Social grants now support 15.2m

DJ... said:
But the major stumbling block in this plan is education. Without the skills, the private and public sector can create as many jobs as they like and the outcome will be a negative one.

We need huge investment in education in this country to even begin to resolve the employment issue.
Click to expand...

That, in no uncertain terms is where the solution lies. We'll reduce unemployment, improve the choices which voters make, raise the quality of the labour-force, lower crime stats (and perhaps even the severity of violent crimes), andsoforth. The list of benefits that a dramatic improvement in education would give us, is very long. Unfortunately the ANC perceives it as a threat to their leadership, so they'd prefer to suppress their own people.
 
flarkit said:
That, in no uncertain terms is where the solution lies. We'll reduce unemployment, improve the choices which voters make, raise the quality of the labour-force, lower crime stats (and perhaps even the severity of violent crimes), andsoforth. The list of benefits that a dramatic improvement in education would give us, is very long. Unfortunately the ANC perceives it as a threat to their leadership, so they'd prefer to suppress their own people.
Click to expand...

A study was done in Cameroon, one of the world's poorest countries. Why is it so poor? Basically because of corruption. The went into the lack of education and the lack of infrastructure and that roughly worked out to Cameroon should be 4 times as poor as the USA - but it isn't - it is 50 times as poor.

Getting a position or a promotion as a teacher has nothing to do with your ability and everything to do with your contacts. Education in Cameroon is run but people who all come from the same town.

There is no incentive in any part of the economy for anyone to start up any business. The cost of starting a company is ridiculous. Trying to import anything has underworked customs officials looking for bribes. It is a mess.

Okay - let's assume corruption is at a level where the additional cost thereof doesn't deter investors. Having access to a suitable workforce is then a factor. And by suitable one can read 'educated'. Educated to the point where everyone is a brain surgeon? Nope, education can include other skills too - like welders, turners and fitters, etc. Gosh - sounds like Bantu education in a way. We may need to rethink the education strategy and have a tiered system. Basic formative education and then split into technically weighted and academically weighted streams and a possible tertiary option - technicon for technical and varsity for academic.

Companies could get the social grants and run apprenticeship programmes like they used to. That could pick up the folk who aren't in school and try and get some productivity out of them.

And the other thing to do is club unions into extinction. Scrap the notion of minimum wage. For those that will bleat about exploitation of workers are missing that the alternative to a low wage is far worse than a low wage otherwise people just wouldn't do it. Unions are there to enrich union leaders, not the workers.
 
With about a quarter of SA's population living off the sweat of others, what incentive is there to improve themselves? The ANC got what they wanted, welfare state now fully operational.
 
Education here is a complete stuffup. We should be getting our best people to be responsible for educating our kids - instead, teacher salaries are so low that only the least qualified professionals would accept a job as one.
My fiancee is a qualified teacher. She has been offered R8000 a month. What kind of compensation is that for the responsibility that would sit on her shoulders?
 
evilstebunny said:
With about a quarter of SA's population living off the sweat of others, what incentive is there to improve themselves? The ANC got what they wanted, welfare state now fully operational.
Click to expand...

There is none. Social grants should never be a replacement for the rewards of gainful employment. And they should have a expiry date. They most certainly shouldn't be there for pregant school children - give them state sponsored abortions or let them raise their choices on their own.

That aside there is probably a class that would be different. I'd have a life long term for policemen disabled in the line of duty but thinking along these lines can also get us to putting a value on a person's life. Is a policeman worth more than the child head of an AIDS affected family?
 
Any foreigner with a counterfit sa id book can get a grant. My domestic is a prime zim example.
 
Sinbad said:
Education here is a complete stuffup. We should be getting our best people to be responsible for educating our kids - instead, teacher salaries are so low that only the least qualified professionals would accept a job as one.
My fiancee is a qualified teacher. She has been offered R8000 a month. What kind of compensation is that for the responsibility that would sit on her shoulders?
Click to expand...

The landlord holds all the power. Teachers aren't scarce enough. The landlord is typically the government - nobody else hires teachers in large enough numbers. And those teachers who are at private schools tend to hunker down.

And at R8000 a month there are plenty of people who would take the job. I am not saying that there are plenty of useful people who'd take the job though. Unfortunately the unions have too much power and queer the pitch for everyone.
 
