Life has changed, and there's no going back. Life is much more complex now, much more competitive, and the disparities between rich and poor grow ever greater. The rewards for success can be enormous (or even positively 'obscene', by general standards), and many may consider, quite erroneously, that achieving a modest existence is tantamount to abject failure. Not everyone can invent a 'Facebook' program, or be a maths or physics genius, write a bestseller, be a sports star, or become a business tycoon, a mining or media mogul, a professor, politician or high-flying bureaucrat.

All are individuals, with individual potentials, drives, attributes, and even opportunity. There will always be disparity. The most one could expect is that each contributes to the overall good according to their capacity.

Does Producer have a viable suggestion?

>If all working Australians had a “universal basic income” linked to Australia’s GDP we would have no requirement for any pensions or the bureaucratic system and red tape that feeds on it.<

Shall the world embrace such an homogeneity? (Even if it were possible by some means?) All reduced to the lowest common denominator?
And, with no 'red tape'? And who would administer such a scheme, if not bureaucrats and politicians?
Money from industry flowing into government, in the form of 'excess' profits, after payment to workers of the 'basic income', and this excess then transferred to those not in industrial employment - but who would be engaged doing some non-profit activity (like a 'green army' perhaps?) or volunteering?
The 'mechanics' do not compute.

Life has changed because of overpopulation, worldwide and 'at home', because of global competition for ever-diminishing resources and, ultimately, for survival and ever-greater affluence, and possibly, ultimately, for supremacy.

Unless Oz competes successfully our lifestyle, our future, will be in jeopardy.

$18.70 pw basic wage increase is the thin edge of the wedge to increasing uncompetitiveness on the world stage. Overseas shipbuilding contracts are indicative of far worse things to come - particularly as energy becomes increasingly scarce and expensive.
One size fits all? Good luck with that.

We are offered a truism: 'Age does not necessarily beget wisdom'.

Shall we try another: Youth does not necessarily beget vigour.
Or: Intent does not necessarily beget success.
Or: Looking back won't necessarily get you moving forward.

Most youth may 'wish to gain meaningful and rewarding employment', but some have just about 'thrown in the towel' before they begin.
We do need more meaningful and rewarding jobs for our ever-burgeoning youth, and we need the education and skills training to enable those youth to succeed. We also need the means to instill a 'drive to succeed' in those who lack the confidence or the enthusiasm for employment.

There is no 'one size fits all', but without investment (and possibly subsidies) in new and innovative enterprise we are beaten before we start in any attempt to place all of our capable youth in any form of employment at all. Some will inevitably find their way, by sheer ability and perseverance, but we cannot afford to fail the others.

Welfare as a 'means to an end' for those who have the capacity to contribute (even if they don't know it) not only fails those individuals but fails society as a whole.

Producer

As you say - simplistic. Also idealistic. Simple fact is some people are more productive than others, work longer hours, and have given quite a few of their best years to learn their profession. Doctors come to mind here. Yet you propose to set their level of remuneration to the lowest level to put them on an even wage structure with those who have not sacrificed anything to improve their skill set?

However I think we have too many chiefs on the gravy train in public office whose number could very easily be reduced.

We have too many professional politicians.

I don't propose no politicians, as someone has to represent us, but would certainly get rid of the current breed on all sides who have never worked in the real world, together with those who have risen to their present heights purely through the unions, in favour of a seasoned successful business person who has succeeded in their own particular field.
For example, Dick Smith for small and large business. Len Buckeridge would have been great for the building industry, but he's no longer with us unfortunately. O.K., so two unpopular people also spring to mind for the mining sector. I would favour Palmer as I believe he's self made. Despite Gina's unpopularity and the fact she inherited her wealth, she was well trained by her father, and has managed to increase the business despite having to deal mainly in what is traditionally considered a men's world.

Government is in many ways a corporation. Where it differs is that promotion isn't obtained through merit, and so many from the top echelon down to the lowest would not survive outside of the public service. Portfolios are awarded through "deals", not on prior relevant specific experience.

Our present ambassador to the United states is Kim Beazley - a man who has never been anything other than a very poor politician who wasted millions of our money when he was defence minister, and the consequences of his ineptitude? Terminated? No, given the prime post he wanted in the U.S.

Salpetre

The world has changed, but people have learned little from history

One particular point you made resonated with me. The world is overpopulated and the growth is exponential, yet China was the only one to try and contain it for many years - with little success.

More people to earn money obviously adds to the coffers of the already wealthy. Maybe that's why we don't hear any complaints from them. The only way to curtail an increase in their incomes is to curtail population growth yes? Well no, because money makes money even if it's just sitting earning interest. It's darned hard to send a billionaire broke if he sits on his fortune and doesn't fund any risky ventures. And who determines what they may be?

I can't find it in my heart to envy them though. Unlike poor people whose friends stand nothing to gain from them except their friendship, the rich often are unable to distinguish true friends from false friends, and those who would like to relieve them of some of their money. Like us, they can only wear 1 outfit at a time, and they can only eat so much food in a day. And then along comes the biggie - they leave this world with the same as you and I - nothing.

What's to envy?

Going back to rehctub's initial post:

"Now these genuine unemployed, many battlers, are being treated like second rate citizens all because the serial bludgers of society have to be stopped.

It's just a pity that in order to catch the Grubbs, decent people also have to suffer."

I couldn't agree more:

http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/security-it/julie-bishops-websites-cost-113000-20140605-zrxlh.html

"Three websites for Foreign Minister Julie Bishop's foreign affairs portfolio have cost taxpayers $113,130, according to answers to questions on notice at Senate budget estimates.

The costs include more than $68,000 for "website testing", $19,000 for training, $15,000 for "website release management" and $10,000 for "website deployment".

"I assume [website deployment] means pushing the button to put it up," said Labor Senator Joseph Ludwig, who was asking top bureaucrats about the costs in the hearing on Wednesday morning.

Senator Ludwig later told Fairfax Media: "This is just more evidence of the twisted priorities of the government while it breaks its promises to pensioners, students and low- and middle-income families."

.....

worldwatcher,

Here's a great little animated video narrated by the American actor Ed Asner covering exactly your point in your last post.

http://www.moveon.org/share/72e232/hollywood-legend-ed-asner-has-outraged-republicans?rc=share-5393dd

I highly recommend you view - I think you'll gain a lot from it.

Producer you really should stop thinking in worn out clichés.

The rich do appear to be getting richer, but the poor are also getting richer, at least at the same rate or much quicker.

We only have these bludgers today because their life is not too bad, & is in fact bloody good, with a day or two cash in hand from desperate employers. We are rich enough to pay them that well.

While you think in clichés, you fall for the con job they are meant to effect. You don't have to live in a spectacular house or drive a spectacular car to be rich.

We celebrated my cars 34 birthday a few days ago. It is a magnificent car, lovely to look at & to drive. People compliment me on it regularly, but I doubt I could get more than $7500 for it. Regardless of that, there is no way I would swap it for my neighbors hundred thousand plus new Range Rover.

Should I envy him his expensive car? No way, he leaves for work at around 5 most days, & is regularly arriving home after 7. I worked that hard for quite a few years, I could have been rich, for what.

You only sleep in one room, you only need 3 meals a day, what does being rich do for you? It would appear all it does is attract envy hate, both of which I can do without.