# Is an Equal Society a Realistic Aspiration?



## Julia (11 June 2014)

There have recently been a number of references to the growing inequality of wealth in Australia.  I don't think anyone disputes this.

Most of us, however, like to think of Australia as a land (amongst many) with great equality of opportunity:  eg if you're prepared to think something through and have a go, anyone can have an equal chance of success.

But for ever, people have never all been equal.
(I'm trying to here not be too politically incorrect and still make my meaning clear.)
We are all born with genetic differences and these will be enhanced or diminished via our upbringing and our life experiences.

So do we all actually have equality of opportunity in reality?
I don't think so.  

Is there genuinely any way we can change this?   Should we want to?  

When I listen to some talk back radio, e.g., I'm just astonished at the views some people form, god knows from what.

We have some people lauding senator-elect Ricky Muir of the recent excruciating interview, saying "he's just an ordinary Australian so he'll be a worthwhile member of the Senate".

Do you think that's a valid view?   Alternatively, do you think that someone being paid almost $200K and there for six years, who has had about six months to prepare, should be able to answer a couple of simple questions about his forthcoming role?  If any of such people are going to be participating in the balance of power and whether or not legislation passes, shouldn't they have a few clues?

I don't mean to make this thread political and am just using Mr Muir as one example.

Public confidence is apparently down since the Budget and I wonder why this is, i.e. is it because most people surveyed have determined if it goes ahead then they will be personally adversely affected?
Or is it that the electorate simply cannot warm to Mr Abbott, and would mark him and his party down regardless of what was in the Budget?

We live in a country which is peaceful, essentially well run, with various welfare programs for those who need it, free healthcare of a high standard, and most of the other conditions one would consider necessary for a good life.

Yet there is incessant whining and discontent.   It's rare to hear or read a sentiment expressing gratitude for how fortunate we are.   Why is this?   Have we become so accustomed to being bribed by politicians with ever more freebies that when some of them are proposed to be withdrawn, we stamp our collective feet and rage about how unfair it all is?

I see people out in cafes packed to the footpaths, and walking round eating take away food.  Yet apparently we are not prepared to pay $7 to have our health looked after.  What on earth is the value system here?

I'd be interested in any views about what I'm feeling frustrated and puzzled about.


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 June 2014)

Julia said:


> Public confidence is apparently down since the Budget and I wonder why this is, i.e. is it because most people surveyed have determined if it goes ahead then they will be personally adversely affected?
> Or is it that the electorate simply cannot warm to Mr Abbott, and would mark him and his party down regardless of what was in the Budget?




I think it's simply because the key budget message is "doom and gloom, more pain to come". That's essentially the underlying message, here's some pain now and there will be more, and people will tend to respond to a message like that regardless of the actual implications for them personally.

Human brains seem to be wired to think like that in all sorts of areas. Eg it rains so someone turns the heater on, regardless of whether or not it's actually cold. Or they hear that petrol prices are going up and thus decide to fill the tank, saving themselves all of 25 cents by doing so. But it's psychological and similar to how marketing works - if humans thought rationally then most advertising etc wouldn't exist.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 June 2014)

In relation to Julia's comments about the Medicare co-payment. Hockey and Abbott have made statements about Medicare becoming unsustainable, yet the majority of this co payment is NOT being returned to the health system, but will go into a slush fund, none of which will  be  distributed for another 6 years, and by the time any advances in health care treatments are found, will not benefit the major contributors to the fund, ie older people who visit the doctor more often and use more medicines.

Is this fair ?

The health care research fund is reputed to provide one $billion per year for medical research. The US spends $30 billion pa on medical research. I find it presumptuous that Hockey thinks Australia will step in and save the world with our little fund.


If the government  wants a medical research fund, fine, but fund it fairly by upping the Medicare levy so that all who will benefit from the outcomes pay for it, not just the elderly who pay but probably won't benefit, and get the money to the researchers NOW, not in six years.

If they want a co payment, then it should go straight back into public hospitals to fund health care services for all.

So the co-payment is just one way this government is contributing to inequality in this society as well as not touching the upper middle class ripoffs we have been discussing ad nauseam, ie family trusts, negative gearing, superannuation tax rates etc.

Abbott/Hockey's views on what is fair, is very cockeyed imo.

I'm afraid I couldn't watch Mr Muir's interview after the first 30 seconds, it was awful. Why didn't the media put some pressure on him BEFORE the election ? If they did he probably wouldn't be in the position of sponging on our taxes.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 June 2014)

> Public confidence is apparently down since the Budget and I wonder why this is, i.e. is it because most people surveyed have determined if it goes ahead then they will be personally adversely affected?




I think the "what's in it for me" factor will always be evident, but there are two factors in this budget, what they want to do, and how they want to do it.

Cutting down on welfare is well and good, but I don't think it's fair to take current payments from people for which they have budgeted. If the govt said "we will reduce the rate of family payments for children born after June 30 2016", that does not affect anyone yet and gives people time to plan whether they can afford their next child.

They could also announce a waiting time for new migrants to receive family benefits, which they can now receive as soon as they arrive. That may discourage some people who come here for the welfare.


----------



## DocK (12 June 2014)

I think that humanity/society is a zero-sum game - in order for some to flourish there must be some who are not.  Whether it's a palatable fact or not, for an entrepreneur to be profitable he/she requires workers who are willing to earn less than their boss.  It's simply a fact of life that for every CEO on a big salary there are many workers at minimum wage.  We are not all born with the same intellectual capability, educational opportunity or benefit from equal parenting in our formative years.  I see only one of those factors that _could_ be changed to any great extent.  Our personalities differ from the driven overachiever to the apathetic sloth.  Society is made up of a great diversity of people and I think it would be unrealistic to aspire to true equality, and such an aspiration would probably be to the detriment of our society in general.  I guess all we can do is strive to improve the lot of the less "successful" in our society without removing the incentive for those that are willing/able to improve their lot through their own efforts.  To begin you'd need to define what true equality is, as it will mean different things to different groups of people depending upon culture, sex, age, priorities etc.

As to the general public confidence or discontent around the budget - I think a lot of this is to do with the belief that it is unnecessarily harsh on our youth, when compared to the affect on the vast majority of the boomer generation.  This belief seems to be held by a surprisingly large % of coalition voters as well as diehard labor supporters, as many of us care as much or more about the future welfare of our children and grandchildren as we do about any effect to our own bottom line.


----------



## Knobby22 (12 June 2014)

Julia said:


> We have some people lauding senator-elect Ricky Muir of the recent excruciating interview, saying "he's just an ordinary Australian so he'll be a worthwhile member of the Senate".
> 
> Do you think that's a valid view?   Alternatively, do you think that someone being paid almost $200K and there for six years, who has had about six months to prepare, should be able to answer a couple of simple questions about his forthcoming role?  If any of such people are going to be participating in the balance of power and whether or not legislation passes, shouldn't they have a few clues?
> 
> I don't mean to make this thread political and am just using Mr Muir as one example.




Most of our politicians these days have had little work experience. Tony Abbott, Chris Pyne and Joe Hockey have had very limited short careers of 2 to 3 years and usually it was working for the Liberals in any case. Bill Shorten only ever worked as a solicitor for Maurice Blackburn for a period of 18 months.

