Universal compulsory work for the dole?
John Key didn’t push work for the dole in his speech but it is clearly back on the agenda.
Now I think most everyone can agree that having people spending years stuck on the unemployment benefit is a bad idea. It’s soul destroying, undermines self-esteem and is expensive to the taxpayer. And any ideas of ways to help people move into meaningful work are to be welcomed eg. access to useful training, the option of taking on some kind of voluntary work to keep your hand in while you’re looking for a job, iwi based training may be the best option in some situations, whatever works. (Of course the caveat should be added that some people aren’t in paid work because they are bringing up the next generation or unable to work because they are unwell)
But if it’s being proposed that people on the dole are to be forced to spend their time doing pointless make-work schemes for less than the minimum wage then I don’t support it.
Tze Ming Mok did a great post over at Public Address pointing out all the problems. As she points out: most people are on on the dole short term (67% less than 6 months); the assessment of the 1990s work for the dole scheme showed it did not help people get real jobs (ie it failed) ; Gareth Morgan points to the problems for employers because forced labour isn’t always the best (that’s why feudalism overthrew slavery after all); the Maori Employment and Training COmmission thought it didn’t work for Maori.
There is another assessment of work for the dole from MSD which concluded -
“Participating in Community Work Experience programmes with no wage subsidy decreases the probability of becoming independent of W&I assistance in the first two years after starting a placement. After two years there is almost no difference in the probability of participants and non-participants being independent of W&I assistance.”
That is, work for the dole decreases a person’s likelihood of finding work.
Given this evidence, surely the onus has to be on those pushing it to show why all this NZ experience and evidence should be ignored?
Of course we are yet to see the detail from the Maori Party or the National Party as to what they may want to propose but if they just want to rehash the old work for the dole scheme then it ain’t new and it doesn’t work. But if they have some new good ideas then I’m all ears.
January 30th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Russ
Thanks for this thread.
I take issue with your comment “But if it’s being proposed that people on the dole are to be forced to spend their time doing pointless make-work schemes for less than the minimum wage then I don’t support it”
You miss the point here, these people are NOT WORKING so the minimum, wage is not an issue, you seem to suggest that these people have a right to the minimum wage when they clearly do not.
If they want me to pay them for NOT WORKING then as my employees I want the buggers working 40 hours a week.
Then and only then will some of them be “encouraged” to get of their lazy bums and get a full time job.
I will vote for any party that promises this as part of their manifesto, I would also hope that this compulsory work for the benefit is extended to long term parents on the DPB, as soon as their kids are of school age then they should be compelled to work for their benefit.
I would also like to see the legislation altered to penalise those parents who have more kids while on the DPB, if they cannot support the ones they have why should the tax payer have to pick up the bill.
January 30th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
BB, if they are working for the dole then they deserve the minimum wage. You seem to be advocating that unemployed people should work as long and hard as people with jobs, but get paid less for it!
And I suspect that you also advocate under 18s working as long and hard as over 18s and getting paid less for it, and prisoners working as long and hard as the un-imprisoned and getting paid less for it. Hmm, do you also support immigrants working as long and hard as residents and getting paid less for it?
Nice way to boost the profits of fat cats and bring down the average wages of everyone else as we are forced to compete with the large labour pool of the underclass who you can legally pay less to.
Russel seems to be open to the idea of a work for the dole scheme if
* it is not pointless make-work, but valuable needed work (e.g. clearing weeds and planting natives?)
* it pays minimum wage
* it recognises that not all people can work, or that some do unpaid work
* and allows them time to look for other employment or participate in training
January 30th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Having a) a long memory
and b) I was in the country when the first scheme happened
I can happily say that I don’t recall the ‘Work for Dole’ scheme ever doing anything useful for the unemployment levels here.
Russ is right to say that getting people to do ‘make work’ tasks doesn’t improve employability - no new skills, same employers looking for skills the unemployed don’t have.
The last time we had widespread ‘forced labour’ conditions was during the Depression, when unemployed men had to work one day a week at least in roading gangs and the like - Wellington Railway Station was a capital works project built with depression labour - and the reason for the staggered allocation of days in work, was that the dole could not be given at a rate to cover a weeks’ work, so men were asked to work on rationed days. These were men who had not worked for months or even years, often were not able to rent accomodation, and were not eating well either; they were not fit to work two days in a row.
We’ve eradicated that kind of poverty since the first Labour Government, and it is only when the owners of industries shie at having to pay more labourers a decent wage that we get this argument come up again - that they should be allowed to pay under the minimum wage, to keep unemployed labourers from living off the fat of the land.
Funny, I’ve never seen a fat factory owner who knew how to feed a family on what the dole provides, and I haven’t seen that many fat unemployed or sickness beneficiaries lately, either, not since the CPI index started galloping over that past 18 months.
Many beneficiaries go without to feed their families, and know the full cost of their unemployment to the (rounded) cent. If employers were paying fair wages, low income workers could be off benefits, which currently are “Working for Employers” by subsidising low wages with accommodation top-ups and emergency (recoverable) grants to cover power bills, that low wages just don’t stretch to.
There’s no free ride on a benefit, and anyone who thinks there is just isn’t looking at the raw data on what the in-hand benefit adds up to, and what that can buy in today’s housing, grocery and utilities markets.
January 31st, 2007 at 9:02 am
Big Bruv - why don’t you try reading the whole Department of Labour / Ministry of Social Development evaluation Russel linked to.
It clearly shows that getting unemployed people to work for the dole is counter-productive - those who were required to work for the dole had a significantly lower rate of movement into unsubsidised employment than those who were not. Work-for-dole schemes simply DO NOT WORK.
Wage subsidy schemes such as Taskforce Green and Job Plus, where unemployed people are paid the minimum wage (or better) to work full-time with their wages subsidised for a period by the Government, in contrast to work-for-dole schemes, are shown to improve the likelihood of unemployed people moving into unsubsidised employment.
We should be supporting wage subsidy schemes and opposing work-for-dole schemes simply on the basis that wage subsidy schemes achieve the objective of getting unemployed people into unsubsidised employment and work-for-dole schemes do not. In the face of that evidence, why on earth are the Maori Party and the National Party promoting schemes that demonstrably failed in the 1990s?
Another issue with work-for-dole schemes is that they have a negative impact on job creation. The biggest sponsors of the 1990s work-for-dole schemes were local authorities and schools. In many cases work-for-dole workers were doing work that the local authorities and schools would have otherwise had to employ someone to do, or even doing jobs that were formerly done by workers who had been made redundant.
January 31st, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Stuey
I do not mean to be rude but you miss the point, if these people ARE WORKING then they will receive the minimum wage as that is the law, if they are receiving money from the tax payer by way of an unemployment benefit then they are clearly NOT WORKING, and yes you are correct, I do want these people working as long and as hard as the rest of us, if they want the minimum wage then they should get a bloody job.
You seem to be suggesting that these people should receive the unemployment benefit for doing nothing almost as if it is their right to take (steal) this money on a weekly basis.
I am afraid that I am going to have to ruin your image of the nasty right wing supporter, I DO NOT support the youth wage at all, in my book it is equal pay for equal work.
I do not however support criminals being paid, the bastards can rot for all I care.
The rest of your post is not worthy of comment.
January 31st, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Toad
I am hardly going to take anything seriously that comes out of this government, Klarke has already stated that she is not in favour of people working for the unemployment benefit so I doubt that anything produced by the Labour ministry will be accurate.
I am interested in your interpretation of the phrase “counter productive” we are talking about long term unemployed here, they have already shown (the able bodied ones) that they have no intention of getting a job, what would you do?..give them a list and ask them to tick off the jobs they might like?
I do not care how boring the jobs we give them are, I want them working, I do not care if they are sent into a field and told to dig a hole and fill it in again when they are finished.
I am surprised that the Greens have not embraced this as policy, we all agree that we have long term intergenerational welfare dependency, this results is horrific crime stats and horrific health issues, by making the buggers work for the money that I give them every week you might just create a work ethic that is currently lacking….Hell…you might even have saved the life’s of the Kahui kids if the adults in that house had to go out to work every day.
I am shocked that the Greens do not see the honour in a man or woman working for a living, I am shocked that the Greens are happy to see kids grow up in a home where not one of the adults has ever had a job, I am shocked that the Greens think this is a good example for adults to set for their kids.
January 31st, 2007 at 3:59 pm
But Big Bruv, look at the Kahuis’ carbon footprint, it’s tiny, that is great. That’s what the greens want all of us to emulate….It’s the long term plan….
January 31st, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Big Bruv says: “Klarke has already stated that she is not in favour of people working for the unemployment benefit so I doubt that anything produced by the Labour ministry will be accurate.”
Funnily enough, the 2000 evaluation that Russel also referred to, which shows similar results, was actually comissioned under a National Government, although not completed until Labour was in power.
