There is an article in this week's the Economist that got me thinking.
Many countries which used to have draft/compulsory military training had an option for conscience objectors to serve it as social workers instead. This would usually involve working in hospitals or homes for the elderly, caring for the sick and the infirm etc.
Now that many countries abandon draft, this is also being phased out. But as a society we are getting older and we need social workers, and there just isn't enough volunteers. Should we require the young to spend 6-12 months as social carers?
Discuss.
No. Remember the cost to the economy of taking a person out of productive work for a year or two.
Quote from: Viking on August 27, 2011, 08:17:52 AM
No. Remember the cost to the economy of taking a person out of productive work for a year or two.
Nobody's productive at 18.
Yeah, but drafting them for 2 years only postpones their usefulness even further.
Mandatory "volunteer" social work is for suckers.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 27, 2011, 08:25:38 AM
Mandatory "volunteer" social work is for suckers.
And for pot heads. We call it "community service".
Pay social workers more if you want more social workers.
I had to do that. Waste of time.
All that'll do is drive down the need and value of actual social workers with real skills and replace them with people who not only don't want the work but will probably be terrible at it. Do you really want your mom taken care if by some 18 year old idiot who doesn't want to be there?
I think that what we really need is more participation in the workforce by healthy 50-70 year-olds. But that will need a change of attitudes. A lot of people in their 50s jack their career in because they are sick of the stress and have enough cash. How can we lure some of these folk into having second careers that are very useful whilst being less stressful and less well-paid?
Quote from: Martinus on August 27, 2011, 07:58:22 AMBut as a society we are getting older and we need social workers, and there just isn't enough volunteers. Should we require the young to spend 6-12 months as social carers?
Ponder, after being drafted as a social carer and dealing with those obtaining benefits, how fast those young people will vote to slash social benefits for the rest* of their lives.
* At least until they approach about 5 years of eligibility for same.
Probably not. The modern consensus seems to be that the nanny state can nanny more and more, but you don't owe the state anything more than taxes. In fact, the state owes you.
No we should not.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 27, 2011, 09:10:04 AM
I think that what we really need is more participation in the workforce by healthy 50-70 year-olds. But that will need a change of attitudes. A lot of people in their 50s jack their career in because they are sick of the stress and have enough cash. How can we lure some of these folk into having second careers that are very useful whilst being less stressful and less well-paid?
This is what's been happening. Every single employment report is showing that older people are working it's the 16-25s who are getting shafted. There's not the jobs, the old aren't retiring and they're expected to do numerous free internships - which is fine if you've got somewhere to stay in London but if not you're screwed.
The entire raison d'etre of the US federal government is to transfer wealth from working age people to retirees. I don't think we need another form of transfer.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 27, 2011, 09:10:04 AM
I think that what we really need is more participation in the workforce by healthy 50-70 year-olds. But that will need a change of attitudes. A lot of people in their 50s jack their career in because they are sick of the stress and have enough cash. How can we lure some of these folk into having second careers that are very useful whilst being less stressful and less well-paid?
Hmmm... that sounds like something I'd be ready to check out. I'm towards the end of my working career, though I could probably work for another ten years. But likely I'll retire in a few years, or five years at most, especially if I keep feeling the way I do now. But if I could find something a bit less stressful I might want to keep working longer, and working with people could be just the thing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 27, 2011, 02:25:51 PM
The entire raison d'etre of the US federal government is to transfer wealth from working age people to retirees. I don't think we need another form of transfer.
Really? And I thought it was to fight Indians.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 27, 2011, 09:10:04 AM
I think that what we really need is more participation in the workforce by healthy 50-70 year-olds. But that will need a change of attitudes. A lot of people in their 50s jack their career in because they are sick of the stress and have enough cash. How can we lure some of these folk into having second careers that are very useful whilst being less stressful and less well-paid?
Build a Walmart.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 27, 2011, 02:19:03 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 27, 2011, 09:10:04 AM
I think that what we really need is more participation in the workforce by healthy 50-70 year-olds. But that will need a change of attitudes. A lot of people in their 50s jack their career in because they are sick of the stress and have enough cash. How can we lure some of these folk into having second careers that are very useful whilst being less stressful and less well-paid?
