Posted by: graemebird | December 20, 2008

Raiding The Sick, Blind, Lame, Old, The Solo Mums, And The Aboriginals, For Manhours.

I decided to bring this one to the front because of the extreme stupidity of fatfingers over at Catallaxy.  Here is what fatty said. Notice that he thinks that because Rudd has never had a proper job this will somehow make miracles possible. Notice also this erroneous view that listening to alleged “experts” can help matters. Reason and economic science can help matters. Listening to idiots cannot. 

As always when I hear the extreme stupidity of fatfingers I tend to blame his Mother. 


“If only that was the solution. I attended a talk by a Mental Health Council fellow a while back, and he had plenty to say about homelessness. Specifically, that accommodation is just the start, and what is really needed is “joined-up thinking” on the matter – better coordination of physical health services, mental health services, drug and alcohol programs, training and employment programs, domestic violence programs, the legal system, the police, and so on.

The government has all this information, but will it ignore the experts again? Who knows, maybe Rudd (as bureaucrat extraordinaire) will actually be able to deliver on the gargantuan task. But I won’t hold my breath. The fact that he’s put a price tag on it already does not bode well.”

Notice that nowhere in this story is any mention of the word  JOBS or WORK.  Below is how you would bring that problem down to some reasonable level where charity could deal with the rest. But success here as elsewhere really depends on massive spending cuts. Getting rid of the welfare of the sick, like anything else, depends on getting rid of public servant welfare by closing down hundreds of bureaucracies.




A cold wind blew across the continent the day the ponzi-money died. People are doing it tough. We who are having to work for a living are beginning to focus the evil eye upon those who depend on welfare. Oddly enough the more costly taxeaters in the public service have escaped any such scrutiny. As if the sum total of interventionism ….. As if the major cost of government………. were the unemployed.

Our mindset diverts us from the true enemy and we find ourselves uptight about some of the poorest people in the community. Our burdens are legion, but dimly understood, so we blame the simple welfare recipients ahead of the more costly bludgers, whose scheming leads these more unfortunate OTHERS into idleness and sloth. We blame the welfare dependents. We don’t blame the latte-drinking leftists who fill up our government departments. We don’t blame these more expensive miscreants, who spend their time and our money, perpetrating any number of schemes to impose costs on everyone else.

Nevertheless it is surely a problem for us and/or for the out-of-work, that  those who have become dependent on welfare are not making a greater contribution to the production of wealth in this country.


It is a problem for THEM!!!….. As some of them really are quite sick and poor.  The rebuilding of their health and happiness would require for most of these people to earn more money.  We ought to see if we can do something about their distress. For it diminishes us not to try and help them through better policy.

“A RECORD number of Australians are claiming disability pensions. New figures show 723,424 receive support payments each week.”

If we could pull 16 hours a week on average out of these people that gives us about 580 million man hours. And what with many other categories of people who are unable to find work we could easily bring that up above 1 billion. Still if we went and raided the public service as well and got an average of 35 or so hours OF AUTHENTIC WORK out of at least half of THOSE bludgers than we’d really be able to deal with all this energy-stress and just go from strength to strength.



Intuitively it might seem that bringing more people into the economy is diluting the capital/goods per person ratio. And that it would lead to lower real wages for the incumbents. In the theoretical world this need not be the case. We have some pre-requisites where the insertion of many migrants into the scene would be to the benefit of pretty much all incumbents in the economy. Even quite apart from filling specific skill needs that are in short supply. The theoretical situation is where nominal average wages are lowered by the migrants but consumer goods and services prices are lowered even faster. What pre-requisites might be required for such a good outcome?

1. Downward flexibility in nominal salaries and wages. If this is not possible the new migrants may dislodge incumbents from their jobs.

2. The economy used to a glacial increase in GDR. Since if this is not the case the injection of the new migrants would lead to increasing asset prices rather than falling goods prices. Which would be fine for some. But the benefits would not be distributed widely. It is often supposed that the increase in the workforce requires new money creation to accommodate the new participants. This may be the case if salaries and wages are not downwardly mobile in nominal terms. But this combination will likely exacerbate the distribution of wealth and income in favour of greater inequality.

3. We assume no welfare overhead. In the real world in 2008 the extra migrants would likely mean greater welfare overhead.

4. The real estate market would have to be more functional. Greater demand for living and working space would have to spill over into more high-rise development as opposed to spilling over into higher land prices and rents.

