thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 12^th, 2023 at 6:02pm:

They don't get paid, the same as you and me.

So it's not actually a guaranteed job? Did it occur to you that a lot of them might be unemployed precisely because at some time they didn't do the work.

Would you eradicate unemployment benefits to encourage them to actually do the work?

Who decides whether they are working hard enough?


Quote:

Wrong again; paid to do work which  the entire community deems useful.

So there has to be a consensus in the local community what the government money can be spent on? How do you achieve this?


Quote:

No, but they could get paid to tend to a productive food garden.

Why would your scheme cover gardening but not fishing? Do you disapprove of fishing? And what if the local community deems fishing useful but not gardening? Is there a separate bureaucracy to make sure the local community makes the correct decision on what they deem useful?

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2023 at 6:10pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 12th, 2023 at 6:02pm: They don't get paid, the same as you and me. So it's not actually a guaranteed job? Did it occur to you that a lot of them might be unemployed precisely because at some time they didn't do the work. Would you eradicate unemployment benefits to encourage them to actually do the work? Who decides whether they are working hard enough? Quote: Wrong again; paid to do work which  the entire community deems useful. So there has to be a consensus in the local community what the government money can be spent on? How do you achieve this? [quote]No, but they could get paid to tend to a productive food garden.

Why would your scheme cover gardening but not fishing? Do you disapprove of fishing? And what if the local community deems fishing useful but not gardening? Is there a separate bureaucracy to make sure the local community makes the correct decision on what they deem useful?[/quote]


No.

Once THEIR money goes into their account NO-ONE - least of all a vile right-wing government or ignorant, brainwashed fools who swallow the 'dole-bludger' lie - should have ANY say whatsoever in what they spend THEIR money on.

Ever.

Kat wrote on Mar 12^th, 2023 at 6:50pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2023 at 6:10pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 12th, 2023 at 6:02pm: They don't get paid, the same as you and me. So it's not actually a guaranteed job? Did it occur to you that a lot of them might be unemployed precisely because at some time they didn't do the work. Would you eradicate unemployment benefits to encourage them to actually do the work? Who decides whether they are working hard enough? Quote: Wrong again; paid to do work which  the entire community deems useful. So there has to be a consensus in the local community what the government money can be spent on? How do you achieve this? [quote]No, but they could get paid to tend to a productive food garden. Why would your scheme cover gardening but not fishing? Do you disapprove of fishing? And what if the local community deems fishing useful but not gardening? Is there a separate bureaucracy to make sure the local community makes the correct decision on what they deem useful?

No.

Once THEIR money goes into their account NO-ONE - least of all a vile right-wing government or ignorant, brainwashed fools who swallow the 'dole-bludger' lie - should have ANY say whatsoever in what they spend THEIR money on.

Ever.[/quote]


Fd, in his sniveling manner,  is pretending thegreatdivide is saying anything other than what he actually said.  It's how fd typically 'wins' his arguments :D

Mamabulanjin Aboriginal Corporation (MAC) is pursuing a range of
options for Indigenous joint venturers, co-investors and supporters or a
consortium of Indigenous sole owners to buy the Roebuck Seafood
business operating out of Broome.    It would welcome contact with
interested investors and supporters who want to help create sustainable
Indigenous businesses through this enterprise in the Broome area.
MAC is of the view that the purchase of the business is an important
investment opportunity for the Indigenous community.

Broome Fishing Coop.

—Sounds like a good idea.

Kat wrote on Mar 12^th, 2023 at 6:50pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2023 at 6:10pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 12th, 2023 at 6:02pm: They don't get paid, the same as you and me. So it's not actually a guaranteed job? Did it occur to you that a lot of them might be unemployed precisely because at some time they didn't do the work. Would you eradicate unemployment benefits to encourage them to actually do the work? Who decides whether they are working hard enough? Quote: Wrong again; paid to do work which  the entire community deems useful. So there has to be a consensus in the local community what the government money can be spent on? How do you achieve this? [quote]No, but they could get paid to tend to a productive food garden. Why would your scheme cover gardening but not fishing? Do you disapprove of fishing? And what if the local community deems fishing useful but not gardening? Is there a separate bureaucracy to make sure the local community makes the correct decision on what they deem useful?

No.

Once THEIR money goes into their account NO-ONE - least of all a vile right-wing government or ignorant, brainwashed fools who swallow the 'dole-bludger' lie - should have ANY say whatsoever in what they spend THEIR money on.

Ever.[/quote]

Kat if you have your own version of this scheme you would like to put forward, go ahead.

AusGeoff wrote on Mar 12^th, 2023 at 7:35pm:

Mamabulanjin Aboriginal Corporation (MAC) is pursuing a range of options for Indigenous joint venturers, co-investors and supporters or a consortium of Indigenous sole owners to buy the Roebuck Seafood business operating out of Broome.    It would welcome contact with interested investors and supporters who want to help create sustainable Indigenous businesses through this enterprise in the Broome area. MAC is of the view that the purchase of the business is an important investment opportunity for the Indigenous community. Broome Fishing Coop. —Sounds like a good idea.

Jesus - I hope they do better than they did with the cattle farms....

If it's a good deal - they can build a business plan and go to the banks...

The right thing to do 'for Taxpayers' is to have an expenditure monitoring scheme for Dole receivers - so that they use their money in a proactive positive manner. Nothing more than a constructive discipline to bring about a positive use of Taxpayer's money.

This would work well for 'Battlers' who want to do the right thing and achieve the best results of their Dole use.

But of course, the 'Bludgers' would FAIL this and then we would have a lower class below the Battlers, who would then result to nefarious and criminal means to make money to spend on unacceptable things like drugs and alcohol.