My belief is that the political class has lost touch with the ordinary people and don't understand that we want to be an aspirational society where hard work and brains can get you places. People yearn for the politicians of old who had real life experience but they are getting to be very few. It has become a game of power and ego instead.

The new University rules proposed will ensure that only the very committed will go to Melbourne or Sydney Universities as a family from a poor background will be very loathe to build up huge debts ($150K-400K) to complete a degree that will take many years to pay back. To me it looks like class warfare. They are in shock as to the public reaction to the budget. They shouldn't be, it just shows they have lost touch with the public in their ivory towers. 

On the Labor side, they seem to have no real idea what the Australian Public wants and just flounder from one crackpot scheme to another. They also live in a strange world where they just talk to each other and Unions and CEOs.

I know some politicians personally and believe me they are just ordinary people like you and me, but with viewpoints that you would find strange due to their closeted lifestyle.


----------



## McLovin (12 June 2014)

Knobby22 said:


> Most of our politicians these days have had little work experience. Tony Abbott, Chris Pyne and Joe Hockey have had very limited short careers of 2 to 3 years and usually it was working for the Liberals in any case. Bill Shorten only ever worked as a solicitor for Maurice Blackburn for a period of 18 months.




I reckon that's a biggie. Sometimes I wander over to Sky News when they have their current affairs shows and I shake my head and think "who the f#*k cares"? It's like they operate in a little bubble, where winning the debate is more important than the outcomes it produces.

I don't have an issue with inequality; capitalism can't exist without it. However, I would like a society where two individuals of the same ability have the same opportunity regardless of the circumstance in which they grew up. Surely in a competitive world that's what we should strive for to ensure Australia maintains its spot at the top?



			
				SirRumpole said:
			
		

> In relation to Julia's comments about the Medicare co-payment. Hockey and Abbott have made statements about Medicare becoming unsustainable, yet the majority of this co payment is NOT being returned to the health system, but will go into a slush fund, none of which will be distributed for another 6 years, and by the time any advances in health care treatments are found, will not benefit the major contributors to the fund, ie older people who visit the doctor more often and use more medicines.
> 
> Is this fair ?




Yes it's fair. The heaviest users of the Medicare system (the elderly) currently contribute almost nothing toward it (how many of them are taxpayers?). A $7 co payment capped at $70/year is not unreasonable, IMO. It's taxpayers who still will foot a bill many multiples of that $7 for each visit. I find it shocking that the average Australian visits the doctor 5x/year.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 June 2014)

> Yes it's fair. The heaviest users of the Medicare system (the elderly) currently contribute almost nothing toward it (how many of them are taxpayers?). A $7 co payment capped at $70/year is not unreasonable, IMO. It's taxpayers who still will foot a bill many multiples of that $7 for each visit. I find it shocking that the average Australian visits the doctor 5x/year.




But you ignore the fact that that money is not going back into the Medicare system, it's going to be squirreled away for six years and not returned to the people that paid it. And the pensioners you are talking about have worked and paid their taxes during their lives, most of whom have not been the recipients of the Family tax benefit which was introduced by John Howard.

Getting old and requiring more health services is not the fault of individuals, it's the fault of genetics. I doubt if many people go to the doctor who don't require treatment, they would rather be playing bowls or doing macrame.


----------



## Knobby22 (12 June 2014)

McLovin said:


> Yes it's fair. The heaviest users of the Medicare system (the elderly) currently contribute almost nothing toward it (how many of them are taxpayers?). A $7 co payment capped at $70/year is not unreasonable, IMO. It's taxpayers who still will foot a bill many multiples of that $7 for each visit. I find it shocking that the average Australian visits the doctor 5x/year.




I agree. And the fact that Labor are using this payment as the leading objection to the budget just shows how out of touch they are.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 June 2014)

Knobby22 said:


> I agree. And the fact that Labor are using this payment as the leading objection to the budget just shows how out of touch they are.




So tell me, how are the taxpayers going to be reimbursed by this payment ?


----------



## trainspotter (12 June 2014)

Julia said:


> We have some people lauding senator-elect Ricky Muir of the recent excruciating interview, saying "he's just an ordinary Australian so he'll be a worthwhile member of the Senate".
> 
> Do you think that's a valid view?   Alternatively, do you think that someone being paid almost $200K and there for six years, who has had about six months to prepare, should be able to answer a couple of simple questions about his forthcoming role?  If any of such people are going to be participating in the balance of power and whether or not legislation passes, shouldn't they have a few clues?




I especially liked the part where Willesee reckoned they had to delete a lot of the conversation that was recorded "It would have been far worse for Ricky if we'd run all of the things that he said."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...a-interview-20140609-39ry8.html#ixzz34OT1Og3y

Apparently WIllesee asked him what he hoped to achieve in parliament ... "To be able to customise my car" was the response ... Yep he is ready for the Senate ... Pfffffffffffttttttttttt !


----------



## Knobby22 (12 June 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> So tell me, how are the taxpayers going to be reimbursed by this payment ?




The argument that there should be a small cost is valid imo. however I agree that putting it away for six years is unfair. 

There is so very much that is wrong with the budget that Labor could attack and win the argument however they want to keep the message simple and rely on the hip pocket. 

They undersell the intellect of the Australian people by following this spin doctor/round table study route.


----------



## McLovin (12 June 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> But you ignore the fact that that money is not going back into the Medicare system, it's going to be squirreled away for six years and not returned to the people that paid it.




I'm not ignoring it, I just don't see its relevance any more than when fuel excise revenue doesn't all go toward roads and infrastructure. Lots of things are paid for with my tax dollars that I get no benefit from. I didn't realise that was now the benchmark.


----------



## Julia (12 June 2014)

Thank you for some interesting responses.  DocK, you've gone into exactly what I was trying to get at.  I've been vaguely wondering if I'm the one out of touch when I hear all the cries for a truly equal society.  It seems a naive and unrealistic aspiration to me.



Knobby22 said:


> Most of our politicians these days have had little work experience. Tony Abbott, Chris Pyne and Joe Hockey have had very limited short careers of 2 to 3 years and usually it was working for the Liberals in any case. Bill Shorten only ever worked as a solicitor for Maurice Blackburn for a period of 18 months.
> 
> My belief is that the political class has lost touch with the ordinary people and don't understand that we want to be an aspirational society where hard work and brains can get you places. People yearn for the politicians of old who had real life experience but they are getting to be very few. It has become a game of power and ego instead.



I'd not actually realised how few Coalition members had had such minimal real life experience until recently, so that's a very valid point.  Most of Labor came up through the unions or the bureaucracy so are similarly bereft.



> To me it looks like class warfare. They are in shock as to the public reaction to the budget. They shouldn't be, it just shows they have lost touch with the public in their ivory towers.



And they seem to be in denial about any notion of it being unfair.  To me it's just unbelievable that there is almost unanimous derision - both amongst the party, the opposition, and the electorate - about Mr Abbott's PPL, yet he's being utterly recalcitrant about reconsidering it.



> On the Labor side, they seem to have no real idea what the Australian Public wants and just flounder from one crackpot scheme to another. They also live in a strange world where they just talk to each other and Unions and CEOs.
> 
> I know some politicians personally and believe me they are just ordinary people like you and me, but with viewpoints that you would find strange due to their closeted lifestyle.



