Centrelink sueing thir own client for defamation
Tim
legal threats. MinterEllison today have served notice of an intention to
sue me for defamation of Centrelink staff at the Footscray Office. What
a waste of public money, instead of admitting their errors they sue
critics, disgusting Centrelink.
I guess that means my appeal against a Centrelink decision will be
slow-tracked. I do not have any money to pay for a defamation action,
that is not my intention to defame, Centrelink staff, but to make them
responsible for their actions and correct their mistakes promptly.
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/NoCourt/Docs/CSA.html#skipnav
Heretic
You are free to do as you please, but the information should be accurate,
shouldn't it? Some of the factual stuff is clearly out-of-date and
should be corrected.
Similarly, there is no problem with naming Centrelink staff, but your
claims about them should be factually correct, and not just your
interpretation of their motivations.
You might well find that your appeal is expedited, so that the cause of
your unhappiness is more quickly addressed. What stage have you reached?
Sylvia Else
On my reading of the letter, all you are being asked to do is to remove
the names of the employees from the site. It appears that if you do
that, no further action will be taken against you.
I see no reason to think your appeal will be "slow tracked". Indeed,
even if a defamation action were started against you, it would have no
bearing on your appeal, or vice versa.
Note the debt waiver rules:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/antsaa1999509/s97.html
Sylvia.
David Moss
@optushome.com.au writes...
Why not just get a job and ignore them?
--
DM
personal opinion only
Sylvia Else
Did he say he didn't have a job? This is Family Tax Benefit, not the dole.
Sylvia.
David Moss
syl...@not.at.this.address writes...
In his website article on this topic he states:
"I am an honest Centrelink client and a father looking for paying work."
BTW there was a radio segment on ABC Country featuring Hank Jongen,
National Manager, Centrelink, this morning. He spoke about the
Centerlink appeal process.
All you have to do is say the words "I would like that decision
reviewed" and it is reviewed by officers not involved in the initial
decision. If you are not happy with the result just say so and it will
be reviewed by an independent committee. All automatic, all without
personality issues, all without hassle.
But as I said, its much simpler to just get a job and forget about
Centrelink altogether.
Sylvia Else
OK, but having paid work doesn't put FTB out of reach, and few who are
elligible to receive it can afford to do without it.
Sylvia.
Bob Bain
<q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message id
<MPG.1e5308dff...@news.bigpond.com>:
>But as I said, its much simpler to just get a job and forget about
>Centrelink altogether.
It ain't necessarily so. For many people a job is a dream which
eludes them. Obtaining a job isn't as simple as simply requesting
one. If you are young healthy and have never been retrenched or
fired or told you are no longer needed then the impossibility of
finding work is possibly something that awaits you later in life !
To obtain (unemployment) benefit it is a requirement that a jobseeker
prove to Centrelink (and in many cases to an associated private
jobnetwork member) that job search criteria have been met.
As for the appeals process in many instances an appeal will succeed
provided the facts are clearly stated and accurate.
Social Security law is complex.
Seppo Renfors
I think the rent assistance gives it away!
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Moss
bob_ba...@tpg.com.au writes...
Meatworks takes on foreign workers
Australia's largest goat abattoir in south-west Queensland says it had
no choice but to employ a group of workers from Vietnam to fill a skills
shortage.
Western Exporters at Charleville will employ 20 overseas workers under a
four-year arrangement.
Some have brought their families with them and managing director Neil
Duncan says they have been well accepted.
"You know I think there was maybe a little bit of hesitation and a lot
of thoughts go through people's minds as to whether they're actually
taking my job or not, but now that the Vietnamese are here and they are
working side by side with the workers we already have there .... it's a
good mix," he said.
"People realise that we just can't get the workers anyway, so no-one is
losing a job, we just can't get the workers."
(from http://www.abc.net.au/news/australia/qld/longr/200602/s1560279.htm
)
I heard the manager of that plant interviewed in the "Country Hour" on
my way out past Goondiwindi last week. He rattled off a string of
meatworks that had sourced workers from Chile, South Africa and China
because they could not find Australians willing to work for them.
Rural industries are so desperate the government is considering letting
thousands more guest workers in to fill the void.
Yet some people like to play silly games with Centerlink instead of
taking up one of these jobs.
I take your point about age though. I'm 45 now. If I were to lose my job
without having a planned "escape route" I'd be in deep shit.
But I doubt I'd play games with bureaucrats in preference to moving to
where work was and getting on with it.
Stephen X. Carter
<q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
[snip, mainly about migrant workers in abbatoirs]
>Rural industries are so desperate the government is considering letting
>thousands more guest workers in to fill the void.
>Yet some people like to play silly games with Centerlink instead of
>taking up one of these jobs.
Indeed, but at what stage should a Centrelink employee say that "this"
person is (or is not) suitable for "that" job. Every person cannot be
deemed suitable for every job vacancy.
It's a complex issue, that perhaps could be well explored, but using as
an example the suggestion that someone (anyone!) ought (must?) go and
work in an abbatoir is frankly not going to advance the discussion.
--
steve.hat.stephencarter.not.com.but.net
Nothing is Beatle Proof!!
David Moss
Its irrelevant what the job is, to an unemployed person the only
relevant factor is that it exists.
I personally would not enjoy working in an abattoir, but I'd much rather
do so than do nothing. I didn't particularly like the time I had to hose
the crap bubbling out of a defective septic sewage system away, but it
paid well while I did it.
My point is that some people entertain themselves by jousting with the
system. Proper case management would end such games and either get
people productive or just get them off the public teat. If they want to
entertain themselves at their own expense, thats their affair.
I spoke to a bloke in Yelarbon recently who said Australia's biggest
olive farm can't get enough workers and had to cut back its expansion
program.
The cotton chippers near Goondiwindi are always looking for people who
can walk and carry a hoe.
Seems to me all the indoor jobs in airconditioning with no physical
effort needed are taken but the other kind are still vacant.
Praps its time government took an interest in transport and
accommodation to meet this need.
The Flying Frog
How ironic to criticise others (by them wanting the names removed) for doing
the same thing yourself. Sure, if you want to be anonymous, go for it. But
whinging that they want you to remove others' names shows you to be a
hypocrite. My own pithy remark: Decency dictates that you treat others as
you wish to be treated.
As for the rest of the rhetoric and legalistic obfuscation, I couldn't be
bothered. If you want support, you need to show openness, not play little
games and insert your own legalese in retaliation at your perceived slight.
David Moss
01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>, x...@y.dontbother.com writes...
> "Anonymity is the enemy of professional responsibility."
>
> How ironic to criticise others (by them wanting the names removed) for doing
> the same thing yourself. Sure, if you want to be anonymous, go for it. But
> whinging that they want you to remove others' names shows you to be a
> hypocrite. My own pithy remark: Decency dictates that you treat others as
> you wish to be treated.
Centrelink staff have to tell people things they don't want to hear. As
a result they are often subject to threats and sometimes subject to
violence. People sometimes go to extremes to find out the names of
Centrelink staff and later hunt them down. Its not surprising they are
upset at having their names posted on a website when you consider this.
Sylvia Else
>
> Its irrelevant what the job is, to an unemployed person the only
> relevant factor is that it exists.
>
This is simplistic.
It's a relevant factor whether the person is capable of getting the work
If a person is manifestly overqualified, it's more than likely that the
propective employer will not want to employ them because of the high
probability that they'll quit as soon as something more appropriate
shows up.
There are also physical considerations. The person may be unsuited to
the work due to health or physique. It is not in the public interest to
force people to do work which will lead to a deterioration of their
health, and which will not only further increase the burden on the
health system, but also further reduce the chances of the person finding
work that they can do.
These are the sorts of considerations that the social security law
requires Centrelink officers to take into account.
Sylvia.
Terry Collins
>
> Its irrelevant what the job is, to an unemployed person the only
> relevant factor is that it exists.
Wrong. For starters, there is almost total requirements for expensive
pieces of paper.
>
> I personally would not enjoy working in an abattoir, but I'd much rather
> do so than do nothing. I didn't particularly like the time I had to hose
> the crap bubbling out of a defective septic sewage system away, but it
> paid well while I did it.
Lol, you have no clue about what working in an abbattoir is like.
>
> My point is that some people entertain themselves by jousting with the
> system. Proper case management would end such games and either get
> people productive or just get them off the public teat. If they want to
> entertain themselves at their own expense, thats their affair.
>
> I spoke to a bloke in Yelarbon recently who said Australia's biggest
> olive farm can't get enough workers and had to cut back its expansion
> program.
Bullshit, they cut back because blind freddie can see that locally grown
olives are heading for a massive glut.
>
> The cotton chippers near Goondiwindi are always looking for people who
> can walk and carry a hoe.
Pay rates, abuse, travel requirement; been there done that.
I know lots of farmers who squeal about wanting workers, but then expect
all these workers to work through extreme heat whilst they sit in an air
conditioned homesteads.
> Praps its time government took an interest in transport and
> accommodation to meet this need
That is the big killer for anyone trying to follow seasonal and casual
work, but I'm sure TT, ACT and all the other yabbering TV shows you
obviously watch would scream to bloody hell should the government start
giving unemployed people money to drive to these jobs. Yes, these jobs
almost always require someone to have a motor vehicle.
.
>
Hunter01
> David Moss wrote:
>
>> I personally would not enjoy working in an abattoir, but I'd much rather
>> do so than do nothing. I didn't particularly like the time I had to hose
>> the crap bubbling out of a defective septic sewage system away, but it
>> paid well while I did it.
>
> Lol, you have no clue about what working in an abbattoir is like.
What does it matter what it's like??? It's a job and someone has to do
it. Since when do we treat unemployed as if they were another Chardonnay
set, asking their permission to give them a job? When I've been
unemployed I did anything that was available whilst looking for a real
job, I don't like being a parasite.
Crouching Nun, Hidden Cucumber
<q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
[groups clipped]
>In article <43e89bd4.18812541@localhost>, steve@[127.0.0.1] writes...
>
>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 13:05:20 GMT, David Moss
>> <q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>> [snip, mainly about migrant workers in abbatoirs]
>>
>> >Rural industries are so desperate the government is considering letting
>> >thousands more guest workers in to fill the void.
>>
>> >Yet some people like to play silly games with Centerlink instead of
>> >taking up one of these jobs.
>>
>> Indeed, but at what stage should a Centrelink employee say that "this"
>> person is (or is not) suitable for "that" job. Every person cannot be
>> deemed suitable for every job vacancy.
>>
>> It's a complex issue, that perhaps could be well explored, but using as
>> an example the suggestion that someone (anyone!) ought (must?) go and
>> work in an abbatoir is frankly not going to advance the discussion.
>
>Its irrelevant what the job is, to an unemployed person the only
>relevant factor is that it exists.
Unless the pay is below effective minimum wage rates.
Jobs like that should be outsourced to guestworkers,
restructured with capital investment or let go.
There is no 21st century macroeconomic future in reducing
low skill wage rates for Australians to international market
clearance levels.
>I personally would not enjoy working in an abattoir, but I'd much rather
>do so than do nothing. I didn't particularly like the time I had to hose
>the crap bubbling out of a defective septic sewage system away, but it
>paid well while I did it.
If abattoirs cant find people to fill their vacancies, then
they need to offer higher wages for those positions - and if
that means restructuring - well that's the cost of doing
business.
>My point is that some people entertain themselves by jousting with the
>system.
Sure they do, and there will always be a component of the
labour market that does that.But its getting to the point
where the marginal cost of forcing that group to work is
exceeding the marginal benefit gained from them doing so.
I've had a theory for a number of years that there is an
optimal outcome to be had by allowing a small number of
people to bludge off the welfare system, because they cost
more to the economy by participating in it than the value of
their contribution.If people that want to work fall into
that category - then by all means assist them in whatever
way is necesarry .But if there are people that dont wish to
participate, maybe its a good thing to let them be, for the
sake of themselves and everyone else.
>Proper case management would end such games
Proper case management has never ended such games anywhere,
even in Southern US States that went in really hard on case
management in the early to mid nineties, really hard.All it
can do is mop up the slack when there is slack available.But
I would argue that the slack is in the productive labour
supply.And it wont be too long before that slack is taken up
through the effects of demographic change.
>and either get
>people productive or just get them off the public teat.
But what happens when there is a group that cant be made
productive because they wish not to be, and the costs of
making them productive become greater than the benefits of
doing so?
> If they want to
>entertain themselves at their own expense, thats their affair.
>
>I spoke to a bloke in Yelarbon recently who said Australia's biggest
>olive farm can't get enough workers and had to cut back its expansion
>program.
If this mob cant offer pay attractive enough to fill the
positions required for their expansion plan, the problem is
the businesses.They need to develop a more sophisticated
business model taking account of the realities of the labour
market.
>The cotton chippers near Goondiwindi are always looking for people who
>can walk and carry a hoe.
Because the cotton industry pays shit wages, often below
effective minimum award rates, like many other harvesting
positions in agriculture.
>Seems to me all the indoor jobs in airconditioning with no physical
>effort needed are taken but the other kind are still vacant.
Seems to me that businesses need to take into consideration
the physical unpleasantness of those jobs (perceived or
otherwise) in their renumeration packages.
>Praps its time government took an interest in transport and
>accommodation to meet this need.
Great - we need more agrarian socialism.
Terry Collins
And neither do the genuine unemeployed. But some people are too stupid
to realise that the world isn't as simple at they like to think.
As will be repeatedly pointed out to clueless fsckwits like you, there
are many reasons why all people can not take any job. The first and
major problem is usually the employer.
>
>
Hunter01
> Hunter01 wrote:
>> Terry Collins wrote:
>>
>>> Lol, you have no clue about what working in an abbattoir is like.
>>
>> What does it matter what it's like??? It's a job and someone has to do
>> it. Since when do we treat unemployed as if they were another Chardonnay
>> set, asking their permission to give them a job? When I've been
>> unemployed I did anything that was available whilst looking for a real
>> job, I don't like being a parasite.
>
> And neither do the genuine unemeployed.
Agreed. Many are not genuine however.
> But some people are too stupid
> to realise that the world isn't as simple at they like to think.
The world is never exactly like anyone thinks.
> As will be repeatedly pointed out to clueless fsckwits like you,
Ahhhh, you're another one of those cockbreaths that resorts to abuse of
anyone that doesn't think the world is as simple as you paint it to be.
Pathetic fucking hypocrite.
> there
> are many reasons why all people can not take any job.
None of which has anything to do with "not knowing what it's like" to
work somewhere. Either you're capable of the job or you're not
(physically, ethically, religiously, whatever. All comes into reasonable
capability). Nothing else is really relevant. "I might break a nail" is
not an excuse to turn down a job when you're a parasite.
> The first and
> major problem is usually the employer.
Not a paid-up greenleft member are you? But lets entertain your claim
anyway. Give us some "for instances".
Terry Collins
> Meatworks takes on foreign workers
David This shows that you are a complete and utter fuckwit that has
their head up their arse.
> Australia's largest goat abattoir in south-west Queensland says it had
> no choice but to employ a group of workers from Vietnam to fill a skills
> shortage.
Bullshit, it just didn't want to train local people or it wasn't
prepared to compete for the available people or the wage is unliveable.
> I heard the manager of that plant interviewed in the "Country Hour" on
> my way out past Goondiwindi last week. He rattled off a string of
> meatworks that had sourced workers from Chile, South Africa and China
> because they could not find Australians willing to work for them.
Have you spoken to the people who are prepared to work for them?
Usually it is because there is no other work locally.
I know of one abbattoir where everyone who is not one of the family, is
actually a local farmer (all hundreds of acres) and many still are
getting some government largess to enable thjem to support their families.
>
> Rural industries are so desperate the government is considering letting
> thousands more guest workers in to fill the void.
Nope, it isn't.
>
> Yet some people like to play silly games with Centerlink instead of
> taking up one of these jobs.
>
> I take your point about age though. I'm 45 now. If I were to lose my job
> without having a planned "escape route" I'd be in deep shit.
Exactly. And it can all be because you are "over 40". No other reason.
>
> But I doubt I'd play games with bureaucrats in preference to moving to
> where work was and getting on with it.
Come back when you actually live up to this statement.
P.S. you might light to get a quote from a removalist to move to
Goondiwindi QLD just as an exercise as to why people can not afford to move.
Terry Collins
>>Did he say he didn't have a job? This is Family Tax Benefit, not the dole.
>
>
> I think the rent assistance gives it away!
Maybe, you would be surprisedthe number of "employed" people who receive
government "rent assistance". without including all those on pensions
(aged, disability, etc) or benefits (family, illness, unemployment, etc).
d-m...@adfa.edu.au
Sylvia Else wrote:
> David Moss wrote:
> >
> > Its irrelevant what the job is, to an unemployed person the only
> > relevant factor is that it exists.
> >
>
> This is simplistic.
>
> It's a relevant factor whether the person is capable of getting the work
> If a person is manifestly overqualified, it's more than likely that the
> propective employer will not want to employ them because of the high
> probability that they'll quit as soon as something more appropriate
> shows up.
Missed addressing this earlier.
Overqualified? Learn to keep your mouth shut. Don't send a boilerplate
resume to every prospective employer. Tailor your documents to the
audience. People with PHDs don't have bigger foreheads or any other
distinguishing characteristics other than a nicely decorated scroll of
paper. If you don't mention it no-one will ever know.
DM
personal opinion only
Rod Speed
> David Moss <q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote
>> But as I said, its much simpler to just get a
>> job and forget about Centrelink altogether.
> It ain't necessarily so.
Fraid so.
> For many people a job is a dream which eludes them.
For fuck all actually with an unemployment rate of 5%
> Obtaining a job isn't as simple as simply requesting one.
You dont have to do any more than that with a 5% unemployment rate.
> If you are young healthy and have never been retrenched or
> fired or told you are no longer needed then the impossibility of
> finding work is possibly something that awaits you later in life !
Pigs arse it does.
> To obtain (unemployment) benefit it is a requirement that a jobseeker
> prove to Centrelink (and in many cases to an associated private
> jobnetwork member) that job search criteria have been met.
> As for the appeals process in many instances an appeal will
> succeed provided the facts are clearly stated and accurate.
> Social Security law is complex.
And anyone who really wants one can ALWAYS
get a job when the unemployment rate is 5%
Even Sylve, tho she would be stuck with cleaning the dunnys.
Rod Speed
> David Moss wrote
>> Meatworks takes on foreign workers
> David This shows that you are a complete and
> utter fuckwit that has their head up their arse.
We'll see...
>> Australia's largest goat abattoir in south-west Queensland
>> says it had no choice but to employ a group of workers
>> from Vietnam to fill a skills shortage.
> Bullshit, it just didn't want to train local people or it wasn't prepared
> to compete for the available people or the wage is unliveable.
Bullshit. One operation that has their monkeys drive vans that
flog food to other employed monkeys at their work for smoko
etc is paying a very decent rate to their monkeys, AND have
a very decent profit sharing arrangement too, and STILL cant
get anything like enough monkeys to drive the vans.
>> I heard the manager of that plant interviewed in the "Country Hour"
>> on my way out past Goondiwindi last week. He rattled off a string of
>> meatworks that had sourced workers from Chile, South Africa and China
>> because they could not find Australians willing to work for them.
> Have you spoken to the people who are prepared to work for them?
> Usually it is because there is no other work locally.
More bullshit, there always is.
> I know of one abbattoir where everyone who is not one
> of the family, is actually a local farmer (all hundreds of
> acres) and many still are getting some government
> largess to enable thjem to support their families.
Thats just because of the stupid system
the govt has for those with lots of kids.
>> Rural industries are so desperate the government is considering
>> letting thousands more guest workers in to fill the void.
> Nope, it isn't.
Yep, it is.
>> Yet some people like to play silly games with
>> Centerlink instead of taking up one of these jobs.
>> I take your point about age though. I'm 45 now. If I were to lose my
>> job without having a planned "escape route" I'd be in deep shit.
> Exactly. And it can all be because you are "over 40". No other reason.
Wrong again. There are plenty of operations that will take
what they can get in a 5% unemployment rate market.
>> But I doubt I'd play games with bureaucrats in preference
>> to moving to where work was and getting on with it.
> Come back when you actually live up to this statement.
Its unlikely that he will ever need to.
> P.S. you might light to get a quote from a removalist
> to move to Goondiwindi QLD just as an exercise as
> to why people can not afford to move.
More complete and utter drivel. Anyone with a clue just
flogs the stuff they cant easily move, puts the rest in the
car with maybe a trailer, and just moves that way.
They end up with a hell of a lot more than new immigrants bring with them.
Stephen X. Carter
Assuming (OK, long shot, I know) that whoever vets the applications does
a "timeline" looking for unexplained gaps, then that's arguably not the
case. Gaps should be found and asked about.
A candidate can then chose to lie about the 4 years studying for a
PhD...
(Are you really at Australian Defence Force Academy AND USQ at the same
time?)
Tim
Law dispute, thanks Frog, I would gladly place my name anywhere on
anything I have written.
Tim
Tim
responsibility, I am not threatening anyone, I can easily understand the
frustration of many clients who do not know what to do. Public servants
who make bad decisions will be named as individuals.
So Sueme
Tim
DJ!
wrote:
>So Sueme
They are, FUCKTARD, so stop whinging - you got what you you wanted all
along.
Seppo Renfors
Well, if that wasn't obvious enough, the statement: "I am an honest
Centrelink client and a father looking for paying work" certainly
leaves no doubt at all.
Rod Speed
> On 7 Feb 2006 20:25:20 -0800, d-m...@adfa.edu.au wrote:
>>
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> David Moss wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Its irrelevant what the job is, to an unemployed person the only
>>>> relevant factor is that it exists.
>>>
>>> This is simplistic.
>>>
>>> It's a relevant factor whether the person is capable of getting the
>>> work If a person is manifestly overqualified, it's more than likely
>>> that the propective employer will not want to employ them because
>>> of the high probability that they'll quit as soon as something more
>>> appropriate shows up.
>>
>> Missed addressing this earlier.
>> Overqualified? Learn to keep your mouth shut. Don't send a
>> boilerplate resume to every prospective employer. Tailor your
>> documents to the audience. People with PHDs don't have bigger
>> foreheads or any other distinguishing characteristics other than a
>> nicely decorated scroll of paper. If you don't mention it no-one
>> will ever know.
>
> Assuming (OK, long shot, I know) that whoever vets the applications
> does a "timeline" looking for unexplained gaps, then that's arguably
> not the case. Gaps should be found and asked about.
There doesnt have to be a gap if you dont mention the PhD.
> A candidate can then chose to lie about the 4 years studying for a PhD...
That can just produce a later first work date. No big deal at all.
David Moss
crouch...@yahoo.com.au writes...
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 13:48:02 GMT, David Moss
> <q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> [groups clipped]
>
> >In article <43e89bd4.18812541@localhost>, steve@[127.0.0.1] writes...
> >
> >> On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 13:05:20 GMT, David Moss
> >> <q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip, mainly about migrant workers in abbatoirs]
> >>
> >> >Rural industries are so desperate the government is considering letting
> >> >thousands more guest workers in to fill the void.
> >>
> >> >Yet some people like to play silly games with Centerlink instead of
> >> >taking up one of these jobs.
> >>
> >> Indeed, but at what stage should a Centrelink employee say that "this"
> >> person is (or is not) suitable for "that" job. Every person cannot be
> >> deemed suitable for every job vacancy.
> >>
> >> It's a complex issue, that perhaps could be well explored, but using as
> >> an example the suggestion that someone (anyone!) ought (must?) go and
> >> work in an abbatoir is frankly not going to advance the discussion.
> >
> >Its irrelevant what the job is, to an unemployed person the only
> >relevant factor is that it exists.
>
> Unless the pay is below effective minimum wage rates.
OK, lets look at what someone is entitled to in the meat industry:
Classification Weekly Part-time Casual
Level 7 employee $602.80 15.8632 19.5117
Level 6 employee $578.20 15.2158 18.7154
Level 5 employee $538.30 14.1658 17.4239
Level 4 employee $527.00 13.8684 17.0582
Level 3 employee $512.20 13.4789 16.5791
Level 2 employee $504.85 13.2855 16.3412
Level 1 employee $484.40 12.7474 15.6793
Level 7 employee
This is the General Butcher in charge of a retail butcher shop.
Level 6 employee
This is the tradesman rate that will apply to a General Butcher, a
smallgoods maker and a tradesman slaughterer.
Level 5 employee
This rate will apply to an employee who performs tasks such as
Slaughtering (not a tradesman slaughterer), boning.
Level 4 employee
This rate will apply to an employee who performs the tasks of
salesperson, slicer, smallgoods maker in a Butcher Shop, cutter
operator, mixing operator, packing/scaling, ham and bacon curing,
cooking, heavy vehicle driving, washing/drying/smoking.
Level 3 employee
This rate will apply to an employee who performs the tasks of
salting/pickle pumping, packing room hand, clerk.
Level 2 employee
This rate will apply to any other employee other than a level 1
employee.
Level 1 employee
This rate will apply to an employee who is new to the industry and who
is under on the job training for an initial trial period of
at least 3 months.
Now lets look at the substitute, Newstart allowance:
Status Allowance Rate Per Fortnight
Single, no children $404.50
Single, with children $437.60
Single, aged 60 or over, after 9 months $443.40
Partnered $365.00 (each)
Gosh, the lowest pay level of all in the meatworks is double the dole!
This is confirmed by ACOSS who say: "In Australia, unemployment payments
are around 50% of a typical low income wage in Australia."
So how about we forget all the bleeding heart stuff about pay rates
being below "minimum wages". It just ain't so.
[cut]
>
> >The cotton chippers near Goondiwindi are always looking for people who
> >can walk and carry a hoe.
>
> Because the cotton industry pays shit wages, often below
> effective minimum award rates, like many other harvesting
> positions in agriculture.
A quick check of the relevant award shows the lowest pay category
(someone new to the industry and still under training) gets $16.5306 an
hour as a casual. Thats over $600 a week, two and a half times what
someone gets on Newstart Allowance. All cotton chippers are employed at
casual award rates.
> >Seems to me all the indoor jobs in airconditioning with no physical
> >effort needed are taken but the other kind are still vacant.
>
> Seems to me that businesses need to take into consideration
> the physical unpleasantness of those jobs (perceived or
> otherwise) in their renumeration packages.
>
> >Praps its time government took an interest in transport and
> >accommodation to meet this need.
>
> Great - we need more agrarian socialism.
I'd call it mobilising the population for greater productivity.
David Moss
01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>, newsones...@woa.com.au writes...
> David Moss wrote:
>
> > Meatworks takes on foreign workers
>
> David This shows that you are a complete and utter fuckwit that has
> their head up their arse.
And a very good day to you too!
> > Australia's largest goat abattoir in south-west Queensland says it had
> > no choice but to employ a group of workers from Vietnam to fill a skills
> > shortage.
>
> Bullshit, it just didn't want to train local people or it wasn't
> prepared to compete for the available people or the wage is unliveable.
Actually it imported the Vietnamese when it could not fill vacancies
with Australians. There are always vacancies at that abattoir. They now
have to hire an interpreter because they are expecting another thousand
Vietnamese within the next 12 months.
> > I heard the manager of that plant interviewed in the "Country Hour" on
> > my way out past Goondiwindi last week. He rattled off a string of
> > meatworks that had sourced workers from Chile, South Africa and China
> > because they could not find Australians willing to work for them.
>
> Have you spoken to the people who are prepared to work for them?
Whats this "prepared to work" white man?
Isn't *everyone* on the dole "prepared to work"?
> Usually it is because there is no other work locally.
Do I hear violins?
> I know of one abbattoir where everyone who is not one of the family, is
> actually a local farmer (all hundreds of acres) and many still are
> getting some government largess to enable thjem to support their families.
Must be a damn strange family. Almost all abattoirs in this part of the
world have international guest workers now.
> > Rural industries are so desperate the government is considering letting
> > thousands more guest workers in to fill the void.
>
> Nope, it isn't.
You want to stop the contortionism and get your head out in the fresh
air more often. Or at least listen to the news. Pacific Islanders were
the last bright idea I heard to solve the rural crisis. They will go
blackbirding again if this keeps up.
> > Yet some people like to play silly games with Centerlink instead of
> > taking up one of these jobs.
> >
> > I take your point about age though. I'm 45 now. If I were to lose my job
> > without having a planned "escape route" I'd be in deep shit.
>
> Exactly. And it can all be because you are "over 40". No other reason.
Whats the bet you think you've earned a sit down job in the cool because
of your long years of service? Cotton chipping is too demeaning for you?
Suddenly become a radical vegan at the thought of wielding a knife?
> > But I doubt I'd play games with bureaucrats in preference to moving to
> > where work was and getting on with it.
>
> Come back when you actually live up to this statement.
I live in Warwick Qld at the moment.
Before this I lived in Canberra.
Before that in Whyalla, SA.
Before that in Mt Isa, Qld.
Before that in Alice Springs, NT.
Before that on the Gold Coast, Qld.
Before that in Elizabeth, SA.
Notice a trend? I never ask anyone to do something I would not do
myself.
> P.S. you might light to get a quote from a removalist to move to
> Goondiwindi QLD just as an exercise as to why people can not afford to move.
A bus ticket from Brisbane to Goondiwindi costs $62.00. Thats just over
3 hours work chipping cotton. From Sydney to Goondiwindi: $161.00. It
takes about 10 hours to recoup that as a chipper. If you are unemployed
and moving to a job Centrelink may even pay the fare for you.
No-one can use "I'm too poor to move" as an excuse for not working.
David Moss
> On 7 Feb 2006 20:25:20 -0800, d-m...@adfa.edu.au wrote:
> >
> >Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> David Moss wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Its irrelevant what the job is, to an unemployed person the only
> >> > relevant factor is that it exists.
> >>
> >> This is simplistic.
> >>
> >> It's a relevant factor whether the person is capable of getting the work
> >> If a person is manifestly overqualified, it's more than likely that the
> >> propective employer will not want to employ them because of the high
> >> probability that they'll quit as soon as something more appropriate
> >> shows up.
> >
> >Missed addressing this earlier.
> >Overqualified? Learn to keep your mouth shut. Don't send a boilerplate
> >resume to every prospective employer. Tailor your documents to the
> >audience. People with PHDs don't have bigger foreheads or any other
> >distinguishing characteristics other than a nicely decorated scroll of
> >paper. If you don't mention it no-one will ever know.
>
> Assuming (OK, long shot, I know) that whoever vets the applications does
> a "timeline" looking for unexplained gaps, then that's arguably not the
> case. Gaps should be found and asked about.
>
> A candidate can then chose to lie about the 4 years studying for a
> PhD...
People who go to jail manage to avoid talking about gaps in their
resume, especially when taking up cotton chipping or meat work.