It doesn’t make sense to attack the evaluations just because they were done by Government Ministries when a particular Government was in power. Attack the methodology if you like - it is set out in the evaluation reports - but form my reading it looks robust.
Or do you just not accept the evaluation results because they do not support your ideologically determined position?
As for the Kahui twins - you could be right that their lives might have been saved if their families were working. Their lives might also have been saved if section 59 of the Crimes Act had been repealed 20 years ago too, but let’s not go there again. We can all speculate.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:16 pm
oh for gawds sake BB, are you deliberately obtuse and offensive?
it is you who miss the point.
this discussion is not about whether or not we should pay unemployment benefit to people who do no work
it is about whether, if people have to work for their dole, then how much should they get paid for that work.
learn to read before you post
January 31st, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Hi Big Bruv
“I am shocked that the Greens do not see the honour in a man or woman working for a living,”(Big Bruv)
Me too, where do they get these crackpot irresponsible ideas.
“I am shocked that the Greens are happy to see kids grow up in a home where not one of the adults has ever had a job,”(Big Bruv)
I am shocked too, these Greens must be crazy (Asterix).
“I am shocked that the Greens think this is a good example for adults to set for their kids.”(Big Bruv)
And every right thinking person is with you brother.
Oh. by the way, where did you read these crazy Green ideas?
They are their ideas right?
You’re not putting words in those greeny mouths again are you Big Bruv … you naughty boy.
January 31st, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Having heard most of my life that the next government is going to bring in a work for the dole scheme, I’m feeling rather cynical. Usually the new government gets in to power and realises that putting people to work costs money and throwing the dole at them is a cheap option, a token scheme goes ahead and is soon quietly shelved.
Anyway, there is no such thing as a ‘work for the dole’ scheme - if you have to work for it, it isn’t a dole - just a badly paid government job. A sort of Stalinesque attempt to build people’s character (or something).
Essentially what is being said is “we’ll can the dole, but provide a below-minimum wage job for anybody who wants one.” If it wasn’t the government, it would be illegal.
However, if I was out of a job, I’d be more worried about Labour than John Key. The following is from ‘Welfare Scene’ published by the Wellington People’s Centre, commenting on the new plan entitled ‘Workfocused Support’
(http://www.msd.govt.nz/media-information/pressreleases/
2006/pr-2006-10-26.html )
“The original Single Core Benefit plan has been divided into two phases. The first phase is focused on increasing obligations for beneficiaries to undertake job search activities or plan for their future. It also begins the process of aligning benefit eligibility rules in preparation for the second phase which is the Core Benefit reform (this has been put off until 2009 - 2010).
“The proposed changes that are expected to be included in an Amendment Bill this year include the introduction of:
• A requirement to undertake a pre-benefit activity for all applicants i.e.: attend a seminar
• A 13 week programme for Unemployment Beneficiaries including a requirement to report to WINZ twice a week
• A requirement for Sickness and Invalid beneficiaries to engage in a ‘planning process’ which may include rehabilitation
• Enhancement of work expectations for sole parents
• The removal of the work-test exemption for the 60+ age group.”
The basis behind this seems to be “we can’t find you a job, but we can make life difficult for you by sending you to useless seminars, make you report to WINZ, and work-test you.”
Anybody with experience of WINZ’s incompetence will recognise the potential for disaster here as the bureaucrats turn the heat up on beneficiaries. The unemployed are going to have a full time job trying to keep up with the requirements and sort out WINZ’s mistakes. It’s work of a sort, but not the sort that’s likely to get them a real job.
January 31st, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Stuey
With respect you are the one who misses the point.
You seem to accept that the current situation is alright, we have legions of people sitting at home doing nothing and receiving money from me on a weekly basis, YOU seem to be suggesting that these people have rights or a choice in the matter of what they do for the weekly hand out they receive.
Your argument is (and correct me if I am wrong here) that we cannot ask them to do anything for the dole unless we pay them more than what they are getting now.
My argument is this, if the buggers want more then they can go out and get a job, UNTIL then they can work for the money I given them every week, they have NO right to expect the minimum wage as they are ******** rude shouting words removed by moderator - please cease and desist and keep a civil tongue in your mouth and contribute constructively to these discussions or your account will be deleted *******
————————————————————————————
Kiwinuke
I note your sarcastic post, i also note that NOBODY has yet said this is not Green Policy, all i have read so far is that many Greens do not believe in working for the dole, from this i can only take it that many Greens are happy to see these people do nothing for the money I give them every week.
As David Lange once said, “if you stop telling lies about me I will stop telling the truth about you”
I have not put words in your mouth, please do not put words in mine.
January 31st, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Actually I found WINZ to be very helpful recently though on previous occasions I shared Sam’s misgivings. After I had been unemployed for 8 months, and was getting nowhere, in spite of having better qualifications and general ability than a lot of people with work, I enrolled on a work track course. I thought it would be a waste of time, but I learned how to write my cv, and interview technique. As a result I got more interviews and it was not long before I got a job.
My problem was that my cv did not woffle enough, and did not use the buzzwords that HR departments like. The cv that WINZ drew up for me was incomprehensible, incoherent and misleading; but it did the trick, where mine failed.
WINZ staff were much more down to earth and cynical about the job selection process than most so called professional employment advisers. For example, while most of the latter will tell you there is no “right” or “wrong” andser to an interview question, the WINZ staff left us in no doubt that the “right” answer is the one the interviewer wants to hear, and drilled us into giving “right” answers.
January 31st, 2007 at 9:29 pm
big bruv,
I think you live in the wrong country!! You should be residing in Nazi Germany where Adolf Hitler enjoyed the “Work for the dole” ideology you so feverishly support.
Message to the webmaster:
As a web designer myself, I want to congratulate you for the XHTML coding validation. It is a real pleasure to find web pages that actually validate on the World Wide Web Consortium (w3.org). Many do not and that is very bad web design practise. Keep up the good work.
January 31st, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Big Bruv,
Please, by all means, I implore you…..get it off your chest, swear big man, swear!
January 31st, 2007 at 11:02 pm
>>67% less than 6 months
So 33% are long term? That’s an awful lot of people, isn’t it?
Given the fact that many employers are desperate for workers, so much so they’re often importing labour, there is no excuse for any able bodied person to be sitting doing nothing, whilst expecting people who are working to pay for it.
How can anyone justify this situation? People are either lazy, or signalling they are incapable of looking after themselves, and so require intervention, not money thrown at them.
January 31st, 2007 at 11:35 pm
PeterExitLeft,
I totally agree with you. Nobody should be out of work in this country. If the so called “Work for the dole” has to exist, then anyone on it should be paid no less than $15.00 an hour (less tax). I do not believe there should be any “dole” system. I believe full employment should be available to everyone, like in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Shipley’s “Work for the dole” scam in the 1990’s was slave labour at best and there is simply no excuse for it. All of this is a total disgrace in a country such as ours!
January 31st, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Robin :
Please, lay off the Nazi analogies. They are out of bounds.
Actually, I think Big Bro’s ideal sounds a lot like the old Soviet bloc : Nobody is unemployed, because people are forced to do make-work government jobs for miserable wages.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:59 am
Kiore1,
I LOVED reading your observations of the current job seeking process!
“My problem was that my cv did not woffle enough, and did not use the buzzwords that HR departments like. The cv that WINZ drew up for me was incomprehensible, incoherent and misleading; but it did the trick, where mine failed.”
“WINZ staff were much more down to earth and cynical about the job selection process than most so called professional employment advisers. For example, while most of the latter will tell you there is no “rightâ€? or “wrongâ€? andser to an interview question, the WINZ staff left us in no doubt that the “rightâ€? answer is the one the interviewer wants to hear, and drilled us into giving “rightâ€? answers.”
I’ll show your post to my (quiet and modest) well qualified, job-seeking, “son-out-law”, who has had to accept a job pumping petrol on the night shift, for minimum wage …
February 1st, 2007 at 8:01 am
Robin
Simple question…Do you support people being paid to do nothing?
This is something that I have asked a few times yet not ONE person here has given me a straight answer.
If (as I suspect) you do support people being paid to do nothing would you be so good as to explain why this is a good idea?
February 1st, 2007 at 8:04 am
Kiore
I am not surprised that Winz staff are cynical about the job selection process, the poor buggers deal with lazy bludgers all day long who have no intention of applying for let alone taking a job.
When they actually do come across a person genuinely seeking work it must be a shock.
February 1st, 2007 at 8:30 am
You guys are not listening to Big Bruv. He doesn’t want research and science about success or failure of programs, he wants the world rearranged to make him *feel* better.
The economy is specifically managed by the Reserve Bank to maintain a perpetual pool of unemployment. That’s not paranoia but documented fact. If unemployment gets too low, the bank increases interest rates to slow the economy. By maintaining a pool of unemployed, pressure to raise wages is contained. So while Joe Schmo may be able to find a job with concerted effort, the whole Schmo extended family can forget about the idea of all being happily employed. So if the state is *causing* a chunk of unemployment, let’s immediately drop the notion that everyone is going to be working in some happy fairy land.
