Considering that we are 5 months down the road from a Federal Election,and bearing in mind that this nation is now facing a situation where we are seeing a third generation of unemployed,
maybe it is time to start creating "incentives" to force these recalcitrent and habitual recipients of taxpayer funded relief,
to actually become employed and contribute to the country`s
Taxpayer revenue base?

I saw one household recently where a mother, son, son`s girlfriend and three other son`s mates were sitting around watching TV all day,
smoking questionable "baccy", all supported financially by the "system"!

I question why this is allowed to happen, and in how many other households is this commonplace across Australia?

We are hearing employers whingeing that they cannot get workers.
We see workers being brought here from othert countries at taxpayers expense, to perform menial tasks such as fruit-picking and the like.
We have a financial system that is drowning in debt, and due partially to all the ridiculous hand-outs to people who believe it is their God-given right to bludge their way through life, and give nothing in return. We are seeing employed females who choose to have a baby, recieving ludicrous maternity benefits and paid maternity leave, again at the expense of the system and the employers.

When are we all going to accept responsibility for our own actions, and accept the hard cruel fact that nobody is entitled to something for nothing?

Nobody should be unempoyed in this day and age, and if preferred to be so, then "incentives" to find work should be applied, evn if it means cleaning the sides of the roads!

Crackup, it is all due to the do gooders having too much say amd our leaders soft cock approach.

I doubt anything can ever stop it, but I do suggest that quarantining of welfare dollars will go a Long way towards stopping much of the waste.

But hey, anything I suggest sees me tagged as a dole recipient hater.

The other problem we have is the benefits many who are employed also get, as something in the order of 42% of tax payers, actually receive more back in welfare than they pay in tax.

So putting that into prospective, this means that a little over half of all tax payers, pick up the slack, and pay the bills.

Another problem is that these layabouts also get to vote.

Crackup,

Those you describe are not just unemployed, they are unemployable. What employer would put his business at risk by paying them good money to jerk you around?

Sadly, our social and educational values have failed them. I do feel sorry for them because we should never forget that they are a product of our current system.

I have no idea how these people might be rehabilitated or if it is even possible however, I would very much like to look at the educational and social issues that produced them. That said can you imagine the reaction from our academic social engineers and teachers to such a suggestion?

Oooh! Don’t think I would like to go there without a small tactical nuclear device under my arm eh?

I agree with spindoc.
Not a strange thing for a unionist to say, these mostly leaches do not want work.
It has been so for near 45 years.
We are not facing mass unemployment.
The truth is most just do every thing they can, to avoid working.
Unfortunately dole is a prop for full time thieves.
I highlight this truth because those truly in need one day may not get it, because we failed them, in not going for the throat of the Dunny Rodents

Here here Belly, well said!

Why not deal with the problem with a Jobs Guarantee, as proposed by economist Bill Mitchell?

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=1541

http://www.cfeps.org/pubs/wp-pdf/WP39-MitchellWray.pdf

According to Roy Morgan research, real unemployment is 10%, on top of an 8% underemployment rate. The welfare and social costs of the unemployment/underemployment are enormous. In Prof. Mitchell's plan, instead of providing welfare, the government would act as the employer of last resort, paying the minimum wage, much as Roosevelt did during the Great Depression in the US. As Prof Mitchell says, there is good evidence that most of the unemployed want to work, while the underemployed say that they want more hours. The real bludgers, assuming that they are not mentally ill, could be offered several different types of work. If they still refuse to take an offer, they could then be given a place in a camp where they would be given a bed, basic clothing, a cheap, but nutritionally adequate diet, and health care, but no money at all. The attractions of not working would soon wane. Single mothers whose youngest child has turned eight or who become pregnant again while on welfare could be offered childcare plus a minimum wage job.

My wife is a counselor with a not for profit job network organisations. As a counselor she handles all the very long term, [18 months & longer] unemployed. In our district she tells me that less than 15% of these long term people are at all interested in finding a job.