> (Are you really at Australian Defence Force Academy AND USQ at the same
> time?)
They seek him here, they seek him there...
Think yourself lucky I haven't used my account in Belgium for a while
;-)
Crouching Nun, Hidden Cucumber
<q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <gh9iu15afqg47c0lo...@4ax.com>,
>crouch...@yahoo.com.au writes...
>
>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 13:48:02 GMT, David Moss
>> <q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>> [groups clipped]
>>
>> >In article <43e89bd4.18812541@localhost>, steve@[127.0.0.1] writes...
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 13:05:20 GMT, David Moss
>> >> <q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [snip, mainly about migrant workers in abbatoirs]
>> >>
>> >> >Rural industries are so desperate the government is considering letting
>> >> >thousands more guest workers in to fill the void.
>> >>
>> >> >Yet some people like to play silly games with Centerlink instead of
>> >> >taking up one of these jobs.
>> >>
>> >> Indeed, but at what stage should a Centrelink employee say that "this"
>> >> person is (or is not) suitable for "that" job. Every person cannot be
>> >> deemed suitable for every job vacancy.
>> >>
>> >> It's a complex issue, that perhaps could be well explored, but using as
>> >> an example the suggestion that someone (anyone!) ought (must?) go and
>> >> work in an abbatoir is frankly not going to advance the discussion.
>> >
>> >Its irrelevant what the job is, to an unemployed person the only
>> >relevant factor is that it exists.
>>
>> Unless the pay is below effective minimum wage rates.
>
>OK, lets look at what someone is entitled to in the meat industry:
I wasnt referring specifically to the meat industry - just
generally.
Yet still not high enough to attract enough workers.Which
brings us back to the economic reality of the industry that
I mentioned earlier:
"If abattoirs cant find people to fill their vacancies, then
they need to offer higher wages for those positions - and if
that means restructuring - well that's the cost of doing
business."
>This is confirmed by ACOSS who say: "In Australia, unemployment payments
>are around 50% of a typical low income wage in Australia."
>
>So how about we forget all the bleeding heart stuff about pay rates
>being below "minimum wages". It just ain't so.
Its not bleeding heart stuff - I'm hardly a bleeding heart.
Its economic reality.Many industry sectors pay below
effective minimum wage rates once opportunity costs,
employment on costs and work-related costs are taken into
account - particularly seasonal industries.
The meat industry on the other hand that you've specifically
mentioned here does pay minimum wages, but still doesnt
offer renumeration packages high enough to fullfil their
labour requirements.
With a 5% unemployment rate, dirty jobs have to offer beyond
normal wages to get workers - something this country better
start getting used to pretty fucking quickly since the
labour market is only going to get tighter in the future.The
participation rate peaks in 2007, then starts to decline.By
2012 the effects will be considerable.
>[cut]
Pity - I was hoping to for some discussion.
>> >The cotton chippers near Goondiwindi are always looking for people who
>> >can walk and carry a hoe.
>>
>> Because the cotton industry pays shit wages, often below
>> effective minimum award rates, like many other harvesting
>> positions in agriculture.
>
>A quick check of the relevant award shows the lowest pay category
>(someone new to the industry and still under training) gets $16.5306 an
>hour as a casual. Thats over $600 a week, two and a half times what
>someone gets on Newstart Allowance. All cotton chippers are employed at
>casual award rates.
Yet that's only for the duration of the work period, which
means there's opportunity costs involved in taking seasonal,
casual work rather than permanent full-time or part-time
work elsewhere.Remember, we are talking about the entire
labour market here.Now what makes alot of seasonal work like
chipping and harvesting pay wages effectively below the
minimum wage is the unusually large proportion of their
income that chippers and harvesters must pay inorder to be
able to do the work to begin with.Travel costs including not
only the travelling to and from work component (the
component that nearly everyone with a job pays) but also the
travel from their residence to the geographical region in
question.Then there is the temporary accomodation costs
comming on top of the costs to maintain their permanent
residence elsewhere .So once you subtract the travel costs
from their residence to the region in question and subtract
the temporary accomodation costs from the nominal wage rate
- its below the effective minimum wage rate for most labour
market participants.
That's why harvesting industries and chipping struggle to
attract enough workers - their pay is too low.
>> >Seems to me all the indoor jobs in airconditioning with no physical
>> >effort needed are taken but the other kind are still vacant.
>>
>> Seems to me that businesses need to take into consideration
>> the physical unpleasantness of those jobs (perceived or
>> otherwise) in their renumeration packages.
>>
>> >Praps its time government took an interest in transport and
>> >accommodation to meet this need.
>>
>> Great - we need more agrarian socialism.
>
>I'd call it mobilising the population for greater productivity.
Its only greater productivity for the individual firms
involved.But its a claytons productivity benefit because if
the government costs of providing that transport and
accommodation were calculated into the actual input costs of
the industry (rather than just being socialised onto the
taxpayer) the ratio of unit output to input costs goes
nowhere.
All this does is make the taxpayer subsidise an industry
that has a failing business model.
Addinall
d-m...@adfa.edu.au wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
> > David Moss wrote:
> > >
> > > Its irrelevant what the job is, to an unemployed person the only
> > > relevant factor is that it exists.
> > >
> >
> > This is simplistic.
> >
> > It's a relevant factor whether the person is capable of getting the work
> > If a person is manifestly overqualified, it's more than likely that the
> > propective employer will not want to employ them because of the high
> > probability that they'll quit as soon as something more appropriate
> > shows up.
>
> Missed addressing this earlier.
> Overqualified? Learn to keep your mouth shut. Don't send a boilerplate
> resume to every prospective employer. Tailor your documents to the
> audience. People with PHDs don't have bigger foreheads or any other
> distinguishing characteristics
Nice tatts ;-)
Mark.
Hunter01
> On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 08:58:20 GMT, David Moss
> <q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> Gosh, the lowest pay level of all in the meatworks is double the dole!
>
> Yet still not high enough to attract enough workers.
More than double the current payout to legitimate welfare recipients and
illegitimate welfare parasites, and you think that the parasites would
rather be parasites than work for more than double the amount of
money??? You don't have much faith in your fellow Australian.
Unfortunately the reality is that there are many lazy parasites who do
fit into that exact basket, to the shame of generally hard-working
Australians.
> Which
> brings us back to the economic reality of the industry that
> I mentioned earlier:
>
> "If abattoirs cant find people to fill their vacancies, then
> they need to offer higher wages for those positions - and if
> that means restructuring - well that's the cost of doing
> business."
When they're already paying more than double the dole at the lowest
possible wage bracket, which is automatically upped even further in 3
months, I think the problem is more the parasites than the pay levels.
Make them work instead of bludge or let them starve. Most people I've
known who've been forced to take welfare from time to time would've been
more than happy with such a job and a wage until they could find
something better... But then I don't knock around with
chardonnay-sipping pseudo-socialists, who are the sorts that would shun
employment unless it fit in with their manicures, I generally knock
around with hard-working Australians that have a bit of pride in
themselves and don't feel comfortable living off of the work of other
people.
Crouching Nun, Hidden Cucumber
<hunt...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>Crouching Nun, Hidden Cucumber wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 08:58:20 GMT, David Moss
>> <q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Gosh, the lowest pay level of all in the meatworks is double the dole!
>>
>> Yet still not high enough to attract enough workers.
>
>More than double the current payout to legitimate welfare recipients and
>illegitimate welfare parasites, and you think that the parasites would
>rather be parasites than work for more than double the amount of
>money??? You don't have much faith in your fellow Australian.
Economic reality mate.
Why people dont take jobs is complicated by the geographical
distribution of those jobs compared to where job seekers
live.Its also being complicated by a labour market getting
tight, leaving the least productive workers as the only
available labour left.
My faith in my fellow Australians can be summed up as them
doing what they think is in their best interests, whether it
actually is or not.
>Unfortunately the reality is that there are many lazy parasites who do
>fit into that exact basket, to the shame of generally hard-working
>Australians.
I agree.
I'll say to you what I said to Dave:
There will always be a component of the
labour market that fits the description you just gave.But
its getting to the point where the marginal cost of forcing
that group to work is exceeding the marginal benefit gained
from them doing so.
I've had a theory for a number of years that there is an
optimal outcome to be had by allowing a small number of
people to bludge off the welfare system, because they cost
more to the economy by participating in it than the value of
the contribution they could effectively make.If people that
actually WANT to work fall into that category - then by all
means assist them in whatever way is necesarry .But if there
are people that dont wish to participate, maybe its a good
thing to let them be, for the sake of themselves and
everyone else.And there is good data to back that theory.The
industry sectors and sub-sectors in Australia with the worst
labour productivity growth are those which have the highest
numbers of long term unemployed churn through them.
If these people cant produce an output to a greater end
value than they actually receive in wages, you kill
productivity, which actually depresses wages for everyone
else in that industry wage bracket.But on the other hand,
people that want to work, even though they might be a drag
on national productivity, definitely should be given all the
assistance we can give them.But those that dont want to work
- well, let me ask you this.
If there is a small number of people in Australia that dont
want to work, and its costs the country more to make them
work than the value of the work you can get out of them
(basic economics - the marginal cost is greater than the
marginal benefit)- is it in our best interests to force them
to work, or is there cheaper, alternative mechanisms
available to alleviate the problems associeted with
unemployment based welfarism?
>> Which
>> brings us back to the economic reality of the industry that
>> I mentioned earlier:
>>
>> "If abattoirs cant find people to fill their vacancies, then
>> they need to offer higher wages for those positions - and if
>> that means restructuring - well that's the cost of doing
>> business."
>
>
>When they're already paying more than double the dole at the lowest
>possible wage bracket, which is automatically upped even further in 3
>months, I think the problem is more the parasites than the pay levels.
The government has gone in hard on mutual obligation on what
you define as parasites.But it has barely made any serious
impact.
If the problem you are trying to solve doesnt get solved by
what you're doing, how long does it take to realise that
what your doing doesnt work, or that maybe its not the
actual problem at all?
>Make them work instead of bludge or let them starve.
Then you have to take in vagrancy costs.I'd rather pay
welfare of $10-15 grand a year to some dead beat loser than
pay $45-50 grand a year for housing the silly fucker in
jail, plus the higher security, insurance and general social
costs of higher levels of criminal activity involved with
austere work-or-starve welfare programs.We've god good
examples of this type of thing in southern US States.
Morally - sure, its a good and easy argument, "Work or
starve you little miscreant."
The reality doesnt quite pan out so neatly though.And if the
optimal outcome collides with the protestant work ethic,
then I'm all for ditching the moral argument and going for
what works.Isnt that the point after all?
>Most people I've
>known who've been forced to take welfare from time to time would've been
>more than happy with such a job and a wage until they could find
>something better...
That's the point of welfare.That's what most people that
have historically received welfare have done.But now we have
an unemployment rate of 5%, the labour market is going to
get tighter and the frictional unemployment churn is
historically high.By that I mean that the time it takes for
people to leave one job and get another is very short, and
there are very high volumes of people that change jobs.Yet,
simultaneously, the period of unemployment experienced by
those classified as the long term unemployed is actually
trending longer.
> But then I don't knock around with
>chardonnay-sipping pseudo-socialists, who are the sorts that would shun
>employment unless it fit in with their manicures, I generally knock
>around with hard-working Australians that have a bit of pride in
>themselves and don't feel comfortable living off of the work of other
>people.
Good for you.You'll find though that most of the long term
unemployed, the parasites you're talking about, live in
quite unchardonnay sipping places like regional and rural
Australia and the outer suburban fringe of capital cities.I
think your stereotypes are a bit off.
David Moss
crouch...@yahoo.com.au writes...
[cut]
> Its not bleeding heart stuff - I'm hardly a bleeding heart.
> Its economic reality.Many industry sectors pay below
> effective minimum wage rates once opportunity costs,
> employment on costs and work-related costs are taken into
> account - particularly seasonal industries.
[cut]
You have correctly honed in on the nub of the problem.
The opportunity cost of taking a job does not simply include clothing,
extra food, transport to work etc as many think.
It includes the leisure time and social activities the person must forgo
in order to participate in work. This can be considerable in value to
the person concerned.
The trick is to balance these opportunity costs against the cost of not
taking up a work opportunity in a meaningful way.
Traditionally this means balancing the opportunity costs against, not
just the loss of an extra $200 per week, but against the loss of all
social security payments plus the extra $200 a week.
In the short term this appears heartless and cruel. In the longer term
it is the best thing for both society and the individuals concerned.
(in the medium term society would suffer from increased crime and social
unrest, but you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs)
Hunter01
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 06:50:06 +0800, Hunter01
> <hunt...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
>> More than double the current payout to legitimate welfare recipients and
>> illegitimate welfare parasites, and you think that the parasites would
>> rather be parasites than work for more than double the amount of
>> money??? You don't have much faith in your fellow Australian.
>
> Economic reality mate.
>
> Why people dont take jobs is complicated by the geographical
> distribution of those jobs compared to where job seekers
> live.
That's one point I'd think would be covered by "capability". No-one
should be forced to do a job they are not reasonably capable of, and I
don't just mean physically capable of. "Capability" should be a lot more
encompassing, including ethics, religion, family obligations,
etc.etc.etc. Obviously you could not reasonably expect a screaming
tree-hugging hippy to work in a slaughterhouse, nor would you have a
Muslim prepare Pork or a Hindu prepare Beef. Also a married man with
kids could not be reasonably expected to run off to the bush for months
on end to work, whereas a single person could. Shit, I used to do it be
choice for 5 years, and the pay was great, and you've really got to love
those special zone tax rebates!
> Its also being complicated by a labour market getting
> tight, leaving the least productive workers as the only
> available labour left.
Make them productive then. Perhaps training should be forced upon the
long term unemployed in areas that we have skills shortages. The
government seems too fucking blind to come to that obvious solution,
rather than paying welfare they should be paying Austudy to these
long-term unemployed people and forcing them to train up.
> My faith in my fellow Australians can be summed up as them
> doing what they think is in their best interests, whether it
> actually is or not.
In most cases you'd be correct, but pride is really part of
self-interest. And those with morals feel a hell of a lot more
comfortable working for a living than leeching for a living, and
everyone wants to feel comfortable.
>> Unfortunately the reality is that there are many lazy parasites who do
>> fit into that exact basket, to the shame of generally hard-working
>> Australians.
>
> I agree.
>
> I'll say to you what I said to Dave:
>
> There will always be a component of the
> labour market that fits the description you just gave.But
> its getting to the point where the marginal cost of forcing
> that group to work is exceeding the marginal benefit gained
> from them doing so.
Not when we are now importing workers out of necessity. The cost of
training the long-term unemployed (force them to go to TAFE for
instance) isn't that much greater than welfare payments, and the long
term benefits are much more tangible.
> I've had a theory for a number of years that there is an
> optimal outcome to be had by allowing a small number of
> people to bludge off the welfare system, because they cost
> more to the economy by participating in it than the value of
> the contribution they could effectively make.If people that
> actually WANT to work fall into that category - then by all
> means assist them in whatever way is necesarry.
Returning to a system of free education for citizens would be great even
if expensive, and that would do a hell of a lot to boost this country.
> But if there
> are people that dont wish to participate, maybe its a good
> thing to let them be, for the sake of themselves and
> everyone else.And there is good data to back that theory.The
> industry sectors and sub-sectors in Australia with the worst
> labour productivity growth are those which have the highest
> numbers of long term unemployed churn through them.
Perhaps euthanasia for the true parasites then??? Nah, that would be
uncivilised... Perhaps a leper colony/commune situation for a year. I
think you'd find they'd be much more willing to be productive if shown
what the majority of the rest of the world goes through when they are
too fucking lazy to pull their weight. The problem with Australia is
that there are very few people that have any concept of what real
poverty is. Perhaps those that become "no hope" cases on welfare should
be put into true poverty in experimental camps for a year of their
lives, and when they return to society you'd most likely see an amazing
improvement in their attitudes and the selfishness would disappear.
> If these people cant produce an output to a greater end
> value than they actually receive in wages, you kill
> productivity,
Agreed, so play hardball with them and give them a very nasty
alternative as mentioned above.
> which actually depresses wages for everyone
> else in that industry wage bracket.But on the other hand,
> people that want to work, even though they might be a drag
> on national productivity, definitely should be given all the
> assistance we can give them.
Yep, free education (especially tertiary) would be of major assistance
to the battlers that do have pride and want to work for a living, but
just have not had the same opportunities as some others.
> But those that dont want to work
> - well, let me ask you this.
>
> If there is a small number of people in Australia that dont
> want to work, and its costs the country more to make them
> work than the value of the work you can get out of them
> (basic economics - the marginal cost is greater than the
> marginal benefit)- is it in our best interests to force them
> to work, or is there cheaper, alternative mechanisms
> available to alleviate the problems associeted with
> unemployment based welfarism?
How about my Pov commune suggestion??? They wouldn't starve if there
were people out there teaching them how to catch fish, grow food. They'd
live humbly and have to work fucking hard. A year of that and then the
option of returning to education and/or employment, and I think you'd
see them jumping at the amazingly easy society we live in, after they've
discovered what it's like out in the real world for most of the world's
population.
>> When they're already paying more than double the dole at the lowest
>> possible wage bracket, which is automatically upped even further in 3
>> months, I think the problem is more the parasites than the pay levels.
>
> The government has gone in hard on mutual obligation on what
> you define as parasites.But it has barely made any serious
> impact.
Perhaps they're going about it in the wrong way then.
> If the problem you are trying to solve doesnt get solved by
> what you're doing, how long does it take to realise that
> what your doing doesnt work, or that maybe its not the
> actual problem at all?
Or that it is a problem, but the solutions have all been padded so
nicely that they are barely noticed by the problematic people themselves
so there is effectively no change in their attitudes.
>> Make them work instead of bludge or let them starve.
>
> Then you have to take in vagrancy costs.I'd rather pay
> welfare of $10-15 grand a year to some dead beat loser than
> pay $45-50 grand a year for housing the silly fucker in
> jail, plus the higher security, insurance and general social
> costs of higher levels of criminal activity involved with
> austere work-or-starve welfare programs.We've god good
> examples of this type of thing in southern US States.
Agreed, that was more of an over-reaction on my behalf towards bludgers.
I just can't understand their mentality, but I've said more times than I
can count in here that we NEED welfare and can't afford to let people
starve, because that is where society starts to fall apart, violent
crime becomes rampant, etc.etc. and as you say, parts of the US are good
examples.
I like my pov commune idea though... Let them see what real life is
about, and then see whether they're still too lazy to put in an effort
like the rest of us, and if they are then give them another dose. Much
cheaper solution than welfare for those that are certified bludgers.
> Morally - sure, its a good and easy argument, "Work or
> starve you little miscreant."
Actually I'd say morally that wouldn't be so good, I retract that
comment, it was more an emotional response to lazy pricks leeching off
the rest of us, than a realistic well thought out response. Starving is
not an option, making them grow and catch their own food in harsh
conditions would be ideal though!
> The reality doesnt quite pan out so neatly though.And if the
> optimal outcome collides with the protestant work ethic,
> then I'm all for ditching the moral argument and going for
> what works.Isnt that the point after all?
At the end of the day what is best for society as a whole is the best
solution, secondary to that is what is best for the individual.
>> Most people I've
>> known who've been forced to take welfare from time to time would've been
>> more than happy with such a job and a wage until they could find
>> something better...
>
> That's the point of welfare.That's what most people that
> have historically received welfare have done.But now we have
> an unemployment rate of 5%, the labour market is going to
> get tighter and the frictional unemployment churn is
> historically high.By that I mean that the time it takes for
> people to leave one job and get another is very short, and
> there are very high volumes of people that change jobs.
I don't think that this is so much to do with welfare and its' pros and
cons, it's to do with this new regime of contractual employment for
short periods. Where I work it's damn hard to get anything beyond "3
month rolling contracts" which offers no stability and does nothing to
induce any loyalty to the workplace.
I'm permanent so I'm secure, but I hate seeing other people go through
what I went through when I started there. How do you decide to buy
anything substantial, like a home, if you don't know for sure you'll be
working a few months later? The first company I worked for had a case of
"you're on trial for the first 3 months, if you survive then you're on
for life providing you don't fuck up in any big way and you remain
useful to the company". That was a brilliant system, it weeded out the
deadwood and gave security to the hard workers.
The system I'm in now accumulates deadwood (become permanent and many
show their true colours, and are near indestructible), meanwhile plenty
of hard workers that never get the opportunity to become permanent due
to timing and/or circumstances are ditched and replaced by permanents
that are useless, because they have to pay them anyway. Way to go
government!
> Yet,
> simultaneously, the period of unemployment experienced by
> those classified as the long term unemployed is actually
> trending longer.
I know more than a few bludgers who'll do anything they can to stay
unemployed. It's damn pathetic.
>> But then I don't knock around with
>> chardonnay-sipping pseudo-socialists, who are the sorts that would shun
>> employment unless it fit in with their manicures, I generally knock
>> around with hard-working Australians that have a bit of pride in
>> themselves and don't feel comfortable living off of the work of other
>> people.
>
> Good for you.You'll find though that most of the long term
> unemployed, the parasites you're talking about, live in
> quite unchardonnay sipping places like regional and rural
> Australia and the outer suburban fringe of capital cities.I
> think your stereotypes are a bit off.
Not really, it's amazing how people on the dole, especially of the
greenleft-style mold, can afford to sit at cafes drinking their special
blends whilst we're working our arses off to pay their bills. Life is
way too easy in Australia, it is quite easy for single people without
kids to live verrrry comfortably on the dole. Perhaps we should
drastically reduce the amount of "money" these people receive after they
become long-term unemployed and start looking at the food-stamp, free
public transport, clothes for interviews, etc.etc. style of system, and
reduce the "fun" these leeches can have on the dole.
David Moss
addi...@addinall.org writes...
> > Missed addressing this earlier.
> > Overqualified? Learn to keep your mouth shut. Don't send a boilerplate
> > resume to every prospective employer. Tailor your documents to the
> > audience. People with PHDs don't have bigger foreheads or any other
> > distinguishing characteristics
>
> Nice tatts ;-)
So you have "I have a PHD" tattooed on your left bum cheek?
It must really impress employers when you flash your credentials !
Reminds me of a tatt joke I heard:
A tourist was in a public toilet in Kingston and sneaked a glance at one
of the locals standing next to him at the trough.
Noticing the tattoo on the bloke's penis he commented "I see we have
something in common, we both have our girlfriend's name tattooed on our
penis and we both have a girlfriend named Wendy".
The local replied "Only on the slack mon. Mine really says Welcome to
Jamaica, have a nice holiday"
Crouching Nun, Hidden Cucumber
<q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <6panu19s4vhrdu1vu...@4ax.com>,
>crouch...@yahoo.com.au writes...
>
>[cut]
>
>> Its not bleeding heart stuff - I'm hardly a bleeding heart.
>> Its economic reality.Many industry sectors pay below
>> effective minimum wage rates once opportunity costs,
>> employment on costs and work-related costs are taken into
>> account - particularly seasonal industries.
>
>[cut]
>
>You have correctly honed in on the nub of the problem.
>The opportunity cost of taking a job does not simply include clothing,
>extra food, transport to work etc as many think.
>
>It includes the leisure time and social activities the person must forgo
>in order to participate in work. This can be considerable in value to
>the person concerned.
You dont even have to get into recreational and social
preference issues here, as the pure economic opportunity
costs foregone, in conjunction with high work related
expenses involved, erode effective wage rates to be way
below minimum wage rates.
>The trick is to balance these opportunity costs
The actual economic opportunity costs.Not the moral
arguments or vague nostrums on leisure preference and social
activities.
But the REAL economic opportunity costs and the REAL high
related work costs that push the effective wage rate of
these industries to being below the minimum wage rate for
the overwhelming majority of labour market participants.
>against the cost of not
>taking up a work opportunity in a meaningful way.
>
>Traditionally this means balancing the opportunity costs against, not
>just the loss of an extra $200 per week, but against the loss of all
>social security payments plus the extra $200 a week.
So you are advocating the removal of all unemployment
payments to people that refuse to work for as little as an
effective rate of $2 an hour.Because that's the effective
rate some people will be on after they temporarily relocate
for temporary periods, continuously, pay two lots of
accomodation, pay increased travel costs and that's not even
taking into account opportunity costs, and by that I mean
REAL ones, not your nebulous ones.
Taken in conjunction with your great agrarian socialism plan
for the taxpayer to provide transport and accomodation for
these people, what we end up with is one huge subsidy given
to a group of failing industries that have refused
point-blank to restructure their business models to
accomodate 21st century economic realities.
A plan so stupid that it subsidises labour in an era of
national labour shortages, encourages inefficient low-skill
industries to use labour as a substitute for capital in an
era of labour shortages, that doesnt increase the purchasing
power of the workers in question, leading to no demand curve
shift and no beneficial multiplier effects, but forces the
taxpayer to cough up huge sums of money to create government
funded transport and accomodation logistics, which, as an
end macroeconomic result makes the economy go nowhere but
sidewise.
Good grief - what a load of horseshit.
What those low-skill, low wage agricultural industries need
is huge dose of multifactor productivity gains, not a two
penny slave labour supply that is drawn from the lowest
productivity labour pool in the country.
Australia has no 21st century macroeconomic future in
reducing low skill wage rates for Australians to
international market clearance levels, by way of subsidy,
mimimum wage abolition, unemployment benefit removal or
great agrarian socialism initiatives.
None.
And I dare you to find a single piece of quality
macroeconomic analysis anywhere in the western world that
demonstrates that slashing effective real wages for low
skilled workers, and replacing unemployment benefits with
subsidies to inefficient industry special interest pleaders
achieves anything more than creating greater economic
problems.
You've got plenty of examples to work with - In the US,
anything south of the Mason-Dixon parallel over the last 20
years provides plenty of ammo, from grains, to livestock, to
horticulture to sugar.
>In the short term this appears heartless and cruel.
Over any term it seems like a great leap into imbecility,
whose myopia is only surpassed by its economic vandalism.
>In the longer term
>it is the best thing for both society and the individuals concerned.
Roflol.
I'm really hoping you arent serious.
Crouching Nun, Hidden Cucumber
Its harder then it sounds.Some people just refuse to be
productive.And some people are just honest-to-goodness
useless.I'm sure we've all met some poor bugger that was
completely hopeless at just about everything.
>Perhaps training should be forced upon the
>long term unemployed in areas that we have skills shortages.
Sure.
>The
>government seems too fucking blind to come to that obvious solution,
>rather than paying welfare they should be paying Austudy to these
>long-term unemployed people and forcing them to train up.
That should skill up some people to be able to contribute.
Skill development in this country is a travesty, at all
levels.But there's still going to be a group left consisting
of those that dont want to work, or are just too hopeless
too.WHat to do with them is the question.And its a question
the country will have to deal with sooner rather than later
as the labour market tightens further over the next 10
years.
>> My faith in my fellow Australians can be summed up as them
>> doing what they think is in their best interests, whether it
>> actually is or not.
>
>
>In most cases you'd be correct, but pride is really part of
>self-interest. And those with morals feel a hell of a lot more
>comfortable working for a living than leeching for a living, and
>everyone wants to feel comfortable.
Sure.
>>> Unfortunately the reality is that there are many lazy parasites who do
>>> fit into that exact basket, to the shame of generally hard-working
>>> Australians.
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>> I'll say to you what I said to Dave:
>>
>> There will always be a component of the
>> labour market that fits the description you just gave.But
>> its getting to the point where the marginal cost of forcing
>> that group to work is exceeding the marginal benefit gained
>> from them doing so.
>
>
>Not when we are now importing workers out of necessity.
I would argue that importing workers is cheaper than trying
to get either that hardcore group of people that dont want
to work to do so, or to force the completely unproductive to
do so.Especially for certain types of jobs.Even if you
remove their unemployment benefits, there is still costs
involved, it just transfers from the welfare system to the
criminal justice system, and the charity sector, higher
insurance and other miscelleneous costs.
>The cost of
>training the long-term unemployed (force them to go to TAFE for
>instance) isn't that much greater than welfare payments, and the long
>term benefits are much more tangible.
With unemployment at 5%, I dont think theres alot of value
to be had in trying to squeeze blood out of that particular
labour market stone.
>> I've had a theory for a number of years that there is an
>> optimal outcome to be had by allowing a small number of
>> people to bludge off the welfare system, because they cost
>> more to the economy by participating in it than the value of
>> the contribution they could effectively make.If people that
>> actually WANT to work fall into that category - then by all
>> means assist them in whatever way is necesarry.
>
>
>Returning to a system of free education for citizens would be great even
>if expensive, and that would do a hell of a lot to boost this country.
I think that is something that Australia will need to
seriously consider.Probably not totally free, but certainly
HECS type affairs for TAFE and non-tertiary education, and
possibly reducing HECS or removing it completely for sectors
in major shortage.
>> But if there
>> are people that dont wish to participate, maybe its a good
>> thing to let them be, for the sake of themselves and
>> everyone else.And there is good data to back that theory.The
>> industry sectors and sub-sectors in Australia with the worst
>> labour productivity growth are those which have the highest
>> numbers of long term unemployed churn through them.
>
>
>Perhaps euthanasia for the true parasites then???
Tough bastard B^P
>Nah, that would be
>uncivilised... Perhaps a leper colony/commune situation for a year. I
>think you'd find they'd be much more willing to be productive if shown
>what the majority of the rest of the world goes through when they are
>too fucking lazy to pull their weight. The problem with Australia is
>that there are very few people that have any concept of what real
>poverty is.
True enough.
>Perhaps those that become "no hope" cases on welfare should
>be put into true poverty in experimental camps for a year of their
>lives, and when they return to society you'd most likely see an amazing
>improvement in their attitudes and the selfishness would disappear.
Works in theory, probably not doable in practice though.Alot
of those people live pretty shitty lives already - mostly
self-inflicted.Of course, you could always make it even
shittier, but would you really want to go there.Having the
state treat some clown like shit for 12 months and then let
them loose on society.
Hang on, we already do that with non-violent offenders in
prision and wonder why the recidivism rate is so high and
they end up escalating their criminal behaviour.
>> If these people cant produce an output to a greater end
>> value than they actually receive in wages, you kill
>> productivity,
>
>
>Agreed, so play hardball with them and give them a very nasty
>alternative as mentioned above.
>
>
>> which actually depresses wages for everyone
>> else in that industry wage bracket.But on the other hand,
>> people that want to work, even though they might be a drag
>> on national productivity, definitely should be given all the
>> assistance we can give them.
>
>
>Yep, free education (especially tertiary) would be of major assistance
>to the battlers that do have pride and want to work for a living, but
>just have not had the same opportunities as some others.
>
>
>> But those that dont want to work
>> - well, let me ask you this.