However the social problems and costs of having long-term and inter-generational unemployed are absolutely real and serious. I’d like to believe John Key was serious about tackling them but I don’t believe it in the slightest, because the two things that’d be required are:
a) - stop organising our entire economy around management of inflation
b) - throw some serious money at programs to undo the personal and family damage that has been created by long term unemployment already
February 1st, 2007 at 9:43 am
Sam Buchanan said: However, if I was out of a job, I’d be more worried about Labour than John Key.
Yes, Sam, there is very good reason to be worried about Labour’s direction on welfare. There was a rather nasty Social Security Amendment Bill introduced by Labour just before Parliament rose for the summer recess. It implements the first stage of the Single Core Benefit proposal, and introduces Purpose and Principles sections into the Social Security Act that include the “alleviationâ€? of hardship, rather than people having a standard of living that enables them to participate in, and feel part of, their community. The “work firstâ€? approach of the Bill reinforces that concept that any paid work at all (however undignified and under whatever employment conditions) is better than no paid work.
Sue Bradford is encouraging people to make submissions on the Bill, and has published a submission guide on the Green Party website. Submissions close on 1 March 2007.
February 1st, 2007 at 9:56 am
To Big Bruv:
My simple answer - no. If you bother to read my posting to PeterExitLef,t you will see that I do not think there should be any dole payments or SLAVE LABOUR. Paying out benefits because of disgusting economic policies that have destroyed job opportunities is an absolute disgrace. Paying people to do nothing is also an absolute disgrace.
To alistair:
I make no apologies for calling a spade a spade. Seeing some of the appalling postings made by Big Bruv, I think a trip on HG Wells time machine to Central Europe between 1933 - 1945 would be appropriate if these conditons are what Big Bruv is wanting in NewZealand. However, I will retract my statement and suggest instead: Iran, Pakistan or Zimbabwe.
February 1st, 2007 at 10:12 am
Even if it costs more, I’d rather people were engaged in society, not left to rot on unemployment benefits.
The cost to society is to high.
February 1st, 2007 at 10:14 am
Huskynut
That isn’t quite correct. We can, and do, import contract labour, as required.
February 1st, 2007 at 10:25 am
Peter - perhaps you agree with the Greens on something after all, even if not the position on work-for-dole. From the Greens Work & Employment policy:
# People need to work and participate purposefully in society.
…
# Unproductive or insecure employment and forced labour are incompatible with the fulfilment of basic human needs.
…
# Full employment with dignity and a living income for those in employment is achievable; the Greens reject the idea that economic stability requires either a significant level of unemployment or a low-level of protection for those in employment.
…
# Foster new employment by supporting active employment programmes, including:
1. Financial support for the appropriate retraining of long-term unemployed.
2. Support for the work of employment resource centres, small business support groups and similar organisations that work to train and support people going into self employment, small business, co-operative and community-owned enterprise.
3. Assist motivated people with entrepreneurial talent on income support to set up their own small business by:
1. Increasing access to the Enterprise Allowance at adequate levels and in all geographic localities.
2. Supporting and expanding the availability of employment resource centres, small business support groups and similar organisations which work to train, mentor and support people going into self-employment, small business, co-operative and community-owned enterprise.
4. Resourcing the Ministry of Social Development’s Work and Income Service (Work and Income) to help workers find and retain appropriate employment, and to inform workers of relevant employment and human rights legislation.
5. Expanding vocational guidance services so that unemployed people can be given proper, individually tailored assistance in finding appropriate employment and training opportunities from the time they first register as a jobseeker.
6. Providing professional bodies with incentives and funding support to help migrants and refugees reach the standards needed to practise their professions.
7. Ensuring greater availability of bridging courses for immigrants in professions for which Aotearoa/New Zealand has need, and of student loans for those seeking professional registration here.
8. Encouraging the use of practical supervision of those with internationally recognised qualifications as an available route to registration in place of one-off pencil-and-paper tests.
# Ensure that voluntary work is not used to replace paid work, and that those participating in voluntary work are valued in their role by:
1. Acknowledging that people doing voluntary work are making a contribution to the community, and supporting the valuable role of those on income support who participate in voluntary work.
2. Opposing workfare schemes, as these are both degrading to beneficiaries and counter-productive in that they negate genuine employment creation and destroy real jobs.
3. Supporting the provision of a participation allowance to all beneficiaries who carry out a minimum number of hours of voluntary work per week with organisations undertaking work of value to the community or the environment.
4. Acknowledging the essential and valuable work of parents and caregivers, and ensuring they are supported and have opportunities for education in their role.
5. Providing quality education and training that meets the specific needs of the voluntary sector.
So the Greens don’t want to see people sitting round doing nothing either.
February 1st, 2007 at 10:55 am
>>Peter - perhaps you agree with the Greens on something after all,
I certainly do agree with the Greens on some things. I’ve been at pains to point out, I care deeply about the environment.
I don’t know the “how”. I suspect it would involve changing the culture (i.e. unemployment benefit is intended for emergencies, nothing else) and providing more targeted training and work incentives.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:16 am
Big Bruv,
Re Your message to Kiore:
I suppose you are a WINZ case worker who sees all those “lazy buggers” and dole bludgers every day who do not want to work. Are you a WINZ case worker?
If not, then I suggest you stop being a bigot and cut the crap.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Hey, take a look at this op-ed by Rudi Giuliani and Newt Gingrich in the Wall Street Journal proposing workfare (work for the dole) in Iraq!!!
Big Bruv - wanna job as a supervisor?
February 1st, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Kiore: Glad you had a positive experience of WINZ, unfortunately such experiences seem to be in the minority. Last WINZ thing I attended was mostly lectures on how crap it was being on the dole (which I either knew already or were simply a matter of opinion, such as being told having all this free time is boring), followed by CV writing tips that were either things I learnt years ago or complete rubbish. It’s bizarre being sent on a course to teach you to write a CV when I’d previously been asked if WINZ could keep a copy of my CV as a model to show other people.
This is the sort of thing I mean when I refer to WINZ’s “make life dificult for people” approach. They tell you you must attend a ’seminar’ before you can apply for a benefit (which isn’t true - if you are out of work you are entitled to apply without preconditions), regardless of how good your job hunting/CV writing skills are.
Big Bruv: “Do you support people being paid to do nothing?”
Nope, which is why I’m an anti-capitalist. I also expect people on the dole to use the time to be active citizens - I don’t care what they do, they can study, job hunt, take care of kids, plant trees, keep a garden, organise gigs, whatever. But I don’t support anybody sitting at home watching TV wherever their income comes from.
Robin: Not sure why you want to send Big Bruv to Iran. They do ahve a huge unemployment problem there, and a very limited unemployment benefit. The unemployed there seem to manage in traditional ways - being supported by family members, working in the informal economy, crime (there seem to be a lot of smugglers around and drugs are pretty common), and presumably, going to the “employer of last resort” i.e. joining the army.
The informal economy seems to be a favoured choice, which does require those who want to do away with the dole to relax laws against things like setting up snack stalls in the street, wandering around selling drinks, hawking cigarettes in railway stations and that sort of thing.
Frog: I very much doubt that any of Big Bruv’s “rude shouting words” you removed were as offensive seeing somebody labelled as a Nazi.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Robin
Slave labour???…******more offensive statements removed by moderator, yellow card mate, yellow card******
If these people want money from the tax payer they should be made to work for it, I cannot see what is wrong with that.
“Disgusting economic policies”..hell even I have to admit that the current govt (and the previous National administration) are doing a good job with the economy, there is NO EXCUSE for any able bodied person to be unemployed in NZ at this time.
When you stop making excuses for the unemployed and redirect your efforts toward encouraging (by way of a big stick if necessary) them to get a job we ALL would be better off.
What you refuse to see (or admit) is that having people in full time employment has benefits for all, crime rates WILL fall, child abuse rates WILL fall, alcohol and drug usage WILL fall……if you have the unemployed working you are half way to fixing the problem.
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Robin
Guess what?….my partner (for her sins) works for Winz, i would respectfully suggest I have a far better knowledge of what they face everyday than you do.
Got anything else you want me to shoot down for you?
February 1st, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Toad
Nope, I might take that offer up if I did not have to work 50+ hours a week so thousand’s of lazy sods can sit at home and be paid to do nothing.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Just a point to ponder for both sides of the argument.
How high should any benefit be. Enough to sustain the receiver in a position that is barely above subsistence? Or in a pleasantly comfortable lifestyle?
Reason for asking that if any benefit is high enough it becomes a lifestyle choice and we end up in a situation where more and more people opt for the not working (becoming a tax recipient) lifestyle.
The strain thus on the working people (tax providers) becomes higher and higher until the number of tax recipients becomes so high that tax providers take home pay is not much above the benifit being payed for not working. The whole system becomes unsustainable (a good Green word - unsustainable).
