realise that carrying capacity is not fixed, but is something we can increase.

"If, as you say, immigration increases demand for workers (an implausible theory), then we will have to constantly increase the rate of immigration so as to create a demand for workers."
That's a logical fallacy. I didn't say immigration was the only thing that increases the demand for workers.

Most jobs in Australia are to provide goods and services locally. The more people we have here, the more people need to do that – surely that part's not implausible?

Overall, immigration's effect on rates of employment is near neutral.

Spending is what really drives employment.
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 8 August 2016 6:43:15 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If we want to get serious about youth unemployment, stop paying them cash. Half the problem will be solved. It stands to reason that if a kid goes from zero income, or pocket money, to $250 per week, this would be like winning loto to some.

A percentage of their dole should be paid to rent where they live, as this may relive tax payer funded rent assistance. Another to say water, power etc, the rest distributed through a restricted debit card.

Once they find they cant waste the money, their attitudes will change.

As hasbeen has said before, three cans of beans a day and a tent, that will make them stand up and pay attention.

The other issue is educating people where there are no jobs. All that does is extends their school life.

Finally, a radical option would be to channel half of all super into infrastructure projects, with no exceptions.
Posted by rehctub, Monday, 8 August 2016 8:36:28 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
Hello David,
I have some ideas on how to tackle this problem.
Mine is in contrast to Aiden's ideas and provides a third option.

Aiden's 'shifting digits' approach, where my approach is a 'change the underlying system' approach.

I think the current system isn't fair, efficient, productive or sustainable.

Right now, 2 people fight for one job, which isn't bad because it promotes being skilled.
But the person who doesn't get the job, sits around and does nothing becoming a liability.
The government also pays job networks for their services, employers to provide jobs, job seekers to get and keep jobs... all dead money.
Why not just offer the person a real job, and give him double their dole?

Instead of being a $600+ fortnight liability you structure it so that the work they do (cost now doubled) actually amounts to a 'break-even' situation instead of a dead loss.

You create hundreds of thousands of jobs on things that save the government money.
New national infrastructure projects that create REAL employment opportunities..

I'm really curious to know if this could work.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7368

Person cant find work, stress on relationship and family.
Man buys truck and has contract. Company goes bust and risks losing truck while unemployed.
Indigenous person lives in low employment, bad infrastructure area.
Single mum looks to get back into the workforce but needs a job with suitable hours.

Don't give them money for nothing, give them an opportunity to get ahead.
Not a lash, but a carrot on a stick; not a punishment but an opportunity.
Combine the idea with modern technology.
Make it easy for people to succeed.
Create a culture of productivity within the 'unemployed' ranks.
Work and earn training credits.

Our system tries to give everybody a chance to make it to the top.
But there's no safety net for those that fall off the straight and narrow.
For them, it'd be better not spending 500k and 16yrs teaching them how to get ahead in the first place, but simply spending 2 weeks teaching them how 'NOT TO FAIL' overall in life.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Monday, 8 August 2016 9:59:00 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
[cont.]
One more thing.
I'm really curious about just how well you could teach someone either a task or a skill primarily via an app.
Simulation Training, All Components and Operation information (if equipment) and Safety Training.
And can we take this idea across to all aspects of education and training to massively reduce the costs of training people to become productive, for everything.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Monday, 8 August 2016 10:06:42 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
Armchair Critic,

I think your last point (Monday, 8 August 2016 10:06:42 PM) has great merit, as I think this 'simulator' training approach could be effectively applied to a great many potential employment opportunities.
I also think such training should be provided by a government agency charged with the responsibility to prepare the unemployed for constructive employment.
I also believe most strenuously that such training should include most, if not all, of those so-called 'training courses' being offered by fly-by-night private training operators who offer such courses as beautician or office-manager etc - which are being offered at no, or little, cost to the individual, as our extraordinarily generous government is footing the bill - on the understanding that some of the cost (ie exorbitance) may later be recouped by the government when the individual is earning more than $54,000 - ie if ever?

With all the hype our State and Federal governments spruik about their concern to provide adequate 'education' services, they collectively have been inordinately quick to abrogate their collective responsibility by 'farming-out' this most important responsibility to the private sector - and in a most irresponsible manner indeed.

Undoubtedly our governments will be counting this spurious expenditure (which is highly unlikely to produce any real 'productive' outcome, let alone any prospect of expenditure recoupment) as 'evidence' of their commitment to 'education'.
What a laugh.

Despite what some want to believe about how well-off Oz is financially and fiscally, I believe most strenuously that a recovery to budget surplus is 'one of the most pressing necessities of our time', and therefore, not only are wages-restructuring and jobs-growth/industry-development essential, but so is the reigning-in of superannuation concessions for the upper echelon, and possibly also some limitations to negative-gearing concessions.
(If Malcolm and Co have the vision - and the cojones.)

Good on Senator David Leyonhjelm for exhibiting some good common sense, and for having the intestinal fortitude to demonstrate the courage and depth of his convictions.
Posted by Saltpetre, Tuesday, 9 August 2016 2:15:08 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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