>>
>> If there is a small number of people in Australia that dont
>> want to work, and its costs the country more to make them
>> work than the value of the work you can get out of them
>> (basic economics - the marginal cost is greater than the
>> marginal benefit)- is it in our best interests to force them
>> to work, or is there cheaper, alternative mechanisms
>> available to alleviate the problems associeted with
>> unemployment based welfarism?
>
>
>How about my Pov commune suggestion???
Send them all to Tassie!
>They wouldn't starve if there
>were people out there teaching them how to catch fish, grow food. They'd
>live humbly and have to work fucking hard. A year of that and then the
>option of returning to education and/or employment, and I think you'd
>see them jumping at the amazingly easy society we live in, after they've
>discovered what it's like out in the real world for most of the world's
>population.
I think they'd just tell you to get fucked and you'd end up
having the same problems as if you'd abolished unemployment
benefits for this group.Higher vagrancy costs.
I just think its a case of some problems just not being able
to be 100% solved.
<big snip>
>>> Most people I've
>>> known who've been forced to take welfare from time to time would've been
>>> more than happy with such a job and a wage until they could find
>>> something better...
>>
>> That's the point of welfare.That's what most people that
>> have historically received welfare have done.But now we have
>> an unemployment rate of 5%, the labour market is going to
>> get tighter and the frictional unemployment churn is
>> historically high.By that I mean that the time it takes for
>> people to leave one job and get another is very short, and
>> there are very high volumes of people that change jobs.
>
>
>I don't think that this is so much to do with welfare and its' pros and
>cons, it's to do with this new regime of contractual employment for
>short periods. Where I work it's damn hard to get anything beyond "3
>month rolling contracts" which offers no stability and does nothing to
>induce any loyalty to the workplace.
I agree that contracts and short term labour play a large
part in that.
>I'm permanent so I'm secure, but I hate seeing other people go through
>what I went through when I started there. How do you decide to buy
>anything substantial, like a home, if you don't know for sure you'll be
>working a few months later? The first company I worked for had a case of
>"you're on trial for the first 3 months, if you survive then you're on
>for life providing you don't fuck up in any big way and you remain
>useful to the company". That was a brilliant system, it weeded out the
>deadwood and gave security to the hard workers.
>
>The system I'm in now accumulates deadwood (become permanent and many
>show their true colours, and are near indestructible), meanwhile plenty
>of hard workers that never get the opportunity to become permanent due
>to timing and/or circumstances are ditched and replaced by permanents
>that are useless, because they have to pay them anyway. Way to go
>government!
Australian industry shares alot of the blame here.Too many,
for years, refused to acknowledge that Australia's future is
in high-skill, high-value,high-pay niche industries, that
requires large amounts of capital investment and investment
in education, allowing a solid high pay workforce with the
service sector pick up the rest.
What we got instead was monopolies, protectionism, special
interest pleading, ultra conservative business practices and
lazy, accomodating governments.
I have nightmares over imagining the dismal state that the
country would be in without the microeconomic reform program
of the Hawke/Keating/Walsh.And there's still alot of
unfinished business there.
>> Yet,
>> simultaneously, the period of unemployment experienced by
>> those classified as the long term unemployed is actually
>> trending longer.
>
>
>I know more than a few bludgers who'll do anything they can to stay
>unemployed. It's damn pathetic.
And hard to solve from a policy perspective.
>>> But then I don't knock around with
>>> chardonnay-sipping pseudo-socialists, who are the sorts that would shun
>>> employment unless it fit in with their manicures, I generally knock
>>> around with hard-working Australians that have a bit of pride in
>>> themselves and don't feel comfortable living off of the work of other
>>> people.
>>
>> Good for you.You'll find though that most of the long term
>> unemployed, the parasites you're talking about, live in
>> quite unchardonnay sipping places like regional and rural
>> Australia and the outer suburban fringe of capital cities.I
>> think your stereotypes are a bit off.
>
>
>Not really, it's amazing how people on the dole, especially of the
>greenleft-style mold, can afford to sit at cafes drinking their special
>blends whilst we're working our arses off to pay their bills.
I thought they were mostly Uni-students.The stats certainly
show that the areas of highest long-term unemployment isnt
in the trendy areas, and that theres fairly high levels of
university study going on in trendy inner suburbs.
>Life is
>way too easy in Australia, it is quite easy for single people without
>kids to live verrrry comfortably on the dole. Perhaps we should
>drastically reduce the amount of "money" these people receive after they
>become long-term unemployed and start looking at the food-stamp, free
>public transport, clothes for interviews, etc.etc. style of system, and
>reduce the "fun" these leeches can have on the dole.
Even those systems dont particularly work well because you
get vagrancy costs again, especially with an unemployment
level of 5%, just about all those that want work get it.The
big problem with the unemployment data is the number of part
time workers wanting more hours and more secure positions.
Addinall
David Moss wrote:
> In article <1139524867....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> addi...@addinall.org writes...
>
> > > Missed addressing this earlier.
> > > Overqualified? Learn to keep your mouth shut. Don't send a boilerplate
> > > resume to every prospective employer. Tailor your documents to the
> > > audience. People with PHDs don't have bigger foreheads or any other
> > > distinguishing characteristics
> >
> > Nice tatts ;-)
>
> So you have "I have a PHD" tattooed on your left bum cheek?
Don't be forward David ;-)
> It must really impress employers when you flash your credentials !
Seems to work ;-)
>
> Reminds me of a tatt joke I heard:
>
> A tourist was in a public toilet in Kingston and sneaked a glance at one
> of the locals standing next to him at the trough.
>
> Noticing the tattoo on the bloke's penis he commented "I see we have
> something in common, we both have our girlfriend's name tattooed on our
> penis and we both have a girlfriend named Wendy".
>
> The local replied "Only on the slack mon. Mine really says Welcome to
> Jamaica, have a nice holiday"
That was slack even for you Bilbo.....
Cheers,
Mark.
David Moss
crouch...@yahoo.com.au writes...
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:56:56 GMT, David Moss
> <q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >In article <6panu19s4vhrdu1vu...@4ax.com>,
> >crouch...@yahoo.com.au writes...
> >
> >[cut]
> >
> >> Its not bleeding heart stuff - I'm hardly a bleeding heart.
> >> Its economic reality.Many industry sectors pay below
> >> effective minimum wage rates once opportunity costs,
> >> employment on costs and work-related costs are taken into
> >> account - particularly seasonal industries.
> >
> >[cut]
> >
> >You have correctly honed in on the nub of the problem.
> >The opportunity cost of taking a job does not simply include clothing,
> >extra food, transport to work etc as many think.
> >
> >It includes the leisure time and social activities the person must forgo
> >in order to participate in work. This can be considerable in value to
> >the person concerned.
>
> You dont even have to get into recreational and social
> preference issues here, as the pure economic opportunity
> costs foregone, in conjunction with high work related
> expenses involved, erode effective wage rates to be way
> below minimum wage rates.
You will have to enumerate some of these high work related expenses, I'm
having a bit of trouble working out what they may be. Transport? You can
pick up a second hand push bike at the recycling centre for a few
dollars
that will get you to work in town. The out of town jobs I mentioned
elsewhere in the thread usually have bus transport kicked in by the
contractor, just to ensure the troops are lined up at hoedown time.
But the opportunity costs of lost recreation and social interaction do
have significant value. When I put in a bit more effort I could directly
measure these in terms of lost income, at around $80 per hour. It didn't
cost me $10 to see a movie, it cost me the $10 admission
plus the $240 I didn't earn because I was watching a movie or driving to
or from a cinema. Leisure time clearly does have a value.
Ignoring the opportunity cost of leisure and a social life to the
unemployed is a serious omission in any model.
> >The trick is to balance these opportunity costs
>
> The actual economic opportunity costs.Not the moral
> arguments or vague nostrums on leisure preference and social
> activities.
Hey, I'm not arguing morality here. I have a particular work ethic,
others have a different work ethic. Lots of people make me look lazy. We
are all individuals. I argue reality and practicality. Leisure time does
have a value. Loss of leisure and social time is a major disincentive to
people taking on more work, or indeed working at all.
> But the REAL economic opportunity costs and the REAL high
> related work costs that push the effective wage rate of
> these industries to being below the minimum wage rate for
> the overwhelming majority of labour market participants.
Come off the grass Cukie. The marginal cost of chipping cotton is a
splash of 15+ sunscreen and having to wash a few extra socks and undies.
The marginal cost of working in a meatworks is even less because its
indoors and the company provides and launders all working clothes.
> >against the cost of not
> >taking up a work opportunity in a meaningful way.
> >
> >Traditionally this means balancing the opportunity costs against, not
> >just the loss of an extra $200 per week, but against the loss of all
> >social security payments plus the extra $200 a week.
>
> So you are advocating the removal of all unemployment
> payments to people that refuse to work for as little as an
> effective rate of $2 an hour.Because that's the effective
> rate some people will be on after they temporarily relocate
> for temporary periods, continuously, pay two lots of
> accomodation, pay increased travel costs and that's not even
> taking into account opportunity costs, and by that I mean
> REAL ones, not your nebulous ones.
If a person settles on an itinerant lifestyle they do not maintain
multiple residences. People only stay put without income if it makes
sense to do that. there is no point keeping up a lease in Sydney
if you spend most of your time working in Charleville. Financial
necessity should mean that if you can't get a job where you are, you
must move to somewhere where you can. Comfort or inertia should not
mean society foots the bill.
> Taken in conjunction with your great agrarian socialism plan
> for the taxpayer to provide transport and accomodation for
> these people, what we end up with is one huge subsidy given
> to a group of failing industries that have refused
> point-blank to restructure their business models to
> accomodate 21st century economic realities.
I argue government should take an interest in it, I don't necessarily
mean they should provide it.
Mark Addinall wrote an article some time back about how local government
forced pickers into inflated accommodation and got the police to crack
down on people who dared to camp "illegally". That is one way for
government to take an interest, but its the wrong way.
Much better they should plan for seasonal itinerants and allow people to
provide very low budget accommodation to meet the need. I'm mulling over
an idea on that score, when I'm felling a bit more motivated I'll
probably take it further.
> A plan so stupid that it subsidises labour in an era of
> national labour shortages, encourages inefficient low-skill
> industries to use labour as a substitute for capital in an
> era of labour shortages, that doesnt increase the purchasing
> power of the workers in question, leading to no demand curve
> shift and no beneficial multiplier effects, but forces the
> taxpayer to cough up huge sums of money to create government
> funded transport and accomodation logistics, which, as an
> end macroeconomic result makes the economy go nowhere but
> sidewise.
>
> Good grief - what a load of horseshit.
I wonder why they have 7 pay levels in the meat industry?
Could it be that some of the work *is* skilled?
I kill and dress goats for personal consumption. I'm not very skilled at
it so it takes me ages. I've seen someone with skills kill and dress one
of my steers and believe me it takes skill to do it hygienically and
efficiently.
> What those low-skill, low wage agricultural industries need
> is huge dose of multifactor productivity gains, not a two
> penny slave labour supply that is drawn from the lowest
> productivity labour pool in the country.
Those abattoirs are pretty efficient as it is. there is automation
wherever possible but the fact is it still takes humans to process meat
no matter how much you invest in plant.
> Australia has no 21st century macroeconomic future in
> reducing low skill wage rates for Australians to
> international market clearance levels, by way of subsidy,
> mimimum wage abolition, unemployment benefit removal or
> great agrarian socialism initiatives.
>
> None.
Whats this subsidy we're on about?
Australians won't do these jobs now.
> And I dare you to find a single piece of quality
> macroeconomic analysis anywhere in the western world that
> demonstrates that slashing effective real wages for low
> skilled workers, and replacing unemployment benefits with
> subsidies to inefficient industry special interest pleaders
> achieves anything more than creating greater economic
> problems.
Where did I say slash real wages?
My argument is getting people to perform work for wages as an
alternative to paying them half that rate to be idle.
> You've got plenty of examples to work with - In the US,
> anything south of the Mason-Dixon parallel over the last 20
> years provides plenty of ammo, from grains, to livestock, to
> horticulture to sugar.
Ah. we're talking about the land of the free now.
agriculture is directly subsidised there. Not here.
> >In the short term this appears heartless and cruel.
>
> Over any term it seems like a great leap into imbecility,
> whose myopia is only surpassed by its economic vandalism.
Hmm, so cutting off the dole for anyone who refuses to work when a job
is offered is economic vandalism now? Do explain.
> >In the longer term
> >it is the best thing for both society and the individuals concerned.
>
> Roflol.
>
> I'm really hoping you arent serious.
I'm usually serious.
All my life I've moved to where the work is, or I've moved to get better
work or pay. I expect nothing less from those who would take my money as
charity.
Hunter01
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 08:56:10 +0800, Hunter01
> <hunt...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> Make them productive then.
>
> Its harder then it sounds.Some people just refuse to be
> productive.
They'd have to become productive under the pov commune idea, "grow and
catch your own food if you want to eat, any day you don't work in the
garden you don't benefit from it's food, or go fishing and bring back
fish". A year or so of that and they'll learn how easy life is in
society and all their greenleft silver-spoon whinging would dry up rapidly.
> And some people are just honest-to-goodness
> useless.I'm sure we've all met some poor bugger that was
> completely hopeless at just about everything.
Very true, but people that are truly useless at EVERYTHING are a major
exception from the norm. Most of these people we've all met that appear
to be totally useless are generally good at other things, they've just
been asked to do things that they are not good at. The very rare few
that are just no-hopers I think are probably retards that have not been
diagnosed correctly.
>> The
>> government seems too fucking blind to come to that obvious solution,
>> rather than paying welfare they should be paying Austudy to these
>> long-term unemployed people and forcing them to train up.
>
> That should skill up some people to be able to contribute.
> Skill development in this country is a travesty, at all
> levels.
Agreed totally.
> But there's still going to be a group left consisting
> of those that dont want to work, or are just too hopeless
> too.WHat to do with them is the question.And its a question
> the country will have to deal with sooner rather than later
> as the labour market tightens further over the next 10
> years.
Pov communes for those that don't fulfil their job hunting obligations,
support for those that are legitimately trying to find work.
>> Not when we are now importing workers out of necessity.
>
> I would argue that importing workers is cheaper than trying
> to get either that hardcore group of people that dont want
> to work to do so, or to force the completely unproductive to
> do so.Especially for certain types of jobs.
In the short term yes, in the long term if we had a system that enforced
training in areas we are lacking in skilled workers onto the unemployed,
we'd no longer be lacking people with entry level skills for these
areas, and could sustain these areas ourselves without being forced to
import workers. We should not have to canvas for skills overseas,
instead we should just be taking in immigrants that truly want to live
out their lives here. Where is the benefit of bringing in someone from
overseas to work, who earns all that money, sends it home and
effectively removes it from our economy?
> Even if you
> remove their unemployment benefits, there is still costs
> involved, it just transfers from the welfare system to the
> criminal justice system, and the charity sector, higher
> insurance and other miscelleneous costs.
Like I said, I don't seriously think removing support for non-income
earners would work. Changing the form of that support for those
diagnosed as bludgers is another matter. Fend for yourself on a Pov
commune for a year with the help of supervisory staff who will teach you
what you need to know to survive, and whilst you are learning providing
the effort is put in you are fed by the "commune". Want to sit on your
arse all day, I guarantee after a few days they'd get hungry enough to
realise the world doesn't give out handouts in brutal reality-land, and
they'd put in the effort.
>> The cost of
>> training the long-term unemployed (force them to go to TAFE for
>> instance) isn't that much greater than welfare payments, and the long
>> term benefits are much more tangible.
>
> With unemployment at 5%, I dont think theres alot of value
> to be had in trying to squeeze blood out of that particular
> labour market stone.
I don't trust that 5% figure. How many of the 95% supposedly employed
are only working one day here or two days there, and would die for a
full time job???? Perhaps employment should be rated by percentage of
the work-capable population that is not receiving any unemployment
subsidy from Centrelink.
>> Returning to a system of free education for citizens would be great even
>> if expensive, and that would do a hell of a lot to boost this country.
>
> I think that is something that Australia will need to
> seriously consider.Probably not totally free, but certainly
> HECS type affairs for TAFE and non-tertiary education, and
> possibly reducing HECS or removing it completely for sectors
> in major shortage.
I'd agree with those ideas, I'd prefer to see totally free public
education, as "smart industries" are the only hope this country has for
the future to stay economically sound, but I don't see the government
giving 2 shits beyond their term in office after which they're rich
enough to bail from the country if they need to anyway.
>> Perhaps euthanasia for the true parasites then???
>
> Tough bastard B^P
Just a voice in the back of my head that spoke out through my fingers, I
wouldn't really suggest we do that... 8] ... I'd reserve that for scum
like rapists, cold-blooded murderers and paedophiles!
>> Perhaps those that become "no hope" cases on welfare should
>> be put into true poverty in experimental camps for a year of their
>> lives, and when they return to society you'd most likely see an amazing
>> improvement in their attitudes and the selfishness would disappear.
>
> Works in theory, probably not doable in practice though.Alot
> of those people live pretty shitty lives already - mostly
> self-inflicted.Of course, you could always make it even
> shittier, but would you really want to go there.Having the
> state treat some clown like shit for 12 months and then let
> them loose on society.
We wouldn't be treating them like shit though, we'd be forcing them to
learn self-respect and self-sufficiency, I think those would be great
lessons for bludging parasites to learn. And when they got hungry enough
with no-where else to go, they would learn. Might be more expensive than
welfare per head, but I doubt you'd ever have to do it to anyone more
than once, and it would only need to be done on long term unemployed
confirmed parasite bludgers.
> Hang on, we already do that with non-violent offenders in
> prision and wonder why the recidivism rate is so high and
> they end up escalating their criminal behaviour.
Agree with you completely here, a very different situation though. The
government wonders why putting a money criminal or traffic criminal in
with rapists and murderers results in them coming out messed up and
dangerous, whereas to you and me the answer is pretty damn obvious. The
"commune" idea is nothing like that at all. They'd all be parasite
bludgers, simple as that.
>> How about my Pov commune suggestion???
>
> Send them all to Tassie!
Come on, Tassie doesn't deserve that! I can think of places in the NT,
like Prudhoe Island, that would be ideal though. They're not going to
get back to Australia very easily so there's no "run-away" problems to
worry about, and it's a damn nice place scenically. I used to be paid to
work there, and that sort of work was like a paid holiday! And if your
thing isn't growing plants, the fishing is damn great too! The other
side factor is that if it's drug/alcohol dependency that's keeping these
people unemployed, they wouldn't be getting any out there. Obviously
you'd need to have medical and security staff there along with
councillors and educators, so it wouldn't be a cheap experiment, but I
think you'd find it would be a well-worthwhile experiment.
>> They wouldn't starve if there
>> were people out there teaching them how to catch fish, grow food. They'd
>> live humbly and have to work fucking hard. A year of that and then the
>> option of returning to education and/or employment, and I think you'd
>> see them jumping at the amazingly easy society we live in, after they've
>> discovered what it's like out in the real world for most of the world's
>> population.
>
> I think they'd just tell you to get fucked and you'd end up
> having the same problems as if you'd abolished unemployment
> benefits for this group.Higher vagrancy costs.
>
> I just think its a case of some problems just not being able
> to be 100% solved.
You could be right on that point. Many would say "errrr, no fucking way,
I'll stay in society and steal instead"... One solution would be to set
up a number of such islands perhaps, some where the parasite long term
unemployed would go if they were to accept such a "penalty" when offered
by Centrelink, others where petty-criminals would be sentenced to rather
than locking them up with hardcore crims in real prisons. And any
dolebludger that refused to go would be told in no uncertain terms that
if they were caught stealing they'd be spending longer than a year on
one of these islands, so better to take the "course" now.
I know it's all wishful thinking, I just think teaching people
self-respect and self-reliance is something that is really needed with a
lot of the parasite types in Oz today.
Even if it ain't a goer with the social security direction, I think it's
a more than reasonable suggestion for petty-thieves and other money
criminals as opposed to violent offenders.
The problem is that we've got to get used to having less, the world
market is equalising, and just as standards of living in countries like
India are rapidly climbing, we're going to have to get used to ours
dropping, because eventually to stay competitive we're going to have to
end up meeting in the middle somewhere.
> I have nightmares over imagining the dismal state that the
> country would be in without the microeconomic reform program
> of the Hawke/Keating/Walsh.And there's still alot of
> unfinished business there.
I just remember losing our triple A for the first time in history, think
that was under Keating. :)
>> I know more than a few bludgers who'll do anything they can to stay
>> unemployed. It's damn pathetic.
>
> And hard to solve from a policy perspective.
Euthan.... Ooops... stop that.... Change of form of benefits so that
alcohol and drugs aren't what we're buying for them would be a good start.
>> Not really, it's amazing how people on the dole, especially of the
>> greenleft-style mold, can afford to sit at cafes drinking their special
>> blends whilst we're working our arses off to pay their bills.
>
> I thought they were mostly Uni-students.The stats certainly
> show that the areas of highest long-term unemployment isnt
> in the trendy areas, and that theres fairly high levels of
> university study going on in trendy inner suburbs.
Them too, professional students are no different than professional dole
bludgers in my opinion. Get your bloody qualifications and get out into
industry.
>> Life is
>> way too easy in Australia, it is quite easy for single people without
>> kids to live verrrry comfortably on the dole. Perhaps we should
>> drastically reduce the amount of "money" these people receive after they
>> become long-term unemployed and start looking at the food-stamp, free
>> public transport, clothes for interviews, etc.etc. style of system, and
>> reduce the "fun" these leeches can have on the dole.
>
> Even those systems dont particularly work well because you
> get vagrancy costs again, especially with an unemployment
> level of 5%,
Why would you get those costs??? Food supplied, rent supplied, the only
thing not supplied is drugs and alcohol. Obviously entertainment would
have to be factored in as no-one can be expected to "just exist" without
going mad and resorting to crime. Perhaps an entertainment percentage of
payment is withheld by Centrelink and clients "apply" to get their movie
tickets or tv set, etc with only a minimal amount of cash in hand for
incidentals given out to the long term unemployed. Again, expensive to
administer in the short term, but beneficial to society in the eventual
outcome. Long-term unemployment is no longer a party so people who can
work do go out and get skills and get jobs.
> just about all those that want work get it.The
> big problem with the unemployment data is the number of part
> time workers wanting more hours and more secure positions.
Exactly, there are PLENTY out there that are supposedly employed and are
not remotely close to being FTE's even though they want to be, and are
earning not nearly enough on their part-time employment. In a way
forcing those that don't want to work to look for work legitimately
would probably make life even harder for those really wanting to look
for work, but that's where the mandatory training comes in, there are
plenty of industries where we don't have enough people, force the long
term unemployed into training in these areas.
Rod Speed
> Crouching Nun, Hidden Cucumber wrote
>>> Make them productive then.
>> Its harder then it sounds.Some people just refuse to be productive.
> They'd have to become productive under the pov commune idea, "grow and
> catch your own food if you want to eat, any day you don't work in the
> garden you don't benefit from it's food, or go fishing and bring back
> fish". A year or so of that and they'll learn how easy life is in society
> and all their greenleft silver-spoon whinging would dry up rapidly.
Sure, but it comes unstuck when they have kids etc.
Few would be prepared to let the kids starve etc and the cost
of removing the kids would be a lot higher than the dole too.
Thats the main problem with the worst of the abo rural ghettos.
>> And some people are just honest-to-goodness useless.
>> I'm sure we've all met some poor bugger that was
>> completely hopeless at just about everything.
> Very true, but people that are truly useless at EVERYTHING are a major
> exception from the norm.
Thats arguable with the dregs of society that cant
or wont get a job with an unemployment rate of 5%
> Most of these people we've all met that appear to be totally useless are
> generally good at other things, they've just been asked to do things that
> they are not good at.
Trouble is that the worst of them arent good at anything
except bludging and they arent much good at that either.
> The very rare few that are just no-hopers I think are probably retards
> that have not been diagnosed correctly.
Dunno, hard to believe that all those bludging abos that
Noel Pearson froths at the mouth about are all retards.
Ditto in spades with the sluts that keep pumping out kids
so they end up with a better real standard of living than
someone doing a low end job like a checkout monkey.
And most of the kids will end up just as bad.
>>> The government seems too fucking blind to come to that obvious
>>> solution, rather than paying welfare they should be paying Austudy to
>>> these long-term unemployed people and forcing them to train up.
They so basically do that to some extent with the long term unemployed,
force them to get some training. I'd love to hear from those forced to
'train' the worst of them tho, bet they're a complete waste of time.
>> That should skill up some people to be able to contribute.
>> Skill development in this country is a travesty, at all levels.
> Agreed totally.
Thats overstating it with the most basic skills.
Yes, much more should be done in schools
but the TAFE system isnt too bad in that area.
The main problem that it doesnt address is those
for whom academic education is a complete
waste of time even when its just what is done
with say bricklayers and mechanics etc.
There really needs to be something closer
to the way the military does it with those,
without the time wasted on military stuff.
>> But there's still going to be a group left consisting of those that dont
>> want to work, or are just too hopeless too.
Yep, anyone with a clue can bludge for life basically.
With the sluts that keep pumping out little
kids, they even get to enjoy the process.
>> WHat to do with them is the question.
Yep. No one has ever come up with
much over quite a few centurys now.
The workhouse did sort of work in the sense of being one hell of
a disincentive to bludging but we're never gunna see that again.
Now we are even stupid enough to pay them substantial
money to keep pumping out more of the same. Barking mad.
>> And its a question the country will have to deal with sooner rather than
>> later as the labour market tightens further over the next 10 years.
> Pov communes for those that don't fulfil their job hunting obligations,
> support for those that are legitimately trying to find work.
See above.
Even the remote abo 'communitys' wouldnt work done like that.
>>> Not when we are now importing workers out of necessity.
>> I would argue that importing workers is cheaper than trying to get
>> either that hardcore group of people that dont want to work to do so, or
>> to force the completely unproductive to do so.Especially for certain
>> types of jobs.
> In the short term yes, in the long term if we had a system that enforced
> training in areas we are lacking in skilled workers onto the unemployed,
> we'd no longer be lacking people with entry level skills for these areas,
That is distinctly arguable. The main difference is that
the immigrants are a tiny subset of all wogs, those who
are prepared to get off their arses and come here to
work. Those have got to be much better prospects than
say the abo bludgers who are so stupid they wont even
get off their arses and leave the rural slums they are
stuck in and prefer to bludge and get pissed there instead.
It'd be interesting to see how they behaved if they only got
their handouts in food stamps and couldnt turn them into grog.
> and could sustain these areas ourselves without being forced to
> import workers. We should not have to canvas for skills overseas,
> instead we should just be taking in immigrants that truly want to live
> out their lives here. Where is the benefit of bringing in someone from
> overseas to work, who earns all that money, sends it home and effectively
> removes it from our economy?
Its worked pretty well in the past. The main
problem with them is more the language problem.
>> Even if you remove their unemployment benefits, there is still costs
>> involved, it just transfers from the welfare system to the criminal
>> justice system,
Yep, in spades with places like the west of NSW like Dubbo etc.
>> and the charity sector, higher insurance and other miscelleneous costs.
And just the cost of the welfare suburbs for dregs like that.
It would be interesting to see what the real total
cost of suburbs like Macquarie Fields etc is.
Doesnt have to be Palm Island.
> Like I said, I don't seriously think removing support for non-income
> earners would work. Changing the form of that support for those
> diagnosed as bludgers is another matter. Fend for yourself on a Pov
> commune for a year with the help of supervisory staff who will teach
> you what you need to know to survive, and whilst you are learning
> providing the effort is put in you are fed by the "commune".
It doesnt work in the remote abo 'communitys' that have tried that.
Its distinctly arguable whether it would work if they didnt get
their welfare handout in cash that they can spend on grog.
> Want to sit on your arse all day, I guarantee after a few days they'd get
> hungry enough to realise the world doesn't give out handouts in brutal
> reality-land, and they'd put in the effort.
Its more complicated than than when they have so many kids.
>>> The cost of training the long-term unemployed (force them to go to TAFE
>>> for instance) isn't that much greater than welfare payments,
Yes, thats why the long term unemployed are
forced to do that to keep getting their dole.
>>> and the long term benefits are much more tangible.
Thats distinctly arguable at an unemployment rate of 5%
>> With unemployment at 5%, I dont think theres alot of value to be had in
>> trying to squeeze blood out of that particular labour market stone.
Me too.
> I don't trust that 5% figure. How many of the 95% supposedly employed are
> only working one day here or two days there,
Fuck all.
> and would die for a full time job????
Fuck all. There's plenty of full time jobs
around now with no one to do them.
> Perhaps employment should be rated by percentage of the work-capable
> population that is not receiving any unemployment subsidy from
> Centrelink.
Thats not very viable either when some choose to 'work' like that.
>>> Returning to a system of free education for citizens would be great
>>> even if expensive, and that would do a hell of a lot to boost this
>>> country.
I doubt it. Those who are long term unemployed get free education now.
>> I think that is something that Australia will need to seriously
>> consider.
It already has with the long term unemployed, long ago.
>> Probably not totally free, but certainly HECS type affairs for TAFE and
>> non-tertiary education,
The long term unemployed get it totally free now.
>> and possibly reducing HECS or removing it completely for sectors in
>> major shortage.
There isnt any evidence that the HECS is a real disincentive
in the sense that there are courses with not enough students.
> I'd agree with those ideas, I'd prefer to see totally free public
> education, as "smart industries" are the only hope this country has for
> the future to stay economically sound,
Oh bullshit. There will always be plenty of
monkeys needed in the service industrys.
More than we needed in the past actually with so many choosing to
pay people to look after their pre school kids and geriatric parents etc.
> but I don't see the government giving 2 shits beyond their term in office
> after which they're rich enough to bail from the country if they need to
> anyway.
People like Howard dont work like that. Neither does Beastly.
>>> Perhaps euthanasia for the true parasites then???
Yeah, that would certainly work and
stop them breeding more of the same.
>> Tough bastard B^P
> Just a voice in the back of my head that spoke out through my fingers,
Just another of those 'voices' in your head eh ? |-)
> I wouldn't really suggest we do that... 8] ... I'd reserve that for scum
> like rapists, cold-blooded murderers and paedophiles!
Cant see why we cant with alcoholics, life time welfare bludgers etc.
>>> Perhaps those that become "no hope" cases on welfare should
>>> be put into true poverty in experimental camps for a year of their
>>> lives, and when they return to society you'd most likely see an
>>> amazing improvement in their attitudes and the selfishness would
>>> disappear.
Doesnt happen with the remote abo 'communitys'
>> Works in theory,
No it doesnt.
>> probably not doable in practice though.Alot of those people live pretty
>> shitty lives already - mostly self-inflicted.
And deliberately chosen too. There's a reason that bludgers
are monstered, plenty would bludge for life if they could.