DJ... said:
The major issue here is that the government continually introduce more socialistic ideals and even laws, where there simply isn't enough in the fiscus to do so. Now I have my objections to socialism, however if it is introduced correctly, it can produce jobs. Unfortunately the government has proven its ineptitude in this department. More than just that, revoking grants in favour of employing those same people means that government find themselves competing against the private sector for a limited pool of money. That's not sustainable either.

The only solution to the employment simply wouldn't make most of you happy. It is to reduce tax on corporates, reduce grants, funnel more into entrepreneurship and education, and amend CSR laws to stipulate under what circumstances companies qualify for tax reductions to the extent I'm talking about. As it stands, the King code is all we have (which is great but not law for the most part). And there are very few sweeteners in place for the private sector to do so.

Bottom line is government need to reduce social grants, expand and maintain their public works adequately if they're not prepared to open it up to the private sector, and sweeten the deal for the private sector to expand their CSR programmes and in doing so, grow their business. Unfortunately we have one hand not knowing what the other is ever doing and that continues to hamper growth. Alternatively the government can remove itself somewhat by opening all services up to the private sector. What is lost in revenue is made up for with increased tax collections through new jobs created; it takes advantage of market efficiencies; it resolves the majority of employment issues; it's a flexible model etc etc etc.

Government is hindering the process. Every time they meddle, they're muddying the waters of an already inefficient system. That's why these revolts are inevitable and why the government machine continues to regulate itself into relevance...
Click to expand...

Greedy capitalist bastard. I'd vote for that....
 
Albereth said:
There is none. Social grants should never be a replacement for the rewards of gainful employment. And they should have a expiry date. They most certainly shouldn't be there for pregant school children - give them state sponsored abortions or let them raise their choices on their own.
Click to expand...

A lot of 'shoulds' in that reply. Thing is we all know how it 'should' work, but I cannot see the leeches ever having to get out of the current system - its all downhill for the rest of us from here on really.
 
evilstebunny said:
A lot of 'shoulds' in that reply. Thing is we all know how it 'should' work, but I cannot see the leeches ever having to get out of the current system - its all downhill for the rest of us from here on really.
Click to expand...

I'd say that we don't all know how it should work. Those with a socialist bent will want 'more' grant and those with a free market bent will want 'less' grant.

Either which way - unless it is 'managed' it just becomes a big hole into which money is poured for no return other than the same crappy government. And therein lies the problem - it buys votes. And that is pure corruption.
 
Albereth said:
The landlord holds all the power. Teachers aren't scarce enough. The landlord is typically the government - nobody else hires teachers in large enough numbers. And those teachers who are at private schools tend to hunker down.

And at R8000 a month there are plenty of people who would take the job. I am not saying that there are plenty of useful people who'd take the job though. Unfortunately the unions have too much power and queer the pitch for everyone.
Click to expand...

haha this was a private school. Government school salaries are even lower.
My point remains - if you want good education, you gotta attract top talent to be the educators. Teaching should not be seen as a menial, babysitting role as it currently is, but rather as building the foundation of the nation.
 
Sinbad said:
haha this was a private school. Government school salaries are even lower.
My point remains - if you want good education, you gotta attract top talent to be the educators. Teaching should not be seen as a menial, babysitting role as it currently is, but rather as building the foundation of the nation.
Click to expand...

As I said - private schools have people who hunker down - the positions don't open up very often and there isn't an educaiton department rotating people around. Landlords have the power - they set the rent. Take it or leave it - there are plenty more tennants.
 
Albereth said:
As I said - private schools have people who hunker down - the positions don't open up very often and there isn't an educaiton department rotating people around. Landlords have the power - they set the rent. Take it or leave it - there are plenty more tennants.
Click to expand...
And you still miss the point.
A teacher isn't a tenant. A teacher is an asset (well, a good teacher is), and an investment in the country's future. Education needs GOOD teachers. Don't force them to do something else to earn a living. Entice CAPABLE staff - don't just fill the post with a person no matter what quality.
I know teachers who have moved to China to teach there. Triple their SA salary, free housing, and a free plane ticket per year to come back to SA to visit family.

Anyone wonder why China is doing so well?

They give a damn about educating their kids.
 
