The Dole

El_Duderino 09

Speedwell wrote:

But as I have repeatedly pointed out, a policy of job creation would provide the jobs that a policy of dole recipient punishment would not provide, and a policy of drafting dole recipients at a fraction of the going rate for their employment would not provide.

Sure wasn't I just talking about job creation?

Speedwell

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure wasn't I just talking about job creation?

We both were. I think the jobs I was talking about, however, were legitimate, meaningful jobs that the community actually needed people to do, and that could be given to dole recipients who were looking for and suited to such jobs, so that both the community and the newly employed would benefit. Hiring people to do work for which they are unsuited and at which they would not be competent, or to perform tasks that are demeaning because they are useless makework or paid at a fraction of the going rate, is a net burden on the community and not a benefit to the recipient.

Joe prim

KCross wrote: »

Thats really weird logic. So their job is to recycle my tax money! No thanks.
I'd rather my tax money be spent on providing services.

But I do agree that they shouldnt be forced to do "random" work for it.

The dole should only be a safety net for those who find themselves out of work. It should not be a lifestyle choice.

It's not really weird logic, it's actually basic economics (the multiplier), the more money circulating in the economy, the more economic activity there is and the more jobs there are , or at least that's how it used to work. New technology , robotics etc. will probably set a new challenge, i.e how to adjust to un- or chronic underemployment for most people. Maybe the long-term welfaristas will be able to set up as consultants to the rest of us, teaching us how to fill in the long lazy days.

El_Duderino 09

Speedwell wrote:

We both were. I think the jobs I was talking about, however, were legitimate, meaningful jobs that the community actually needed people to do, and that could be given to dole recipients who were looking for and suited to such jobs, so that both the community and the newly employed would benefit. Hiring people to do work for which they are unsuited and at which they would not be competent, or to perform tasks that are demeaning because they are useless makework or paid at a fraction of the going rate, is a net burden on the community and not a benefit to the recipient.

You're talking about the Government 'creating' a lot of jobs at market rate. If those jobs were actually necessary st market rates, wouldn't the market have already created them?

Are you talking about the Government matching people to jobs like a job agency or actually creating jobs?

Speedwell

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You're talking about the Government 'creating' a lot of jobs at market rate. If those jobs were actually necessary st market rates, wouldn't the market have already created them?

Are you talking about the Government matching people to jobs like a job agency or actually creating jobs?

I used to be a libertarian and a member of the Von Mises Institute, as a matter of fact, so I am not ignorant of the "free market" arguments... or of their weaknesses. In brief, the so-called "free market" is a useless, reductionist artifact of the popularisation of economic concepts that are in reality quite difficult and interdependent and not well-understood even by experts in the field. In simpler words, "it doesn't work how you think".

Someone (whether state or private entities) needs to create jobs and actually offer them to jobseekers at a rate that jobseekers will accept for the jobs to be meaningful in the economy. If you propose that dole recipients work, you have to create economically meaningful jobs for them to do that meet their needs both in income and in suitability. I also propose that dole recipients accept economically meaningful jobs that they can keep and succeed in. That's called "becoming gainfully employed".

If the market hasn't created such jobs, it is not because the unfettered invisible hand of Adam Smith refused to create them, but because of asymmetrical information tipping the balance toward certain vested interests, and because of interventionist policies that need to be re-examined in light of current events and social requirements. Perhaps less regulation is needed in one area; perhaps more in another.

Someone upthread referred to graffiti removal as a possible community job. The community in question, like some communities in Los Angeles, might have decided to keep the graffiti as street art, or they might already have a contractor whose job it is to remove it and that contractor hasn't started the job yet, or they may not choose to expend the funds to do the work. If the first, then the community thinks that the graffiti itself has a value worth preserving, and no job will be created to remove it. If the second, the job in question has already been created and a community member has filled it. If the third, then a job will be created once the community decides it is worth paying someone to do it. At that time they can, if they choose, give or even reserve the job to an applicant who receives the dole.

But when I refer to the Government creating jobs, I really mean not that the community should find public works jobs for everyone on the dole (though there's nothing wrong with doing it as far as practical), but that policies should encourage job creation. I think Ireland is doing much better than the US in this regard, and much worse than certain other European countries. Part of the reason for this is cultural, and whereas some of those cultural habits are legitimately Irish and worth preserving, others of those cultural habits are indefensible and divisive and inequitable. We can all open a newspaper and find examples of favoritism, corruption, and fraud among the top ranks of business and government. It's those people we should be fighting, not each other.

El_Duderino 09

Speedwell wrote:

I used to be a libertarian and a member of the Von Mises Institute, as a matter of fact, so I am not ignorant of the "free market" arguments... or of their weaknesses. In brief, the so-called "free market" is a useless, reductionist artifact of the popularisation of economic concepts that are in reality quite difficult and interdependent and not well-understood even by experts in the field. In simpler words, "it doesn't work how you think".

Well colour me impressed that you used to be a member of a society you didn't understand.

Speedwell wrote:

Someone (whether state or private entities) needs to create jobs and actually offer them to jobseekers at a rate that jobseekers will accept for the jobs to be meaningful in the economy. If you propose that dole recipients work, you have to create economically meaningful jobs for them to do that meet their needs both in income and in suitability. I also propose that dole recipients accept economically meaningful jobs that they can keep and succeed in. That's called "becoming gainfully employed".

Job seekers will accept social security benefits rate. As long as it's enough to live on then it's set sum except that society gets a service it wants. Maybe where you live is perfect but let's assume there's a service that your area needs and you have the imagination to think of that service.

The Government can't go around employing everyone at their desired salary. If they did that, there wouldn't be any point talking about the market value because people could go on unemployment benefits and get their desired job at their desired salary. Why bother to try harder?

