Romany,

'starts off their working life with a huge debt hanging over their head and compulsory repayments taken from their earnings.'
Actually you have to be earning a lot more than the minimum wage to start paying any of it off. Ever.

Ah Col,

A voice of reason you are. Such anger you generate from the socialists. I used to be pretty left wing, (in fact I still even think that private schools should get no government assistance and I much prefer government run utilities rather than government gifted monopolies in the private sector), but I grew up.

From my observations in life, left wing people think all the worlds problems would be solved, and everyone would behave if they were just given a hug. The flaw in this is that when a homicidal drugged up axe wielding maniac goes on a rampage, the lefties think he just had a bad childhood, and needs help. But when a rich businessman defrauds, pollutes, abuses his power, he is just the scum of the earth and needs to be locked up. The sympathy for human frailties from the left is reverse means tested. Not very 'inclusive' when it comes to people's backgrounds at all it seems are these lefties.

That and the fact that everyone who I meet who identifies with the left are lazy layabouts at work. Myself included.

On the topic, I agree with CJ though, 'One obvious reason to maintain a reasonable minimum wage is to provide an incentive for people to work for a living, rather than rely on welfare benefits.'

I also agree with, and are happy to pay for unemployment benefits and single parent benefits to those who don't think they have the strength to search for a better life through education, therapy, anti-depressants, or life philosophy. They can have their free ride, on me, because I am happy with my lot, and have money to spare. I'd rather prop them up so a few less will be banging on my door to steal my stuff.

Houellebecq “That and the fact that everyone who I meet who identifies with the left are lazy layabouts at work.”

We all make our choices, from my observation, such individuals exist more in the pampered environs of government (be it federal state or local) and less so in the commercial / private sector, where “performance accountability” actually matters.

No wonder government needs an ever increasing proportions of the national income, when it continues to support the bludgers instead of making performance appraisal a real test (school teachers are particularly good at avoiding such disciplines and hospitals just fudge the figures anyway, in Victoria).

So when the rotten bunch of rorters eventually take over the madhouse, the public re-elect a liberal government to push the parasites snouts out the public purse.

'One obvious reason to maintain a reasonable minimum wage is to provide an incentive for people to work for a living, rather than rely on welfare benefits.'

Then maybe the value of welfare benefits needs to be reviewed too….

Being selfemployed, I have gone through periods of “unemployment” sometimes extending across months. During these periods I am, generally, disqualified from receiving the “benefits” the left would seek to provide for the “unemployed” despite being an industrious taxpayer for most of the time.

“I also agree with, and are happy to pay for unemployment benefits and single parent benefits to those who don't think they have the strength to search for a better life through education, therapy, anti-depressants, or life philosophy.”

Your acceptance requires a massive “subjective judgment” to be made by those you would consider possible beneficiaries of your largesse.

For instance, we all get depressed from time to time, the difference is some choose to wallow in it whilst others resolve to fix it. So who is more “deserving” ?

Why has this debate come down to either the minimum wage must be set to 'mere existence' or set close to a life of luxury.

Not much commonsense in either. The minimum wage should be a living wage - to enable a hard working cleaner, waitress, retail assistant etal to live without fear of poverty, to be able to pay their bills and still put food on the table or pay a doctor's bill. Obviously luxury itmes will take a bit more time with careful saving.

Reason dictates the MW should provide an incentive to work and as such should increase in line with increases in the cost of living and in that scenario should sit reasonably above the dole.

It is all very well for those who aspire to more than the MW to sit in judgement of those other professions for which the MW is paid. But consider who will serve at tables, clean your offices or serve your loaf of bread down at the bakery?

The mistake with our eonomic thinking at times is we tend to talk only in terms of job creation when really our economy is based on provision of goods and services - some essential, some less so.

Then we create a value for those jobs based on some arbitrary and not-so-arbitary rules sometimes based on level of skill, education or hard physical work. Sometimes the rules appear disporportionate to 'value' depending on which benchmark we use which is why a player for the Sydney Swans or the Raiders might get more salary than a brick layer despite both being physically demanding.

The market is often used as an indicator of what value is placed on jobs - there are many indicators of value and they change over time depending on demand, popularity, niche and numbers.

To pretend that some jobs are more 'important' or should be looked on with disdain because they are not seen as aspirational is to use your own standards and value judgements to dictate how other people should live.

Col
One point - I am not sure you can argue that someone who is depressed make a choice to wallow in it. Surely the condition of being depressed means they may not have the means at their disposal to get out of it. Luckily I have never been in that position but it must be very difficult for those who lose this control over their lives.

Houlley
I am pretty much in agreement with your residual left thinking and have no time for rorters or shirkers but believe the safety net of welfare protects us all in various ways - mainly as insurance should we be subject to foul times (temporarily out of our control) and as important to national wellbeing - which from a selfish viewpoint benefits us all via reduced crime rates and offers a step up for the more disadvantaged to have a go.

I am not sure on which you base your belief that laziness is the domain of the left wing and that socialism is all about hugging. As someone who is slightly left of centre I have never been on the dole and have always been self-sufficient.

Touching on something Col said, I don't think it is the condition of being unemployed that serves in itself as a right to the dole if you have a stash of cash put aside as I have done throughout my life and have been lucky to earn more than the average wage.

Col man,

'For instance, we all get depressed from time to time, the difference is some choose to wallow in it whilst others resolve to fix it.'

Agreed. But it's your “subjective judgement” in measuring the tools people have been given to deal with such things. Even if you think everyone has the same capacity for courage, or self-confidence, or self awareness, or whatever, luck and health can come in to play.

So who is more “deserving” ?'

That's my point. I don't care who is more 'deserving'. If someone cant bring themselves (for WHATEVER reason, including life philosophy like I said) to bother trying to excel in something, or build retirement security or want a nice environment to live in, or to provide for a family, or just to want to be a good little consumer because they like the gadgets, I am infinitely happier than them in my book. I don't care about their morality, or whether they 'deserve' my tax dollars, that's on their head. I'll live a happy life regardless.

There's enough people who will always want to live a more fulfilling life with all the trappings, so no worries about who will pick up the tab.

What makes me wonder about people who are so worried about the people they see as layabouts, is whether they are secretly jealous of the Big Lebowski's of this world.

pelican,

Really, all my right wing friends are managers with a strong work ethic and are interested in their career. All my left wing friends are very fond of having sickies to watch the cricket and don't want any responsibility, surf the net all day at work, and hate wearing a tie and avoid it at all costs, and think career is a dirty word. Col, you'll be happy to know many of them work for the public service too!

I think right wing people have a strong inner parent, and left wing people have a strong inner child.

See Col has the parent in his head saying, pick yourself up, go out and get a job. Lots of people get depressed, get some medication or therapy and get on out there.

Now you say, oh, poor dear, depression's a terrible thing, I don't quite understand it but you just stay in bed today, it's probably all you're able to do. I wont judge you, come now, I'll give you a hug.

I still always wonder whether lefties ever think rich people get depressed, or that rich people deserve hugs too. And what if Dubya or The Rodent was really depressed or insecure and just needed a hug?

I think right leaning people assume all the pikeys deserve their lot and shouldn't get any help.

But lefties are just as bad with anyone who has happened to make something of themselves, or made a really successful company, made a mistake BECAUSE they have the responsibility and HAVE to make a decision that affects people. Something many left wingers have avoided their whole life.