Both sides of the argument have fair points but there is a limit to how much tax payers will pay in tax before it becomes a lifestle choice not to work.
I guess the eternal cycle thus starts again where the tax payers (workers) will go for higher wages, the wage provider will put up prices to pay the workers of the goods and services provided by the workers, resulting in the tax recipients needing higher welfare payment to buy the more expensive goods and services.
Is that inflationary?
Soemwhere there is a balance but what is it to be?
February 1st, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Big Bruv,
So you believe that an honest days pay should equate the dole. And if anyone refuses to work for that, they are bludgers.
I hope your partner does not carry your attitude problems into the office otherwise she would make an unsuitable WINZ case manager.
Your sweeping arrogant statements piss me off. Get a life and grow up!
For the record, I am NOT defending anyone who may rip off the system. But I despise those who exploit people through greed to fill their own pockets, such as yourself - given the chance. That is why you want work for the dole. How is that for a sweeping statement.?
February 1st, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Well done Gerrit
Extracting from your message and distilling it my own way…
The problem seems to be that it should not be a matter of individual choice to be on the dole.
This may be the real key to the polarization here. What say you all?
respectfully
BJ
February 1st, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Robin
I can only deduce from your last post that you are an idiot.
. You have no idea how many (if any) people i employ
. You have no idea what I do with my money so any accusation of greed is both slanderous and plain bloody ignorant.
Having sorted that out I feel i need to answer your questions.
Question 1..Yes
Question 2..Yes
See Robin I am interested in fixing the social problems facing NZ, you however have not identified an alternative course of action and the reason you do not agree with working for the dole is simply because the subject is supported by the National party.
Grow up and have a look around yourself, pretty soon you will realise that not ALL those who lean to the right are out to hammer the workers nor are all Americans evil.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:00 pm
BJ
You may well be right.
For the record..I have NO problem with the dole for genuine cases, as a short term fall back (safety net) it is vital.
And while I am at it I would double the invalid benefit and increase all benefit allowances for the few genuine cases.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Big Bruv,
An idiot? Then it takes one to know one! I have certainly hit the mark on my assessment of you, that is for sure.
I have also picked up on your childish games. I have researched your postings, not only on this blog, but on others as well. You are here simply to dump your baggage. You are not interested in addressing the real issues at all. Anyone who challenges you is an “idiot” in your deluded mind. You want to pick an argument simply for the sake of it. You are not interested in what others have to say - but only in your self-centred views.
Go well idiot!
February 1st, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Robin
I did fear that this would develop into a slanging match, for the record you are the first person I have called an idiot {{frogmaster writes: Yeah right!!!}} (in response to abuse from yourself) and I fear I am not wrong.
Leaving that aside I am here to debate the issues, you seem to avoid this at all cost, as a result I am left wondering why this is.
I am interested in addressing the real issues, what you fail to notice or acknowledge is that my way of dealing with these issues differs from yours, at least I can acknowledge that you have the right to hold a differing opinion you on the other hand seek to deny me that right in return.
I will let you into a little secret, calling people names or abusing them only means you will get it back in return, it also shows a distinct lack of depth to your argument and indeed it shows that you have no real opinion of your own, all you do is parrot the party line.
It is OK to be a Green, Labour, National or Maori party supporter and not agree with the entire package.
I do not want to pick an argument here, {{frogmaster writes: you’ve certainly fooled us then}} there are many whose opinion I value even if i do not agree with them most of the time. I have learn’t a few things from Eredwen and BJ in particular, now nobody would say that we are of the same mind but theie interesting and mature posts have made me reconsider my point on a number of issues.
Look I admire your passion, what you have to learn is that not everybody is going to agree with you, they may hold a different opinion, that is not to say that they are wrong or they are right it is just a different from yours..deal with it and move on.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Big Bruv,
Of course it turned into a slinging match - that was clearly your motive and goal. Furthermore, it was you who began the name calling and abuse. I certainly do not like the way you try to twist it to make it appear like it is the other person’s fault. Another one of your seemingly manipulative traits.
February 1st, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Toad
“# People need to work and participate purposefully in society”
I agree
“# Unproductive or insecure employment and forced Labour are incompatible with the fulfillment of basic human needs.”
Insecure employment is a fact of life, nobody can ever say they have a job that is perfectly safe anymore, working for the dole is not about forced Labour, it is about working for what you receive.
“# Full employment with dignity and a living income for those in employment is achievable; the Greens reject the idea that economic stability requires either a significant level of unemployment or a low-level of protection for those in employment”
I cannot argue with this either.
We are really not that far apart on this issue, as BJ said it is more about the issue of those who CHOOSE to be on the unemployment benefit that is the real sticking issue.
February 1st, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Of course no-one can be guaranteed absolute security of employment (apart from a Judge, unless he or she is removed for misconduct or incapacity). I think the reference about insecure employment in the Green policy was meant to address the practice that increasingly occurred in the 1990s of “permanent casual” employment - i.e. people who were employed long term on a casual basis and could be told on a day to day basis that there was no work for them the next day. What’s more, “permanent casuals” had their holiday pay built into their hourly rate, so never got any planned holidays.
That practice has been largely rectified by the current legislation (Employment Relations Act and Holidays Act) that require that casual employees to be genuinely “casual”.
And, yes, I think we are agreed that no-one should be able to choose to not work and live on the unemployment benefit. The Social Security Act does not permit that, and never has. The difficulty at times of high unemployment was that it was difficult for Work and Income to sort out those who didn’t want to work from those who couldn’t find work. The anecdotal evidence the I’ve heard recently would indicate that now unemployment is much lower and Work and Income have the ability to more strictly apply the work test, it is much harder for someone who doesn’t want to work to stay on the unemployment benefit.
February 1st, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Toad
Again I agree with most of what you say, the only part I would take issue with is where you say that WINZ are taking a harder line with those who do not want to work.
Your point about permanent casual is a good one, this practice is very common in the UK and is used by unscrupulous employers to rob workers of holiday pay etc.
I know of one lady in the UK who was employed by the same company on a casual basis for over 15 years, when the company decided to close the factory she worked at she received not one pennyu in redundancy payments, no matter what your political leaning that is just wrong.
February 1st, 2007 at 5:18 pm
But in the case of a tenant that I have they went from the dole to the invalids benefit where a six monthly visit to the doctor for a certifiate is all that is required to get the disability benefit.
Tenant never asked to go on the invalids benefit, was just told by WINZ to go to the doctor and get certified as an invalid with a permanent disability.
Go figure.
February 1st, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Regarding Big Bruv’s last comment on my WINZ experience, I atended a work track programme with about 12 others. All of them appeared to be intelligent, articulate, well qualified and willing to work, so I don’t know why he thinks most WINZ clients are bludgers. But their training or natural abilities were in fields other than job seeking, so they needed help in finding work.
The problem for me, and the others I met on work track are that doing a job reqires differnt skills to finding a job. Doing a job reqires team work, self discipline, ability to learn fast and technical knowledge. Finding a job requires skills in blowing your own trumpet, lying convincingly, and telling people what they want to hear.
Since the two are totally different skill sets, it is not surprising that there are many extremely talented people who cannot get work, and many incompetents who are out of their depth in the work they do.
February 1st, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Gerrit :
“How high should any benefit be. Enough to sustain the receiver in a position that is barely above subsistence? Or in a pleasantly comfortable lifestyle?”
That’s a very interesting point, and inspires me to go off on a tangent.
As I understand it, in the Netherlands in the 90s there was a scheme where anyone could register as an artist and draw a subsistence wage from the government, I guess there was an expectation of some economic output, but one result was an over-supply of paintings that nobody wanted… something like that?
Over the same period, here in France, people in the performance arts had a fairly generous unemployment regime, which basically enabled them to go on the dole while they were preparing their next show. The result was an extraordinary flowering of theatre and associated arts, which the accounts have since put a stop to, because balancing the books is more important than giving people reasonably-priced access to the arts…
These two examples are interesting in terms of a discussion of what is worthwhile human activity, and how to fund it so that it benefits the whole community… The liberal capitalist economic model reduces the arts to niches which can be funded by private buyers, generous sponsors or advertising. I find this unsatisfactory…
February 1st, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Gerrit:
You are implying (on a public forum) that both WINZ and a Medical General Practioner are “in cahoots” to certify a perfectly work-able person as an “invalid”.
I am doubtful that you have the full story, and I suggest that what you have said here could be regarded as libellous. (If I were that GP I would be concerned about your publicly-made assertions.)
……………………………………
Gerrit, bb, pel (and other guests from the Right):
From my experience, (both personal and with others whom I have helped), WINZ does its best to fit clients, who are entitled to financial help, into the Benefit that best matches their needs. For example sole parents tend to go onto, and remain on the DPB because it is “child friendly”.
I can think of several reasons why a person’s needs would be better met on an Invalid’s Benefit.
