“Equality” is a nice sounding word, but it could easily be struck out of our vocabulary because, really, there is no such thing. The left is keen on the dream of equality because it reduces us all to easily controlled “grey” people, and introduces a mediocrity more suited to their own intellectual abilities. Who else but the Left could believe that wealth, health and happiness is something that can be “distributed” by politicians?

The author’s claim that: “These people are “stuck on the basement” not by choice but because they have no easy means of escape”, needs to be treated with caution. They have been “stuck” there only since the mid-1990’s, says the author - since the years of Coalition Governments, when all the figures show that ordinary people have never been better off! It is more likely that they HAVE made the choice to stay in the basement while workers have had to be imported and these bludgers, whom Fred Argy believes should be given special treatment, have adjusted to a lifestyle of unemployment, welfare and general skiving. Those who do work in low paid jobs invariably have poor school records and would rather blame the boss for not paying them enough, rather than doing something for themselves by gaining qualifications that would get them better jobs. And, let’s not forget the increasing number of people, young and old, who are addling their brains with alcohol and other drugs to the extent that they make no positive contribution to society.

There is no need for “ordinary Australians”, to get “fired up”, as Argy claims they do, on behalf of people like that.

Leigh, by starting, as you have, with the premise that poverty, low income and joblessness are all (or for the most part) self-inflicted or reflect personal choice, you neatly assume away the whole problem of unequal opportunity and the role of government in levelling opportunities.

But your premise is untenable. All the literature (see my discussion paper) points clearly to the role that poor or dysfunctional families play in shaping a person’s early development and the big impact which education, health and education inequalities can have on income mobility. And the international evidence shows that government intervention can effectively lift mobility: people do respond to incentives and a government hand up. This does not mean
interfering directly with free, competitive markets or heavily regulating labour markets. But it does require active social policies which address the market imperfections which are distorting the distribution of incomes.

Leigh, if you are concerned about welfare dependence you should also be supportive of measures which strike at the root causes of self-perpetuating disadvantage – the unequal starts in life and the unequal access to quality public services. Even Brough, Howard and Costello are beginning to recognise the problem, with measures to improve parental performance and to rebuild our social infrastructure.

Fred Argy

Fred... could you reduce your rather wordy article to the form of some conrete steps which we can more easily relate to and then respond to ?

Let me ask the question.

What... do you want ?

Please give a few points. (not paragraphs :)

Government should..... (fill in the blanks)

Your point about Governments weighing up the economic return from social welfare programs is noted. Personally, I feel a lot more could be achieved by a social framework of higher morality. Of course, I speak as a Christian so this call might not be everyones cuppa.
I know one thing though. Many people of low socio economic status drink and smoke and many gamble. Getting rid of those things would immediately give probably $100+ more a week in the pocket.

I feel most approaches like yours, are treating the symptom rather than the cause, and chasing the horse after it has bolted.
The problems of families caught in poverty traps can be overcome by individual renewal and a wider social transformation towards a more 'country' attitude of helping each other. Though the best example of this is found in Acts 2:44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."

Yes, it is a bit fraught with some danger if taken to the extreme, as some have done (Millerites) but in principle it is sound.

Even when a tax system seeks to address inequalities, it will probably only ever address the symptom, rather than the cause.

Placing God first in life, is like an open door to a future, individually and nationally.

Fred,

I totally agree that there is a correlation between a dysfunctional upbringing and success or otherwise in life. But, people can escape and make good; those who do, do so on their own without government charity.

If some can do it, most can do it. So, unless you deem those who don’t do it as morons, I find it difficult to accept your contention that my ‘chose not to’ premise is untenable.

The ones left behind have already wasted the opportunity of the same public education (with free books etc. if necessary) equally available to all Australians. And despite your Third World view of Australian facilities, they have the same right to make use of health, education and public services which we all have at our disposal.

We are talking about a burgeoning sub-culture now into a third generation of no-hopers who have never had a worker in the family. You could offer them any means of breaking the cycle you can think of, and they would not budge. We already have all of the people who were willing to train, learn and work. To give the kids in question a real chance in life, you would have to remove them from their parents before school age. There is no point in recognising the problem (dysfunctional parents) unless you get rid that of the problem.