This would result in what the Dole in Australia is trying to prevent - that much lower level of unemployed poor that is a blight in other countries.

Currently, the Dole seems to make the Bludgers semi happy from doing worse, but it is also seeming to slide into failure as it is.

A Battler wouldn't care if their expenditure of their Welfare is monitored - because they do the right thing.
It's the Bludgers (and the Lefties who are afraid to discriminate between right and wrong) who not only abuse the system, but give the Battlers a bad wrap in the Taxpayer's eyes.

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2023 at 6:10pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 12th, 2023 at 6:02pm: They don't get paid, the same as you and me. So it's not actually a guaranteed job?

The JG scheme developed by economists  such as Pavlina Cherneva  envisages a government  offer  of a job for anyone who wants a job.

Note: people already employed in the regular job market normally won't be interested in a JG job, because the JG job is paid at the lowest (fixed) legal wage (above poverty) in the economy.


Quote:

Did it occur to you that a lot of them might be unemployed precisely because at some time they didn't do the work.

No.  You are talking about on the job support needed by many of us, at one time or another.


Quote:

Would you eradicate unemployment benefits to encourage them to actually do the work?

"Social security" (a euphemism for the poverty industry) would be virtually eliminated, but some individuals may not be capable to work, so some - possibly non-monetary - support will be required, to avoid starvation


Quote:

Who decides whether they are working hard enough?

A task is defined, and its completion is required.


Quote:

So there has to be a consensus in the local community what the government money can be spent on? How do you achieve this?

The consensus re the types of jobs which the local community sees as useful, is arrived via a two way process of communication between the unemployed themselves, and the rest of the community, via the community's  local council.   

The funding of the jobs created is a matter  for the currency-issuing federal government.


Quote:

Why would your scheme cover gardening but not fishing?

Did you miss my answer? Go back and reread it. (though in case it was a later edit on my part which you missed, here it is again):

"No, but they could get paid to tend to a productive food garden.  (though fishing might  be productive in some localities - a special case of 'work', if designated as such by the entire community)."

Obviously fishing is not suitable in Alice Springs....
     

Quote:

Is there a separate bureaucracy to make sure the local community makes the correct decision on what they deem useful?

No, see above comments re role of the local council in developing the local JG scheme.
.........

Interesting.....you ask questions, and I answer them - is this called the 'dialectics' method?.....

will be interesting to arrive at when - and why -  you refuse to consider my answers...

AusGeoff wrote on Mar 12^th, 2023 at 7:35pm:

Mamabulanjin Aboriginal Corporation (MAC) is pursuing a range of options for Indigenous joint venturers, co-investors and supporters or a consortium of Indigenous sole owners to buy the Roebuck Seafood business operating out of Broome.    It would welcome contact with interested investors and supporters who want to help create sustainable Indigenous businesses through this enterprise in the Broome area. MAC is of the view that the purchase of the business is an important investment opportunity for the Indigenous community. Broome Fishing Coop. —Sounds like a good idea.

Yes, though not really related to the concept of a Job Guarantee scheme, which is the offer by the government of a paid minimum wage job to anyone who wants a job.

Jasin wrote on Mar 13^th, 2023 at 9:11am:

The right thing to do 'for Taxpayers' is to have an expenditure monitoring scheme for Dole receivers - so that they use their money in a proactive positive manner. Nothing more than a constructive discipline to bring about a positive use of Taxpayer's money. This would work well for 'Battlers' who want to do the right thing and achieve the best results of their Dole use. But of course, the 'Bludgers' would FAIL this and then we would have a lower class below the Battlers, who would then result to nefarious and criminal means to make money to spend on unacceptable things like drugs and alcohol. This would result in what the Dole in Australia is trying to prevent - that much lower level of unemployed poor that is a blight in other countries. Currently, the Dole seems to make the Bludgers semi happy from doing worse, but it is also seeming to slide into failure as it is. A Battler wouldn't care if their expenditure of their Welfare is monitored - because they do the right thing. It's the Bludgers (and the Lefties who are afraid to discriminate between right and wrong) who not only abuse the system, but give the Battlers a bad wrap in the Taxpayer's eyes.

The separation of the unemployed into 'battlers' and 'bludgers' points to the differences in motivation and sense of responsibility shown by different individuals.

But a mileau in which it is known the government offer of a minimum wage job exists, would go some way to improving morale and hence sense of responsibility toward both self and community.

Quote:

The JG scheme developed by economists  such as Pavlina Cherneva  envisages a government  offer  of a job for anyone who wants a job.

So basically, no change at all? Just whitewashing the same old situation with a lie that the job is guaranteed?


Quote:

Note: people already employed in the regular job market normally won't be interested in a JG job, because the JG job is paid at the lowest (fixed) legal wage (above poverty) in the economy.

There are plenty of people on minimum wage.


Quote:

No.  You are talking about on the job support needed by many of us, at one time or another.

No. I am talking about people not working. Would you like to have a go at answering the actual question rather than telling me I am talking about something else?


Quote:

"Social security" (a euphemism for the poverty industry) would be virtually eliminated, but some individuals may not be capable to work, so some - possibly non-monetary - support will be required, to avoid starvation

So in an effort to help people you would remove social security and replace it with food stamps?


Quote:

A task is defined, and its completion is required.

Would you like to have another go at giving a straight answer to a simple question?

Who decides whether they are working hard enough?

By the way, saying that "it is done" is not the same as saying who does it.


Quote:

The consensus re the types of jobs which the local community sees as useful, is arrived via a two way process of communication between the unemployed themselves, and the rest of the community, via the community's  local council.

