Following on from the previous governments demonisation of those on welfare and its racist intervention in indigenous communities, the current Labor government is heading in the wrong direction with its shame and humiliate policies on income management and other discriminatory and harmful welfare reforms.

The current JobNetwork for the unemployed is an expensive failure that has only enriched the providers and done very little to help the jobless for the amount of taxpayers money it costs. This combined with the expansion necessary when single parents were added to the system has blown out welfare spending massively and led to the situation where many people think the country is awash with millions of layabouts living off the taxpayer teat. The numbers tell a different story.

I propose a way to reduce the cost, stop the denigration and hatred of the jobless and those on welfare, help the community and the jobless and improve our society just a little bit.

Close the job network of privitised employment agencies. Dont replace it. The jobless should have to do a minimum amount of hours on a community related project to receive their payment. Only one or two days a week to keep their hourly rate around the minimum wage. Not slavery of 40 hrs a week for $240 like the new Tory government in the UK is proposing. Just a fair amount of work for what they receive.

Jobs could range from building biketracks, parks, etc to helping the bushfire authorities, beach patrols with the surf lifesaving or helping the SES. Anything, as long as it assists or improves the community. Not private business or anything that will put existing workers out of a job.

It could be called a minimum job rather than the dole and would be available to anyone who dosent have or cant find a job.

The savings would be immense and the benefits to the community (and the unemployed themselves) of having the unemployed contribute rather than just take would be immeasurable.

Much better than the constant hate and divisiveness not to mention wasted dollars of the current mess.

mikk
That is a much better proposition all round. The two days per week could be supplemented with suitable training or skills programs as suits the candidate's abilities and goals.

The privatisation of unemployment in effect has led to the usual rorts from some of the private sector companies including claiming for 'placements' they never made following on from the welfare recipient's own efforts to find work. Too many different cases to go into here, but once you open the flood gates to outsourcing with fewer auditors on the ground to oversight, the costs skyrocket and for no legitimate or worthy end.

Just think insulation and similar problems arise in privatising repairs for government housing - over inflated costs and padding of quotes/bills.

When the government becomes a cash cow it morphs into the virtual money pit.

Your post highlights exactly the problem with keeping up appearances - the veneer of doing something rather than actually doing it.

Even worse, is many of these employment companies are foreign owned, so the profits are not even of benefit to the Australian community.

As I recall, the Government has already tried the 'work for the dole' schemes before haven't they?
When I was working in aged care, we were sent these unemployed people to 'volunteer' to help us with some basic jobs with the aged people.

These 'helpers' made it really obvious they didn't want to be there, and many of our staff consequently did not want them there!

This sort of scheme may work to some extent in metro areas where the unemployed could be accommodated in areas they are interested in, but there aren't enough 'community service areas' to go around for the unemployed in rural areas.

If these people aren't really interested in being a 'help' to the community, then they will be more of a hindrance.
I don't really know what the answer is, but I think giving them proper jobs would be better for their self esteem than community service type jobs they aren't interested in.

mikk while I do not see the demonetizing you talk of I have put this idea forward many times here in OLO.
Remember however we have near full employment.
If things do not go down hill this country will be importing 457 visa workers within a year ,more than ever.
Lets not confuse work shy, they exist, with true unemployed.
And the idea of two working days is not a good one.
Pay minimum wages for full weeks work allowing leave to find full time work.
The work can be found and recruiting of government local state federal could be from the best of these.
I find nothing wrong in getting social return on welfare.

One thing I would do is make the jobless find the work project themselves, the same as finding a job. It would also be up to them to attend and provide the proof they participated. Otherwise no payment.
They could even submit proposals for their own community improvement job if none were available to them locally. Even in rural areas there are plenty of things they could do that would improve their lives and improve their communities. They are getting payed anyway so anything productive they did would be a bonus over the current situation.
Get rid of the paternalistic, intrusive and expensive monkey tricks, work test and privacy invading reviews by the gestapo at centrelink. The savings would be huge.

As I recall, the Government has already tried the 'work for the dole' schemes before haven't they?

Mikk I will combine this with yours and see your call with......give the work for the dole people twice as much for the reasons of dignity and self-worth., or does your discern only revolve around your own lucky birth right?

$240 per two weeks! for what you have suggested, is just a plain insult.

BLUE

Deep Blue welcome and well said.
But as a trade unionist and Labor voter lets look deeper.
I set out my needs before in my view it will work.
NOTHING like work for the dole, no public servants involved.
Full pay for full work,basic wages so it is not considered by most as safe haven forever, once proved put the wages up.
All work to be of benefit to the country, mow lawns for disabled build tourist camp areas around the country free for a couple of nights only.
Clean trees out of rivers and creeks.
By natural attrition transfer government projects to this group.
Get a rule in place to get results from EVERY one,some will not work.
Good will good planning can make such a system work.
Do not ever forget, generations now have never held a job, not a lot but too many we must stop that.

Clean trees out of rivers and creeks.
By natural attrition transfer government projects to this group.
Belly,
Same meaning, different words. National Service !

Oh dear, the stench of noblesse oblige wafts through the air, as always when the undeserving poor are having their lives reshaped for them by 'those who know better'.

In such a wealthy community as ours, it hardly is credible to have long term, able bodied and minded, people out of work for long periods of time.

There must be a few structural reasons beyond them 'all being bludgers'.

"Just a fair amount of work for what they receive". Dear oh dear. What about a 'fair amount' for being unemployed in a society that cringes from planning and raises the 'free market' to exalted places?

High profits and low taxes are the return for 'dole bludgers'. Most of the nation loves that formula, and really only want to punish those who do not 'find a job'.

The church poor box lives still, through the monsters who dish out 'solutions', like Jenny Macklin in her increased invasion planning, and all those church people who enjoy running soup kitchens rather than educating the disempowered as to the root causes for their situation.

Building bike paths- with what, pray tell? "Start Monday and bring your own concrete"?

Assisting the SES- how? SES people are volunteers, who work during the day/night and train in their own time- who is to be there during the day to oversee these people?

Besides, was it Belly shading his government from the truth with claims of 'full employment'? There are many more people un- and under-employed who do not show up in the scam figures Gillard and Swan spruik.

As for 'national service', go to Hell with that idea please.

The neo-liberal ideology the ALP gifted us with during the Hawke era, rid us of a raft of jobs in return for increased profits and reduced costs for the benefit only of 'shareholders'.

The 'return' to the nation has yet to arrive.

Get off that high horse blue cross, before you fall off, & hurt yourself. You certainly don’t have much fact to hold you on up there.

If ever you get out from behind that wall of ideology, & look at the facts, you will see the public have got it mostly right. There is a very high number of work shy bludgers in our community.

I live in a near city country area, & perhaps we gathered a larger than average number of bludgers, when house prices were low, & rents were cheaper. I certainly hope so, as we have heaps of them, which I hope is not the norm elsewhere.

We have quite a large number of small, one or two man business who would love to expand a little, if they could find staff. They just can’t. They can get plenty who will do one day a week, for $150 cash in hand, but very few who will do a second day, & none who will come off the dole, & work full time.

At least a few times a month I find myself helping out one of these people, when they have a job that requires someone on the other side of something, for an hour or three. If they can’t get help it’s a matter of waiting for their wives to get home from a real job, only to start again. I’m happy to help, but it doesn’t say much for the local lay-abouts, collecting their sit down money, & sponging off these very people.

It works both ways. After my last heart attack, it was these blokes who were there, getting my pump up from the river, picking up my car from the hospital, & making sure my stock & pets had food & water. Of course you wouldn’t expect anything else from people who believe in earning their own living, & paying their own way

The only thing I saw 'demonized' was the aboriginal gangs feeding themselves on porn and booze, raping young girls, and fighting opposing gangs.

*THAT* is what was demonized.

The solution attempted by Howard was a neccessary 'intervention'.. you cannot fix such situations by "nudge" policy.

But one the basic law and order/moral issue has been at least been controlled.. MIKK's solution might ....'might'...work to a degree.

I doubt it though, because such tragically distorted and dehumanized people (involved in such activities) have probably no interest in doing any kind of 'work' as MIKK suggests.

The only real solution is personal renewal at the spiritual, social and moral levels.
ie... Salvation in Christ. I've seen it work in real life. The runs are on the board.

