The Dole

triple nipple

starshine1234 wrote:

What about the Star Trek universe? Nobody has to work. Would that be that desirable or not?

Ehhh they did work. They even had ranks and designations based on qualifications and experience.

Jayop

Jayop wrote: »

Some poor fella that left school barely able to read or write but was doing well enough for himself on the buildings or some other manual trade should now open a web hosting company. If he doesn't he's clearly sitting on his hole playing call of duty.

Easy peasy.

It's funny the way that people who object to this always look at the suggestion given as being the only option. What prevents them from getting the knowledge/skills to work in any number of physical/labor jobs? Or learning to read and write? Gosh.

But that would require them to put in some effort into their development, and thats not fair.

Tony EH

triple nipple wrote: »

Ehhh they did work. They even had ranks and designations based on qualifications and experience.

That was just Star Fleet.

starshine1234

starshine1234 wrote: »

Are you arguing that artificial intelligence doesn't have the potential to replace jobs?

Do you advocate that people should work in jobs that have no purpose? Just to keep them happy, or perhaps just to keep you happy?

For example, we could have people moving piles of rocks from place to place. No purpose to it but it would keep the people busy.

Why should we bother forcing people to work in jobs which don't exist?

Can you address the issue please of insufficient jobs in the future and how that fact fits into your plans and worldview?

why should i respond to your points when you don't answer in turn? I did answer your previous points, and asked questions, and you just rehashed your same points again. No point addressing your blind objection to working.

The difference between us is that I dont expect other people to pay for my lifestyle. I'll put in the time, and effort to gain the skills/knowledge to improve my lifestyle. whereas you believe that you're entitled to being supported (by others).

Mr. teddywinkles

triple nipple wrote: »

Ehhh they did work. They even had ranks and designations based on qualifications and experience.

No monetary gain from it if i remember

starshine1234

triple nipple wrote: »

Ehhh they did work. They even had ranks and designations based on qualifications and experience.

I would use the Star Trek universe as a starting point. Start Trek don't describe how they achieved their nirvana, and I don't believe it could actually exist.

Star Trek have stated that no-one has to work. People are free to follow their desires.

What Star Trek don't say is how they solved problems like drug use. It seems they have no desire to take drugs, except alcohol, or fake alcohol. That isn't realistic.

But other aspects of the universe are plausible. If you have robots like Data, who can do any human task better than humans then humans are obselete.

Star Trek did have criminals too. Khan for example, and the other guy who took over a planet of robots.

But robots doing all of our work is plausible. Solving problems like war, violence, and drug use are much harder.


People need to address the concept of human obsolescence.

starshine1234

Deleted User wrote: »

why should i respond to your points when you don't answer in turn? I did answer your previous points, and asked questions, and you just rehashed your same points again. No point addressing your blind objection to working.

The difference between us is that I dont expect other people to pay for my lifestyle. I'll put in the time, and effort to gain the skills/knowledge to improve my lifestyle. whereas you believe that you're entitled to being supported (by others).

I read your posts and take your points on board. I address them if they are valid. You don't.

Your post at the top of page 10 contains lots of semantic arguments, such as that removing benefits and leaving someone to starve isn't a punishment. I disagree. It is clearly disadvantageous to the person involved, and they will clearly see it as a punishment.

I say there aren't enough jobs now. You say there are, in Europe. You are factually wrong. What can I say here, except point out that you're wrong. I was being polite and not pointing it out as most posters will see your errors themselves.


You ask where the money will come from. I have already answered and said that companies need to pay much more tax. Income taxes should be reduced and company taxes increased. After all, companies aren't real people.

You ask who is hating the poor. You are, by advocating that they should be left to starve.

I say people who don't want to work should leave their job. You call me naive. I say it is happening every day. If you can't see it that's your problem.
My system allows for people to choose not to work.


If you put forward arguments that address the issues at stake I will respond.

Jayop

Deleted User wrote: »

It's funny the way that people who object to this always look at the suggestion given as being the only option. What prevents them from getting the knowledge/skills to work in any number of physical/labor jobs? Or learning to read and write? Gosh.

But that would require them to put in some effort into their development, and thats not fair.

It's not that it's not fair, it's that in the future it simply won't be viable possible for even the most enthusiastic learner, upskiller, worker to be assured of a job. It's an absolute inevitability that the jobless rate is going to multiply at some point in the not too distant future.

Unless you're the man who develops the computer then you're going to be scrambling for one of the very few low skilled jobs remaining. It's not a question of people being lazy, it's simply a question of their not being enough work to go around so what do we do? Do we allow people to starve or do we pay for them to live out of the wealth that will be gained by all this automation.

Maybe we can put them all in McDonalds 1 hour a week and pay them €200 an hour just so people feel better about themselves.

Mr. teddywinkles

Jayop wrote: »

It's not that it's not fair, it's that in the future it simply won't be viable possible for even the most enthusiastic learner, upskiller, worker to be assured of a job. It's an absolute inevitability that the jobless rate is going to multiply at some point in the not too distant future.