Speedwell wrote:

If the market hasn't created such jobs, it is not because the unfettered invisible hand of Adam Smith refused to create them, but because of asymmetrical information tipping the balance toward certain vested interests, and because of interventionist policies that need to be re-examined in light of current events and social requirements. Perhaps less regulation is needed in one area; perhaps more in another.

I'm not sure this is English. Is it code for something? Would you share the code with me?

Speedwell wrote:

Someone upthread referred to graffiti removal as a possible community job. The community in question, like some communities in Los Angeles, might have decided to keep the graffiti as street art, or they might already have a contractor whose job it is to remove it and that contractor hasn't started the job yet, or they may not choose to expend the funds to do the work. If the first, then the community thinks that the graffiti itself has a value worth preserving, and no job will be created to remove it. If the second, the job in question has already been created and a community member has filled it. If the third, then a job will be created once the community decides it is worth paying someone to do it. At that time they can, if they choose, give or even reserve the job to an applicant who receives the dole.

Assume the graffiti needs to be removed even if just to provide a blank canvas for the next street artist.

If the council doesn't have money to hire to a contractor to remove graffiti but is giving money to able bodied people to live and not work whilst unemployed then those people should get together. The unemployed person can give some labour in exchange for their unemployment benefit. I understand you think that would be wage theft but I think it's simple quid pro quo. It's a short term deal and it's not an unreasonable arrangement.

Speedwell wrote:

But when I refer to the Government creating jobs, I really mean not that the community should find public works jobs for everyone on the dole (though there's nothing wrong with doing it as far as practical.

So now you're making my argument for me? Like, I'm flattered but why all the protest up to now?

Speedwell wrote:

but that policies should encourage job creation. I think Ireland is doing much better than the US in this regard, and much worse than certain other European countries. Part of the reason for this is cultural, and whereas some of those cultural habits are legitimately Irish and worth preserving, others of those cultural habits are indefensible and divisive and inequitable. We can all open a newspaper and find examples of favoritism, corruption, and fraud among the top ranks of business and government. It's those people we should be fighting, not each other.

No problem with this but it's a separate issue.

Godge

Speedwell wrote: »

Yes, yes, the country sets the rate through a political process at the minimum rate it can get away with and still be able to look like it's doing its job of taking care of the poor. And?

That assumes an efficient market determining the rate of the dole.

In actuality it is an inefficient process controlled by special interests. So how do we know it is the "minimum rate it can get away with". It may well be far above that rate.

Speedwell

Yeah, if after four pages of this you are still arguing that someone who works in a job should get paid something other than a proper wage for that job, I wash my hands of you.

El_Duderino 09

Speedwell wrote: »

Yeah, if after four pages of this you are still arguing that someone who works in a job should get paid something other than a proper wage for that job, I wash my hands of you.

I think unemployed people should be given the means to live while unemployed. We both agree that the government should create jobs to occupy people while they look for a job. I think it should run beside the dole, you think the governemtn should be employing database designers and doctors, lawyers and CEOs at their market rate.

'Hello social welfare, I'm an unemployed Formula 1 driver. The going rate is 10m a year for my job.'
'No problem sir. The first payment will be in your bank on Tuesday'

In the long term you're talking about the government creating jobs and paying full wages for people who become unemployed. Should that go on indefinitely? Should the Government establish public building contractor businesses to employ the unemployed tradesmen from the recession and compete with private business or would the government place people in existing private companies? When would this job finish? Why on earth would an employer hire new staff at their own expense if they could just get the government to pay their staff's wages at the market rate? You're talking about a job bridge scheme that would pay the market rate and potentially go on for ever (why bother to look for a job if the government will create a job for you and pay you whatever the going rate is?). You must have found the money tree because this would be astronomically expensive to run, even in the short-medium term

Sense, it does not make.

People on the dole given jobs to occupy them and keep them sharp while looking for a job, giving something back to the community while living on public money. Social welfare is one of the marks of a civilized society but giving money to people indefinitely and expecting nothing in return is crazy business.

Anyone with a sense of fair play would be happy to give something back in exchange for their dole.

ancapailldorcha

El_Duderino_09, please post in a more civil manner or not at all. Thanks.

HivemindXX

Speedwell wrote: »

Yeah, if after four pages of this you are still arguing that someone who works in a job should get paid something other than a proper wage for that job, I wash my hands of you.

You think that community service is a job, this is a fundamental problem with your position. You have stated repeatedly that if it would cost X amount to get something done then they should just pay this to get it done. You don't seem to understand that these things, like clearing graffiti or picking up rubbish, aren't done because the money isn't there.

You claim that this would steal jobs from other people. Do you think that anyone doing volunteer work is an evil job thief? This is a genuine question since that is the sort of thing some free market ideologues or libertarians think.

Very few people would think requiring someone who has been on the dole a long time to do four or eight hours community service is exploitation. That is certainly more than the minimum wage so I don't understand how it is not a 'proper wage'.

As far as I'm concerned the main issue is supervision and administration. I suspect that a scheme like this would unfortunately cost more to operate than the benefit it would bring.

Speedwell

If the community needs work done, then they can pay someone to do it. Preferably someone who has been receiving the dole and needs a job. I don't see why this is so difficult for people. You know, employ the unemployed. If you want to take advantage of people when they're down just because you can, then please just be honest about it.

K-9

Hey folks, sometimes it's ok to disagree and acknowledge people have different views on how a system can work. Beats getting frustrated because they aren't getting it and saying they want free child labour, gulags or free houses, cars and stuff!

Seriously, the thread is very good and some great points raised on both sides, nobody has to win or lose the internet though.

Speedwell

K-9 wrote: »

Hey folks, sometimes it's ok to disagree and acknowledge people have different views on how a system can work. Beats getting frustrated because they aren't getting it and saying they want free child labour, gulags or free houses, cars and stuff!