My adult daughter has two friends who receive Invalids’ Benefits (both of whom would seem, to the casual observer, to be capable of holding down a full time job, but both have serious mental illness. Both “pull their weight in society” with the things they do (eg building and programming donated secondhand computers free of charge for people/families who cannot afford to buy them). They are that sort of people!
Years ago both would have been locked up “at great expense to the tax payer” but modern drugs allow them to have a reasonably normal life.
They deserve our respect!
I know others who appear normal but have ongoing problems with depression. Then there are those with ongoing health problems (eg in the long recovery process from glandular fever of hepatitis.)
They too deserve our respect and understanding!
In my personal experience, when the situation forced me to apply for the DPB, I worked a small amount of “part time” and, with the help of my elderly parents, I gradually increased my workload until my salary was adequate to support our family. During all that time, I was officially a DPB recipient, but received a smaller and smaller amount of money.
I can only speak highly of the way in which I was treated. I felt trusted, understood and supported at a VERY difficult time in my and my children’s lives and I have paid Society back many times over both in taxes and in the large amount of voluntary work I have done and still do, using my professional skills free of charge in our community. (Don’t forget that my children’s father, as liable parent, was required to pay WINZ as much as he was able during that time.)
I always remember the saying “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Thus I don’t just take at face value all the stuff I read or hear!
Frankly I am fed up with those who come on frogblog to drone on about “money” and about those they assume are “bludgers” in our society, and how hard they work, and how much of their beloved “money” is taken to support “these people”. (I get the impression that bb believes that his money (reluctantly given) is supporting the entire country!)
Also I find the beligerant tone (of bb in particular) offensive and totally inappropriate anywhere, and particularly out of place on this website.
“A Society can be judged by the way in which it treats its most vulnerable citizens”. This “looking after” must include respect and trust.
Importantly, the fact that the vulnerable are looked after gives us all (as citizens) a sense of security.
If we are serious about solving the problems some of our “don’t want to work” or “too hooked on P to work”, or “too brain damaged to work” citizens, we will need to spend a lot more money on skilled intervention for the next generation and in some cases the generation after that, to correct the neglect and the “wrongs” that have created this situation.
We as a Society have allowed this serious disfunctional situation to happen. It will not be “a quick fix”, and it will cost a lot of money (taxpayers money!) to remedy the damage … but it CAN, and it MUST be done for the wellbeing of us all !
My final moan: Greens are not a bunch of gulible fools, (as no doubt you have found out by now …) so PLEASE treat people on this blog with respect.
eredwen
February 2nd, 2007 at 1:57 am
BB: “Simple question…Do you support people being paid to do nothing? This is something that I have asked a few times yet not ONE person here has given me a straight answer.”
that’s because we are practicing “not feeding the trolls”. Either that or we refuse to play your childish games.
I’ve asked you plenty of questions that you have chosen to ignore.
February 2nd, 2007 at 6:28 am
No implications at all eredwen, simply stating facts as told to me by one of my tenants!
All truths so no libel.
Another WINZ story to make your hair curl from another tenant.
She was unable to pay the rent because WINZ cut her DPB over the Christmas break (she was not the only one). Nobody working at WINZ over the break and when the office finally opened the que was out the door (yes the infamous Manurewa WINZ office) at people requiring emergency benifits. As her case manager was on holiday the duty manager was unable to reinstate her DPB. Told her to ask her family to pay the rent and buy groceries.
Us evil landlords supplied a bag of spuds and a case of vegetables while we took her to the Salvation Army for a food parcel.
She is unable to get an appointment to see her case manager till the 20 Feb. Luckily her DPB has been reinstated but arrears are still owing, not just rent but power, etc. Plus bank penalties for insufficient funds in her account to cover the automatic payments.
As I said before this is not an uncommon case from the Manurewa WINZ office.
Being surrogate granparents to a bunch of our tenants kids, we enjoy having them and as such work closely with our tenants to improve their lives.
I could go on and on about how the little bit we do helps (eg. introduce busy young mums to the time and cost saving of crock pot cooking to cook decent meals).
What I’m pointing out here is how badly the vulnerable are being treated by our employees (the state servants).
Finaly, I’m not sure where my disrespect was please point it out to this blue green right winger.
February 2nd, 2007 at 9:49 am
Gerrit said: Tenant never asked to go on the invalids benefit, was just told by WINZ to go to the doctor and get certified as an invalid with a permanent disability. Go figure.
This is exactly what should have happenned. It is a condition of receiving unemployment benefit that the beneficiary is available for full-time employment. If a Work & Income case manager suspects an unemployment beneficiary is not medically capable of working full-time, he or she should be referred to a doctor for a medical assessment of his or her capacity to work, and if assessed as being incapable of full-time employment, transferred to a sickness or invalid’s benefit.
February 2nd, 2007 at 10:11 am
“If we are serious about solving the problems some of our “don’t want to workâ€? or “too hooked on P to workâ€?, or “too brain damaged to workâ€? citizens, we will need to spend a lot more money on skilled intervention for the next generation and in some cases the generation after that, to correct the neglect and the “wrongsâ€? that have created this situation. ”
I disagree. There is no way that spending money on this problem is going to fix it. What we need to do is create a society in which working is taken for granted, in which work is a reasonable pleasant and sociable experience - at least most of the time and in which people feel that what they do is valued and useful.
We also need to knock out the curernt ethos that life is about accumulating money by whatever means possible, that you are a mug to do something without receiving direct benefit, that if an opportunity exists you should take it regardless of the impact this has on others and that the ideal is to live in luxury while doing as little as possible. This means chucking out much of the dominant neo-liberal dogma, yuppie ethics, celebrity culture, individualism, foreign exchange dealers and many other trappings of modern society.
The cultural change this demands is probably incompatable with capitalism, but you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs (OK, you can scramble tofu instead, but it just isn’t the same).
On the other hand, if we simply want to reduce the social welfare budget, why not just sack everyone who works for WINZ and re-hire them all on a work for the dole scheme?
February 2nd, 2007 at 11:34 am
To answer Gerrit’s: “Finaly, I’m not sure where my disrespect was please point it out to this blue green right winger.”
Your name got caught up in my generalised “wee-small-hours” homily because the first bit was for you!
I realised that all of it did not apply to all those addressed, but was too tired to rewrite at that stage and assumed that you would see that parts of it were directed towards big bruv in particular.
I’m sorry if that wasn’t the case!
eredwen
February 2nd, 2007 at 11:43 am
eredwen
No worries
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:07 pm
>>The cultural change this demands is probably incompatable with capitalism
It’s incompatible with human beings full-stop. It sounds very nice, of course, but what happens when group of people are giving all the time, whilst another group sits around taking and doing nothing?
How, exactly, are you going to deal with them?
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Sam B:
I agree Sam! However, I was thinking of the cost of well planned intervention and long term professional help for generationally disfunctional families that are only “noticed” by society-in-general when they do things like murder their babies. (There was a mention of the Kahui twins on one of the recent frogblog threads.)
When unemployment for school leavers with UE was as a new thing, I ran a YPTP (Young Person’s Training Programme) “Course for Carers” at ChCh Polytechnic for several years. The young women who came on those 24 week courses were snapped up by Public Health Nurses to help with intervention in homes where young mothers had inadequate skills. (These trainees were able to get alongside the mothers in a non-threatening way, where someone seen as “an authority figure” like a Public Health Nurse could not.) I learnt about a part of New Zealand that I had not realised existed!
(Just as an aside: three of the young women who started their training on these courses ended up in charge of the Child Care Centres of the three big Tertiary Education Providers in Christchurch.)
February 2nd, 2007 at 7:30 pm
eterExitsLeft says “It’s incompatible with human beings full-stop. It sounds very nice, of course, but what happens when group of people are giving all the time, whilst another group sits around taking and doing nothing?
How, exactly, are you going to deal with them? ”
I disagree that it is incompatible with human beings. Humans have mixed motives, selfishness is mixed in with genuine community concern, and a well functioning society encourages the latter. One suggestion I could make for “dealing with” the non-contributors is to lead by example. When those on benefits see the wealthy continually trying to get more than they need or deserve, it is easier to understand why they do the same.
I remember when I worked for the public service being accused of being selfish because I wanted a fairly modest payrise. I was told that times were tough and there was not enough to go round. I replied that as far as thrift went I was prepared to follow the example of my leaders, being the senior public servants and politicians whose pay continued to go up every year.
February 3rd, 2007 at 7:37 am
kiore1 Says ” How, exactly, are you going to deal with them?”
This is an easy fix, you simply stop giving.
“When those on benefits see the wealthy continually trying to get more than they need or deserve, it is easier to understand why they do the same.”
Who are you to say what anybody needs or deserves?, this statement says a lot about how you personally see those in our community who are happy to leach off the rest of us, you see them as victims while I see them as bludgers.