Unless you're the man who develops the computer then you're going to be scrambling for one of the very few low skilled jobs remaining. It's not a question of people being lazy, it's simply a question of their not being enough work to go around so what do we do? Do we allow people to starve or do we pay for them to live out of the wealth that will be gained by all this automation.

Maybe we can put them all in McDonalds 1 hour a week and pay them €200 an hour just so people feel better about themselves.

I think most of the new jobs now are of a very tertiary nature to be honest and what's new today can be obsolete in a few years times. Seems a bit ridiculous really.

starshine1234

starshine1234 wrote: »

I read your posts and take your points on board. I address them if they are valid. You don't.

I took apart one of your posts, sentence by sentence, replying or asking questions. In return you gave me a paragraph, without answering any of my questions.

Your post at the top of page 10 contains lots of semantic arguments, such as that removing benefits and leaving someone to starve isn't a punishment. I disagree. It is clearly disadvantageous to the person involved, and they will clearly see it as a punishment.

Starve? What starvation? You're the only one to introduce that. This is about unemployment benefit.

I say there aren't enough jobs now. You say there are, in Europe. You are factually wrong. What can I say here, except point out that you're wrong. I was being polite and not pointing it out as most posters will see your errors themselves.

Germany is currently crying out for people to come work there because they don't have enough people to take the jobs. And you say there are no jobs>? Perhaps you could prove otherwise?

You ask where the money will come from. I have already answered and said that companies need to pay much more tax. Income taxes should be reduced and company taxes increased. After all, companies aren't real people.

More taxes on companies, who will see the high cost of labour in Ireland and the higher taxes, in turn resulting in less companies in Ireland (as they leave), resulting in higher unemployment and lower overall income for the government....

Yes, good logic there.

You ask who is hating the poor. You are, by advocating that they should be left to starve.

Do you actually read whats written? If someone is capable of working, and there are jobs available across Europe, then they shouldn't be on the dole. This is not about starvation.

I say people who don't want to work should leave their job. You call me naive. I say it is happening every day. If you can't see it that's your problem. My system allows for people to choose not to work.

Which results in a broken economy. You're living a pipe dream, expecting others to pay for your laziness.... you expect people who don't want to work but can work to stop working... but you want to tax the companies... who will have a shrinking workforce, and therefore will simply... leave.

Your logic will destroy this country. But then I guess everyone can starve together, or emmigrate. Oh what joy!

I'm done. It's just a circle of poor logic, and leeching. You do realise there will come a day when the people who are working will just have enough, and tell you to feck off? Patience is a limited resource.

Jayop

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

I think most of the new jobs now are of a very tertiary nature to be honest and what's new today can be obsolete in a few years times. Seems a bit ridiculous really.

What do you encourage your kids to do so you can be assured they won't be "scroungers" in a few years time? My oldest is at the age now when she's thinking about careers. The long time one has been teaching, has that got a future? Honestly it's hard to know even with something that should be futureproof like that. Medicine? Unless you're going to go into R&D of some description it's hard to know.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/60-of-students-are-chasing-jobs-that-may-be-rendered-obsolete-by-technology-report-finds-10471244.html

According to that around 60% of college students are now studying towards careers that will likely soon be obsolete. No amount of wishing away is going to change this.

Jayop

Jayop wrote: »

It's not that it's not fair, it's that in the future it simply won't be viable possible for even the most enthusiastic learner, upskiller, worker to be assured of a job. It's an absolute inevitability that the jobless rate is going to multiply at some point in the not too distant future.

Unless you're the man who develops the computer then you're going to be scrambling for one of the very few low skilled jobs remaining. It's not a question of people being lazy, it's simply a question of their not being enough work to go around so what do we do? Do we allow people to starve or do we pay for them to live out of the wealth that will be gained by all this automation.

Maybe we can put them all in McDonalds 1 hour a week and pay them €200 an hour just so people feel better about themselves.

The picture you paint is possible... but not in the near future.. more like the distant future. And you're suggesting to sacrifice today because of your fears for the future.

But heres a question. In my neighborhood a woman opened a cafe selling nice organic products and coffee. Nothing particularly expensive, just good food for working people in the area. She's making a decent income from the place. (always busy) No high tech knowledge needed. How does that fit into your near futuristic doom?

na1

Jayop wrote: »

na1 wrote: »

Meanwhile there is LOADS of work to be done which requires certain skills.
I.e. cancer/heart decease medical research, which requires billions of euro to invest. But which can really save thousands of lives (the amount of people die in this country every year from cancer and heart related deceases)
So it is a matter of choice,
Give that multi-billion SWO bill to support people who are "low skilled" to support their comfortable life without job,
OR:
give that money to medical research teams which can potentially save anyone from serious illness or death.

What would be your choice?

Well if it's a choice between cancer research to save a few thousand people in Ireland or paying people some money so they can feed their family and we dontt have tens of thousands on the streets or starving to death I'd choose the latter.

Are you saying that one get laid off work is worse than one get diagnosed with cancer?