Seriously, the thread is very good and some great points raised on both sides, nobody has to win or lose the internet though.

Thanks, but https://xkcd.com/774/.

People go on the dole because they either can't or won't work. I agree that they need to show that, if they are able to work, they are engaged in finding work. If the reason they can't work is because they can't find work that they can do effectively and survive on, then the correct solution is either to find them decent, suitable jobs so they can get and stay off the dole, or to remove the obstacles that prevent them from accepting suitable work (such as lack of affordable, safe child care, or zero-hours "schedules"). The correct solution is not to keep them on the dole so you get to have a stable of workers who can't afford to refuse to do your scut work for less than the job would pay if you honestly employed someone to do it. Forcing people to "volunteer" is not volunteerism. If the community can't afford to legitimately employ people to do the jobs it needs done, it is the responsibility of the community and policy makers to solve that financial problem in a way that doesn't take advantage of the least fortunate.

The disagreement is not an honest one, it is a matter of human rights. Poor people get those too. In fact, I would be surprised at the number of people who advocate policies that they would think of as unfair and abusive if the shoe was on the other foot and they were dole recipients themselves, except that I am sure every single one regards themselves as an exception. I'm actually pretty shocked at the "workhouse" mentality shown by certain other posters and I expected better from citizens of a civilised European nation.

ressem

The disconnect is that the tasks are not needed, in many cases they are cosmetic.

" it is the responsibility of the community and policy makers to solve that financial problem in a way that doesn't take advantage of the least fortunate."

Nope, the community will just look away and grumble under it's breath.

There exist tasks that a community or section of a community would like carried out but it could never be a sustainable job; and the advocates could never stomach the burden of being an employer.

And the worker, if they attempted the work as a taxpaying, fully legal, self-employed would find themselves earning half the dole equivalent.

In the 80's and 90's an individual from the community could give the scouts a few quid for the bob-a-job annual fundraiser as a once off; we cleaned out many a ditch and road gutter. Nowadays people are expected to care enough to carry out the work themselves, or leave the task undone, for decades.

There's a whole 'guaranteed minimum income' suggestion that might allow people to carry out one-off tasks like this for a few hours pay without social welfare using a hot iron brand to stamp the curse of self-employment on your forehead.

The situation seems a bit bizarre to me. Germany is constantly saying that it needs more workers, and persists in letting non-europeans in, while there is unemployment across europe. Why not insist that those on the the dole be transfered to another country to fill that countrys job needs?

Combine the dole payment with a partial payment from the employer, and provide travel allowances/housing for the dole members. They would get more than the actual dole is worth, get some experience for later jobs, and perhaps have the opportunity for later promotion. and the economy of europe would benefit, and lower the security concerns of encouraging immigrants from non-western cultures.

seems like a reasonable solution to me.

Speedwell

Deleted User wrote: »

The situation seems a bit bizarre to me. Germany is constantly saying that it needs more workers, and persists in letting non-europeans in, while there is unemployment across europe. Why not insist that those on the the dole be transfered to another country to fill that countrys job needs?

Combine the dole payment with a partial payment from the employer, and provide travel allowances/housing for the dole members. They would get more than the actual dole is worth, get some experience for later jobs, and perhaps have the opportunity for later promotion. and the economy of europe would benefit, and lower the security concerns of encouraging immigrants from non-western cultures.

seems like a reasonable solution to me.

It sounds perfectly reasonable for dole recipients who have no ties to the place they live in. Currently I'm aware of a lot of immigration policies that do provide incentives for young single people to work and gain experience in a country other than their country of residence. It doesn't become a bad idea until you require people to pull up roots, or to work in a job to which they are not suited.

SILVAMAN

Speedwell wrote: »

If I was on the dole, I would be absolutely no use doing physical labor. Sorry, folks; my body is just not up to the task.

I would be a lot of use to the community if I could use the skills I built up over a lifetime of experience in publishing, training, and IT. But, then again, that would be a job.

If you can get up in the morning, make your bed, fix your breakfast and wipe your behind, you can work.
To survive people in the concentration camps did whatever work it took to survive.
No problem with helping people who are genuinely incapacitated, or who have just lost their jobs, but after 6 months no more freebies.
Nothing comes from nothing.

Speedwell

SILVAMAN wrote: »

If you can get up in the morning, make your bed, fix your breakfast and wipe your behind, you can work.
To survive people in the concentration camps did whatever work it took to survive.
No problem with helping people who are genuinely incapacitated, or who have just lost their jobs, but after 6 months no more freebies.
Nothing comes from nothing.

Sure, you can work if there are jobs available that you are suited for. You must have skipped past the posts in which I talk about my job. I've been an IT business analyst in data, project, training, and document management for fifteen years. Not exactly your concentration camp job (and wtf, where do you get off proposing concentration camp comparisons for people on the dole?). A good society comes from a good society.

Speedwell

Speedwell wrote: »

It sounds perfectly reasonable for dole recipients who have no ties to the place they live in. Currently I'm aware of a lot of immigration policies that do provide incentives for young single people to work and gain experience in a country other than their country of residence. It doesn't become a bad idea until you require people to pull up roots, or to work in a job to which they are not suited.

Can't agree there. Irish people went through the 80's and parts of the 90's with many people going to Britain for work. Ryanair harps on and on about it's low cost airfare. Surely, a deal could be made there.

I can't see why there is this attitude of bending over backwards for people who can't or won't find work. Provide a reasonable income with a job, and they can come home on the weekends or at the end of a month.

My father did the same in the 70s and 80s, and our family survived quite well.

Speedwell

Deleted User wrote: »

Can't agree there. Irish people went through the 80's and parts of the 90's with many people going to Britain for work. Ryanair harps on and on about it's low cost airfare. Surely, a deal could be made there.