5. The problems to do with the private production of infrastructure would have to be solved. So that the greater demand on infrastructure would simply lead to the improvement and expansion of these goods. That is to say infrastructure would have to function in as calibrated and productive a way as private consumer goods typically do.

6. We assume no cultural/political overhead with the migrants. Problems with young male gangs, spillovers into legal aid and imprisonment costs. Spillovers into the political realm with new migrants being stooged on leftist policies. This sort of thing.

7. The extreme position where even fairly low-skilled immigration is benefiting everyone EVERYONE via the mechanism of price reductions requires a high ratio of  Productive Expenditure/Gross Domestic Revenue. That is to say that a very high degree of spending in the economy is being funneled back into private business. Less proportionately into consumer and government spending.

8. Further to the above in the case of new investment the migrants can reduce the cost of such projects. Reducing the cost and increasing the rate of capital update. Which brings with it a greater degree of technological ability since technological progress is imbedded in new capital update.

9. BUT THINGS CAN GO THE OTHER WAY. Supposing the ratio of Productive Expenditure/GDR was not high enough. Supposing that the migrants were chattel slaves. Supposing the tax rules for depreciation of capital investment were not favourable enough of the corporate tax rate were too high. Or that there was all this welfare state overhead. Well then the introduction of a great deal of new migrants could dull the incentive for rapid capital goods update. The business firms would benefit from the cheap labour and procrastinate on new capital updates and new technology. This would be the nightmare of the “race to the bottom” that people talk about. Sometimes with some validity. Often with far less validity.

Now I don’t want to imply by the above that new migration can never be a good thing. These are not absolutist points. This thread is not of a scope wherein I will be dealing with all the many gains that can be made via migration and we are not going to figure out in this thread how to take a balanced approach to migration. I’m only pointing these matters out to clarify just how we might raid the unused potential of the disadvantaged and the unemployed in such a way as to be a benefit to them and to us. 


We see here that in theory any amount of immigration could be of benefit to just about everyone if certain conditions could be met…. or NEARLY met. If the conditions were for-the-most-part fulfilled the rest of us would not need to feel threatened by rapid immigration and we would benefit via the mechanism of a reducing cost of living. In the real world these conditions will not be met sufficiently. And we would be advised to be picky with our immigration. Generous but picky. Not even generous if leftists are too much influencing the process.

Well thats the situation when it comes to recruiting foreigners for extra manhours. But how do things go when we are recruiting the unemployed and underemployed who are already within our society?


Instead of more welfare overhead we find that we can swing it that we have less. Instead of more leftist political overhead we can have less. But we have to get them employed in such a way as to increase the ratio of productive expenditure/GDR. We need productive expenditure to increase in nominal terms and as a proportion of GDR if we try and do this. We need to be mindful of various pitfalls. And we need to be mindful that many of these people ought not really be working a full week. 

Not long ago on a talkback show a fellow called Brian rang up and talked about the sort of abuse, assaults on his dignity, and generally how hard a time he is having as a sickness beneficiary. I think his problems with the hated Centrelink probably came when he dobbed some other beneficiaries in for abusing the system. This is a transgression which Centrelink folks may not be willing to abide by people within the orbit of their power. These people started putting him through the griller. Even at one stage asking him about the way he wiped his bottom. A satisfying outcome would be to have Centrelink burnt to the ground and salt put about the place so that nothing could ever grow there again and in fact have any mention of this hateful institution removed from the historical record of the Australian scene. But things are seldom so perfect in this world.

The hatefulness of powerless Australians being hassled by these creeps is why I cannot abide any notions of “mutual obligation” that Saunders is putting about. Or of “work-for-the-dole.” The horror. The horror. If we feel we need to hassle these people in such a demeaning fashion try dropping the benefit by $50 a fortnight and then see if this sick impulse to abuse these people is still evident.

Brian has severe diabetes. He had to get his teeth removed. He went to the hospital to get his teeth removed and perversely they took out all but ten of his teeth. So he was unable to eat normal stuff for a year because he couldn’t put together any dentures. So what he had to do then is borrow off his flatmates, get the rest of his teeth removed and get his dentures off his own back as for some reason this all didn’t fit in with the plans of bureaucrats. All your luck runs out when you no longer have independent means and things that start bad don’t get any better and people treat you like shit. But apparently Brian has very kind and helpful flatmates and he is able to pay off the $1000 dollars one fortnight at a time.