Regarding the "tens of thousands on the streets or starving" - I didn't see this in Eastern Asia (Singapore or Taiwan), and they have nothing close to Jobseeker Allowance, like here.
On the opposite: people are paying fortune there to get proper education.
Compare to the FAS courses, where the people are forced to take a free training -is a joke.

Jayop

Deleted User wrote: »

The picture you paint is possible... but not in the near future.. more like the distant future. And you're suggesting to sacrifice today because of your fears for the future.

But heres a question. In my neighborhood a woman opened a cafe selling nice organic products and coffee. Nothing particularly expensive, just good food for working people in the area. She's making a fortune from the place. No high tech knowledge needed. How does that fit into your near futuristic doom?

No, I'm talking about preparing and being realistic about what the future will bring. Of course everyone should strive to be employed in the present day, they should strive to be as skilled as they can.

Again, it's great that your person opened a cafe. Do you feel though that that that's a realistic aim for everyone who will be replaced by automation? That every person should open their own business all competing against one an other?

na1 wrote: »

Are you saying that one get laid off work is worse than one get diagnosed with cancer?


Regarding the "tens of thousands on the streets or starving" - I didn't see this in Eastern Asia (Singapore or Taiwan), and they have nothing close to Jobseeker Allowance, like here.
On the opposite: people are paying fortune there to get proper education.
Compare to the FAS courses, where the people are forced to take a free training -is a joke.

Having no form of income at all would be worse than getting cancer. If I was given a choice between not being able to food, clothe or house my family or getting cancer I know which I'd choose.

You're looking at this so narrowly. The people in Singapore or whereever that are doing the manufacturing jobs now will soon be unemployed thanks to automation. This is going to be a global problem.

na1

Jayop wrote: »

Having no form of income at all would be worse than getting cancer. If I was given a choice between not being able to food, clothe or house my family or getting cancer I know which I'd choose.

So why people don't die on the streets of Singapore? There is no such thing as JA there.
Loosing a job != having no form of income. There are millions of jobs across EU.

Jayop

Jayop wrote: »

No, I'm talking about preparing and being realistic about what the future will bring. Of course everyone should strive to be employed in the present day, they should strive to be as skilled as they can.

Again, it's great that your person opened a cafe. Do you feel though that that that's a realistic aim for everyone who will be replaced by automation? That every person should open their own business all competing against one an other?

You have this focus on automation... but you should ead further. Many industries that previously embraced automation are returning to human workers... why? Because automated systems are often too expensive to install and maintain.

Will that change? Probably... but the science is not there yet to make it feasible. Some industries will indeed automate, but many will not. we will also have people blocking such automation of many industries and governments blocking the installation because of the rise of social unrest from unemployment. There's also a large group of opposition to allowing AI routines, and many of those people are in positions of real influence.

na1

What future are you talking about? Recently my company was looking for high skilled IT professionals, and they couldn't get any good in the country.
There is a great shortage of skilled labor in Ireland. Yong people don't see the point to get the 3rd level when they can afford a comfortable lifestyle without education.

na1

na1 wrote: »

So why people don't die on the streets of Singapore? There is no such thing as JA there.
Loosing a job != having no form of income. There are millions of jobs across EU.

Be careful of referring to asia. They doctor their statistics. I've lived in Singapore. It's not as wonderful as you make out.

But I do agree that there are other options apart from JA.

Jayop

na1 wrote: »

What future are you talking about? Recently my company was looking for high skilled IT professionals, and they couldn't get any good in the country.
There is a great shortage of skilled labor in Ireland. Yong people don't see the point to get the 3rd level when they can afford a comfortable lifestyle without education.

I provided a link in the last page.

So companies are looking for SW developers now. That's great, and today in Ireland there's a shortage of software developers. That doesn't say anything at all as to what they will be looking for in the future. Cisco are laying off 20% of their global workforce, so the signs are their that those jobs aren't even sustainable in the long run.

starshine1234

Deleted User wrote: »

...
Some industries will indeed automate, but many will not. we will also have people blocking such automation of many industries and governments blocking the installation because of the rise of social unrest from unemployment. ...

Yes, automation will lead to massive social unrest.

Jobs will be destroyed. I have already described this.

For example.
An app will exist which can diagnose illness better than human doctors. But doctors will lobby the government not to allow the apps to prescribe medicines. The only way to get prescriptions will be to pay a human doctor.
What about poor people? Will they willingly die under this system if they can't afford a human doctor?
Why should doctors be protected from technology?

Already there are expert systems, like IBMs Watson, which are very good at diagnosing illness. In the near future they will be better than doctors. They will tell you what medicine you need but the government will prevent you from accessing the medicine.
Will that be accepted or will that lead to civil unrest and war?
People won't willingly die to protect doctors from technology.




We see a lot of unrest because of Uber replacing taxis. What will happen when self driving cars replace lots of professional drivers?
Either the drivers are given a good standard of living for not working or else we will have massive social unrest.


There is no point in talking about individual industries or individual countries. All industries will be affected, and all countries will be affected.