So the council has to negotiate directly with unemployed people, and whatever the council decides is declared to be a consensus of the local community?


Quote:

"No, but they could get paid to tend to a productive food garden.  (though fishing might  be productive in some localities - a special case of 'work', if designated as such by the entire community)."

So your answer is that no, people cannot get paid to go fishing, unless there is a good fishing spot nearby, in which case yes they can just get paid to go fishing?


Quote:

will be interesting to arrive at when - and why -  you refuse to consider my answers...

My conclusion is that you are a brainwashed, naive communist, who thinks that jumbling together every failed idea from the past into a monster will make it all function smoothly, so long as you tell enough lies by using words like consensus and guarantee to describe things that are pretty much the opposite.

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 13^th, 2023 at 11:17am:

Jasin wrote on Mar 13th, 2023 at 9:11am: The right thing to do 'for Taxpayers' is to have an expenditure monitoring scheme for Dole receivers - so that they use their money in a proactive positive manner. Nothing more than a constructive discipline to bring about a positive use of Taxpayer's money. This would work well for 'Battlers' who want to do the right thing and achieve the best results of their Dole use. But of course, the 'Bludgers' would FAIL this and then we would have a lower class below the Battlers, who would then result to nefarious and criminal means to make money to spend on unacceptable things like drugs and alcohol. This would result in what the Dole in Australia is trying to prevent - that much lower level of unemployed poor that is a blight in other countries. Currently, the Dole seems to make the Bludgers semi happy from doing worse, but it is also seeming to slide into failure as it is. A Battler wouldn't care if their expenditure of their Welfare is monitored - because they do the right thing. It's the Bludgers (and the Lefties who are afraid to discriminate between right and wrong) who not only abuse the system, but give the Battlers a bad wrap in the Taxpayer's eyes. The separation of the unemployed into 'battlers' and 'bludgers' points to the differences in motivation and sense of responsibility shown by different individuals. But a mileau in which it is known the government offer of a minimum wage job exists, would go some way to improving morale and hence sense of responsibility toward both self and community.

Of course it would. The Battler's would benefit and climb another step out of the hole.
But the Bludgers will ruin it in some way or other with the lefties making excuses for them.

Forget "guarantee" and "consensus". They are just lies to make it look different to any other council job. Every aspect of this scheme is either identical to current arrangements or an incredibly stupid idea.

This is what you are really proposing:

Councils will have unlimited budgets to employ people, that they do not have to raise from local taxes. The money will instead come from federal taxes via the federal government. There will be no oversight on how councils spend the money. The taxpayers and the federal government will magically agree to make unlimited funds available that they know will be wasted.

The result will be that councils that have an actual labour shortage (ie, councils in "productive" areas) will see that problem grow, because people will migrate out. To get enough work done, councils will have to offer people more money, outside of the "guarantee" scheme, which means the local people will get taxed more and see services go down.

Places that are currently "destinations" - places with good fishing, surfing, camping, or whatever, will soon be flooded with squatters. Their councils will be voted in by people looking for a handout. These communities will vote in councils that hand out the unlimited federal funds for them to go fishing or do some other pointless, minimalist work, tick the box, get the paycheck, and go fishing. It will basically scale up the "remote aboriginal community" model that the government currently subsidises, along with all the problems that go with it.

Not long after, the federal government will have to throw buckets of money at these totally unproductive communities to solve all the social problems that mysteriously develop, and a new wave of even higher paid squatters will move in.

The local councillors will suddenly find themselves running enormous budgets and give themselves massive pay raises. But anyone who tries to run for office at the council without the approval of the favoured clique will suddenly find that they, their families and their supporters have to do 3 days work every day in order to keep their "guaranteed" job. They will appeal to the federal government who will point out that under the complete idiot legislation of 2023, they are not allowed to interfere with the local "consensus" process for deciding what "guaranteed" jobs the local community agrees are productive. Every now and then tensions will boil over and council elections will eventually be replaced with stabbing competitions.

TGD, I realise it must be a challenge for you to get your head around the fact that our unemployment benefits are more than twice the median Chinese wage. It must seem an inconceivable wealth to you, after putting such effort into parroting CCP propaganda about Australians being poorer than Chinese. But instead of seeing our unemployment benefits as a problem you must solve or destroy, perhaps it would be better for you to see it as a luxury the Chinese people should aspire to, if only the CCP would let them become as wealthy as us rather than putting such effort into lying to the Chinese people about already making them more wealthy than the west.

Jasin wrote on Mar 14^th, 2023 at 6:47am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 13th, 2023 at 11:17am: Jasin wrote on Mar 13th, 2023 at 9:11am: The right thing to do 'for Taxpayers' is to have an expenditure monitoring scheme for Dole receivers - so that they use their money in a proactive positive manner. Nothing more than a constructive discipline to bring about a positive use of Taxpayer's money. This would work well for 'Battlers' who want to do the right thing and achieve the best results of their Dole use. But of course, the 'Bludgers' would FAIL this and then we would have a lower class below the Battlers, who would then result to nefarious and criminal means to make money to spend on unacceptable things like drugs and alcohol. This would result in what the Dole in Australia is trying to prevent - that much lower level of unemployed poor that is a blight in other countries. Currently, the Dole seems to make the Bludgers semi happy from doing worse, but it is also seeming to slide into failure as it is. A Battler wouldn't care if their expenditure of their Welfare is monitored - because they do the right thing. It's the Bludgers (and the Lefties who are afraid to discriminate between right and wrong) who not only abuse the system, but give the Battlers a bad wrap in the Taxpayer's eyes. The separation of the unemployed into 'battlers' and 'bludgers' points to the differences in motivation and sense of responsibility shown by different individuals. But a mileau in which it is known the government offer of a minimum wage job exists, would go some way to improving morale and hence sense of responsibility toward both self and community. Of course it would. The Battler's would benefit and climb another step out of the hole. But the Bludgers will ruin it in some way or other with the lefties making excuses for them.