>> Of course, you could always make it even shittier, but would you really
>> want to go there.
It didnt even work, most obviously with workhouses.
>> Having the state treat some clown like shit for 12 months and then let
>> them loose on society.
We do that with the jails.
> We wouldn't be treating them like shit though, we'd be forcing them to
> learn self-respect and self-sufficiency, I think those would be great
> lessons for bludging parasites to learn.
It doesnt work. It doesnt even work with conscripts,
the worst of the bludgers stay bludgers.
> And when they got hungry enough with no-where else to go, they would
> learn.
The worst of the dregs we do that too currently just steal in that
situation.
Most obviously with the kids of abos who drink their welfare handout.
> Might be more expensive than welfare per head, but I doubt you'd ever
> have to do it to anyone more than once, and it would only need to be done
> on long term unemployed confirmed parasite bludgers.
Trouble is that with an unemployment rate of 5%,
thats all there is that currently gets the dole etc.
>> Hang on, we already do that with non-violent offenders in prision
We do indeed.
>> and wonder why the recidivism rate is so high and they end up escalating
>> their criminal behaviour.
> Agree with you completely here, a very different situation though.
We already do it with the remote abo 'communitys'
too and nothing changes with them.
We have even tried paying them to go to where the
work is, like with fruit picking, and fuck all of them
change at all, they just decide that bludging is a lot easier.
> The government wonders why putting a money criminal or traffic criminal
> in with rapists and murderers results in them coming out messed up and
> dangerous, whereas to you and me the answer is pretty damn obvious. The
> "commune" idea is nothing like that at all. They'd all be parasite
> bludgers, simple as that.
And even bludgers like Brian Burke and Alan
Bond come out as bad as they went in too.
>>> How about my Pov commune suggestion???
>> Send them all to Tassie!
> Come on, Tassie doesn't deserve that! I can think of places in the NT,
Plenty of remote abo 'communitys' like that now. Thats
basically what the CDEP scheme is about. It doesnt work.
> like Prudhoe Island, that would be ideal though. They're not going to get
> back to Australia very easily so there's no "run-away" problems to worry
> about, and it's a damn nice place scenically.
Thats been tried with Palm Island. Its the biggest obscenity around.
Quite a few islands north of the NT too.
> I used to be paid to work there, and that sort of work was like a paid
> holiday!
Sure, and plenty of european kids do the same thing with picking etc.
Not the absolute dregs of the unemployment market tho.
> And if your thing isn't growing plants, the fishing is damn great too!
> The other side factor is that if it's drug/alcohol dependency that's
> keeping
> these people unemployed, they wouldn't be getting any out there.
Thats been tried too with dry 'communitys'. Doesnt work either.
> Obviously you'd need to have medical and security staff there along with
> councillors and educators, so it wouldn't be a cheap experiment, but I
> think you'd find it would be a well-worthwhile experiment.
Its been tried for decades now. Palm Island has
been around for more than half a century now.
It didnt even work with the missions
either, even when they were dry by law.
>>> They wouldn't starve if there were people out there teaching them how
>>> to catch fish, grow food.
Sure but they are still welfare bludgers.
>>> They'd live humbly and have to work fucking hard.
They never do, even when its done voluntarily. They never last long.
>>> A year of that and then the option of returning to education and/or
>>> employment, and I think you'd see them jumping at the amazingly easy
>>> society we live in, after they've discovered what it's like out in the
>>> real world for most of the world's population.
It doesnt work with the dregs of the unemployment market.
Basically because its always easier to bludge off welfare.
>> I think they'd just tell you to get fucked and you'd end up having the
>> same problems as if you'd abolished unemployment benefits for this
>> group.Higher vagrancy costs.
And massively higher cost with their kids.
>> I just think its a case of some problems just not being able to be 100%
>> solved.
Yep, we've been trying various approaches for millennia now.
If there was some magic wand to wave, we'd have found it by now.
Even the way HongKong used to be likely wouldnt work anywhere else
and it was always a unique situation, almost entirely non bludgers.
> You could be right on that point. Many would say "errrr, no fucking way,
> I'll stay in society and steal instead"...
Yep, that's precisely what happens in the NT right now.
> One solution would be to set up a number of such islands perhaps, some
> where the parasite long term unemployed would go if they were to accept
> such a "penalty" when offered by Centrelink, others where petty-criminals
> would be sentenced to rather than locking them up with hardcore crims in
> real prisons.
Thats been tried too, with the islands north of the NT.
> And any dolebludger that refused to go would be told in no uncertain
> terms that if they were caught stealing they'd be spending longer than a
> year on one of these islands, so better to take the "course" now.
They basically decide that jail aint that bad.
Lot easier than growing your own food.
There's a reason that the dregs stay out of jail for such short times.
And we were stupid enough to make it harder for them to suicide in jail.
> I know it's all wishful thinking, I just think teaching people
> self-respect and self-reliance is something that is really needed with a
> lot of the parasite types in Oz today.
It just aint possible. Even the military
cant do it with the worst of the dregs.
There's a reason that the poms had to execute so many
of theirs they sent to these islands on the other side of
the world, to grow their own food or die etc.
In spades when the french tried it the carribean.
Chopping their heads off was a lot more effective.
> Even if it ain't a goer with the social security direction, I think it's
> a more than reasonable suggestion for petty-thieves and other money
> criminals as opposed to violent offenders.
Its never worked, basically because thieving
is easier than growing your own food.
Formal education is arguably even harder for the dregs.
>>> I don't think that this is so much to do with welfare and its' pros
>>> and cons, it's to do with this new regime of contractual employment
>>> for short periods. Where I work it's damn hard to get anything
>>> beyond "3 month rolling contracts" which offers no stability and
>>> does nothing to induce any loyalty to the workplace.
>> I agree that contracts and short term labour play a large part in that.
>>> I'm permanent so I'm secure, but I hate seeing other people go through
>>> what I went through when I started there. How do you decide to buy
>>> anything substantial, like a home, if you don't know for sure you'll be
>>> working a few months later?
You recognise in a tight labor market that there are plenty
more jobs out there and that only a hopeless operation
wouldnt keep those they managed to recruit and who
are now familiar with how they do things.
>>> The first company I worked for had a case of "you're on trial for the
>>> first 3 months, if you survive then you're on for life providing you
>>> don't fuck up in any big way and you remain useful to the company".
>>> That was a brilliant system, it weeded out the deadwood and gave
>>> security to the hard workers.
It also produced hordes of useless with Telstra most obviously.
>>> The system I'm in now accumulates deadwood (become permanent and many
>>> show their true colours, and are near indestructible), meanwhile plenty
>>> of hard workers that never get the opportunity to become permanent due
>>> to timing and/or circumstances are ditched and replaced by permanents
>>> that are useless, because they have to pay them anyway. Way to go
>>> government!
>> Australian industry shares alot of the blame here.Too many,
>> for years, refused to acknowledge that Australia's future is
>> in high-skill, high-value,high-pay niche industries, that requires large
>> amounts of capital investment and investment in education, allowing a
>> solid high pay workforce with the
>> service sector pick up the rest.
The service sector will always be the major
employer in a modern first world economy.
>> What we got instead was monopolies, protectionism, special interest
>> pleading, ultra conservative business practices and lazy, accomodating
>> governments.
And most of that has been binned now.
> The problem is that we've got to get used to having less, the world
> market is equalising, and just as standards of living in countries like
> India are rapidly climbing, we're going to have to get used to ours
> dropping,
Ours hasnt dropped at all. In spades
for those at the bottom economically.
> because eventually to stay competitive we're going to have to end up
> meeting in the middle somewhere.
Nope, because what can be done in india will
always be a tiny subset of our entire labor market.
And we mostly used new immigrants in manufacturing in the
time since the war anyway. Best to leave them back in china
and let them keep the associated pollution back there too.
>> I have nightmares over imagining the dismal state that the country would
>> be in without the microeconomic reform program of the
>> Hawke/Keating/Walsh.
There's been plenty more done by Howard/Costello etc.
With vastly better interest rates and unemployment rates too.
>> And there's still alot of unfinished business there.
Sure.
> I just remember losing our triple A for the first time in history, think
> that was under Keating. :)
And we survived the asian melt down fine.
With fools like Hewson proclaiming that it was absolutely
guaranteed to be the end of civilisation as we know it.
>>> I know more than a few bludgers who'll do anything they can to stay
>>> unemployed. It's damn pathetic.
>> And hard to solve from a policy perspective.
Impossible, actually. We arent prepared to let them starve anymore.
> Euthan.... Ooops... stop that.... Change of form of benefits so that
> alcohol and drugs aren't what we're buying for them would be a good
> start.
Sure, but they'd steal them or for them anyway.
>>> Not really, it's amazing how people on the dole, especially of the
>>> greenleft-style mold, can afford to sit at cafes drinking their
>>> special blends whilst we're working our arses off to pay their bills.
>> I thought they were mostly Uni-students.
Nope, plenty long past that.
>> The stats certainly show that the areas of highest long-term
>> unemployment isnt in the trendy areas, and that theres fairly high
>> levels of university study going on in trendy inner suburbs.
Sure, but the worst of the dregs are there too.
> Them too, professional students are no different than professional dole
> bludgers in my opinion. Get your bloody qualifications and get out into
> industry.
True.
>>> Life is way too easy in Australia, it is quite easy for single people
>>> without kids to live verrrry comfortably on the dole.
And even easier if you have enough kids.
>>> Perhaps we should drastically reduce the amount of "money" these people
>>> receive after they become long-term unemployed and start looking at the
>>> food-stamp, free public transport, clothes for interviews, etc.etc.
>>> style of system, and reduce the "fun" these leeches can have on the
>>> dole.
Thats essentially what the CDEP is all about. Doesnt work either.
>> Even those systems dont particularly work well because you get vagrancy
>> costs again, especially with an unemployment level of 5%,
> Why would you get those costs??? Food supplied, rent supplied, the only
> thing not supplied is drugs and alcohol.
Thats what they steal for.
> Obviously entertainment would have to be factored in as no-one can be
> expected to "just exist" without going mad and resorting to crime.
> Perhaps an
> entertainment percentage of payment is withheld by Centrelink and clients
> "apply" to get their movie tickets or tv set, etc with only a minimal
> amount of cash in hand for incidentals given out to the long term
> unemployed.
ALL the long term unemployed are bludgers
in a 5% unemployment economy.
> Again, expensive to administer in the short term,
> but beneficial to society in the eventual outcome.
Sure, at least those bludgers couldnt blow all their
welfare on grog and leave someone else to feed the kids.
You've got a problem tho when the kids just sniff petrol
and glue etc instead of bothering with anything else.
> Long-term unemployment is no longer a party so people who can work do go
> out and get skills and get jobs.
It doesnt work like that. The worst of the bludgers find it
easier to bludge, even if they get no welfare handout at all.
There will always be fools like Noffs who will feed them.
>> just about all those that want work get it. The big problem with the
>> unemployment data is the number of part time workers wanting more hours
>> and more secure positions.
No more than it is with those that want a better job.
> Exactly, there are PLENTY out there that are supposedly employed and are
> not remotely close to being FTE's even though they want to be,
> and are earning not nearly enough on their part-time employment.
Its arguable that there are actually many
of those in a 5% unemployment market.
> In a way forcing those that don't want to work to look for work
> legitimately
> would probably make life even harder for those really wanting to look
> for work, but that's where the mandatory training comes in, there are
> plenty of industries where we don't have enough people, force the long
> term unemployed into training in these areas.
They're esssentially unemployable. And nothing will change that except
let them starve if they wont work, no welfare or handouts at all.
Addinall
Hunter01 wrote:
> Crouching Nun, Hidden Cucumber wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 08:56:10 +0800, Hunter01
> > <hunt...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> Make them productive then.
> >
> > Its harder then it sounds.Some people just refuse to be
> > productive.
>
>
> are only working one day here or two days there, and would die for a
> full time job???? Perhaps employment should be rated by percentage of
> the work-capable population that is not receiving any unemployment
> subsidy from Centrelink.
That's a very good question. I ran the numbers in 2003 and came up
with a suprising figure that of the work capable population, only
26% of them do not get additional payments, and of that 26%,
19% worked for the government (state or federal).
You need access to a few different data sets.
I'll se if I can do it again and post the methodology.
Mark Addinall.
Hunter01
> Hunter01 <hunt...@iinet.net.au> wrote
>> They'd have to become productive under the pov commune idea, "grow and
>> catch your own food if you want to eat, any day you don't work in the
>> garden you don't benefit from it's food, or go fishing and bring back
>> fish". A year or so of that and they'll learn how easy life is in society
>> and all their greenleft silver-spoon whinging would dry up rapidly.
>
> Sure, but it comes unstuck when they have kids etc.
True enough, but that'd be a "capability" thing. Not capable of doing
the work cos they are busy looking after the kids. But that is a trap in
itself... I know more than one "baby factory" that depends on just that.
> Few would be prepared to let the kids starve etc and the cost
> of removing the kids would be a lot higher than the dole too.
I'm of two minds about that myself. If they're being brought up as scum
then they should be removed, this stolen generation shit that seems to
give one part of the community a hands-off approach is wrong. If people
lose their kids by not looking after them, that should be colour-blind,
it should apply to all, but it doesn't.
Where I work I've now got a little 14 or 15 or so year old cunt running
around grabbing female students and one of my own staff was asked by the
cunt "wanna suck my dick" the other day. I'm probly going to loose my
job soon the way things are escalating, I went out and told the prick
what I thought and he took off, but suddenly Friday the little shit has
more balls and wanted to get mouthy, so I got mouthy back. In my
position I can't get away with doing that, but who I am makes me do it
anyway, the cunt pushes it too far he'll find out properly and then I
will lose my job, but a> the last person he had a go at is like a sister
to me and b> I don't kiss arse for anyone, I don't give a fuck what
colour he is or what age he is, he lays hands on a woman when I'm around
he'll loose a kneecap, if he was an adult he'd loose a fuck of a lot
more, but he'll never fucking hurt anyone again.
I shouldn't have to be in that position, but I am, cos the cops laugh it
off as "are any of the students willing to finger him?".. And of course
they're not, they just come here to study, and what he's said to staff
is just words... Cunt needs an accident....
> Thats the main problem with the worst of the abo rural ghettos.
Perhaps it should happen there too....
>> Very true, but people that are truly useless at EVERYTHING are a major
>> exception from the norm.
>
> Thats arguable with the dregs of society that cant
> or wont get a job with an unemployment rate of 5%
Wont rather than cant being the operative... Very few are truly useless,
plenty more want to play that role.
>> Most of these people we've all met that appear to be totally useless are
>> generally good at other things, they've just been asked to do things that
>> they are not good at.
>
> Trouble is that the worst of them arent good at anything
> except bludging and they arent much good at that either.
How can you not be good at bludging??? These people for the most part
are capable of working, even if it's only digging ditches or picking up
rubbish, there's no reason they can't be useful.
>> The very rare few that are just no-hopers I think are probably retards
>> that have not been diagnosed correctly.
>
> Dunno, hard to believe that all those bludging abos that
> Noel Pearson froths at the mouth about are all retards.
But I don't think they are total no-hopers, I think they've spent so
long being told "whitey owes you" that they've forgotten what pride and
self-respect is.... And the longer we let that continue the worse it's
going to get. When I worked in the NT I was amazed (previously being
Perth bred) by the different attitude of Aborigines up there, the ones I
knew worked their fucking arses off and were good friends, that is
something that is fucking rare in Perth. Sad really.
> Ditto in spades with the sluts that keep pumping out kids
> so they end up with a better real standard of living than
> someone doing a low end job like a checkout monkey.
Baby factories are a third evil, professional bludgers, professional
students and baby factories... All are parasites.....
> And most of the kids will end up just as bad.
Worse.....
>>> That should skill up some people to be able to contribute.
>>> Skill development in this country is a travesty, at all levels.
>
>> Agreed totally.
>
> Thats overstating it with the most basic skills.
>
> Yes, much more should be done in schools
> but the TAFE system isnt too bad in that area.
Wanna bet??? Have a good look at competency based training. We have a
massive amount of lecturers in WA leaving in protest over how shit it
is. It doesn't teach them shit any more, showing up is nearly enough to
get a pass... It's fucking pathetic. We in WA used to have high
standards but we were forced to follow national curriculum and
competency based training, and since then everything has gone to shit.
> The main problem that it doesnt address is those
> for whom academic education is a complete
> waste of time even when its just what is done
> with say bricklayers and mechanics etc.
We run courses in both... Used to need to know what you were doing. Not
any more.
> There really needs to be something closer
> to the way the military does it with those,
> without the time wasted on military stuff.
Boot camp style arrangements??? I'd go with that.... Don't go to uni,
don't go to TAFE (what it is these days), enforced training through a
third "bootcamp" stream.... Probly not what you meant, but hey, I
thought I'd extrapolate a bit....
>>> But there's still going to be a group left consisting of those that dont
>>> want to work, or are just too hopeless too.
>
> Yep, anyone with a clue can bludge for life basically.
>
> With the sluts that keep pumping out little
> kids, they even get to enjoy the process.
Not if they bring the kids up right, but plenty don't.....
>>> WHat to do with them is the question.
>
> Yep. No one has ever come up with
> much over quite a few centurys now.
>
> The workhouse did sort of work in the sense of being one hell of
> a disincentive to bludging but we're never gunna see that again.
>
> Now we are even stupid enough to pay them substantial
> money to keep pumping out more of the same. Barking mad.
No alternative... Either pay them or they become crims... The only other
alternatives I see are remove them from society and put them somewhere
where they learn not to be parasites.
>> Pov communes for those that don't fulfil their job hunting obligations,
>> support for those that are legitimately trying to find work.
>
> See above.
>
> Even the remote abo 'communitys' wouldnt work done like that.
Check Croker Island in the NT, works beautifully there.... Dry island
(apart from when I was there, but of course I never had any, because I'd
be in breech of quite a number of laws if I did, so I didn't), good
people, great community.
>> In the short term yes, in the long term if we had a system that enforced
>> training in areas we are lacking in skilled workers onto the unemployed,
>> we'd no longer be lacking people with entry level skills for these areas,
>
> That is distinctly arguable. The main difference is that
> the immigrants are a tiny subset of all wogs, those who
> are prepared to get off their arses and come here to
> work. Those have got to be much better prospects than
> say the abo bludgers who are so stupid they wont even
> get off their arses and leave the rural slums they are
> stuck in and prefer to bludge and get pissed there instead.
I think you're missing my point. There's two sorts of visitors. The ones
that want to move here cos they love the place and want to become
Aussies and live out their lives here (the sort we want) and those that
come here to make as many bucks as possible to take home and live it big
on what they've earned (those that are taking from the economy). I
reckon we're better off with the first than the second, but with the
"import a worker" mentality with skill shortages we get plenty more of
the second variety. We don't want them.. We're better off with lifers
who love the country. Sure, plenty of the economic opportunists might
think "fuck, this country is great! I'll stay here!" , but I've got a
bit more faith in those that come here with that already in mind.
> It'd be interesting to see how they behaved if they only got
> their handouts in food stamps and couldnt turn them into grog.
Riots???? I reckon it should happen though.
>> and could sustain these areas ourselves without being forced to
>> import workers. We should not have to canvas for skills overseas,
>> instead we should just be taking in immigrants that truly want to live
>> out their lives here. Where is the benefit of bringing in someone from
>> overseas to work, who earns all that money, sends it home and effectively
>> removes it from our economy?
>
> Its worked pretty well in the past. The main
> problem with them is more the language problem.
One of the guys I supervise is educated in Karachi, and it's damn hard
to understand what he's saying some times. But at the same time I don't
think I've ever met another human being that has his work ethic, and he
has a heart of gold that is unmatchable. He's also a devout Muslim, so
I'm sure cunts like Petzl would want to spit on him, but then cunts like
petzl are never going to go beyond their keyboards, because they know
what'd happen to them if they did.... This guy came to Australia because
he loved the idea of living here, and he came into our workplace on the
offer of "sorry, we can only offer you 3 months at a time". He told us
that he'd take the next more permanent opportunity that came up (as he
should), but within a month he told us that he felt he fit in so well
he'd stick it out and see how it went. I'm fucking happy to say he got
permanency which he well deserved, and that's the way things should be
here. Not people coming over to earn a few bucks and fuck off, good
people like this guy loving the country enough to want to live here.
>> Like I said, I don't seriously think removing support for non-income
>> earners would work. Changing the form of that support for those
>> diagnosed as bludgers is another matter. Fend for yourself on a Pov
>> commune for a year with the help of supervisory staff who will teach
>> you what you need to know to survive, and whilst you are learning
>> providing the effort is put in you are fed by the "commune".
>
> It doesnt work in the remote abo 'communitys' that have tried that.
>
> Its distinctly arguable whether it would work if they didnt get
> their welfare handout in cash that they can spend on grog.
Put them somewhere where there is no grog available. Works on Croker.
>> Want to sit on your arse all day, I guarantee after a few days they'd get
>> hungry enough to realise the world doesn't give out handouts in brutal
>> reality-land, and they'd put in the effort.
>
> Its more complicated than than when they have so many kids.
True enough, I'm thinking from a singles perspective, but then
capability would be the over-riding rule in that case.
>> I don't trust that 5% figure. How many of the 95% supposedly employed are
>> only working one day here or two days there,
>
> Fuck all.
I know a few.
>> and would die for a full time job????
>
> Fuck all. There's plenty of full time jobs
> around now with no one to do them.
True, but doing what??? Skills shortage is our problem in a lot of that.
Part of where enforced training in the long-term would be a partial fix.
>> Perhaps employment should be rated by percentage of the work-capable
>> population that is not receiving any unemployment subsidy from
>> Centrelink.
>
> Thats not very viable either when some choose to 'work' like that.
Well and good for those that choose to, many others don't, but are stuck
with that because the current climate is all about the worker being as
"get riddable" as possible. Casuals don't incur
overtime/penalties/sickies/annual leave/long service/etc.etc.etc., and
it's getting harder and harder. In the government it's technically
"wrong" (possibly illegal) to have someone on casual for a long period,
but they get around that by putting gaps in the employment, or rolling
"job not done yet, we'll extend" when they knew damn well it was going
to take longer in the first place. It's an employers market on
conditions, even if there is a shortage of good people in most
industries. It's the entry level people that are suffering.
>> I'd agree with those ideas, I'd prefer to see totally free public
>> education, as "smart industries" are the only hope this country has for
>> the future to stay economically sound,
>
> Oh bullshit. There will always be plenty of
> monkeys needed in the service industrys.
Of course, nothing will ever change that for any country anywhere.. More
so in a tourist country, which Australia is to a fair degree.. It's
called looking after the homefront... It doesn't remotely make us
competitive on the world market though (other than the tourist buck),
and our resources that sustain us now are going to eventually run out...
We need to start investing in the smart industries in a big way, or else
give it a hundred years and we'll be third world.
> More than we needed in the past actually with so many choosing to
> pay people to look after their pre school kids and geriatric parents etc.
>
>> but I don't see the government giving 2 shits beyond their term in office
>> after which they're rich enough to bail from the country if they need to
>> anyway.
>
> People like Howard dont work like that. Neither does Beastly.
They don't really give a shit about us either....
>>>> Perhaps euthanasia for the true parasites then???
>
> Yeah, that would certainly work and
> stop them breeding more of the same.
>
>>> Tough bastard B^P
>
>> Just a voice in the back of my head that spoke out through my fingers,
>
> Just another of those 'voices' in your head eh ? |-)
Damn!!! You've heard them too??? I'll have to do something about that..
>> I wouldn't really suggest we do that... 8] ... I'd reserve that for scum
>> like rapists, cold-blooded murderers and paedophiles!
>
> Cant see why we cant with alcoholics, life time welfare bludgers etc.
Leave us alchos alone!!! There is such a thing as functional alchos you
know!!! although my doc tells me (after an interesting conversation
about my liver) that I'm not technically an alcho... Apparently habitual
drinkers don't fall into that category... Fucked if I know, all I know
is I like beer!
>> We wouldn't be treating them like shit though, we'd be forcing them to
>> learn self-respect and self-sufficiency, I think those would be great
>> lessons for bludging parasites to learn.
>
> It doesnt work. It doesnt even work with conscripts,
> the worst of the bludgers stay bludgers.
Only the worst??? If most come good wouldn't it be worth it?
>> And when they got hungry enough with no-where else to go, they would
>> learn.
>
> The worst of the dregs we do that too currently just steal in that
> situation.
Wouldn't be able to with the desolate nowhere island scenario.
> Most obviously with the kids of abos who drink their welfare handout.
Yeah, a different problem altogether, not one that's likely to be
tackled in a politically correct world unfortunately.
>> Might be more expensive than welfare per head, but I doubt you'd ever
>> have to do it to anyone more than once, and it would only need to be done
>> on long term unemployed confirmed parasite bludgers.
>
> Trouble is that with an unemployment rate of 5%,
> thats all there is that currently gets the dole etc.
Don't trust that 5%... Want to see how many are full time before I'll
believe it.
>> Agree with you completely here, a very different situation though.
>
> We already do it with the remote abo 'communitys'
> too and nothing changes with them.
>
> We have even tried paying them to go to where the
> work is, like with fruit picking, and fuck all of them
> change at all, they just decide that bludging is a lot easier.
Yet on Croker Island it works bloody well, a dry island where they can't
get anywhere else.
>> The government wonders why putting a money criminal or traffic criminal
>> in with rapists and murderers results in them coming out messed up and
>> dangerous, whereas to you and me the answer is pretty damn obvious. The
>> "commune" idea is nothing like that at all. They'd all be parasite
>> bludgers, simple as that.
>
> And even bludgers like Brian Burke and Alan
> Bond come out as bad as they went in too.
Can we just shoot them??
>> Come on, Tassie doesn't deserve that! I can think of places in the NT,
>
> Plenty of remote abo 'communitys' like that now. Thats
> basically what the CDEP scheme is about. It doesnt work.
Dunno about CDEP and too pissed to look it up, this post is too long as
it is, so I'll stand ignorant on that one. Better still, fuck it, vision
blurring, I'll reply with this for now and take up the second half
tomorrow! It's fucking late and I think the sun's about to come up or
something!
Rod Speed
>>> They'd have to become productive under the pov commune idea, "grow and
>>> catch your own food if you want to eat, any day you don't work in the
>>> garden you don't benefit from it's food, or go fishing and bring back
>>> fish". A year or so of that and they'll learn how easy life is in
>>> society and all their greenleft silver-spoon whinging would dry up
>>> rapidly.
>> Sure, but it comes unstuck when they have kids etc.
> True enough, but that'd be a "capability" thing. Not capable of doing the
> work cos they are busy looking after the kids.
The worst of the dregs dont bother with that.
> But that is a trap in itself... I know more than one "baby factory" that
> depends on just that.
Precisely. They'd just have more kids to avoid
getting frog marched into the pov commune.
And pov communes have never really worked except in the most
unusual circumstances like say israeli kibbutz etc anyway. It didnt
really work when the poms and frogs tried it a coupla centurys ago
now or when the russians tried it last century, or the chinese later.
>> Few would be prepared to let the kids starve etc and the cost
>> of removing the kids would be a lot higher than the dole too.
> I'm of two minds about that myself. If they're being brought up as
> scum then they should be removed, this stolen generation shit that
> seems to give one part of the community a hands-off approach is
> wrong. If people lose their kids by not looking after them, that
> should be colour-blind, it should apply to all, but it doesn't.
Sure, but the result with the removed kids is pretty obscene.
Most of them end up bludgers. Thats what happened when
the poms shipped their surplus kids from the dregs of theirs
off all over the world after the war etc.
> Where I work I've now got a little 14 or 15 or so year old cunt
> running around grabbing female students and one of my own staff was asked
> by the cunt "wanna suck my dick" the other day. I'm probly going to loose
> my job soon the way things are escalating, I went out and told the prick
> what I thought and he took off, but suddenly Friday the little shit has
> more balls and wanted to get mouthy, so I got mouthy back. In my position
> I can't get away with doing that, but who I am makes me do it anyway, the
> cunt pushes it too far he'll find out properly and then I will lose my
> job, but a> the last person he had a go at is like a sister to me and b>
> I don't kiss arse for anyone, I don't give a fuck what colour he is or
> what age he is, he lays hands on a woman when I'm around he'll loose a
> kneecap, if he was an adult he'd loose a fuck of a lot more, but he'll
> never fucking hurt anyone again.
Yeah, that sort of thing is one hell of a problem in many country towns.
The worst of ours light fires to get the fire brigade to show
up and then stone the fireys etc for a bit of light entertainment.
They've trashed a few cop cars like that as well.
I caught one burgling my house, grabbed him literally, called
the cops, went down to the cop shop to make a formal
statement, and saw his mum screaming at the cops as
soon as she got in thru the front door down the cop shop.
> I shouldn't have to be in that position, but I am, cos the cops laugh it
> off as "are any of the students willing to finger him?".. And of course
> they're not, they just come here to study, and what he's said to staff is
> just words... Cunt needs an accident....
Yeah, and some of the local cops have suggested that thats
the best approach since they cant do that themselves.
>> Thats the main problem with the worst of the abo rural ghettos.
> Perhaps it should happen there too....
Its been tried and just doesnt work.
>>> Very true, but people that are truly useless at EVERYTHING are a major
>>> exception from the norm.
>> Thats arguable with the dregs of society that cant
>> or wont get a job with an unemployment rate of 5%
> Wont rather than cant being the operative... Very few are truly useless,
> plenty more want to play that role.
Yeah, thats obvious from what they manage with the real
morons. They are quite effective at the low end of the labor
market, lawn mowing etc. The main thing you notice with
those is that there are a lot more of them than the non
morons and that they shout at each other a lot.
>>> Most of these people we've all met that appear to be totally
>>> useless are generally good at other things, they've just been asked to
>>> do things that they are not good at.
>> Trouble is that the worst of them arent good at anything
>> except bludging and they arent much good at that either.
> How can you not be good at bludging??? These people for the most part are
> capable of working, even if it's only digging ditches or picking up
> rubbish, there's no reason they can't be useful.
Trouble is that it costs too much to supervise them doing that stuff.
>>> The very rare few that are just no-hopers I think are probably retards
>>> that have not been diagnosed correctly.
>> Dunno, hard to believe that all those bludging abos that
>> Noel Pearson froths at the mouth about are all retards.
> But I don't think they are total no-hopers,
Dunno, thats arguable with those who spend their welfare
on grog, end up with a higher murder rate than you ever
see in the worst of the US urban ghettos, with their little
kids with absolutely unbelievable sexual disease rates,
with almost all of the kids into petrol and glue sniffing etc.
So bad that they have to have special petrol that doesnt
work when sniffed in the cars.