Don't they all do constant market research, run focus groups etc?   It's bewildering to me that they cannot absorb what the strong feedback from the electorate is telling them.  I suppose it's difficult to walk that fine line between insisting on policy that the country needs, ie by some means reducing spending, and understanding the justifiable resentment when the changes made so materially affect the less well off.   

The argument against that, I guess, is that we need to start breeding into young people the culture of working for an income, that it's not OK to spend much of their lives on welfare.  So, yes, young unemployed are going to find life more difficult, but is that actually going to spur them on to become a bit more diligent about looking for a job, taking a job they don't much like, or becoming a bit entrepreneurial about generating an income?

I'm in favour of giving the government's tough new rules for young unemployed a go?  How do others feel on this in particular?

Re the $7 co-payment.  Surely it would have gone down better if explained as necessary for the support of Medicare as a scheme, given the aging population, increased health costs due to more sophisticated treatments available etc.   People can understand that.  But they seem to  have stuffed up by linking it to this research fund, causing a disconnect and reduced trust in the minds of the electorate.

I'm all for the co-payment.  People on concessions will have it limited to $70 a year.  That's probably a lot less than many spend at McDonalds et al.


----------



## Calliope (12 June 2014)

McLovin said:


> I don't have an issue with inequality; capitalism can't exist without it.




Brazil is a good example of this. It has one of the fastest growing economies in the world and no country has such a vast disparity between the very rich and the very poor. Brazil has the world's fifth largest number of billionaires and has 21% of the population living below the povery line. Its growth rate is higher than Australia's and its unemployment level is lower.



> However, I would like a society where two individuals of the same ability have the same opportunity regardless of the circumstance in which they grew up. Surely in a competitive world that's what we should strive for to ensure Australia maintains its spot at the top?




Apparently not. I doubt if we even have the top spot for welfare dependency; although we try hard.


----------



## Knobby22 (12 June 2014)

Julia said:


> I'm in favour of giving the government's tough new rules for young unemployed a go?  How do others feel on this in particular?




It's experimental. It could destroy some people but make others stronger. 
I'm interested in what people think also.
If we end up having country people living on the street in the City then it would be a failure.

A friend has a business and he hired this perfectly ordinary early 20's guy who had done training courses and when at the interview he told him he got the (rather basic) job the guy broke down crying. He had been unemployed for a few years and had never worked and was absolutely desperate to start living life. He could read and write etc. and ended up being one of the most trusted hard working employees he had. 

It's not that easy.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 June 2014)

McLovin said:


> I'm not ignoring it, I just don't see its relevance any more than when fuel excise revenue doesn't all go toward roads and infrastructure. Lots of things are paid for with my tax dollars that I get no benefit from. I didn't realise that was now the benchmark.




The argument was that Medicare was becoming unsustainable, yet none of the co-payment is going back into Medicare. Surely that is relevant to the argument against the co payment, or at least how it's being spent.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 June 2014)

> I'm in favour of giving the government's tough new rules for young unemployed a go? How do others feel on this in particular?




I would agree if there was evidence that there were plenty of jobs around for youth and people were slacking around on the dole when there was opportunity for work, but your anecdote about 500 applicants for one job is just one example that this is not the case, and having no income for 6 months is just punishment not incentive.

What I might suggest as an alternative is cutting the minimum wage for people under 25 to provide business with an incentive to create more jobs.


----------



## trainspotter (12 June 2014)

Julia are you suggesting an Orwellian Animal Farm kind of Utopia ?


----------



## cynic (12 June 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I would agree if there was evidence that there were plenty of jobs around for youth and people were slacking around on the dole when there was opportunity for work, but your anecdote about 500 applicants for one job is just one example that this is not the case, and having no income for 6 months is just punishment not incentive.
> 
> What I might suggest as an alternative is cutting the minimum wage for people under 25 to provide business with an incentive to create more jobs.




+1

Whilst there are plenty of able and willing people unable to find gainful employment I would recommend a nearly opposite approach. Allow those lacking in motivation to simply opt out of the workforce. Doing so would create opportunities for those more willing (and hence more worthy) to productively contribute to our society.


----------



## Calliope (12 June 2014)

Julia said:


> I don't mean to make this thread political and am just using Mr Muir as one example.




A forlorn hope. That horse has well and truly bolted.


----------



## sydboy007 (12 June 2014)

I think inequality is getting worse in this country.

Just have to look how unbalanced the tax system is.  

Rewards speculation over hard work.  Why does someone who saves some money in a bank account pay full tax, but someone who speculates on property or shares can get up to a 45% discount on their interest costs and then pay half tax on any profits they make?

Then there's the Byzantine layers of tax expenditures that never seem to be targeted for 'welfare" cuts.  Why did Abbott side with 16000 very wealthy super funds providing over 100K in tax free super over the 3.6M workers who get little to nothing to paying extra tax on their super?  All that seems to do is entrench the current wealth divide.

Why do some people who's employers are willing to provide them a novated lease can get subsidised cars, whereas those poorer in the community get no such benefit?

Then you just have to see how often rich people break the law and seemingly get slaps on the wrist, where poor people will end up in jail.  Just have to look at the CEO of Gunns who was caught doing insider trading for selling his shares before the market knew the company was tanking.  So he sold out taking home $3M while shareholders were left with practically nothing, and he was fined $50K.  How is that fair?

It's fine to want a society where equal ability enjoys equal opportunity, but there also needs to be balance in that the tax system, the legal system also treat everyone equally, which it clearly doesn't.


----------



## Julia (12 June 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I would agree if there was evidence that there were plenty of jobs around for youth and people were slacking around on the dole when there was opportunity for work, but your anecdote about 500 applicants for one job is just one example that this is not the case, and having no income for 6 months is just punishment not incentive.



With respect to that anecdote, Rumpole, a job with Coles is very convenient, right in the CBD.  There are, however, hundreds of jobs within an hour's drive of this town, fruit and vegetable picking all year round as crops change.  These growers cannot get young unemployed people to do this work, and it's done approx half and half by baby boomers travelling round following the seasonal work, and backpackers from overseas doing the same.  Both these groups tell me they can easily earn $100 per day which is certainly better than the dole.

The growers provide transport and even accommodation where necessary, but still these kids refuse to do the work.
So let's not have our hearts bleeding too profusely for them, and rather encourage them to understand that it's just not reasonable to turn down a job because you don't especially fancy it, and that the taxpayer has no obligation to support you if you do.

Re the Coles job, I also made the point that pretty clearly a lot of those kids turned up poorly presented, showing no ambition to actually gain employment, but rather to be able to tick the box on the Centrelink form which says they have ' applied for a job'.



> What I might suggest as an alternative is cutting the minimum wage for people under 25 to provide business with an incentive to create more jobs.



That sounds like a sensible suggestion, as would be cutting penalty rates that see so many businesses close at weekends because they simply can't afford to employ staff.




trainspotter said:


> Julia are you suggesting an Orwellian Animal Farm kind of Utopia ?



I'm not suggesting or ruling out anything, TS.  Orwell's tract was satirical for good reason.  I cannot think of any model of society that represents any sort of utopia.
It's just something that has been bothering me and I wanted to throw it out to the forum to see if anyone believed it would actually be possible to ever have a truly equal society, as distinct from one which provides equality of opportunity.