On the job supervision as required is the way around that problem.

freediver wrote on Mar 14^th, 2023 at 6:41am:

Quote: The JG scheme developed by economists  such as Pavlina Cherneva  envisages a government  offer  of a job for anyone who wants a job. So basically, no change at all?

You are kidding: there are currently 1.25 million  involuntarily un/underemployed in Oz.


Quote:

Just whitewashing the same old situation with a lie that the job is guaranteed?

No. btw, "the best form of welfare is a job" ..... ie a non-market job which the community wants done,  and the job seeker agrees he can do.


Quote:

There are plenty of people on minimum wage.

Correct: the idea is the JG job would usurp that minimum wage. 


Quote:

No. I am talking about people not working. Would you like to have a go at answering the actual question rather than telling me I am talking about something else?

People "not working" for whatever reason need to be supported by the state by non-monetary means  (...which will sort out the real bludgers, because non-monetary support means sheltered accommodation, and  loss of personal agency).


Quote:

So in an effort to help people you would remove social security and replace it with food stamps?

Addressed above; "the best form of welfare is a job": welfare isn't "helping people".....


Quote:

Would you like to have another go at giving a straight answer to a simple question?

 

Simple question? Ok,  an elderly couple's house needs the gutters to be cleaned, estimated time required 6 hours.  The job is either done or it isn't done.


Quote:

Who decides whether they are working hard enough?

A JG supervisor working for the local council, overseeing all JG jobs in the local district.

Note; with the closing down of the vast Federal poverty industry -  euphemistically called 'social welfare', there will be room for an extra management employee at the local level. 


Quote:

By the way, saying that "it is done" is not the same as saying who does it.

Ok..the guy cleaning the gutters is the guy who is getting it done...


Quote:

So the council has to negotiate directly with unemployed people, and whatever the council decides is declared to be a consensus of the local community?

Correct: interested members of the community pass their ideas for non-market employement to the council, who has the available JG seekers on its lists.  Problem?



Quote:

So your answer is that no, people cannot get paid to go fishing, unless there is a good fishing spot nearby, in which case yes they can just get paid to go fishing?

 

You left out the local council, central to local management of a JG scheme, funded by the currency issuing Federal government.



Quote:

My conclusion is that you are a brainwashed, naive communist, who thinks that jumbling together every failed idea from the past into a monster will make it all function smoothly, so long as you tell enough lies by using words like consensus and guarantee to describe things that are pretty much the opposite.

Premature conclusion?

I'm convinced my above answers are logically consistent. to achieve above poverty employment (not the dole)  for all who want to work.

freediver wrote on Mar 14^th, 2023 at 7:08am:

Forget "guarantee" and "consensus".

Why? They are eminently desirable, for getting things done....


Quote:

They are just lies to make it look different to any other council job. Every aspect of this scheme is either identical to current arrangements or an incredibly stupid idea.

Refuted in my previous post. Every (non-market) job which is seen as useful by the local community is ....useful to the community. 


Quote:

This is what you are really proposing: Councils will have unlimited budgets to employ people, that they do not have to raise from local taxes.

Not surprising that a blind Friedman monetarist would go straight - first up - to the '"how will we pay for it" narrative.

But yes, what you have said above is correct, apart from my correction re "unlimited".


Quote:

1. The money will instead come from federal taxes via the federal government. 2. There will be no oversight on how councils spend the money. 3. The taxpayers and the federal government will magically agree to make unlimited funds available that they know will be wasted fund the JG jobs. .

1. If the population insist on being hoodwinked by the current Friedmanite monetarism which forces currency-issuing governments to tax or borrow from the private sector in order to spend (as per the current, crooked "independent" central bank arrangements), then yes; but - as opposed to the existing false monetarist orthodoxy -  a currency issuing government doesn't NEED to tax or borrow in order to fund specific policies if the resources are available for purchase (see MMT)... your choice.

[Interesting times ahead: half a $trillion on nuclear subs,    while trying to lift wages for education and caring industries...hm...the stage 3 tax cuts might not be affordable..]

2. The council JG manager will oversight the funding/spending.

3. Correct (as kindly amended by me...)


Quote:

The result will be that councils that have an actual labour shortage (ie, councils in "productive" areas) will see that problem grow, because people will migrate out. To get enough work done, councils will have to offer people more money, outside of the "guarantee" scheme, which means the local people will get taxed more and see services go down.

Incorrect. People won't migrate to the lower paying JG job. And the people which the council needs outside of the JG scheme are either available or not, regardless of the existence of the JG scheme.


Quote:

Places that are currently "destinations" - places with good fishing, surfing, camping, or whatever, will soon be flooded with squatters.

I will stop here for the time being; you need to reply to my answers so far, specifically to the proposed local council JG administration officer because your wrong conception of the JG scheme is now leading you seriously astray.

ie, when you reply to my corrections of your misconceptions  of the JG scheme, we can deal with your following false narrative


Quote:

Their councils will be voted in by people looking for a handout.

Ok this one caught my eye: answer: the unemployed amount to 5-10% of the electors... ie the 90% who have their own interests at heart.