How will society work if robots are doing all of our work for us?

Either we all accept that it's great to have lots of time off, or else we have massive wars.

na1

Deleted User wrote: »

na1 wrote: »

So why people don't die on the streets of Singapore? There is no such thing as JA there.
Loosing a job != having no form of income. There are millions of jobs across EU.

Be careful of referring to asia. They doctor their statistics. I've lived in Singapore. It's not as wonderful as you make out.

But I do agree that there are other options apart from JA.

I'm not saying it is ideal place, I'm just saying that removing the entitlements like JA won't make people dying of starvation.

A friend of mine who arrived to the country with no catering skills or experience in that area got the kitchen porter job in 2 months.

Getting a job here is a question of motivation, not the survival.

Jayop

starshine1234 wrote: »

Yes, automation will lead to massive social unrest.

Jobs will be destroyed. I have already described this.

For example.
An app will exist which can diagnose illness better than human doctors. But doctors will lobby the government not to allow the apps to prescribe medicines. The only way to get prescriptions will be to pay a human doctor.
What about poor people? Will they willingly die under this system if they can't afford a human doctor?
Why should doctors be protected from technology?

Already there are expert systems, like IBMs Watson, which are very good at diagnosing illness. In the near future they will be better than doctors. They will tell you what medicine you need but the government will prevent you from accessing the medicine.
Will that be accepted or will that lead to civil unrest and war?
People won't willingly die to protect doctors from technology.




We see a lot of unrest because of Uber replacing taxis. What will happen when self driving cars replace lots of professional drivers?
Either the drivers are given a good standard of living for not working or else we will have massive social unrest.


There is no point in talking about individual industries or individual countries. All industries will be affected, and all countries will be affected.


How will society work if robots are doing all of our work for us?

Either we all accept that it's great to have lots of time off, or else we have massive wars.

The driving one is a great example.

Self driving technology and will put huge amounts of people out of work, like millions worldwide.

Taxis, Truckers, traffic wardens, Traffic police, delivery drivers, postal workers, bus drivers, Couriers.

Like this isn't pie in the sky stuff, this is technology that is just about ready to go into production and will not be prohibitively expensive. In fact, I'd say you'd probably be able to retrofit a vehicle with self driving equipment every soon for less than the cost of a years salary to the person who used to drive it.

Jayop

na1 wrote: »

I'm not saying it is ideal place, I'm just saying that removing the entitlements like JA won't make people dying of starvation.

A friend of mine who arrived to the country with no catering skills or experience in that area got the kitchen porter job in 2 months.

Getting a job here is a question of motivation, not the survival.

You really are incapable of seeing hte big picture. There's a finite number of kitchen porter jobs and organic cafe's that need to be set up. These types of jobs will be so limited as to make very little impact when the inevitable happens.

na1

Jayop wrote: »

na1 wrote: »

I'm not saying it is ideal place, I'm just saying that removing the entitlements like JA won't make people dying of starvation.

A friend of mine who arrived to the country with no catering skills or experience in that area got the kitchen porter job in 2 months.

Getting a job here is a question of motivation, not the survival.

You really are incapable of seeing hte big picture. There's a finite number of kitchen porter jobs and organic cafe's that need to be set up. These types of jobs will be so limited as to make very little impact when the inevitable happens.

I'm not taking about total jobs vs total jobseekers.

There are probably thousands of the people on the Dole in that area (staying on the dole for years!), but they never showed up for the interview for that job. And the person who is just 2 months in the country got this job.
The question is: why that company didn't get 1000-s of applications for this position. Assuming all the people on the dole are actively looking for a job?

starshine1234

na1 wrote: »

I'm not taking about total jobs vs total jobseekers.

There are probably thousands of the people on the Dole in that area (staying on the dole for years!), but they never showed up for the interview for that job. And the person who is just 2 months in the country got this job.
The question is: why that company didn't get 1000-s of applications for this position. Assuming all the people on the dole are actively looking for a job?

The answer is simple.

The people don't want the jobs. They aren't genuinely seeking work.They are playing the system.

So what?

They are happy with their lifestyle. Perhaps they grow their own weed and brew their own beer and hang around with other like minded individuals.

They probably say that workers are suckers for working so hard. Perhaps they're correct.




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

Workers would receive more money if income taxes were reduced and company taxes increased to compensate. This doesn't happen as the government doesn't give workers what they want.

The government does give job seekers what they want; some free money and loads of time off to smoke weed.
The government also gives faceless companies what they want; cheap labour and very low tax rates.


Ordinary people should cop on and demand more time off, lower taxes, increased company taxes, and legal weed and other drugs from their government.
Only if that's what they want of course but why wouldn't people want time off and legal drugs?

starshine1234

na1 wrote: »

I'm not taking about total jobs vs total jobseekers.
...

Perhaps you should be.
If there aren't sufficient jobs then it doesn't matter which people take which jobs; there will still be unemployment. This left-over unemployment is what we are talking about. I suggest that this figure will rise and rise over the coming years, due to automation of all industries.