If you look at the post from TBC, it explains much.
From his lofty spot on the back of that long legged horse he declares there are no welfare bludgers, at all.
No family's third generation unemployed no free loaders just victims.
Doubt it mate.
I offered jobs, better pay than their fathers got in timber mills, to many who would rather surf.
Welfare reform, it just must happen.
I could go on a spending spree with my super, but am going to pay my way by using it as pension.
Middle class welfare is being paid to some on $150.000 a year, how do you regard that TBC?
I fight still for workers and the poor but hiding the truth helps no one.

Welfare reform is to come from the top down, you must lead by example, or cut the crap...

Belly.

Its good to see someone like yourself that takes interest in this blatant piggery some Australians bath in. ( 150.00 per year ) shock!

Its true that some con the system ) As the unemployment rate falls, a growing proportion of the case loads of Job Network (JN) Providers are made up of the very long term unemployed (VLTU). These job seekers are arguably the most difficult to place into employment; facing a multitude of barriers which have become compounded during their period of unemployment.

According to the literature, there is a complex interaction of vocational and non-vocational barriers that impact on VLTU job seekers. Typically these include mental health problems, physical health problems, drug and alcohol abuse, family breakdown, homelessness and social isolation (see, for example Perkins 2005:2). In theory, many of these job seekers are referred into programs specifically aimed at addressing these “non vocational barriers” – like the Personal Support Programme. In practice, because numbers on these programs are limited, or because issues may not be diagnosed/disclosed, many of these harder to place people end up on Job Network caseloads. Certainly anecdotal evidence from across our sector is that the Job Network caseload today includes a high proportion of people with multiple, complex personal issues that impact on their capacity to find or keep work.

See belly, these long-term unemployed cant be put back in the system. What they really should be called, is the victims of society.

They never had a chance and never will.........just ask Tony Abbot.

BLUE

Paid parental leave, on the public purse. Shouldn't it be more like super.

Also belly, the dignity and self-worth I mentioned can only shorten the disparity between the haves and have nots and I think that the amount of money spent by the Government on just the elections its self, ( well! we know how much of that just goes down the drain, don't we ) will help cleaning up Australia and use that to pay double the fort-nightly payments per worker. ( 3 to 6 months work per person and if they spend it unwisely, then it be on their heads, and the Government slips out of the noose ) perfect for all I thinks.

Now that sounds like the FAIR GO AUSTRALIA I've always heard of.

But like in the last post, some will just never be in position for the reasons out-lined.

BLUE

Deep Blue I like your posts, we will clash, it happens, but let me inform you about me.
I finished work three weeks and one day ago.
Had the great honor to be a union official in this country's best union.
And that is my lifetime achievement my proudest thing.
I am chuffed, proud till death I went out as I started fighting an unfair unconnected boss, my own.
16 kids that is how many my parents had, 8 of us grew up.
I will always defend the poor, my childhood was a hungry one.
13 years old was my first full time job, you worked or starved then.
Sorry yes I know very well, some poor beggars are unable ever to find a job.
BUT it is true, drug crops are grown and houses broken in to by some who both get social welfare and never intend to work.
In an other thread I throw rocks at wasted government money funding public servants destroying whole business.
A employment agency, the safety net that replaces welfare,can work but it must pay real wages and not challenge existing jobs.
Keep public servants away from it and get benefits not breed non performers.

Deep-Blue,
I'd like to see a system where the mikks in our midst have to prove their worth before getting handed taxpayers' money.

What about a test by the mikk's in our midst that the money that's taken from their pay as tax is being used for worthwhile purposes and not being wasted?

R0bert

Deep-Blue,
I'd like to see a system where the mikks in our midst have to prove their worth before getting handed taxpayers' money.
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 7:31:26 AM

Individual

Mikks ideas are just what they are..Idea's.......which is exactly what the OLO stands for, but will cost more to change than most people think. But from upper level belief, that what you have to do to get the foot in the door so to speak.

National service would be my first thought. Its cost free, the out comes stand alone on there own, and in stead of not having rap dancers running the future country, we will have real man and women that don't smell or look like Americans black want-to-be's.

You fail at school.........auto 4 years.

If you join all the dots in my post history, you will find the mind profile.
I wrote this as one part.

"Now that's quite true, but the thing they don't want anyone to know is, that if you save the poor, all the professionals and religious bodies would be high and dry. That means, DOC's , Centrelink , Law and court personal , Goals , ETC...and all of what the higher skilled people need as a life-line themselves. The high to the low food chain we all enjoy, would just disappear."

Rich-middle-and poor.

Mate, it all makes money.

There not going to change anything.

Sorry.

BLU

A riveting post mikk, the range of views is exhilarating and thought provoking and ironically,
(in the real world), I was telling my son (a long term unemployed person)
that he was giving the people at the employment agency a reason to get up in the morning.They had a job servicing his on going unemployment.
They themselves have done nothing effective to encourage or advocate his employment except given him the funding they have too and he finds himself with a resume that never proceeds to an interview. It's a paradigm and a huge waste of public money. Should never have been privatised.

But Australia is a paradox today post Howard. When recently seeking employment options
I thought of selling real estate, the package was $920 a fortnight gross retainer. Of course a commission structure, clearly that did not ad up against the opportunity to sell, that paid back the retainer if you sold something. The guy said" of course under the Labor Govt, we can only force you to work 38 hrs, but realistically you would have to work 60 hrs to make any money". Honest guy, but why would you do it?.

Isn't there something fundamentally wrong here, with the way we even approach the employer employee relationship?. Are the unemployed more trapped than idle?. As are some who are employed.

I think they are, and any real opportunity to work for due reward would bring a smile to the faces of most of them.

National Service has a punitive connotation and may not be the career choice of many under utilised citizens as is the choice for those of us who can enjoy a contribution to society. To introduce this would be clearly discriminatory

Interesting thoughts. thankyou all for contributing.

I dont support "national service" type ideas for the unemployed. Maybe for young people if it was designed to give them life experience and exposure to different people and experiences than what they would get at home. If it was just regimented marching up and down and shooting things then no. The unemployed could be aged anywhere up to 65. Hardly suitable for "national service".

The whole point of my idea was to reduce the costs, stop the spying and suspicion from centrelink and provide something back to the community rather than just take. The important point in my view is that to get paid all you have to do is not have a job and do your allotted couple of days community work. No looking for work test, no monkey tricks and no paternalistic job network pushing you around pointlessly. Anyone could quit their job and join the ranks of the "unemployed" and get payed as long as they do their required community work. Then we would see how "cushy" people really think being unemployed is. There would also be less scope for the likes of Mrabbot, the parrot and individual et al being able to denigrate and slander those who for whatever reason cant get someone to employ them.

I dont support "national service" type ideas for the unemployed.
mikk,
I truly believe that if National Service were implemented we wouldn't have the many unemployed in the first place. In my organisation they're sending former CDEP now CA people to do courses which qualify them to get employment & therefore award wages. The problem is that those who dreamed up this system didn't dream enough to realise that these qualified people have no practical aptitude to perform the tasks for which they now hold certificates. In fact we now have literally unemployable people in full employment. I shudder at the realisation of this madness when it finally filters through the mindless bureaucrats who implemented it.

*Centrelink Newstart for single person over 21 = $234.85 per week not including add ons like rent assitance.
*Minimum hourly rate for adults = $15
*$234.85 into $15 per hour = 15.66 hrs.

That is roughly equivalent to 2 days work. That 2 days work gives to the unemployed person a routine, a sense of worth, a drive to get more work, that all important reference, 3 days over to look for work and attend interviews.

Sounds great! Excellent idea!

To those who think that the work should be meaningful, please spare a thought for the thousands upon thousands of workers out there stuck in menial work because of their lack of education, aptitude or opportunity.

Welcome George Jetson, can I remind you however many enjoy those menial jobs?
We should grow in to this century not the last, national service is built up as a good thing I fail to see this.
Lets look at what can be done not what always has been.
Welfare has many different forms.
Unemployment, let rebuild it refocus on it.
Say 5 different parts.;
Young unemployed get a job, maybe in private enterprise in training or as public service.
Basic wages unless it is clear it is forever then wages based on performance.
Older harder to find work people full time work of benefit to us all.
Other jobs similar groups are found.
If we take, and why not?, the savings in offices and staff in to account we can fund it.
Think out side that box, walking trail around Australia, camps and picnic areas.
It can be done leave, to find a full time job ,paid on request.
If we stop and consider it would not be long before the shortage of unemployed proved it worked.
We must not think it is wrong to work for your supper

Hello Belly and thank you for your welcome.