But the rest of your narrative is ruined by GIGO...to wit:


Quote:

These communities will vote in councils that hand out the unlimited federal funds for them to go fishing or do some other pointless, minimalist work, tick the box, get the paycheck, and go fishing. It will basically scale up the "remote aboriginal community" model that the government currently subsidises, along with all the problems that go with it. Not long after, the federal government will have to throw buckets of money at these totally unproductive communities to solve all the social problems that mysteriously develop, and a new wave of even higher paid squatters will move in. The local councillors will suddenly find themselves running enormous budgets and give themselves massive pay raises. But anyone who tries to run for office at the council without the approval of the favoured clique will suddenly find that they, their families and their supporters have to do 3 days work every day in order to keep their "guaranteed" job. They will appeal to the federal government who will point out that under the complete idiot legislation of 2023, they are not allowed to interfere with the local "consensus" process for deciding what "guaranteed" jobs the local community agrees are productive. Every now and then tensions will boil over and council elections will eventually be replaced with stabbing competitions.

freediver wrote on Mar 14^th, 2023 at 7:52am:

TGD, I realise it must be a challenge for you to get your head around the fact that our unemployment benefits are more than twice the median Chinese wage.

Irrelevant; the poverty-level dole in Oz  is a destroyer of morale, health and wellbeing, regardless of the median wage  in China with its different purchasing power metrics.


Quote:

It must seem an inconceivable wealth to you, after putting such effort into parroting CCP propaganda about Australians being poorer than Chinese.

Incorrect, as explained above. I want full employment in Oz, lets see if China can keep growing its economy (...5% this year?)   



Quote:

But instead of seeing our unemployment benefits as a problem you must solve or destroy, perhaps it would be better for you to see it as a luxury the Chinese people should aspire to, if only the CCP would let them become as wealthy as us rather than putting such effort into lying to the Chinese people about already making them more wealthy than the west.

Your misconceptions re PPP, growth rates and the demoralization of life on the dole - especially in a rich country - are examined above.

Quote:

Simple question? Ok,  an elderly couple's house needs the gutters to be cleaned, estimated time required 6 hours.  The job is either done or it isn't done.

So it cannot be half done? And what if they get it done in two days instead?


Quote:

Why? They are eminently desirable, for getting things done....

Because as explained, they are lies.


Quote:

Refuted in my previous post. Every (non-market) job which is seen as useful by the local community is ....useful to the community.

Wherther they are useful or not does not change the fact that you are lying about it being guaranteed to consensus based. You are not refuting anything. You lied. And now you are pretending you said something else.


Quote:

Not surprising that a blind Friedman monetarist would go straight - first up - to the '"how will we pay for it" narrative.

Not surprising that a communist stooge is detached from reality and unconcerned with cost, because they are happy to spend other people's money.


Quote:

But yes, what you have said above is correct, apart from my correction re "unlimited".

How would it be limited?


Quote:

Incorrect. People won't migrate to the lower paying JG job.

I didn't say they would. They would migrate to a job that pays the same but requires them to do almost no work. And yes, some people might migrate for a lower paying job. It already happens.


Quote:

specifically to the proposed local council JG administration officer

LOL. We have gone from a community consensus to a council employee making the decisions. And you think this is somehow different from the current arrangements.


Quote:

Ok this one caught my eye: answer: the unemployed amount to 5-10% of the electors... ie the 90% who have their own interests at heart.

Are you slow or what? Read it again.


Quote:

Irrelevant; the poverty-level dole in Oz  is a destroyer of morale, health and wellbeing,

And you seek to make it worse by removing their person agency?

Hell FD. ::) You couldn't even give me a job as a Gmod. :P

freediver wrote on Mar 15^th, 2023 at 7:30am:

So it cannot be half done? And what if they get it done in two days instead?

The local council JG supervisor can take into account different capacities of different workers; and workers paid a living wage want to hold onto their job.

Btw, I notice this was the ONLY point you chose to question, from my post #15 which covered fully 11 points. I guess you are on the way to being a JG supporter....


Quote:

Because as explained, they are lies.

"as explained"? This was the extent of your "explanation":

"They are just lies to make it look different to any other council job".

So you claim consensus and guarantee are lies because a JG job is different to a regular council job.

Your error here is to fail to recognize that a JG job IS different to a regular council job; the former is a non-market, and maybe a non-permanent job, unlike the regular permanent council job.

(Very fraudulent of you to equate  the concepts of "consensus and guarantee"  with the JG itself; the JG is part of a federal government scheme...)   


Quote:

Wherther they are useful or not does not change the fact that you are lying about it being guaranteed to consensus based. You are not refuting anything. You lied. And now you are pretending you said something else.

Addressed above: and so now your usual descent into outright fraud is evident. In fact whether the jobs are useful or not is the essence of a JG scheme.

On reflection, I see you think because the local community deems non-market jobs to be useful, in contrast with permanent jobs which the competitive profit-seeking market is prepared to pay for, you have decided such JG jobs are illegitimate. 
So rather than you being fraudulent, I can more accurately say you are just exhibiting the ideological blindness associated with free market orthodoxy  (aka the TINA fallacy).


Quote:

Not surprising that a communist stooge is detached from reality and unconcerned with cost, because they are happy to spend other people's money.

There we have it; "how are we going to pay for it"...you deplorable survival of the fittest/'individual rights' ideologue.

We can 'pay for it' with tax transfers...but since we are all greedy by nature, we can instead let the electorate, not ideology-driven central bankers, decide on how to allocate the nation's output ie for the first time the '50%  MINUS 1' get a chance to determine government spending (rather than rule by the 50% PLUS 1 who always dominate government  policy for their own interests.