I will now explain how requiring people to seek work creates unfair or undesirable situations!

Consider 100 jobseekers.
10 jobs become available.
All 100 jobseekers are required to apply giving them a 10% chance each.
If allowed to say they didn't want to work then 60 of the 100 would say they don't want a job.
Now, the remainning 40, who actually want a job, have got a better chance of getting the job. A 25% chance instead of a 10% chance.
Much better system.

Overall, far more people are happy under the new system than under the old system. Under the old, people are forced to apply for jobs they don't want. People who do want jobs feel they have no chance. Under the new, more people are happy, except the 30 who want jobs and can't get one.


Under the old system one of the 60 might actually have got the job despite not wanting it.
Who benefits there? I'd suggest that everyone involved loses out.
The employer gets an employee who doesn't want the job. A genuine jobseeker doesn't get a job. Lose, lose, lose.



Universal income for everybody!

hardtrier

Would you like to be 64, having worked all your life for very little, reared a large family and sent them all to third level, made redundant at 59, stuck on the scrapheap in the middle of the countryside with no hope of getting a job with grey hair and wrinkles, listening to people with jobs calling you lazy? Answer: NO.

Mr. teddywinkles

na1 wrote: »

I'm not saying it is ideal place, I'm just saying that removing the entitlements like JA won't make people dying of starvation.

A friend of mine who arrived to the country with no catering skills or experience in that area got the kitchen porter job in 2 months.

Getting a job here is a question of motivation, not the survival.

No all you will have is crime and petty theft going throw the roof. Mass muggings but hey you know best.

LeinsterDub

starshine1234 wrote: »

Yes, automation will lead to massive social unrest.

The spinning Jenny will destroy society!

na1

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

No all you will have is crime and petty theft going throw the roof. Mass muggings but hey you know best.

Are you saying that the level of street crime is directly linked to the welfare levels?
I have bad news for you:
According to stats the burglary levels in the UK (and I assume in Ireland) are much higher than in the Eastern European countries with social assistance levels are next to zero

na1

Jayop wrote: »

The driving one is a great example.

Self driving technology and will put huge amounts of people out of work, like millions worldwide.

Taxis, Truckers, traffic wardens, Traffic police, delivery drivers, postal workers, bus drivers, Couriers.

Like this isn't pie in the sky stuff, this is technology that is just about ready to go into production and will not be prohibitively expensive. In fact, I'd say you'd probably be able to retrofit a vehicle with self driving equipment every soon for less than the cost of a years salary to the person who used to drive it.

What is wrong with some (low skilled) professions get redundant in the near future?
It is actually make young people start thinking of getting the proper skill for the nearer future.
There will be many skilled jobs required to support all the automation and to do a science/medical research.
Will there be enough trained people?
With current level of entitlement culture? I don't think so.


The country which not encourage people to constantly keep training to a high levels has no future.
In the current situation there in no point of getting educated, if the people can make the same money doing plumber/taxi driver jobs as for example the post graduates in different sciences.

starshine1234

But, as in Star Trek, people are supposed to do the jobs because they want to do the job, not because of the money.

Mr. teddywinkles

na1 wrote: »

Are you saying that the level of street crime is directly linked to the welfare levels?
I have bad news for you:
According to stats the burglary levels in the UK (and I assume in Ireland) are much higher than in the Eastern European countries with social assistance levels are next to zero

Id say there are a lot more low end jobs on average though. Manufacturing making up a lot of it.

Tony EH

hardtrier wrote: »

Would you like to be 64, having worked all your life for very little, reared a large family and sent them all to third level, made redundant at 59, stuck on the scrapheap in the middle of the countryside with no hope of getting a job with grey hair and wrinkles, listening to people with jobs calling you lazy? Answer: NO.

Ha ha...he should go to college and retrain to be software engineer blah, blah, blah... :rolleyes:

I have to laugh at some people and their attitudes to other people's employment situation in this country. They think it's a matter of ease to simply rock and roll up to the magic job tree and select whatever you want to do. Or just simply get a different role to one you've been doing for god knows how long. Bish, bash, bosh...done.

They're either very young, very naive, or simply incapable of smoke testing their basic ideas.

BaaLamb

Tony EH wrote: »

Ha ha...he should go to college and retrain to be software engineer blah, blah, blah... :rolleyes:

I have to laugh at some people and their attitudes to other people's employment situation in this country. They think it's a matter of ease to simply rock and roll up to the magic job tree and select whatever you want to do. Or just simply get a different role to one you've been doing for god knows how long. Bish, bash, bosh...done.

They're either very young, very naive, or simply incapable of smoke testing their basic ideas.

I think some people are just very lucky in that they have never encountered a situation where they are completely backed into a corner. We all know that there are people who are unemployed and taking the pee but equally there are people who are employed taking the pee. No matter where you go in life you will meet such characters. However, I think this idea that you simply head off and retrain or change career or move to Germany is all very well if everything is straight forward to work out but unfortunately for most of us there are complicating factors that prevent it being that simple.