I can't see why there is this attitude of bending over backwards for people who can't or won't find work. Provide a reasonable income with a job, and they can come home on the weekends or at the end of a month.

My father did the same in the 70s and 80s, and our family survived quite well.

That was forty and fifty years ago. Things are not the same now, not at all. Also, "bending over backwards" is hardly the way you characterise doing the least we can do to ensure that everyone has a fair chance to participate in a decent society.

Speedwell

Speedwell wrote: »

Sure, you can work if there are jobs available that you are suited for. You must have skipped past the posts in which I talk about my job. I've been an IT business analyst in data, project, training, and document management for fifteen years. Not exactly your concentration camp job (and wtf, where do you get off proposing concentration camp comparisons for people on the dole?). A good society comes from a good society.

suited for? If you're unemployed, you're unemployed. I wouldn't suggest that you dig ditches, but you could do data processing or data mining. definitely a step backwards if you're considering your Career... but if you're on the dole, you shouldn't really be so picky. your career is already on hold.

Speedwell

Speedwell wrote: »

That was forty and fifty years ago. Things are not the same now, not at all. Also, "bending over backwards" is hardly the way you characterise doing the least we can do to ensure that everyone has a fair chance to participate in a decent society.

wait a sec. just because something was 30 or 40 years ago, we can't do it again? And what has changed?

I'm really curious to know why you're somehow better than my father... he had his own degree, and masters in th 80's and had to work below his education to support his family. why are you exempt from that?

Speedwell

Deleted User wrote: »

suited for? If you're unemployed, you're unemployed. I wouldn't suggest that you dig ditches, but you could do data processing or data mining. definitely a step backwards if you're considering your Career... but if you're on the dole, you shouldn't really be so picky. your career is already on hold.

Suited for. Because every competent HR rep with two functioning brain cells knows what makes a good, productive employee, instead of a bored, resentful and/or underprepared one. It's not hard to understand, if you actually spend time thinking of the human rights and needs of, instead of sneering at, the unemployed.

Speedwell

Deleted User wrote: »

wait a sec. just because something was 30 or 40 years ago, we can't do it again? And what has changed?

I'm really curious to know why you're somehow better than my father... he had his own degree, and masters in th 80's and had to work below his education to support his family. why are you exempt from that?

The dogs in the street know that the economic and social realities of today are far different from those of forty and fifty years ago.

As for the rest of your comment... what on earth are you on about?

TheQuietFella

SILVAMAN wrote: »

If you can get up in the morning, make your bed, fix your breakfast and wipe your behind, you can work.
To survive people in the concentration camps did whatever work it took to survive.
No problem with helping people who are genuinely incapacitated, or who have just lost their jobs, but after 6 months no more freebies.
Nothing comes from nothing.

I worked for in excess of 21 years for the company to close and I was

entitled to 9 months Job Seekers Allowance. There are guys I know who haven't

worked 21 months and drawing dole for the same in years!

Something is seriously wrong when you see the amount of people who have

migrated to this country in employment and our own scratching their butt!

Way too many hand outs and what people feel that they're entitled to without

working to pay for it!

Speedwell

Speedwell wrote: »

Suited for. Because every competent HR rep with two functioning brain cells knows what makes a good, productive employee, instead of a bored, resentful and/or underprepared one. It's not hard to understand, if you actually spend time thinking of the human rights and needs of, instead of sneering at, the unemployed.

Sneering? Nothing i've said even approaches a sneer. The difference is that i've been unemployed, I've worked in management, and i've also lived abroad since there was no work available in my field.

You still didn't actually answer what I asked. And human rights don't factor into this. If you are provided with a job that provides you with an income suitable to support you, and your dependents, then.... what objection is based on human rights?

Speedwell wrote: »

The dogs in the street know that the economic and social realities of today are far different from those of forty and fifty years ago.

Explain it to me. I have a degree in Business, an honours degree in finance and an MBA. I also lecture business at university level. I'm curious to see how you'll explain the differences in such a way to exempt the average person on the dole from working in another country.

As for the rest of your comment... what on earth are you on about?

why should people on the dole have such choice as to where they find work if it provides a reasonable income? you still haven't given any real answers. You just keep dodging.

Hollister11

You should get paid what you have paid in to the system when you were working.
Once this ends, you get a smaller payment, and have to do some community work until you find a new job.

No one should be aloud be the social for life. My mum knows this fella who was born into a family who lived in a council house. He has never worked a day in his life, both parents are dead, and he lives alone in a 3 bed semi D in a nice neighbourhood. He gets the dole, and to qualify all he has to do is courses.

That's a disgrace that he can sail through life, no rent/mortgage worries. Just keep getting paid to do courses, and go out and get pissed on a Saturday night.

Markcheese

On a slight segway..how much benefit would there be to the longterm unemployed person to do 20 / 25 hours of work a week . Especially if its something that the person has an interest in ...?? By the time saftey courses,plans ,supervision ect are done I cant see any money being saved but it could help with employabilty and mental health, as well as social benefit to a community...

Hollister11

Hollister11 wrote: »

You should get paid what you have paid in to the system when you were working.
Once this ends, you get a smaller payment, and have to do some community work until you find a new job.

In theory, I agree with you. But in reality, we pay for all the politicians campaigns for votes. Because the government has no money as such. Every grand gesture comes out of your pocket... and once a gesture is made, it can't be withdrawn... and then comes the expectation that people have a right to more. And they'll be offered more at least every four years or so. After all, politicians tend to earn more than the rest of us in salary or other benefits, so what are they themselves giving up?

I'm always amazed by the attitude towards welfare in Ireland. Ireland is a tiny country with very few natural resources. Sure, there have been increases in irelands value over the last three decades, but theyre very unreliable value(s). And yet, people want the same benefits given by all the major nations. They look at Britain and want all those benefits and ignore that Britains past economy was powerful in comparison to ireland... and who pays for it? Us.