Sinbad said:
And you still miss the point.
A teacher isn't a tenant. A teacher is an asset (well, a good teacher is), and an investment in the country's future. Education needs GOOD teachers. Don't force them to do something else to earn a living. Entice CAPABLE staff - don't just fill the post with a person no matter what quality.
I know teachers who have moved to China to teach there. Triple their SA salary, free housing, and a free plane ticket per year to come back to SA to visit family.

Anyone wonder why China is doing so well?

They give a damn about educating their kids.
Click to expand...

A teacher is a tennant. She wants to occupy some accommodation, i.e. a job. The rent for the accommodation is -R8000 per month. She would rather have a rental of -R20000 per month. The landlord laughs and says the only rooms I have are in the -R8000 range, perhaps after a few years there may be an opening in a better spot. But decide now becuase I have lots of people wanting this place.

Trying to claim that a teacher is an asset doesn't work in the economic sense. She is a commodity. No better or worse than any of the other commodities.

I do know what you are saying if I left the economics out of it. Of course a good teacher is invaluable. That some of us were blessed to have had someone who cared. And all the rest. Unfortunately there is no incentive for the landlord to do anything other than what he is currently doing.

China - China made some huge mistakes and managed to kill off up to 60 million people in its little experiment in giant leaps. It thought that education was not important, that people could be told what they needed to know and sent the educated to rural areas to turn steel knives into steel knives or to cause a plague of insects by killing off all the birds - or whatever other nonsense Mao and his bunch of loons considered a good idea.

More recently it has been trade that has driven a growth in China. And that growth is not the same across the country. The coastal areas have made progress, inland is still catching up. The incentive is to attract foreign investment. Foreign factories want an educated workforce, an educated work force requires education, the incentive is there for the Chinese government to fund education. And China trades with an English speaking world - of course they want those skills at a premium.

We have no such view at a government level. In fact we appear to do all we can to get rid of investors but allowing Malema a platform, but being corrupt, by setting high wages, by protectionism, by all manner of things. If you want to grow, you need to trade - and trade is never one way.

Your fiance is trapped between idealism and reality. It would be wonderful if education was rewarded according to how we fell it should be, but we have a corrupt government. A government that steals money, a government that wastes money, a government that plays to its union partners, a government that is influenced by communists, a government that is so morally bankrupt that it will push the interests of racial groups rather than the country as a whole.

And you think I missed the point.
 
Milano said:
There are a few misconceptions which are being promoted in this thread. The main misconception being promoted is that recipients of grants are all unemployed loafers. Not true. Now I realise that this is myBB so people are going to disagree over the colour of the sky. Many here are complaining that their tax money is supporting loafers. If the grant money ends up simply being transferred from the poor to the rich (as per Nicodeamus) then why are the rich complaining?
Click to expand...
I'm complaining because it causes stability, the less unequal a society the more unstable it becomes. Many of these people have no entrepreneurial incentive, it is just the way human nature works, yet they aren't rich the wealth simply gets transferred back to the rich. At the same time, the middle-class that is suppose to stimulate the rich also shrinks due to heavy taxation while the poor gets more and more. You have to admit that this is socially very unstable?

Yet, if we indicate all sectors of the economy benefit then it is argued that the funds are non-directional. A substantial portion of these funds get spent on, for example, buying fruit and veg from the street vendor, so the vendor can earn a living. So the grants do get redisbursed within the economy.
Click to expand...
Yes most of them are spent on basic services, meaning these are comsumed fast, where does the poor guy go after his money is spent? Back to beg. No wealthcare is created.

Wealth = access to services and goods, by giving him a set small amount he has only access to a few goods, if you get him a lot inflation will kick in and eventually even high amounts of money will buy you nothing, see Zimbabwe for an example of this.

Many others within low income communities are benefiting, not just the individual recipient. Stop the grants, the street vendor stops making a living.
Click to expand...
This is only half true, at first the street vendors who are subsidized will stop benefiting, however in the long run they will be able to put up fruit shops. It comes down to supply and demand, if there is a demand for their food then the people will buy it, if they don't have money they will be forced to be creative to trade.