Regarding menial jobs, it is my experience that most people do not enjoy doing them but do them nonetheless for the income. On the other hand, just because most don't like them does not mean that we can get rid of those jobs as yet. Ridding humanity of menial work is a work in progress. So, if an unemployed person is directed towards menial work as part of there work benefits qualification, they must accept the work, find their own work or accept non payment as a consequence of their choices.

This program suggested as I understand it, would have employers of many kinds on the govt. books who satisify insurance and work safe criteria. It would be the employer who would hire and fire those on work benefits and the govt who would administer and pay for the program. It would be very easy to set up an auto interface between employer and centrelink which records hours of work and pays for that work up to the cut off threshhold. The auto program could also quite easily determine the amount of hours required of the unemployed person according to their payment entitlement. Not all people on newstart receive the full payment because of income and assets. If that income is derived from wages then they should be exempted from the work program since they are already working. If that income is derived from self employment, then those customers should be referred immediately to the new enterprise incentive scheme, which itself should be broadened to include established businesses of the self employed. Clearly, if you are self employed and in need of welfare because you are not generating profit or not enough profit, then you need more than welfare payments, you need a business mentor. Finally, those who are on reduced payments because of the asset test or income not derived from wages (i.e. rental income) should be exempt from the work requirements if their payment is less than $100 per week

continued...

I do not support the idea of a work benefit being paid according to productivity bonuses or work performance increase. It should only be the minimum wage as this would ensure that such people seek their own work, being employed in their own right with all the benefits which come from that.

I am against forcing young, middling and older adults into short training courses. It happens already with many doing courses irrelevent to their work ambitions or their personal preferences. Certainly it is a great way of hidding the real numbers who are unemployed, but in doing so we also deny free will. Free will is more important than fudged statistics. Ultimately, if a person wants to study or train, the decision should be theirs and theirs alone. The most a state should offer in matters of study and training is advice, opportunity and in welfare cases, study subsidies.

I would address the other points you have made, however your short hand style I find difficult to understand. Sorry about that. I am interested in your ideas though and would very much appreciate your expanding on the short hand brief.

The reason why I would exempt those who are working but underemployed is so that employers cannot take advantage of the work benefits program. It could very well happen that an employer, having secured an excellent work benefits candidate, would want to increase that persons hours. Just say for example that the employer asks that person if they wanted an extra days work. That would mean that the tax payer and employer are sharing the costs of a position which really exists and is not merely existing for the sake of work benefits. Why pay for three days out of gross profit when you need only pay for 1.5 days (income test applied) with the govt paying the rest?

It should also be the case that if a part time or casual employee in need of welfare is working less than 2 days per week, then it must happen that their employer is offered the option of converting that work to the work benefit scheme so that the unemployed do not rort the system. If acceptable to the employer, and why wouldn't it be since they wouldn't have to pay the wages, that welfare customer then does the two days work and all is equitable within the welfare system. For example, when it became widely known by long term unemployed that income affecting newstart disqualifies a person from the Work for the Dole program, even if that affected payment is reduced by only 50 cents, many of the long term unemployed found cash in hand work of $63 per fortnight. Their payments were affected by a matter of cents, they were no longer required to participate in Work for the Dole and centrelink could not follow up on the cash in hand employement having to accept their word in good faith.

I think i understood Bellys version better.

What did you not understand?

English Parliament,this mornings BBC news, has announced new welfare provisions for the unemployed.
No doubt some will wrongly be put off that income who should not be.
But I found some comment, that it has become an industry, employing at great cost, public servants to regulate welfare alone costs billions.
We will find a better way,remember it wins votes, most do not believe any one can not find a job.
I know this is untrue.
But also that some will never look for one.
For me the greatest gain is those who want to work but have lost faith in them selves will be given the chance.

Deep Blue I like your posts, we will clash, it happens, but let me inform you about me.

Well, that's why we are all different.

Thanks

BLUE

Work-for-the-dole...............does work. But pay twice as much for a fair deal.

Too the rich and Government. If you don't give back, they will Take.( and you know what desperate people will do.)

And don't spin off.......... their growing in numbers thanks to your own greed.

5000 per child!

I think bellies idea, has Merritt.

However, that's just what I see.

BLUE

BLUE

Deep Blue, we all have ideas, often bases on what life has exposed us to.
What lessons we have learned in our travel through life.
My hungry childhood ,Left me briefly, thinking Communism may be the answer.
Boy!I got that wrong!, it starved and victimized the poor.
Socialism then, a dream, but if we look, truly look this country has a blend of its better and worse things now.
Better? welfare safety net, education, public transport, medical the lot hospitals to subsidized Doctors.
BAD? wasted welfare poor delivery of any government endeavors, health care some times.
But the most dreadful? the dead hand of PC that is the three wise monkeys opposing change.
Social Welfare can become a fisher mans net, catching all who come that way.
Some have no choice but to be caught up others find it a haven.
Some are unaware if they hide in that net forever they rob themselves, we should provide a job off worth to them and us.
And education for those who never had it.

Belly.

The posts that I've all ready put on olo have I think, covered most of the problems what are.......and will just be repeating myself.

"Socialism then, a dream, but if we look, truly look at this country, it has a blend of its better and worse things now."

Yes population is I think, one of the main problems since Australia is copying The US growth for the same greed and wealth reasons.

I mean, if each country had a smaller population with sustainability as the target, the one's that fall behind can be addressed. Now we have here in Australia, a human conveyor belt of endless other people they can use in-stead of recycling.

Why retrain! When you can just give the already poor people $5000 to make more people for the top-ends needs.

Belly! the rich will get richer and the poor don't even get the picture anymore. They could all give the able working poor a job if they want too, but I like I said......They like it just the way it is.

See with this link, you will see the number of jobs to the amount of people. Why breed when the numbers are clear?

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Long-term-jobless-rise-to-nearly-1-in-5-A88RE?OpenDocument&src=srch

So belly, WHAT IS GOING ON?

BLU

A question I can not answer, but Friend if we just look at the need to create wealth, yes they speak of it with pride, and not understand in doing it we also create poor.
If we look at the casualisation of the workforce and remember we are told it is for flexibly, and the need to compete in business, if we understand both sides of the Parliament support this?
If we understand full employment is said to be bad.
Low income earners of benefit to industry.
Maybe we can revel in the idea I am ok who cares about the rest.
We I hope will meet in many threads may even find answers too.

Belly.

I always love it when I hit a nerve. See how they have deleted the information:O

I look forward also to more discussions on the matter.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abs.gov.au%2Fausstats%2Fabs%40.nsf%2FLookup%2Fby%2520Subject%2F1370.0~2010~Chapter~Long-term%2520unemployment%2520(4.3.2.1)&rct=j&q=long%20term%20unemployment%20rate%20australia&ei=GgvfTOODJ4qgvgOKk7n2Dg&usg=AFQjCNEeXFxACsDSJp6gfTC9Yw_9tTMT7w&cad=rja

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abs.gov.au%2Fausstats%2Fabs%40.nsf%2Ffeaturearticlesbytitle%2F8C560715E24051D7CA2570FF001A1799%3FOpenDocument&rct=j&q=long%20term%20unemployment%20rate%20australia&ei=GgvfTOODJ4qgvgOKk7n2Dg&usg=AFQjCNGk879Se2Br-qT14AGPImH7PzfomA&cad=rja

And the long term unemployed will fill the jails nicely.

See! they have the situation in hand.

I guess all is well:)

Have a great day.

BLUE

Common Belly. You say you only briefly flirted with communism, and then say “we”, & I suppose by that you mean government, should provide a job for everyone. Just how communistic can you get, & not be one.

Next post you are bitching about the casualisation of the work force, & blame business. Mate, put the blame where it belongs, right at the feet of your unions, particularly the left wing ones, & a Labor government.

It was they that made it impossible to get rid of any no-hoppers that you found you had employed. It was this that made people decide it was just not worth expanding your business, & workforce, as it cost a fortune to step back if the expansion was not economically viable.

