Hey Craig Minns,
There's a bit more information about the governments current approach to welfare reform at the following link.
http://www.dss.gov.au/review-of-australias-welfare-system/welfare-reform

Hi Jardine K. Jardine,
Sorry about that use of 'we'.
I also dislike it when others use 'we' when promoting their ideas; often followed by the word 'need' as I did.
I don't want to take on the very traits I oppose.
You were right to point it out, pull me up and correct me.
Thank-you.

I wasn't actually making a case against capitalism.
An argument could be made that I'm trying to address its faults; strengthen it and make it more sustainable.
I'm just taking the pro's and con's of socialism and capitalism and trying to refine it to create a system that works better for everyone; and is fair and sustainable.
The new system I'm suggesting is optional.
I deliberately don't want a 'mutual obligation' or 'conditional' system.
I'm trying to create a foolproof system, and my tactic is to flip the script.
If you can't say 'I can't get a job' anymore, then by default, you have to 'choose to fail in life by deliberately doing nothing'.
People on unemployment benefits frequently run out of money.
All you have to do is provide them a means to earn it by paying them daily.
Supply and demand.
Then, you're inadvertently creating this culture of employment within the ranks of the unemployed.
I won't need to force anyone to do anything.

Its hard to really figure out the economic costs / benefits on such an idea, especially before you look at proposed jobs.

I said earlier that there are follow on benefits...
Like the family where the adults can't get work at all, leading to marriage breakdown, DV etc.
Or indigenous who now have job opportunities instead; and money; or the owner driver who loses a work contract and risks losing their truck; or the single mums who can't find a job with suitable hours while they have parenting responsibilities; or the high school kids who want work after school work.

[cont]
Another thing I wanted to say about my idea is that in the history of human beings, only now with the use of modern personal computers such as mobile smart phones, tablets and apps would the logistics of implementing such an idea as 'socialist base-level jobs' even be possible.
The online system might be:
- Logging on; Looking for a job and project in your locality (GPS Smartphone) with your available skills; Checking the job tasks; Confirming; And then going to the job; Paid daily after shift and Training credits earned for new skills.
Each idea creates a new problem though.
This idea needs a few hundred thousand new potential jobs that do not compete with; but instead help contribute towards- the existing jobs market.
My idea for jobs surrounds a massive new infrastructure project.

Armchair Critic...
Realistically, we need to change the existing world, to one which does not add harm to the poor.
There has been some progress, where removal of vagrancy laws has eased the pressure on prisons.
I like your observation of the inevitability of no job, leading sooner or later to no money.
It is that next step in the process of escalating poverty, which needs to be softened.
I personally hold no hope at all, any intelligent and caring changes will be implimented by Government policy, that will assist job seekers in actually finding a real job: but nice to see someone giving personal energy to solving it!

JKJ,
there are more ways to do capitalism than Misean irrationality.

http://oecdobserver.org/news/archivestory.php/aid/345/Which_model_of_capitalism_.html

AC,
I think those ideas have a lot to recommend them, the problem is to create a demand for such labour. I'm not sure how to go about that, do you have any ideas?

CM

The article distinguishes the different "kinds of capitalism" it alleges by different kinds of government intervention. You haven't understood the discusion, have you?

The irrationality of a Misesian approach consists of what exactly? You haven't specified, and when challenged, have merely repeated a circularity. The irrationality is all your own.

AM
I'm all for optional approaches.

DD
Where did you get the idea that government has any kind of presumptive competence at putting job-seekers and employers into contact?

If those who have a direct interest in it can't do it, why would a government bureaucracy, of all things, be any better?

And where do you think they're getting the money from?

Sam
Hurry up.

JKJ,
Was there a discussion going on? When?

In my last post I was merely altruistically sharing an interesting article on some different models of capitalism, since you seemed to be struggling with the concept. You've possibly heard of altruism, it's the idea that people can do something for someone else just to be nice, even if the person they're helping hasn't done anything to earn it and even if they don't expect to receive any reward.

You remain confused about the our roles in this discussion: you make assertions, I may or may not read them but if I do and if there's something in those assertions which is wrong and I can be bothered to do so I tell you, then you work out why and correct yourself, or not, it's up to you.

You see, I'm not interested in trying to convince you of anything. I understand that you are passionate about your religion and I'm happy for you.