Quote:

How would it be limited?

By the resources available for purchase by the currency issuing government (congrats, you asked a question pointing to the first principle of MMT).


Quote:

I didn't say they would. They would migrate to a job that pays the same but requires them to do almost no work.

Your error here is: the JG job pays the minimum legal (above poverty) wage in the economy. People can move  between regular market economy jobs which pay the same wage (ie higher than the JG wage)  as they choose.


Quote:

And yes, some people might migrate for a lower paying job. It already happens.

Indeed....but usually not to the lowest legal minimum wage.


Quote:

LOL. We have gone from a community consensus to a council employee making the decisions. And you think this is somehow different from the current arrangements.

Addressed above: a JG program is govt. policy - "community consensus" or not (ie, 50% plus  1,  in adversarial democracies); it's obvious you don't want part of the  nation's resources to be allocated to the JG scheme, others do. 


Quote:

Are you slow or what? Read it again.

Ok this what you said; "Their councils will be voted in by people looking for a handout."

Ah..so your argument is: all the local unemployed will vote for the JG.  And?

In any case, it's numerically impossible for the unemployed ALONE to elect a council (because the unemployed are only 10% or less of eligible voters). 


Quote:

And you seek to make it worse by removing their person agency?

No; a JG increases "person agency", whereas the poverty level dole destroys it.

C'mon FD. Give me a Gmod job. Gandalf is living under a big rock in Mecca and really not in existence here. C'mon!!! I'll wear my nice shoes.

Quote:

So you claim consensus and guarantee are lies because a JG job is different to a regular council job.

I claim it is a lie because there is no guarantee and there is no consensus. It's really rather simple. Not sure why you are still struggling with the concept. Do you know what a lie is? Do you know what a guarantee is? Do you know what a consensus is? That is all you need to know.


Quote:

Your error here is: the JG job pays the minimum legal (above poverty) wage in the economy. People can move  between regular market economy jobs which pay the same wage (ie higher than the JG wage)  as they choose.

Are you just pretending to be an idiot? Do you agree with me now? Or are you still disagreeing with what you agree with?


Quote:

Addressed above: a JG program is govt. policy - "community consensus"

How doy ou achieve this consensus with a single council employee making the decisions?


Quote:

Ah..so your argument is: all the local unemployed will vote for the JG.  And?

And, finish reading it. Understand what it says. Then respond.


Quote:

In any case, it's numerically impossible for the unemployed ALONE to elect a council (because the unemployed are only 10% or less of eligible voters).

That would be relevant if only one local council ruled the whole country. But that is not the case, is it? The only thing that is not possible is you understanding a simple argument.


Quote:

No; a JG increases "person agency", whereas the poverty level dole destroys it.

So giving people unemployment benefits as cash decreases their agency, but giving them food stamps etc instead so they have no control over their situation increases it? What other stupid ideas do you have?

freediver wrote on Mar 15^th, 2023 at 8:50pm:

I claim it is a lie because there is no guarantee and there is no consensus.

Listen carefully:

1.  a Federal JG scheme is a policy choice of the Federal government, who guarantees a job for anyone who wants an above-poverty (minimum wage)  job with all the add-ons (sick leave, holiday pay etc)

2.  the consensus refers to the 2-way communication at the local council level, ie matching the local unemployed with the local community's  needs  for non-market-based work. 

Got it?   


Quote:

It's really rather simple. Not sure why you are still struggling with the concept. Do you know what a lie is? Do you know what a guarantee is? Do you know what a consensus is? That is all you need to know.

The problem for me is I have to identify the source of your error; in this case you confused combining of the concepts of consensus and  guarantee, when they refer to separate operations by  different levels of government as explained above. 


Quote:

Your error here is: the JG job pays the minimum legal (above poverty) wage in the economy. People can move  between regular market economy jobs which pay the same wage (ie higher than the JG wage)  as they choose. Are you just pretending to be an idiot?Do you agree with me now?

Yes;  in fact I agree: you said "people can move from a hard to an easy job", I agree.

I also noted that people will not be inclined to move to a minimum wage JG job, if they found an easier higher paying job, in the regular market economy. 


Quote:

Or are you still disagreeing with what you agree with?

Addressed above, be careful how you reply....I have a mirror handy for idiots to look at........


Quote:

How doy ou achieve this consensus with a single council employee making the decisions?

er...he is merely the agent who is charged with matching the wishes of  the community with the capacities of the unemployed.


Quote:

Ah..so your argument is: all the local unemployed will vote for the JG.  And? And, finish reading it. Understand what it says. Then respond.

You  said: "Their councils will be voted in by people looking for a handout."

Wrong of course, councils are voted in by people eligible to vote.


Quote:

In any case, it's numerically impossible for the unemployed ALONE to elect a council (because the unemployed are only 10% or less of eligible voters). That would be relevant if only one local council ruled the whole country.

 

Wrong of course. Most JG jobs will involve local jobs managed via the local council.


Quote:

But that is not the case, is it?

indeed it is the case, as explained. Your error is to confuse a single council with the entire nation. Every council is elected by eligible voters, and every council area contains unemployed workers. 


Quote:

The only thing that is not possible is you understanding a simple argument.

Blimey... it's way past mirror time...


Quote:

So giving people unemployment benefits as cash decreases their agency,

yes, if they are long-term involuntary unemployed; poverty on the dole isn't nice, nor is it compatible with "agency".   


Quote:

but giving them food stamps etc instead so they have no control over their situation increases it? What other stupid ideas do you have?

You don't need to give food stamps to people who are engaged in a JG program, by definition (and people who CANT work need to be in supported accommodation.