What do you think?



cynic said:


> +1
> 
> Whilst there are plenty of able and willing people unable to find gainful employment I would recommend a nearly opposite approach. Allow those lacking in motivation to simply opt out of the workforce. Doing so would create opportunities for those more willing (and hence more worthy) to productively contribute to our society.



Could you outline how you think this would actually work, cynic?  Would those who choose to opt out be funded by the working taxpayers to enjoy such an existence?  Or do you mean if they opt out, then they also opt out of any taxpayer funded income?



sydboy007 said:


> I think inequality is getting worse in this country.
> 
> Just have to look how unbalanced the tax system is.
> 
> Rewards speculation over hard work.  Why does someone who saves some money in a bank account pay full tax, but someone who speculates on property or shares can get up to a 45% discount on their interest costs and then pay half tax on any profits they make?



Agreed, syd.  Anyone taking an objective view would.  It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that the lack of attention to the many benefits to the affluent is ideologically based.

However, can this be justified on the basis that it's often the most affluent who create jobs for others?
That if we reward people for entrepreneurial attitude, they will continue to expand businesses ?



> Why do some people who's employers are willing to provide them a novated lease can get subsidised cars, whereas those poorer in the community get no such benefit?



Perhaps just one more example of how one's capacity to negotiate a salary package determines individual success.  If you're destined (and have no expectation of anything more) to spend your working life as a supermarket checkout operator, then pretty obviously the notion of negotiating for a company car would be a bit unrealistic.
Yes, it might seem unfair, but it's also an incentive to increase one's abilities and move upward.
There have to be additional rewards for additional talent, surely?


----------



## overhang (12 June 2014)

Julia said:


> I'm in favour of giving the government's tough new rules for young unemployed a go?  How do others feel on this in particular?




Well for a start I find it ridiculous to on one hand take this hardline approach to the young but on the other hand offer employers incentives to employ over 50s.  These over 50s will be competing in the job market with the youth but yet one has perks involved with employment in the way of cash incentives and the other doesn't, yet the one that doesn't has no safety net to fall back on when the employer picks the over 50.  Boggles my mind to be frank.

In a whole though there will be some that this kicks into gear and gives them the drive to find a job, but make no mistake there will be some that will suffer substantially due to this policy.  I don't think its going too far to suggest that this may push some into a life of crime, I mean what choice would they be left if they're left unemployed but have no money for food or rent?  I don't accept the premise that everyone is employable, some just aren't, they lack any sort of initiative and are more of a burden than anything.  People just seem to think that these types of employees should just get a job stacking shelves or picking fruit etc but even those employers have a higher standard than these type of workers can meet, there are  enough unemployed out there that you can be picky with workers.

As far as equality is concerned well as others have pointed out, under a capitalist system there always will be equality.  The trouble is to solve equality requires wealth redistribution which is always a contentious matter.  What I do find concerning however is that a particular industry has enough power to overthrow a PM (I know it wasn't the only factor).  When the affluent are given so much power its very difficult to wield that back of them.


----------



## Julia (12 June 2014)

Overhang, no young person is about to be cast out into the street with no financial support.  If he/she declines or can't find a job, they simply need to be engaged in some form of training program in order to receive either youth allowance or the dole.

Therefore effectively no change from the present except they will not be funded by the taxpayer for sitting at home or hanging out at the skate park.

Labor has apparently been very successful in planting in the minds of some of the electorate that the government plans to drive young people into living on the streets where the inevitable sequelae will be a generation of teenagers robbing banks and engaging in violent home invasions.


----------



## Duckman#72 (12 June 2014)

Julia said:


> Labor has apparently been very successful in planting in the minds of some of the electorate that the government plans to drive young people into living on the streets where the inevitable sequelae will be a generation of teenagers robbing banks and engaging in violent home invasions.




I agree Julia, and the media have fanned the flames of this idea.

Personally I am all for the "basketweaving and pottery" courses being taken off the register as eligible for govt training assistance. 

However as a rural person I do see one problem. It is much easier for parents who live in the city, to "help and assist" their kids financially when they are either looking for a job or going to Uni. Unfortunately the realistic position is that all 4 of my kids will have to leave town for study and work. I can't provide free or cheap board, I can't assist with transportation and I can't be there to help guide the kids (in the flesh)- just the way it is.

Duckman


----------



## overhang (12 June 2014)

Julia said:


> Overhang, no young person is about to be cast out into the street with no financial support.  If he/she declines or can't find a job, they simply need to be engaged in some form of training program in order to receive either youth allowance or the dole.
> 
> Therefore effectively no change from the present except they will not be funded by the taxpayer for sitting at home or hanging out at the skate park.
> 
> Labor has apparently been very successful in planting in the minds of some of the electorate that the government plans to drive young people into living on the streets where the inevitable sequelae will be a generation of teenagers robbing banks and engaging in violent home invasions.




If only it were as rosey as you make it sound Julia.  So to receive any government assistance one must take up a debt ridden HECS course that they may have no interest in.  Fresh school leavers who didn't receive the desired HSC results are then left with very little choice in higher education courses, pushing students into higher education they have no interest in is not the answer. This won't be so bad for those over 21 who can apply for courses as a mature age student but for what is quite a daunting period for any fresh school leavers life, I don't think they should feel pigeon holed into higher education just to receive benefits because they're having difficulty finding work.

Regarding your fruit picking, do you realise that most this work is seasonal?  Work can only be offered in short terms which suits backpackers etc but hardly suits anyone looking for long term work.


----------



## chiff (13 June 2014)

Regarding fruit picking-We stayed in a caravan park in the Riverland SA last week for four days.The onsite vans were taken by Chinese workers and the cabins by a Pacific islander team.On the way home we saw two different groups of vine pruners only,both wearing the Vietnamese style head wear(peaked straw hats).
The fruit picking jobs for locals ,in my area,and in this area that we were in,have diminished.
About ten years ago we stayed in the same caravan park and it was loaded with itinerant Australian workers.
Perhaps we were at the wrong time of the year this time?


----------



## SirRumpole (13 June 2014)

> The growers provide transport and even accommodation where necessary, but still these kids refuse to do the work.
> So let's not have our hearts bleeding too profusely for them, and rather encourage them to understand that it's just not reasonable to turn down a job because you don't especially fancy it, and that the taxpayer has no obligation to support you if you do.




If you say there are jobs out there that are not being done, I'll believe you. Whether the availability of these jobs exceeds the demand for jobs in every area is another matter, and as has been pointed out, some jobs are seasonal.

The government has offered a "learn or earn" edict to young job seekers. So lets look at the "learn"component. 

State governments have cut resources to TAFES and have basically let the system run down. Places in these courses are limited and upfront fees apply. If students are required to learn, then I can see TAFES being swamped by demand that they can't fill, and this will result in people who can't satisfy either the earn or learn requirements and will essentially be out on the streets unless they have supportive parents.

 I agree with the concept of the unemployed learning skills and trades, but it has to be able to be practically implemented, and not just an ideological dictate.