Tony EH

BaaLamb wrote: »

I think some people are just very lucky in that they have never encountered a situation where they are completely backed into a corner. We all know that there are people who are unemployed and taking the pee but equally there are people who are employed taking the pee. No matter where you go in life you will meet such characters. However, I think this idea that you simply head off and retrain or change career or move to Germany is all very well if everything is straight forward to work out but unfortunately for most of us there are complicating factors that prevent it being that simple.

Of course. It's all too easy to point fingers and mock a certain group when you aren't part of that group. Perspective really is everything.

Plus, the grifters of any system always stand out. The vast majority of people will generally work within a given system. But there will always be people who'll chance their arm and use the loopholes that are naturally created within a functioning system. But, these people are few and far between in grand scheme of things. They just appear brighter on the radar, because their behavior is offensive to most. People like that will try to game any system, no matter what it is.

It's easy to look at people on social welfare and get pissed off, when you have to get up each morning and trek into work. But, it's bitter and, frankly, stupid to apply blanket labels to such a large group of very diverse people. It's also equally stupid to assume that these people are there for fun, or are having some sort of cushy existence, while poor old johnny punchclock is going out each morning to work. 99.99% of people know where they want to be though and it is on the dole.

In addition, the scenario of simply just changing career mid stream is pure fantasy. You generally don't/can't do it and most people that have work in various roles probably found themselves in those roles. I, myself, have worked at numerous different things, but I certainly have had a good bit of fortune along the way in getting those roles. But, one just doesn't switch professions like switching broadband provider. It simply isn't realistic. It takes a LOT of consideration and a LOT of work and even then, often it doesn't work out.

Likewise, the idea that one just simply ups sticks and moves to another country at the drop of the hat is for the birds too. There are a huge number of factors to consider before you even make the first move on a matter like that. That sort of thing is easier when somebody is 24, but it's not the same story at 44, or even 34, for that matter. You cannot just hit the eject button on a life/family built up in one country and head off to somewhere in Europe, as if it was like moving to Offaly. Jesus, there's a whole new language to learn for a start. :pac:

Godge

hardtrier wrote: »

Would you like to be 64, having worked all your life for very little, reared a large family and sent them all to third level, made redundant at 59, stuck on the scrapheap in the middle of the countryside with no hope of getting a job with grey hair and wrinkles, listening to people with jobs calling you lazy? Answer: NO.

No, I wouldn't but I have made choices to make sure I didn't end up in that position.

I have worked in the public sector and in the private sector, worked for myself for a while, educated myself, chosen to live in a city, paid off most of my mortgage and avoided speculative investments that had the potential to ruin it all.

End result is good, but all because of choices I made.

Everyone makes choices, if you choose not to live in a city, you take a risk that if your job goes, you are screwed, you take a risk that if you get ill, health services will not be nearby, you choose that sending your kids to college will be more expensive etc. etc.

Sure luck plays a part but good choices and bad choices are the main influence.

learn_more

Godge wrote: »

No, I wouldn't but I have made choices to make sure I didn't end up in that position.

I have worked in the public sector and in the private sector, worked for myself for a while, educated myself, chosen to live in a city, paid off most of my mortgage and avoided speculative investments that had the potential to ruin it all.

End result is good, but all because of choices I made.

Everyone makes choices, if you choose not to live in a city, you take a risk that if your job goes, you are screwed, you take a risk that if you get ill, health services will not be nearby, you choose that sending your kids to college will be more expensive etc. etc.

Sure luck plays a part but good choices and bad choices are the main influence.

Sounds to me you made those decisions because it suited you, not because you are so wise to move to the city etc. Were you in tears the day you left the country? I doubt it. Now your just bragging about your position your in. Everyone should move to the city following your logic. That's obviously ridiculous.

Tony EH

Choices are also determined by the opportunities that come a persons way.

Without the opportunity to exercise a choice, there isn't any choice.

Godge

learn_more wrote: »

Sounds to me you made those decisions because it suited you, not because you are so wise to move to the city etc. Were you in tears the day you left the country? I doubt it. Now your just bragging about your position your in. Everyone should move to the city following your logic. That's obviously ridiculous.

Tony EH wrote: »

Choices are also determined by the opportunities that come a persons way.

Without the opportunity to exercise a choice, there isn't any choice.

Some trends can be clearly seen.

Property was overpriced from the mid 2000s in Ireland, city living is the way the world is going and rural life cannot be subsidised for ever.

You work for the opportunity to make a choice. If you don't work for the opportunity, you don't get the choice. I have made some wrong choices as well but in general it hasn't gone too badly.

starshine1234

starshine1234 wrote: »

Yes, automation will lead to massive social unrest.

no... not what I said. I said that automation would lead to unrest arising to unemployment and other factors.... however, you skipped over where I pointed out that automation isn't an absolute improvement. Many industries have returned to human workers, because of the costs involved and the growing movement for an avoidance of technology in every area of society. A lot of people out there do not want technology to take over.

Jobs will be destroyed. I have already described this.

