The Abbott Government

wayneL said:

Notwithstanding that criticisms of the budget may be valid, the fallacy here is confirmation bias. That all of the posters mentioned are clearly of the left or center left, agreeing with a leftist commentators is not surprising.

Click to expand...

Wayne sweetie, you gotta stop taking your logic lessons from Anthony Watts.

Confirmation bias is part of human psychological makeup. We've all got it; it just shows up at different times on different issues in different people. Pointing out another person's confirmation bias says nothing about whether they're right or wrong, or even whether they're making a valid or an invalid argument. It just says they're human. And since we're all human, that doesn't add much to a discussion.

Now why don't you go play with that nice Aristotle; he's much cleverer than silly (but human) old Wattsthatagain.

Just a couple of points I omitted to address yesterday:

Knobby22 said:

I have said I agree with some of the policies such as having a small price to pay to visit the doctor (though
maybe there should be a smaller limit for pensioners).

Click to expand...

Good to know. I spent five minutes with a GP last week = $56 - and then $48 for script not on the PBS.
Then there's another $2000 p.a. for another drug which is no longer on the PBS. So it's a bit hard to see why someone can't pay $7. But again, it's obviously not going to get through the Senate anyway.

I am even for the fuel tax rise though I don't see why diesel should miss out.

Click to expand...

Yet even the Greens are possessed of so much hypocrisy that they won't let this through!

Why change the rules to allow banks to sell investment products with commissions rather than giving proper advice

Click to expand...

Agree, but also acknowledge no amount of legislation will ever stop people being taken advantage of if they allow that to happen.

Why not give a carrot to encourage people to work to 70 rather than just forcing them to? Some people will not be capable.

Click to expand...

No one has to work until they are 70. You can retire tomorrow if you can afford it. I'd hope that more people will respond by taking the need to provide for their own retirement a bit more seriously.

Julia said:

No one has to work until they are 70. You can retire tomorrow if you can afford it. I'd hope that more people will respond by taking the need to provide for their own retirement a bit more seriously.

Click to expand...

Good point, but if you get sick and can't work or are a labourer and can't work, you can't then claim a pension so are forced to use your super.

I suppose that this will apply to people 15 years or more off retirement so logically by then you should have a reasonable amount of super so it won't be so bad.

If you haven't got much super because you are on a low paying job will you be forced to use it all before 70? Maybe this policy just needs a bit of finessing.

What happens if you blow it all on those dodgy property borrowing schemes? (I can't believe they are allowed - they were brought in by Labor surely the Libs can get rid of them)

Knobby22 said:

What happens if you blow it all on those dodgy property borrowing schemes? (I can't believe they are allowed - they were brought in by Labor surely the Libs can get rid of them)

Click to expand...

Technically Howard introduced borrowing for SMSFs, Labor then went to make things worse by giving the green light for housing via non recourse loans, and now the spruikers can smell massive amounts of stoopidity and greed in equal parts just waiting to be fleeced.

sydboy007 said:

Technically Howard introduced borrowing for SMSFs, Labor then went to make things worse by giving the green light for housing via non recourse loans, and now the spruikers can smell massive amounts of stoopidity and greed in equal parts just waiting to be fleeced.

Click to expand...

Just like the poor health workers were fleeced by the HSU.......Craig Thomson, Michael Williamson and Kath Jackson took from the poor to give to the rich.......all three were on very big salaries and did not need to do what they did to those poorly paid workers.......Greedy union bosses who invariably finish up in Parliament to do it all again.

noco said:

Just like the poor health workers were fleeced by the HSU.......Craig Thomson, Michael Williamson and Kath Jackson took from the poor to give to the rich.......all three were on very big salaries and did not need to do what they did to those poorly paid workers.......Greedy union bosses who invariably finish up in Parliament to do it all again.

Click to expand...

This maybe a first. A post by noco that doesn't mention Fabians

SirRumpole said:

This maybe a first. A post by noco that doesn't mention Fabians

Click to expand...

No worries Rumpy....pleased to put a smile on your face..

I hate watching grown men cry.

I'll be back.

Knobby22 said:

Good point, but if you get sick and can't work or are a labourer and can't work, you can't then claim a pension so are forced to use your super.

Click to expand...

Or live on the dole. This is, of course, assuming the government's proposals get through which looks very unlikely. Your point about people doing physical labour is realistic.