So, look to reality. As long as we are unable to withdraw past benefits from society, those that work and make money, will continue to pay for the "poor" (they're often not poor as such when you consider all the extra benefits they receive) who have no real incentive to get past their current situation. After all, they can just sit back, relax and collect a payment which guarantees their way of life.

It's amazing how that has somehow been translated into a human right, and the main taxpayers will continue to be obliged to pay for it. So, say goodbye to your tax credits. You're privilaged and have no real right to complain... :rolleyes:

KCross

Speedwell wrote: »

People go on the dole because they either can't or won't work. I agree that they need to show that, if they are able to work, they are engaged in finding work.

I proposed exactly that in an earlier post and you put it down as throdding on the poor. Some of your responses to my idea of a sliding scale dole payment if the recipient doesnt engage with social welfare....

Speedwell wrote: »

If you think that making people suffer is the way to incentivise them to become better people, I think you are the one who misunderstands human nature.

Speedwell wrote: »

Then you are indeed talking about punishing people until they behave better. Calling it "incentives" instead of "punishment" does not change that fact. Forcing people to live on reduced benefits is punishing them, and punishments are intended to make people suffer until they reform.

So, now that you agree they need to show they are engaged in finding work, what happens when they DONT show they are engaged in finding work? Since we cant "punish" them what is your grand plan?

SILVAMAN

Speedwell wrote: »

Not exactly your concentration camp job (and wtf, where do you get off proposing concentration camp comparisons for people on the dole?). A good society comes from a good society.

You claim not to be able to do physical work-so are you suggesting if there was no assistance, you'd have to sit on the sidelines and starve to death just because you haven't done physical work in the past?
Needs must.
I also have to say that we have huge numbers of illegals who don't look like us, English is not their first language, who do not receive any assistance from the state, who hold no valid working papers or ID papers from this state, yet they manage to hold down 1 or several jobs, and save.
No problem with helping anyone who is unemployed, or who has due to the downturn, and after holding down a job finds themselves having to seek assistance, but if they cannot get any after 6 months, we need meaningful work programs for them no matter what they are, if only to give them a structure to daily life, and the realization for the ones who are adroit at milking the system that nothing comes from nothing.
A Polish man once said to me that he had been raised under a communist system, but that Ireland was by far the best communist country he knew, because the state does absolutely everything for you, and the Poles now say that Ireland is the ruination of many hard working Poles because they get many things for nothing.
As for farmers on the dole, well if you have an asset such as land, I'd means test it and see if the farmer was maximizing its potential before he'd be considered for assistance. I am reminded of someone with 60 acres of wet rushy land, which carries 10 animals (ridiculous!), who has managed to put his 4 kids through college on full grants, drives a 161 reg, seems to spend most of his time manicuring the lawn, and is first to the local post office to collect his dole Thursday mornings. He's not the only one, but surely with land he could possibly afforest some and get an income from that, or put up a couple of polytunnels and grow produce to sell locally be it a particular vegetable or shrubs. I could go on, but there's a massive sense of entitlement out there.
To make it the dole less attractive, focus on those long term people who have never contributed, and instead of dole give them food stamps, with restrictions on the use of the stamps for alcohol purchases.

The part i don't get is how can you be on the dole longer than a year? With access to educational programs, the internet has loads of free course material, etc, anyone can upskill or change their particular skillset. Youtube alone has loads of tutorials in almost every area to help.

I started in Credit control (lasted for 10 years), decided to change and went into asset management, then promoted to middle management (but hated it), changed again a few years later, to teaching english, and now i lecture business in various colleges. I did those changes because i was searching for a job i enjoyed, but the concept still applies to those without work. If you can't find work in your field, you can change your field to something that is in demand. I recently learned enough for intermediate level in Java (nope, I'm not high enough for employment in it yet) but it only took me a month of study/practice while working full-time. [I got my bachelor at 21, my honors degree at 30, and my mba at 35.]

Now... what excuse for those on the dole? Change your skillset. In any economy with high unemployment, there are still jobs which are available. Do searches for jobs in Spain with a massive unemployment rate, and there are loads of professional level IT jobs. While on the dole, and without work, a person has a serious amount of time to devote to self-study. It's not easy, but then very few things in life are easy. I know from my one year on the Dole, i refused "lesser" jobs because I felt they were beneath me or I didn't have the desired skills. Now I know better.

So, why do we allow these people to remain on the dole without "pushing" them to change their skillsets or lifestyles? I don't get this resistance to encouraging them to change... instead there's almost pressure to treat them as something special and everyone else should support them. I understand that society should support the weakest members of society... I accept that. But the unemployed should not be placed in that category if they're healthy and mentally/physically capable of working....

starshine1234

Ultimely I think we need to move to a universal income type model. Every adult would be paid about 188 euros per week tax free with no questions asked. Back of the envelope calculations suggest this is possible.

Currently those on the dole have to be available for work. That prevents volunteering in the community. It has also been used to prevent grandmothers from caring for their own grand children as Social Welfare have deemed those grandmothers not to be available for work and being available for work is a requirement of the dole.

So, I'd suggest a basic payment of 188 per week to all adults, children would get childrens allowance as currently and persioners get the pension as currently.



I call pointless jobs 'rock moving' jobs. We could make people on the dole move piles of rocks from place to place but what is the point? As a society we shouldn't be forcing our citizens to work. Who wants that? We should provide a decent life for all, including those who don't want to work. If society can function with large numbers of people not working then why not?




Overall companies and corporations should be paying more tax and income taxes should be reduced. This would incentivise employment over slacking off. I feel myself that not working is a perfectly valid choice and it should be allowable and permitted.