I think a better alternative is  more rigorous work for the dole schemes where the kids can actually do some useful work for the community. This could be linked to some financial incentive for local businesses to provide training, and creates some contact between local business and potential employees.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 June 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> If students are required to learn,




Should be 



> if the *unemployed* are required to learn




Here is an article detailing the cuts that have been applied to TAFES around the country

http://theconversation.com/tafe-cuts-will-harm-the-economy-boost-crime-rate-experts-9597


----------



## Julia (13 June 2014)

overhang said:


> If only it were as rosey as you make it sound Julia.  So to receive any government assistance one must take up a debt ridden HECS course that they may have no interest in.



Probably we need to see the detail of what is planned.   I haven't at all had the impression that 'training' means university and therefore debt.   



> Fresh school leavers who didn't receive the desired HSC results are then left with very little choice in higher education courses



Well, perhaps they can repeat their final years at school.  My experience during mentoring in high schools is that many of them are semi-literate, so maybe if they engage in literacy and numeracy tutoring that would be both useful to them and meet the government requirement.

I can't see that it would be so difficult to provide appropriate training in various areas.  Dozens of organisations are equipped to do this.
But if we're determined to just look at the negatives and not see any value in rejecting the idea of multi generational welfare where kids simply have the expectation that a life on the dole is OK, then of course you won't find anything anyone suggests acceptable.



> pushing students into higher education they have no interest in is not the answer.



I agree and don't think this is what's planned.  Our universities have already been dumbed down more than enough.



> Regarding your fruit picking, do you realise that most this work is seasonal?




Well, duh!  Of course it is.   There is, at least in Queensland and probably in WA in winter also, year round work, whether it be picking fruit or vegetables, cleaning up vines, etc.


> Work can only be offered in short terms which suits backpackers etc but hardly suits anyone looking for long term work.



So obviously, you're entirely opposed to the government's plan, overhang.  What do you think should happen?
Do you think it's OK that kids leave school as soon as they legally can, with little prospect of getting a job because they're simply not well enough equipped or have the right attitude to appeal to an employer, then immediately get youth allowance or the dole to just sit around doing nothing?
Is that going to build a better society or just continue to foster the entitlement mentality?

Shouldn't we be encouraging young people to believe that to get on in life we need to make a genuine effort, that for society to work well everyone capable must make a contribution?

Perhaps that's an outmoded view?   I'd be really interested to know how you think it all should work.  That was one of the purposes of starting the thread.

Duckman, such a good point about country people needing to also help their children with accommodation.
Is online university an option?  I know a few people who are currently doing this and it seems to work quite well.


----------



## Julia (13 June 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> State governments have cut resources to TAFES and have basically let the system run down. Places in these courses are limited and upfront fees apply. If students are required to learn, then I can see TAFES being swamped by demand that they can't fill, and this will result in people who can't satisfy either the earn or learn requirements and will essentially be out on the streets unless they have supportive parents.



Good point about the TAFES having been downgraded.   Should we have enough faith in the government (yes, I know it's hard for you, Rumpole) to believe they will reverse the downgrading of TAFES or by some other means ensure there is a variety of training available, outside of any notion of attending university.



> I agree with the concept of the unemployed learning skills and trades, but it has to be able to be practically implemented, and not just an ideological dictate.



A little ideology of the idea that the taxpayer is not going to fund you to sit at home doing nothing seems pretty OK to me.  We can all learn something all the time.  Especially young people who are not already well educated.
I see more of a problem with university graduates who still cannot get a job in their chosen field.  



> I think a better alternative is  more rigorous work for the dole schemes where the kids can actually do some useful work for the community. This could be linked to some financial incentive for local businesses to provide training, and creates some contact between local business and potential employees.



Yes.  Agree.   I want young people to develop a work ethic, a belief that they have a worthwhile contribution to make and that they are not making it sitting around uncommitted to or believing in anything.


----------



## overhang (13 June 2014)

Julia said:


> Probably we need to see the detail of what is planned.   I haven't at all had the impression that 'training' means university and therefore debt.



Can you point me to where one can receive this training you speak of that consists of no up front fees or government debt but qualifies as the learning aspect to allow welfare payments?



> I can't see that it would be so difficult to provide appropriate training in various areas.  Dozens of organisations are equipped to do this.
> But if we're determined to just look at the negatives and not see any value in rejecting the idea of multi generational welfare where kids simply have the expectation that a life on the dole is OK, then of course you won't find anything anyone suggests acceptable.



Multigenerational welfare is the major issue.  There are children brought up who have never seen their parents work a day in their life.  They then have no sense of the requirements to hold down a job, these kids are the problem.  Not every youth should be thrown in this category which some seem to keep suggesting, just because someone is on welfare doesn’t mean they’re a bludger. So for these kids the answer I believe is work for the dole schemes to teach them punctuality, authority, time management skills etc.  This work should always be available and not in 6 months cycles with no welfare available for the first 6 months.



> Well, duh!  Of course it is.   There is, at least in Queensland and probably in WA in winter also, year round work, whether it be picking fruit or vegetables, cleaning up vines, etc.




Julia having done a bit of fruit picking in my life there are permanent positions that are unavailable and often taken up by long serving staff.  The odd position would be available but hardly opens the floodgates to full time work that you seem to believe.  Moving about and relocating for short-term work is just not financially viable, even shearing offers more permanent work. 



> So obviously, you're entirely opposed to the government's plan, overhang.  What do you think should happen?
> Do you think it's OK that kids leave school as soon as they legally can, with little prospect of getting a job because they're simply not well enough equipped or have the right attitude to appeal to an employer, then immediately get youth allowance or the dole to just sit around doing nothing?
> Is that going to build a better society or just continue to foster the entitlement mentality?
> 
> ...




As a whole I am opposed to the government’s plan and this is not because Labor have entrenched anything in my mind, I haven’t even heard them speak on the matter.  So for a start if your going to push the youth into work then be consistent about it and offer cash incentives for employers to employ youth, not over 50s as this government has planned which contradicts its plan to stem youth unemployment.  No one should be without welfare for 6 months who is unemployed, work for the dole should be available to fill this void.  These are my answers to the problem Julia but right now I see the governments plan of pushing more kids into useless arts degrees as so they can abide by the ‘learn’ component as a short term answer.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 June 2014)

> Should we have enough faith in the government (yes, I know it's hard for you, Rumpole) to believe they will reverse the downgrading of TAFES or by some other means ensure there is a variety of training available, outside of any notion of attending university.




Faith in government ? That's almost oxymoronic. 

Seriously I obviously hope that State and Federal govt's reverse the trend in defunding TAFES, but if they don't and kids can't earn because there aren't enough jobs and can't learn because there aren't enough TAFE places, and have no source of income because their benefits have been removed, then what do suggest they do ?


----------



## Julia (13 June 2014)

overhang said:


> Can you point me to where one can receive this training you speak of that consists of no up front fees or government debt but qualifies as the learning aspect to allow welfare payments?



No, overhang.  I cannot point you to anything.  I have no idea about the detail.  What I'd hoped to discuss in this thread was - as the title suggests - whether it's realistic to aspire to having an equal society.
Have a read, if you haven't already, of DocK's comments and others where the broad concept is thought through.

I'm not across any of the detail involved in current learning, work for the dole or other schemes.
What I'm just hoping for is some properly thought out policy which will dispel from the minds of our young people that it's OK not to work, and that it's fine to have your fellow Australians support you indefinitely because you lack the skills, background, training to get a job.  The government has an army of bureaucrats who presumably can figure out how this can best be achieved.