As for my concern about welfare dependence, I assume that welfare payments would continue to flow for many generations to come, along with the cost (you don’t mention it) of your taxpayer funded schemes to help the un-helpable. Probably cheaper to leave things the way they are!

One suggestion to reduce the number of people growing up in "welfare dependent homes".

Treat the ability to earn an income and support yourself as a favourable factor in residency disputes. Not the sole deciding factor, just a factor to be considered when "the childs best interests" are determined.

Our current family law system is resulting in significant numbers of children unnecessarily having as their prime carer someone who is unable (or unwilling) to support themselves and their children.

We might find that a few more of those parents currently stuck in poverty found some opportunities that they can't see right now as a by product.

Leigh, good points although leaving things the way they are seems to be making the problem worse. I wonder if the author has considered the de-motivating impacts of a tax/benefits system that in some cases leaves middle income earners little better off than those living off the system (regardless of the cause).

I've often wondered how much my outgoings could be reduced if I had more time to grow more fruit and veges, shop around more, cycle more places, get rid of those train tickets (over $1,200 per annum), maybe live somewhere where housing was cheaper (with room for a bigger garden as a bonus) etc.

I'm not planning to drop out yet but one day I might just do the maths (after some bright spark finds a way to take a bit more from me to give to those who don't have much) and find that I might be better off with an easier job.

I agree that it will take money to fix the problem, what I'm not so sure of is that I want to give yet more for this. As they say "I already gave at the office".

R0bert

David’s asks: what exactly is the problem and what do I want to see done by governments? To reply in 350 words is hard. You should read the 100-page discussion paper but I will attempt a brief response.

The problem in a nutshell is that those starting their job careers in the bottom 50% do not have the same chance of moving into the top brackets as the top 50% and this is due less to differences in intelligence, ability, motivation and more to parental circumstances and inequalities of access to key employment-enhancing goods like health and education. .

Leigh doesn’t see it as a problem and wants to adopt a laissez faire approach. David accepts it is a problem but blames it all on lack of “morals”. I don’t see how this can explain more than a tiny bit of it.

I see it as a real societal problem and attribute a good part of it to the imperfections of markets and a policy response which relies too much on passive welfare and not enough on active social intervention by governments. I want governments to start addressing the root causes of inequality rather than go on doing what they are doing – i.e. compensating the losers from time to time through the tax/transfer system and in the process distorting incentives and adding to welfare dependence.

The active social intervention I advocate includes early intervention but much much more.
Fred Argy

Hi Fred

"I see it as a real societal problem and attribute a good part of it to the imperfections of markets and a policy response which relies too much on passive welfare and not enough on active social intervention by governments"

Seems to me that a good part of the solution would be to recognize gifted students from any socio economic background and reward and nourish them ? When I was at primary school, I (along with many others) received a scholarship for secondary, and I know it sure helped. It was not one of those 'outstanding achievement' type scholarships, but more of a 'above a certain level' type. I know my self esteem skyrocketed just to know that I was a part of that group.

I'm not sure Fred, whether your reference to such things as "health and educational" issues is a bit of camoflage for a 'socialist' approach across the board, but if not, then I emphasise the need to do 2 things

1/ Reward evidence of achievement
2/ Focus on a communal value system which will lift all to their best irrespective of whether they are outstanding or not.

The cream does rise to the top. Lets turn it into butter with policy.

There is a term we use in Christian Missiology "Redemption and Lift" to describe the social outcomes of conversion. When people are restored to God through Christ, they will usually put aside many aspects of their lives which are debilitating. This frees up income for 'lift', and explains why a considerable number of Christians gravitate to higher socio economic status without particularly trying.

We can never make 'policy' which specifically promotes Christian conversion. But a close inspection of true Christian "values" would reveal that they are the foundation of what you are seeking to achieve though secular policy.

In a nutshell "New people not just new policies, make great societies, "

Policy without the attitude will be reduced to 'whats in it for me'.

Noone denies people start unequal. But at some stage, someone has to make a decision to become more equal and do something about it themselves - send their kids to school, help them be the first one to go to university or whatever. Punitive-sounding moralism grates n a debate where people struggle to avoid giving offence, but there is a measure of truth to the assertion that in the end, for the majority of those who are unequal, they are the only reliable and sustainable engines of their own progress.