> I think they've spent so long being told "whitey owes you" that they've
> forgotten what pride and self-respect is....
Its WAY past that now.
> And the longer we let that continue the worse it's going to get. When I
> worked in the NT I was amazed (previously being Perth bred) by the
> different attitude of Aborigines up there, the ones I knew worked their
> fucking arses off and were good friends,
> that is something that is fucking rare in Perth. Sad really.
There's plenty of useless bludgers in the NT.
>> Ditto in spades with the sluts that keep pumping out kids
>> so they end up with a better real standard of living than
>> someone doing a low end job like a checkout monkey.
> Baby factories are a third evil, professional bludgers, professional
> students and baby factories... All are parasites.....
Yeah, thats the main area where I think govt
policy is completely fucked. They've just recently
got even worse with the 'baby bonus' crap.
Thats had one hell of an effect in a place like
Dubbo with the absolute dregs of that place.
>> And most of the kids will end up just as bad.
> Worse.....
Yeah, they do seem to be getting worse in each generation.
>>>> That should skill up some people to be able to contribute.
>>>> Skill development in this country is a travesty, at all levels.
>>> Agreed totally.
>> Thats overstating it with the most basic skills.
>> Yes, much more should be done in schools
>> but the TAFE system isnt too bad in that area.
> Wanna bet??? Have a good look at competency based training. We have a
> massive amount of lecturers in WA leaving in protest over how shit it is.
> It doesn't teach them shit any more, showing up is nearly enough to get a
> pass... It's fucking pathetic. We in WA used to have high standards but
> we were forced to follow national curriculum and competency based
> training, and since then everything has gone to shit.
Must admit that I dont know anything about the WA TAFE system.
>> The main problem that it doesnt address is those
>> for whom academic education is a complete
>> waste of time even when its just what is done
>> with say bricklayers and mechanics etc.
> We run courses in both... Used to need to know what you were doing. Not
> any more.
>> There really needs to be something closer
>> to the way the military does it with those,
>> without the time wasted on military stuff.
> Boot camp style arrangements??? I'd go with that.... Don't go to uni,
> don't go to TAFE (what it is these days), enforced training through a
> third "bootcamp" stream.... Probly not what you meant,
Yes it was.
> but hey, I thought I'd extrapolate a bit....
>>>> But there's still going to be a group left consisting of those
>>>> that dont want to work, or are just too hopeless too.
>> Yep, anyone with a clue can bludge for life basically.
>> With the sluts that keep pumping out little
>> kids, they even get to enjoy the process.
> Not if they bring the kids up right, but plenty don't.....
I meant the fucking that produces the kids.
>>>> WHat to do with them is the question.
>> Yep. No one has ever come up with
>> much over quite a few centurys now.
>> The workhouse did sort of work in the sense of being one hell of
>> a disincentive to bludging but we're never gunna see that again.
>> Now we are even stupid enough to pay them substantial
>> money to keep pumping out more of the same. Barking mad.
> No alternative... Either pay them or they become crims...
I meant paying them to have more kids.
> The only other alternatives I see are remove them from society and put
> them somewhere where they learn not to be parasites.
Not convinced thats even possible.
Even the military system cant do that, you end up with plenty who
try to claim medical problems so they can bludge once out of it.
>>> Pov communes for those that don't fulfil their job hunting obligations,
>>> support for those that are legitimately trying to find work.
>> See above.
>> Even the remote abo 'communitys' wouldnt work done like that.
> Check Croker Island in the NT, works beautifully there....
No it doesnt, they all get welfare handouts for life.
> Dry island (apart from when I was there, but of course I never had any,
> because I'd be in breech of quite a number of laws if I did, so I
> didn't), good people, great community.
Its just an island full of welfare bludgers with
a few providing services to welfare bludgers.
>>>>> Not when we are now importing workers out of necessity.
>>>> I would argue that importing workers is cheaper than trying to get
>>>> either that hardcore group of people that dont want to work to do so,
>>>> or to force the completely unproductive to do so.Especially for
>>>> certain types of jobs.
>>> In the short term yes, in the long term if we had a system that
>>> enforced training in areas we are lacking in skilled workers onto the
>>> unemployed, we'd no longer be lacking people with entry level skills
>>> for these areas,
>> That is distinctly arguable. The main difference is that
>> the immigrants are a tiny subset of all wogs, those who
>> are prepared to get off their arses and come here to
>> work. Those have got to be much better prospects than
>> say the abo bludgers who are so stupid they wont even
>> get off their arses and leave the rural slums they are
>> stuck in and prefer to bludge and get pissed there instead.
> I think you're missing my point.
Nope, you are missing mine.
> There's two sorts of visitors. The ones that want to move here cos they
> love the place and want to become Aussies and live out their lives here
> (the sort we want) and those that come here to make as many bucks as
> possible to take home and live it big on what they've earned (those that
> are taking from the economy).
There's plenty who came here basically to have a look
and to earn some decent money who decide to stay.
> I reckon we're better off with the first than the second,
Sure, but plenty arent prepared to make that sort of
commitment sight unseen, and those that are coming
from the cess pits of the world that anyone with any
sense wants to get out of are arguably not those we want.
> but with the "import a worker" mentality with skill shortages we get
> plenty more of the second variety.
Hard to say how many of those will end up staying
like so many of those who showed up here after the
war did, even tho that wasnt their original intention.
> We don't want them.. We're better off with lifers who love the country.
Sure, but plenty of those you dont like end up staying for life.
> Sure, plenty of the economic opportunists might think "fuck, this country
> is great! I'll stay here!" ,
Yep, that's what happens with a lot of them.
> but I've got a bit more faith in those that come here with that already
> in mind.
Dunno, I have my doubts about individuals prepared to do
that with a country they can never know that much about
except with those leaving the absolute cess pits of the world.
>> It'd be interesting to see how they behaved if they only got
>> their handouts in food stamps and couldnt turn them into grog.
> Riots????
You didnt get much of that when it was done like that in the past.
You dont even get that much in places that go dry now either.
> I reckon it should happen though.
>>> and could sustain these areas ourselves without being forced to
>>> import workers. We should not have to canvas for skills overseas,
>>> instead we should just be taking in immigrants that truly want to
>>> live out their lives here. Where is the benefit of bringing in
>>> someone from overseas to work, who earns all that money, sends it home
>>> and effectively removes it from our economy?
>> Its worked pretty well in the past. The main
>> problem with them is more the language problem.
> One of the guys I supervise is educated in Karachi, and it's damn hard to
> understand what he's saying some times.
Yeah, got that with even the dutch. In spades with one chinese
fella, I never could understand much of what he said at all.
> But at the same time I don't think I've ever met another human being that
> has his work ethic, and he has a heart of gold that is unmatchable.
Yeah, the chinese fella was like that, working on the side in
chinese restaurants and ended up an illegal doing nothing else.
> He's also a devout Muslim, so I'm sure cunts like Petzl would want to
> spit on him, but then cunts like petzl are never going to go beyond their
> keyboards, because they know what'd happen to them if they did....
> This guy came to Australia because he loved the idea of living here,
> and he came into our workplace on the offer of "sorry, we can only
> offer you 3 months at a time". He told us that he'd take the next
> more permanent opportunity that came up (as he should), but within a
> month he told us that he felt he fit in so well he'd stick it out and
> see how it went. I'm fucking happy to say he got permanency which he well
> deserved, and that's the way things should be here. Not people
> coming over to earn a few bucks and fuck off, good people like this
> guy loving the country enough to want to live here.
>>> Like I said, I don't seriously think removing support for non-income
>>> earners would work. Changing the form of that support for those
>>> diagnosed as bludgers is another matter. Fend for yourself on a Pov
>>> commune for a year with the help of supervisory staff who will teach
>>> you what you need to know to survive, and whilst you are learning
>>> providing the effort is put in you are fed by the "commune".
>> It doesnt work in the remote abo 'communitys' that have tried that.
>> Its distinctly arguable whether it would work if they didnt get
>> their welfare handout in cash that they can spend on grog.
> Put them somewhere where there is no grog available. Works on Croker.
No it doesnt, the crime rate is obscene. And they're mostly on welfare.
>>> Want to sit on your arse all day, I guarantee after a few days
>>> they'd get hungry enough to realise the world doesn't give out
>>> handouts in brutal reality-land, and they'd put in the effort.
>> Its more complicated than than when they have so many kids.
> True enough, I'm thinking from a singles perspective, but then capability
> would be the over-riding rule in that case.
>>> I don't trust that 5% figure. How many of the 95% supposedly
>>> employed are only working one day here or two days there,
>> Fuck all.
> I know a few.
I dont.
>>> and would die for a full time job????
>> Fuck all. There's plenty of full time jobs
>> around now with no one to do them.
> True, but doing what???
Basic service industry jobs.
> Skills shortage is our problem in a lot of that.
Nope, its true of stuff as basic as flogging
food to factory monkeys in their smokos.
No 'skills' required to do that. Even stay at home women
can do that sort of thing in the school canteens.
> Part of where enforced training in the long-term would be a partial fix.
I cant see that those who are long term unemployed
are suitable for the sort of skills that we are short of.
Sure, there is a hell of a shortage of pickers etc,
but you dont need any 'training' to do that sort
of thing except when you are legally a moron.
Come to think of it, dunny why the local moron collective
doesnt do picking, mostly just lawnmowing etc.
>>> Perhaps employment should be rated by percentage of the work-capable
>>> population that is not receiving any unemployment subsidy from
>>> Centrelink.
>> Thats not very viable either when some choose to 'work' like that.
> Well and good for those that choose to, many others don't,
Dont believe its that many at all with a 5% unemployment rate.
> but are stuck with that because the current climate is all about the
> worker being as "get riddable" as possible. Casuals don't incur
> overtime/penalties/sickies/annual leave/long service/etc.etc.etc.,
And get a higher rate per hour because they dont.
> and it's getting harder and harder.
No its not.
> In the government it's technically "wrong" (possibly illegal)
Its not illegal.
> to have someone on casual for a long period, but they get around that by
> putting gaps in the employment, or rolling "job not done yet, we'll
> extend" when they knew damn well
> it was going to take longer in the first place. It's an employers
> market on conditions, even if there is a shortage of good people in most
> industries. It's the entry level people that are suffering.
They aint 'suffering' and they dont stay entry level forever.
>>> I'd agree with those ideas, I'd prefer to see totally free public
>>> education, as "smart industries" are the only hope this country has for
>>> the future to stay economically sound,
>> Oh bullshit. There will always be plenty of
>> monkeys needed in the service industrys.
FAR more than are needed in the 'smart industrys' in fact.
> Of course, nothing will ever change that for any country anywhere..
> More so in a tourist country, which Australia is to a fair degree..
> It's called looking after the homefront... It doesn't remotely make us
> competitive on the world market though (other than the tourist buck),
The world market is irrelevant to the vast bulk of the laborforce.
And what makes us competitive in world markets has very
little to do with work force skills at all with what we export.
> and our resources that sustain us now are going to eventually run out...
No they wont.
> We need to start investing in the smart industries in a big
> way, or else give it a hundred years and we'll be third world.
Fantasy. None of our resources will run out in a hundred years.
And we can never compete with a place like Taiwan that
has no resources to speak of and which has to get their
act into gear on smart industrys or they starve.
>> More than we needed in the past actually with so many choosing to pay
>> people to look after their pre school kids and geriatric parents etc.
>>> but I don't see the government giving 2 shits beyond their term in
>>> office after which they're rich enough to bail from the country if they
>>> need to anyway.
>> People like Howard dont work like that. Neither does Beastly.
> They don't really give a shit about us either....
Corse they do. They aint doing it for the parliamentary pension.
People like Howard dont force thru a GST just to big note
themselves or to benefit on the side from that either.
>>>>> Perhaps euthanasia for the true parasites then???
>> Yeah, that would certainly work and
>> stop them breeding more of the same.
>>>> Tough bastard B^P
>>> Just a voice in the back of my head that spoke out through my fingers,
>> Just another of those 'voices' in your head eh ? |-)
> Damn!!! You've heard them too???
Nope.
> I'll have to do something about that..
There's sposed to be some decent mediation for that now apparently.
>>> I wouldn't really suggest we do that... 8] ... I'd reserve that for
>>> scum like rapists, cold-blooded murderers and paedophiles!
>> Cant see why we cant with alcoholics, life time welfare bludgers etc.
> Leave us alchos alone!!! There is such a thing as functional alchos you
> know!!!
Sure.
> although my doc tells me (after an interesting conversation about my
> liver) that I'm not technically an alcho...
> Apparently habitual drinkers don't fall into that category...
Really depends on how much you drink habitually.
> Fucked if I know, all I know is I like beer!
>>> We wouldn't be treating them like shit though, we'd be forcing them to
>>> learn self-respect and self-sufficiency, I think those would be great
>>> lessons for bludging parasites to learn.
>> It doesnt work. It doesnt even work with conscripts,
>> the worst of the bludgers stay bludgers.
> Only the worst???
Thats arguable. When so many try to bludge off the military
system with claims about what its done to them medically, its
quite likely that all bludgers stay bludgers even in that system.
> If most come good wouldn't it be worth it?
Its arguable that any do.
>>> And when they got hungry enough with no-where else to go, they would
>>> learn.
>> The worst of the dregs we do that to currently just steal in that
>> situation.
> Wouldn't be able to with the desolate nowhere island scenario.
Happens heaps on Croker and Palm Islands.
>> Most obviously with the kids of abos who drink their welfare handout.
> Yeah, a different problem altogether, not one that's likely to be tackled
> in a politically correct world unfortunately.
Dunno, the dry 'communitys' are one attempt at doing something about it.
Far from clear if it really works that well tho.
Cant see why welfare payments couldnt only be spent on food etc.
>>> Might be more expensive than welfare per head, but I doubt you'd
>>> ever have to do it to anyone more than once, and it would only need
>>> to be done on long term unemployed confirmed parasite bludgers.
>> Trouble is that with an unemployment rate of 5%,
>> thats all there is that currently gets the dole etc.
> Don't trust that 5%...
The actual number doesnt matter, what matters is that anyone
who wants a job can get one at the current unemployment rate.
> Want to see how many are full time before I'll believe it.
Plenty dont want full time.
>>> Agree with you completely here, a very different situation though.
>> We already do it with the remote abo 'communitys'
>> too and nothing changes with them.
>> We have even tried paying them to go to where the
>> work is, like with fruit picking, and fuck all of them
>> change at all, they just decide that bludging is a lot easier.
> Yet on Croker Island it works bloody well,
No it doesnt, they're almost all on welfare.
> a dry island where they can't get anywhere else.
Sure, it certainly makes it harder for them to loot off
the island, but its just a better organised welfare ghetto,
doesnt do a damned thing to get them off welfare.
>>> The government wonders why putting a money criminal or traffic
>>> criminal in with rapists and murderers results in them coming out
>>> messed up and dangerous, whereas to you and me the answer is pretty
>>> damn obvious. The "commune" idea is nothing like that at all. They'd
>>> all be parasite bludgers, simple as that.
>> And even bludgers like Brian Burke and Alan
>> Bond come out as bad as they went in too.
> Can we just shoot them??
Thats what the Victorian cops have done with quite a bit of success.
It'd be interesting to know if the current gangland killings were
deliberately engineered by the cops, to get them killing each other.
Certainly a quite effective way of getting rid of the worst of the crims.
>>> Come on, Tassie doesn't deserve that! I can think of places in the NT,
>> Plenty of remote abo 'communitys' like that now. Thats
>> basically what the CDEP scheme is about. It doesnt work.
> Dunno about CDEP and too pissed to look it up, this post is too long
> as it is, so I'll stand ignorant on that one. Better still, fuck it,
> vision blurring, I'll reply with this for now and take up the second
> half tomorrow! It's fucking late and I think the sun's about to come
> up or something!
OK.
not really
<q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <43e8525f$0$15123$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
>syl...@not.at.this.address writes...
>
>> David Moss wrote:
>>
>> > In article <43E7E6D6...@optushome.com.au>, dogstar27
>> > @optushome.com.au writes...
>> >
>> >
>> >>As stated in previous posts, Centrelink intimidate their critics with
>> >>legal threats. MinterEllison today have served notice of an intention to
>> >>sue me for defamation of Centrelink staff at the Footscray Office. What
>> >>a waste of public money, instead of admitting their errors they sue
>> >>critics, disgusting Centrelink.
>> >>
>> >>I guess that means my appeal against a Centrelink decision will be
>> >>slow-tracked. I do not have any money to pay for a defamation action,
>> >>that is not my intention to defame, Centrelink staff, but to make them
>> >>responsible for their actions and correct their mistakes promptly.
>> >>
>> >>http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/NoCourt/Docs/CSA.html#skipnav
>> >
>> >
>> > Why not just get a job and ignore them?
>> >
>>
>> Did he say he didn't have a job? This is Family Tax Benefit, not the dole.
>
>In his website article on this topic he states:
>"I am an honest Centrelink client and a father looking for paying work."
>
>BTW there was a radio segment on ABC Country featuring Hank Jongen,
>National Manager, Centrelink, this morning. He spoke about the
>Centerlink appeal process.
>
>All you have to do is say the words "I would like that decision
>reviewed" and it is reviewed by officers not involved in the initial
>decision. If you are not happy with the result just say so and it will
>be reviewed by an independent committee. All automatic, all without
>personality issues, all without hassle.
HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!
thanks I needed that, I have'nt laughed so much in ages.....
Reveiwed by an "Independant Committe" no less !
What complete and utter bullshit.......
>
>But as I said, its much simpler to just get a job and forget about
>Centrelink altogether.
Crouching Nun, Hidden Cucumber
<q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
I'll quote the 2000 report, "Harvesting Australia"from the
National Harvest Trail Working Group, which focused
primarily on harvesting industries, but also other related
seasonal work that included pruning and cotton chipping.
http://www.ntacc.com.au/Library/Harvest%20Aust%20Rep.pdf
Chapter 7.9:
"Occupational expenses and loss of income incurred by
harvest workers include:
• uncertainty about the availability and duration of harvest
work which depends on variables such as weather and crop
prices;
• losing income for as much as a week or ten days several
times a year in order to travel long distances between
harvest areas;
• long distance transport costs (petrol and automobile
maintenance and depreciation, or train and bus fares)
incurred by the need to travel hundreds and even thousands
of kilometres between harvest areas;
• short distance transport costs incurred by daily
travelling long distances from the nearest place of
accommodation to their place of work; and
• high accommodation costs and the inability to take
advantage of cheap housing, long term rental agreements, or
shared accommodation other than bunk-style rooms in
hostels."
Further to that, because the work is seasonal, 2 places of
residence are likely to be needed to be maintained by these
workers - their temporary accomodation plus their permanent
residence.
> I'm
>having a bit of trouble working out what they may be. Transport? You can
>pick up a second hand push bike at the recycling centre for a few
>dollars that will get you to work in town.
Many of these vacancies are more than a bike ride away from
the nearest available accomodation.
To give but one example, again from the Working Group
report:
"The lack of affordable accommodation in Griffith is a major
problem. In one instance, some pickers have had to travel up
to 33 kms out of town to find somewhere to stay. In another
example, one grower organised daily transport to and from a
caravan park 120 kms from his property."
Yet the majority of businesses DONT provide daily transport.
The majority of seasonal work doesnt operate on the suburban
fringes of country towns as you well know.
As the conlcusion of the Working Group stated:
Conclusions
"12.10 Resolution of the lack of transport requires
entrepreneurial steps by private enterprise and/or
cooperation by growers, bus companies and contractors to put
in place arrangements suitable for the location and crops."
In nearly every region this report studied, the lack of
transportation between accomodation and farms was a key
problem.
> The out of town jobs I mentioned
>elsewhere in the thread usually have bus transport kicked in by the
>contractor, just to ensure the troops are lined up at hoedown time.
>
>But the opportunity costs of lost recreation and social interaction do
>have significant value. When I put in a bit more effort I could directly
>measure these in terms of lost income, at around $80 per hour. It didn't
>cost me $10 to see a movie, it cost me the $10 admission
>plus the $240 I didn't earn because I was watching a movie or driving to
>or from a cinema. Leisure time clearly does have a value.
>
>Ignoring the opportunity cost of leisure and a social life to the
>unemployed is a serious omission in any model.
Such variables firstly cannot be modelled with any authority
or credibility - behavioural economics is in its
professional infancy and lacks (perhaps may always lack) a
sound theoretical underpinning that provides a means to
approximate human preferences like the leisure and social
opportunity costs of the small subsection of the labour
market that you're focusing on.Even using less
quantitatively sound approaches like game theory, humans
show, at best, bounded rationality making the entire
exercise one of futility rather than econometric model
refinement.
Secondly, it is completely unnecesarry in order to
demonstrate that high opportunity costs combined with high
work related expenses drive effective pay rates below
minimum rates for too large a section of the targeted labour
market to make the proposal an economically attractive one.
<>
>> But the REAL economic opportunity costs and the REAL high
>> related work costs that push the effective wage rate of
>> these industries to being below the minimum wage rate for
>> the overwhelming majority of labour market participants.
>
>Come off the grass Cukie. The marginal cost of chipping cotton is a
>splash of 15+ sunscreen and having to wash a few extra socks and undies.
Plus travel costs and temporary accomodation costs on top of
costs to maintain a permanent residence elsewhere.
>The marginal cost of working in a meatworks is even less because its
>indoors and the company provides and launders all working clothes.
Those meatworks cant find workers from the existing local
pool of unemployed.I suggest you focus on that, rather than
shipping people from one end of the continent to the other
to fill a handful of vacancies.
>> >against the cost of not
>> >taking up a work opportunity in a meaningful way.
>> >
>> >Traditionally this means balancing the opportunity costs against, not
>> >just the loss of an extra $200 per week, but against the loss of all
>> >social security payments plus the extra $200 a week.
>>
>> So you are advocating the removal of all unemployment
>> payments to people that refuse to work for as little as an
>> effective rate of $2 an hour.Because that's the effective
>> rate some people will be on after they temporarily relocate
>> for temporary periods, continuously, pay two lots of
>> accomodation, pay increased travel costs and that's not even
>> taking into account opportunity costs, and by that I mean
>> REAL ones, not your nebulous ones.
>
>If a person settles on an itinerant lifestyle they do not maintain
>multiple residences.
So now you propose to create a huge itinerant workforce!
Get's sillier by the minute.
<>
>> Taken in conjunction with your great agrarian socialism plan
>> for the taxpayer to provide transport and accomodation for
>> these people, what we end up with is one huge subsidy given
>> to a group of failing industries that have refused
>> point-blank to restructure their business models to
>> accomodate 21st century economic realities.
>
>I argue government should take an interest in it, I don't necessarily
>mean they should provide it.
And since when has "government taking an interest in it"
been anything other than a euphemism for taxpayers pissing
money up the wall on it? Especially transport issues.
>Mark Addinall wrote an article some time back about how local government
>forced pickers into inflated accommodation and got the police to crack
>down on people who dared to camp "illegally". That is one way for
>government to take an interest, but its the wrong way.
>
>Much better they should plan for seasonal itinerants and allow people to
>provide very low budget accommodation to meet the need.
Sure.I'd be interested to see the level of investment that
came through if local and state government regulations were
relaxed to allow that type of accomodation to flourish.
>I'm mulling over
>an idea on that score, when I'm felling a bit more motivated I'll
>probably take it further.
More power to you.
>> A plan so stupid that it subsidises labour in an era of
>> national labour shortages, encourages inefficient low-skill
>> industries to use labour as a substitute for capital in an
>> era of labour shortages, that doesnt increase the purchasing
>> power of the workers in question, leading to no demand curve
>> shift and no beneficial multiplier effects, but forces the
>> taxpayer to cough up huge sums of money to create government
>> funded transport and accomodation logistics, which, as an
>> end macroeconomic result makes the economy go nowhere but
>> sidewise.
>>
>> Good grief - what a load of horseshit.
>
>I wonder why they have 7 pay levels in the meat industry?
>Could it be that some of the work *is* skilled?
But this is wider than the meat industry - it goes into
seasonal work.
And if the meatworks cant utilise local unemployment, which
runs higher in regional and rural areas (where they're
based) than metro ones, the problem looks like a local
labour market problem not requiring the forced movement of
people from cities into these jobs.
<>
>> What those low-skill, low wage agricultural industries need
>> is huge dose of multifactor productivity gains, not a two
>> penny slave labour supply that is drawn from the lowest
>> productivity labour pool in the country.
>
>Those abattoirs are pretty efficient as it is.
The harvesting and cotton industries arent.
>there is automation
>wherever possible but the fact is it still takes humans to process meat
>no matter how much you invest in plant.
And its far more efficient to source them from the local
labour market or from alternative mechanisms like many are
doing, rather than force the most unproductive subsection of
the metro labour market to move 1000km away to do a job
they'll most likely fuck up anyway.
That's what happens when you have an unemployment rate with
a 5 in front of it - all the productive people are taken
leaving you with the unproductive leftovers.
>> Australia has no 21st century macroeconomic future in
>> reducing low skill wage rates for Australians to
>> international market clearance levels, by way of subsidy,
>> mimimum wage abolition, unemployment benefit removal or
>> great agrarian socialism initiatives.
>>
>> None.
>
>Whats this subsidy we're on about?
Government involvement in transportation and accomodation
means pissing taxpayer money up the wall for the benefit of
particular industries.
Also, by removing unemployment benefits to the metropolitan
unemployed if they dont become itinerant seasonal workers,
it artificially reduces the wage rates that are nominally
required to clear the market in those industries, allowing a
company that would ordinarily have to pay $12-14 an hour to
fulfill their operational requirements to be able to pay
substantially less because of the artificially increased
labour force that would exist on a take-it-or-leave-it
basis.
>Australians won't do these jobs now.
Because we have an unemployment level with a 5 in front of
it, combined with the fact that the effective pay rates in
many of these industries are below minimum pay rates for the
majority of labour market participants.
>> And I dare you to find a single piece of quality
>> macroeconomic analysis anywhere in the western world that
>> demonstrates that slashing effective real wages for low
>> skilled workers, and replacing unemployment benefits with
>> subsidies to inefficient industry special interest pleaders
>> achieves anything more than creating greater economic
>> problems.
>
>Where did I say slash real wages?
I said slashing EFFECTIVE real wages.
Unemployment payments act as a real wage floor, particularly
for industries that exist in a grey area when it comes to
minimum wage awards, for example, industries where you are
paid by the bale or bucket rather than by the hour.
If you force people into those industries by removing
unemployment benefits for people (that are hundreds of km's
away mind you) that refuse to become itinerant workers, the
effective real wage levels you are FORCING onto them are
less than the prevailing effective minimum wage rates of
just about every other industry.You are, as a consequence of
removing the wage floor provided by unemployment benefits,
reducing the effective real wage that would ordinarily be
payable to clear the market.
>My argument is getting people to perform work for wages as an
>alternative to paying them half that rate to be idle.
Do you really think that millions of hours havent been spent
on creating and pulling apart ideas like this before?
The reason such schemes arent widely operational is because
they dont work!
Removing unemployment benefits is too blunt an instrument to
use because its a wage floor and carries all the associated
consequences, selectively removing it for specific industry
sectors just becomes inefficient special interest pleading,
and I think you'll be hard pressed to come up with a good
argument as to the intrinsic benefit of institutionalising
an army of unproductive itinerant workers.
>> You've got plenty of examples to work with - In the US,
>> anything south of the Mason-Dixon parallel over the last 20
>> years provides plenty of ammo, from grains, to livestock, to
>> horticulture to sugar.
>
>Ah. we're talking about the land of the free now.
>agriculture is directly subsidised there. Not here.
That's the point!
As I said:
" And I dare you to find a single piece of quality
macroeconomic analysis anywhere in the western world that
demonstrates that slashing effective real wages for low
skilled workers, and replacing unemployment benefits with
subsidies to inefficient industry special interest pleaders
achieves anything more than creating greater economic
problems."
The US provides perfect example upon perfect example of how
what you propose doesnt work, from low subsidised industries
like market gardening through to trough wallowers like sugar
and cotton.
>> >In the short term this appears heartless and cruel.
>>
>> Over any term it seems like a great leap into imbecility,
>> whose myopia is only surpassed by its economic vandalism.
>
>Hmm, so cutting off the dole for anyone who refuses to work when a job
>is offered is economic vandalism now? Do explain.
Cutting off the dole for people that refuse to become
itinerant workers certainly is, for all of the reasons
given.
Rod Speed
> David Moss <q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote
>> Crouching Nun, Hidden Cucumber <crouch...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>>> David Moss <q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote
>>>> Crouching Nun, Hidden Cucumber <crouch...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>>>>> Its not bleeding heart stuff - I'm hardly a bleeding heart.
>>>>> Its economic reality.Many industry sectors pay below
>>>>> effective minimum wage rates once opportunity costs,
>>>>> employment on costs and work-related costs are taken into
>>>>> account - particularly seasonal industries.
>>>> You have correctly honed in on the nub of the problem.
>>>> The opportunity cost of taking a job does not simply include
>>>> clothing, extra food, transport to work etc as many think.
>>>> It includes the leisure time and social activities the person must
>>>> forgo in order to participate in work. This can be considerable in
>>>> value to the person concerned.
>>> You dont even have to get into recreational and social
>>> preference issues here, as the pure economic opportunity
>>> costs foregone, in conjunction with high work related
>>> expenses involved, erode effective wage rates to be way
>>> below minimum wage rates.
>> You will have to enumerate some of these high work related expenses,
> I'll quote the 2000 report, "Harvesting Australia"from the
> National Harvest Trail Working Group, which focused
> primarily on harvesting industries, but also other related
> seasonal work that included pruning and cotton chipping.
The obvious crap in this makes the rest very dubious indeed.
> http://www.ntacc.com.au/Library/Harvest%20Aust%20Rep.pdf
> Chapter 7.9:
> "Occupational expenses and loss of income
> incurred by harvest workers include:
> . uncertainty about the availability and duration of harvest
> work which depends on variables such as weather and crop
> prices;
> . losing income for as much as a week or ten
> days several times a year in order to travel
> long distances between harvest areas;
Mindless stuff, none of the harvest areas in this country
involve anything like that sort of time to get between them.
And the illegals manage that stuff fine anyway.
> . long distance transport costs (petrol and automobile
> maintenance and depreciation, or train and bus fares)
> incurred by the need to travel hundreds and even
> thousands of kilometres between harvest areas;
More mindless stuff.
> . short distance transport costs incurred by daily
> travelling long distances from the nearest place
> of accommodation to their place of work; and
More mindless stuff.
> . high accommodation costs
Pig ignorant drivel.
> and the inability to take advantage of cheap housing,
> long term rental agreements, or shared accommodation
> other than bunk-style rooms in hostels."
Wota packa stupid wankers.