> Multigenerational welfare is the major issue.  There are children brought up who have never seen their parents work a day in their life.  They then have no sense of the requirements to hold down a job, these kids are the problem.



Exactly so.



> Not every youth should be thrown in this category which some seem to keep suggesting, just because someone is on welfare doesn’t mean they’re a bludger.



I don't think anyone here is suggesting anything like that, overhang.   What we are aiming for is to reduce the multigenerational welfare and to prevent even more families falling into that philosophy.



> So for these kids the answer I believe is work for the dole schemes to teach them punctuality, authority, time management skills etc.  This work should always be available and not in 6 months cycles with no welfare available for the first 6 months.



OK, fine.  Also would teach them some social skills, how to work co-operatively with others etc.
I'm actually not clear about the 6 months of no welfare.   Are you definitively saying that even the 'learn' option will not be available for that period in order to get some financial support?



> Julia having done a bit of fruit picking in my life there are permanent positions that are unavailable and often taken up by long serving staff.  The odd position would be available but hardly opens the floodgates to full time work that you seem to believe.  Moving about and relocating for short-term work is just not financially viable, even shearing offers more permanent work.



Accepted.   I used fruit picking just as one example in my local district where growers simply cannot get local young people to do the work.

I know some teenagers who have got jobs because they approached an organisation and offered to work as a volunteer for a defined period.  It showed the potential employer they had initiative.   Some of the high schools actually help the kids to organise this and act as liaison with potential employers.



> As a whole I am opposed to the government’s plan and this is not because Labor have entrenched anything in my mind, I haven’t even heard them speak on the matter.  So for a start if your going to push the youth into work then be consistent about it and offer cash incentives for employers to employ youth, not over 50s as this government has planned which contradicts its plan to stem youth unemployment.



Yep, entirely reasonable.  One has to consider the offering of cash incentives for older workers as having the ulterior motive of keeping on side a group of people commonly thought to be Coalition voters.



> No one should be without welfare for 6 months who is unemployed, work for the dole should be available to fill this void.  These are my answers to the problem Julia but right now I see the governments plan of pushing more kids into useless arts degrees as so they can abide by the ‘learn’ component as a short term answer.



Agree about the six months.  Perhaps a stand down period of four weeks.  Young people are unlikely to have cash reserves and may not have a family to support them.
I hope you're wrong about the arts degrees.  I can't believe any government would be that silly.  Most of the kids I'm thinking of wouldn't be accepted into any university, and neither would they have any interest in it.



SirRumpole said:


> Faith in government ? That's almost oxymoronic.



Sadly, yes.



> Seriously I obviously hope that State and Federal govt's reverse the trend in defunding TAFES, but if they don't and kids can't earn because there aren't enough jobs and can't learn because there aren't enough TAFE places, and have no source of income because their benefits have been removed, then what do suggest they do ?



As above to overhang, I don't think it's up to me to come up with a solution.  That's why we have thousands of highly paid bureaucrats.

Could we perhaps try to revert to the broader picture instead of getting hung up on what a detailed policy plan should be?
One example is the general concern about how increased technological capacity has removed so many manual jobs, the sort of work that the kids we've been discussing above could do well enough to give them a sense of self worth and pride in being able to make a contribution.

After many years of participating in mentoring programs in some of the area's most disadvantaged school populations where - given the homes a lot of these kids come from - the kid is absolutely up against it all the way, to observe the difference in a kid who manages to get even a part time job is amazing.  This is what I am hoping the government is wanting to foster, rather than just any sort of money saving exercise.


----------



## trainspotter (13 June 2014)

Julia wrote:-



> I'm not suggesting or ruling out anything, TS. Orwell's tract was satirical for good reason. I cannot think of any model of society that represents any sort of utopia.
> It's just something that has been bothering me and* I wanted to throw it out to the forum to see if anyone believed it would actually be possible to ever have a truly equal society*, as distinct from one which provides equality of opportunity.
> 
> What do you think?




Orwell's Animal Farm ended with the pigs and men in a kind of rapprochement and unable to distinguish between themselves. It started as a Utopian society but as usual .. "equal" means many different things to many different people.

George Orwell .... "I saw a little boy, perhaps ten years old, driving a huge carthorse along a narrow path, whipping it whenever it tried to turn. It struck me that if only such animals became aware of their strength we should have no power over them, and that men exploit animals in much the same way as the rich exploit the proletariat."

I believe Orwell is right ... So to answer your Q Julia ... NON !


----------



## SirRumpole (13 June 2014)

If you want a general discussion about equality, I believe (and I'm sorry to be political about this), that up to the last election we had one of the fairest societies on the planet. Scandinavia, Japan or Germany may be better, but they pay higher taxes in the Scandinavian countries and we don't have the population size of Germany or Japan that's needed to develop industries for local demand. We don't have an entrenched class system like the UK, or a corporatised education system like the US (yet).

What makes a society as equal as possible (and it's not possible to be genuinely equal because there will always be inherited advantage and a distribution of IQ levels across the community) is a high standard and equitable availability of education to as many people as possible, including not only the young, but mature age workers who may be getting left behind by rapidly increasing technology.

That was the purpose of the Gonski report, to determine areas of education disadvantage and correct them. God knows where the money was coming from to implement that policy, I don't think that Labor did, but the intent was there.

You are correct Julia when you say technology is taking jobs that young people could do. I've seen fruit 'picking' machines that shake fruit into nets and wrap them up , so that is another area that will probably be closed down for employment prospects in the future.

The big threat that I can see to our future living standards are free trade agreements that force us to compete against economies with much lower living standards, forcing the world economy to a lowest common denominator rather than pulling the low paid countries up to a higher level. Some sectors like agriculture will benefit, but agriculture employs relatively few people due to increasing mechanisation. Other sectors like manufacturing will collapse like we have seen with the car industry.

I believe that our only chance to survive in the future is by having a vibrant R&D sector, and one that has a greater capacity to commercialise inventions and ideas than we currently have. The more people who have ideas, the better. And that comes back to...you guessed it, EDUCATION. With this government and its partners in crime, the States, defunding schools, universities, researchers like CSIRO and TAFES, what chance do you think we have ?


----------



## cynic (13 June 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> ...
> I believe that our only chance to survive in the future is by having a vibrant R&D sector, and one that has a greater capacity to commercialise inventions and ideas than we currently have. The more people who have ideas, the better. And that comes back to...you guessed it, EDUCATION...



On the contrary, my experience with contemporary education to date is that it conditions students to think in a very narrow and limited fashion. 

Too often when discussing alternative viewpoints with others I've been beset with ridicule by teachers and students alike. If the curriculum were remedied, then perhaps education might have something worthwhile to offer. 

The dearth of basic literacy, numeracy and critical thinking is ample testimony to Australia's failure to efficiently educate its populace.

The education curriculum would need to undergo significant revision before seriously entertaining it as a productive solution.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 June 2014)

cynic said:


> The education curriculum would need to undergo significant revision before seriously entertaining it as a productive solution.




So, your alternative is ?