We are in a technological society and we'd be able to perform all our tasks in the future without having to work all the time. People should demand more time off and more free money from their government. Companies should pay more tax and we should force companies to pay a fair price for natural resources like our fishing areas, or our radio and mobile phone spectrums, or mineral rights etc.

If companies don't want to pay more tax than the paltry amounts they do pay currently then fine; they can exit Ireland and sell their wares elsewhere.

But large companies have the ear of government and they have the money to influence decisions. So out government won't provide a universal income just yet. But if artificial intelligience takes off, and it definitely will, then a universal income will be necessary.

starshine1234

starshine1234 wrote: »

If companies don't want to pay more tax than the paltry amounts they do pay currently then fine; they can exit Ireland and sell their wares elsewhere.

But large companies have the ear of government and they have the money to influence decisions. So out government won't provide a universal income just yet. But if artificial intelligience takes off, and it definitely will, then a universal income will be necessary.

In Ireland, some of the not-so-large companies have the same influence. The current system is corrupted. Companies, banks, faction groups (ok, focus groups), etc all have far too much influence over the running of most countries.

When the economic crash happened I truly thought Irish people would demand and actually follow through on their demands for change, but nope, same old crap (my fault too). And it continues. So I wouldn't expect corporations to be reined in. If anything expect great freedoms and better yet, rights (similar too human rights), assigned to them. It won't be long until their rights become more important than ours. It's already going that direction.

As for artificial intelligence.... who do you think will be designing, and maintaining such systems? Us? Normal independent citizens? hardly.

starshine1234

I agree that companies have too much influence.

I think society is a scam. It is supposed to be a collection of individuals who have chosen to come together to benefit all. Instead we have a corrupt system where those selected to represent us refuse to represent the wishes of the electorate and instead they sell out to rich companies and individuals.

Ultimately, the failure of our societies comes down to the dishonesty and the corruption, perhaps also the incompetence, of our elected officials. They are ultimely in control and they have chosen to sell out to corporations, and to rich individuals.


I feel a civil war type situation is developing in Europe and the world. Governments need to start listening to their own populations instead of preaching from on high. Multiculturalism and immigration will not work and is very dangerous and reckless. It is leading to civil war.

KCross

starshine1234 wrote: »

We should provide a decent life for all, including those who don't want to work. If society can function with large numbers of people not working then why not?

If someone makes a conscious decision not to work and they live off the state then they are leechers. Those who do work have to shoulder that burden. Thats not fair or reasonable in my eyes.

Everyone who can work should work and pay their share of the tax to provide the services we need. If all you do is take money from the state you are not contributing to society and you are taking funds away from our hard pressed services (hospitals particularly).

Spending your dole on local services isnt contributing to society in my eyes. I know some here see it otherwise and I can see that argument but it just doesnt sit well with me and it encourages laziness and entitlement.

starshine1234 wrote: »

Overall companies and corporations should be paying more tax and income taxes should be reduced. This would incentivise employment over slacking off. I feel myself that not working is a perfectly valid choice and it should be allowable and permitted.

It is allowed and permitted and everyone should be free to make that choice but not at the expense of others.

Companies should pay more tax. There should be a minimum every company pays. We are supposed to have a 12.5% rate so they should all pay at least that.

starshine1234 wrote: »

People should demand more time off and more free money from their government.

No such thing as free money from the government. The governments money comes from the taxpayer so it might be free to the recipient but someone else is paying for it. Not fair.



Your ideas sound great but Im not sure they take a realistic economic view of the world. They assume that money trees exist!

KCross

KCross wrote: »

It is allowed and permitted and everyone should be free to make that choice but not at the expense of others.

And yet the reality is that the expense is covered by others (without there being much choice in the matter without simply leaving the country). I don't see that changing any time soon. It's not economics. It's the socialist or leftist agenda common in this country (and some others). unrealistic and unsustainable. But then, there seems to be very little thought about the future...

starshine1234

Artificial intelligience will destroy jobs and by so doing it will destroy the economy and by so doing it will destroy our societies and our civilisation.

Labelling people as 'leftists' or 'socialists' doesn't change that fact above.

In the future a universal income will be required.


Requiring people to work in jobs which don't exist is silly.

Why should companies pay 12.5% tax?
Why not 50%?

Who loses out if companies have to pay 50% in the future?

Unfettered capitalism is unsustainable, and can't be sustained in the future. My suggestions take account of that but the naysayers ignore the point.

Humanity has no choice but to restrict consumerism and to start taking care of the environment. Otherwise we are doomed to war and famine. I suspect we are doomed to war and famine regardless of what we do from here on in but we could try for something better. Like a universal income.

boundlessSea

While there are some benefits to a universal income model like those mentioned, we are far away from a technological society where there is a little work for people to do, right now there is a lot of work to be done for society to function, like caring for the elderly, healthcare, building, working in restaurants, and engineering. A lot of people have to work at least 40 hours a week to provide a reasonable standard of living for themselves and their families, and the idea of forcing them to provide for people via taxation who by choice decide not to work is in my view morally wrong, this is an infringement on their personal liberty.

In practice universal income would create a dependency culture, maybe in 200 years when robots and software can perform any task a person can it might be necessary or desirable but not now.

The current system works reasonably well at present where the principle is that the payment is for people who need to be seeking a new job, there just needs to be an emphasis on making sure this is not abused and it is paid to those who are genuinely seeking work. But in practice there will always be people who will find difficulty working due to physical or mental disabilities, past experiences like being bullied in work before or being out of the workforce for so long, and they should be helped. A person who might seem lazy could have hidden mental health issues like depression or anxiety making it difficult for them to work. Of course sadly there is likely a small minority of people who simply don't want work, but a lot of these people have children and any system to incentivize self reliance should ensure that their children are not punished economically for their parent's choices, and even for people who just don't want to work a civilized society should provide a basic standard of living for them.

starshine1234

As things stand many people do choose to be on the dole. It is easy to fulfil the requirements as many people make themselves deliberately unemployable by simple methods.