> Further to that, because the work is seasonal,
> 2 places of residence are likely to be needed to
> be maintained by these workers - their temporary
> accomodation plus their permanent residence.
Must be rocket scientist fuckwits.
>> I'm having a bit of trouble working out what they may be.
>> Transport? You can pick up a second hand push bike at the
>> recycling centre for a few dollars that will get you to work in town.
> Many of these vacancies are more than a bike ride
> away from the nearest available accomodation.
Complete pig ignorant crap.
> To give but one example, again from the Working Group report:
> "The lack of affordable accommodation in Griffith is a major problem.
Complete pig ignorant drivel.
> In one instance, some pickers have had to travel
> up to 33 kms out of town to find somewhere to stay.
Complete pig ignorant drivel. The showground is never ever full.
> In another example, one grower organised daily transport
> to and from a caravan park 120 kms from his property."
Only because of the shortage of pickers, fuckwit.
> Yet the majority of businesses DONT provide daily transport.
They dont need to. The distances involved are
well within what is perfectly viable by bike or car.
> The majority of seasonal work doesnt operate on the
> suburban fringes of country towns as you well know.
More complete pig ignorant drivel.
> As the conlcusion of the Working Group stated:
> Conclusions
> "12.10 Resolution of the lack of transport requires
> entrepreneurial steps by private enterprise and/or
> cooperation by growers, bus companies and contractors to
> put in place arrangements suitable for the location and crops."
No it doesnt. It works fine now.
> In nearly every region this report studied, the
> lack of transportation between accomodation
> and farms was a key problem.
Just shows what pig ignorant fools the authors of that steaming turd are.
>> The out of town jobs I mentioned elsewhere in the thread
>> usually have bus transport kicked in by the contractor,
>> just to ensure the troops are lined up at hoedown time.
>> But the opportunity costs of lost recreation and social interaction
>> do have significant value. When I put in a bit more effort I could
>> directly measure these in terms of lost income, at around $80
>> per hour. It didn't cost me $10 to see a movie, it cost me the $10
>> admission plus the $240 I didn't earn because I was watching a movie
>> or driving to or from a cinema. Leisure time clearly does have a value.
Anyone with a clue just hires videos or DVDs.
Even the welfare bludging dregs manage that fine.
>> Ignoring the opportunity cost of leisure and a social life
>> to the unemployed is a serious omission in any model.
> Such variables firstly cannot be modelled with any authority
> or credibility - behavioural economics is in its
> professional infancy and lacks (perhaps may always lack) a
> sound theoretical underpinning that provides a means to
> approximate human preferences like the leisure and social
> opportunity costs of the small subsection of the labour
> market that you're focusing on.Even using less
> quantitatively sound approaches like game theory, humans
> show, at best, bounded rationality making the entire
> exercise one of futility rather than econometric model
> refinement.
> Secondly, it is completely unnecesarry in order to
> demonstrate that high opportunity costs combined with high
> work related expenses drive effective pay rates below
> minimum rates for too large a section of the targeted labour
> market to make the proposal an economically attractive one.
Not interested in what is economically attractive. What is
being discussed is whether the state should be giving
welfare handouts to those who can do that sort of work.
>>> But the REAL economic opportunity costs and the REAL
>>> high related work costs that push the effective wage rate
>>> of these industries to being below the minimum wage rate
>>> for the overwhelming majority of labour market participants.
Bullshit.
>> Come off the grass Cukie. The marginal cost of
>> chipping cotton is a splash of 15+ sunscreen and
>> having to wash a few extra socks and undies.
> Plus travel costs and temporary accomodation costs on
> top of costs to maintain a permanent residence elsewhere.
You dont have to maintain a permanent residence elsewhere.
>> The marginal cost of working in a meatworks is even less because its
>> indoors and the company provides and launders all working clothes.
> Those meatworks cant find workers from
> the existing local pool of unemployed.
Only because those bludgers arent forced to work there.
> I suggest you focus on that, rather than shipping people from
> one end of the continent to the other to fill a handful of vacancies.
No need to ship them anywhere near that far, thats flagrantly dishonest.
>>>> against the cost of not taking up a
>>>> work opportunity in a meaningful way.
>>>> Traditionally this means balancing the opportunity costs against,
>>>> not just the loss of an extra $200 per week, but against the loss
>>>> of all social security payments plus the extra $200 a week.
>>> So you are advocating the removal of all unemployment
>>> payments to people that refuse to work for as little as an
>>> effective rate of $2 an hour.Because that's the effective
>>> rate some people will be on after they temporarily relocate
>>> for temporary periods, continuously, pay two lots of
>>> accomodation, pay increased travel costs and that's
>>> not even taking into account opportunity costs, and
>>> by that I mean REAL ones, not your nebulous ones.
Complete pack of lies on that $2 rate.
And they arent the only ones contributing
to that permanent accomodation anyway.
>> If a person settles on an itinerant lifestyle
>> they do not maintain multiple residences.
> So now you propose to create a huge itinerant workforce!
Nope, just recognise that they dont actually do it like that.
> Get's sillier by the minute.
Nope.
>>> Taken in conjunction with your great agrarian socialism plan
>>> for the taxpayer to provide transport and accomodation for
>>> these people, what we end up with is one huge subsidy
>>> given to a group of failing industries that have refused
>>> point-blank to restructure their business models to
>>> accomodate 21st century economic realities.
>> I argue government should take an interest in it,
>> I don't necessarily mean they should provide it.
> And since when has "government taking an interest in it"
> been anything other than a euphemism for taxpayers
> pissing money up the wall on it? Especially transport issues.
That steaming turd of a 'report' you quoted from is one example.
>> Mark Addinall wrote an article some time back about how local
>> government forced pickers into inflated accommodation and got the
>> police to crack down on people who dared to camp "illegally". That
>> is one way for government to take an interest, but its the wrong way.
>> Much better they should plan for seasonal itinerants and allow
>> people to provide very low budget accommodation to meet the need.
They all do. They ALL have camping grounds etc.
> Sure. I'd be interested to see the level of investment that
> came through if local and state government regulations
> were relaxed to allow that type of accomodation to flourish.
Thats always been allowed in the areas
where there is much seasonal work.
>> I'm mulling over an idea on that score, when I'm felling
>> a bit more motivated I'll probably take it further.
> More power to you.
>>> A plan so stupid that it subsidises labour in an era of
>>> national labour shortages, encourages inefficient low-skill
>>> industries to use labour as a substitute for capital in an
>>> era of labour shortages, that doesnt increase the purchasing
>>> power of the workers in question, leading to no demand curve
>>> shift and no beneficial multiplier effects, but forces the
>>> taxpayer to cough up huge sums of money to create government
>>> funded transport and accomodation logistics, which, as an
>>> end macroeconomic result makes the economy go nowhere but
>>> sidewise.
>>> Good grief - what a load of horseshit.
>> I wonder why they have 7 pay levels in the meat industry?
>> Could it be that some of the work *is* skilled?
> But this is wider than the meat industry
> - it goes into seasonal work.
> And if the meatworks cant utilise local unemployment,
> which runs higher in regional and rural areas (where
> they're based) than metro ones,
Varys considerably on that.
> the problem looks like a local labour market problem not requiring
> the forced movement of people from cities into these jobs.
You clearly dont have a clue about what seasonal work involves.
>>> What those low-skill, low wage agricultural industries
>>> need is huge dose of multifactor productivity gains,
>>> not a two penny slave labour supply that is drawn
>>> from the lowest productivity labour pool in the country.
You dont pay slaves, stupid.
>> Those abattoirs are pretty efficient as it is.
> The harvesting and cotton industries arent.
More drivel. Extensively mechanised now.
Much of the seasonal work involves
driving the machinery and trucks etc.
>> there is automation wherever possible but the fact is it still takes
>> humans to process meat no matter how much you invest in plant.
> And its far more efficient to source them from the local
> labour market or from alternative mechanisms like many
> are doing, rather than force the most unproductive
> subsection of the metro labour market to move 1000km
More flagrant dishonesty.
> away to do a job they'll most likely fuck up anyway.
More flagrant dishonesty. Anyone can do picking.
> That's what happens when you have an unemployment rate
> with a 5 in front of it - all the productive people are taken
> leaving you with the unproductive leftovers.
Even the dregs can pick.
>>> Australia has no 21st century macroeconomic future
>>> in reducing low skill wage rates for Australians to
>>> international market clearance levels, by way of subsidy,
>>> mimimum wage abolition, unemployment benefit removal or
>>> great agrarian socialism initiatives.
>>> None.
>> Whats this subsidy we're on about?
> Government involvement in transportation and
> accomodation means pissing taxpayer money
> up the wall for the benefit of particular industries.
No it doesnt when it involves paying the fares for pickers.
> Also, by removing unemployment benefits to the metropolitan
> unemployed if they dont become itinerant seasonal workers,
> it artificially reduces the wage rates that are nominally
> required to clear the market in those industries, allowing a
> company that would ordinarily have to pay $12-14 an hour
> to fulfill their operational requirements to be able to pay
> substantially less because of the artificially increased
> labour force that would exist on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
Usual mindless academic bullshit.
>> Australians won't do these jobs now.
And those recieving unemployment benefits shouldnt get the choice.
> Because we have an unemployment level with a 5 in front
> of it, combined with the fact that the effective pay rates in
> many of these industries are below minimum pay rates for
> the majority of labour market participants.
Another pig ignorant lie.
Have fun explaining why so many foreign kids
are happy to do that sort of work. If it was
anything like you claim, they wouldnt bother.
>>> And I dare you to find a single piece of quality
>>> macroeconomic analysis anywhere in the western world that
>>> demonstrates that slashing effective real wages for low
>>> skilled workers, and replacing unemployment benefits with
>>> subsidies to inefficient industry special interest pleaders
>>> achieves anything more than creating greater economic
>>> problems.
>> Where did I say slash real wages?
> I said slashing EFFECTIVE real wages.
> Unemployment payments act as a real wage floor,
No they dont.
> particularly for industries that exist in a grey area when it
> comes to minimum wage awards, for example, industries where
> you are paid by the bale or bucket rather than by the hour.
Wrong again. What they pay has nothing to
do with the unemployment payment rate.
> If you force people into those industries by removing
> unemployment benefits for people (that are hundreds
> of km's away mind you) that refuse to become itinerant
> workers, the effective real wage levels you are FORCING
> onto them are less than the prevailing effective minimum
> wage rates of just about every other industry.
More pig ignorant drivel. The effective earning rate
for pickers is actually very decent. Which might just be
why so many foreign kids choose to do that sort of work.
> You are, as a consequence of removing the wage floor
> provided by unemployment benefits, reducing the effective
> real wage that would ordinarily be payable to clear the market.
More pig ignorant academic drivel.
>> My argument is getting people to perform work for wages
>> as an alternative to paying them half that rate to be idle.
> Do you really think that millions of hours havent been
> spent on creating and pulling apart ideas like this before?
Only by stupid academics that have never had a fucking clue.
> The reason such schemes arent widely
> operational is because they dont work!
Not for that reason. The real reason is that its a
hell of a lot easier to bludge at home in front of
the TV on the dole than it is to do picking, stupid.
The reason those who do that work, illegals and
foreign kids, is because they dont qualify for the dole.
> Removing unemployment benefits is too blunt an instrument
> to use because its a wage floor and carries all the associated
> consequences, selectively removing it for specific industry
> sectors just becomes inefficient special interest pleading,
> and I think you'll be hard pressed to come up with a good
> argument as to the intrinsic benefit of institutionalising
> an army of unproductive itinerant workers.
More completely mindless pig ignorant academic silly stuff.
>>> You've got plenty of examples to work with - In the US,
>>> anything south of the Mason-Dixon parallel over the last 20
>>> years provides plenty of ammo, from grains, to livestock, to
>>> horticulture to sugar.
Different market entirely with vastly more
illegals and legal immigrant farm workers.
>> Ah. we're talking about the land of the free now.
>> agriculture is directly subsidised there. Not here.
> That's the point!
No it isnt.
> As I said:
> " And I dare you to find a single piece of quality
> macroeconomic analysis anywhere in the western
> world that demonstrates that slashing effective
> real wages for low skilled workers,
No one is even suggesting anything like that.
> and replacing unemployment benefits with subsidies
> to inefficient industry special interest pleaders
Or that either.
> achieves anything more than creating greater economic problems."
What is actually being suggested is forcing those on
the dole to do that sort of work or they lose their dole.
> The US provides perfect example upon perfect example of how
> what you propose doesnt work, from low subsidised industries
> like market gardening through to trough wallowers like sugar
> and cotton.
Irrelevant to what happens here.
Even our dole system is completely different to theirs.
>>>> In the short term this appears heartless and cruel.
>>> Over any term it seems like a great leap into imbecility,
>>> whose myopia is only surpassed by its economic vandalism.
>> Hmm, so cutting off the dole for anyone who refuses to work
>> when a job is offered is economic vandalism now? Do explain.
> Cutting off the dole for people that refuse to become
> itinerant workers certainly is, for all of the reasons given.
Just the usual mindless academic bullshit.
Crouching Nun, Hidden Cucumber
<hunt...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>Crouching Nun, Hidden Cucumber wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 08:56:10 +0800, Hunter01
>> <hunt...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
<>
>> I would argue that importing workers is cheaper than trying
>> to get either that hardcore group of people that dont want
>> to work to do so, or to force the completely unproductive to
>> do so.Especially for certain types of jobs.
>
>
>In the short term yes, in the long term if we had a system that enforced
>training in areas we are lacking in skilled workers onto the unemployed,
>we'd no longer be lacking people with entry level skills for these
>areas, and could sustain these areas ourselves without being forced to
>import workers. We should not have to canvas for skills overseas,
>instead we should just be taking in immigrants that truly want to live
>out their lives here.
That works in areas where a skill shortage is not only
obvious, but will hang around for a while.Like builders for
instance, we know there's a shortage now and we know that a
large chunk of the industry will retire in the near future
because of the demographics of the industry, making the
shortage sustained.
But I'm a bit dubious about letting governments start
forcing large amounts of people to become skilled in areas
THE GOVERNMENT reckon are needed, only to end up with the
problem a few years down the track of a glut of people all
trained in things no one really has a use for.
Instead of the government forcing people to take up a
particular skill, just force people to take ANY skill and
let the market decide.
> Where is the benefit of bringing in someone from
>overseas to work, who earns all that money, sends it home and
>effectively removes it from our economy?
In the case of the meatworkers that Mossy keeps on about,
the job ends up getting done when otherwise it wouldnt.
<>
>>> The cost of
>>> training the long-term unemployed (force them to go to TAFE for
>>> instance) isn't that much greater than welfare payments, and the long
>>> term benefits are much more tangible.
>>
>> With unemployment at 5%, I dont think theres alot of value
>> to be had in trying to squeeze blood out of that particular
>> labour market stone.
>
>
>I don't trust that 5% figure.
The 5% figure are just those that have no employment.
There are two main groups that are hidden from the
unemployment rate - people (mostly men over 55) that are on
the Disability Support Pension.There's a couple of hundred
thousand that looked to have been parked there when they
probably shouldnt have been, and hence get hidden from the
unemployment rate.
The other chunk relates to marginal attachment - but that's
mostly either dependent spouses in single income families or
recent retirees.They'd take the "perfect" job if it came
along, but they arent really looking and dont qualify for
the unemployment calculation because they arent counted in
the participation rate.There's a couple of hundred thousand
of them too.
So the 5% figure is trustworthy, as long as you look at it
for what it really is - the percentage of the labour market
that doesnt have ANY employment.
>How many of the 95% supposedly employed
>are only working one day here or two days there, and would die for a
>full time job????
The underutilisation rate is at about 12% .Its that large
because about 25% of part time workers want more hours.Thats
about 720 odd thousand people.That doesnt mean though, that
they're all working only a day here and a day there.It
includes all part time workers wanting more hours.
The latest batch of that stuff is here:
>Perhaps employment should be rated by percentage of
>the work-capable population that is not receiving any unemployment
>subsidy from Centrelink.
There's a thousand and one ways to measure employment - it
all depends on what you actually want to use it for.
To give an example - I've got a WA mining company as a
client at the moment and part of the productivity forecasts
we're doing for them entails building wage inflation
projections for them for a number of different skill
segments - certain types of engineers, geological scientists
of varying types and a few other professions.They want to
know the increase in their projected costs if the industry
moves en masse towards contract based labour compared to the
increase in their projected costs if the industry maintains
the prevailing employment patterns.So we've had to
effectively build two different measurements of unemployment
for those skill segments.With an industry wide move to
contract labour, the employment measurement was calculated
more around hours worked as a proportion of hours available
to work whereas the projections based on the prevailing
employment patterns were a mix of measurements containing
part hours worked to hours available with more orthodox
employment measurements thrown in as well (to represent
permanent full time workers rather than contract workers).
So the way you measure "employment" is really dictated by
what you want to measure it for.
>>> Returning to a system of free education for citizens would be great even
>>> if expensive, and that would do a hell of a lot to boost this country.
>>
>> I think that is something that Australia will need to
>> seriously consider.Probably not totally free, but certainly
>> HECS type affairs for TAFE and non-tertiary education, and
>> possibly reducing HECS or removing it completely for sectors
>> in major shortage.
>
>
>I'd agree with those ideas, I'd prefer to see totally free public
>education, as "smart industries" are the only hope this country has for
>the future to stay economically sound,
You're preaching to the converted here when it comes to the
future of Australian industry.Our future is in high skill
industries with personal and retail services mopping up the
rest.
>but I don't see the government
>giving 2 shits beyond their term in office after which they're rich
>enough to bail from the country if they need to anyway.
And it goes for most governments.Kennet was a bit different
like Greiner was, sometimes Beattie pulls his finger out
even if it means riding over his various idiot ministers
upon occasion.But its too rare.Mostly its just as you've
described it.
>>> Perhaps euthanasia for the true parasites then???
>>
>> Tough bastard B^P
>
>
>Just a voice in the back of my head that spoke out through my fingers, I
>wouldn't really suggest we do that... 8] ... I'd reserve that for scum
>like rapists, cold-blooded murderers and paedophiles!
>
>
>>> Perhaps those that become "no hope" cases on welfare should
>>> be put into true poverty in experimental camps for a year of their
>>> lives, and when they return to society you'd most likely see an amazing
>>> improvement in their attitudes and the selfishness would disappear.
>>
>> Works in theory, probably not doable in practice though.Alot
>> of those people live pretty shitty lives already - mostly
>> self-inflicted.Of course, you could always make it even
>> shittier, but would you really want to go there.Having the
>> state treat some clown like shit for 12 months and then let
>> them loose on society.
>
>
>We wouldn't be treating them like shit though, we'd be forcing them to
>learn self-respect and self-sufficiency,
I know that, you know that - I doubt they would.
You reckon you can teach Macquarie Fields types the joys of
self-respect and self-sufficiency by sending them out the
back of woop-woop to become peasants?
I reckon you're optimistic...... to put it mildly B^P
>I think those would be great
>lessons for bludging parasites to learn. And when they got hungry enough
>with no-where else to go, they would learn. Might be more expensive than
>welfare per head, but I doubt you'd ever have to do it to anyone more
>than once, and it would only need to be done on long term unemployed
>confirmed parasite bludgers.
I dunno - Convince me more.
>> Hang on, we already do that with non-violent offenders in
>> prision and wonder why the recidivism rate is so high and
>> they end up escalating their criminal behaviour.
>
>Agree with you completely here, a very different situation though. The
>government wonders why putting a money criminal or traffic criminal in
>with rapists and murderers results in them coming out messed up and
>dangerous, whereas to you and me the answer is pretty damn obvious. The
>"commune" idea is nothing like that at all. They'd all be parasite
>bludgers, simple as that.
>
>
>>> How about my Pov commune suggestion???
>>
>> Send them all to Tassie!
>
>
>Come on, Tassie doesn't deserve that! I can think of places in the NT,
>like Prudhoe Island, that would be ideal though. They're not going to
>get back to Australia very easily so there's no "run-away" problems to
>worry about, and it's a damn nice place scenically. I used to be paid to
>work there, and that sort of work was like a paid holiday!
And the fishing!
Oh the fishing!
>And if your
>thing isn't growing plants,
Or with this mob, smoking them.
>the fishing is damn great too!
Ha - spoke too soon!
>The other
>side factor is that if it's drug/alcohol dependency that's keeping these
>people unemployed, they wouldn't be getting any out there.
As long you we continue to play stupid games deluding
ourselves we can win some nebulous "War on drugs" - nothing
will have a lasting beneficial effect there.
>Obviously
>you'd need to have medical and security staff there along with
>councillors and educators, so it wouldn't be a cheap experiment, but I
>think you'd find it would be a well-worthwhile experiment.
I'd like to see a pilot program first - maybe using 25-30
year olds that have committed non-violent offences and have
a history of long term unemployment, where the program would
be an option for them instead of their usual custodial
sentence or fine.
Although, by itself I dont think it would be much value -
you'd need some type of partnership with private sector
players to offer employment to some of these people after
they've done their communal service (for lack of a better
phrase).
And still, I seriously doubt that it could be widely applied
with any lasting chance of success for the people
involved.Some people are just fucking dumb.
>>> They wouldn't starve if there
>>> were people out there teaching them how to catch fish, grow food. They'd
>>> live humbly and have to work fucking hard. A year of that and then the
>>> option of returning to education and/or employment, and I think you'd
>>> see them jumping at the amazingly easy society we live in, after they've
>>> discovered what it's like out in the real world for most of the world's
>>> population.
>>
>> I think they'd just tell you to get fucked and you'd end up
>> having the same problems as if you'd abolished unemployment
>> benefits for this group.Higher vagrancy costs.
>>
>> I just think its a case of some problems just not being able
>> to be 100% solved.
>
>
>You could be right on that point. Many would say "errrr, no fucking way,
>I'll stay in society and steal instead"... One solution would be to set
>up a number of such islands perhaps, some where the parasite long term
>unemployed would go if they were to accept such a "penalty" when offered
>by Centrelink, others where petty-criminals would be sentenced to rather
>than locking them up with hardcore crims in real prisons. And any
>dolebludger that refused to go would be told in no uncertain terms that
>if they were caught stealing they'd be spending longer than a year on
>one of these islands, so better to take the "course" now.
>
>I know it's all wishful thinking, I just think teaching people
>self-respect and self-reliance is something that is really needed with a
>lot of the parasite types in Oz today.
I agree - it would be wonderful if everyone had their shit
together.But as unfortunate as it is, it just aint gonna
happen.
>Even if it ain't a goer with the social security direction, I think it's
>a more than reasonable suggestion for petty-thieves and other money
>criminals as opposed to violent offenders.
With a well built program - I agree with that completely.
Its not a zero sum game.Our living standards will continue
to rise, but places like India and China will just rise
quicker.Its to be expected, because their living standards
are comming from such a low base.
But putting it into perspective, it will take 30 years for
China, probably longer for India, to give the majority of
their population a living standard comparable with the
western world.
>> I have nightmares over imagining the dismal state that the
>> country would be in without the microeconomic reform program
>> of the Hawke/Keating/Walsh.And there's still alot of
>> unfinished business there.
>
>
>I just remember losing our triple A for the first time in history, think
>that was under Keating. :)
You'd be talking about the Moody's rating.
What people dont realise is that when we got it back, it
wasnt through anything the government did, but happened
because of a methodological change in the way Moodys
calculate credit risk.It should never have been lost to
begin with - the methodology that reduced our rating was too
risk sensitive to begin with - which is why they eventually
changed it in 2001.
>>> I know more than a few bludgers who'll do anything they can to stay
>>> unemployed. It's damn pathetic.
>>
>> And hard to solve from a policy perspective.
>
>
>Euthan.... Ooops... stop that.... Change of form of benefits so that
>alcohol and drugs aren't what we're buying for them would be a good start.
Food stamp programs in the US just unleashed a cash market
for food stamps.People sold their stamps for cash to get
pissed and buy smokes and crack and <insert drug of choice>.
>>> Not really, it's amazing how people on the dole, especially of the
>>> greenleft-style mold, can afford to sit at cafes drinking their special
>>> blends whilst we're working our arses off to pay their bills.
>>
>> I thought they were mostly Uni-students.The stats certainly
>> show that the areas of highest long-term unemployment isnt
>> in the trendy areas, and that theres fairly high levels of
>> university study going on in trendy inner suburbs.
>
>
>Them too, professional students are no different than professional dole
>bludgers in my opinion. Get your bloody qualifications and get out into
>industry.
Now that limits on the time allowable to collect welfare
payments while studying have been introduced, combined with
them only being, I think, available for one degree, have
sort of put an end to the professional student having a 100%
reliance on welfare payments.
>>> Life is
>>> way too easy in Australia, it is quite easy for single people without
>>> kids to live verrrry comfortably on the dole. Perhaps we should
>>> drastically reduce the amount of "money" these people receive after they
>>> become long-term unemployed and start looking at the food-stamp, free
>>> public transport, clothes for interviews, etc.etc. style of system, and
>>> reduce the "fun" these leeches can have on the dole.
>>
>> Even those systems dont particularly work well because you
>> get vagrancy costs again, especially with an unemployment
>> level of 5%,
>
>
>Why would you get those costs???
Food stamps just create a cash market for them, so that they
can be sold to buy the things that arent meant to be
purchased.
Then you end up with greater reliance on charities than you
do now, because the food stamps are sold at less than their
face value.All you do is end up putting less money in the
pockets of people to buy food under a stamp program than you
would without it because of that difference between the face
value of the stamp and what they're sold for.
You've got to remember that with an unemployment rate with a
5 in fron of it, the people that are left are the bottom end
of the pool.
>Food supplied, rent supplied, the only
>thing not supplied is drugs and alcohol. Obviously entertainment would
>have to be factored in as no-one can be expected to "just exist" without
>going mad and resorting to crime. Perhaps an entertainment percentage of
>payment is withheld by Centrelink and clients "apply" to get their movie
>tickets or tv set, etc with only a minimal amount of cash in hand for
>incidentals given out to the long term unemployed. Again, expensive to
>administer in the short term, but beneficial to society in the eventual
>outcome.
I dont know - I think the state should stay the fuck away
from micromanaging peoples lives, even the bludgers you
refer to.The less practice the State gets doing that stuff,
the less likely they are to try and expand it.
>Long-term unemployment is no longer a party so people who can
>work do go out and get skills and get jobs.
>
>
>> just about all those that want work get it.The
>> big problem with the unemployment data is the number of part
>> time workers wanting more hours and more secure positions.
>
>
>Exactly, there are PLENTY out there that are supposedly employed and are
>not remotely close to being FTE's even though they want to be, and are
>earning not nearly enough on their part-time employment. In a way
>forcing those that don't want to work to look for work legitimately
>would probably make life even harder for those really wanting to look
>for work,
That's true enough too.I'd prefer to make it easier for
those that want to contribute to be able to better their
lives, even if that means accepting that there might be a
couple of percentage points of unemployment made up of
people that dont want to work.I think its the cost of doing
businees for Australia Inc.
If you want to look at welfare reform - family welfare, high
effective marginal tax rates and tax-welfare churn is where
there's some serious gutting to be had.
John Howards low income breeding programs are fucking joke.
>but that's where the mandatory training comes in, there are
>plenty of industries where we don't have enough people, force the long
>term unemployed into training in these areas.
I'm all for trying to train these people - but you've got to
be prepared for alot of them being untrainable (whether its
through them choosing to be that way, or them being just
honest to goodness useless).
Crouching Nun, Hidden Cucumber
<addi...@addinall.org> wrote:
My data is similar (a bit on the upside 35% +/- 5%) if you
take into account family welfare payments.Its hard to nail
down over any given time period because family payments have
large churn, with people dropping into and out of the cutoff
thresholds quite regularly.
Addinall
That is indeed true. I thought I had a large confidence given
the size of the data I was privy to, but the methodology I uses
may have been flawed to the extent that family welfare churn
was not taken into account. Nor did I do a detailed analysis
on what represented "employment" at that stage. Just raw data
from a few sets that lived in mostly the same area (easy left
joins ;-).
Is this research worthwhile?
Buggered if I know. I suppose it depends on what
argument you, I or anyone else wants to push.
"Great Employment" or a "Nanny State". The stats
will mould quite readily to either....
Mark Addinall.
Bateau
>As stated in previous posts, Centrelink intimidate their critics with
>legal threats. MinterEllison today have served notice of an intention to
>sue me for defamation of Centrelink staff at the Footscray Office. What
>a waste of public money, instead of admitting their errors they sue
>critics, disgusting Centrelink.
>
>I guess that means my appeal against a Centrelink decision will be
>slow-tracked. I do not have any money to pay for a defamation action,
>that is not my intention to defame, Centrelink staff, but to make them
>responsible for their actions and correct their mistakes promptly.
>
>http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/NoCourt/Docs/CSA.html#skipnav
Get a job.
Rod Speed
>>> I would argue that importing workers is cheaper than trying
>>> to get either that hardcore group of people that dont want
>>> to work to do so, or to force the completely unproductive to
>>> do so.Especially for certain types of jobs.
>> In the short term yes, in the long term if we had a system that
>> enforced training in areas we are lacking in skilled workers onto
>> the unemployed, we'd no longer be lacking people with entry level
>> skills for these
>> areas, and could sustain these areas ourselves without being forced
>> to import workers. We should not have to canvas for skills overseas,
>> instead we should just be taking in immigrants that truly want to
>> live out their lives here.
> That works in areas where a skill shortage is not only
> obvious, but will hang around for a while.Like builders for
> instance, we know there's a shortage now and we know that a
> large chunk of the industry will retire in the near future
> because of the demographics of the industry, making the
> shortage sustained.
>
> But I'm a bit dubious about letting governments start
> forcing large amounts of people to become skilled in areas
> THE GOVERNMENT reckon are needed, only to end up with the
> problem a few years down the track of a glut of people all
> trained in things no one really has a use for.
No one is even proposing anything like that.
> Instead of the government forcing people to take up a
> particular skill, just force people to take ANY skill and
> let the market decide.
That is what is done, basically by allowing those to
do what useful TAFE courses they choose for free.
Its got massive downsides tho, most obviously
with those that choose to be a professional
student as easier than bludging on the dole.
Thats the last thing we should be paying for.
Nothing will even if we dont.
>> Obviously
>> you'd need to have medical and security staff there along with
>> councillors and educators, so it wouldn't be a cheap experiment, but
>> I think you'd find it would be a well-worthwhile experiment.
>
> I'd like to see a pilot program first - maybe using 25-30
> year olds that have committed non-violent offences and have
> a history of long term unemployment, where the program would
> be an option for them instead of their usual custodial
> sentence or fine.
>
> Although, by itself I dont think it would be much value -
> you'd need some type of partnership with private sector
> players to offer employment to some of these people after
> they've done their communal service (for lack of a better
> phrase).