You've described a very limited scenario. The simple basis of your belief is that automation will take over everywhere replacing people in all forms of business.... And yet, your scenario doesn't take into account the very real human basis in Business or manufacturing. Forget the Umbrella corporation. Nowadays there is far more public pressure for accountability of corporations.

I'm more concerned with the patenting of Human DNA than automation. That's a much bigger risk.

For example.
An app will exist which can diagnose illness better than human doctors. But doctors will lobby the government not to allow the apps to prescribe medicines. The only way to get prescriptions will be to pay a human doctor.
What about poor people? Will they willingly die under this system if they can't afford a human doctor?
Why should doctors be protected from technology?

And whats different from the last 20 years? Poor people have generally been at the low end of things to receive care. They always have.

Already there are expert systems, like IBMs Watson, which are very good at diagnosing illness. In the near future they will be better than doctors. They will tell you what medicine you need but the government will prevent you from accessing the medicine.
Will that be accepted or will that lead to civil unrest and war?

That technology has been here for over a decade in a wide range of industries. There is still the same demand for skilled employees. If anything there is more demand, because there is the need for designers, programmers, developers, team leaders, project managers, test appliction etc.

People won't willingly die to protect doctors from technology.

That makes no sense at all. No offense intended, but is english your first language?

We see a lot of unrest because of Uber replacing taxis. What will happen when self driving cars replace lots of professional drivers?

Thats an example of unrest? Seriously?

Either the drivers are given a good standard of living for not working or else we will have massive social unrest.

Hardly. As with everything in business, they will be expected to adapt or fail and go bust...

This expectation that everyone deserves an income is not everywhere. Thankfully... business is about competition. Someone else will develop another idea or technology to close the gap in sales/services.

There is no point in talking about individual industries or individual countries. All industries will be affected, and all countries will be affected.

There's no point only because we don't have all year to talk about this. Look, it's simple. Dangerous jobs will be automated first and then the mind-boring repetitive jobs. Cash acceptance for stores or cafes are also likely to be automated.

If people wish to remain competitive in a modern society they need to upskill their ability to get jobs. Is it fair? Not really, but that's life. I'm constantly reading, and expanding my skillbase in a variety of directions because I know I will always need more in the future.... if I don't want a low end wage.

How will society work if robots are doing all of our work for us?

Probably as badly as it is now... but you haven't proven how this is likely to happen soon (and I mean soon as within the next 50 years). You just keep saying that it's going to happen. Prove it.

Either we all accept that it's great to have lots of time off, or else we have massive wars.

The difference is that I view this as an opportunity to get into something new. I'm educated as an accountant, and now I'm upskilling myself to get into artificial intelligence development.

War will happen anyway. That's got nothing to do with this topic.

TheDoc

Speedwell wrote: »

Things like database design and development of new vaccinations are also always needed, and I am sure there are out-of-work IT and medical professionals on the dole, but somehow those types of jobs never get mentioned when people start talking about jobs that those on the dole can do for free. The perception that people on the dole are always uneducated manual labourers glad to dumbly do any job assigned to them like a plow horse that doesn't care what field it plows has got to go.

At the same time though, beggers can't be choosers.

I fully know what you are getting at though. I remember a six month period out of work where I was in receipt of social welfare(I say receipt, took them six months to process my application before I saw a penny) and had numerous run in's with some workers who were on my back from nearly day one about interview stuff, job offers this and that.

The amount of times they threatened to cancel my application if I didn't go to a workshop, or go to an interview was incredible. I'm in IT with a particular skillset, and the **** I was being offered and threatened was insulting. I was taking a stance of "I have a specific career, I'm applying to specific jobs in my career, you don't worry about getting me to commute two hours to do some filing, I paid my tax, you just pay me my welfare".

I eventually got transferred to a different worker after me having to constantly hound Welfare and that lady was much more accommodating and understanding. But I still had to provide evidence and stuff of attending interviews, applying for interviews. To be honest I found the entire situation to be belittling and condescending and I hope to never have to do it ever again.

They obviously just saw me as a skilled, educated worker, and got the hooks in quickly to never let me settle. The barrage was incredible of letters, phonecalls and meetings.

And all the while I'm sitting wondering how the **** does ANYONE sponge social welfare. How? Then it became pretty clear that Welfare give up on plenty of people. they just stop hassling them because it's no use, because of the resources required, so they must just target people.

I'm actually in favour of people in receipt of dole being involved in community level projects and work. I don't think it's offensive or degrading to the skilled or educated, but if you are on the dole for a year, your clearly struggling for work and things arn't going well for you. There is the human element of you restoring some pride in doing some work and being a proper asset to the community, and the justification of the receipt of welfare after a certain point.

But as you have said, from my experience, first hand and second hand, there is a woefull inadequacy for Welfare workers to properly identify skillsets and careers, and it seems to be this massive effort to just get someone of the dole into ANYTHING ASAP, and they seem to be very happy threatening every which way. It's actually a disgrace considering the threats are basically using a persons sole income.

starshine1234

The post above illustrates exactly why I feel we need to move to a universal income model.