Then there is labour. Many of these low-income workers can only survive with the grants supplementing their low incomes to create an almost liveable wage. Remove the grants and a large percentage of your low-income work force can no longer afford to survive and are therefore unable to provide basic labour to the economy.
Click to expand...
At first this is the case, however if they enter the labour force they attribute skills, eventually these skills become rare and they up their worth. However my concern isn't so much those who are in the labour force, it is the unemployed. The labour laws only keep them out of the jobs, companies can't afford to hire new people. Where do they go? they stay on the streets and go back to government to beg for help.


If you are given a Ferrari you may take less care of it than if you earned it. Social grants are for things we associate with basic human rights like medical, educational, food, shelter. Well if you work a full time job and still can't afford to school your child then the assistance provided by a grant is helpful to pay for an education for your child. Entrepreneurial incentives? These people will never be entrepreneurs under any plan.
they don't need social assistance, social assistance kills entrepreneurial incentives.I also have a problem with government education and healthcare.

What is education? Here is the current problem in SA: Government gives an infrior education and then keeps uneducated workers out of the workforce. They go on these grants. These people are growing. However remove education from government and you will find companies that want to educate people towards certain skills and you will have a bigger labour force, which is the ultimate goal of education.

They need social assistance for practical survival. Like when even the wealthy are complaining about toll roads, fuel prices, these people face the same challenges, only 100-fold, because it doesn't simply mean buying one less PS3 game for them.
Click to expand...
Any tax that is not a flat rate such as vat only keeps the poor from getting into the wealthy bracker. If you keep taxing the wealthy then eventually the top worker class fades away then the low middle class etc etc. It is a ripple effect. Even those Ps3 games are made by poor workers and shipped into SA by say dockworkers or whatever the case might be, I would rather have the wealthy filter money through than the poor.

SA is not a highly unequal society due to grants. It is easy to view the entire low-income sector of society as loafers, it is just not an accurate or fair portrayal. Yes, we will read about the loafer who collects grants for his dead brother but they don't publish stories about decent, hard working people struggling to survive, and in need of social assistance for practical real-world realities. .
Click to expand...
It is due to a few things most of them
1. Grants
2. Mainly labour unions
3. Government monopoly on an inferior education
4. over-taxation of companies and the public sector
5. To many fiscal stimuli plans.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Milano said:
Also, grants and social welfare assistance are not purely an "SA is going to the crapper" issue. Grants have always been around. When kids went to government schools before 1994 and parents paid R400 per year, those were subsidised ie. grants. And for single parents who paid R36 per year in school fees, those were grants too. And if you couldn't pay one cent and yet your child went to school, then those were grants too. Not just SA today. Not just SA pre-1994. In the US, the 39 million people who collect food stamps and social assistance. They are not there due to socialist policies or lack of 'entrepreneurial incentives'. We should consider looking at this in a non-aggressive, unbiased manner.
Click to expand...

The national party implemented grants to buy the coloured votes under PW Botha, that is actually when government interference started in our economy. It is also one of the reasons why the blacker populations grew much faster than the whiter ones during apartheid and even today.
 
DJ... said:
But the major stumbling block in this plan is education. Without the skills, the private and public sector can create as many jobs as they like and the outcome will be a negative one.

We need huge investment in education in this country to even begin to resolve the employment issue.

Alas, the ANC prefer that not to happen, therefore every single South African will be hit hard to keep this country's head above water. The poor will feel it the worst. The ANC's core voter group...
Click to expand...

Don't you believe it would be better if you get government out of education entirely? Roll education back, bring in tax breaks to organizations who benefit from universities and furthermore put schools on a similar programme. I feel the market would be better to assign education than government and in fact it will probably be cheaper than it currently is. It will be in their interest to education the populace. In America for example the sponsorship ratio for a university is 90% from the private sector 10% from government. In SA it is almost the other way around.
 
Sly21C said:
I definitely need to start working hard to convince people to stop having a lot of kids if they can't afford to financially take care of them. Do you guys think if I give speeches at different churches every Sunday that after some time people will eventually listen? I was thinking of (in a very sensitive and respectable way) go to a church, ask permission from the priest beforehand and then stand in front of people and tell them about the dangers of having too many kids.

We can't just let this continue, us complaining though social networks and forums instead of taking action doesn't help.
Click to expand...

Over-population is a social issue among poor people, especially those dependant on government
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X