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


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:


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:


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?

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



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

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


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

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.

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


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.

Quote:


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

Quote:


There are plenty of people on 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?

Quote:


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

Quote:


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:


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:


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:


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.

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.

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


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