I suppose that this will apply to people 15 years or more off retirement so logically by then you should have a reasonable amount of super so it won't be so bad.

Click to expand...

And perhaps, understanding that they won't be able to physically keep up the work they did when they were 20, they will prioritise saving for their retirement. I imagine this is what the government has in mind when suggesting 70 as the age when someone will become eligible for taxpayer funded pension.

What happens if you blow it all on those dodgy property borrowing schemes? (I can't believe they are allowed - they were brought in by Labor surely the Libs can get rid of them)

Click to expand...

People make choices all the time. There have always been dodgy operators in all fields. We have to learn to avoid them. A reasonable amount of regulation is a good thing, but there's simply no way you can legislate to avoid all human greed and lack of common sense.

If someone 'blows their super' on some get rich quick scheme, then I suppose they will become eligible to be funded in retirement by their fellow Australians who have been a bit more circumspect. Is that fair?

sydboy007 said:

Technically Howard introduced borrowing for SMSFs, Labor then went to make things worse by giving the green light for housing via non recourse loans, and now the spruikers can smell massive amounts of stoopidity and greed in equal parts just waiting to be fleeced.

Click to expand...

No one is forcing anyone to participate in dodgy schemes. Why would you expect government to protect people from themselves.
However, I was also less than impressed when borrowing was OK'd for SMSFs, largely because the people who are likely to do it wisely will be far outnumbered by those who have little idea about the responsibilities of properly running their own fund.

noco said:

Just like the poor health workers were fleeced by the HSU.......Craig Thomson, Michael Williamson and Kath Jackson took from the poor to give to the rich.......all three were on very big salaries and did not need to do what they did to those poorly paid workers.......Greedy union bosses who invariably finish up in Parliament to do it all again.

Click to expand...

I haven't followed this in detail, but it seems Kathy Jackson is turning out to be somewhat removed from the angel of purity she set herself up to be. She seems to be offended that she also should be required to provide answers to the Commission's questions.

PS Knobby, it's appreciated that we can have a debate without point scoring for the sake of it, and a genuine willingness to see each other's point of view. Thanks.

ghotib said:

Wayne sweetie, you gotta stop taking your logic lessons from Anthony Watts.

Confirmation bias is part of human psychological makeup. We've all got it; it just shows up at different times on different issues in different people. Pointing out another person's confirmation bias says nothing about whether they're right or wrong, or even whether they're making a valid or an invalid argument. It just says they're human. And since we're all human, that doesn't add much to a discussion.

Now why don't you go play with that nice Aristotle; he's much cleverer than silly (but human) old Wattsthatagain.

Click to expand...

Condescension doesn't count as logic Ms Fishy, nor does third person ad hominem.

Yes we all have cognitive biases, awareness of them helps to ameliorate them somewhat. Raging bias and fallacy is not useful for discussion however so when you can set these aside, feel free to add to the debate.

wayneL said:

Yes we all have cognitive biases, awareness of them helps to ameliorate them somewhat.

Click to expand...

Actually a lot of the research in the past few years seems to disagree with that. There is a concept called bias blind spot, in fact awareness can actually make it worse in some cases believe it or not! Make of it what you will.

Ves said:

Actually a lot of the research in the past few years seems to disagree with that. There is a concept called bias blind spot, in fact awareness can actually make it worse in some cases believe it or not! Make of it what you will.

Click to expand...

Cites please.

basilio said:

People on UB can be cut off if they actually send 40 job applications a month. You see each and every job application has to be hand crafted, individually addressed to particular jobs that meet the skills and capacities of the applicant.

Click to expand...

It might work in Sydney and Melbourne but it's a ridiculous idea in regional areas including the whole of the NT, Tas and ACT.

How, exactly, does one apply for 40 jobs per month if there aren't 40 jobs to apply for?

Take, for example, the workers about to lose their jobs at Energy Brix (Morwell, Vic). They've got 4 other similar employers in the area (ie coal-fired power stations) they could apply for jobs with and a few other heavy manufacturing type industries. But then what? Short of applying for non-existent jobs at hotels, retail stores and dairy farms, there's not much they can do to actually meet the requirement short of moving to a major city. And moving isn't necessarily a viable option for anyone who owns a house in a region with limited job opportunities.

Or what about the workers at Queenstown (Tas) losing their jobs due to closure of the mine? I doubt there's even 40 actual employers as such in the area, it's basically the mine, a few shops and hotels etc, a tourist railway and that's it. So again their only option is to relocate.