I do not find it equitable that you can train someone for years, & once competent they can leave at a weeks notice. On the other hand, if you find after months of training, someone is just not up to the job, an employer is stuck with them.

If your business shrinks through no fault of your own, [often government], you have to pay a fortune to get rid of people you can no longer gainfully employ.

Belly, I was always slow to sack anyone. I had only sacked 2 people in my life until this rubbish started. After that I got rid of quite a few, before the end of the 3 months trial, as I could not afford to keep anyone I was not sure I could make useful. Most of these could probably have made it, but I could no longer take that chance.

Unintended consequences are murder, aren’t they?

Hasbeen you let the heat show in your posts.
Anger heat and a distaste for me and my background.
Fair enough bloke, I will not bother you with my opinion of you.
Not even in real life, you plucked events from your life your reality and heaved them at me.
OK no idea about those you sacked never agreed with unfair dismissal, unless it truly was unfair.
You launch in to a slander hasbeen, a stone made of feathers hurled at me.
Remember solidarity? that union in Poland that helped in the death of communism, there are my hero's.
Communism is evil, you see my view time and again yet hurl your rocks .
It is a weakness in you that lets you manufacture things like that against me.
You and I pay for social welfare you seem to find my view we should do it better a problem.
Hasbeen you dig a trench, one you put your self in ,but I cannot understand any one who needs to target others so badly that you make up issues that do not exist.
Your post stands out in this thread like a neon light in a black out what is it about?

There is no simple solution. Get the unemployed to plant trees, and then planting trees is a worthless profession. Demoralising people into submission will only work on those already downtrodden. All the leeches that work at those scungey unemployment agencies (they dont find any jobs for people) would simply have to join those on the scummy side of the counter, which would affect the jobless figures, which makes those in charge appear ineffective.

A single welfare payment may have merit, but not according to those at the top of the welfare scrapheap i.e. disability support pensioners, aged pensioners, single mothers...

Personally, I would suggest taking a look at creating genuine opportunities and starting new enterprises (which means scrapping the highly corrupt and ineffective NEIS scheme). Unfortunately, it is much better political mileage to take a kick at the unemployed and blame them for their own predicament. That and giving aged pensioners a small raise every so often to keep them happy.

Pat the Bogan I have read a lot of your posts, get the feeling you have battled at times and life may have been hard.
But I can not see your point, there are bludgers out there on welfare, there are those who have lost all self image and FEAR looking for a job.
We once gave local and state government jobs to such as them.
Even in Queensland once farmers got that work, to help in times of drought or flood.
Basically I think we should own the industry we create for these folk.
Pay fair wages and trees? first mission plant two maybe four for every one we harvest.
A kid of 19 left school at 15, his dad never worked a day, he has not yet, he gets carers pension for his grand mum but lives away from her, we can do better mate.
Soon Labor or Liberal will confront welfare, much in the style of Britain's plan,we have to understand it has to be modernized.

Pat-the.

"There is no simple solution. Get the unemployed to plant trees, and then planting trees is a worthless profession."

Or maybe bogone as not being-see what has transpired.

240 times 2. for the tree planting and he has also been thinking of the future. Well I don't know you Bloke...but some would think thats not bad.

What if Iam one..............? Are you going to take that away from me?

Your probably one of those that have more than they need!

Like I said before..........mate!........its sometimes a crap go.......but don't you ever take whats not yours.

BLUE

And still dont know who I am:)

I guess I should simplify it a bit.

My opinion is, setting up yet another hoop for the unemployed to jump through, only will make them more resentful and less motivated.
To use them as cheap labour (like Greencorps), serves only to demoralise them and devalue environmental work. Why would people pay to have a rehab planting, when they can have free Greencorps? It generally only leads to more volunteer work anyway.

Welfare reform is a little bit deceptive, as it generally only means taking a free kick at unemployed people. It might be more sensible to give them enough to survive, so they dont have to resort to crime to feed themselves.

The disability support pension is by far the biggest rort of them all. The majority are out mowing lawns etc. for cash. Some are genuine though, and any crackdown will certainly affect the genuine ones first and hardest.

Basically, I think leave it as it is and try to create new jobs and opportunities rather than bending over for a crumb.

The jobless should have to do a minimum amount of hours on a community related project to receive their payment. Only one or two days a week to keep their hourly rate around the minimum wage.
Posted by mikk, Monday, 8 November 2010 1:23:07 PM

This is Work for the Dole minus one day!
This is also like the Community Work program for mature age Centrelink customers.
This is also like the Community Engagement programs for those on Parole or serving their time as Community Service.

What is new in what you suggest aside from nothing much?

Most customers on Centrelink payments are working casually picking up what ever work they can, but still receiving a partial payment because they rarely get enough work. They do not count in the unemployment figures because of their work commitments. Their problem is under-employment and not unemployment. How are you going to treat them?

The Liberal Democratic Party proposes welfare, tax and minimum-wage reform in one package, called 30/30 as follows:

First $30,000 income, no tax.

Income over $30,000, flat income tax rate of 30% for everyone including companies.

For incomes under $30,000 you get a handout equal to 30% of the difference between your income and $30,000. So frinstance, if you earn $0, handout = 30% x $30,000 = $9,000.

If you earn $10,000, handout = (30% x $20,000) = $6,000, total income = $10,000 earnt plus $6,000 handout = $16,000.

Minimum wage is abolished.

This has a number of benefits:
1. it abolishes the welfare trap, where people on welfare cannot earn more because it's not worth it. It means it's always worthwhile for people on welfare to earn more and be independent. Abolition of minimum wage makes much more employment opportunities.
2. abolishes tax pack and a zillion complications
3. abolishes jiggery-pokery by shifting income and expenses between entities such as companies.

* * *

The crazy thing about the current system is that the minimum wage laws make it illegal to employ people at the market rate. But the dole may be even lower, so its supporters are effectively arguing that people are better off unemployed on the dole, than employed at a higher income!

mikk argues that employment is intrinsically exploitative but has never been able to defend this proposition when challenged, apart from by assuming it in his premises, which is circular and therefore irrational. But he doesn't have the honesty to admit this: he just slinks away each time he is defeated and re-appears running the same refuted argument every time.

According to mikk's logic:
a) all employment should be banned, and even if it's not
b) it is no less exploitative for the government to employ people at below the minimum wage.

Goerge Jetson wrote
<<What is new in what you suggest aside from nothing much?>>

You obviously missed where I said

"Close the job network of privitised employment agencies"
"No looking for work test, no monkey tricks and no paternalistic job network pushing you around pointlessly"
"to get paid all you have to do is not have a job and do your allotted couple of days community work."
"One thing I would do is make the jobless find the work project themselves, the same as finding a job."
"They could even submit proposals for their own community improvement job if none were available to them locally."

It is about removing the pointless, and costly, spying, control and punishment centrelink is tasked with meting out to the unemployed.
So that no matter who you are, a young person with little experience, someone socially awkward and inept, a skill-less 50 year old, or even an antiauthoritarian anarchist who would rather starve than be subjugated by a boss, you can still survive without having to resort to crime and give something, anything, back to the community, without feeling like an outcast, scorned and punished by society and treated as worthless.

People who already have a job, even only part time/casual would likely continue in that. Work will still exist and people will still get employed just as they do now. This is about a safety net for the worst off, that dosent encourage/reward idleness, without the vilification and punitive aspects, that are so expensive, that characterise the current system.

"This is about a safety net for the worst off, that dosent encourage/reward idleness, without the vilification and punitive aspects, that are so expensive, that characterise the current system."

I agree with all of that. But why is it okay for the 'safety net' to be the dole? Why shouldn't the safety net be employment at a rate above the dole, but below the arbitrary minimum wage?

I knew a guy once who had 21 children. The first 8 he raised himself working as a grave-digger. The last 13 were paid for by the state - ie by everyone else - after some genius of a doctor decided that this guy had a 'disability' - he couldn't read and write.

One day he gave me a gift he had made - a picture of a parrot made with coloured metal paper - Easter egg type paper. He told me he sells them to tourist shops for $100, and they sell them to tourists for $200. I asked how long it takes him to make one. "Two hours" he said.

Do the maths. If he just worked a normal 8 hour day, with virtually no capital equipment, he could make $400 a day.