But is it necessary for those efforts to be supported? Absolutely. Should it be through early government-sponsored intervention? Not necessarily. Maybe there are much better ways to offer help, other than government. Just because government can do something and can afford to pay for it doesn't make it right or sensible, given longer term issues of morality, sustainability and the impact on the surrounding culture (ask Noel Pearson).

Why do we always construe these debates in such narrow binary terms - it's either the market/self-help or government/state action. What about the family, what about civil society and the rich tradition of voluntary association for shared purposes (mutuals, nonprofit organisations that offer education, health, training/skills etc)?

Generally, governments are the last group we should expect to do this work. They are too clumsy and distant to be able to make the subtle and demanding judgements that can only be made by those close enough to the action to discern the judicious mix of compassion, discipline and practical support from which sustainable progress out of poverty and disadvantage is likely to emerge. Governments can have a crack and remediating some of the larger structural issues if they can, but beyond that, it's a different game.

Contrarion, why is it either civil society or government? Why not both? Governments have the means and can act as catalyst.

Agree Freddy

We ALL have a part to play. Otherwise just what the .... are we paying politicians for?

(Oh, yeah their retirement funds).

Trickle down theory doesn't work - unless you enjoy being urinated on.

Fact is human beings are social creatures, much of what we do to help each other is unpaid, unacknowledged work. There are those who are successful and put their energies into helping those less able or fortunate.

Then there are those who look down on others from their pinnacles of success. They believe that all their fortune was due to themselves. While hard work does play a part in our success, accident or illness can happen to anyone. In other words bad things can and do happen to good people; we have no right to consider ourselves civilised if we continue to walk on those we consider 'beneath' us.

“There is strong evidence that Australians of low socio-economic background face formidable barriers to upward income mobility.”

I wonder who skipped school and did not bother to hand in homework?

I wonder what some were doing when others of us were studying 18 hours a day, 7 days a week in our early 20’s to gain the professional credentials which now earn some of us 6 digit incomes?

I wonder who tries to work the black economy for a few ill gained dollars, rather than pay tax and sleep peacefully?

Reality is this, you cannot protect people from their own lethargy, laziness or absence of foresight.

Pretending you can is the height of arrogance. Better to lead by example and climb to the heights of ones own potential than wallow in the “safety net of socialism”.
Better to risk and live than wonder what might ahve been from a position of incentiveless indifference.

Reading this pap makes me think there is a huge future in super absorbent napkins. Something to wipe up the crocodile tears and faux compassion which oozes from every line of this leftie diatribe which would promote mediocrity in place of personal responsibility.

Oh on a positive note. keep up the great posts Leigh and Robert. Some sense is needed and you two are promoting it

Col - charming as always.

Using your 'logic' I guess that Brant and Todd should've just dug themselves out of the Beaconsfield Mine?

;-)

I have no problems with aspirational development. I too paid for my years at college. However, I also believe in lending a hand to those who need it. We can both be independent and still be humane.

Perhaps I have had enough things go wrong in my own life to understand that while hard work pays off - the unexpected can always happen no matter how careful you are.

I am concerned, Col, that you seem to blame people simply for being less successful than you. Why is that? You must have needed a shoulder to cry on at some point in your life.

Like R0bert, I work to live not live to work. Perhaps I would've felt differently if circumstances had enabled me to follow my chosen profession. So I work on a contract basis - while the work is boring I am free to pursue my many interests which include volunteer work. I accept that I have a lower income as a result and I resent being sneered at by someone clearly wealthier than I simply because I care about the welfare of others.

Not everyone is as assertive and powerful as you Col, however, we all have a contribution to make.

Fred, you may say it's unfair that people can end up in disadvantaged situations through no fault of their own, and I absolutely agree with you, but how is it any fairer to take OTHERS for granted by laying the responsibility on them?

Enhancing "Social Relationships". Vern Hughes made this point with his comment on the article "Politic's and a Greener Future", also current on this forum. Please Read It.

In this context I believe we might consider the argument to be both political and economic whereby building "social relationships" could help bring focus back to; "Employment as a pathway to to Health" as in "Employment as a pathway to a Nations Sustainable Future".

Creating better culturally diverse pathways to employment I believe is key to building a successful nation of people - for now and the future. It may mean that we totally need to rethink the "idea" of work?