----------



## Calliope (13 June 2014)

It is a myth perpetuated by the do-gooders that equality can be foisted on us by governmenr edict. Another myth is that envisioned by Gonski that pouring more money into educating those with lower IQs and disabilities will somehow elevate them to equality in the market with more gifted students.

Any government with any backbone should be pouring more resources into facilitating the progress of brighter students to achieve their goals in the sciences and mathematics essential for research. A high proportion of these are Asian students whose parents take the work ethic seriously and wiill scrimp and save to educate their children.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> Any government with any backbone should be pouring more resources into facilitating the progress of brighter students to achieve their goals in the sciences and mathematics essential for research. A high proportion of these are Asian students whose parents take the work ethic seriously and wiill scrimp and save to educate their children.




Are you assuming that 'gifted' students only exist in affluent suburbs ?

I agree that gifted students should get more resources, wherever they live.


----------



## cynic (13 June 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> So, your alternative is ?







cynic said:


> ... If the *curriculum* were *remedied*, then perhaps education might have something worthwhile to offer.
> 
> The dearth of *basic literacy*,* numeracy* and *critical thinking* is ample testimony to Australia's failure to efficiently educate its populace.
> 
> The *education curriculum would need to undergo significant revision* before seriously entertaining it as a productive solution.




 I've taken the liberty of bolding certain words/phrases from my previous my post. Inventiveness, to my understanding, isn't actually taught. It's a skill that some people do acquire naturally. Others are able to learn how to emulate certain processes whilst at the same time lacking the true skills required for independent innovation.

With just a few basic revisions to the core curriculum, education could conceivably enhance the prospects for accommodation of the genii amongst us, however, I believe it would be a mistake to presume that education is a solution in and of itself.


----------



## cynic (13 June 2014)

Julia said:


> Could you outline how you think this would actually work, cynic?  Would those who choose to opt out be funded by the working taxpayers to enjoy such an existence?  Or do you mean if they opt out, then they also opt out of any taxpayer funded income?



In effect I simply see this as a way of reallocating existing resources in a more efficient manner

Whilst there is a dearth of employment, some unfortunate people are going to need to avail themselves of welfare in order to survive. My preference is to see those with enthusiasm gainfully employed. Allowing those less motivated members of our society to languish on our welfare system may seem counterproductive, but such a scenario would be preferable to having indolent employees occupying roles that could otherwise be readily filled by the more motivated members of our society.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 June 2014)

cynic said:


> Inventiveness, to my understanding, isn't actually taught. It's a skill that some people do acquire naturally. Others are able to learn how to emulate certain processes whilst at the same time lacking the true skills required for independent innovation.




Yes, I think you are right, inventiveness is innate, but without knowledge whether it be gained by independent observation or structured teaching, inventiveness cannot readily be applied. One thing I would like to see more of in schools is a study of how successful people think and operate, something that was never studied when I was at school.



> With just a few basic revisions to the core curriculum, education could conceivably enhance the prospects for accommodation of the genii amongst us, however, I believe it would be a mistake to presume that education is a solution in and of itself.




I agree again. The economy must be set up to support the skills taught in schools, tafes or universities, or probably more appropriately, governments need to decide what sort of economy is best suited to our long term resources and needs and create the skills to support that economy.


----------



## Julia (13 June 2014)

trainspotter said:


> Orwell's Animal Farm ended with the pigs and men in a kind of rapprochement and unable to distinguish between themselves. It started as a Utopian society but as usual .. "equal" means many different things to many different people.
> 
> George Orwell .... "I saw a little boy, perhaps ten years old, driving a huge carthorse along a narrow path, whipping it whenever it tried to turn. It struck me that if only such animals became aware of their strength we should have no power over them, and that men exploit animals in much the same way as the rich exploit the proletariat."
> 
> I believe Orwell is right ... So to answer your Q Julia ... NON !



Ah, TS, a beautiful illustration.  My thanks to you.



cynic said:


> On the contrary, my experience with contemporary education to date is that it conditions students to think in a very narrow and limited fashion.
> 
> Too often when discussing alternative viewpoints with others I've been beset with ridicule by teachers and students alike. If the curriculum were remedied, then perhaps education might have something worthwhile to offer.
> 
> ...



Agree.  According to a program I heard just a few days ago about 'the leaps and bounds that Australia has made in education'  many schools seem to have focused on what they deem imaginative stuff like no longer having students with chairs and desks, instead having couches, allowing students to come to class when they feel like it, choosing what they want to learn etc.  The advocates for this, even in primary schools, seemed to believe it would develop initiative or something.

As long as Australia so lags in international comparisons on basic literacy and numeracy, I'd suggest a move back to getting the basics right first.  Kids, especially of a primary school age, have less than fully developed brains.  To expect them to have the understanding and maturity of making viable choices about what they learn is unrealistic.



Calliope said:


> It is a myth perpetuated by the do-gooders that equality can be foisted on us by governmenr edict. Another myth is that envisioned by Gonski that pouring more money into educating those with lower IQs and disabilities will somehow elevate them to equality in the market with more gifted students.
> 
> Any government with any backbone should be pouring more resources into facilitating the progress of brighter students to achieve their goals in the sciences and mathematics essential for research. A high proportion of these are Asian students whose parents take the work ethic seriously and wiill scrimp and save to educate their children.



Yes, but the Asian children come from an entirely different culture where education is highly valued, as is discipline and duty.     Seems like the other end of the spectrum from Australia with its undemanding ethos.



cynic said:


> In effect I simply see this as a way of reallocating existing resources in a more efficient manner
> 
> Whilst there is a dearth of employment, some unfortunate people are going to need to avail themselves of welfare in order to survive. My preference is to see those with enthusiasm gainfully employed. Allowing those less motivated members of our society to languish on our welfare system may seem counterproductive, but such a scenario would be preferable to having indolent employees occupying roles that could otherwise be readily filled by the more motivated members of our society.



Perhaps my powers of comprehension are lacking, cynic, but are you saying that yes, you think it's OK for a kid to choose not to engage in any requirement for either education or work, and still receive a taxpayer funded benefit?



SirRumpole said:


> Yes, I think you are right, inventiveness is innate, but without knowledge whether it be gained by independent observation or structured teaching, inventiveness cannot readily be applied. One thing I would like to see more of in schools is a study of how successful people think and operate, something that was never studied when I was at school.



Good idea, but as I say that, I think 'how much more can we expect the schools to impart to students'?
Already they are failing to achieve an adequate standard of basic literacy and numeracy.  We want them to teach social skills, sex education, financial literacy and god knows what else.  Where are the hours in the day and where are the teachers who have even a fraction of the skills required to impart such wisdom to children?

I'm going to disagree about inventiveness, or lateral thinking, being immovably innate.  It's quite possible to encourage people to alter their thinking, to adopt the philosophy of having a go at something.
One of my employers a pretty long time ago said:  "I believe you are capable of much more than you think.
Always have a go.  If you fail you are not at the point of minus one.  You are simply where you were before you tried.  But you might be a whole step ahead."

That's the kind of thinking we should be encouraging, surely?
Instead, it seems to me that our entitled society has bred a philosophy of people regarding themselves as victims in too many instances.  So much largesse has been poured forth from governments of both sides in bribery to buy votes that it has become an expectation, a right.   And gradually this seems to have discouraged individual initiative, the motivation to take responsibility for our own outcomes.

