OECD says: Youth Unemployment a Future Issue

I was in Hungry Jacks the other day. Wanted an Aussie Burger. You know, the burger that includes beetroot, so that you know it is an Aussie Burger, or Pommie Burger, or Dutchie Burger, or Name-of-Your-Own-Country Burger. Anyway, I was there to buy, one Aussie Burger.

The burger was for my wife. My own meal was KFC: grease-on-the-wing, three pieces of instant diet buster. Although -- according to my possibly biased tastebuds -- relatively low in salt. So my meal was slowly congealing in the car, while I went to Hungy Jacks for a burger for my wife.

It was 6:16 pm.

How do I know it was 6:16? There were several large displays of the time, all part of the fast food ethos of the takeaway burger joint.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

First thing to get my attention was the women at the left hand end of the counter. "Uh-oh!" I thought, "It'll be a long wait behind those two!" They already had a dozen or so cups of calorific drink, with an equal number of freshly squeezed, just add water, sugar flavoured iced confection. (I hesitate to call the instant stuff "ice cream".)

Service was, however, fast. The two women were soon presented with their large paper bags, stuffed to the top with burgers. "Have a good evening," wished the pleasant chap providing the service. "I hope you have friends to help you eat all of that," I thought. It was possible -- judging by the size of the women in question -- that the large, lard laden meal was intended for just the two of them. Oh well. My only worry was, that they had been served quite quickly.

6:18 pm

Then I noticed the older woman behind the counter. Keys on a lanyard around her neck. Lanyard flipped behind her back, to keep it out of the way. Serving fries with one hand. Holding her mobile phone to her ear with the other.

"Where are you?" she growled. "We need you here! Now! I have to use my own mobile so that I can help out while I'm talking. Where are you? Why are you not here?" She paced backwards and forwards, scooping chips, muttering instructions, demanding answers.

6:19 pm

"Could you re-enter all of this onto your machine?" This was the counter-hand to the right, asking the counter-hand in the middle. "My machine won't work." The order was re-entered.

"I'm sorry," said the middle counter-hand, "We have lost our connection to the eftpos facilities." "I used the card earlier today," said the customer. "Oh, no, it's not your card, it's our connection. The whole store has lost its link to the card services."

"Do you have some cash?" asked the woman. "Any excuse to get me to pay," replied her husband with a smile, handing over cash. "Thank you, I'm sorry for the inconvenience," said the polite counter-hand in the middle.

6:20 pm

"No, I'm sorry, we are not hiring anyone older than 17. Can you fill in an application form? Would it be possible for you to come back tomorrow? Thank you." The calm counter-hand in the middle, again. The job seeker left.

6:21 pm

"He's not rostered to come in till 7!" said the lady with the phone. She had now finished with the phone. "I'm due to leave at 7," said the calm one. "Who made the roster for today? It's not very good," said the right-hand counter-hand." "We'll just have to get by," said the phone woman, probably the store manager. Then, to the two women -- girls -- in the kitchen, "Are you two coping okay? Is she doing okay?" "Yes, I'm fine. She's doing okay." It seemed that one girl was reluctant to speak, or light on in English.

6:22 pm

A girl filling cardboard cups with ice-cream: Pull the handle, a flow of ice-cream -- which stops. Push the handle back, pull again, a bit more ice-cream flows out. Repeat: push, pull, push, pull... until several cups are full.

6:23 pm

The calm young man had a quiet moment away from the counter. Took some milk from the fridge... The milk lid was open, milk spilt over his arm, leg, the floor. A quick glance at the spill, at the counter, at the new customers arriving. Shake the milk off his arm, load the milk container into the drink machine, back to serving at the counter.

6:24 pm

Manager returns from delivering burgers to the drive-by window, sees milk spilt on floor. Pauses. Sees customers, service, cooking... carries on.

6:25 pm

Calm young man hands me my packet with one Aussie Burger. "Have a good night," he says, with a friendly smile. "Thank you," I reply, returning the smile. I leave Hungry Jacks, burger in hand, back to the car where my own chicken meal is slowly cooling. Impressed by the way that the HJ staff were serving and coping.

The OECD believes that young people will have more and more trouble getting employment. Well, if they're under 17 years old, they can apply to work in Hungry Jacks.

I'm unemployed but I'm too old. So my own employment prospects seem to be even worse that those of younger people. Even Hungry Jacks don't want me!

On the other hand, I don't think that I am suitable. Could I cope with the controlled chaos of rush hour at the takeaway joint? Could I remain as calm and polite as the young staff behind the counter?

I admire them. I hope all goes well with them. The staff remained polite, friendly, efficient through imminent chaos.

Well done!