These people are not going to do anything to better themselves or feel motivated to get off the benefit while there are those among us who make excuses for them.
What these people (or their apologists) fail to see (or more likely fail to admit) is that the reason the wealthy do have more is because they work for it, are you seriously suggesting that those on the dole deserve more for doing nothing?
Any decent caring society is one where ALL contribute, we have a very large sector of our community who are happy to do nothing but take, sadly we have an equally large sector who are happy to let them take simply so they can retain the reigns of power or to further their own (hidden) agenda.
February 3rd, 2007 at 7:56 am
eredewn
I understand where you are coming from and while I do not share your views I do respect your compassion.
However throwing money at social problems does not improve them, the last seven years of this govt have proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I accept that you and I while wanting the same outcome will never agree on how that outcome should be arrived at.
I personally favour a “tough love” style of approach mixed in with a large dose of personal responsibility, I can tell you from first hand experience that do gooder social workers do NOT help the situation.
Years ago I woke up, years ago I had a choice, years ago I decided that I was not going to be “a victim”, years ago I decided that I was going to do something to make a better life for myself.
Before one of you tells me it was different in those days let me say that you are 100% correct, in those days we had MASSIVE unemployment, in those days people were being laid off every week.
Despite that I worked, despite that I knocked on doors until i could get somebody to give me a chance, despite that I would not take no for an answer, despite that I worked for one employer for a whole month without pay so i could prove to him that I had what it took.
One of the evils of socialism is that you need an underclass for the system to thrive, this corrupt govt (and their coalition partners) are more than happy to see that underclass stay exactly where it is, this corrupt govt is more interested in retaining power than they are about making NZ a better place for all.
February 3rd, 2007 at 8:33 am
BigBruv
“The reason the wealthy have more is because the work for it”
That is the apology given after generations of theft have provided insurmountable differences in opportunity. The people who are wealthy today are not, as you assume, alll deserving of their vast advantage. Some are and in NZ I would note that it is more likely than in the USA that they are, but it is not the guaranteed condition that you assume and arrogantly assert here.
Nor has anyone here suggested that those on the dole “deserve more for doing nothing”.
I can’t hang around because I have a deadline and others have pushed it tight. You have agreed that there is a difference in being able to make this a lifestyle choice, and most people who take it are not taking it by choice. I suggest to you that you consider the nature of work and automation and the jobs available that still pay a decent wage and the price of a good education (which includes making sure that a child is not hungry when learning rather than hungry for it).
Weigh all those things and compare them to the situation of a boy whose daddy calls favours so that the University accepts a ‘C’ student and passes him through with little regard for its normally high standards. Someone who loses not one but several lifetime incomes for normal folks in the course of his business debacles and still has money in quantities sufficient to get laws written in his favour so that he has yet more money. Legalized theft. Wealth transfers from the poorer to the most wealthy. These are also facts to be reckoned with, and you do not appear to admit their existence.
You hold certain people in contempt for not earning their living? … SO DO WE!!! We just have no reverence for wealth to distract us from some of them.
The argument often proposed by apologists like you is that if they started with nothing the folks who currently have all the money would be back on top in a generation. That is utter and arrant nonsense. Some would. Statistically certain that SOME would and there are some who have the real qualities that make it difficult to fail, but in most cases wealth is as much a matter of good fortune as a good work-ethic. More to the point, the work that is useful to the society to the point of paying well is more and more a limited to people of better education and greater intelligence. This is the conundrum of productivity advances and automation… consider what happens if these trends continue. All the work in the whole country can be done by automated systems with 10 wizards having oversight of the controls. Not yet, but as trends continue more and more the case. What do you pay the 10?… what do the other 4 million do? The fundamental assumption that simple hard work will get you ahead in life is no longer a valid assumption. If you start from nothing hard work is necessary to get ahead, but it is not sufficient. If you start ahead, as some do, it is not even necessary to stay ahead.
I know I was lucky - born smart and able to finesse a good education out of government service. I don’t object to paying tax and having it redistributed to those less fortunate in some organized way.
The comparative fairness of a society can be considered in terms of a choice-
If you have two societies and you have the choice to be born into either but not the ability to choose your parents (and the advantage or disadvantage that goes with that level of choice) , which would you choose?
If a society provides education and support for the poorest in it, so that opportunities are equal, it is a far better choice than one which has allowed the division of wealth to procede according to the old rule of “them as has- gets”.
So think on these things and please reconsider your anger with Greens who think about them all quite hard, who have a much deeper understanding than you may wish to believe, and who have no intention of using this program or any other to buy votes.
It is not as simple as it seems.
respectfully
BJ
February 3rd, 2007 at 10:30 am
kiore1,
What I’m getting at is the need for incentives. Leading by example may encourage some people, but not others.
So what do you do with the two people who lay about while the other five work the field? They resist encouragement, or being led by example, reasoning they derive the same benefits without having to do the work. This siuation, of course, is starting to annoy the five workers.
So, what do you do?
February 3rd, 2007 at 2:02 pm
big bruv;
Thank you for your excellent post to me!
You obviously have some very valid and insightful things to contribute to the discussion, and to help solve problems.
Unfortunately words are an incomplete and imprecise method of communication at the best of times, (hence the saying “a picture is worth a thousand words” … and then there’s “you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar” and “actions speak louder than words” … )
The thing that particularly strikes me is that if you and I (for example) used the same energy and concern that we now put into this blog, we could do something to help (even one of the) kids move in a direction that would be better for him/her, (and that one could become two … )
Think about it … I could be interested in a joint initiative.
Instead we tend to spend our time standing firmly on opposite sides of the fence so far apart that we can’t even effectively “throw rocks at each other”!
Here is a classic example of “speaking past each other”:
You wrote:
“One of the evils of socialism is that you need an underclass for the system to thrive, this corrupt govt (and their coalition partners) are more than happy to see that underclass stay exactly where it is, this corrupt govt is more interested in retaining power than they are about making NZ a better place for all.”
From experience, that is almost “word for word” what the so called “left ” would say:
“One of the evils of capitalism is that you need an underclass for the system to thrive, the Nats and their supporters (potential coalition partners) would be more interested in gaining and retaining power than making NZ a better place for all. They would be “happy to see that underclass stay exactly where it is … ” etc
The point of MMP was to have a variety of opinions represented in Parliament. This does happen, “in select committees etc out of the public gaze” I have been told. However, old ways take time to change and the media continue to portray “two sides”.
However, I do notice that the Greens (and the Maori Party) are seen as groups in their own right.
February 3rd, 2007 at 2:05 pm
BTW Frog, how about a discussion thread on food miles? There are a lot of interesting issues as highlighted by this article: http://libertyscott.blogspot.com/2007/01/fight-foodmiles-now.html
February 4th, 2007 at 12:14 am
hey Robin, thanks for the praise for my web coding, yes I try to keep the code valid and also accessible.
frogblog does have a few bits of code here and there that aren’t valid but not too bad, most of the invalid stuff is in the content, but to prove I can really do valid code see my website for Oscar Flower Merchant, where every page is valid - sorry for the OT post, but I think I’ve earned the right to spam my own site
so … great for valentines day if you live in Auckland and you have lots of money!
P.S. Robin, please keep your language civil.
February 4th, 2007 at 9:06 am
nice pics frogmaster…
nice clear/simple lay-out..
(one could quibble about the ‘green-ness’ of ‘cut’ flowers…
but there’s at least one fly in most ointments..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 4th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
BB says:“The reason the wealthy have more is because the[y] work for it�
Sorry, this is totally contradicted by reality. Do you really think a factory worker doing overtime on the minimum wage works less hard than a public servant pushing paper, schmoozing with politicians and attending cocktail parties (and I know what a public servant does - I used to be one). On a global scale, does Prince Harry work harder than a Mexican peasant?
People can become wealthy by working at it, but more often it is because of inherited privilege (directly through inheritence or indirectly by having parents support their education), living in a wealthy country, having the gift of the gab, or simply by being in the right place at the right time. And once one has joined the wealthy, it is easier to then accumulate more wealth through leveraging, lobbying for favourable laws and general networking.
Do you really think top executives and public servants are worth the millions they are paid? IF their positions were advertised at a tenth their salary I bet there would be no shortage of skilled applicants. I am not saying a school leaver should get the same as a brain surgeon or CEO, but the current system in which the salaries at the top get ever higher, while those at the bottom are told to tighten their belt is just unfair.
PeterExitsLeft:
I actually agree with you about the need for incentives. But where we would probably part company is that I don’t see all incentives as being financial. It seems to come down to different opinions of human nature. While I would certainly agree that humans can be arrogant, greedy and selfish, humans (and often the same humans) can also be generous, and altruistic. Incentives such as pride in a job well done, the praise of team members, friendship, team spirit and love of God are just as important, as you will realise if you look at the acheivements of sports heroes, war heroes, activists and many other great men and women throughout history.