On a tangent, about two thirds of the population is now obese or severely overweight.  Many people are depressed, stressed, unhappy, apparently.  Neither of these indicate a contented and productive society.

Something is imo very wrong with where we are as a society and the path we seem to be on.

As several people have suggested, there is a wide distrust of and disappointment in politicians.  That they set such woeful examples is hardly encouraging to the rest of us.

Or am I being unnecessarily concerned, and all is fine?


----------



## cynic (13 June 2014)

Julia said:


> Perhaps my powers of comprehension are lacking, cynic, but are you saying that yes, you think it's OK for a kid to choose not to engage in any requirement for either education or work, and still receive a taxpayer funded benefit?



Whilst there are insufficient employment vacancies to accommodate so terribly many able bodied and willing candidates for employment - YES!

If we were experiencing an abundance of employment then my stance on this issue would be quite different.


----------



## Calliope (13 June 2014)

cynic said:


> Whilst there are insufficient employment vacancies to accommodate so terribly many able bodied and willing candidates for employment - YES!
> 
> If we were experiencing an abundance of employment then my stance on this issue would be quite different.




A gullible cynic! Now there's an oxymoron.


----------



## cynic (13 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> A gullible cynic! Now there's an oxymoron.




Thanks for that!

Just in case you are unaware, I've had a lot of past experience of being "between jobs" whilst mainstream society was gullibly believing a highly questionable single digit unemployment percentage. One glance at the lengthy queues inside the DSS office would have been enough to alert anyone with a modicum of intelligence to the fiction that was (and still is) being repeatedly foisted on our society.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 June 2014)

> Good idea, but as I say that, I think 'how much more can we expect the schools to impart to students'?
> Already they are failing to achieve an adequate standard of basic literacy and numeracy. We want them to teach social skills, sex education, financial literacy and god knows what else. Where are the hours in the day and where are the teachers who have even a fraction of the skills required to impart such wisdom to children?




True, but my recollections of history classes at school were that we studied ancient Greeks, Romans, Sumarians etc which had little relevance to our daily lives. We also studied the basic theory of economics, supply and demand, capital, profit and loss etc, but little about the underlying drivers of the economy , which is basically the psychology of the consumer and how the consumer's basic needs and wants are satisfied by the government and business sectors.

So I agree with @cynic that there is room for reworking of curriculums, cutting away some dead wood consisting of rote learning and replacing it with some critical analysis techniques and real life stories of success. Basic literacy and numeracy should, as you implied be the main focus in the early years of development and as the child's brain develops, the higher levels of critical thought can be introduced. You are obviously correct when you say that we need teachers capable of imparting this sort of ability. I'm sure such people exist, it's a matter of attracting them to the teaching profession by paying on merit not length of service.

Also may I thank you for this thread Julia. It's been very stimulating and has made people think about wider themes than basic politics. This thread deserves a long life.


----------



## prawn_86 (14 June 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> So I agree with @cynic that there is room for reworking of curriculums, cutting away some dead wood consisting of rote learning and replacing it with some critical analysis techniques and real life stories of success. Basic literacy and numeracy should, as you implied be the main focus in the early years of development and as the child's brain develops, the higher levels of critical thought can be introduced. You are obviously correct when you say that we need teachers capable of imparting this sort of ability. I'm sure such people exist, it's a matter of attracting them to the teaching profession by paying on merit not length of service.




I haven't read this whole thread, but one thing that is noticeable here in the States is the lack of critical thinking and how defined/robotic the average American worker is. When you ask a question their standard answer is no, as opposed to i'm not sure let me find out.

I believe it is to do with their schooling and legal system. Schooling where standardized testing has removed all form of critical thinking, and legal system where nobody wants to take responsibility for fear of implications coming back on them if they are wrong. They would rather be unhelpful than potentially wrong, or do something that doesn't fit into their role


----------



## Trentb (14 June 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I believe that our only chance to survive in the future is by having a vibrant R&D sector, and one that has a greater capacity to commercialise inventions and ideas than we currently have. The more people who have ideas, the better.




Then why are you so against the medical research fund? It's a step in the direction for this sector you dream about.

The potential billion dollars it could add would double the existing funding. This funding is accessible to fund ideas right around Australia. It's available to universities, research institutes, hospitals and scientific businesses.

There are far far more ideas than money to fund their development and research in Australia. Only a tiny percentage of research and development grant submissions get funded. This is not because most are bad rather it's due to severe limitations of funding available. 

The R&D sector as Australia's future gets talked about a lot. It seems that as soon as any steps are made in that direction it gets attacked as a waste. Hand over the cash and you'll get the future you want. Don't and you won't. 

There's all this talk of Education yet it's extremely difficult for a science graduate and harder for a science PhD graduate to find employment in their field. These are people who have done 4 or 8 years at university and want to work. The majority end up changing careers to a completely different field. This is not only a waste of education resources I ask: is this equitable?

It seems everyone loves the idea of more science and engineering degrees. Yet education is not the answer. Put much more money into funding those who have already passed through the education system. Otherwise the lineup at centrelink will be much larger, however, this new lineup will be extremely well educated.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 June 2014)

Trentb said:


> Then why are you so against the medical research fund? It's a step in the direction for this sector you dream about.




I'm not. I said previously that it should be funded fairly by an adjustment to the Medicare levy, and the funding should be made available now not in six years.

I wish people would actually read and absorb what I write before misinterpreting my comments.


----------



## Julia (14 June 2014)

Trentb said:


> There's all this talk of Education yet it's extremely difficult for a science graduate and harder for a science PhD graduate to find employment in their field. These are people who have done 4 or 8 years at university and want to work. The majority end up changing careers to a completely different field. This is not only a waste of education resources I ask: is this equitable?



So what's going wrong  here?  Are people engaging in degrees without properly researching the likely number of jobs in that field by the time they're graduated?



> It seems everyone loves the idea of more science and engineering degrees. Yet education is not the answer. Put much more money into funding those who have already passed through the education system. Otherwise the lineup at centrelink will be much larger, however, this new lineup will be extremely well educated.



Are graduates prepared to accept - in the meantime - jobs that are less than those to which they aspire?
A young woman I know who has just completed her engineering degree applied for the job of her choice.
She didn't get it but was invited to apply for an admin position within the same company.
After she'd stopped ranting about sexism etc (privately, of course) she did apply for the admin job and starts in two weeks.

So, perhaps not what she'd hoped for, but nevertheless it's a job and an income, and she will be in an environment of her choice where there should be opportunities arising in the future.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 June 2014)

> So what's going wrong here? Are people engaging in degrees without properly researching the likely number of jobs in that field by the time they're graduated?




I suggest that more people are going for the prestige of a uni degree (what degree doesn't matter as long as it interests them) thinking that a degree is a guarantee of a high paying job, and failing to realise that the market is saturated with people like themselves, whereas the ones earning the big money these days are the less prestigious but more in demand tradespeople like electricians, plumbers, car and truck mechanics, welders etc, ie those prepared to get their hands dirty instead of polishing their degrees.


----------



## burglar (14 June 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> ... I wish people would actually read and absorb what I write *before* misinterpreting my comments.




I read what you wrote, and I knew what you meant! :


----------