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Suicidal Rights

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

There have been articles and letters in The West recently, about the suicide of Erin Berg. Despite care and attention, Ms Berg committed suicide in Mexico. The current situation is, that Ms Berg's sisters want access to full details of the pre-death care given to Ms Berg by the WA Health Department.

There are plenty more issues which are being avoided.

There is very little information on the actions of the sisters, prior to Ms Berg's suicide. What were they doing, to help their suicidal sister?

My own view is that they should have -- could have -- done very little. Support, care, love, listening... time. That is what one person can give to another. Beyond that, you should not force your opinions on someone else.

Nor should the Health Department force someone to act against their own will. Yes, you prevent harm to others. But suicide is a choice, an option -- an individual's right.

Which leads to the main, missed point: If Erin Berg wanted to commit suicide -- why should she be prevented? Were there good reasons? We are not told. Was her life too painful to continue? We are told that she was depressed; was there no "cure" other than suicide? If so -- then suicide should be an acceptable option.

We have been informed, that Ms Berg had to hide her intention to go to Mexico.

So this poor woman -- depressed, suicidal -- has no option but to trick everyone, to sneak off, to end a miserable life in lonely misery.

What happened to sympathy? to caring? to sharing the burden so that the end, at least, is less miserable?

Yes, it's a hard decision to make. But which is worse: Being watched, perhaps locked in or drugged, so that you are forced to continue what to you has become an unbearable life? Or, to have the support and kindness of friends and family, as you make a valid choice to escape -- the only way that you know how.

Perhaps that honest, caring and sharing support would make the end easier. Provide closure, at least, for friends and family.

Perhaps such care would even have shown Ms Berg that life was, in fact, almost worth living.

Who knows. But the lock up and prevention approach, certainly failed.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Virgin on the Ridiculous

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

With apologies -- for the ridiculous headline -- to Carry on Henry...

Have you seen the big ad for virginblue -- the one that says, "a whole airline working around your schedule"? There's a sample on page 17 of my edition of Monday's West.

What's wrong with that ad?

"a whole airline working around your schedule". The ad graphic and text indicate a whole lot of planes flying between brisbane, sydney and melbourne. (My use of all lower-case letters is deliberate; I'm copying from the ad.)

Perhaps I should provide a hint: "a whole airline working around your schedule". With a graphic and the text bragging about lots of virgin planes flying between brisbane, sydney and melbourne. This ad is in The West Australian. Do you see the problem?

Do you think that the virgin ad men are not sure where The West Australian is published? Or perhaps they don't realise that "brisbane", "sydney" and "melbourne" are across the continent from Western Australia?

Or perhaps virgin just does not care. Sure, they have to advertise. But the West Australian market is small. There is no need to write a new ad -- with new ideas, or with lies about the frequency and importance of flights to and from Perth. Just run the same old rubbish from the eastern states.

Who cares about Perth, anyway.

Geographic awareness arises

Well, well, well... Ad men can notice the obvious!

4 May update: The virgin ad men have updated their ad. Under the tag line, "connections in all the right places" is a picture of planes and some text which claims that "We've got it covered with 2900 weekly flights..."

Perhaps they have realised that there is, in fact, more to Australia than just Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. They've realised that the west does exist. Soon, they may even remember the name of one of our cities...

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Air Fare Wars

Key points

1. Airlines put up just enough "cheap" tickets to get you into going-on-holiday thinking.
   
2. They depend on you checking prices first (to see if the fare war stories are true) -- committing to the holiday next -- and leaving actual ticket purchases until major portions of the holiday are confirmed.
   
3. By then it is "too late" for you to back down. Everything else is arranged. You bite the bullet and pay for the expensive tickets which, now, are all that are available.
   
4. Sucker!
   

Long-winded logic

A few of us were discussing air fares. In particular, the recent news that airlines were offering huge discounts on air fares because people were not flying. The global economic crisis and all that.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

We only had two examples of the "air fare war". On that limited evidence -- there is no air fare war.

Is the public being conned? Yes.

The limited evidence

1. One person had seen some cheap seats to Brisbane. He suggested that family members could all fly to Brisbane. Going back to the airline the next day -- the cheap fares were gone.
   
2. In March, I bought tickets to Dublin. A week after the "air fare war" was declared, I checked current prices. The cheapest ticket now costs more -- $600 each more -- than it did in March. Oh, and the flight goes the long way -- an extra eight hours longer.

So what happened to the "air fare war"? Here's my guess:

There was one cheap ticket for sale. Possibly two. Few enough that they disappeared very quickly. (Bought by the airline boss, perhaps.) But there were just enough cheap tickets on sale that they lasted for, perhaps, 24 hours.

What then?

The cheap tickets are gone -- or withdrawn -- but only after enough people have seen that they exist. Perhaps there were just enough cheap tickets to show the gullible journalists and travel writers? People who did not check the earlier ticket prices read the news of an "air fare war"; think, okay, it looks expensive but it must be cheaper than it was... and buy tickets at the usual -- or higher -- prices.