This is what's been happening. Every single employment report is showing that older people are working it's the 16-25s who are getting shafted. There's not the jobs, the old aren't retiring and they're expected to do numerous free internships - which is fine if you've got somewhere to stay in London but if not you're screwed.
I think you are getting close to the lump of labour fallacy here. Older people continuing to contribute are not the cause of youth unemployment. Fear of the double-dip is a more relevant factor I think, it takes a lot of time and cash to make a young worker productive...........in the current circumstances short-termism is rife :(
Quote from: KRonn on August 27, 2011, 03:08:28 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 27, 2011, 09:10:04 AM
I think that what we really need is more participation in the workforce by healthy 50-70 year-olds. But that will need a change of attitudes. A lot of people in their 50s jack their career in because they are sick of the stress and have enough cash. How can we lure some of these folk into having second careers that are very useful whilst being less stressful and less well-paid?
Hmmm... that sounds like something I'd be ready to check out. I'm towards the end of my working career, though I could probably work for another ten years. But likely I'll retire in a few years, or five years at most, especially if I keep feeling the way I do now. But if I could find something a bit less stressful I might want to keep working longer, and working with people could be just the thing.
Yes, my missus, at 47, is losing her mojo for working long hours and taking heavy responsibilities. We are moving towards less stressful alternatives. I remain convinced that she will still work at least 40 hours a week in something or other.............probably something in the community I think :cool:
In the UK aren't most of the people now shouting for 'national service' largely people who never had to do it ?
iirc you'd need to be 70+ to have done it in the UK.
Quote from: Martinus on August 27, 2011, 07:58:22 AM
Discuss.
Hell no. While the basic idea is good, it's just too much of a hassle for anyone to really get something good from it. There could be a voluntary work idea, like there was in the 30s. But fuck compulsion.
I know if I had bee forced to do social work when I was 17, there would be no way in hell I'd ever do charity work when I'm in my 40's. I would have remained pissed off. I think the nation would get a better value from my charity when I'm established than when I was a surly 17 year old.
Quote from: Martinus on August 27, 2011, 07:58:22 AM
There is an article in this week's the Economist that got me thinking.
Many countries which used to have draft/compulsory military training had an option for conscience objectors to serve it as social workers instead. This would usually involve working in hospitals or homes for the elderly, caring for the sick and the infirm etc.
Now that many countries abandon draft, this is also being phased out. But as a society we are getting older and we need social workers, and there just isn't enough volunteers. Should we require the young to spend 6-12 months as social carers?
Discuss.
If you force someone to do something, you better be prepared to face the consequences of disobedience, sabotage, etc. The military can handle that. What about hospitals? "Oh sorry I gave the wrong medicine to that guy, haha."
Quote from: Monoriu on August 27, 2011, 06:01:27 PMIf you force someone to do something, you better be prepared to face the consequences of disobedience, sabotage, etc. The military can handle that. What about hospitals? "Oh sorry I gave the wrong medicine to that guy, haha."
It's not the humans that are in danger. People are usually decent when it comes to taking care of handicapped or sick or old people, so no worries there.
But you should fear for equipment. I accidently destroyed some pretty expensive lab equipment during my service because I simply didn't know how to handle it correctly. Other people I know destroyed cars that were meant to transport the people they took care of. It's pretty awkward when you have to explain why the bus you drove is lying on the side on some parking lot because you tried powerslides... ;) But as you are forced to serve, you can't be held liable short of gross negligence, which is hard to prove.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa299%2FSlayhem%2FRAD.jpg&hash=b2722feb945233f685121d37b065ed707f2550ee)
I've changed my mind. She seems happy enough.
The answer is 10. It's not "rad" to not know arithmetic.
I figure if I get drafted, by God someone better give me a gun for my trouble.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 27, 2011, 08:23:24 AM
Yeah, but drafting them for 2 years only postpones their usefulness even further.
