Belly, you're spot-on ! : http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/indigenous/tough-love-path-to-prosperity-as-noel-pearsons-welfare-to-work-trial-boosted/story-fn9hm1pm-1226634270170

Empirical question: why do people get welfare benefits ? Because ....... And what do they have to do in return ? In these cases, send their kids to school, look for work or the most sensible training program to get into work, and get off welfare.

After all, we're talking about able-bodied people, who can lift one foot in front of the other, and their hand above shoulder-level. Is there such a thing as a loafer, a skiver, or what we used to indelicately call a bludger ? Why should they be financially supported ?

In the early days in SA, when they were building the East-West railway (as they called it then), Aboriginal people would flock down from the north, even from the Musgraves hundreds of miles away, to beg at sidings along the line. Understandable then, but maybe not these days.

Actually, all through the nineteenth century, the Protector had to strongly advise the issuers at the sixty-odd depots NOT to give out rations to able-bodied people if there was 'natural food' or game or fish in the area, or plenty of employment with farmers. And not to give all and sundry free rail passes whenever they asked for them. Plus ca change, ......

Joe

Thanks Loudmouth/Joe.
Your point is proved.
Some outsiders may think we are being a bit awful in saying such things.
Those people are the problem, not the answer.
IF as reality tells me, Labor has mucked up and is likely to be in opposition for two, maybe 4 terms,we can look at changes in many areas.
My often quoted fear *if we do not change it others will* comes in to play.
How hard would it be for Conservative government to put a harsher system in place.
And would a future ALP government change back?
Social welfare is a changing beast, if it values public opinion, no government can not re-craft this area for every one, a job rather than a hand out is no threat.

Loudmouth and Belly – you have been busy in my absence.

Loudmouth – I have made a note to myself never to debate you on statistics. I’m impressed! You mention a couple of places quite a number of posts ago that suggest we stomped around the same patch for a while. I was born at a very early age in Pt. Agutter. The Grad-parents lived next to the Brewery. I bought my first house in Tennant Bloody Creek. Have never been to Kalgoorlie but live in a little town just down the track called Cook.

Anyway “Sit Down Money” – I am a broad bush person and prefer to deal with issues by not standing to close. I believe things are basically simple and by deconstructing an issue as much as possible it becomes easier to understand.

The thing I struggle with is you still are breaking it down to a black fella issue. This is not to say that the points you make are not relevant but didn’t the whole thing start because of that division. I’m not saying we are all the same either so any solution must have the ability to work with many needs, environments, and personalities and in many locations.

The dole is flawed in that it does not insist on a return on investment. My suggestion is to replace the dole with a minimum wage that is linked to the nation’s productivity.

Although I have in previous threads, want to explain my logic to the link to productivity for the record. Wealth can only be achieved by productivity. In simple hunter gather society, if no one hunted or gathered that society would fail. Everybody could not be chiefs and witch doctors. If everyone hunted and gathered the burden and reward would be shared equally by all. If 50% hunted and gathered they would have to work twice as hard to achieve the same result or the community would have to use half as much. You see where I’m going.

Cont.

Cont.
I am suggesting every person of a working age in this country should be entitled to a minimum income linked to productivity. To get this minimum income you had to do something meaningful for a certain amount of time at a certain place. This is independent of location, colour, ability or any other factor. What is done should be to the benefit of the community and controlled by the community. Because this wage is linked to productivity it will fluctuate.

It is critical such a scheme is controlled at a community level. This is not to say there should not be an external approval system or a degree of monitoring to give direction and avoid corruption. There may be situations where mentors live in a community to assist in establishment and transition.

Producer I from a far different back ground have tried to sell the very same thought here and most of my life.
My back ground includes a life of country unionism, ending with a period as union official.
That see me concerned about some points, in yours and my wish list.
These include.
Not an under paid job, plenty work now for a wage set above hunger, but not getting rich.
The work should take no existing job, unless it is from contractors , often doing work once done by government.
A return of social value to the country.
A job that has built in time off to search for full time work/or training for new skills, it and all aspects of these jobs, to over see genuine effort and results from workers.
see, few want to know, but the sloth fullness bug gets to some and it is a reason to change the current system.
In my life I took any job, rather than let life pass me by.
And have seen work and wages change people for the good.
Our generation is only one, a time will come, if we do not change we may get to be as other country,s are, and see limits put on any help.
Australia has the ability to lead in this or any area not blindly stick to the past.

Belly – I agree with most of what you say. Union’s and unionism was a collective force to protect the vulnerable from the powerful who would exploit them. Their representatives generally came from the ranks. They smelled the people and the people smelled them. Unfortunately in many cases they have become the powerful and no longer smell the people. Like the red and blue team they have had their day in their current form. The mere fact that unions exists highlights the fact that there is something wrong with our society

We have a society that has been desensitised to conflict whether it is at work, at play, at sport or on our many entertainment formats. It is in the interest of those who wish to control and exploit that that conflict exists. This includes big business, politics and unions. As a society we need to change from them and us to “we”.

The one thing that “we” have in common is that we all have to eat and live somewhere safe to survive. There is nobody on this planet that is exempt from this rule. There are however people all over this rich country of ours that do not have enough to eat and have nowhere to live. There are those who work long hours just to survive and those who get a fortune for doing nothing. There are those that get around $400 per fortnight for doing nothing that we call dole bludgers. There are those that get $400 per hour for doing nothing that we call lawyers. Which is the bigger bludger and drain on our productive resources?

Sit down money is dispensed in many forms yet we only focus on the small end of town. There is in my opinion to much focus on the extreme situation that we as a society have caused over time by treating our first Australians and from time to time other minority groups differently to the majority of us. Looking at things in isolation is the main issue I have with Loudmouth’s and your philosophy.

Cont.