The real catch

Surely, plenty of people know that the available tickets are not really cheap... So what? How do people plan a holiday:

1. Check air fares
   
2. Talk to friends, family, relatives to be visited... that is, build an expectation that the holiday will happen
   
3. Make sure that holiday accommodation is available, add up all the costs, decide that a holiday is feasible, then...
   
4. Go back to the airline website... find that the "cheap" tickets have disappeared... but...
   
5. Decide that all the preparations have been made -- that holiday expectations have been raised -- friends and relatives are eagerly awaiting your visit -- so you may as well go anyway...

You were committed to the holiday because of the cheap air fares. Those fares are no longer available -- but you are committed -- so you accept the inevitable and pay more.

Sucker!

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Easter and Eating Out

Over Easter, pubs may only serve alcohol with meals. Why? say pub owners, Why can we not serve alcohol to drinkers? After all, it's a public holiday, we're not very religious, people want to drink...

More correctly: Pub owners want to sell drinks. Any time, any day. That's where they get their profits.

One pub owner was reported as saying that Easter is just a public holiday... why should drinking be restricted... Australians are not very religious anyway.

Do you see the paradox?

Australians are not very religious. So Easter is just a public holiday... Hang on... If we are not very religious -- then why is Easter a holiday?!

As I understand it -- not being very religious myself -- Easter is a Christian celebration. If we do not want to celebrate a Christian event -- why do we need that holiday? To take the pub owner's logic to its reasonable conclusion: There should be no Easter holidays...

Sorry, mate -- you can't have it both ways!

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Shop Hours and Competition

Quick points

(1) Multinational chain store coporations want extended trading hours. Forcing all shops to be open longer will destroy the smaller, "family run" shops. This will result in a clear benefit for the larger shops -- less competition, more market control, more profits.

(2) Coles have recognised that they cannot defeat Woolworths. Instead, they aim to gain market share at the expense of smaller, "family run" shops.

Logic and waffle

Why do shopkeepers want longer shopping hours? Is it to allow their customers more choice in when they shop?

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Well, even the kindest of us would not expect that rich businesses want changes solely to benefit their customers. So what is the benefit to the shopkeepers?

Do they expect us to spend more money in their shops because we have more time to spend it? That's possible. Though I would hope that extended shopping hours would lead to more time to choose... More time to browse and compare. Total spending may go up -- but there is (I hope) a limit to how much people are willing to spend just because there is a shop open.

Does every shopkeeper support extended shopping hours? Not really...

Extended shopping hours are supported, largely, by the larger shops and chains. By the businesses which can easily afford a few extra staff, if there are commercial -- or strategic -- benefits.

Then there are the "small" shopkeepers. The family-run businesses. Where the shop is your life and the rest of life fits in between shop-open hours. How will they cope with longer shopping hours? They won't...

Imagine that you are a small trader, owner and manager and sales assistant etc etc etc... for a local shop. You work long hours: behind the counter when the shop is open, in the office, stock room, etc when the shop is closed. Now imagine that the shop is open for more hours each day...

You must now spend more time behind the counter. You have a choice: less time planning, managing, restocking, etc -- or less time for a life outside the shop.

Sure, you could hire extra staff. An easy decision for a chain store -- just tell Personnel to hire more staff. For the sole trader, hiring and managing staff is just one more burden.

So what happens? You want time for a life of your own. You sell the shop to a multinational conglomerate. They demolish your shop and build extra parking at their not-quite-so-local shopping centre. You get a job there, as a sales assistant.

And that is the basis for wanting longer shopping hours: competition. Or, rather, reduction of competition.

Larger companies have all the office organisation set up to hire more staff, to be open longer hours. Their smaller competitors cannot handle the extra work; they will be forced to close. The result will be, less competition for the larger shops, larger market share for the larger shops, in the long run more profit for the larger shops and less choice for us, the customers.

Footnote on Coles

Coles are opening a "new style" of store. Flasher, with more emphasis on fresh produce. Why are they doing this?

Coles' major competitor is Woolworths. Coles -- according to their boss, as reported in the paper -- are not able to take market share from Woolworths. Instead, they will compete with the local butcher, the local deli, the local grocer...

You thought that competition was good? Only when it can be destroyed...

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

"Public" TV

I was at the airport tonight. Had to wait a few minutes for the plane, so I sat down. Happened to be facing the tv set.

On tv was one man hitting another with a cricket bat. Hit him once, paused. Hit him again and again.

I tried staring out the window.

Looked back at the tv. There were people partying: snorting whatever tv actors snort; dancing with topless girls. I have no problems with the latter, an improvement to most parties.

It just doesn't seem to be the right sort of stuff to show on a "public" tv set. In an airport, where anyone passes by.