Blimey, I'll withhold that mirror, it will crack if you look at it.... 

I could do with a Gmod job.

Jasin wrote on Mar 15^th, 2023 at 11:04pm:

I could do with a Gmod job.

You need to present a funding plan.

What needs to be funded?

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 15^th, 2023 at 10:32pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 15th, 2023 at 8:50pm: I claim it is a lie because there is no guarantee and there is no consensus. Listen carefully: 1.  a Federal JG scheme is a policy choice of the Federal government, who guarantees a job for anyone who wants an above-poverty (minimum wage)  job with all the add-ons (sick leave, holiday pay etc) 2.  the consensus refers to the 2-way communication at the local council level, ie matching the local unemployed with the local community's  needs  for non-market-based work.  Got it?

Yes. I can see the lie very clearly. You call it a guaranteed job, but like every other job, you have to actually do the work, and to the required standard, or you lose the job.

And where on earth did you get your definition of consensus from? Oh that's right, CCP propaganda, where slaughtering your enemy establishes consensus.

Why do you keep parroting these lies? Are you unaware that Australians have not been taught to swallow communist propaganda unquestioningly?

Is consensus just a Chinese Communist Party euphemism for abandoning democracy at the local government level?

Jasin wrote on Mar 16^th, 2023 at 12:35am:

What needs to be funded?

Sorry, I misunderstood the term 'Gmod'.

(I thought you were offering to act as  moderator for  this board, a useful JG job?).

freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2023 at 7:45am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 15th, 2023 at 10:32pm: freediver wrote on Mar 15th, 2023 at 8:50pm: I claim it is a lie because there is no guarantee and there is no consensus. Listen carefully: 1.  a Federal JG scheme is a policy choice of the Federal government, who guarantees a job for anyone who wants an above-poverty (minimum wage)  job with all the add-ons (sick leave, holiday pay etc) 2.  the consensus refers to the 2-way communication at the local council level, ie matching the local unemployed with the local community's  needs  for non-market-based work.  Got it?    Yes. I can see the lie very clearly. You call it a guaranteed job, but like every other job, you have to actually do the work, and to the required standard, or you lose the job.

I agree; the gutters have to be cleaned, or it's back to supported accomodation....


Quote:

And where on earth did you get your definition of consensus from? Oh that's right, CCP propaganda, where slaughtering your enemy establishes consensus.

Well... I have described how the JG jobs are created at the local councils - by consensus, if you like, ie by the 2 way process between local community organizations and the local council. If you don't like calling this 'consensus', ok.... call it something else. 


Quote:

Why do you keep parroting these lies?

Says one of the most egregious liars on Ozpol, close on the heels of Lisa (btw, have you listened to the video examining Palestine population tranfers in 1946-8?) 


Quote:

Are you unaware that Australians have not been taught to swallow communist propaganda unquestioningly?

I am aware  this is how the debate on the JG ends: your blind, sick, 'individual sovereignty' ideology prevents you from honestly replying to all the answers I have given to your every dumb question...

freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2023 at 8:12am:

Is consensus just a Chinese Communist Party euphemism for abandoning democracy at the local government level?

Addressed in #30. Communication between local community organizations and the local governing council is  democracy in action. Thanks for highlighting the fact.

Job guarantee:
https://mobile.twitter.com/OddlySatisfyimg/status/1635582674667720706

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 16^th, 2023 at 9:11am:

freediver wrote on Mar 16th, 2023 at 8:12am: Is consensus just a Chinese Communist Party euphemism for abandoning democracy at the local government level? Addressed in #30. Communication between local community organizations and the local governing council is  democracy in action. Thanks for highlighting the fact.

Elected (by individuals)  community organisations talking to elected (by individuals) local councils?

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 16^th, 2023 at 9:11am:

freediver wrote on Mar 16th, 2023 at 8:12am: Is consensus just a Chinese Communist Party euphemism for abandoning democracy at the local government level? Addressed in #30. Communication between local community organizations and the local governing council is  democracy in action. Thanks for highlighting the fact.

Freediver : What NotSoGreat is lying about THIS time is this :

The local governing council has absolutely nothing to do with democracy. Nothing! It’s in fact a CCP cell group and its council members are CCP elected/appointed and they’re there to enforce CCP policy/propaganda at local level and report back on its progress wrt compliance at local level. It’s in effect Big Brother micro managing dissent and keeping tabs on neighbourhoods to ensure everyone sticks to the CCP agenda.

My Chinese born neighbours have spent hours telling me the truth behind these so called governing councils. From the safety of Australia of course.

AusGeoff wrote on Mar 12^th, 2023 at 7:35pm:

Mamabulanjin Aboriginal Corporation (MAC) is pursuing a range of options for Indigenous joint venturers, co-investors and supporters or a consortium of Indigenous sole owners to buy the Roebuck Seafood business operating out of Broome.    It would welcome contact with interested investors and supporters who want to help create sustainable Indigenous businesses through this enterprise in the Broome area. MAC is of the view that the purchase of the business is an important investment opportunity for the Indigenous community. Broome Fishing Coop. —Sounds like a good idea.

;D

Yeah ... like the one on Thursday Island.... govt funded Crayfishing boats.

The had an eager market but couldn't keep up to orders or supply because they would always be tied up in port.

What's that tell you?

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 17^th, 2023 at 11:35am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 16th, 2023 at 9:11am: freediver wrote on Mar 16th, 2023 at 8:12am: Is consensus just a Chinese Communist Party euphemism for abandoning democracy at the local government level? Addressed in #30. Communication between local community organizations and the local governing council is  democracy in action. Thanks for highlighting the fact. Freediver : What NotSoGreat is lying about THIS time is this : The local governing council has absolutely nothing to do with democracy. Nothing! It’s in fact a CCP cell group...