What's stopping him?
a) why would he bother? He's already getting paid to do nothing (all his kids were in state care or with their numerous mothers).
b) if he did it as a business, he would need to get an ABN, submit quarterly business statements, and he just couldn't cope with all that paperwork. Yet one of the main justifications for our tax system is specifically to provide for people like him!

This is a problem entirely created by government. No the welfare bureaucracy shouldn't persecute this guy. But neither should everyone else have to subsidise him.

I know another disabled pensioner whose hobby is doing up houses for capital gain.

There's loads of work that most disabled pensioners, single mothers, and unemployed could do. The solution is to strongly prune the thornbush of tax, employment, welfare and licensing regulations, not to make more of them.

Peter Hume
<<and be independent.>>
I hardly call working for the man "being independant".
"The man" is the only one who has independence.
<<Abolition of minimum wage makes much more employment opportunities.>>
It increases opportunities for the employers not employees.
All existing employees should fear this notion. A starving horde offering your boss cheaper labour than what he pays you!
<<abolishes jiggery-pokery by shifting income and expenses between entities such as companies.>>
Hardly the province of the poor is it Pete? More like evidence of the real criminals and parasites among us.

Sorry you see me as "defeated" and "slinking away" but I do have a life you know and can only contribute here when I have the time and something gets me steamed up enough. Your posts are right up there LOL.

I have previously pointed you to material to support my views but you have pointedly ignored it. Because if you read it you will not be able to refute it. You and your capitalist ideology are the ones failing to defend your proposition. As every wage slave knows and feels all too painfully every day. I dont even need to back up my statements as the reality proves my point for me. A vastly unequal and unfair world, wracked by crises and decay, an environment raped and pillaged to the point of no return, failing societies and backsliding civilisation. Thats what 200 years of capitalism has brought us and no airy fairy economic dogmas will change that reality.

http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionC2

"capitalists are not justified in appropriating surplus value from workers for no matter how this appropriation is explained by capitalist economics, we find that inequality in wealth and power are the real reasons for this appropriation rather than some actual productive act on the part of capitalists, investors or landlords. Mainstream economic theories generally seek to justify the distribution of income and wealth rather than to understand it. They are parables about what should be rather than what is. We argue that any scientific analysis of the source of "surplus value" cannot help conclude that it is due, primarily, to inequalities of wealth and, consequently, inequalities of power on the market."

"Under chattel slavery and feudalism, exploitation was concrete and personalized in the producer's relationship with his master. The slave and peasant knew exactly who was screwing them. The modern worker, on the other hand, feels a painful pounding sensation, but has only a vague idea where it is coming from."

"The proprietor producing neither by his own labour nor by his implement, and receiving products in exchange for nothing, is either a parasite or a thief."

Oh and one last thing. I do not support capitalism and will fight to see it replaced but whilever I live in a world vastly dominated by capitalist/statist systems I will also do whatever I can to try and make life better for people and progress society and people in a more libertarian direction within the confines of the prevailing (I want to say paradigm but damn politicians have ruined that word) economic system. I can hardly do anything else can I? Capitalism is hard to escape from. Until the vast mass of people agree that capitalism is exploitative and unviable and decide to overthrow it, I just have to do the best I can to educate people and maybe make just a tiny bit of difference. My hopes arent high but I have to try.
I dont see any contradiction.

What is the unemployment figure before it is said to be full employment.

mikk
Sorry, appeal to absent authority doesn't do it for me. You need to prove your argument yourself.

"A vastly unequal and unfair world, wracked by crises and decay, an environment raped and pillaged to the point of no return, failing societies and backsliding civilisation."

That's not a proof, it's a rant. Your catalogue of woes fails to distinguish government's role in causing them; and still fails to say why employment is exploitative.

"I dont even need to back up my statements as the reality proves my point for me."

You are only proving my point: you assume in your premises what you are to prove in your conclusion.

Everything you said simply assumes that employment is exploitative, except for this bit: "inequality in wealth and power".

As for inequality in wealth and power, let us assume for a moment that there is no inequality in wealth and power. Right. Now how could any economic activity take place? Answer?

What is the answer mikk?

No-one could obtain any benefit from social co-operation because there's already no inequality of wealth.

So you're arguing that the only way employment could be *not* intrinsically exploitative, is in conditions in which human society has never existed, does not and could never exist.

Therefore your belief cannot be falsified, and is irrational.

You still have not answered why it is unfair for employers to employ people below the minimum wage, but it's okay for governments to do so. And spare us your hysterical hyberbole about starving hordes etc. Employment under capitalism has made people richer than they've ever been, to the extent that now you're simultaneously whinging about the planet being raped. So does capitalism make the masses poorer, or richer? Make up your mind!

I don't think people are better off on welfare. They're not just poorer, but it's miserable-making. There's loads of work they could do, for example, shopping, cooking, cleaning, child-minding, gardening, for the people who now have to work to support themselves *and* those on welfare. What would be unfair about that?

Your suggestions just won't work for obvious reasons.
I have the solution:- All workers are paid the same amount per day no matter what your profession. Nobody pays tax. GST on all goods and services. Costs would stabilize and commodities would be the same price around the country. Loans for housing at one set rate of interest. Free fuel paid as c/ltr to cover the cost of getting to your employment. All workers are equal, and the country would be much easier to manage.
You can't have welfare reform without starting at the top.
Paid parental leave, Child minding schools are another form of subsidized welfare, Wages are rising because the pool of unemployed is shrinking, that means more interest rates. It's a dog chasing its tail.
There for i vote for my new economy...

So a guy who does dangerous, dirty, hard work will get paid the same as one who does safe, comfortable, easy work?

Mikk, what is the point of closing Job Services?
Do you have in mind something that will replace it?

What if the casually employed person is working only one hour per week? Do they still get the rest of their payment for nothing because they are no longer unemployed, merely under employed?

Why do the unemployed have to waste their job seeking time looking for community work to justify their payment of welfare? Surely if the govt wants the welfare recipient to do community work, then the govt should make available the community work from which the job seeker can choose?

Do job seekers still get paid whilst they are wasting their job seeking time looking for community work?
How long do job seekers have to get community work?
Do job seekers get paid if they miss a day of community work due to illness?
What happens if they can't find community work or lack the interview skills to secure community work?
What happens if the job seeker decides not to do community work because of substance abuse or incapacity?
What happens if the job seeker has a reduced capacity to work but not long term disabled because their condition is not stable?
What happens if the job seeker is on a hospital wait list?
What happens if the job seeker is going through a family or personal crisis?

Peter Hume

"You need to prove your argument yourself"
Sadly the word and posting limits preclude such discussions which is why I keep pointing you to http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ just like you have in the past pointed us to the mises institute. Which I have visited and read a lot of.

"That's not a proof, it's a rant."
Peter that is just blind ignorance of the world around you. You can spout all the magical economic theories you like but it will never change the fact that the reality does not fit your theories. I note you didnt try to refute any of my statements just attacked the man as usual. I dont care if it was government or business that caused the problems they are two sides of the same coin as far as I am concerned.

"you assume in your premises what you are to prove in your conclusion."
What? Logic musnt be your strong point Pete. My conclusion is based on the reality of the world we live in not some fantasy dreamworld from the nightmares of mises. I note you didnt refute any of it other than to spuriously blame your partners in oppression, the government.

"let us assume for a moment that there is no inequality in wealth and power"
No I wont assume that because it is another of your fantasy word games and another example of the fatuousness of right wing thinking. I dont even understand what you are leading towards. Are you saying that economic activity cannot take place without inequality and unequal power relations? What a load of rot.

"So you're arguing that the only way employment could be *not* intrinsically exploitative, is in conditions in which human society has never existed, does not and could never exist. "
Rubbish. Am stating that "employment" is always, and by its very nature exploitative.
"The proprietor producing neither by his own labour nor by his implement, and receiving products in exchange for nothing, is either a parasite or a thief.

"You still have not answered why it is unfair for employers to employ people below the minimum wage, but it's okay for governments to do so"
I never said that. I just said it would be better than the current system.

"Employment under capitalism has made people richer than they've ever been"
What people? Not the vast majority of us thats for sure. And how long before the galloping inequality ends with a few masters and the rest of us slaves? We arent far off that already.

