The Dole

triple nipple · 17-08-2016 05:26PM

starshine1234 wrote:

What about the Star Trek universe? Nobody has to work. Would that be that desirable or not?

Ehhh they did work. They even had ranks and designations based on qualifications and experience.

17-08-2016 05:27PM

Jayop wrote: »

Some poor fella that left school barely able to read or write but was doing well enough for himself on the buildings or some other manual trade should now open a web hosting company. If he doesn't he's clearly sitting on his hole playing call of duty.

Easy peasy.

It's funny the way that people who object to this always look at the suggestion given as being the only option. What prevents them from getting the knowledge/skills to work in any number of physical/labor jobs? Or learning to read and write? Gosh.

But that would require them to put in some effort into their development, and thats not fair.

Tony EH · 17-08-2016 05:28PM

triple nipple wrote: »

Ehhh they did work. They even had ranks and designations based on qualifications and experience.

That was just Star Fleet.

17-08-2016 05:31PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

Are you arguing that artificial intelligence doesn't have the potential to replace jobs?

Do you advocate that people should work in jobs that have no purpose? Just to keep them happy, or perhaps just to keep you happy?

For example, we could have people moving piles of rocks from place to place. No purpose to it but it would keep the people busy.

Why should we bother forcing people to work in jobs which don't exist?

Can you address the issue please of insufficient jobs in the future and how that fact fits into your plans and worldview?

why should i respond to your points when you don't answer in turn? I did answer your previous points, and asked questions, and you just rehashed your same points again. No point addressing your blind objection to working.

The difference between us is that I dont expect other people to pay for my lifestyle. I'll put in the time, and effort to gain the skills/knowledge to improve my lifestyle. whereas you believe that you're entitled to being supported (by others).

Mr. teddywinkles · 17-08-2016 05:34PM

triple nipple wrote: »

Ehhh they did work. They even had ranks and designations based on qualifications and experience.

No monetary gain from it if i remember

starshine1234 · 17-08-2016 05:35PM

triple nipple wrote: »

Ehhh they did work. They even had ranks and designations based on qualifications and experience.

I would use the Star Trek universe as a starting point. Start Trek don't describe how they achieved their nirvana, and I don't believe it could actually exist.

Star Trek have stated that no-one has to work. People are free to follow their desires.

What Star Trek don't say is how they solved problems like drug use. It seems they have no desire to take drugs, except alcohol, or fake alcohol. That isn't realistic.

But other aspects of the universe are plausible. If you have robots like Data, who can do any human task better than humans then humans are obselete.

Star Trek did have criminals too. Khan for example, and the other guy who took over a planet of robots.

But robots doing all of our work is plausible. Solving problems like war, violence, and drug use are much harder.

People need to address the concept of human obsolescence.

starshine1234 · 17-08-2016 05:45PM

Deleted User wrote: »

why should i respond to your points when you don't answer in turn? I did answer your previous points, and asked questions, and you just rehashed your same points again. No point addressing your blind objection to working.

The difference between us is that I dont expect other people to pay for my lifestyle. I'll put in the time, and effort to gain the skills/knowledge to improve my lifestyle. whereas you believe that you're entitled to being supported (by others).

I read your posts and take your points on board. I address them if they are valid. You don't.

Your post at the top of page 10 contains lots of semantic arguments, such as that removing benefits and leaving someone to starve isn't a punishment. I disagree. It is clearly disadvantageous to the person involved, and they will clearly see it as a punishment.

I say there aren't enough jobs now. You say there are, in Europe. You are factually wrong. What can I say here, except point out that you're wrong. I was being polite and not pointing it out as most posters will see your errors themselves.

You ask where the money will come from. I have already answered and said that companies need to pay much more tax. Income taxes should be reduced and company taxes increased. After all, companies aren't real people.

You ask who is hating the poor. You are, by advocating that they should be left to starve.

I say people who don't want to work should leave their job. You call me naive. I say it is happening every day. If you can't see it that's your problem.
My system allows for people to choose not to work.

If you put forward arguments that address the issues at stake I will respond.

Jayop · 17-08-2016 05:47PM

Deleted User wrote: »

It's funny the way that people who object to this always look at the suggestion given as being the only option. What prevents them from getting the knowledge/skills to work in any number of physical/labor jobs? Or learning to read and write? Gosh.

But that would require them to put in some effort into their development, and thats not fair.

It's not that it's not fair, it's that in the future it simply won't be viable possible for even the most enthusiastic learner, upskiller, worker to be assured of a job. It's an absolute inevitability that the jobless rate is going to multiply at some point in the not too distant future.

Unless you're the man who develops the computer then you're going to be scrambling for one of the very few low skilled jobs remaining. It's not a question of people being lazy, it's simply a question of their not being enough work to go around so what do we do? Do we allow people to starve or do we pay for them to live out of the wealth that will be gained by all this automation.

Maybe we can put them all in McDonalds 1 hour a week and pay them €200 an hour just so people feel better about themselves.

Mr. teddywinkles · 17-08-2016 05:56PM

Jayop wrote: »

It's not that it's not fair, it's that in the future it simply won't be viable possible for even the most enthusiastic learner, upskiller, worker to be assured of a job. It's an absolute inevitability that the jobless rate is going to multiply at some point in the not too distant future.

Unless you're the man who develops the computer then you're going to be scrambling for one of the very few low skilled jobs remaining. It's not a question of people being lazy, it's simply a question of their not being enough work to go around so what do we do? Do we allow people to starve or do we pay for them to live out of the wealth that will be gained by all this automation.

Maybe we can put them all in McDonalds 1 hour a week and pay them €200 an hour just so people feel better about themselves.

I think most of the new jobs now are of a very tertiary nature to be honest and what's new today can be obsolete in a few years times. Seems a bit ridiculous really.

17-08-2016 05:59PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

I read your posts and take your points on board. I address them if they are valid. You don't.

I took apart one of your posts, sentence by sentence, replying or asking questions. In return you gave me a paragraph, without answering any of my questions.

Your post at the top of page 10 contains lots of semantic arguments, such as that removing benefits and leaving someone to starve isn't a punishment. I disagree. It is clearly disadvantageous to the person involved, and they will clearly see it as a punishment.

Starve? What starvation? You're the only one to introduce that. This is about unemployment benefit.

I say there aren't enough jobs now. You say there are, in Europe. You are factually wrong. What can I say here, except point out that you're wrong. I was being polite and not pointing it out as most posters will see your errors themselves.

Germany is currently crying out for people to come work there because they don't have enough people to take the jobs. And you say there are no jobs>? Perhaps you could prove otherwise?

You ask where the money will come from. I have already answered and said that companies need to pay much more tax. Income taxes should be reduced and company taxes increased. After all, companies aren't real people.

More taxes on companies, who will see the high cost of labour in Ireland and the higher taxes, in turn resulting in less companies in Ireland (as they leave), resulting in higher unemployment and lower overall income for the government....

Yes, good logic there.

You ask who is hating the poor. You are, by advocating that they should be left to starve.

Do you actually read whats written? If someone is capable of working, and there are jobs available across Europe, then they shouldn't be on the dole. This is not about starvation.

I say people who don't want to work should leave their job. You call me naive. I say it is happening every day. If you can't see it that's your problem. My system allows for people to choose not to work.

Which results in a broken economy. You're living a pipe dream, expecting others to pay for your laziness.... you expect people who don't want to work but can work to stop working... but you want to tax the companies... who will have a shrinking workforce, and therefore will simply... leave.

Your logic will destroy this country. But then I guess everyone can starve together, or emmigrate. Oh what joy!

I'm done. It's just a circle of poor logic, and leeching. You do realise there will come a day when the people who are working will just have enough, and tell you to feck off? Patience is a limited resource.

Jayop · 17-08-2016 06:03PM

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

I think most of the new jobs now are of a very tertiary nature to be honest and what's new today can be obsolete in a few years times. Seems a bit ridiculous really.

What do you encourage your kids to do so you can be assured they won't be "scroungers" in a few years time? My oldest is at the age now when she's thinking about careers. The long time one has been teaching, has that got a future? Honestly it's hard to know even with something that should be futureproof like that. Medicine? Unless you're going to go into R&D of some description it's hard to know.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/60-of-students-are-chasing-jobs-that-may-be-rendered-obsolete-by-technology-report-finds-10471244.html

According to that around 60% of college students are now studying towards careers that will likely soon be obsolete. No amount of wishing away is going to change this.

17-08-2016 06:04PM

Jayop wrote: »

It's not that it's not fair, it's that in the future it simply won't be viable possible for even the most enthusiastic learner, upskiller, worker to be assured of a job. It's an absolute inevitability that the jobless rate is going to multiply at some point in the not too distant future.

Unless you're the man who develops the computer then you're going to be scrambling for one of the very few low skilled jobs remaining. It's not a question of people being lazy, it's simply a question of their not being enough work to go around so what do we do? Do we allow people to starve or do we pay for them to live out of the wealth that will be gained by all this automation.

Maybe we can put them all in McDonalds 1 hour a week and pay them €200 an hour just so people feel better about themselves.

The picture you paint is possible... but not in the near future.. more like the distant future. And you're suggesting to sacrifice today because of your fears for the future.

But heres a question. In my neighborhood a woman opened a cafe selling nice organic products and coffee. Nothing particularly expensive, just good food for working people in the area. She's making a decent income from the place. (always busy) No high tech knowledge needed. How does that fit into your near futuristic doom?

na1 · 17-08-2016 06:05PM

Jayop wrote: »

na1 wrote: »

Meanwhile there is LOADS of work to be done which requires certain skills.
I.e. cancer/heart decease medical research, which requires billions of euro to invest. But which can really save thousands of lives (the amount of people die in this country every year from cancer and heart related deceases)
So it is a matter of choice,
Give that multi-billion SWO bill to support people who are "low skilled" to support their comfortable life without job,
OR:
give that money to medical research teams which can potentially save anyone from serious illness or death.

What would be your choice?

Well if it's a choice between cancer research to save a few thousand people in Ireland or paying people some money so they can feed their family and we dontt have tens of thousands on the streets or starving to death I'd choose the latter.

Are you saying that one get laid off work is worse than one get diagnosed with cancer?

Regarding the "tens of thousands on the streets or starving" - I didn't see this in Eastern Asia (Singapore or Taiwan), and they have nothing close to Jobseeker Allowance, like here.
On the opposite: people are paying fortune there to get proper education.
Compare to the FAS courses, where the people are forced to take a free training -is a joke.

Jayop · 17-08-2016 06:10PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The picture you paint is possible... but not in the near future.. more like the distant future. And you're suggesting to sacrifice today because of your fears for the future.

But heres a question. In my neighborhood a woman opened a cafe selling nice organic products and coffee. Nothing particularly expensive, just good food for working people in the area. She's making a fortune from the place. No high tech knowledge needed. How does that fit into your near futuristic doom?

No, I'm talking about preparing and being realistic about what the future will bring. Of course everyone should strive to be employed in the present day, they should strive to be as skilled as they can.

Again, it's great that your person opened a cafe. Do you feel though that that that's a realistic aim for everyone who will be replaced by automation? That every person should open their own business all competing against one an other?

na1 wrote: »

Are you saying that one get laid off work is worse than one get diagnosed with cancer?

Regarding the "tens of thousands on the streets or starving" - I didn't see this in Eastern Asia (Singapore or Taiwan), and they have nothing close to Jobseeker Allowance, like here.
On the opposite: people are paying fortune there to get proper education.
Compare to the FAS courses, where the people are forced to take a free training -is a joke.

Having no form of income at all would be worse than getting cancer. If I was given a choice between not being able to food, clothe or house my family or getting cancer I know which I'd choose.

You're looking at this so narrowly. The people in Singapore or whereever that are doing the manufacturing jobs now will soon be unemployed thanks to automation. This is going to be a global problem.

na1 · 17-08-2016 06:15PM

Jayop wrote: »

Having no form of income at all would be worse than getting cancer. If I was given a choice between not being able to food, clothe or house my family or getting cancer I know which I'd choose.

So why people don't die on the streets of Singapore? There is no such thing as JA there.
Loosing a job != having no form of income. There are millions of jobs across EU.

17-08-2016 06:18PM

Jayop wrote: »

No, I'm talking about preparing and being realistic about what the future will bring. Of course everyone should strive to be employed in the present day, they should strive to be as skilled as they can.

Again, it's great that your person opened a cafe. Do you feel though that that that's a realistic aim for everyone who will be replaced by automation? That every person should open their own business all competing against one an other?

You have this focus on automation... but you should ead further. Many industries that previously embraced automation are returning to human workers... why? Because automated systems are often too expensive to install and maintain.

Will that change? Probably... but the science is not there yet to make it feasible. Some industries will indeed automate, but many will not. we will also have people blocking such automation of many industries and governments blocking the installation because of the rise of social unrest from unemployment. There's also a large group of opposition to allowing AI routines, and many of those people are in positions of real influence.

na1 · 17-08-2016 06:20PM

What future are you talking about? Recently my company was looking for high skilled IT professionals, and they couldn't get any good in the country.
There is a great shortage of skilled labor in Ireland. Yong people don't see the point to get the 3rd level when they can afford a comfortable lifestyle without education.

17-08-2016 06:21PM

na1 wrote: »

So why people don't die on the streets of Singapore? There is no such thing as JA there.
Loosing a job != having no form of income. There are millions of jobs across EU.

Be careful of referring to asia. They doctor their statistics. I've lived in Singapore. It's not as wonderful as you make out.

But I do agree that there are other options apart from JA.

Jayop · 17-08-2016 06:29PM

na1 wrote: »

What future are you talking about? Recently my company was looking for high skilled IT professionals, and they couldn't get any good in the country.
There is a great shortage of skilled labor in Ireland. Yong people don't see the point to get the 3rd level when they can afford a comfortable lifestyle without education.

I provided a link in the last page.

So companies are looking for SW developers now. That's great, and today in Ireland there's a shortage of software developers. That doesn't say anything at all as to what they will be looking for in the future. Cisco are laying off 20% of their global workforce, so the signs are their that those jobs aren't even sustainable in the long run.

starshine1234 · 17-08-2016 06:33PM

Deleted User wrote: »

...
Some industries will indeed automate, but many will not. we will also have people blocking such automation of many industries and governments blocking the installation because of the rise of social unrest from unemployment. ...

Yes, automation will lead to massive social unrest.

Jobs will be destroyed. I have already described this.

For example.
An app will exist which can diagnose illness better than human doctors. But doctors will lobby the government not to allow the apps to prescribe medicines. The only way to get prescriptions will be to pay a human doctor.
What about poor people? Will they willingly die under this system if they can't afford a human doctor?
Why should doctors be protected from technology?

Already there are expert systems, like IBMs Watson, which are very good at diagnosing illness. In the near future they will be better than doctors. They will tell you what medicine you need but the government will prevent you from accessing the medicine.
Will that be accepted or will that lead to civil unrest and war?
People won't willingly die to protect doctors from technology.

We see a lot of unrest because of Uber replacing taxis. What will happen when self driving cars replace lots of professional drivers?
Either the drivers are given a good standard of living for not working or else we will have massive social unrest.

There is no point in talking about individual industries or individual countries. All industries will be affected, and all countries will be affected.

How will society work if robots are doing all of our work for us?

Either we all accept that it's great to have lots of time off, or else we have massive wars.

na1 · 17-08-2016 06:36PM

Deleted User wrote: »

na1 wrote: »

So why people don't die on the streets of Singapore? There is no such thing as JA there.
Loosing a job != having no form of income. There are millions of jobs across EU.

Be careful of referring to asia. They doctor their statistics. I've lived in Singapore. It's not as wonderful as you make out.

But I do agree that there are other options apart from JA.

I'm not saying it is ideal place, I'm just saying that removing the entitlements like JA won't make people dying of starvation.

A friend of mine who arrived to the country with no catering skills or experience in that area got the kitchen porter job in 2 months.

Getting a job here is a question of motivation, not the survival.

Jayop · 17-08-2016 06:39PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

Yes, automation will lead to massive social unrest.

Jobs will be destroyed. I have already described this.

For example.
An app will exist which can diagnose illness better than human doctors. But doctors will lobby the government not to allow the apps to prescribe medicines. The only way to get prescriptions will be to pay a human doctor.
What about poor people? Will they willingly die under this system if they can't afford a human doctor?
Why should doctors be protected from technology?

Already there are expert systems, like IBMs Watson, which are very good at diagnosing illness. In the near future they will be better than doctors. They will tell you what medicine you need but the government will prevent you from accessing the medicine.
Will that be accepted or will that lead to civil unrest and war?
People won't willingly die to protect doctors from technology.

We see a lot of unrest because of Uber replacing taxis. What will happen when self driving cars replace lots of professional drivers?
Either the drivers are given a good standard of living for not working or else we will have massive social unrest.

There is no point in talking about individual industries or individual countries. All industries will be affected, and all countries will be affected.

How will society work if robots are doing all of our work for us?

Either we all accept that it's great to have lots of time off, or else we have massive wars.

The driving one is a great example.

Self driving technology and will put huge amounts of people out of work, like millions worldwide.

Taxis, Truckers, traffic wardens, Traffic police, delivery drivers, postal workers, bus drivers, Couriers.

Like this isn't pie in the sky stuff, this is technology that is just about ready to go into production and will not be prohibitively expensive. In fact, I'd say you'd probably be able to retrofit a vehicle with self driving equipment every soon for less than the cost of a years salary to the person who used to drive it.

Jayop · 17-08-2016 06:40PM

na1 wrote: »

I'm not saying it is ideal place, I'm just saying that removing the entitlements like JA won't make people dying of starvation.

A friend of mine who arrived to the country with no catering skills or experience in that area got the kitchen porter job in 2 months.

Getting a job here is a question of motivation, not the survival.