Brian has severe problems and I for one don’t want to be forcing this guy to work a full week. I just want to make it easier for him to work two days a week or three days a week to give him the extra income to help him look after his health. But the thing about the welfare its always enough to keep you alive. Its never enough for you to launch a job-hunting campaign. From Brians position every interview or phone call is a grave cost and a hateful humiliation.  We can do better.

Some media attention came to a 27 year old who had been on the sickness benefit these last 11 years. Apparently he only ever worked for about 7 months when he was 16. His dad is on the sickness benefit. Some sheila that he has 4 kids to is on the Solo Mums benefit. Its likely that they are not a couple for welfare purposes which is a common rort. His disadvantage is that he has ADHD. Hardly a sickness. But with the labour market and work scene being the way it is why would anybody want to employ him?

Normal improvements apply. We want to get rid of the minimum wage, reduce the company tax, increase the income tax threshold, deregulate more and all that. But this fellow isn’t going to haul his white trash ass around to one employer after another only to be rejected. And we don’t want Brian having to go through all that. We want the employers to come to them. If the 27 year old gets work in a small business we want things to be such that the employer might even give the lazy bastard a wake-up-call. And then send someone round to his place and give him a lift to work.


Rio Tinto cannot get enough workers for its various mining activities during this current extraction industries boom. So they’ve developed a program where they go around to these isolated aboriginal settlements. They find the most likely prospects, train them up to use various capital goods (the boss reckons women make the best truck drivers) and then set them to work in the mining towns. Astonishingly the minimum starting earnings are $90 000 a year. I don’t know about you but I don’t make $90 000 a year and am unlikely to anytime soon. Well what can you say about Rio Tinto but BRAVO!!!

What we want though is a situation where many firms greedily descend on these settlements and get all these guys employed. And its probably the case where a lot of these people really aren’t up to working a full week or leastways not right away. But we ought to have almost everyone working at least two 8 hour days a week and preferably three. Or 2 12 hour shifts a week or every 8 days.


The solution I propose is prosaic and dull and boring but the reasoning why this solution ought to work needed going over. If the explanation is old than perhaps it is old “wine” rather than old hat as one Misean explained. 

We want to allow the double-expensing, for tax purposes, of labour costs, for some of these people. This need not be considered to be a forever thing. We need not see this as a general and eternal solution. In the wider scope of economic theory there are negatives to this. I don’t deny these theoretical negatives. But assert that there are many real world considerations that mean that this measure will be a fantastic medium-term patch-up in what afterall are very hard times.

A sort of psychic lower bar has been set in our labour markets. A sort of minimum hurdle has been set.It has been set by every imaginable bad policy in the economy. By every measure that subtly predjudices in favour of big business. By every measure that forces people to have a qualification to do certain jobs (whether or not such restrictions have validity) by every measure that tries to push earnings up. We might judge economic policy on the basis of the theoretical capitalist economy. But we need to take account of how things are on the ground.

Imagine Brian having to traipse around to one employer after another. There he is with no teeth and bad clobber. Under the capitalist economy theory comparative advantage would come into play and he would be employed on some appropriate level. Under our real world he would be wasting his precious income and only humiliating himself. We cannot hope politically to get all the changes together needed to fix this scenario in some theoretically perfect way. We can however patch the situation with the double expensing for tax purposes of labour costs for these people.



Theories of the way companies behave are a prism which we can use to judge the situation. But they can hide as much as they reveal. For my part I suspect the firm in 2008 is most characterized by inertia. There are only so many hours in the day and already overworked executives, when taken together, may not produce the outcomes that are expected in theoretical economics where the firm is treated as if it were a single rational being.

I have my own theory of the firm which deals with the man and his intray. The man and his intray. And if you want to get anything done in a hurry you must make sure that the problem you want him to deal with winds up at the top of his intray and stays there. And when the other things cover it the word from the top is you keep on flipping the most important thing to the top of the intray.

We want to move quickly on something like this. We want this on the top of everyones intray all the time until people are likely to say “Hey you know this work we are doing here? Some of this could easily be done by a blind person.”. When such a discovery happens that a blind person could rightly do some sort of work we want that to be the top of everyones intray and we want the company to actually go out hunting down blind people to offer this work to them.