>
> And still, I seriously doubt that it could be widely applied
> with any lasting chance of success for the people
> involved.Some people are just fucking dumb.
And even more are completely unemployable.
Trivially avoidable with modern technology.
Not a shred of rocket science required at all.
>>>> Not really, it's amazing how people on the dole, especially of the
>>>> greenleft-style mold, can afford to sit at cafes drinking their
>>>> special blends whilst we're working our arses off to pay their
>>>> bills.
>>>
>>> I thought they were mostly Uni-students.The stats certainly
>>> show that the areas of highest long-term unemployment isnt
>>> in the trendy areas, and that theres fairly high levels of
>>> university study going on in trendy inner suburbs.
>>
>>
>> Them too, professional students are no different than professional
>> dole bludgers in my opinion. Get your bloody qualifications and get
>> out into industry.
> Now that limits on the time allowable to collect welfare
> payments while studying have been introduced, combined
> with them only being, I think, available for one degree,
> have sort of put an end to the professional student
> having a 100% reliance on welfare payments.
Like hell they have.
>>>> Life is
>>>> way too easy in Australia, it is quite easy for single people
>>>> without kids to live verrrry comfortably on the dole. Perhaps we
>>>> should drastically reduce the amount of "money" these people
>>>> receive after they become long-term unemployed and start looking
>>>> at the food-stamp, free public transport, clothes for interviews,
>>>> etc.etc. style of system, and reduce the "fun" these leeches can
>>>> have on the dole.
>>>
>>> Even those systems dont particularly work well because you
>>> get vagrancy costs again, especially with an unemployment
>>> level of 5%,
>>
>>
>> Why would you get those costs???
> Food stamps just create a cash market for them, so that they
> can be sold to buy the things that arent meant to be purchased.
Trivially avoidable with modern technology.
Not a shred of rocket science required at all.
> Then you end up with greater reliance on charities than you
> do now, because the food stamps are sold at less than their
> face value.All you do is end up putting less money in the
> pockets of people to buy food under a stamp program than you
> would without it because of that difference between the face
> value of the stamp and what they're sold for.
Trivially avoidable with modern technology.
Not a shred of rocket science required at all.
> You've got to remember that with an unemployment rate with a
> 5 in fron of it, the people that are left are the bottom end of the pool.
>> Food supplied, rent supplied, the only
>> thing not supplied is drugs and alcohol. Obviously entertainment
>> would have to be factored in as no-one can be expected to "just
>> exist" without going mad and resorting to crime. Perhaps an
>> entertainment percentage of payment is withheld by Centrelink and
>> clients "apply" to get their movie tickets or tv set, etc with only
>> a minimal amount of cash in hand for incidentals given out to the
>> long term unemployed. Again, expensive to administer in the short
>> term, but beneficial to society in the eventual outcome.
> I dont know - I think the state should stay the fuck away
> from micromanaging peoples lives, even the bludgers you
> refer to.The less practice the State gets doing that stuff,
> the less likely they are to try and expand it.
Not interested in continuing handouts to those who choose to bludge.
A 5% unemployment rate is all we need to
work out who is choosing to bludge off welfare.
>> Long-term unemployment is no longer a party so people who can
>> work do go out and get skills and get jobs.
>>
>>
>>> just about all those that want work get it.The
>>> big problem with the unemployment data is the number of part
>>> time workers wanting more hours and more secure positions.
>>
>>
>> Exactly, there are PLENTY out there that are supposedly employed and
>> are not remotely close to being FTE's even though they want to be,
>> and are earning not nearly enough on their part-time employment. In
>> a way
>> forcing those that don't want to work to look for work legitimately
>> would probably make life even harder for those really wanting to look
>> for work,
> That's true enough too.I'd prefer to make it easier for
> those that want to contribute to be able to better their
> lives, even if that means accepting that there might be a
> couple of percentage points of unemployment made up of
> people that dont want to work.I think its the cost of doing
> businees for Australia Inc.
> If you want to look at welfare reform - family welfare, high
> effective marginal tax rates and tax-welfare churn is where
> there's some serious gutting to be had.
Wrong again. The main problem is the stupid child
payments that make it so easy for bludgers to bludge.
And in the process pumping out more and more bludgers.
> John Howards low income breeding programs are fucking joke.
The other crew support that shit.
>> but that's where the mandatory training comes in, there are
>> plenty of industries where we don't have enough people, force the
>> long term unemployed into training in these areas.
> I'm all for trying to train these people - but you've got to
> be prepared for alot of them being untrainable (whether its
> through them choosing to be that way, or them being just
> honest to goodness useless).
No reason why the state should be paying them to watch TV.
Crouching Nun, Hidden Cucumber
<addi...@addinall.org> wrote:
Probably not.
We know the reality lies somewhere between "pretty much
fucked" and "pretty well fucked" when it comes to
tax-welfare churn.
Maybe someone could define just how exactly fucked it is,
but I think for any normal application of the data, the fact
that it enjoys a fairly intimate relationship with
fuckedness is enough to work with.
>Buggered if I know. I suppose it depends on what
>argument you, I or anyone else wants to push.
>"Great Employment" or a "Nanny State". The stats
>will mould quite readily to either....
Dont they always B^P
Terry Collins
>
> For fuck all actually with an unemployment rate of 5%
5.3%, you are behind the times.
> And anyone who really wants one can ALWAYS
> get a job when the unemployment rate is 5%
So why haven't you got one?
You spend an enormous amount of time on usenet.
Terry Collins
> A bus ticket from Brisbane to Goondiwindi costs $62.00. Thats just over
> 3 hours work chipping cotton. From Sydney to Goondiwindi: $161.00. It
> takes about 10 hours to recoup that as a chipper.
LOL, obviously you've never investigated these jobs. 99.99% require you
to have your own motor vehicle.
Do you get much employment areound Warwick without your own vehicle?
> If you are unemployed
> and moving to a job Centrelink may even pay the fare for you.
You might want to update your information. They haven't done that for
decades.
> No-one can use "I'm too poor to move" as an excuse for not working.
Actually, they are not allowed to move because all these areas you claim
have worker shortages all have higher unemployment than the city. So
centrelink will not "allow" you to move.
Rod Speed
> David Moss wrote
>> A bus ticket from Brisbane to Goondiwindi costs $62.00. Thats just
>> over 3 hours work chipping cotton. From Sydney to Goondiwindi:
>> $161.00. It takes about 10 hours to recoup that as a chipper.
> LOL, obviously you've never investigated these jobs.
> 99.99% require you to have your own motor vehicle.
No they dont.
> Do you get much employment areound Warwick without your own vehicle?
Doesnt have to be your own.
>> No-one can use "I'm too poor to move" as an excuse for not working.
> Actually, they are not allowed to move because all these areas you
> claim have worker shortages all have higher unemployment than the
> city. So centrelink will not "allow" you to move.
Wrong, as always.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>> For many people a job is a dream which eludes them.
>> For fuck all actually with an unemployment rate of 5%
> 5.3%, you are behind the times.
For fuck all actually with an unemployment rate of 5.3%
>> And anyone who really wants one can ALWAYS
>> get a job when the unemployment rate is 5%
> So why haven't you got one?
Dont need one thanks, I made heaps when I was working.
> You spend an enormous amount of time on usenet.
You get to like it or lump it or go green with envy.
David Moss
crouch...@yahoo.com.au writes...
> We know the reality lies somewhere between "pretty much
> fucked" and "pretty well fucked" when it comes to
> tax-welfare churn.
>
> Maybe someone could define just how exactly fucked it is,
> but I think for any normal application of the data, the fact
> that it enjoys a fairly intimate relationship with
> fuckedness is enough to work with.
You seem to be using technical terms I'm unfamiliar with.
I might try using them in my Uni assignments to impress the lecturers
;-)
BTW I'm doing Knowledge Management Systems this semester. Looks like
fun. They sent me some software called PolyAnalyst to use in the course.
I ran the TextAnalyst module on one of the Gospels from the Bible and it
condenses it down to:
Jesus
Says
Departs
Which about sums it up really. Pretty smart software!
David Moss
01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>, newsones...@woa.com.au writes...
> David Moss wrote:
>
> > A bus ticket from Brisbane to Goondiwindi costs $62.00. Thats just over
> > 3 hours work chipping cotton. From Sydney to Goondiwindi: $161.00. It
> > takes about 10 hours to recoup that as a chipper.
>
> LOL, obviously you've never investigated these jobs. 99.99% require you
> to have your own motor vehicle.
>
> Do you get much employment areound Warwick without your own vehicle?
I get around in an employer provided motor vehicle.
Warwick has a local bus service that takes in all the industrial areas
including the "bacon factory".
> > If you are unemployed
> > and moving to a job Centrelink may even pay the fare for you.
>
> You might want to update your information. They haven't done that for
> decades.
>
>
> > No-one can use "I'm too poor to move" as an excuse for not working.
>
> Actually, they are not allowed to move because all these areas you claim
> have worker shortages all have higher unemployment than the city. So
> centrelink will not "allow" you to move.
Stuff centrelink! If you have a job you don't need them.
Tim
Agency assessed the car as being worth $10,000 cash a year and made me
pay child support as if it were cash, but my salary was very low and
this made things extra hard financially.
I have to pickup and collect kids from school twice a week, and drop
them to off to their mum, court orders state that I must drop off and
collect kids (never mum) I have done so over 600 times in the last few
years. I have an old car and barely use it except to drop off and
collect kids. Not much chance of moving too far away and car is not up
to long trips or more frequent use.
I am really trying to get paid work, worked part-time last year, more
part-time work likely this year from same employer, but only school
terms two and three. Only work I could get was Part-time, 25 hours a
week over four days, so when working I barely got awywhere, but please
it is not my choice to be unemployed, I worked and paid tax for 30 years
before being retrenched in early 2004.
I am earnestly looking for work, if doesn't have to be what I have done
in the past, I have my resume online at:
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Resume/TJAResume.html#skipnav
I have substantially updated my webpage to be less liable for defamation.
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/NoCourt/Docs/CSA.html#skipnav
Thanks everyone.
Tim
Great discussion on employment.
Seppo Renfors
David Moss wrote:
>
[..]
>
> You seem to be using technical terms I'm unfamiliar with.
> I might try using them in my Uni assignments to impress the lecturers
> ;-)
>
> BTW I'm doing Knowledge Management Systems this semester. Looks like
> fun. They sent me some software called PolyAnalyst to use in the course.
> I ran the TextAnalyst module on one of the Gospels from the Bible and it
> condenses it down to:
>
> Jesus
> Says
> Departs
>
> Which about sums it up really. Pretty smart software!
Pssstttt..... If I was you I would scrap the program as it tells fibs!
"Jesus" said nothing at all that can be found in the Bible. There is
plenty of what OTHER people ALLEGE Jesus said - which is inadmissible
as it is merely hearsay.
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Collins
>>>No-one can use "I'm too poor to move" as an excuse for not working.
>>
>>Actually, they are not allowed to move because all these areas you claim
>>have worker shortages all have higher unemployment than the city. So
>>centrelink will not "allow" you to move.
>
> Stuff centrelink! If you have a job you don't need them.
Oh, excuse me, I thought this conversation was about people currently
recieving centrelink payments.
If you lob into a town on spec and then suddenl;y front up to Centrelink
and say "I came here looking for work and there is not here" they are
going to see where the lowest unemployment is and if you've muffed it,
that is 13 weeks you have to fend for yourself.
Rather dodgy for anyone with family.
Terry Collins
> Terry Collins <newsones...@woa.com.au> wrote
>
>>David Moss wrote
>
>
>>>A bus ticket from Brisbane to Goondiwindi costs $62.00. Thats just
>>>over 3 hours work chipping cotton. From Sydney to Goondiwindi:
>>>$161.00. It takes about 10 hours to recoup that as a chipper.
>
>
>>LOL, obviously you've never investigated these jobs.
>>99.99% require you to have your own motor vehicle.
>
>
> No they dont.
lol, the rest of us live in the real world Rod.
>
>
>>Do you get much employment areound Warwick without your own vehicle?
>
>
> Doesnt have to be your own.
Correct, but for most peeps, that is a real requirements. We don't all
have "friends" in country towns that will suddenly provide transport or
a motor vehicle to take work.
>
>
>>>No-one can use "I'm too poor to move" as an excuse for not working.
>
>
>>Actually, they are not allowed to move because all these areas you
>>claim have worker shortages all have higher unemployment than the
>>city. So centrelink will not "allow" you to move.
>
>
> Wrong, as always.
Lol, no matter how much you spruik your version of reality Rod, it aint
gunna happen. Keep hoping.
>
>
Terry Collins
> I am really trying to get paid work,
Don't other trying to explain to David and others of his ilk. His view
of the world only revolves around himself and he has no capacity to
understand family commitments.
Rod Speed
>>>> A bus ticket from Brisbane to Goondiwindi costs $62.00. Thats just
>>>> over 3 hours work chipping cotton. From Sydney to Goondiwindi:
>>>> $161.00. It takes about 10 hours to recoup that as a chipper.
>>> LOL, obviously you've never investigated these jobs.
>>> 99.99% require you to have your own motor vehicle.
>> No they dont.
> lol, the rest of us live in the real world Rod.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
Hint for the stupid: hardly any chippers show up with just one per car.
And when there is a shortage of chippers, some
of the hayseeds provide transport from town too.
>>> Do you get much employment areound Warwick without your own vehicle?
>> Doesnt have to be your own.
> Correct, but for most peeps, that is a real requirements.
Not a fucking clue, as always.
> We don't all have "friends" in country towns that will
> suddenly provide transport or a motor vehicle to take work.
Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed
that there do tend to be other chippers that you can
get a lift with, particularly if you split the fuel cost etc.
>>>> No-one can use "I'm too poor to move" as an excuse for not working.
>>> Actually, they are not allowed to move because all these areas you
>>> claim have worker shortages all have higher unemployment than the
>>> city. So centrelink will not "allow" you to move.
>> Wrong, as always.
> Lol, no matter how much you spruik your version
> of reality Rod, it aint gunna happen. Keep hoping.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
Centerlink doesnt stop anyone going to where
there is chipping work. Or picking work either.
Terry Collins
> That's one point I'd think would be covered by "capability". No-one
> should be forced to do a job they are not reasonably capable of, and I
> don't just mean physically capable of. "Capability" should be a lot more
> encompassing, including ethics, religion, family obligations,
> etc.etc.etc. Obviously you could not reasonably expect a screaming
> tree-hugging hippy to work in a slaughterhouse,
Centrelink does now.
> nor would you have a Muslim prepare Pork or a Hindu prepare Beef.
> Also a married man with
> kids could not be reasonably expected to run off to the bush for months
> on end to work, whereas a single person could. Shit, I used to do it be
> choice for 5 years, and the pay was great, and you've really got to love
> those special zone tax rebates!
I believe the mining council is screeming lack of unskilled workers.
turns out they only want experienced drivers for the mega-ton dump
trucks. They are not prepared to take people and train them.
>
>
>> Its also being complicated by a labour market getting
>> tight, leaving the least productive workers as the only
>> available labour left.
>
> Make them productive then.
You can not "make" someone productive. Either people want to gain the
skills and become productive, or they do not.
Then they have to deal with Centrelink. e.g uneducated (can not read or
write) wants to learn welding at TAFE because he knows someone that will
give him a oxy cutting or basic welding job if he has he training.
Centrelink will demand that he do a literacy course first, then they may
let him attempt welding. Basic welding is monkey-see, monkey-do and you
don't require reading and writing to be a basic welder.
> Perhaps training should be forced upon the
> long term unemployed in areas that we have skills shortages. The
> government seems too fucking blind to come to that obvious solution,
> rather than paying welfare they should be paying Austudy to these
> long-term unemployed people and forcing them to train up.
You then encounter the problem that the course are not taught where the
unemployed are and somehow the unemployed have to travel to the course.
spending 90 minutes travelling to training (as you can be required to
do) also cuts into the available course. Then you have the example of
blokes that are doing a course, get temporary work, get dropped from the
course because they are not able to attend whilst working, then have a
shit fight with the idiots from Centrelink when the temporary job
finishes and they want to claim newstart again. Seen that numerous times.
>
> In most cases you'd be correct, but pride is really part of
> self-interest.
Self pride, yes.
National pride is for suckers.
> Not when we are now importing workers out of necessity. The cost of
> training the long-term unemployed (force them to go to TAFE for
> instance) isn't that much greater than welfare payments, and the long
> term benefits are much more tangible.
It is at least double. Centrelink has tried it. Unemployed, pensions and
others get one free enrollment a year at TAFENSW. The problem is that
TAFE doesn't always provide the needed course in an accessible location
and most courses at Tafe are for years at a time.
Of course, now that Johnny Howard has made it so that anyone can run a
one week course and give you a Certificate IV in Brain surgery, it is
supposedly cheaper to send them on a $2,000 brain surgeon course. Which
of course is run by a page flipper who last week completed a $1,000 one
week Cert IV in Workplace Assessment and Training.
>
>
>> I've had a theory for a number of years that there is an
>> optimal outcome to be had by allowing a small number of
>> people to bludge off the welfare system, because they cost
>> more to the economy by participating in it than the value of
>> the contribution they could effectively make.If people that
>> actually WANT to work fall into that category - then by all
>> means assist them in whatever way is necesarry.
>
>
>
> Returning to a system of free education for citizens would be great even
> if expensive, and that would do a hell of a lot to boost this country.
The result of our decade + of free tertiary education was that you
suddenly required a degree to work a macca (Bach of Arts), etc.
> Perhaps euthanasia for the true parasites then??? Nah, that would be
> uncivilised... Perhaps a leper colony/commune situation for a year. I
> think you'd find they'd be much more willing to be productive if shown
> what the majority of the rest of the world goes through when they are
> too fucking lazy to pull their weight. The problem with Australia is
> that there are very few people that have any concept of what real
> poverty is. Perhaps those that become "no hope" cases on welfare should
> be put into true poverty in experimental camps for a year of their
> lives, and when they return to society you'd most likely see an amazing
> improvement in their attitudes and the selfishness would disappear.
You have the gist of understanding. One of the reasons for paying
"newstart" to the "parasites" is to reduce the likelihood that the
inventive ones will increase the gross domestic product by desctructiver
action.
Aka I want to work as a glass fitter so I'll stroll down main street and
smash windows. Aka I want to work as a spray painter so I'll visit the
local sports ground and scratch a few hundred cars, etc, etc, etc.
> Agreed, so play hardball with them and give them a very nasty
> alternative as mentioned above.
lol, that is what Johnny Howard is trying to make happen now, except
that everyone thinkas it is only aimed at "dole bludgers"
>
> Yep, free education (especially tertiary) would be of major assistance
> to the battlers that do have pride and want to work for a living, but
> just have not had the same opportunities as some others.
We live in a society that has a skills pyramid, aka, most work is at the
bottom, so having everyone with tertiary education isn't going to be
productive. In fact, there is research to show it is unproductive.
I prefer to think that a scheme to ban all motor vehicles, delivery
trucks included, from 5 kms of every town, might provide a multitude of
opportunities for "bicycle couriers" to transfer goods into and out of
the CBD. {:-).
>
> How about my Pov commune suggestion???
As the other person said, ROI; return on investment.
Modern agriculture is like modern road building. It requires a
multi-million dollar investment in machinery and equipment and only
provides a few jobs.
Then the government would have to forcibly appropriate some good
agricultural land. Ignoring the fact that "fishing" would require the
entire Murry & Darling Rivers to provide adequate fish stocks, plus
compulsory acquisition of some of the rice and cotton growers water stock.
Seriously, it is cheaper for the government to pay them money and just
occassionally make lots of noise to pacify the rest of the community.
Those who are able, will find a way, if they can. Centrelink is often
more of a hinderance.
> Perhaps they're going about it in the wrong way then.
Precisely, but the problem is they are still trying to force a one size
fits all solution and that is what doesn't work.
Apparently up to 80% of Work For the Dole participants are breached, but
the only ones to suffer penalty are the "un-educated". Casual work,
family commitments, ill health, court appearances (motor vehicle, etc),
study activites, etc, etc, are all valid excuses (documentation
required). All it does is create a massive make work scheme for public
servants, both in Centrelink and outside. Head of welfare at one tafe,
where lots of unemployed do literacy, access and other studies, said it
now requires 1+ person full time to provide documentation to Centrelink
for students to appeal breaches.
Funniest joke, declare $20 a week income, and centrelink leaves you
alone. You still get full dole too.
> Agreed, that was more of an over-reaction on my behalf towards bludgers.
> I just can't understand their mentality, but I've said more times than I
> can count in here that we NEED welfare and can't afford to let people
> starve, because that is where society starts to fall apart, violent
> crime becomes rampant, etc.etc. and as you say, parts of the US are good
> examples.
Look closely, it is starting to happen locally.
>
> I like my pov commune idea though... Let them see what real life is
> about,
lol, life stopped being "living off the land" when the closures act took
away all the commons in england and force people into the cities to look
for work. To live in Australia, you are forced to have housing, which
costs, you are forced to have income for food and services ( lots of
land [lose welfare]and lost of water can replace some food). The next
reccession will notbe the cake walk the last one was. A lot of the
population could provide for themselves in the countryside then. Now,
they are all trapped in the city.
Rod Speed
> David Moss wrote:
>
>>>> No-one can use "I'm too poor to move" as an excuse for not working.
>>>
>>> Actually, they are not allowed to move because all these areas you
>>> claim have worker shortages all have higher unemployment than the
>>> city. So centrelink will not "allow" you to move.
>>
>> Stuff centrelink! If you have a job you don't need them.
> Oh, excuse me, I thought this conversation was
> about people currently recieving centrelink payments.
Its actually about whether its perfectly possible
to go to somewhere there is work like chipping
and then you dont need the dole anymore, cretin.
> If you lob into a town on spec and then suddenl;y front up to
> Centrelink and say "I came here looking for work and there is not
> here" they are going to see where the lowest unemployment is and
> if you've muffed it, that is 13 weeks you have to fend for yourself.
Complete pig ignorant drivel if you go where there is
normally plenty of chipping work and do something as
radical as check with centerlink before you to there to
see if there is work available there.
> Rather dodgy for anyone with family.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
Terry Collins
> That should skill up some people to be able to contribute.
> Skill development in this country is a travesty, at all
> levels.
You do realise that one of the reasons in the past that Australia hasn't
faced this situation was because the government provided/subsidised an
enormous amount of training in trades, technician and degree jobs?
Now, all those government and semi-government job sources have been
privatised and one of the first approaches they take is to abolish all
training. the result is that all those government trained peeple are now
over 50 years and looking towards retirement.
Commercial companies face a major looming skills shortage and they are
not prepared to adjust their thinking and wage rates. Far easier to
demand the government bring in "skilled workers" from some magical
source oveseas.
> But there's still going to be a group left consisting
> of those that dont want to work, or are just too hopeless
> too.WHat to do with them is the question.And its a question
> the country will have to deal with sooner rather than later
> as the labour market tightens further over the next 10
> years.
Perhaps if the pay rates were higher, those already working in basic
jobs might be motivated to take higher training to move into skilled
positions and leave the basic jobs to the less capable who can quite
adequately do them.
Interesting factoid, many trades have alternate entry points that do not
involve "apprenticeships aka slave lablour". Industrial experience, plus
tafe evening courses can get you qualified as a tradesperson in the
mechanical area. Rather telling that this option isn't available in
certain other areas.
The government could solve some skill shortages by removing monopoly
powers from AMA, engineers, electricians, plumbers, builders, etc.
>
Terry Collins
> Thats arguable with the dregs of society that cant
> or wont get a job with an unemployment rate of 5%
There is an economic argument that society requires a 5% unemployment
level for efficent worker supply. If it goes below 5%, then it become
increasingly difficult for companies to obtain casual workers.
> Trouble is that the worst of them arent good at anything
> except bludging and they arent much good at that either.
Very insightfull. They are fscking useless at learning how to play the
"Centrelink" game and end up spending all their time being hassled.
> They so basically do that to some extent with the long term unemployed,
> force them to get some training. I'd love to hear from those forced to
> 'train' the worst of them tho, bet they're a complete waste of time.
lol, I've heard Tafe teachers say 22/24 kids from good homes with
eemployed parents are a total waste of time. I hear that repeatedly.
Terry Collins
>
> I don't trust that 5% figure. How many of the 95% supposedly employed
> are only working one day here or two days there,
Boing, nope, you only have to work for ONE HOUR each week to be counted
as employed.
Of course, you only get considered for this figure if they can write you
off because you are;
employed,
on a pension,
self funded retiree,
self employed,
etc,
etc,
So you are correct that the figure is very suspect.
We have recently had the experience to be selected as one of the homes
they telephone each month for a period to measure this figure. Lets just
say I bet they are glad that had ended
"did your wife do any casual work last week"; yes
"how many hours did she work for her usual employer?"; She doesn't have
a usual employer.
So they repeat the question because that answer doesn't fit the allowed
answers and things go down hill from there.
Trying to get across to these idiots that the wife gets up every
morning, gets dressed and then waits for any one of four employers to
telephone and ask her to come in and work for the day is totally impossible.
Mind you, they were equally usless when I had to help the 73 year old
Italian (no reading or writing skills in any language) answers the same
questions.
"who is his usual employer?"; he doesn't have one, he is retired.
so we repeat the question don't they!
Eventually, his calls became "Has his cicumstances changed from last
month?" No, "thank you" Perhaps there was a note on the file. {:-).
Terry Collins
>>We wouldn't be treating them like shit though, we'd be forcing them to
>>learn self-respect and self-sufficiency,
>
>
> I know that, you know that - I doubt they would.
>
> You reckon you can teach Macquarie Fields types the joys of
> self-respect and self-sufficiency by sending them out the
> back of woop-woop to become peasants?
Not to excuse the arseholes that featured in the news, but whilst
Macquarie Fields has a TAFE college, it doesn't offer much unless you
are educated.
Higher level work in the fast disappearing clothing industry or IT
networking and I shudder to think of how old the ITequipment is given
that TAFE hates to spend money.
Terry Collins
>
> You will have to enumerate some of these high work related expenses, I'm
> having a bit of trouble working out what they may be. Transport? You can
> pick up a second hand push bike at the recycling centre for a few
> dollars that will get you to work in town.
Lol, you're dreaming. do you want to give me the address of the Warwck
one so I can see if it is there next month.
> The out of town jobs I mentioned
> elsewhere in the thread usually have bus transport kicked in by the
> contractor, just to ensure the troops are lined up at hoedown time.
Well, funny that "transport provided" is like hen's teeth on the job
descriptions I've seen. More likely "Motor vehicle required as job is
40kms from town" That is one big economic opportunity costs.
>
> Come off the grass Cukie. The marginal cost of chipping cotton is a
> splash of 15+ sunscreen and having to wash a few extra socks and undies.
Nope, you require a good esky and water bottle at least. A good hat
would be strongly recommended and you should be wearing long sleeved
pants and shirt. You'll even find sun glasses recommended. Yes, I know
it doesn't meet the macho image, but that is safe working clobber.
Woops, forgot safety boots too.
> The marginal cost of working in a meatworks is even less because its
> indoors and the company provides and launders all working clothes.
Definitely not. unless the company is carrying out illegal opperations.
> If a person settles on an itinerant lifestyle they do not maintain
> multiple residences.
The country would be really great if we all adopted your approach.
>
> I wonder why they have 7 pay levels in the meat industry?
> Could it be that some of the work *is* skilled?
Is that all?
> I kill and dress goats for personal consumption. I'm not very skilled at
> it so it takes me ages. I've seen someone with skills kill and dress one
> of my steers and believe me it takes skill to do it hygienically and
> efficiently.
And that takes training and lots of practise to do it efficently,
particularly on a production line. Also, one slip and you could be
fucked and disabled for life.
>
> Whats this subsidy we're on about?
> Australians won't do these jobs now.
Err, I wonder why.
There is usually a few good reasons.
You might want to ask the locals {:-).
Terry Collins
>>I'm
>>having a bit of trouble working out what they may be. Transport? You can
>>pick up a second hand push bike at the recycling centre for a few
>>dollars that will get you to work in town.
>
>
> Many of these vacancies are more than a bike ride away from
> the nearest available accomodation.
>
> To give but one example, again from the Working Group
> report:
>
> "The lack of affordable accommodation in Griffith is a major
> problem.
Oh yes, Griffith. Lets see.
A lot of the main roads have heavy traffic and nill shoulders which is
really unsafe for bicycle riding and lots of the sealed smaller roads
have many blind spots but this doesn't stop car drivers from speeding.
Then there is the enormous amount of unsealed roads covered in very
rough gravel.
Been there, done that.
> In one instance, some pickers have had to travel up
> to 33 kms out of town to find somewhere to stay. In another
> example, one grower organised daily transport to and from a
> caravan park 120 kms from his property."
Caravan park? Passed through Harden and every motel room was taken by
truck drivers there for the wheat harvest. Absolutely chockers at the
caravan park.
Terry Collins
>>I'll quote the 2000 report, "Harvesting Australia"from the
>>National Harvest Trail Working Group, which focused
>>primarily on harvesting industries, but also other related
>>seasonal work that included pruning and cotton chipping.
>
>
> The obvious crap in this makes the rest very dubious indeed.
You'll have to point out the crap there Rod.
>>. losing income for as much as a week or ten
>>days several times a year in order to travel
>>long distances between harvest areas;
>
>
> Mindless stuff, none of the harvest areas in this country
> involve anything like that sort of time to get between them.
lol, obviously you don't know anything about agriculture in this country
apart from Aldi labels.
>
> And the illegals manage that stuff fine anyway.
Nope, give you a clue. I was only ear bashed the other day as to how the
Mildura growers organise busloads of "illegals" to come work on their farm.
Crouching Nun, Hidden Cucumber
<newsones...@woa.com.au> wrote:
>Crouching Nun, Hidden Cucumber wrote:
>
>> That should skill up some people to be able to contribute.
>> Skill development in this country is a travesty, at all
>> levels.
>
>You do realise that one of the reasons in the past that Australia hasn't
>faced this situation was because the government provided/subsidised an
>enormous amount of training in trades, technician and degree jobs?
I agree that the public service evolved to be a key plank in
the nations vocational training system.But the public
service of today isnt really in the position to fulfill that
role anymore, primarily because the training skills they
*_can_* provide, arent the ones in demand.
>Now, all those government and semi-government job sources have been
>privatised and one of the first approaches they take is to abolish all
>training. the result is that all those government trained peeple are now
>over 50 years and looking towards retirement.
And in many instances the public service will be a better
place when they go.
>Commercial companies face a major looming skills shortage and they are
>not prepared to adjust their thinking and wage rates.
That's simply not true - not as some fundamental "across the
board" truth anyway.