Dear dumb Lisa, the topic is the role of local government in managing the JG at the local level.
And last time I looked, local councils were part of democracy in Oz. 


Quote:

My Chinese born neighbours have spent hours telling me the truth behind these so called governing councils. From the safety of Australia of course. [/size]

Which explains your mal-informed intrusion into the JG debate in Oz, I suppose.

Arguments for a jobs guarantee
Supporters argue that a jobs guarantee would help stabilise the economy during economic downturns and lift workers out of poverty when they are unable to find jobs that offer enough pay or hours of work.

One of the most popular arguments is that it would improve pay and conditions for all low-paid workers. As Bryce Covert argues:

If the government offered a job to everyone who wants to work, private-sector employees could demand adequate pay, humane schedules, and more generous benefits with less fear of getting fired. In effect, corporate America would be forced to compete with the government for employees—which would put pressure on private employers to provide desirable jobs.

Arguments against a jobs guarantee
The idea has attracted criticism from all sides. In New York magazine Jonathan Chait acknowledges that the jobs guarantee co-opts ‘the conservative themes of self-sufficiency and hard work’ and neutralises the objection that Democratic policies subsidise sloth. However, he argues that the proposal suffers from two serious problems—its cost and the practical difficulty of creating such a large number of jobs.

According to Chait, a program that provided good pay and benefits could quickly expand beyond the target group of unemployed and underemployed workers. The cost of running such a large program would probably mean increased taxes on the middle class and this would put an end to its popularity.

Chait argues that an even bigger problem is ‘is that designing a federal jobs program large enough to usefully employ all applicants is a devilishly complex challenge that none of the proposals currently circulating have worked through.’ If the program funded jobs such as child care that communities rely on, how would it respond when the labour market tightened and workers left for jobs in the private sector? The jobs guarantee would need to be restricted to performing work that the community could afford to do without. Starting with workers and designing jobs that match their skills, experience and availability for work would be a huge challenge.

At the People’s Policy Project, Matt Bruenig makes a similar point. Breunig points to the work of Australian political economy student Hugh Sturgess who wrote his 2016 honours thesis on the topic. In the conservative National Review, Theodore Kupfer references both Bruenig and Sturgess in a piece that dismisses the idea as an attempt by Democratic candidates to shore up their progressive credentials.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2018/April/Jobs_Guaranteem

Frank wrote on Mar 19^th, 2023 at 4:49pm:

Arguments for a jobs guarantee Supporters argue that a jobs guarantee would help stabilise the economy during economic downturns and lift workers out of poverty when they are unable to find jobs that offer enough pay or hours of work. One of the most popular arguments is that it would improve pay and conditions for all low-paid workers. As Bryce Covert argues: If the government offered a job to everyone who wants to work, private-sector employees could demand adequate pay, humane schedules, and more generous benefits with less fear of getting fired. In effect, corporate America would be forced to compete with the government for employees—which would put pressure on private employers to provide desirable jobs.

Indeed...or higher pay for jobs which are not so "desirable".


Quote:

Arguments against a jobs guarantee The idea has attracted criticism from all sides. In New York magazine Jonathan Chait acknowledges that the jobs guarantee co-opts ‘the conservative themes of self-sufficiency and hard work’ and neutralises the objection that Democratic policies subsidise sloth. However, he argues that the proposal suffers from two serious problems—its cost and the practical difficulty of creating such a large number of jobs.

1. "Cost" is not a problem, because a JG is funded by a currency-issuing government which is constrained by resources, not money (by definition). 

2. The practical difficulties of introducing a JG are not large, because the JG is easily implemented at the local council level (where the unemployed are).


Quote:

According to Chait, a program that provided good pay and benefits could quickly expand beyond the target group of unemployed and underemployed workers. The cost of running such a large program would probably mean increased taxes on the middle class and this would put an end to its popularity.

Addressed above: a JG is funded by the currency-issuing government's money, not "taxpayer money". 


Quote:

Chait argues that an even bigger problem is ‘is that designing a federal jobs program large enough to usefully employ all applicants is a devilishly complex challenge that none of the proposals currently circulating have worked through.’

Refuted above, Chait obviously hasn't read the JG literature.



Quote:

If the program funded jobs such as child care that communities rely on, how would it respond when the labour market tightened and workers left for jobs in the private sector?

Regular public service jobs are not JG jobs.


Quote:

The jobs guarantee would need to be restricted to performing work that the community could afford to do without.

The better way to look at this issue is that ALL the nations workers would ALWAYS be employed, with the community being able to decide which work it deems not vital, in any given market condition.


Quote:

Starting with workers and designing jobs that match their skills, experience and availability for work would be a huge challenge.

Addressed above, market forces will decide the number of JG jobs at any given time.


Quote:

At the People’s Policy Project, Matt Bruenig makes a similar point. Breunig points to the work of Australian political economy student Hugh Sturgess who wrote his 2016 honours thesis on the topic. In the conservative National Review, Theodore Kupfer references both Bruenig and Sturgess in a piece that dismisses the idea as an attempt by Democratic candidates to shore up their progressive credentials. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2018/April/Jobs_Guaranteem

Well of course conservatives - concerned with holding onto their own 'taxpayer money', while not understanding the concept of 'government money' (which doesn't need 'taxpayer money') - aren't known for their "progressive" economic views.

I don't think this scheme will work.
I can't even get a job as a Gmod here.  ::)