February 5th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
“So what do you do with the two people who lay about while the other five work the field? ”
Simple, tell them that if they don’t get off their arses and do something, they aren’t going to reap the fruits of the field. What’s difficult about that?
The metaphor has little to do with this debate, however. “Unemployment” in the context of getting to pick up the dole, doesn’t mean “not doing anything” it means not being in formal employment.
“the reason the wealthy do have more is because they work for it,”
As I’ve moved upwards, downwards and sideways on the career ladder, I haven’t found any evidence that the amount I get paid reflects the amount of work I was expected to do. As a generalisation though, the hardest I’ve worked was for the least wages.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Kiore
I have read your post and quite frankly I am astonished, you use just about every possible stereotype to support your illogical argument yet offer nothing at all based on fact to support what you believe, your grasp on reality is not supported by the actual facts.
Not all factory workers are on the minimum wage (outrageous generalisation number 1)
Not all public servants push paper or “schmooze” with pollies (outrageous generalisation number 2)
You have no idea what Prince Harry or a Mexican peasant actually do all day so again this is irrelevant (outrageous generalisation number 3 )
“People can become wealthy by working at it, but more often it is because of inherited privilege” (outrageous generalisation number 4)……..absolute rubbish, we are talking about NZ here, perhaps (and it is a BIG perhaps) this might be the case still in the UK but not here ………oh, and what is wrong with parents wanting a good education for their kids?…..are you that offended by private education?…perhaps you do not like the idea of private schools teaching anything but the approved left wing feminist agenda currently being peddled in our state schools.
“And once one has joined the wealthy, it is easier to then accumulate more wealth through leveraging, lobbying for favourable laws and general networking”….(outrageous generalisation number 5)… do you really believe that all those people who have accumulated a little wealth are furiously lobbying their local MP?…I will let you into a little secret Kiore, it is NOT easy to accumulate wealth, it takes a lot of bloody hard (and smart) work, it is then a damn site harder keeping that wealth when you have corrupt governments hell bent on stealing as much of it as they can back from you.
“Do you really think top executives and public servants are worth the millions they are paid? IF their positions were advertised at a tenth their salary I bet there would be no shortage of skilled applicants. I am not saying a school leaver should get the same as a brain surgeon or CEO, but the current system in which the salaries at the top get ever higher, while those at the bottom are told to tighten their belt is just unfair”
In a word..YES, it is called the law of supply and demand, you may not have noticed but most new business fail in the first two years, those who do succeed have a very real skill that they can sell, there are very few top line CEO’s and they are worth ever single penny
Do you think that these companies would pay the astronomical salaries if they did not have to?
Kiore..stop acting and thinking like a victim, sure the world can be a tough place but not everybody out there who has done well is out to screw the worker.
March 7th, 2007 at 9:44 am
In the Hawkes bay the fruit growers tell is that they cannot find enough people to harvest the crop, the fruit is being left to rot.
Meanwhile we have 50,000 people drawing the unemployment benefit or the DPB.
There should be no debate or negotiation here, if you live in the Hawkes bay and you draw the dole or the DPB you should be made to work in the orchards until the season ends.
March 10th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Big bruv before you start wording off about how many “bludgers” (to quote you) there are on the unemployments benefits and why they should all have to work for it maybe you should look at some stats first; try visiting this site http://www.msd.govt.nz/media-information/benefit-fact-sheets/index.htm l and take a long look; especially at the part where it says:
“The proportion of the working aged population who were receiving an Unemployment Benefit at the end of June increased from 1996 to 1999, but has decreased for the last seven years.”
I may be wrong but i believe that between 1996-1999 was the work for the dole scheme and after 1999 was when it was scrapped?
Also:
“Of the clients receiving an Unemployment Benefit at the end of June 2006:
• over three in five (62 percent) had received an Unemployment Benefit continuously for under one year
• one percent had received an Unemployment Benefit continuously for 10 years or more. ”
Doesn’t sound like a lot of bludgers to me does it? mostly seasonal and people temporarily without work.
Also do you even know how much these people receive?
try visiting this site page 4 and find out
http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/documents/brochures/unemployment-bene fit.pdf
Now i really don’t believe anyone can ‘bludge’ off that. What did you think they did? sat around all day and watched T.V? The power bill for that is probably more than they earn in a week!!
March 10th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Note: all sentences in quotation marks have been taken from said sites
(except ‘bludgers’)
March 10th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
bookworm: Well said!
March 10th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Bookworm
First of all I do not care what or how much they receive they should be made to work for every single cent of it.
You claim that the numbers on the dole have fallen, if you believe that you will believe anything, all this corrupt govt does is move the long term bludgers from the dole to the sickness benefit to make themselves look better, it is the same with the hospital waiting lists, if the lists are to long you simply cut a few thousand from the list.
March 10th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Did you look at that site properly? probably not sonsidering your ignorant comment. The TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON ALL BENIFITS HAS FALLEN. From 381000 people december 01 to 287000 people december 06. This includes sickness, invalid, domestic purposes and unemployed. The current system is WORKING and work for dole will not change that.
As you put it
“# People need to work and participate purposefully in society�
I agree”
(quote from big bruv)
u also said :
“I do not care how boring the jobs we give them are, I want them working, I do not care if they are sent into a field and told to dig a hole and fill it in again when they are finished.”
Would u like to tell me what part of digging a hole and filling it in is purposeful? and if you so deeply resent paying out your money to them why don’t you get them back into work? oh wait you want work for dole, and that increases unemployment by not providing the unemployed with the skills needed to get a new job; not to mention costing around, what was it national said? $100,000,000. Oh and digging holes as you so aptly put it takes jobs away from those who allready work for it; creating MORE unemployed.
Oh yeah and by the way the number of people on the unemployment benefit is under 40000, and 0.8% have been on it for more than 10 years, so thats what? 320 people? and for those 320 u want to put 40000 on a needless wasteful and destructive work for dole scheme?
I would also like to see you ‘Bludge’ or slouch around on $170 a week.
And lastly, If u believe our government is corupt, im begining to wonder what u wont believe. We live in one of the most stable and un-corupt counties in the world, im frankly disgusted that you would call our nation a corupt one, you try living in some third world countries and then call our government corupt.
March 10th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
bookworm: Very well said (again!)
Don’t worry about “big bruv”. He seems to have developed a strong attachment to frogblog.
As our “knee jerk right winger” bb serves a useful function by reminding us, (tediously) that there are people “out there” literally incapable of seeing beyond “money” as the ‘raison d’etre’.
March 10th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
bookworm Says: Did you look at that site properly?
(((sigh))) sorry to say, but those of us who have been hanging here for a long while have learned that is utterly pointless to present anything in the way of factual information to our little blue friend, a) because he will never bother to read it, b) because he is pathologically incapable of ingesting new information and measuring it up against the tired old “brashisms” that he likes to trot out at every opportunity.
He may be a right-wing troll, but he is our right-wing troll and we have learned to love him anyway tho, despite his little character quirks. We know deep down inside that he must have a secret affinity to greenie peoples but he’s just too afraid to express his love for us in a positive way - so the poor little guy tries to get our attention by pulling the greenie gurls hair and flicking boogers at the greenie boyz.
Never mind eh Big Bruv, here’s a big warmy fuzzy hippy hug for ya to make you feel better ((((((((((((((((((hug)))))))))))))))))
Now I hate to mess up your “whining points” with something as obscene as a wee factoid or too BB, but my sister is an orchard manager and organises all the season picking gangs each year and tells me that they have to be very very picky (no pun intended) about hiring workers who are blazingly fit and have a high standard of past experience.
Fruit picking is one of the most physically gruelling jobs you can imagine and there are very few workers who are able to pick accurately and at the speed required to harvest the crop in the mere few days that an employer requires. And I’m not sure if you know it, but pickers are paid by the number of bins that they can pick in a day and (according to my sister) there are few few gangs who are able to pick fast enough to collect enough bins in a day to earn more than the minimum wage.
So there’s a very big disincentive right there, and it might suggest to you that if our wages were a little higher (and they would need to be for seasonal workers, because they also have to earn enough to carry them over during the times when there is no work available) then more unemployed people would find it worth their while to take on occasional contract (hard yakker) work such as this.
Everything else I have to say on the matter has already been said above by bookworm - that was a most excellent post my friend, welcome to frogblog and I look forward to reading more of your inspired opinions.
Cheers,
Zana
PS: sorry to confuse you with so much data at once BB, I hope it doesn’t hurt too much to try and digest all that and consider sifting it into your conservative world view
March 11th, 2007 at 7:44 am
Thanks zANavAShi & eredwen for the support =D and great post zANavAShi, i never realised fruit picking was so hard!!.
Big bruv, I look forward to debating some more topics with you; you certainly make it interesting!! Just remember work for the dole doesn’t work. (If anyone can prove me wrong plz post, i would love to hear from you)
Cheers Bookworm
March 11th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Bookworm & Zan
I might have expected that type of reply from you both, basically you provide nothing but excuses for beneficiaries (the unemployed and long term DPB), when you finally understand that you are part of the problem things might change.