A reduction to absurdity may be offered here. If there is so much advantage to be had by doing this why not double expense all income? Why not maintain the hated company tax for the purpose of arm-twisting businessmen to set more people to work on the basis of double expensing all employee income. The person making such a critique would likely say that if the policy were not merely neutral, and therefore useless, it would be harmful as it would predjudice in favour of labour costs and against new capital investment.

But I make no claims for this policy insofar as long-term theoretical considerations in a capitalist economy are concerned. I only make claims for it as an expedient patch in our own interventionist economy. We need not let this squalor, indolence and humiliation continue. We would want our employers to solve these problems for us.

But what about the danger that the extra cheap labour will work against investment in increases in productivity? Well we need to follow up with measures that increase productive expenditure as a proportion of GDR and increase new capital investment generally. But we need to do that anyway. And when we have maxed out on such measures only then might we need to look at winding back this employment scheme.



Supposing the a person works for $16 per hour for 24 hours a week. If anyone could earn more than that we would have to assume that he was not within the orbit of the disadvantaged.  So we might set the double-expensing, for the sake of argument, at $384 per week at the upper limit.

Such an upper limit does not preclude some otherwise disadvantaged person working for 38 hours a week at ten dollars an hour and the employer double expensing that amount. The tendency then is for the program to expand, and for more people to slime their way onto it. For this reason we must analyze what might happen if almost everyone could take advantage of this program.



Well for one thing, as stated before I don’t propose this strategy as a forever thing. Its just to help our mates out in hard times. But supposing the program expanded and it was felt that there ought be no means test. That the pretense of people being sick only sickened people into pretense and that we ought open the program to all comers.

So we then have a situation where the first $384 (or lets say $400) of labour or salary cost for any one employee can be double expensed by the employer. IS THAT SUCH A BAD THING? No way.  Its fine. Not nearly enough of us are working and a lot more of us could be working part-time. Older people, students, housewives or housewife wannabes, entrepreneurs in “pre-production”, struggling artists and under future harsh conditions, even child labour might advantage such tax incentives. All sorts of people could be better off even if this measure were expanded to its greatest degree. Just so long as we studiously worked to cut government spending and any other interventions and taxes that predjudiced against investment and capital formation.

If the program expanded so that it no longer proved a strong enough incentive to business to employ the harder cases than you might have the first $100 dollars every week triple-expensed and the next $200 double expensed and perhaps that would be enough to get the harder cases through the door.


We could go two ways on this. We could sunset any such scheme. Or we could say we are not going to sunset this business but we are going to work hard to reduce the company tax rate to zero over time. Hopefully by the time the company tax is reduced to zero good habits will be instilled in our companies and the fact of no company tax will in itself make capital so plentiful that we will have a sellers market for labour of all categories.


I’m no believer in the negative income tax except as an expedient to dissolve most welfare without hurting people. If the negative income tax is granted it will tend to expand. Supposing we couple the negative income tax with this double-expensing business? We want to do this in such a way as almost no-one is actually taking a subsidy. We want to make it that they COULD take the subsidy IN THEORY if they were starving but almost no-one is taking the subsidy in practice. Really we want all such measures to come with their own built-in phase-out.


The company tax is already a distortion. Matters tax deductible are not subsidies. But they can act like subsidies as far as decision-making is concerned. Companies under the influence of the company tax will have less attention to cost-cutting than otherwise. Agency effects will be stronger. The company will borrow more since the interest is a tax deduction.  All aspects involved with the determination to run a higher rather than a lower profit will be blunted. The general competitiveness of business is lessened. And reinvestment being less capital accumulation and the rate of capital update is less.

The double-expensing of these costs may be a distortion in itself. But it will lead to the grave distortion due to company tax being eliminated. Since most companies will run a loss for tax purposes and a profit in reality. Hence the company tax as a consideration is eliminated just so long as profitable companies can work hard to figure out how to get a proportion of their work performed by these disadvantaged types. To employ these people might be a great big hassle at first.  But it will likely get to be less of a hassle as time goes on.


Well I’ll round it off here. But the main point of the story is that some evils are made less evil if they are 95% only theoretical considerations.

The evil of welfare dependence is not so evil if the welfare is there in backup and almost no-one is relying on it. The evil of the company tax on profits is not quite so evil if almost no-one ever has to pay this tax. That Centrelink has not been burnt to the ground would not be that intolerable an evil if almost no-one had to deal with Centrelink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: