Thread: Why Us??

I've had the pleasure of working with/for 4 different people who are the wealthiest in the country for almost 17 years. 2 names you will know, two, I doubt (privacy and anonymity is #1, always)

They wouldn't have given a dry meatless boiled sucked bone to a starving dog.

Generous to those who make them money - absolutely - but to others? You are but a consumer to take every single last cent off. Bees. Cattle. Ants.

The way they think is so different it is impossible to put down in a short space. They are highly abnormal. The way they see people is alien.

Charity is used as a humble-brag. It is always done to make them money.

They pay no tax. Ever.

I can't speak for the people you speak of wooPixel, although I have known many people in the same wealth bracket who give away more than most of us earn in a life time with no expectation of anything in return they just don't put adverts in the pres when they do so

I wish I knew and could give credit to the person responsible for the following definition

"Foreign aid is poor people in rich countries giving money to rich people in poor countries."

Originally Posted by woodPixel

I've had the pleasure of working with/for 4 different people who are the wealthiest in the country for almost 17 years. 2 names you will know, two, I doubt (privacy and anonymity is #1, always)

They wouldn't have given a dry meatless boiled sucked bone to a starving dog.

Generous to those who make them money - absolutely - but to others? You are but a consumer to take every single last cent off. Bees. Cattle. Ants.

The way they think is so different it is impossible to put down in a short space. They are highly abnormal. The way they see people is alien.

Charity is used as a humble-brag. It is always done to make them money.

They pay no tax. Ever.

Interesting generalisation. Why would one spend 17 years with folk like that?

Originally Posted by issatree

....f you gave $1, the Children concerned get approx. 20 cents....

If you are lucky, sometimes it is as little as 2c. Unfortunately some people who set up these charity sort of thing is just looking at ways to earn themselves a wage

I'm pretty sure i read somewhere that with all of it's wealth, the Vatican could essentially end world hunger... And i'm pretty sure they aren't the only religious institution that has money either...

I don't generally make donations to "Charities" at least not significant ones, because i know that only a small fraction of my money actually goes to the cause... I'll donate food and clothing and the like, but i won't give the Cancer Council any cash... I had a mate that used to be one of those annoying a-holes that stops you on the street to get you to sign up to donate to them every month, the money and bonuses he got was criminal!

Philanthropy amongst the wealthy in the US is a bit of a competition to see who can give how much, in Oz it is hardly done at all apart from a few notable exceptions such as the recent announcement by one of our mining magnates. There are schemes where any donation can be directed to individuals or even loans can be arranged for start up businesses in very poor regions which then has the knock on effect of employing people if the business grows enough. The following link is how to do this..https://www.kiva.org

I've been emailed lists of the money that Australia donates to "poorer" countries, it comes to thousands of millions of Dollars. Yet we have to borrow the money to give away???? Is there something wrong with my thoughts on this. What ever happened to the saying Charity begins at home, with the donations to other countries, we should be living in the land of plenty, no homelessness, pensions that are of a standard that people can afford to have the heater/cooling on, have a decent meal. Yes, some of the community squander their money on gambling, booze, smokes etc, but a lot pay a lot of money in rents just to have a roof over their heads, yet others are given a nice house, at minimal costs, which they abuse, destroy almost, leave in squalor, then expect to be given another one at Tax payers expense, just to do the same all over again. If they want to trash the "house" that's given to them, let them live in it, the more the destroy it, let them live in it, it's their problem NOT ours, maybe then, they might learn acceptable behavior.
It's our Great Grandchildren that will be paying off the monies that's borrowed today.
Kryn

Originally Posted by KBs PensNmore

yet others are given a nice house, at minimal costs, which they abuse, destroy almost, leave in squalor, then expect to be given another one at Tax payers expense, just to do the same all over again. If they want to trash the "house" that's given to them, let them live in it, the more the destroy it, let them live in it, it's their problem NOT ours, maybe then, they might learn acceptable behavior.

I think it's called called mental illness, and in a way it is "our" problem.

My opinion is that there should be nothing for 'free' when it comes to Govt $$ (it came from taxpayers remember). You need house/food/etc, then you need to work for it, even menial labour like picking up rubbish, volunteering in nursing homes, rural fire services, SES etc. A social shift in the entitled society needs to be brought about. I am not saying that one size fits all, there will always be exceptions, but pleeease the welfare system is way to easy in these tough times.
I'll duck down low now as I am sure this will stir up debate.
But remember I said it is my opinion.
Lyle.

Originally Posted by Lyle

My opinion is that there should be nothing for 'free' when it comes to Govt $$ (it came from taxpayers remember). You need house/food/etc, then you need to work for it, even menial labour like picking up rubbish, volunteering in nursing homes, rural fire services, SES etc. A social shift in the entitled society needs to be brought about. I am not saying that one size fits all, there will always be exceptions, but pleeease the welfare system is way to easy in these tough times.
I'll duck down low now as I am sure this will stir up debate.
But remember I said it is my opinion.
Lyle.

I agree with you in general. I think that some people on welfare abuse it massively and there isn't enough deterrents to stop them from doing that.

I also think however, that this as a broader problem is one of the governments & businesses making.

Fact is, most of the able bodied, mentally sound welfare recipients are unskilled... and with the advent of globalisation, there just aren't many (if any) jobs for an unskilled worker. I hate it when the whole "we need to teach them skills" schtick gets banied about too, you haven't been able to get them to apply for a job at woolies for 4 years, but yes, I'm sure they'll attend Uni and complete a bachelors degree in civil engineering and assist in building the next wave of dodgy apartments. Not going to happen unfortunately. And while manufacturing is a truckload cheaper overseas than it is here, it won't change.

Funnily enough, i don't think there's enough technology being developed/utilised to combat this problem. All jobs these days have an online application process, no one walks into somewhere and says "Can i have a job please" anymore. So if you're on welfare, you need to register thought the government, have a unique "welfare ID" or whatever, and that ties in with your profile on Seek.com or Indeed.com or whatever. The government should get a report from those companies with a dump of all the jobs they've applied for. If the applications don't meet the criteria (e.g. they've not completed year 10 but keep applying for the CFO job going at the bank), then they get their cash payments cut and replaced with store cards or something not redeemable for cash.

I think the biggest issue is that there's no disincentive for being on welfare. And when you look at the battle people on welfare face in getting a half decent job, it just gets put in the too hard basket and perpetuates the cycle...

Originally Posted by Lyle

rural fire services, SES

These both require training, and are spasmodic or on demand, so I'll leave them out, but I would certainly never categorise them as menial.

Originally Posted by Lyle

even menial labour like picking up rubbish, volunteering in nursing homes,

Ok, so which do you choose to do, and for how often/long? Or would you prefer a spot of Public Dunny cleaning? This sort of thing is very easy to say when there is no danger of having to do them yourself.

Just a way of putting already disadvantaged people (mostly, or to some extent) on the lowest rung you can think of, and keeping them there.

Just my 2c,

Yes i completely agree the wealthy can eliminate world poverty many times over, a recent study claims that world poverty could be ended with $175 billion per year. Which does sound like alot, but in reality this sum of money can be easily made up by asking OECD countries to give up 1 minor or part of a luxury. For example, Americans spend twice this much on coffee per year and thats just one country and one luxury.

So yes the "rich" of the world can end world poverty, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of us are considered rich, although it may not always feel that way.

I'll just leave this here for those who haven't seen it yet..

Global Rich List

As technology removes jobs there will be fewer to go around. I was previously working on three projects in vague AI that could easily have been modified to remove stock brokers, accountants and lawyers.

The black boxed HFT was easiest and is now a reality. HFT was a killer of jobs. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of financial analysts now longer exist. These were the biggest pay packets in the industry - Gone. Google "UBS trading floor".....

My last job was CTO of a credit card processing and risk profiling business. Billions in profits. Billions. I reduced a worldwide business down to 8 people in one large room in North Sydney. EIGHT. It previously had thousands in (if I remember right) eight countries. 99.98% of them were terminated. It was entirely replaced with 3 massively redundant data centres: Sydney and two in The Netherlands. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Sydney office is now gone.

Every process was automated and it took only one year to do it. Profits remained however....

Manufacturing needs fewer people. What a factory of 50 people could now be done with 5. LEGOs massive production facilities are entirely devoid of people (I was invited to view some a decade ago)... Trucks one end - trucks the other end. Zero people in between. Zero.

It is entirely foreseeable that entire industries that employed hundreds of thousands will employ a handful: steel, trucking, taxis, shopping itself. AutoCars will destroy them.

Lets blame these "bludgers" for not getting off their arses and scrubbing toilets - or picking up rubbish.

We have never lived in a more wealthy time - never. The real issue is income distribution.

A universal basic income is coming. It does not matter if you like it or not, nor what your political or economic opinions might be. The reality is that a massive swathe of people will never have a full time career. Perhaps a series of ever demoralising part-time-casual jobs (and three of them!) will become an increasing reality - Bachelor or masters degrees and resultant debt included.

Lose a job at 50? Hmmmm? Are you 25 and tried to get a real job? Hmmmm? How many 50+ years olds are here that have applied for 300 jobs in the last 3 years without a single phone call back? Plenty, I'd wager.

The economic picture and income division needs to change - radically. The existing models of one-eyed-capitalism are dysfunctional and has becoming an ever stiffening corpse.

AI is coming. It will terminate 90% of everyone's jobs.

There aren't enough toilets to scrub.

We need to rethink it - its important.