"Make up your mind!"
More distortions and lies. I dont agree with your statements and never said them. Capitalism has not made the vast majority rich it has just made them slaves in return for a few trinkets and heart disease, depression and obesity.

"So a guy who does dangerous, dirty, hard work will get paid the same as one who does safe, comfortable, easy work?"
Or will the current system continue where it is the person doing the dirty, hard, jobs that get paid a pittance while the lazy fat cats in their ivory towers get paid millions. Like I keep saying ignore the high priests of the religion of economics and look to the evidence all around you that they have failed. It is inescapable.

GJetson
It would all work the same way it does now when someone is sick or disable.
You are inventing imaginary problems in an effort to avoid arguing your case properly. Is it better to work for your money or just get a handout? Would the unemployed be better off just sitting on their bums getting money for nothing or would they benefit from giving something back to society? Does society benefit from the divisive, dog whistling, demonisation of the unemployed? They are the questions up for debate here not what might happen if someone is ill or unable to comply.

Easy welfare reform:
No more cash handouts.
Vouchers/coupons for subsistence living requirements only.
Trading in vouchers/coupons punishable by incarceration.
All life's basic requirements met, just.
Prefer a few luxuries...
like smokes, alcohol, lotto tickets, DVD's, mobile phones, plasma screens, fast foods, etc?
Get a job.
Welfare is a disincentive and an addiction.

mikk
What you're saying is simply illogical: employment is exploitative because it's exploitative. There's no use asking me to refute your beliefs because a) they're circular, and b) you yourself have said that there's nothing that could convince you otherwise.

But let's cut to the chase. If employment below the minimum wage should be illegal because it's exploitative, why should not employment above the minimum wage be illegal for the same reason?

Lieutenant Colonel Allen B. West,
U.S. Representative-elect for Florida's 22nd congressional district:
“Every child born in the USA (read also Australia) gets a ladder.
There is no top rung on that ladder.
You can climb as high as you want.
Sometimes you do fall off that ladder.
There’s a safety net.
But we want you to get back on that ladder.
I think that the other perspective is...
that you’re just given a hammock.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST08kNZETNE&feature=player_embedded#!

"What you're saying is simply illogical: employment is exploitative because it's exploitative."

No I am saying it is exploitative because of inequality in wealth and power that allows capitalists to profit from the productivity of those that have no option but to sell themselves into slavery for a given period each day. But then you miseophiles believe slavery is ok dont you? See I have read the ravings on mises.org. At least i try to understand where you are coming from. Try opening your mind to other ideas, if only to be better able to refute them, rather than just mindlessly spout the dogma of neoliberalism.

"why should not employment above the minimum wage be illegal for the same reason?"
I dont seek to make it "illegal" I seek to open peoples eyes to the con and educate them in the reality of capitalism so that they will refuse to bow down and allow themselves to be subjugated by the greedy mega rich capitalist elites. And doesnt it scare the hell out of all those who currently ride on the backs of the workers and the poor.

It is your blind faith in "markets" and small government all the other articles of faith of the capitalist religion, despite the glaring evidence of its failings, that is "illogical" Peter.

That reminds me of an argument I once had with my brother.

He said “Your argument is unfalsifiable.”
I said “That’s because it’s true.”
He said “No, you need to be able to show the conditions in which it could be proved false. Otherwise it’s irrational.”

So again, what are the conditions in which you would accept that the proposition that employment is exploitative could be proved false?

All your arguments, and the link you refer me to, rely on the labour theory of value (LTV) – that the whole value of the final product belongs as a matter of right to the worker.

However that is inconsistent with your earlier argument that property itself is unethical/unjust because it involves a right of exclusion of others from using it. If that first theory is right, then the worker does not have a right to the final product. So which one is it? Does the worker have a right to the final product or not?

What about where those selling their labour do have another option? Appeal to a horde of supposedly starving masses is vain. The vast majority of business owners in Australia come from the same socio-economic background as everyone else. Their employees have the same option to undertake the same risks, delays, responsibilities, stresses and taxes. They choose not to, because they prefer the advantages and disadvantages of employment, to those of business.

Marx said that capital “begets profit”. But it also begets loss. Capital by itself is inert. It has to be directed to this or that activity in order to make profit or loss. Deciding how to combine the factors of production is itself labour – the labour of the entrepreneur.

The world does not reward mere labour. The labour must be directed to producing something that satisfies human wants. Digging holes and filling them in again is worthless.

If the end product results in a loss, the worker doesn’t repay his wages. The entrepreneur undertakes the risk.

And if the end product is not sold until a year or more into the future, the worker doesn’t have to wait until it is sold to get his money, as the capitalist does. He gets paid now. If I offer you $10,000 now or in 2 years time, which do you choose? Future goods are always discounted to present goods - because it's fair, not because it's unfair.

If the worker and the capitalist were equal, neither would have any motivation to work with the other. Neither could benefit from it. No productive activity would take place. But they are exchanging incommensurate things – apples for oranges. The capitalist undertakes the risk and the delay, and does the labour of deciding how to combine the factors of production profitably without which the workers will not have a job – the original problem you’re trying to solve by welfare reform.

What about where the inequality of wealth is the other way? I once employed a guy who was much wealthier than me. According to your theory he was exploiting me, right?

And finally the value of the final product comes from whether the consumer prefers the products more than he prefers the price of it. The consumer doesn’t pay for mere labour. He pays for the satisfaction he intends to get from the product, which is the result of labour *directed to a certain end*.

You can’t employ a fine arts professor to make a truck by hand, and then sell it for the cost of his labour. The price of a gold nugget is not the price of the labour it took to dig it up. The price of a Van Gogh is not the price of the labour that went into it. The LTV is wrong.

No-one is arguing that we can produce things without labour. But you are arguing that the workers are entitled to the entire value when they are not responsible for producing it. You don’t expect the worker to work only for his costs, with no net benefit. Why should you expect anyone else

Profit results only if the capitalist is able to combine the factors of production so that the masses – the workers in their capacity as consumers – consider the end product more valuable than the factors. Profit is a measure, not of exploitation, but of the difference between how the masses valued the lesser satisfaction they derived from the original uncombined factors of production, versus the greater satisfaction that they derived from the final product.

The justification of the minimum wage is that employment below that rate should be illegal. But to be consistent, since you believe all employment is exploitative, and oppose abolishing the minimum wage, so you should support the illegalisation of all employment.

You wrongly describe yourself as an anarchist but cheerleading for the state at every stage. You don’t stand for freedom, you stand for ordering people around. Your bitter misrepresentations and personal argumentation only prove you have nothing better to offer.

Having failed to grasp the basics of human co-operation, what makes you think you can re-engineer society at will?

Bravo!
However I find it hard to think of a less productive use of your own labour than engaging with the author.

Proxy

LOL thanks yeah. It reminds me of Robert Kiyosaki "If you argue with an idiot, you've got two idiots."

<<So again, what are the conditions in which you would accept that the proposition that employment is exploitative could be proved false?>>

Please explain. What has falsifiability got to do with anything? Do your "theories" of capitalism stand up to falsability? LOL I suppose they do in a way. They HAVE failed and you still stand up for them. ;P

Im not even sure what the LTV is so I doubt I am promoting it and I know the Anarchists that wrote the FAQ arent. Shows you havent read it. They have certainly read all your sources. They focus heavily on the "austrian school" of capitalism and its extremism. Nozick, Locke, Rothbard, Hayek et al. They all get logically ripped apart for their airy fairy, nasty theories that reduce workers to the level of machines and consider them little better than slaves.
The LTV to me seems ridiculous. You cant spend hours making mud pies and then say they are worth whatever labour went into them. They have to be wanted by people before they are worth something.

What is inconsistent is your usage of the word "property". You talk as if land, production goods, consumer goods, capital, intellectual property and personal possessions are all exactly the same. Any sensible person can see they are not. The product of a workers day of labour is hardly the same as a rental property or a factory is it?

"Anarchists define "private property" (or just "property," for short) as state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are used to control and exploit others.
Specifically.
(1) the power to issue credit and currency, the basis of capitalist banking;
(2) land and buildings, the basis of landlordism;
(3) productive tools and equipment, the basis of industrial capitalism;
(4) ideas and inventions, the basis of copyright and patent ("intellectual property") royalties.

