Australian Politics Forum - job 'guarantee' scheme

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12940
Gender: male

Re: job 'guarantee' scheme
Reply #15 - Mar 14^th, 2023 at 1:47pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12940
Gender: male

Re: job 'guarantee' scheme
Reply #16 - Mar 14^th, 2023 at 2:28pm

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.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 14^th, 2023 at 2:34pm by thegreatdivide »

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12940
Gender: male

Re: job 'guarantee' scheme
Reply #17 - Mar 14^th, 2023 at 2:49pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49030
At my desk.

Re: job 'guarantee' scheme
Reply #18 - Mar 15^th, 2023 at 7:30am

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?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Jasin Gold Member Offline Posts: 48347 Gender:	Re: job 'guarantee' scheme Reply #19 - Mar 15^th, 2023 at 8:57am Hell FD. You couldn't even give me a job as a Gmod.
Back to top	AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY. IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12940
Gender: male

Re: job 'guarantee' scheme
Reply #20 - Mar 15^th, 2023 at 11:57am

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.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 15^th, 2023 at 6:41pm by thegreatdivide »

IP Logged

Jasin Gold Member Offline Posts: 48347 Gender:	Re: job 'guarantee' scheme Reply #21 - Mar 15^th, 2023 at 2:17pm 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.
Back to top	AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY. IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49030
At my desk.

Re: job 'guarantee' scheme
Reply #22 - Mar 15^th, 2023 at 8:50pm

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?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12940
Gender: male

Re: job 'guarantee' scheme
Reply #23 - Mar 15^th, 2023 at 10:32pm

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....

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 15^th, 2023 at 10:44pm by thegreatdivide »

IP Logged

Jasin Gold Member Offline Posts: 48347 Gender:	Re: job 'guarantee' scheme Reply #24 - Mar 15^th, 2023 at 11:04pm I could do with a Gmod job.
Back to top	AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY. IP Logged

thegreatdivide Gold Member Offline Australian Politics<br /> Posts: 12940 Gender:	Re: job 'guarantee' scheme Reply #25 - Mar 15^th, 2023 at 11:26pm Jasin wrote on Mar 15^th, 2023 at 11:04pm: I could do with a Gmod job. You need to present a funding plan.
Back to top	IP Logged

Jasin Gold Member Offline Posts: 48347 Gender:	Re: job 'guarantee' scheme Reply #26 - Mar 16^th, 2023 at 12:35am What needs to be funded?
Back to top	AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY. IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49030
At my desk.

Re: job 'guarantee' scheme
Reply #27 - Mar 16^th, 2023 at 7:45am

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

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?

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?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49030 At my desk.	Re: job 'guarantee' scheme Reply #28 - Mar 16^th, 2023 at 8:12am Is consensus just a Chinese Communist Party euphemism for abandoning democracy at the local government level?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

thegreatdivide Gold Member Offline Australian Politics<br /> Posts: 12940 Gender:	Re: job 'guarantee' scheme Reply #29 - Mar 16^th, 2023 at 8:55am 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?).
Back to top	IP Logged