For example, it's often said you have to lie in interviews to get the job. Small white lies of course. A person who doesn't want a job can simply answer questions truthfully.

Why do you want the job?
I don't want the job, I was forced to attend the interview.

Ok, next candidate please.

Social Protection cannot require candidates to lie during interviews. Social Protection cannot really complain if a person gives answers like the one above. SP certainly cannot complain if a person truthfully answers that they haven't worked in three years.


You can lead a horse to water but you will find it difficult to force people to take jobs they don't want.



People are ignoring that taking a job is as much a lifestyle choice as not taking a job.

Under my proposed universal income system all people can choose not to work. So, objections that some people unfairly have to work are not valid; those people can choose not to work if they wish. No questions asked.


The system would only be unsustainable or not workable if too many people chose not to work.

But I feel that isn't a problem. Many people today choose to work even though they could go on the dole. Under my system income taxes are reduced and you get paid the universal income even if you work so working would be far more incentivised that it is in todays system.

There are no welfare traps. You can work 5 hours a week for free or for payment and it doesn't affect your payment. You can volunteer or mind children. There would be no huge bureaucracy required in Social Protection.


It would be a new type of society which would be fairer to all. A more pleasant society which isn't focussed on wealth, and greed, and unsustainable and un-neccessary consumption.

What's not to like?

Who pays for it all?
Companies that wish to operate in out country, and companies have to pay for use of natural resources, like radio and mobile waves, and fishing etc.


Have the people ever been asked what society they want?
Does any politician advocate for a universal income?
If no politician represents this viewpoint then it is not possible to vote for it.

KCross

starshine1234 wrote: »

Under my proposed universal income system all people can choose not to work. So, objections that some people unfairly have to work are not valid; those people can choose not to work if they wish. No questions asked.


The system would only be unsustainable or not workable if too many people chose not to work.

But I feel that isn't a problem. Many people today choose to work even though they could go on the dole. Under my system income taxes are reduced and you get paid the universal income even if you work so working would be far more incentivised that it is in todays system.

There are no welfare traps. You can work 5 hours a week for free or for payment and it doesn't affect your payment. You can volunteer or mind children. There would be no huge bureaucracy required in Social Protection.

It all sounds great. But I think it falls down on this point, which you made yourself...
The system would only be unsustainable or not workable if too many people chose not to work.

How do you control that?
If you decide to chose not to work and get your universal income do you still expect all the services that are provided today? Do you expect to be provided with a free house because you dont work?

If yes, and you are also proposing dropping income tax and allowing more people on the dole... what is going to pay for this utopian society you have in mind?... dont give me the old chestnut of the multi-nationals.... everything cannot be paid for by taxing companies.

KCross

starshine1234 wrote: »

As things stand many people do choose to be on the dole. It is easy to fulfil the requirements as many people make themselves deliberately unemployable by simple methods.

For example, it's often said you have to lie in interviews to get the job. Small white lies of course. A person who doesn't want a job can simply answer questions truthfully.

Why do you want the job?
I don't want the job, I was forced to attend the interview.

Ok, next candidate please.

Social Protection cannot require candidates to lie during interviews. Social Protection cannot really complain if a person gives answers like the one above. SP certainly cannot complain if a person truthfully answers that they haven't worked in three years.


You can lead a horse to water but you will find it difficult to force people to take jobs they don't want.

Thats why you need a system that removes the free money over time. Dont force them to take jobs they dont want. But dont give them free money that enables them to do nothing for society.

The horse will eventually drink the water.

starshine1234

Housing is a complete failure under the current model. Homelessness is increasing and houses are becoming unaffordable for workers like teachers, nurses and police. This is unsustainable.

The point I'm making is that the current system has major flaws. It's unfair to berate the new system for problems which exist in the current system. A universal income won't solve the drugs problem either.


People today could leave their jobs and collect the dole. They don't. Why not? Whatever reason that is is the same reason they will continue to work under universal income.

The people who today choose not to work, artists, wasters, social activists etc, will continue to choose not to work. People today who find value and pride in their work will continue to work.



People today could close down businesses and claim the dole. They don't. Why would they under the new system when the new system provides a free income and still allows them to work.


The only arguments against universal income are economic. I feel they aren't valid.

Prohibition of drugs is also completely silly and stupid from the point of view of society. I suggest legalisation of cannabis, and perhaps E and heroin. This would provide huge benefits to public health and safety.
Why does our government completely rubbish this idea?
My point here is that government routinely makes decisions which damage society. Whose interests are the government representing when they make decisions which damage society?



Companies make huge profits. I feel of course they could pay. The problem is that all countries have to agree to tax companies very highly. Instead, countries are in a race to the bottom to provide companies with low tax rates.
This is unsustainable and will destroy our countries. The process has already begun. Countries need to re-assert their soveriengity and start taxing companies more.

starshine1234

KCross wrote: »

Thats why you need a system that removes the free money over time. Dont force them to take jobs they dont want. But dont give them free money that enables them to do nothing for society.

The horse will eventually drink the water.

That appears to be either sour grapes (i.e bitterness), or punishment.

Do you begrudge cancer sufferers for taking up resources and hospital beds?

Many people have untreated mental illness which is hard to see but which affects their ability to hold down jobs.

Why should we as a society seek to punish people who find work difficult?
Why should we insist that artists and poets have to find work?
Many artists live in relative poverty by choice. I feel we should respect that choice instead of berating people because they choose not to work.


It seems we value the art but not the artist.