"Possession," on the other hand, is ownership of things that are not used to exploit others (e.g. a car, a refrigerator, a toothbrush, etc.). Thus many things can be considered as either property or possessions depending on how they are used."

"The vast majority of business owners in Australia come from the same socio-economic background as everyone else."

Do they now? Once again you conflate all businesses, big and small, into the same thing. Sure many businesses are run by sole traders or families but they arent exploitative. The exploitative ones are the large faceless businesses and giant multinationals that are responsible for most of the production in our economy. Once again I point to reality and the extreme remuneration to management and owners and the declining pittance received by the workers as evidence. Undeniable evidence. Although you are good at ignoring it Peter. You never address my points just accuse my of illogic and spout your own imaginings of what I said.

"They choose not to, because they prefer the advantages and disadvantages of employment, to those of business."

Do they? Or are you just presuming? I dont think you or anyone else has ever shown such preferences. I know many many people, indeed almost everyone I have ever met, who would love to go into business for themselves but their financial and social situation precludes them from doing so. They have choices. They can work as a wage slave, they can go on the dole, they can turn to crime, they can starve to death.

"Capital by itself is inert."
Sterile and useless. Unable to produce anything. That your capitalism sees such a thing as "productive" in any way is very telling.
"neither property nor capital produces anything when not fertilised by labour" Bakunin.

"The standard defence of class inequalities under capitalism is that people get rich by producing what other people want. That, however, is hardly ever true. Under capitalism, people get rich by hiring other people to produce what other people want or by providing land, money or machinery to those who do the hiring. The number of people who have became rich purely by their own labour, without employing others, is tiny."
"the labourer without capital would soon supply his wants by its production . . . but capital with no labourers to consume it can only lie useless and rot." Proudhon.

"the labour of the entrepreneur."
Agreed there is some form of "labour" involved in investment but is it really "productive"? Isnt it just, especially in the majority of large companies, power and larceny? Tell me which multimillion payed CEO lately is suffering, in any way, because of their failures? Where is this so called "risk" you speak of? Sure the mums and dads of small business take risks and suffer if they are wrong but its hardly the way it works where the real money is. More of your "theory" clashing with reality.

"Future goods are always discounted to present goods - because it's fair, not because it's unfair."

Is it really. Nothing to do with the social situation one finds themselves in? Ones "time preference" is determined by ones social position. If one has more than enough money for current needs, one can more easily "discount" the future (for example, workers will value the future product of their labour less than their current wages simply because without those wages there will be no future)

"If the worker and the capitalist were equal"
Then they all would be workers. The capitalists would have to work the same as the workers and desicions would be taken collectively as would "profits".

What is so difficult to understand? While I am an anarchist and would like to see the world change to be less authoritarian and exploitative I live in the REAL world and do the best I can to drive the current system in a more libertarian socialist direction. We do the best we can within the world we inhabit.

LOL It is your authoritarian ideology that does not stand for freedom, it is you lot that stand for ordering people around. Once again the evidence surrounds us. It is always bosses and capitalists and landlords and moneylenders and the state and its hired thugs that do all the "pushing people around". Ive never pushed anyone around.

Neither a slave nor a master be!

Please define exploit.

Wikipedia defines it nicely.

"In political economy, economics, and sociology, exploitation involves a persistent social relationship in which certain persons are being mistreated or unfairly used for the benefit of others. This corresponds to one ethical conception of exploitation, that is, the treatment of human beings as mere means to an end—or as mere "objects". In different terms, "exploitation" refers to the use of people as a resource, with little or no consideration of their well-being."

I agree with mick, when I used to work they changed the name from Personel to Human Resorces so they could explot us better. Now Im on a pension at least Im a Person again.

“Please explain. What has falsifiability got to do with anything?”

If a proposition is not falsifiable, then it's not a rational proposition. If its proponent cannot say under what conditions it could be proved false, then it can’t be disproved, not because it’s true - but because it’s irrational.

I once met an Indonesian who said “There’s a guy at my work who does black magic.” I said “How do you know?” He said “Well that’s just it –he’s so devious he does it without leaving any evidence!”

That’s an example of a belief that is not falsifiable, because he wouldn’t accept any disproof. The lack of evidence or reason is taken as proving the proposition.

Or suppose someone says “Homosexuality is a sin.”

How could you disprove it?
Let’s say you ask “Define sin.”
And he says “It’s what homosexual do.”
That’s circular. The belief is just, homosexuality is a sin because homosexuality is a sin. It’s not falsifiable.

Or suppose they say “Sin is what God doesn’t like.” So then you say, “And does God like homosexuality?” And the answer comes back “No.”

The deep structure of your argument is similar.
“Employment is exploitative.” (Now exploitative is not a term of economic science. It cannot be objectively defined. It’s a moral, or a moralistic, term. It imports a negative moral connotation.)

So the dialogue goes like this:
“Employment is exploitative.”
“Prove it.”
“How could anyone doubt it? There’s no need to demonstrate it. It just is.”
“You can’t argue that employment is exploitative because it’s exploitative. That’s circular.”
“No, I’m saying it’s exploitative because it involves inequality.”
“And the problem with such inequality is…?”
“It’s exploitative.”
“So employment is exploitative because it’s exploitative?”
“Anyone who doesn’t agree is an evil bastard – in favour of exploitation!”
“Well you haven’t established that it *is* exploitative yet. You argued that property is immoral because it involves exclusion. So how could employment be exploitative if the employee doesn’t have the right to the value of the final product anyway?”
“Because employment involves the exploitation of others.”

And so on. You’re just going in circles. It doesn't meet the threshold criteria of logical argumentation. It’s just rampant moralising. There is no way that reason can penetrate such circularity. The deep structure of your argument is similar to that of the fundamentalist Christian condemning homosexuality – you just condemn the morality of common behaviour, but when asked to justify your condemnation, you can only circularly insist that "it is because it is."

And yes, the arguments I make do have to be falsifiable too. Indeed the difference between my theories and yours is, I can show you how mine can be disproved. (I'm talking about my theories, not your hyperbole misrepresentation of them.) And I'll be glad to show you how they can be falsified or refuted.

However there is no way I can begin to defend them while you reserve the right to just resort to name-calling and circularity, which is all your argument amounts to.

So again, what disproof would you accept of the proposition that employment is exploitative? You must be able to say so, or admit that you can't.

And the anarchist website *does* pre-suppose the labour theory of value, because if the worker is not entitled to the value of the final product, then employment is not necessarily exploitative.

As to you’re being an anarchist, it’s one thing to recognise that we can’t necessarily change the world, but it’s another to compromise your principles. You are arguing both in this thread and others to make the state bigger, so you’re not an anarchist, you’re an unreconstructed statist and stop deceiving yourself.

Once again you misrepresent and ignore what I have said.
I will repeat it again.
"it is exploitative because of inequality in wealth and power that allows capitalists to profit from the productivity of those that have no option but to sell themselves into slavery for a given period each day."
Could you please address what I actually said?

Whats the problem with inequality? Are you serious? Do you think it would be a good world to live in if inequality was the norm. If one person held all the worlds wealth and the rest had to bow down to them for a living? You critisise me for moralising well I critisise you for your amoral and frankly inhuman attitude.

This obsession with circularity is rich given capitalisms circular reasoning on everything from prices (people need to know the price before they can decide its "marginal utility" to them, but marginal utility is what is supposed to explain "price") to liberty (people must have "liberty" to own property but property is, by definition, about reducing everyones freedom except the property owners). You havent shown any circularity in my argument because you keep misrepresenting what I say.

I still dont get what you expect from me to falsify my assertion that wage slavery is exploitative. It is exploitative by its very nature. The same way the sun is hot by its very nature. How would you falsify that statement? And if you cant then doesnt that mean, by your standards, that it is untrue? Do you really think the sun is cold? In science falsability is a concept aimed at getting the truth. I allow my theories to be tested and if they are incorrect they will be proven so. It does not mean that if

I cant falsify something it must be untrue. Indeed it means the opposite. I think this falsability lark is a trap to distract and dissemble and avoid the real issues. ie The inequality of wealth and power that enriches the few at the expense of the many. A situation that no one with eyes can avoid noticing is the standard in the world currently.

You are right. The faq writers do follow the LTV but for some reason (space most likely) that section has been left out of the latest version. I was wrong to say I dont agree with the LTV. Fooled by the propaganda of the likes of you. Here is what they say about the LTV and its misrepresentation by capitalists.