Yeah, that's what college is for.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 27, 2011, 07:07:55 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 27, 2011, 08:23:24 AM
Yeah, but drafting them for 2 years only postpones their usefulness even further.
Yeah, that's what college is for.
They wouldn't give me a gun either. They did give me a plunger though. They said I could keep after what I did with it.
Quote from: The Brain on August 27, 2011, 06:26:03 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa299%2FSlayhem%2FRAD.jpg&hash=b2722feb945233f685121d37b065ed707f2550ee)
I've changed my mind. She seems happy enough.
No way that chick deserves a 6 attack factor.
Quote from: The Brain on August 27, 2011, 06:26:03 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa299%2FSlayhem%2FRAD.jpg&hash=b2722feb945233f685121d37b065ed707f2550ee)
I've changed my mind. She seems happy enough.
I was in a ski hut in Austria a couple of years ago. When washing the dishes, one of the other persons found a plate that read "Reichsarbeitsdienst 1937" on the back.
The draft should be reinstated, but only for the gays. They can form their own penis battalions.
This "draft" for social work should consist of 18-20 year-old females working in pleasure baths, and 18-20 males in gladiatorial combat. All for the amusement of us over-30 types.
Everyone else ages 20-30 can slave away in the mines/factories. At age 60...time to go into the tanks.
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 28, 2011, 12:50:52 AM
This "draft" for social work should consist of 18-20 year-old females working in pleasure baths, and 18-20 males in gladiatorial combat. All for the amusement of us over-30 types.
Everyone else ages 20-30 can slave away in the mines/factories. At age 60...time to go into the tanks.
I want a tank. Wasn't there a movie about that once?
Quote from: HVC on August 27, 2011, 09:08:00 AM
All that'll do is drive down the need and value of actual social workers with real skills and replace them with people who not only don't want the work but will probably be terrible at it. Do you really want your mom taken care if by some 18 year old idiot who doesn't want to be there?
wins the thread
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 27, 2011, 04:43:37 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 27, 2011, 02:19:03 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 27, 2011, 09:10:04 AM
I think that what we really need is more participation in the workforce by healthy 50-70 year-olds. But that will need a change of attitudes. A lot of people in their 50s jack their career in because they are sick of the stress and have enough cash. How can we lure some of these folk into having second careers that are very useful whilst being less stressful and less well-paid?
This is what's been happening. Every single employment report is showing that older people are working it's the 16-25s who are getting shafted. There's not the jobs, the old aren't retiring and they're expected to do numerous free internships - which is fine if you've got somewhere to stay in London but if not you're screwed.
I think you are getting close to the lump of labour fallacy here. Older people continuing to contribute are not the cause of youth unemployment. Fear of the double-dip is a more relevant factor I think, it takes a lot of time and cash to make a young worker productive...........in the current circumstances short-termism is rife :(
Yes, but in general terms, if someone over 50 has enough money to voluntarily retire from the working world (well, that ain't a very much Hungarian phenomenom, gotta' tell you), wouldn't it be better for society if he/she did? He would continue to consume, while emptying a spot for someone else.
There should certainly be more schemes to help young people get jobs but conscription is just criminal, whatever they're being used for.
Okay, we should conscript old people. They can still carry a gun. They can still absorb a bullet.
Quote from: Tamas on August 28, 2011, 02:48:46 AM
Yes, but in general terms, if someone over 50 has enough money to voluntarily retire from the working world (well, that ain't a very much Hungarian phenomenom, gotta' tell you), wouldn't it be better for society if he/she did? He would continue to consume, while emptying a spot for someone else.
I've never understood this kind of thinking. The number of jobs in an economy may be finite, but it isn't fixed. The fact that random person A holds a job may actually increase the chances that random person B can get a job, rather than reduce it. This particularly true where person A is experienced enough to train newly hired but inexperienced perople, which wouldn't be hired at all if there was no one to teach them the job.
Maybe this kind of thinking
is "a very much Hungarian phenomenom?"