You really are incapable of seeing hte big picture. There's a finite number of kitchen porter jobs and organic cafe's that need to be set up. These types of jobs will be so limited as to make very little impact when the inevitable happens.

na1 · 17-08-2016 06:44PM

Jayop wrote: »

na1 wrote: »

I'm not saying it is ideal place, I'm just saying that removing the entitlements like JA won't make people dying of starvation.

A friend of mine who arrived to the country with no catering skills or experience in that area got the kitchen porter job in 2 months.

Getting a job here is a question of motivation, not the survival.

You really are incapable of seeing hte big picture. There's a finite number of kitchen porter jobs and organic cafe's that need to be set up. These types of jobs will be so limited as to make very little impact when the inevitable happens.

I'm not taking about total jobs vs total jobseekers.

There are probably thousands of the people on the Dole in that area (staying on the dole for years!), but they never showed up for the interview for that job. And the person who is just 2 months in the country got this job.
The question is: why that company didn't get 1000-s of applications for this position. Assuming all the people on the dole are actively looking for a job?

starshine1234 · 17-08-2016 06:54PM

na1 wrote: »

I'm not taking about total jobs vs total jobseekers.

There are probably thousands of the people on the Dole in that area (staying on the dole for years!), but they never showed up for the interview for that job. And the person who is just 2 months in the country got this job.
The question is: why that company didn't get 1000-s of applications for this position. Assuming all the people on the dole are actively looking for a job?

The answer is simple.

The people don't want the jobs. They aren't genuinely seeking work.They are playing the system.

So what?

They are happy with their lifestyle. Perhaps they grow their own weed and brew their own beer and hang around with other like minded individuals.

They probably say that workers are suckers for working so hard. Perhaps they're correct.

Workers should demand more time off and more free money from their government.

Workers would receive more money if income taxes were reduced and company taxes increased to compensate. This doesn't happen as the government doesn't give workers what they want.

The government does give job seekers what they want; some free money and loads of time off to smoke weed.
The government also gives faceless companies what they want; cheap labour and very low tax rates.

Ordinary people should cop on and demand more time off, lower taxes, increased company taxes, and legal weed and other drugs from their government.
Only if that's what they want of course but why wouldn't people want time off and legal drugs?

starshine1234 · 17-08-2016 07:11PM

na1 wrote: »

I'm not taking about total jobs vs total jobseekers.
...

Perhaps you should be.
If there aren't sufficient jobs then it doesn't matter which people take which jobs; there will still be unemployment. This left-over unemployment is what we are talking about. I suggest that this figure will rise and rise over the coming years, due to automation of all industries.

I will now explain how requiring people to seek work creates unfair or undesirable situations!

Consider 100 jobseekers.
10 jobs become available.
All 100 jobseekers are required to apply giving them a 10% chance each.
If allowed to say they didn't want to work then 60 of the 100 would say they don't want a job.
Now, the remainning 40, who actually want a job, have got a better chance of getting the job. A 25% chance instead of a 10% chance.
Much better system.

Overall, far more people are happy under the new system than under the old system. Under the old, people are forced to apply for jobs they don't want. People who do want jobs feel they have no chance. Under the new, more people are happy, except the 30 who want jobs and can't get one.

Under the old system one of the 60 might actually have got the job despite not wanting it.
Who benefits there? I'd suggest that everyone involved loses out.
The employer gets an employee who doesn't want the job. A genuine jobseeker doesn't get a job. Lose, lose, lose.

Universal income for everybody!

hardtrier · 17-08-2016 07:29PM

Would you like to be 64, having worked all your life for very little, reared a large family and sent them all to third level, made redundant at 59, stuck on the scrapheap in the middle of the countryside with no hope of getting a job with grey hair and wrinkles, listening to people with jobs calling you lazy? Answer: NO.

Mr. teddywinkles · 17-08-2016 07:30PM

na1 wrote: »

I'm not saying it is ideal place, I'm just saying that removing the entitlements like JA won't make people dying of starvation.

A friend of mine who arrived to the country with no catering skills or experience in that area got the kitchen porter job in 2 months.

Getting a job here is a question of motivation, not the survival.

No all you will have is crime and petty theft going throw the roof. Mass muggings but hey you know best.

LeinsterDub · 17-08-2016 07:32PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

Yes, automation will lead to massive social unrest.

The spinning Jenny will destroy society!

na1 · 17-08-2016 07:41PM

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

No all you will have is crime and petty theft going throw the roof. Mass muggings but hey you know best.

Are you saying that the level of street crime is directly linked to the welfare levels?
I have bad news for you:
According to stats the burglary levels in the UK (and I assume in Ireland) are much higher than in the Eastern European countries with social assistance levels are next to zero

The Dole

Comments