To tell the truth, I avoid the "violence and drug references" on tv at home.

It's just a bit harder to avoid it on a public tv at an airport.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Cash handouts for new TVs

The government is giving us all money! Woohoo!

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

But we will all waste it on new plasma TVs, made in China, shout the naysayers. No we won't, reply the economic experts, we will spend it on items produced locally, thus boosting the local economy! Stop arguing and just give us the money, cry the tax-paying public.

We are all going digital, cries the media-funded government. You must all throw out the old analogue TVs and buy new digital TVs!

There's even an ad campaign: Buy a new digital TV now, before it's too late! The ad campaign is starting in the east, where analogue TV will start to disappear a bit sooner that elsewhere.

Is this stupid, or what?!

The government has been criticised for giving away $900. One of the grounds for criticism is, that we will just spend the $900 on a made-in-China digital TV.

Then the government starts to advertise, Buy your new digital TV now -- before the old-style analogue is switched off. Why is analogue about to be switched off? Because the government said so.

On the one hand, the government says, Here is $900... I'm sure that you will spend it on local products and not on new digital TVs. On the other hand, the government is saying, Now you must go out and buy a new digital TV.

Cut out the middle man

The government could give each and every tax payer a new, made in China, large screen plasma digital TV.

Think of the discount for such a bulk purchase! Why, it would probably only cost about... $900... per set...

And solve two problems with one decision. So simple. So obvious.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

What Standards do we Expect?

"Our young and not so young... are not sure what is expected of them." (Letters, The West, 3 Apr 09)

Now there you have the core of the problem.

Is it okay to swear in public, at a person trying to do their job? Is it lawful for the government to give taxpayers' money back to taxpayers? Is self defence a good justification for hitting a policeman? Are you allowed to shoot an intruder in your own house? All of these are questions which have been answered by the courts.

To me, some of them seem obvious. Yet lawyers have spent hours -- or weeks -- debating the issues. In some cases they debated the "facts", such as the way that people usually speak, or the probable thoughts of an accused at the time of an attack. Other cases debated the meaning of existing laws, or of the constitution.

At the time of the "alleged offence", what were the thoughts and decisions of the accused?

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Legal explanations

"Hmmm... Under the precedent set by the case of The Crown vs Dick Turpin, I believe that it is legal for me to act to defend myself from an over-violent attempt to restrain me in my pursuit of a violent conclusion to this current fracas. Therefore I am perfectly correct to assume that I may use excessive force in order to further my chances of causing bodily damage to this uniformed officer who is attempting to restrain my alleged partner in this alleged physical confrontation."

Or perhaps, "I f*ing disagree with this f*ing public f*ing officer and it is my f*ing right to f*ing shout in his f*ing face in order to f*ing express my f*ing disagreement in the f*ing usual f*ing way that I f*ing talk."

Does anyone -- other that a lawyer -- really believe that people think that way?

Lawyers decide what society requires

The law is set up -- perhaps -- to maintain, reflect and reinforce standards of acceptable behaviour. The law is also set up to allow lawyers and judges to interpret it, in terms of phrasing, precedent and the legal view of the common man's standards and expectations. The result is, that the law is a self-sustaining system which operates entirely separately to society.

But what is it that society really wants?

Apparently we -- society -- want the right to swear in public and swear directly and forcefully at public officers attempting to do their job. That's the legal interpretation. The next case will probably aim to prove that the accused do not, in fact, normally speak like that...

Apparently we -- the public -- want the right to bash police who are attempting to stop a brawl.

Apparently we -- you and I and our neighbours -- want the government to have the right to take away our money as taxes and give it back as economy-saving cash handouts. Apparently we do not want the government to save a lot of time and money by simply charging us less tax.

Has anyone asked you what you really want?

The law is a self-contained system, constantly evolving, under the control of lawyers, judges and the occasional politician. When will someone ask the public what they really want?

Ask the public: What do we really want?

How easy would it be, to create a public opinion website. "The law currently allows self defence against an intruder in your own home. Do you support this?" "The law currently allows self defence against an intruder in your own home. You are allowed to use only enough force that a lawyer and judge -- who were not there, who will never be in that situation -- believe was just enough to defend yourself. Do you want these limits removed?" "The law currently allows people to swear loudly and threateningly at a public officer. Do you support this?"

Sure, the list is endless. But at least we could make a start. Ask a few questions, get some actual opinions from society. Publish the results.

What are our standards for our society?

"Our young and not so young... are not sure what is expected of them." We have the technology to ask the questions. We have the technology to publish the answers.

Find out what society really thinks -- outside the law courts. Discover what standards society would really like to live by.

Discover what society really does expect, of the young and of the not so young.

Perhaps even build a legal system which reflects society's standards, rather than the cleverness of lawyers.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com