There are 3 organisations doing this in a part of our shire with about 14,000 population. Her case book has around 650 cases, as do the other two organisations, giving almost 2000 long term unemployed against approximately 8000 employed. Not a great figure when you look at the costs to us.

She aranges about 90 appointments a week with these unemployed, with about 65 turning up. If the unemployed miss 3 consecutive appointments they are breached, but it is usual for three breaches to be allowed before they suffer any loss of benefit. That is, they can get away with over 4 months of not keeping network interviews, or job interviews before any penalty is likely.

The entitlement thing is rampant. My wife arranged, & the organization paid for, a 22 year old young lady, unemployed for 3 years, to do a real estate institute course, & arranged a job in the rental section of a local real estate company.

The lady & her mother demanded she be supplied with a full wardrobe of clothes suitable for the job, & called my wife 3 kinds of fatherless child when this was refused.

The girl lasted 3 months & just stopped turning up.

Anyone who bleeds for this garbage is a fool.

Things were different in the 60s. That might be why there was much less unemployment.

Remember the CES, the Commonwealth Employment Service, as it was.

In the late 60s I was living on my yacht at a Balmain [Sydney] marina. [I'd sold my house to buy a Brabham F2 racing car, & had enough left to buy a boat, but not a house].

One Saturday a CES bloke turned up looking for someone to get him out to a decrepit old boat moored out in the stream. I rowed him out.

I found he was going to see a dole bludger who camped on the boat. They had sent him to interviews, & he turned up, but unwashed, in torn stinking shorts & singlet, & was still unemployed.

The CES bloke gave him a new pair of shorts & a singlet, & 2 appointments for job interviews, & told him to turn up clean, or else. He told the bludger his dole would be cut off on the next thursday. It was suggested it might take some weeks for any payment to be recommenced. I guess this was the or else.

I can not imagine a bureaucrat putting in part of Saturday today, nor can I imagine some bludger being told to take an offered job, or starve.

Sounds like a great concept for today to me, & one proven to work in the past.

Talking about bludgers, so many "public servants" grab a salary over 10 times more than the dole each, off our taxes and do more harm than good.

Even if they cannot be fired, telling them to "not come on Monday", to stay home doing nothing instead and cutting down their overtime and travel-expenses will save tax payers more than the whole dole system several times over!

Also, maintaining the Centerlink monstrous administration to check on people whether they indeed are willing to work (which makes no difference, in the end those who want to work do work and those who don't do not), all that cat-and-mouse play costs us more than just giving that meagre dole-money, less than 10% of an average public-servant's salary, to anyone that asks.

Just to keep things in perspective an estimated 30,000 economic welfare for lifers will arrive this financial year to add to the ever growing sponge on the taxpayers.

These sponges are worse because they will get preferential treatment.

Philip, thanks for reminding me of the ongoing mess this incompitent mob, encouraged by the loyal support of thier brain washed followers, have created for those of us like myself, who read between the lines and saw the incompetence before it surfaced.

K Rudd and co should never ever be forgiven for this mess they have created.

Y while you and I often disagree your ability to think can not be questioned, unlike some who only see a Labor problem here, yet it has been with us for generations.
I from Labor, agree with you.
Any reforms to my party after the smash must include looking at the failures of the public service.
The world will not stand still nore should we.
I worked in the insanity that is NSW public service.
And beg!
That not the target every one red neck get their way, but that accountability checks and balances be the rule for every public servant,while we develop a way to replace them with something better.

BTW, for those who think that quarantining of welfare dollars is the answer - it could only possibly work in a remote small town or village where everyone's income is quarantined.

Otherwise, nothing stops a welfare-receiver from going to the supermarket and asking others (friends, neighbours, even strangers): "let me help you buy your groceries", then buy what they want with restricted money and give the other person the goods and receipt in exchange for unrestricted cash.

Y you in answering those claims should know few balanced folk think like that.
And within the welfare receivers even less need watching because of miss spending it.
SOME, you chose, here just will not ever let the dole bludger thing see the truth.
It is our fault, a job, real fair wages for real fair work is the answer.

Come on you lot ? National Service, full stop ! Either you want to stop the crap or you don't but be assured national service IS THE ONLY solution !
If it doesn't get introduced soon those grandchildren of the professional dole bludgers will turn zombie-like violent. Better hit the show on head now before it's really totally too late.

Make the bludgers WORK FOR THE DOLE, no work no money.

That goes for the economic invaders as well or STOP them that will fix a lot of the $12 Billion dollar budget blowout.

Dear Philip,

<<Make the bludgers WORK FOR THE DOLE, no work no money.>>

And they will just sit in the sun, say 'O Yeah' and starve to death, right?

No money given == money taken - without permission, from me from you, from old ladies, using force if necessary too.

The costs of fortifying our windows with steel bars, fortified doors and and garages, barbed fences, solid roofing, improved alarm systems, armed security guards in the streets, psychological treatments for our children who were kicked in the air as their sandwich bags were snatched at the playground, and finally tripling the prison population, would be much higher than just letting them have that bit of money to keep their stomachs full.

I bet that not many people know that Australia is the only country in the world that pays unemployment benefits indefinitely.

You can leave school and go on the dole until you're eligible for a pension and then onto a funded nursing home, without making any sort of social contribution, except for being a consumer.

Other countries pay some sort of unemployment benefit for a defined period and then it's onto a minimal welfare payment - far below what our is.

Even the old Soviet Union demanded a minimum period of work in order to to meet pension eligibility.

Now you need to ask yourself if you would be happy to see a permanent underclass of beggars on our streets?

Would you like to see the long-term employed (like prisoner labor) undercutting YOUR wages as a source of limitless cheap labor or being forced to undertake physically dangerous jobs that nobody else would?

We will always have our bludgers, and not all of them are on the bottom of the socio-economic heap.

It comes down to what sort of society - not just economy - you would like to be living in.

Are we in fact a society or just a collection of moneyed individuals looking out for ourselves?

Are we in fact a society or just a collection of moneyed individuals looking out for ourselves?
Wobbles,
Yes!

Yuyutsu, there is little doubt some of what you suggest will go on with regards to cheating the system.

However, if we just managed to feed one hungry kid, from money that would normally be flushed down the pokie toilet, it would be worth a shot, domt you think?

As for work for the dole, this MUST HAPPEN.

They simply need to work the appropriate hours, at minimal rates, to the value of their hand out.

That's step one, step two is no cash.

It is coming to an end. It is now staring us in the face !
The upcoming budget as has been signaled by Gillard and Swan has
shown what is in the wind for our journey down the same track as Greece,
Spain etc etc. China is winding back, it had to, It could not double
the size of its economy in 7 years.
There were just no resources to do that.

The whole world is in the same bind, it is just that some are further
down the gurgler than we are. The undeveloped countries use less
energy & resources per head than the rest of us so they have not had
the impact we have. However later they will, and it will show in food shortages.

It is the end of growth. This is not a temporary state, it is permanent
and for once it is not the fault of any particular party, it is just
that to manage decent is much too hard for the present government.

I am certain the Lib/Nats do not understand what is happening to them either.
We can but hope that both parties wake up and at least find that they
have some common policies to get us out of the coming mess.

Yuyutsu - No problem, give them food stamps.

Dear Philip,

<<Yuyutsu - No problem, give them food stamps.>>

So they will exchange the stamps for food, then sell that food to working people.

then sell that food to working people.
Yuyutsu,
Well, that'll make them salespeople then won't it ? For that they'll need to pay tax.

The principle of National Service, some type of Land Army
or similar, would no doubt be the answer for the "terminally unemployed" as most of them are either people with social
handicaps, or simply do NOT want to find a job for reasons
known only to themselves.

A person can be trained for a multitude of occupations over
a period of two years, if this training is applied as it was
in the earlier times ( eg : National Service era), but of course
there is sure to be the odd "drop-out"(drop-kick),who will
refuse to be helped by this system, however he and his type
can be utilized cleaning the sides of roads (under supervision of course, to avoid sloping off, failure to attend, etc)

I am NOT advocating that the unemployed be simply exploited as "cannon fodder" by the war-machine, however the scheme would
be very benificial by instilling a reasonable sense of responsibilty
and self-discipline in persons seemingly lacking in these important
fundamentals, required by any succesful society.

The alternative option of continuing as we are today, can only
result in total collapse of the unemployment benefit system, due
to what will have to be strict fiscal restraints, applied by whichever Government to try to reduce our appalling defict, which
is now becoming very apparent!

Dear Individual,

<<Well, that'll make them salespeople then won't it ? For that they'll need to pay tax.>>

Assuming they will report it... you currently don't need to pay tax on those low levels of income. We are talking about just a portion of "newstart" income (well they still need to eat something) while the tax threshold is currently $18200.

- or they could simply "share a meal" directly, exchanging food for grog.

So here goes the 'cat-and-mouse' game, round #3. Perhaps you, the spectators, would like to bet on who wins: will the cat be able force the mouse to work in the end, or will the mouse have his cheese anyway?

Meanwhile the cat jumps wildly around, whiskers and Cheshire smiles seemingly flying in all directions at once, also knocking down and breaking dozens of bottles of milk and jars of cream as he whizzes.

Large contingents of police fly over in helicopters, using the most modern, cutting-edge infra-red surveillance gadgets to ensure that dole'ies do not exchange goods with the work'ies. Specially-employed doctors and nurses keep taking random blood and urine samples, constantly testing in specially-built labs to make sure that nothing but the supplied foods has entered the bodies of dole'ies while no supplied foods entered the bodies of the work'ies. Same for clothing and shelter, an army of clerks keeps checking that the dole'ies actually wear what they were given and stay in the public-housing apartments they received. Another contingent of university professors and social workers are paid to write volumes upon volumes of memos and procedures on how to better enforce the 'no-exchange' policy.

Each of the above 'special forces' receives over 10 "newstart"s in salary, especially if they had to relocate to a remote area for that job.

Any idea how much all these measures cost us, the tax-payers?

Why not just give the poor fellows their money and forget about them? so much can be saved!

Well Yuyutsu, sounds like you are an expert in methods of avoiding pulling your weight.

Middle eastern extraction old chap?

Dear Hasbeen,

<<Well Yuyutsu, sounds like you are an expert in methods of avoiding pulling your weight.>>

Thanks for the compliment, I always like helping others beating the system.

I just wonder what's that expression doing here, "pulling your weight", appearing for the first time on this thread.

So far we discussed the issue of whether, and if so how, should the state help those who do not earn money to feed themselves. It was never mentioned till now that the people being discussed necessarily do not pull their weight. They could help others in so many ways - their families and extended families of course, but they could also be caring for others in the community, they could possibly devote their time and efforts to help elderly and sick people; or to provide informal education to children; or to make peace in their neighbourhood; or console the dying and distressed; or produce nice and useful products, freely given out to others in need. They could perhaps give free legal or medical or sports-training or musical advice, etc. They could even be the JP sitting for free in your local library to sign your documents.

The only difference could be that those people, who contribute at least as much to society as anybody else, refuse to be formally employed for money, perhaps because they rather maintain their independence and avoid situations where their boss orders them to do things which they find unethical, or perhaps because they are not willing to play the dirty game of formal qualifications, perhaps because they know better than others how to help effectively and efficiently without bureaucratic disturbance. Perhaps because they have no heart to charge money from their needy clients.

I wonder: do you consider only those who earn money (ethically or otherwise) in formal employment and participate in the official economy as good and worthy people?

yes i think that too and belly i agree with you. I know that there are many unemployed but the hardest thing that an economy can face is that the disguise unemployable. If a person with the degree is not wiling to work then there is no way to boost the economy but too depend upon the foreign labor.

Good swerve there Yuyutsu, you managed to avoid answering with all that gobbledygook.

I know it might come as a surprise to you, but quite a few of us do these things "on the side". Yes we come home from earning our own living, then do our community.

A little list of ours.

1/ JP sitting at home.
2/ Rural watch coordinator, [community watch in the bush].
3/ Secretary then treasurer of little athletics.
4/ Treasurer of pony club
5/ Secretary of irrigators comity, member of regional water advisory comity.
6/ Original coordinator of the in school apprenticeship scheme.
7/ Co founder & coordinator of the high school P&C textbook hire scheme, which puts $170,000 into the school each year.

So old chap, we do a bit of that community stuff around here, but don't believe that entitles us to expect someone else should pay our bills for us.

No one, & I mean no one has any right to expect others to pay their way for them.

Yes we do hire some people to do jobs for us. People like cops defense forces, teachers, & prime ministers, & that is our choice.

Others who want a hand out should ask, nicely, accept the decision of the taxpayer, & be prepared to do what ever is asked of them to justify the handout

Dear Hasbeen,

<<Others who want a hand out should ask, nicely, accept the decision of the taxpayer, & be prepared to do what ever is asked of them to justify the handout>

As a taxpayer, my decision is to grant every Australian who asks for it and has no other income, that meagre minimal sum of money that is barely sufficient to frugally subsist on, with no further demands and no further questions. This will allow everyone to live in dignity, forced neither to steal nor to become part of the formal economic 'system'.

Abolishing Centerlink will alone cover most if not all of the extra payments, then so many other government offices and functions should be abolished as well, saving us, the taxpayers, orders of magnitude more than by trying to squeeze and chase the poorest among us.

Yuyutsu,

It's all about consumption, don't you know : )

Take this natty observation from the Myer boss on the NDIS:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-02/myer-faces-backlash-over-ndis-comments/4664668

"Mr Brookes said the extra half a percentage point increase in the Medicare levy would take money from households that would otherwise be spent in Myer stores."

Oh yea....

Great stuff Yuyutsu, I grant you the right to do what ever you like with your earnings, provided they are your earnings.

However I demand the same right, to do with my earnings as I wish. They most definitely are not yours to dispense as you wish.

But then you show your true colours. You want to grant everyone dignity. This is the refuge of the idiot, or liar.

No one can grant anyone dignity. Dignity is something that comes from within. No one can waffle around like some fairy godmother dispensing dignity. You either have it, or you don't. Money has nothing to do with it, except that demanding others pay your way immediately displays you have none.

I can now see your wish to be some grandiose god like being, dispensing the earnings of others on your chosen. Well, we're not interested thanks. The only dignity comes from being self supporting, & independent. Bludgers need not apply

Dear Hasbeen,

<<I grant you the right to do what ever you like with your earnings, provided they are your earnings.>>

Thank you so much. I am sure you do, but the government does not, they believe it's theirs to do whatever they like with.

Among all the many things they do with my hard-earned money, without asking me, welfare is the best.

<<However I demand the same right, to do with my earnings as I wish. They most definitely are not yours to dispense as you wish.>>

And indeed I do not, you've got the wrong number. I have no interest in your earnings, but I have no control over the earnings the government takes away from you: just as they never asked for my permission, they don't ask for yours either.

<<Money has nothing to do with it, except that demanding others pay your way immediately displays you have none.>>

Correct on both accounts. However, my reasons for supporting unconditional welfare have nothing to do with anyone's demands.

<<You want to grant everyone dignity.>>

This is not what I wrote - I wrote: "This will ALLOW everyone to live in dignity". Whether people in fact choose to live with dignity is up to them. All I ask here is to prevent hunger being the reason for anyone losing their dignity.

<<The only dignity comes from being self supporting, & independent.>>

Well, I do not agree that dignity and/or "self supporting" is related to taking part in the economy to earn money. It is rather those people who receive a pay for putting trash in your mailbox, or for selling horrible and unconscionable things, that have no dignity, while the ones who refuse to do so, thus remaining unemployed, are the ones with dignity.

Part of another post that is I feel is relevant to this thread.

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?

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. We treat our first Australians and from time to time other minority groups differently to the majority of us. Looking at things in isolation will not solve the problem.

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.

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:
I agree wholeheartedly with your opinion and suggestions regarding the handing-out of slices of the National pie!
Unfortunately, many of the contenders will no doubt condemn your views as being "rampant Communism"

We need a strong voice and a steady hand to summon the courage to speak out and to say what needs to be said, such as "who is benefitting financially from the influx of Asylum Seekers",... could certain members of Government be reaping reward either financially or politically from a continuing or even increasing influx of these people, who in most circumstances wish to get a slice of our pie, a pie which we have all (or most) have worked and paid taxes to produce!

This insane policy created by the United Nations and seemingly condemning Australians to have to share our country and our incomes with this group of financial opportunists, is being milked to the very limit, by a group of self-seeking politicians ( some not even elected to the position by the people ) as the problem creates more angst and uncertainty across our population, by the worry that we could see our country taken over by foreigners with totally differing social and religous cultures!

We should in the interest of cultural survival, say now to the UN that enough is enough, the doors are closed until we can return to a state of fiscal balance, and until we can get our own shop in order,...OR is there some benign group pushing this problem, hoping to gain power and wealth from the chaos that can result from a clash of cultures?

Crackup – What I am suggesting is not communism as individual difference is acknowledged and accepted. I like to call it “Productivism”. The concept is based around the concept that nothing has value if it is not produced first. It accepts we are all different and allows for this difference but requires each individual to participate to some degree to get a share of the productive pie. The share would depend on the degree of participation and the contribution to productivity.

You have got yourself into a bit of a tangle over asylum seekers and in doing so are contributing to conflict. If an asylum seeker is genuinely fleeing for their life irrespective of how they get here I believe they should be given qualified sanctuary. If they are not they should be return to where they came or if it’s unsafe another destination of their choice that will accept them, that is safe. Those who stay should be given conditional visas for a significant period of time that require them to submit to Australian law and this country. Asylum seekers should be allowed to pursue their customs providing those customs does not impinge on our laws or the individual rights of any individual. This includes members of their own community. Ghettos should be discouraged and the easiest way to do this is accept them into our community and learn from them. If they breach these conditions they risk being removed from the country. If that significant time passes and they become assimilated productive Australians we should welcome them as Australians with citizenship.

I grew up with a lot of ethnic kids and without that experience I would be a lesser person. Without them this country would not be what it is today. Left alone cultures change and evolve as we learn from each other.

Cont.

Cont.

Crackup – Gina Rinehart has I reckon ripped more out of your wallet than the entire population of asylum seekers combined and she in the country legally. I also reckon she would be happy to use as many at a bargain price as she can get her hands on.

I look forward to the day we discover intelligent alien life. We will all at that moment become Earthlings. I only hope they discover intelligent life at the same time.

Oh yes it is communism Producer, & as soon as you start waffling on that someone who provides very well paid employment to thousand, like Rinehart is taking money from anyone's wallet it is envious communism.

Envy is a very ugly emotion. I'd suggest you think deeply, then give thanks to those who through their effort, foresight, & risk taking provide the opportunity of earning a very good living to so many.

Without the Rineharts of this world a great number of us would be much poorer.

We had this to each according to their needs demonstrated in Russia. It lead to collapse. China was bound for the same result, until they allowed those who earned it to prosper from their work.

Hasbeen – Name suits you

Communism - A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

Nothing I have said fits this description, quite the reverse. I advocate a democratic proportional government where it is unlikely any one party could gain a majority.

If it wasn’t for the Rinehart’s of the world we would all be richer in many ways. People like her take (not produce) a disproportionate share of our productive wealth. They also take the most valuable thing we all have and that is time.