Working is not better than not working. It may produce more, but if what is produced is not necessary then the work itself isn't necessary.

starshine1234

starshine1234 wrote: »

Working is not better than not working. It may produce more, but if what is produced is not necessary then the work itself isn't necessary.

working is required for the health of the economy and social order. if they can't hold a standard job, there are other jobs available. Now, sure, some people just can't work at all, but I don't think we're talking about them.

The problem I find is that people get stuck into thinking only about traditional job types. But there are plenty of other jobs which may be more suitable given their "disability".

KCross

starshine1234 wrote: »

That appears to be either sour grapes (i.e bitterness), or punishment.

Call it what you will. I just dont believe that someone who chooses to not contribute to society should be supported.

starshine1234 wrote: »

Do you begrudge cancer sufferers for taking up resources and hospital beds?

Whaaaa? What did I say that produced that comment? I even mentioned hospitals in one of my posts and how I wanted more resources put in to them!

starshine1234 wrote: »

Many people have untreated mental illness which is hard to see but which affects their ability to hold down jobs.

Why should we as a society seek to punish people who find work difficult?
Why should we insist that artists and poets have to find work?
Many artists live in relative poverty by choice. I feel we should respect that choice instead of berating people because they choose not to work.

It seems we value the art but not the artist.

Someone with mental illness should be supported. Thats not dole. That's illness benefit. I dont advocate punishing anyone. I just dont want to support someone who chooses not to contribute to society.

starshine1234 wrote: »

Working is not better than not working. It may produce more, but if what is produced is not necessary then the work itself isn't necessary.

Of course working isnt better if you can live off those that are working. I can understand that but I dont want to support the idea.

I dont advocate doing unnecessary work but I dont think that exists in any great numbers.... at least not in the private sector anyway as they would be out of business.

KCross

starshine1234 wrote: »

The point I'm making is that the current system has major flaws. It's unfair to berate the new system for problems which exist in the current system. A universal income won't solve the drugs problem either.

I take this point on board and yes the current system is full of flaws. However, your proposed system, I think, would just cost too much and the cost of doing business in the country would go through the roof and this in turn has a knock on effect of companies not setting up.... no jobs means no tax to support the universal income.

Have any countries tried this universal income system, apart from communist countries of course!

starshine1234

KCross wrote: »

Call it what you will. I just dont believe that someone who chooses to not contribute to society should be supported.

Mental illness isn't a choice.
There is no objective proof of mental illness. Therefore, there are many sufferers who are not known to be suffering, or who cannot provide proof of their suffering.
A mental illness can cause sufferers not to want to work.
These people are not 'choosing' not to work although it would appear very similar to that from the outside.
For example, some people have social phobias. This is more or less unprovable. These people don't have much choice when it comes to work. They are contributing to society as best they can.

You are unfairly labelling their real problems as being a choice. And you are restricting them based on your incorrect labelling.


You are basically saying that the only way to contribute to society is to take paid employment and pay taxes.
What about contributing to society by being a good citizen, by adhering to the law, by doing jury service if required, by assisting the police with their enquiries etc etc?
There are many ways to contribute to society besides working. You are seeking to deny that.




I said
Do you begrudge cancer sufferers for taking up resources and hospital beds?
You replied.

KCross wrote: »

Whaaaa? What did I say that produced that comment? I even mentioned hospitals in one of my posts and how I wanted more resources put in to them!

You did say this.

KCross wrote: »

I just dont believe that someone who chooses to not contribute to society should be supported.

I agree that being a cancer sufferer isn't a choice but what if the person smoked for a long time. Are they contributing to society by smoking and by potentially giving themselves cancer?

Is it possible to contribute negatively to society?
I would suggest that it is.
A person could be a criminal for example, and prey on other members of society.
What about obese people who put strain on our health service? Are they contributing negatively to society?


Should peoples good bahaviour be offset against their bad behaviour to find out their total or net contribution to society?
It's not fair if you don't do this if you intend to punish what you consider to be bad behaviour.




So things are not as straight forward as you suggest. I am suggesting a less judgemental approach where people are taken at face value. If a person says they hate meeting people and they'd rather spend all their time alone indoors I would allow that and respect that. I wouldn't seek to punish them for that choice, and I wouldn't seek to force them to prove how they feel when that's impossible for them to do.

I would simply be less judgemental overall.

Universal Income for the win.

starshine1234

KCross wrote: »

I take this point on board and yes the current system is full of flaws. However, your proposed system, I think, would just cost too much and the cost of doing business in the country would go through the roof and this in turn has a knock on effect of companies not setting up.... no jobs means no tax to support the universal income.

Have any countries tried this universal income system, apart from communist countries of course!

A province in Canada or Alaska has tried it. Ok results apparently.

Switzerland just voted on whether to give a basic income of over a 1,000 euros per month ($2,000 apparently). Vote said no.

I think Norway is considering it.


I don't agree that cost of business would go up. Why would it?



Imagine a future society. A society where self driving cars and increased automation do much of our work. Professionals have been replaced by artifical intelligient computers who are much better at the tasks than humans.
A computer laywer, doctor or engineer will be much better than the human counterpart. So much so that once people get used to AI computers they will insist on being treated by them as the outcomes are much better.

What work can humans do in such a world?
That world will be here I suspect in 20 years time. Not 200 years. It is extimated that 50% of all current jobs will be obselete and gone by 2030.

This isn't a luddite opinion. This time it's different as we are talking about intelligence, not just brute power or repetition. With AI, all jobs can be replaced except modelling, prostitution and human companions.


In the long term, a new paradigm is needed, and universal income in the only one that works.



The crises in 2008 resulted in about 20% unemployment. No-one suggested that perhaps we should move to a four day week. Everyone stays in employment, more time off, slightly less money but much better quality of life for everyone.

Why was such an obvious solution not suggested?

I know there are some practical difficulties but we are not moving towards a more leisurely society.
Why not?
Technology should be used to allow humans to have more time off.
Citizens should demand it of their governments.