I feel Australia at present wastes much of its greatest and most innovative talent through cultural ignorance, by not making better use of its citizens, by negating the importance of intergating social, economic, political, cultural and ecological sustainable development policies that would help to engage people pro-actively in ground level activities of "capacity building".

We need to put a "human face" back into the commercial market equation. Capitalise on the "social capital" areas that help to glue people to networks through employment strategies based on micro-enterprise making, which target industry and trade through better community engagement, by localising the human resource priorities.

Good article Fred - I'll come back to this - it over the weekend.

Thank-You

Scout “I am concerned, Col, that you seem to blame people simply for being less successful than you. Why is that? You must have needed a shoulder to cry on at some point in your life.”

Concern yourself not, Scout.

I “blame” no one for anything. Why should I, there is no benefit to be gained for anyone from it.

That said, I neither accept that people who do little to maintain, let alone improve their lot in life, should be allowed to hold back those of us who have thought, planned and pursued, at out own expense (of time as much as money), to improve our circumstances because we see a work ethic as the “natural” way of being.

As for shoulders to cry on, there has been plenty of need for that at times but, ultimately, I prefer to provide the shoulder than use one (I suspect a bit of a “white knight” syndrome).

As for work to live. I am very uncompromising I work to live but I also expect to give back to what I do because it has been good to me, so my “work” is an integral part of who I am, rather than simply a separate source of money which funds my lifestyle. That said, like you I find consulting / contracting the more satisfying employment platform, rather than tie myself to the bronco bucking ride on the back of a monolithic management organisation.

Finally “Assertive and powerful” – thank you, such is available to all, we simply become how we expect to be treated.

Col

Thanks for your enlightening response. I wonder if you realize just how much you have revealed about your nature.

1. "I prefer to provide the shoulder than use one (I suspect a bit of a “white knight” syndrome)."

One thing that comes through very clearly in all your posts is you need to be in control. Now this can be in control of yourself, however the above statement reveals that you prefer to be in a position of power. One can be a 'white knight' because of circumstances or one can choose this position. Ayn Rand had some very interesting things to say about people who offer assistance to others. I know that she meant her observations to apply to the welfare workers but it applies to you also.

2."I neither accept that people who do little to maintain, let alone improve their lot in life, should be allowed to hold back those of us who have thought, planned and pursued,"

The people who do very little in life to improve their lot are in the minority. And just how do these bludgers hold us back anyway? They are small fry - I know this as I have worked in the welfare sector for over 20 years. The vast majority of people want autonomy and work towards that. However, bad luck, despite the best made plans can happen. Surely one of the reasons we have government is to ensure that those who do fall on bad times get a helping hand. I have had to use Centrelink payments and I am still struggling.

The reason I think you blame people for their misfortunes is when you state things like "faux compassion which oozes from every line of this leftie diatribe which would promote mediocrity in place of personal responsibility."

This is extremely judgemental. Definitely evidence of blame here.

To be continued....

Cont'd

3. "we simply become how we expect to be treated"

Or conversely we become how we are treated - as in give a dog a bad name....

Congratulations that you can live your life exactly how you want. Not everyone can. People make mistakes. People make mistakes or have circumstances that fulfill their own worst expectations. This is where doctors, psychologists - the healing professions are needed and (shock horror) welfare payments. Would you deny support to people like Stephen Hawking - he is very high maintenance but contributes a lot.

I just wish you could understand that what works for you doesn't necessarily work for others. As a woman, if I am merely assertive I am often (not always) taken for being either aggressive or even angry - and not just by men other women have very rigid ideas on how women 'should' behave - it is to their advantage if there are less women to compete with. That is just one example.

Interesting that from a self declared individualist you apply a one size fits all approach to humanity. We are social creatures, there are the individuals who forge ahead and create, there are those who like to follow and then there are those who believe in collaboration. The majority are just as deserving of respect as leaders and mavericks. And we need them - there is not enough room at the top for everyone, simple maths.

Finally, a lot is made of the cost of welfare. I would like to see some stats about the total $ spent in corporate subsidies (business welfare), the cost of corporate fraud and an analysis of the actual worth of CEO's to their companies. The CEO of the MacQuarie Bank earns $80,000 per day! If the bank can afford this then surely a liveable income for all low level employees should be well within a company's profit margins to pay.

I would be interested in your response Col

Cheers