Please do not expect me to believe any statistics produced by this corrupt govt, they simply move people from one list to another in an effort to make themselves look good, there is a mountain of evidence to support this.
I am amazed that you believe Labour (supported by the Greens much to their shame) is not corrupt, they STOLE 880k to win an election or have you forgotten all about that?
IF there is nothing else to do then yes I DO want them digging holes, there is no way you or anybody else can justify an able bodied person sitting at home while the tax payer picks up the bill.
You tell me they earn $170 a week, frankly I am shocked that they receive so much, for that amount of money I would be insisting that they pick fruit (and do so properly) or I would take them off the benefit immediately, no work no dole..simply really.
On the issue of seasonal workers again you miss the point, people who are employed in seasonal work do so by choice, they have no right to expect higher wages just because they choose not to work all year around, there is always other employment that they can seek in the off season.
Seasonal work is like any other, if the market dictates that there is a need for higher wages then they will be paid.
Working for the dole can and will work if we are determined to MAKE it work, as long as the do gooders and social workers are kept as far away as possible you will see change and it will be change for the good.
Sadly this is a topic we will never agree on, you want to pay them more to do nothing (quite how that will encourage them back to work escapes me) and I want to pay them nothing.
As I said at the start, the sooner you realise that you are making the problem worse the sooner we can ALL do something about it, until then the bludgers are laughing at you behind your backs, they have absolutely no intention of getting a job and simply look for the next handout.
————————————————————————————-
Eredwen
Might I suggest it is you who is incapable of “seeing beyond” your own vested interests, you are not able to accept that some of your fellow Greens see the faults in section 59 for instance.
If you are going to trow stones Eredwen the I suggest you get the number of a very good glazier, you are sure going to need him.
March 11th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
BB u once again miss the point. THERE ONLY A VERY FEW LONGTERM BEFICIARIES.
Did u read anything i posted, or have u forgotten that work for the dole will cost MORE MONEY THAN THE CURRENT SYSTEM AND WILL NOT HELP THEM GET JOB.
The whole point of the dole is to help keep people on their feet while they FIND A JOB, u cannot seem to shake from your sterotypical mind that they DO NOT SIT AT HOME AND WATCH TV. Do you not understand how hard it is to get a job? do you just think they can walk into the nearest store and get hired? why don’t u give that a try?
Oh and the minumum wage is $10.25 an hour now u do the math, in 17 hours they have earned more off that than off the dole; so use your brain and realise that anyone can earn more by doing more work so therfore THEY WANT TO GET OFF THE DOLE. Also if u did a little bit of research u would realise that the current system does NOT just hand out money. People have to be taking training courses/seminars, or actively looking for work ect.
THE WHOLE POINT OF THE DOLE IS TO GET PEOPLE BACK INTO WORK BY PAYING THEM THE MINIMUM AMOUNT TO BARELY LIVE AND THEN TRAIN THEM SO THAT IT IS BLATENTLY OBVIOUS THAT A BETTER LIFESTYLE IS ACHIEVABLE BY GETTING A JOB.
how does digging a whole encourage them to find work? it only shows them how meaniglessly pointless it is to work and gives them no techniques on how to find a job. So when they want to work what happens? NOONE ACCEPTS THEM BECAUSE ALL THATS ON THEIR CV IS THAT THEY DUG HOLES.
Would you accept a potential employee who said their work experince was digging a hole then filling it in?
And if you think that our government is corrupt u need to change country. Do you know why guns are still legal in America? because the gun manufactures sponser politicians so therfore none of them will ever vote to ban guns. So basically America the so called forefront and defender of democracy cannot even outlaw guns in its own country, no matter how many people vote for it. AND THATS AMERICA, IMAGINE WHAT SOME 3RD WORLD COUNTRIES WOULD BE LIKE!!!!!!!!
And u say our government is corrupt? If we can’t believe out own governmets statistics then i guess we can’t believe in our freedom of speech, or maybe our legal system is now convicting innocents on bribes, or perhaps the National and the Maori party’s are paying you to advocate work for dole?
Or perhaps you say the stats are corrupt because you have no other way of arguing them?
Say whatever u want BB but i would rather believe in our government ( i mean why would they make up stats? they want more people working so they can get more taxes, not give them away) than an obvious ‘bludgerist’ like u.
March 11th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Bookworm
There you go again!, stop making excuses for the unemployed, it does their case no good at all.
Most of the long term beneficiaries are simply moved onto the sickness benefit by the corrupt government, you are well aware that Labour will do anything to make themselves look good and that to them the ends justify the means.
If as you say the dole is a way to get people on their feet until the get a job then why not have a time limit, lets say that we will pay them to look for work (sit at home and do nothing) for a period of six weeks, after that the amount they receive decreases by $25 per week until they find a job.
The next couple of paragraphs in your post are emotional clap trap, you conveniently overlook the social benefits of having people working (yes even the ones digging holes) and as for the current system, I have a family member who knows all about the ins and outs of the dole and just how easy it is to get more (in some cases a LOT MORE) than $170 per week.
I particularly like this bit …….”Do you not understand how hard it is to get a job? do you just think they can walk into the nearest store and get hired? why don’t u give that a try”.
In my travels today I had to fill up the vehicle twice, in each of these petrol stations they were advertising for staff, I asked the chap behind the counter what sort of qualifications one needed to do the work and he replied “nothing really”, i then asked him how long the positions have been vacant and he told me they could not find anybody to fill the positions and that they have been looking for “weeks”
Every single day I see businesses advertising for staff, (unskilled staff) right now I know of somebody who needs three unskilled workers at $14.50 per hour, he cannot find anybody who wants the work.
So lets leave out the rubbish about it being hard to find work please.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make about America, we all know that place is corrupt, they even had a Democratic President who went on national TV and told a bare faced lie to the American people yet the failed to impeach him.
The fact remains that OUR govt is corrupt, they stole from us and have no intention of ever paying it back.
March 11th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
’sigh’ Big bruv i am not makeing excuses for unemployed and once again u have neatly sidestepped all of the reasons why work for dole won’t work and gone on the attack saying its all the unemployedes fault, they’re lazy, they bludge ect ect. I had hoped that this could be debated and proven but instead i find that you are continually single-mindedly attacking the unemployed and the current system with no basis, just your own personal opinion that somehow in your mind = facts
Frankly im a getting tired of reading your long winded posts that make the same point over and over again - that you are a bigot and there is no point arguing against you because you are right and we are wrong- the government is corrupt yada yada yada simply because there are facts that prove you are wrong.
On another point i agree with the time limit,but only after it can be proven that people are not makeing attempts to find work, or have a situation that prevents them from getting a job due to unusaul hours ect but i DO NOT agree with work for dole.
You still haven’t listened to my point that the number of people on benfits is going down and labour is not simply transferring people over to sickness benefits.
How has our government stole from us? Our government can’t do a single thing without being crucified by the media so what can they steal from us; our money? Its called taxes and there used to run this country. If you think you can do a better job running this country you enter politics, don’t backseat drive by moaning about how everything is wrong with this country either live with it and do something to fix it, or move country.
I also hope that your point about lots of job offers is valid and not made up, as you haven’t given me any reason to believe anything you say, however if its is true, and some unemployed can be proven to be dodging these opportunities to work then by all means Big bruv supervise away as you teach them how to dig holes and then fill them in, in a way that somehow benefits the economy. (how? and what social benefits? how is doing a pointless job going to in any way shape or form going to raise the morale and social benefits of anything?
And emotional claptrap? Your whole argument is emptional claptrap, everything you have said is based on personal opinions. In case you have so quickly forgotten i tried to elevate this argument from emotional claptrap with some facts, but you brought it straight back down again with
“Please do not expect me to believe any statistics produced by this corrupt govt, they simply move people from one list to another in an effort to make themselves look good, there is a mountain of evidence to support this.” (quote from big bruv)
What evidence? pray do tell.
Also have you read any of your posts lately like maybe:
“Have read your post and quite frankly I am astonished, you use just about every possible stereotype to support your illogical argument yet offer nothing at all based on fact to support what you believe, your grasp on reality is not supported by the actual facts.” (quote from big bruv)
This is all emotional claptrap and also you are very highly hippocritical as you are using nothing but stereotypes in your argument; for instance you say that all unemployed are bludgers and get paid to do nothing, and this is apparently an acceptable statement but you also say that these statements are not acceptable:
“Not all factory workers are on the minimum wage (outrageous generalisation number 1)
Not all public servants push paper or “schmooze� with pollies (outrageous generalisation number 2)
You have no idea what Prince Harry or a Mexican peasant actually do all day so again this is irrelevant (outrageous generalisation number 3 )”
(all quoted from big bruv)
Perhaps ‘Not all unemployed are bludgers who never work and “are laughing at you behind your