Ordinary people are being harrassed and haranged by Social Protection. That isn't necessary and it's unpleasant.

Social Protection is a massive bereaucracy and it could be done away with. We need to move to a less judgemental society where people are valued as people. People shouldn't be seen as economic units.

The government is clearly hate filled and refuses to legislate for a fair, equal and pleasant society. Instead we have a fractious society where minorites are encouraged to hate one another.


We need to grow up, legalise drugs, and provide universal income to all people.

starshine1234

starshine1234 wrote: »

We need to grow up, legalise drugs, and provide universal income to all people.

And yet, I've yet to hear a realistic option for financing this model. Oh, sure, you talk about increasing taxes on businesses and corporations, but this is unrealistic due to there being plenty of places (with lower costs) for businesses to move to. At the moment, Ireland offers lower taxes for corporations to set up shop here, in the hopes that this will generate higher tax (over a longer period) and reduce unemployment (therefore raises more tax from other areas).

Your suggestion seeks to target the industries that provide Irish people with Jobs, and income. How would you support anybody (never mind "universal income") when the businesses leave Ireland to go to Poland or another low cost nation with a skilled workforce>?

My problem is that the people who demand better benefits for the unemployed or the poor don't think about where the money comes from. Oh sure, they say to tax the rich, but the rich can (and will move away), they say to tax the businesses, but they can (and will move away), and then who will you tax? The middle class? But where will they get jobs if the employers have moved away?

So... if you want people to grow up, perhaps you can provide some realistic ideas for financing this utopian future?

starshine1234

I have already explained.

Taxes on companies must be increased.

If they want access to the Irish market then they must support our society by being willing to pay tax. They must not engage in constant attempts to avoid or evade tax.


Our country is setting a bad example by reducing company tax.

Why select companies to pay no tax?
Why must workers be taxed to the bone if companies are permitted to pay almost no tax?
What will happen if companies succeed in their aim of an international tax rate of <10% or thereabouts?


These low tax policies certainly have the potential to destroy our economy and our society so at the very least it is extremely reckless by our esteemed leaders. Its almost as if our esteemed leaders don't care if our society crumbles.

Enda Kenny seems more interested in getting pats on the head from Merkel and Sarkozy then he is in the welfare of Irish people. In other words, he's a despicable traitor to Ireland.


Universal income for the win, paid for by rich greedy elites.

starshine1234

starshine1234 wrote: »

I have already explained.

No. You've made basic statements. Go into far more detail here.

Taxes on companies must be increased.

If they want access to the Irish market then they must support our society by being willing to pay tax. They must not engage in constant attempts to avoid or evade tax.

What Irish market? Do you suggest they're here for the massive consumer market of 4.5million consumers?

The Job market? They're here for an educated workforce, and english speaking workforce, the Euro, and government incentives. All of which can be found elsewhere, although not as easily as in Ireland.

Our country is setting a bad example by reducing company tax.

ANd how would you encourage companies to invest in Ireland?

Why select companies to pay no tax?

Huh? I wasn't aware of this. No tax? Interesting. Links please.

Universal income for the win, paid for by rich greedy elites.

I cut out a chunk of your post because it wasn't related to what I asked. I asked you to explain how you would finance your idea? Drop the socialist political gibberish. Give me some realistic details.

oscarBravo

starshine1234 wrote: »

Taxes on companies must be increased.

As an owner of an SME, I hereby register my objection to your plan to increase my taxes.

Godge

starshine1234 wrote: »

Enda Kenny seems more interested in getting pats on the head from Merkel and Sarkozy then he is in the welfare of Irish people. In other words, he's a despicable traitor to Ireland.

.

2 million at work, net immigration again, if Kenny is indeed responsible, he must be congratulated by all of us.

na1

Recent story from myself:
I needed some electrical work to be done in the house, the work is relatively simple, but ESB regulations require this to be done by a certified electrician.
The thing is I couldn't find anyone (although there a quite a few electricians in the area)!
The last person I was calling said he has nearly 2 month booked in advance!
That's a joke! this is not a high skill IT or doctoral job which requires years of training, this is an ELECTRICIAN. One can train to be a domestic appliance electrician in less than a year.
No mercy to people who live on the dole for years.

looksee

na1 wrote: »

Recent story from myself:
I needed some electrical work to be done in the house, the work is relatively simple, but ESB regulations require this to be done by a certified electrician.
The thing is I couldn't find anyone (although there a quite a few electricians in the area)!
The last person I was calling said he has nearly 2 month booked in advance!
That's a joke! this is not a high skill IT or doctoral job which requires years of training, this is an ELECTRICIAN. One can train to be a domestic appliance electrician in less than a year.
No mercy to people who live on the dole for years.

It seems unlikely that a 'domestic appliance electrician' would be qualified to do work that requires a certified electrician.

It is not true that becoming an electrician can be done without years of training - there are exams and apprenticeships and certification that cannot be done without significant work and time.