What does Rinehart do for our billions? Last time I heard she didn’t even own a mine, didn’t produce anything. Someone is producing those billions she takes and it’s not her.

A conductor can wave a baton, but without the orchestra there is no music.

Dear Producer,

I will stay out of the debate whether or not productivism is a form of communism. Regardless, it is evil because however implemented, some authority will need to judge others whether they are productive enough to receive anything.

Now someone like you could decide that lawyers are unproductive, another that artists are unproductive, or perhaps just certain artists because one hates their art/music, certainly sportsmen are unproductive, especially if you don't like their sport, some will claim that mathematicians are unproductive because they only deal with useless abstract objects, others that taxi-drivers are unproductive because you could take a bus, etc. etc. etc. Most importantly, too many on this forum who do not believe in religion would decree that clergymen are unproductive.

Then you say that you want to avoid conflict?

Yes, Sharing is Courageous - but only when it is unconditional.

Yuyutsu – After your inability to accept you are using digital technology on our old copper network in another thread I did ask myself was there any point in responding. You seem to be unable to accept anything but your own doctrine. Bit like a Jehovah’s Witness at your front door. I’m going to give it one more try!

I said previously – I believe 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.

Yuyu – Productive or not, nobody on your list would miss out. Nobody judges them or has the ability to withdraw their share of the productive pie providing they do their bit. I repeat every person of working age in this country is entitled to a fair share of this countries productivity however should be required to do something meaningful for it, for a prescribed amount of time. Most importantly these activities should be controlled and tailored at local level, not centralised government.

Once an individual has fulfilled their commitment their time is their own to do with it what they will. The size of the productive pie is directly linked to productivity and will go up and down. So if the country was full of disproportionately over rewarded parasite professional sports persons, lawyers, politicians, bankers, advertisers, financial professionals or Gina Rinehart’s there would be no productivity and there would be no income. We would have to borrow off or sell our country to the Chinese.

Dear Producer,

I do accept the fact that my phone service over copper wires is provided using digital technology, I'm just very unhappy about it.

<<however should be required to do something meaningful for it, for a prescribed amount of time.>>

Required? Here you introduce coercion, now someone is required to judge whether what another does is meaningful or not.

(P.S. I say that sabotaging the fibre-optic cables and digital exchanges is an extremely meaningful activity!)
(P.P.S. I say that writing on OLO trying to convince others to abandon digital technology is also an extremely meaningful activity)

To try soften this bitter pill you write:

<<Most importantly these activities should be controlled and tailored at local level>>

So someone else is still to control our activities (over a prescribed amount of time), perhaps our local kolkhoz committee?

<<The size of the productive pie is directly linked to productivity and will go up and down.>>

With due respect, this is a circular definition. Who is to say what's productive? Is making more electronic gadgets that beep and flash at you a productive pursuit? The less you need those, the less you need to worry about selling off to either China or America.

I share your sentiment about professional sportsmen, politicians, advertisers, lawyers, etc., but this particular discussion is about people who live on the dole, hardly Gina Rinehart’s. One could say "if they hadn't received those payments without having to work, then they could have become farmers or build roads", but by the same token, they could have become lawyers and advertisers in shiny sports-cars...

Living frugally, willing to just have a simple roof over one's head, eat simple food, wear simple clothes (washed by hand), not owning a car or travelling, etc. is much more valuable to society than productivity. Not needing a car is better than producing a car. The best contributors to society are not those who produce more, but the ones who reduce demand, especially those who teach, preferably by personal example, how to live with less, have materially less, yet find inner riches.

Yes Producer, the name suits me,

But please don't bother trying to join the Royal Order of Hasbeens old fellow.

You see, to be a hasbeen first you have to be a someone, something, judging by your posts, you are very unlikely to achieve.

Hasbeen - Short of response you would expect when one is unable to respond intelligently or logically!

unemployment has solutions but disguise unemployment has not.

http://www.pivot.edu.au/