Cont.

We need to lift the small end of town and shrink the big end of town. Every individual should get their fair share of this countries productive pie, but they must participate meaningfully in their community to receive it. In the process we need to ensure that the productive elements, those who create the wealth are the ones that are rewarded the most. No sit down money.

Do you remember the “Courtesy is Contagious” campaign of yester year?

Perhaps we need a new one “Sharing is Courageous” or perhaps “Conflict is Cancerous”.

Producer while the theme is not unionism I make no claim to sainthood on its behalf.
My AWU has been in my mind the best always.
It is true, only life,s university can teach this, unions are quite different than say the day I was born.
But over all mine helped far more than many.
I used the compassion to highlight my wish for change is not from a red neck starve them to death stand point.
I truly think the scheme you and I want is best for every one.
Again I HIGHLIGHT this truth, middle Australia is likely to want just what we ask for.
Labor, the party of change can/could lead if they thought about social returns for welfare.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/coalition-to-bust-welfare-mentality-after-internal-row-over-parental-leave/story-e6frg6n6-1226636382810
I am unsurprised by this link.
In fact have forecast it.
And while my forecast was of harsh reforms, the need for reform can not be ignored.
Now while my words are as I truly think, they too may just be how most think.
My party drags its feet on welfare reform, in fact most reforms in this area are not bringing true change fast enough.
Not sentencing Labor to death, But aware it truly needs to confront issues like this.
I think we all, can forget what we think the rules are in welfare.
And that in fact while the thread searched for answers to Aboriginal sit down money, the concept of any one receiving some thing for nothing is not our future path.

Hi Producer,

Sorry, I'm still trying to understand what you mean by your core statement:

"I am suggesting every person of a working age in this country should be entitled to a minimum income linked to productivity."

To the extent that I can understand what you mean (or what I THINK you mean) I agree with you. There should be a minimum wage, yes of course, and it certainly should be more attractive than unemployment benefits (or UB plus what someone can squeeze out of their de facto or granny).

[On that subject, I'm puzzled why Study Grants aren't higher than UB: surely it's better for someone to be studying than to be relying on unemployment benefits ?]

But I digress - can I ask what you mean by "a minimum wage linked to productivity" ? Do you mean that more or less all jobs should be, directly or indirectly, linked to productivity ? Yes, I agree.

There are far, far too many sinecures in, say, Indigenous environments with no real work attached, and none really expected: liaison workers, extension workers, engagement workers, social workers of all sorts, support workers who don't seem to do anything either and don't seem to have any real interest in their core 'work', who can never tell you what they actually do, and certainly don't seem to be interested in it.

If you mean that job output should be measurable, that would be fine with me. No more phony jobs, yes indeed. o more sit-down money, and no more swanning-around money either.

Am I on the right track ?

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth – The basic principle that guides all my thinking is without production there is nothing, I therefore link everything back to that principle. Simplistic I know and I am open to having my mind changed but nobody has succeeded yet.

Let me try and explain with a few examples:

If we all sat down and did nothing we would not survive. We must produce food, shelter and clothing to survive

If we all were very busy doing something for example counting beans, we would not survive. It is not enough that we do something, it is critical that what we do produces something that enables us to survive.

Money only has value if it is linked to productivity. If the bean counters developed a system of money and they were paid by the amount of beans they counted, it would not work because they are not producing anything that they can purchase.

If we tease this out a bit further it can be argued that the wealth of this country is directly linked to productivity. Things like mining, agriculture and manufacturing are obvious examples.

Activities such as tourism, entertainment, advertising, law and accounting create jobs but do not produce anything within the country and therefore are non-productive activities. It can be argued that some these activities can bring wealth into the country. For example foreign tourism brings wealth to the country. If you look at the concept globally tourism is shifting productive wealth from another part of the globe, it does not create wealth. If Australia was full of local tourists all we would have is a lot of starving nomads.

I call these group parasites as they need a productive host to survive.

There are good parasites that are desirable. A healthy producer will live longer and produce more. It can therefore argued doctors, nurses and medical research are parasitic but desirable. Other desirable parasites ones that educate, uphold justice (not law) and those who protect and secure. Providing we don’t get overloaded with parasites and they are the good ones, they can contribute in a positive way

Continued –

I’m going to continue the simplicity

If all income is liked to productivity and the producers are the ones that are most rewarded it will be more desirable to become a producer. It should not however be a prerequisite. If for example an individual who wants to study music and become a musician, they could draw the minimum wage but still must participate meaningfully in their community for a certain amount of time to receive it. They can then use the rest of their time to study.

As I have said previously 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.

I acknowledge your concerns with the corruption and waste at the little end of town and the need for it to be controlled. I agree these jobs should be real and they should have a real and positive outcome.

I believe however there is more waste and corruption at the big end of town. Perhaps I leave that for next time if you’re interested?