"Many right-"libertarian" and mainstream economists assert that the labour theory of value removes demand from the determination of price. A favourite example is that of the "mud pie" -- if it takes the same labour as an apple pie to make, they ask, surely it has the same value (price)? These assertions are incorrect as the LTV bases itself on supply and demand and seeks to explain the dynamics of prices and so recognises (indeed bases itself on the fact) that individuals make their own decisions based upon their subjective needs (in the words of Proudhon, "utility is the necessary condition for exchange." [System of Economical Contradictions, p. 77]). What the LTV seeks to explain is price (i.e. exchange value) -- and a good can only have an exchange value if others desire it (i.e. has a use value for them and they seek to exchange money or goods for it). Thus the example of the "mud pie" is a classic straw man argument -- the "mud pie" does not have an exchange value as it has no use value to others and is not subject to exchange. In other words, if a commodity cannot be exchanged, it cannot have an exchange value (and so price). As Proudhon argued, "nothing is exchangeable if it be not useful." [Op. Cit., p. 85] "

Once again you expose

your hypocracy by telling me I compromise my principles. When are you going to start living up to yours? You hate the state and taxation but you dont refuse to pay tax do you? When are you going to live up to your principles? When you write your next post from gaol as a tax rebel then I will take your criticism seriously.

"Anarchists are anti-authoritarians because they believe that no human being should dominate another. Domination is inherently degrading and demeaning, since it submerges the will and judgment of the dominated to the will and judgment of the dominators, thus destroying the dignity and self-respect that comes only from personal autonomy. Moreover, domination makes possible and generally leads to exploitation, which is the root of inequality, poverty, social breakdown, hate and war."

This thread was about making the state smaller not bigger. Where did I ever say "make the state bigger"? Close the job network I said. Get rid of all those centrelink staff tasked with spying on and punishing those who do not have a job I said. How is that "making the state bigger"?

How about answering a few of my points and even going back to some of your own. Like yesterdays question (completely ignored) about a definition of exploitation. Is that correct or do you have a problem with the definition? After all that is the nub of what we are talking about.

Oh and lastly thanks for bothering to debate with me. The process of composing my replys helps me understand my position (and yours) better. I actually think we arent that far apart really. If only you could see that the criticisms you have of the state apply just as strongly to capitalism. Either people are free from "all" coercion, exploitation and theft or they are just replacing one oppressor for another.

"Under capitalism the worker regards themself as free; but they are grossly mistaken;they are free only when they sign their contract with their boss. As soon as it is signed, slavery overtakes them and they are nothing but an order taker."

Mikk, a statement is falsifiable if there is a theoretical way to show it to be wrong IF it is wrong. The concept of falsifiability is central to the scientific method, which depends on trying to falsify hypotheses to advance. If an hypothesis withstands the scrutiny, it may be upgraded to a "theory", but there will still be someone somewhere trying to show it falls down on some point.

It works like this: you say "the earth is flat". I say, how can you prove that? You say, I'll walk to the edge. I say "bye, don't fall off" Some time later you (or Magellan) come wandering in from the opposite direction you left in. "ahah!" we say. That must mean the hypothesis is wrong. so what do we replace it with? the earth is octahedral? No worries, lets see if we can find the edges. No edges? wrong again, let's try spherical.

And so on.

It's not too hard to grasp, is it?

I grasp the idea, indeed support it and see it as vital to good science and investigation.
So why is it up to me to falsify my own theory? Isnt that up to others?
Put up or shut up I say. Prove wage slavery is not exploitative.
Prove inequality and vast disparity of wealth is the best and most efficient way to organise society.
I am putting forward the hypothesis it is up to others to prove I am wrong.

Mikk:"So why is it up to me to falsify my own theory? Isnt that up to others?"

It's up to you to create an hypothesis that is falsifiable. What others do is up to them, but if you make claims that are unable to be falsified, then they're no better than fairy tales, sadly.

Once you get into the mindset, this is a very useful tool to aid rational thinking.

My hypothesis is falsifiable.
One only has to show that inequality in wealth and power does not lead those with the wealth and power to exploit those without it. I posit that the evidence all around us, in every firm and every workplace, shows that vast disparity in power and wealth leads directly to workers being unfairly used to enrich the bosses and owners of capital.

mikk:"Prove wage slavery is not exploitative.
Prove inequality and vast disparity of wealth is the best and most efficient way to organise society."

Those are three different issues and none is able to be falsified in the way you suggested.

I think the problem is that you see exploitation where I see a mutuality of interests leading to a cooperative relationship in which both the employee and the employer gain by their association. Certainly there is a possibility that either party could unfairly exploit the relationship, but not usually for very long before the other gets fed up with having the rough end of the pineapple. As you point out, the evidence is all around us.

Your second claim cannot be falsified because it is too nebulous. How do I show what a "best" society looks like? How do you define it?

Ditto for your third claim - what sort of efficiency is important? Economic activity, health delivery, education, defence, baby production? What do we sacrifice for efficiency? What do we gain by it?

A falsifiable statement must be definite and must be clearly able to be tested. I'm afraid yours aren't.

“Oh and lastly thanks for bothering to debate with me. The process of composing my replys helps me understand my position (and yours) better.”

Thanks.

“I actually think we aren’t that far apart really.”

I agree.

“If only you could see that the criticisms you have of the state apply just as strongly to capitalism.”

That’s the issue. If they did, it would disprove my argument. (See? I’ve shown how my argument can be falsified.)

I am not wilfully misrepresenting or ignoring you. I’m asking you to consider the possibility that you may be mistaken, just as you want me to do the same. There is a need to establish common ground, otherwise we’re not having a rational discussion but just talking past each other. The general issues can’t be resolved without resolving the prior threshold issue of logical argumentation, because if we can’t do that, there can be neither proof nor disproof, but only articles of faith.

“So why is it up to me to falsify my own theory?”

No-one’s asking to you falsify your own theory. We’re asking you to show how it could be falsified.

For example, let’s say I declare “The sun is hot.” And you say “How could that assertion be falsified?” I say “well if you take the temperature for one hour with an accurate thermometer at noon at the equator on a clear day, and the temperature is 5 degrees Celsius, then that would disprove my statement.”

But we can’t do that with your argument. You can’t show how it could be disproved under any conditions.

“One only has to show that inequality in wealth and power does not lead those with the wealth and power to exploit those without it.”
You’ve got “exploit” on both sides of the equation again: “employment is exploitative because it involves inequality of wealth and power, and inequality of wealth and power is exploitative. In other words, employment is exploitative because it’s exploitative.

Your argument is set up so it can only conclude one way.

For example my argument that employment can be falsified as follows…

… (using this definition of exploitation: “a persistent social relationship in which certain persons are being mistreated or unfairly used for the benefit of others”.)

From this definition, to prove employment exploitative, there is a need to demonstrate mistreatment or unfairness. However the fact that the relationship is voluntary i.e. not under duress, demonstrates that the employee prefers having, to not having a given employment.

Therefore employment could be proved exploitative by:
a) showing that it is under duress, or
b) showing that the employee is ethically entitled to more than the market rate, or
c) showing the consent was not real, because procured by deception.

An example of a) is military conscription – if you don’t agree to do the work, you get shot or imprisoned. Another example is forced labour – like the Burmese forced to work in the ruby mines; or the Japanese army’s ‘comfort women’ in WWII; or the press-gangs of the 18th century. Even if they are paid, and it is therefore employment, still it’s exploitative, because unfair, because non-consensual.

An example of b) is the labour theory of value. If it could be shown that the employee is morally entitled to more than an amount determined by the consent of the parties, then that would show that employment is exploitative. (Hence the argument over the LTV – if it could be proved, it would disprove my argument.)

An example of c) is in human trafficking: e.g. a third-world girl is offered a job as a housekeeper in a different state, but when she gets there it turns out it’s in a brothel, and she can’t get out without repaying a “debt”.

And there are also other ways my argument could be disproved.

But remember, at this stage, the issue is not whether or not you agree with my arguments. The point is only this: I have shown how my argument could be disproved; you haven’t. Therefore your argument is not logical.

I can defend all my arguments and refute all yours, but you must first be able to get across Logical Argumentation 101.