Even for someone who lives in, say, Darwin, Hobart or Adelaide they would still struggle to find 40 jobs for which they are suitable in many cases. Eg someone loses their job in a factory in Adelaide because it closes - it's not as though they just pick 40 other factories and apply for jobs there. To do that, you need to have 40 relevant jobs actually vacant in the first place and that's a big ask when practically every employer with similar work is also struggling to survive. Retraining such workers would make far more sense.

I can see this one ending up turning business owners into Labor supporters once they (1) get sick of the flood of applications for jobs that don't exist in the first place and (2) realise just how pointless an exercise it all is to be wasting everyone's time and money. It's not as though your average business owner is screaming out that nobody ever applies for available positions, now is it?

A much fairer approach would be to require applying for all suitable jobs within a set distance of the unemployed person's residential address. Otherwise we end up with unemployed truck drivers applying for office jobs that they haven't a clue how to actually do. Etc.

wayneL said:

Cites please.

Click to expand...

The term was invented by a lady called Emily Pronin and her team at Princeton.

Think you can find her papers linked off the wiki or do a goggle search. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_blind_spot

It's a pretty fascinating subject.

A much fairer approach would be to require applying for all suitable jobs within a set distance of the unemployed person's residential address. Otherwise we end up with unemployed truck drivers applying for office jobs that they haven't a clue how to actually do. Etc.

Click to expand...

I would like to see the government give some thought to helping suitable unemployed to start their own business instead of requiring them to waste their time applying for jobs they will never get.

A pool of unemployed people could get together to start a cleaning business, or grocery home delivery, or come to your home or office car service/cleaning to name but a few.

Once people get the idea that they can earn money with a degree of freedom from overbearing employers, they may never look back.

Worth a try I reckon.

Ves said:

The term was invented by a lady called Emily Pronin and her team at Princeton.

Think you can find her papers linked off the wiki or do a goggle search. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_blind_spot

It's a pretty fascinating subject.

Click to expand...

However, in the studies, the people did not appreciate that they have biases themselves, yes that is a bias blind spot. However one who has an appreciation of their own biases is a different matter.

Interesting indeed, I see it a lot in the field I operate in, both bias and bias blind spots.

wayneL said:

However, in the studies, the people did not appreciate that they have biases themselves, yes that is a bias blind spot. However one who has an appreciation of their own biases is a different matter.

Interesting indeed, I see it a lot in the field I operate in, both bias and bias blind spots.

Click to expand...

There is also the Hansen one (Pronin may again have been involved).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24562289

I agree that it is great to know about biases and logical fallacies, but there's a possible catch 22 scenario in applying the knowledge.

I think this kind of behavioural psychology is still pretty young, will be interesting to see how it evolves by the time I'm a much older (and maybe wiser) man.

Seen on a tshirt in Melbourne

Abbott puts the N in Cuts.

Condescension doesn't count as logic Ms Fishy, nor does third person ad hominem.

Click to expand...

You clearly can't even understand or mount a logical argument can you Wayne ? That was the thrust of Ghotlibs post sweetie. If you had anything concrete to say about the content and different options of Ross Gittins budget analysis you could have argued them.

But you didn't did you ? Far easier to pontificate about cognitive biases isn't it without trying discuss the topic.

And comparing your style to Anthony Watts ? Fair call IMO. You both offer some of the most selective and warped view of scientific evidence I have yet seen.

basilio said:

You clearly can't even understand or mount a logical argument can you Wayne ? That was the thrust of Ghotlibs post sweetie. If you had anything concrete to say about the content and different options of Ross Gittins budget analysis you could have argued them.

But you didn't did you ? Far easier to pontificate about cognitive biases isn't it without trying discuss the topic.

And comparing your style to Anthony Watts ? Fair call IMO. You both offer some of the most selective and warped view of scientific evidence I have yet seen.

Click to expand...

Well you're entitled to your cognitively biased opinion and even to indulge in peurile ad hom, as I am entitled to my opinion of you. But Ill just keep that to myself

Ves said:

Actually a lot of the research in the past few years seems to disagree with that. There is a concept called bias blind spot, in fact awareness can actually make it worse in some cases believe it or not! Make of it what you will.

Click to expand...

Thanks for raising this Ves there has been some outstanding examples of the said condition by Abbott and Costello on their fairness / ideology blind spot