Large corporations paying for their workers to undertake
further university education is becoming more the norm than
not when it comes to positions paying 70K+, particularly if
the skills involved are beneficial to the orgainsation.It
used to be isolated to employees earning substantially more
than that, but over the last 7 years or so, the wage level
that corporate sponsorship of further education has cut in
has continued to become lower.
As for wage rates, it depends on what sector and what
skillset you're talking about.Wage growth in some sectors -
accounting, geo-sciences, engineering,financial analysis to
name a few has been incredible.
Wage growth across the board has been strong.
>Its far easier to
>demand the government bring in "skilled workers" from some magical
>source oveseas.
Most of that calling comes from the conservative business
culture of Melbourne - hardly surprising since that mob
hasnt had an original idea since their grandfathers ran the
joint.
>> But there's still going to be a group left consisting
>> of those that dont want to work, or are just too hopeless
>> too.WHat to do with them is the question.And its a question
>> the country will have to deal with sooner rather than later
>> as the labour market tightens further over the next 10
>> years.
>
>Perhaps if the pay rates were higher, those already working in basic
>jobs might be motivated to take higher training to move into skilled
>positions and leave the basic jobs to the less capable who can quite
>adequately do them.
Pay rates can only be as high as productivity growth
allows.Otherwise you get inflation (which hits everyone) and
unemployment (which hits the lowest skilled the hardest).
>Interesting factoid, many trades have alternate entry points that do not
>involve "apprenticeships aka slave lablour". Industrial experience, plus
>tafe evening courses can get you qualified as a tradesperson in the
>mechanical area. Rather telling that this option isn't available in
>certain other areas.
>
>The government could solve some skill shortages by removing monopoly
>powers from AMA, engineers, electricians, plumbers, builders, etc.
You're preaching to the converted when it comes to wanting
to remove the power of those sheltered workshops.
Crouching Nun, Hidden Cucumber
<newsones...@woa.com.au> wrote:
>Hunter01 wrote:
<>
>> Yep, free education (especially tertiary) would be of major assistance
>> to the battlers that do have pride and want to work for a living, but
>> just have not had the same opportunities as some others.
>
>We live in a society that has a skills pyramid, aka, most work is at the
>bottom, so having everyone with tertiary education isn't going to be
>productive. In fact, there is research to show it is unproductive.
Actually, its not a pyramid.
I have a dataset that's based on 22 industry sectors with
145 sub-sectors that uses the the income from a carefully
chosen sample of 200 000 people, and their skill level on a
15 point scale.
The geometric representation of the skill component of that
dataset is a vertically elongated pentagon with a stubby
base.
David Moss
@optushome.com.au writes...
> I am earnestly looking for work, if doesn't have to be what I have done
> in the past, I have my resume online at:
>
> http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Resume/TJAResume.html#skipnav
Tim, mate.
Your resume needs work.
Its got some good stuff in it but the presentation may not suit your
chosen market. Personally I'd go for the clean, traditional business
look. A black background, light blue text and pink hyperlinks, coupled
with abstract art illustrations may put the more conservative HR
managers offside. I'd also have someone else go over my copy looking for
homonyms.
You have to remember any marketing effort must be customer focused to
succeed. You seem to be product focused. That went out in the 60s and
70s.
Crouching Nun, Hidden Cucumber
<q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <rpn2v1952olilrun4...@4ax.com>,
>crouch...@yahoo.com.au writes...
>
>> We know the reality lies somewhere between "pretty much
>> fucked" and "pretty well fucked" when it comes to
>> tax-welfare churn.
>>
>> Maybe someone could define just how exactly fucked it is,
>> but I think for any normal application of the data, the fact
>> that it enjoys a fairly intimate relationship with
>> fuckedness is enough to work with.
>
>You seem to be using technical terms I'm unfamiliar with.
>I might try using them in my Uni assignments to impress the lecturers
>;-)
>
>
>BTW I'm doing Knowledge Management Systems this semester.
Boy, wont you be the life of the party B^P
> Looks like
>fun.
Sometimes I wonder if you have serious issues ;-)
Any bloke that likes eating goat and revels in Knowledge
Management Systems ... well, need I say more ;-)
>They sent me some software called PolyAnalyst to use in the course.
>I ran the TextAnalyst module on one of the Gospels from the Bible and it
>condenses it down to:
>
>Jesus
>Says
>Departs
>
>Which about sums it up really. Pretty smart software!
Yikes!
David Moss
01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>, newsones...@woa.com.au writes...
You would be amazed at the kind of world I have revolving around me
Terry. There's a good book out there called "Another Place at the
Table" that might give you a clue about my feelings on family
commitment.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> And some people are just honest-to-goodness useless.
>>>> I'm sure we've all met some poor bugger that was
>>>> completely hopeless at just about everything.
>>> Very true, but people that are truly useless at
>>> EVERYTHING are a major exception from the norm.
>> Thats arguable with the dregs of society that cant
>> or wont get a job with an unemployment rate of 5%
> There is an economic argument that society requires a 5% unemployment
> level for efficent worker supply. If it goes below 5%, then it become
> increasingly difficult for companies to obtain casual workers.
Just the usual utterly mindless silly bullshit.
>> Trouble is that the worst of them arent good at anything
>> except bludging and they arent much good at that either.
> Very insightfull. They are fscking useless at learning how to play the
> "Centrelink" game and end up spending all their time being hassled.
Yep, and end up getting forced to do useless 'courses' etc.
And its spelt fucking.
>> They do basically do that to some extent with the long
>> term unemployed, force them to get some training. I'd
>> love to hear from those forced to 'train' the worst of
>> them tho, bet they're a complete waste of time.
> lol, I've heard Tafe teachers say 22/24 kids from good homes with
> employed parents are a total waste of time. I hear that repeatedly.
Just the usual complete crap from unemployable fuckwits.
Rod Speed
> Crouching Nun, Hidden Cucumber wrote:
>>> We wouldn't be treating them like shit though, we'd be
>>> forcing them to learn self-respect and self-sufficiency,
>> I know that, you know that - I doubt they would.
>> You reckon you can teach Macquarie Fields types the
>> joys of self-respect and self-sufficiency by sending them
>> out the back of woop-woop to become peasants?
> Not to excuse the arseholes that featured in the news,
> but whilst Macquarie Fields has a TAFE college, it
> doesn't offer much unless you are educated.
Oh bullshit. I bet it offers the usual trades training.
> Higher level work in the fast disappearing clothing industry
Bullshit.
> or IT networking and I shudder to think of how old the
> IT equipment is given that TAFE hates to spend money.
Bet its perfectly adequate for the usual trades training.
Rod Speed
> Crouching Nun, Hidden Cucumber wrote
>> That should skill up some people to be able to contribute.
>> Skill development in this country is a travesty, at all levels.
> You do realise that one of the reasons in the past that
> Australia hasn't faced this situation was because the
> government provided/subsidised an enormous amount
> of training in trades, technician and degree jobs?
It was always a small part of the total trades training.
> Now, all those government and semi-government
> job sources have been privatised
No they havent, most obviously with the military and nursing and teaching.
> and one of the first approaches they take is to abolish all training.
Another pig ignorant lie.
> the result is that all those government trained peeple
> are now over 50 years and looking towards retirement.
Another pig ignorant lie.
> Commercial companies face a major looming skills shortage and
> they are not prepared to adjust their thinking and wage rates.
Another pig ignorant lie.
> Far easier to demand the government bring in "skilled
> workers" from some magical source oveseas.
Another pig ignorant lie.
>> But there's still going to be a group left consisting of those
>> that dont want to work, or are just too hopeless too. WHat
>> to do with them is the question.And its a question the country
>> will have to deal with sooner rather than later as the labour
>> market tightens further over the next 10 years.
> Perhaps if the pay rates were higher, those already working
> in basic jobs might be motivated to take higher training to
> move into skilled positions and leave the basic jobs to
> the less capable who can quite adequately do them.
Or perhaps thats just the usual mindlessly pig ignorant drivel.
> Interesting factoid, many trades have alternate entry points
> that do not involve "apprenticeships aka slave lablour".
You dont pay slaves, you whip them instead.
> Industrial experience, plus tafe evening courses can get you
> qualified as a tradesperson in the mechanical area. Rather
> telling that this option isn't available in certain other areas.
Yes, there are still a few that are deliberate closed shops.
Not that many left now tho.
> The government could solve some skill shortages
> by removing monopoly powers from AMA,
No such animal.
> engineers,
No such animal.
> electricians,
No such animal.
> plumbers,
No such animal.
> builders, etc.
No such animal in spades.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>> I'll quote the 2000 report, "Harvesting Australia"from the
>>> National Harvest Trail Working Group, which focused
>>> primarily on harvesting industries, but also other related
>>> seasonal work that included pruning and cotton chipping.
>> The obvious crap in this makes the rest very dubious indeed.
> You'll have to point out the crap there Rod.
I did.
>>> losing income for as much as a week or ten
>>> days several times a year in order to travel
>>> long distances between harvest areas;
>> Mindless stuff, none of the harvest areas in this country
>> involve anything like that sort of time to get between them.
> lol, obviously you don't know anything about
> agriculture in this country apart from Aldi labels.
Guess which silly little fuckwit has just got
egg all over its silly little face, as always.
>> And the illegals manage that stuff fine anyway.
> Nope, give you a clue. I was only ear bashed the
> other day as to how the Mildura growers organise
> busloads of "illegals" to come work on their farm.
And didnt pay for them to get into the country, fuckwit.
Andrew D
crouch...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
[snip]
> Probably not.
> We know the reality lies somewhere between "pretty much
> fucked" and "pretty well fucked" when it comes to
> tax-welfare churn.
> Maybe someone could define just how exactly fucked it is,
> but I think for any normal application of the data, the fact
> that it enjoys a fairly intimate relationship with
> fuckedness is enough to work with.
I haven't followed the thread prior to this point so forgive me if I'm way
off track but I think I'm qualified to some extent to comment of just how
bad the churning has become due to a decision to use the welfare system to
try and patch up a fundamentally "anti-marriage" tax system (and that is
why we have such a complex system of "family benefits")
An earlier comment suggests that many part-time workers would probably
kill for a fulltime job but if the family receives Parenting Patyment that
probably is not the case at all. This payment is targeted to essentially
one-income couples with dependent child/ren. It is paid to the low/no
earner but is assessed against combined income. It usually includes access
to a Health Care Card which offers benefits beyond health-related
cost-savings (cheaper utility bills, reduced school fees and more).
BUT, the "clawback-free" threshold on the earning partner's earnings is
very low and so if s/he works more than part-time in a low paying job the
additional income will firstly be taxed at source as personal income and
will then also be assessed (gross figure, not nett) as shared income and
results a 70% withdrawal of Parenting Payment. If the gross annual income
of the working partner falls into the 30% marginal tax bracket, this means
that the extra income earned by working more than two or three days a week
is effectively taxed at 100% (tax + clawback). If the gross annual income
then exceeds the FTA(B) threshold, Family Tax Payments will be reduced or
need to be repaid in-part. This effectively increases the taxation to
around 120% of every dollar earned above the partner-income threshold.
In addition to this significant disincentive, the family will likely lose
their Health Care Card (almost definitely if the non-earner finds a
part-time job of more than a few hours a week) and all the benefits it
delivers.
Why would any part-time/casual breadwinner in their right mind spend more
time out of the home and risk the family's finances by taking on fulltime
work purely for the benefit of Canberra. It just doesn't make sense and
it's pretty obvious a lot of people are very aware of the impact of
working harder even if they don't fully understand the mechanics of how
the three monolithic bureacracies of Centrelink, Family Assistance Office
and ATO conspire against their families' welfare interests.
Now, people such as yourself, Nun, will shout "bludger" and point at
statistics suggesting that average families are rolling in other
taxpayers' hard earned dollars but as always, you miss the point. It is
that very largesse - and the bureaucratic mismanagement of it - that IS
the problem. It is a ridiculous way to "support" families since what it
really does is reward complacency and inactivity. It stifles incentive and
penalises effort but the moment someone suggests that the tax system would
offer a better solution since increased benefits would be related to
increased effort/earnings you scorn and ridicule them and list a whole
host of "reasons" why they are wrong and why the current system is a
better solution and how rewarding hard work by breadwinners would result
in the absolute collapse of the entire economy, the domestic incarceration
of all women and deliver us all into third-world squalor well before the
GST manages to do it (I threw the GST in since your doomsday predictions
mirrored those around the introduction of the GST).
And so here we are still, with people such as yourself effectively
supporting tax-welfare churning as a viable solution to what is, in
reality, a taxation-only problem whilst at the same time complaining that
churning is a vast and ridiculous waste of effort.
Stop churning. It rewards bureacracy and inactivity and nothing more. It
stifles families. It reduces choice for parents. It kills incentive and
penalises effort. It is anti-marriage and anti-family (it mainly affects
heterosexual relationships). It is, quite simply, a ridiculous waste of
time. It is the result of a generation of fundamentalist-feminist
scaremongering about women chained to kitchen sinks completely devoid of
any ability to act independently of their over-bearing husbands. It is a
nonsense.
Recognise family-income in the tax system to bring that system into line
with the welfare system and family law. Treat families with equal incomes
the same for both tax and welfare purposes and where there are genuine
expense differences (like numbers of children), recognise those directly
through either welfare benefits or tax breaks if it is morally, ethically
or politically advisable/acceptable to do so. This way, any member of a
couple can feel free to work harder without first having to assess the
potential financial risk that currently results from earning more than
minimal part-time wages.
--
Andy D.
Rod Speed
> Crouching Nun, Hidden Cucumber wrote
>>> I'm having a bit of trouble working out what they may be. Transport?
>>> You can pick up a second hand push bike at the recycling centre for
>>> a few dollars that will get you to work in town.
>> Many of these vacancies are more than a bike ride
>> away from the nearest available accomodation.
>> To give but one example, again from the Working Group report:
>> "The lack of affordable accommodation in Griffith is a major problem.
> Oh yes, Griffith. Lets see.
Yep, we will, you make a VERY spectacular fool of yourself, as always.
> A lot of the main roads have heavy traffic and nill
> shoulders which is really unsafe for bicycle riding
Utterly mindless pig ignorant drivel. How odd that
so many ride their bikes on those, and there are
hardly any of them injured, let alone killed doing it.
> and lots of the sealed smaller roads have many blind spots
Pig ignorant lie.
> but this doesn't stop car drivers from speeding.
Hardly any of them injured, let alone killed killed anyway.
> Then there is the enormous amount of
> unsealed roads covered in very rough gravel.
Not a fucking clue, as always.
> Been there, done that.
But clearly with a massive problem with ear to ear dog shit.
The locals manage it fine.
>> In one instance, some pickers have had to travel up
>> to 33 kms out of town to find somewhere to stay. In
>> another example, one grower organised daily transport
>> to and from a caravan park 120 kms from his property."
> Caravan park? Passed through Harden and every motel
> room was taken by truck drivers there for the wheat
> harvest. Absolutely chockers at the caravan park.
Pity about the showground. In spades
with Griffith. Its NEVER completely full.
Rod Speed
> David Moss wrote:
>
>>
>> You will have to enumerate some of these high work related expenses,
>> I'm having a bit of trouble working out what they may be. Transport?
>> You can pick up a second hand push bike at the recycling centre for
>> a few dollars that will get you to work in town.
>
> Lol, you're dreaming. do you want to give me the address of the Warwck
> one so I can see if it is there next month.
>
>> The out of town jobs I mentioned
>> elsewhere in the thread usually have bus transport kicked in by the
>> contractor, just to ensure the troops are lined up at hoedown time.
> Well, funny that "transport provided" is like hen's teeth
> on the job descriptions I've seen. More likely "Motor
> vehicle required as job is 40kms from town"
Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that hardly
any pickers/chippers are stupid enough to bother with one car each.
> That is one big economic opportunity costs.
Not a fucking clue, as always.
>> Come off the grass Cukie. The marginal cost of chipping cotton is a
>> splash of 15+ sunscreen and having to wash a few extra socks and
>> undies.
> Nope, you require a good esky and water bottle at least.
Doesnt have to be a good one, any esky will do fine.
> A good hat would be strongly recommended and
> you should be wearing long sleeved pants and shirt.
Hardly anyone is that stupid.
> You'll even find sun glasses recommended. Yes,
> I know it doesn't meet the macho image, but that is
> safe working clobber. Woops, forgot safety boots too.
Plenty just wear thongs. In spades with the illegals.
>> The marginal cost of working in a meatworks is even less because its
>> indoors and the company provides and launders all working clothes.
> Definitely not. unless the company is carrying out illegal opperations.
>> If a person settles on an itinerant lifestyle they do not maintain
>> multiple residences.
> The country would be really great if we all adopted your approach.
There are never enough of those to matter a damn on that.
>> I wonder why they have 7 pay levels in the meat industry?
>> Could it be that some of the work *is* skilled?
> Is that all?
>> I kill and dress goats for personal consumption. I'm not very
>> skilled at it so it takes me ages. I've seen someone with skills
>> kill and dress one of my steers and believe me it takes skill to do
>> it hygienically and efficiently.
> And that takes training and lots of practise to do it efficently,
> particularly on a production line. Also, one slip and you could be
> fucked and disabled for life.
More complete pig ignorant drivel.
>> Whats this subsidy we're on about?
>> Australians won't do these jobs now.
> Err, I wonder why.
> There is usually a few good reasons.
> You might want to ask the locals {:-).
The answer is obvious, its easier to bludge off the dole.
Andrew D
<43f2af95$0$17811$61c6...@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>,
Terry Collins <newsones...@woa.com.au> wrote:
> Hunter01 wrote:
[snip]
> > In most cases you'd be correct, but pride is really part of
> > self-interest.
> Self pride, yes.
> National pride is for suckers.
I once wrote a letter to Canberra complaining of the 100%+ effective tax
rate paid by two-parent families with on earner working part-time but
trying to earn a little extra. The minister replied that working isn't all
about the money and that it's good for the kids to see their parents
working. This from a minister in a government that constantly reminds us
of the debilitating disincentive a mere 48% tax rate imposes on
Australia's biggest earners.
--
Andy D.
Andrew D
<q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
> In article <43f1fc2a$0$17812$61c65585@un-2park-reader-
> 01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>, newsones...@woa.com.au writes...
>
> > David Moss wrote:
> >
> > > A bus ticket from Brisbane to Goondiwindi costs $62.00. Thats just over
> > > 3 hours work chipping cotton. From Sydney to Goondiwindi: $161.00. It
> > > takes about 10 hours to recoup that as a chipper.
> >
> > LOL, obviously you've never investigated these jobs. 99.99% require you
> > to have your own motor vehicle.
> >
> > Do you get much employment areound Warwick without your own vehicle?
>
> I get around in an employer provided motor vehicle.
> Warwick has a local bus service that takes in all the industrial areas
> including the "bacon factory".
>
> > > If you are unemployed
> > > and moving to a job Centrelink may even pay the fare for you.
> >
> > You might want to update your information. They haven't done that for
> > decades.
> >
> >
> > > No-one can use "I'm too poor to move" as an excuse for not working.
> >
> > Actually, they are not allowed to move because all these areas you claim
> > have worker shortages all have higher unemployment than the city. So
> > centrelink will not "allow" you to move.
>
> Stuff centrelink! If you have a job you don't need them
I have a job but the family still deals with Centrelink because that's the
system this government has kept in place - take from the breadwinner then
hand back to the spouse. Despite decades of protesting against the
anti-family tax system John Howard still ignores families when it comes to
taxing their earnings.
The result of the tax/welfare churning is that tax is paid on an income
first assessed as personal then the same GROSS income is assessed as
shared and welfare is either paid, withdrawn or witheld to/from the
spouse. It means the same gross income is taxed twice (how can I possibly
share my gross income with my wife when the govenrment's already taken a
chunk of it in tax?) but hey, at least Howard is pro-marriage and
pro-family eh David?
To avoid dealing with Centrelink we could either stay as we are and just
opt not to receive our rightful entitlement making us worse-off
financially or I could work an extra two days a week (easily available and
often offered) but end up worse off financially than we are now because we
then face a 100%+ effective tax rate due to this government's complete
mismanagement of family policy. Whixh option do you suggest for low-income
families David?
Oh - of course I could always force my wife to go to work and just ship
the kids off to daycare. I forgot that this government wasn't about
allowing parents to decide for themselves how they arrange their private
family responsibilities. They speak loudly of choice but impose harsh
financial penalties on one of them.
Maybe you can remind me again David how it's just a matter of being
patient and waiting for Howard to get around to sorting out this
disastrous mess.
--
Andy D.
David Moss
crouch...@yahoo.com.au writes...
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 00:06:14 GMT, David Moss
> <q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >In article <rpn2v1952olilrun4...@4ax.com>,
> >crouch...@yahoo.com.au writes...
> >
> >> We know the reality lies somewhere between "pretty much
> >> fucked" and "pretty well fucked" when it comes to
> >> tax-welfare churn.
> >>
> >> Maybe someone could define just how exactly fucked it is,
> >> but I think for any normal application of the data, the fact
> >> that it enjoys a fairly intimate relationship with
> >> fuckedness is enough to work with.
> >
> >You seem to be using technical terms I'm unfamiliar with.
> >I might try using them in my Uni assignments to impress the lecturers
> >;-)
> >
> >
> >BTW I'm doing Knowledge Management Systems this semester.
>
> Boy, wont you be the life of the party B^P
>
> > Looks like
> >fun.
>
> Sometimes I wonder if you have serious issues ;-)
>
> Any bloke that likes eating goat and revels in Knowledge
> Management Systems ... well, need I say more ;-)
I was thinking of setting up a webcam and hiring it out to Economists by
the minute. Its rumoured some of the more in depth professional economic
analyses involve goat entrails and moonlight...
Phred
In article <MPG.1e5d78ed3...@news.bigpond.com>, David Moss
<q032...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <43F2931C...@optushome.com.au>, dogstar27
>@optushome.com.au writes...
>
>> I am earnestly looking for work, if doesn't have to be what I have done
>> in the past, I have my resume online at:
>>
>> http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Resume/TJAResume.html#skipnav
>
>Tim, mate. Your resume needs work.
>Its got some good stuff in it but the presentation may not suit your
>chosen market. Personally I'd go for the clean, traditional business
>look. A black background, light blue text and pink hyperlinks, coupled
>with abstract art illustrations may put the more conservative HR
>managers offside.
Maybe it does suit the often arty-farty world of publishing, and maybe
that's Tim's "chosen market" (rather than chipping broccoli :).
FWIW, I think it's a far better job of font and colour shade selection
than most of those awful multicolour pages that deface the Internet.
>I'd also have someone else go over my copy looking for homonyms.
Is a homonym just a word that *sounds* the same as another word of
different meaning? The pedant in me thought it had to be both spelt
and said the same (e.g. quail/quail) rather than just sound the same
(e.g. there/their). In any case, isn't "seemless" just a spelling
error?
[snip]
Anyway, what I really wanted to ask Tim is whether that "Jacaranda
Wiley" publishing company was the result of Wiley buying out
Jacaranda in Oz, or vice versa? It would seem it's largely just Wiley
these days anyway -- judging by the web links I just looked at.
I'm a bit curious because just the other day we were wondering what
had become of Jacaranda Press. I'm not sure when it first kicked off;
but, IIRC, it was during my days at UQ a talented young lady by the
name of Anne O'Donovan went off to work for the show, and I thought
that was probably about the time the firm started up? (Thinking early
to mid 60s here.)
Care to throw any light on this if you can, Tim?
Cheers, Phred.
--
ppnerk...@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
David Moss
writes...
In the words of Martin Fergusson, "how can I defend the indefensible?"
Terry Collins
> centerlink
LOL.
Rod Speed
> Hunter01 wrote
>> That's one point I'd think would be covered by "capability". No-one
>> should be forced to do a job they are not reasonably capable of,
>> and I don't just mean physically capable of. "Capability" should
>> be a lot more encompassing, including ethics, religion, family
>> obligations, etc.etc.etc. Obviously you could not reasonably expect
>> a screaming tree-hugging hippy to work in a slaughterhouse,
> Centrelink does now.
Not much at all. They dont even force all those who get the dole in areas
where there is picking work to do the picking work when its available.
>> nor would you have a Muslim prepare Pork or a Hindu prepare Beef.
>> Also a married man with
>> kids could not be reasonably expected to run off to the bush for
>> months on end to work, whereas a single person could. Shit, I used
>> to do it be choice for 5 years, and the pay was great, and you've
>> really got to love those special zone tax rebates!
> I believe the mining council is screeming lack of unskilled workers.
> turns out they only want experienced drivers for the mega-ton
> dump trucks. They are not prepared to take people and train them.
Why should they ?
>>> Its also being complicated by a labour market getting
>>> tight, leaving the least productive workers as the only
>>> available labour left.
>> Make them productive then.
> You can not "make" someone productive. Either people want
> to gain the skills and become productive, or they do not.
Its never that black and white. The main reason some choose
to bludge on the dole is because the dole is available. If it wasnt
that would provide more incentive to become productive.
> Then they have to deal with Centrelink.
> e.g uneducated (can not read or write)
There's fuck all of those anymore.
> wants to learn welding at TAFE because he knows someone
> that will give him a oxy cutting or basic welding job if he has
> he training. Centrelink will demand that he do a literacy
> course first, then they may let him attempt welding.
Its got nothing to do with centerlink. Those have a
number of other mechanisms to get that sort of training.
> Basic welding is monkey-see, monkey-do and you
> don't require reading and writing to be a basic welder.
And thats why centerlink is completely irrelevant.
>> Perhaps training should be forced upon the
>> long term unemployed in areas that we have skills shortages. The
>> government seems too fucking blind to come to that obvious solution,
>> rather than paying welfare they should be paying Austudy to these
>> long-term unemployed people and forcing them to train up.
> You then encounter the problem that the course are not taught where
> the unemployed are and somehow the unemployed have to travel to the
> course. spending 90 minutes travelling to training (as you can be
> required to do) also cuts into the available course. Then you have the
> example of
> blokes that are doing a course, get temporary work, get dropped from
> the course because they are not able to attend whilst working, then
> have a shit fight with the idiots from Centrelink when the temporary
> job finishes and they want to claim newstart again. Seen that
> numerous times.
And it doesnt happen plenty more times.
>> In most cases you'd be correct, but pride is really part of
>> self-interest.
> Self pride, yes.
> National pride is for suckers.
>> Not when we are now importing workers out of necessity. The cost of
>> training the long-term unemployed (force them to go to TAFE for
>> instance) isn't that much greater than welfare payments, and the long
>> term benefits are much more tangible.
> It is at least double.
Bullshit.
> Centrelink has tried it. Unemployed, pensions and others get one
> free enrollment a year at TAFENSW. The problem is that TAFE
> doesn't always provide the needed course in an accessible
> location and most courses at Tafe are for years at a time.
Always is completely irrelevant, the reality is that they mostly do.
> Of course, now that Johnny Howard has made it so that anyone can
> run a one week course and give you a Certificate IV in Brain surgery,
More drivel.
> it is supposedly cheaper to send them on a $2,000 brain surgeon course.
> Which of course is run by a page flipper who last week completed a
> $1,000 one week Cert IV in Workplace Assessment and Training.
Plenty arent.
>>> I've had a theory for a number of years that there is an
>>> optimal outcome to be had by allowing a small number of
>>> people to bludge off the welfare system, because they cost
>>> more to the economy by participating in it than the value of
>>> the contribution they could effectively make.If people that
>>> actually WANT to work fall into that category - then by all
>>> means assist them in whatever way is necesarry.
>> Returning to a system of free education for citizens would be great
>> even if expensive, and that would do a hell of a lot to boost this
>> country.
> The result of our decade + of free tertiary education was that you
> suddenly required a degree to work a macca (Bach of Arts), etc.
Another mindless lie.
>> Perhaps euthanasia for the true parasites then??? Nah, that would be
>> uncivilised... Perhaps a leper colony/commune situation for a year. I
>> think you'd find they'd be much more willing to be productive if
>> shown what the majority of the rest of the world goes through when
>> they are too fucking lazy to pull their weight. The problem with
>> Australia is that there are very few people that have any concept of
>> what real poverty is. Perhaps those that become "no hope" cases on
>> welfare should be put into true poverty in experimental camps for a
>> year of their lives, and when they return to society you'd most
>> likely see an amazing improvement in their attitudes and the
>> selfishness would disappear.
> You have the gist of understanding. One of the reasons
> for paying "newstart" to the "parasites" is to reduce the
> likelihood that the inventive ones will increase the gross
> domestic product by desctructiver action.
> Aka I want to work as a glass fitter so I'll stroll down main street
> and smash windows. Aka I want to work as a spray painter so I'll
> visit the local sports ground and scratch a few hundred cars, etc, etc,
> etc.
More utterly silly stuff.
>> Agreed, so play hardball with them and give them
>> a very nasty alternative as mentioned above.
> lol, that is what Johnny Howard is trying to make happen now,
More mindless lies.
> except that everyone thinkas it is only aimed at "dole bludgers"
>> Yep, free education (especially tertiary) would be of major
>> assistance to the battlers that do have pride and want to work for a
>> living, but just have not had the same opportunities as some others.
> We live in a society that has a skills pyramid, aka, most work is at
> the bottom, so having everyone with tertiary education isn't going to
> be productive. In fact, there is research to show it is unproductive.
> I prefer to think that a scheme to ban all motor vehicles, delivery
> trucks included, from 5 kms of every town, might provide a multitude
> of opportunities for "bicycle couriers" to transfer goods into and
> out of the CBD. {:-).
>> How about my Pov commune suggestion???
> As the other person said, ROI; return on investment.
> Modern agriculture is like modern road building.
> It requires a multi-million dollar investment in machinery
> and equipment and only provides a few jobs.
Pov communes with bludgers arent done like that.
> Then the government would have to forcibly
> appropriate some good agricultural land.
Wrong again.
> Ignoring the fact that "fishing" would require the
> entire Murry & Darling Rivers to provide adequate
> fish stocks, plus compulsory acquisition of some
> of the rice and cotton growers water stock.
More mindless pig ignorant drivel with carp.
> Seriously, it is cheaper for the government to pay them money
> and just occassionally make lots of noise to pacify the rest of
> the community. Those who are able, will find a way, if they
> can. Centrelink is often more of a hinderance.
Doesnt do a damned thing about those choosing to bludge on the dole.
>> Perhaps they're going about it in the wrong way then.
> Precisely, but the problem is they are still
> trying to force a one size fits all solution
Pigs arse they are.
> and that is what doesn't work.
> Apparently up to 80% of Work For the Dole participants are breached,
> but the only ones to suffer penalty are the "un-educated". Casual
> work, family commitments, ill health, court appearances (motor
> vehicle, etc), study activites, etc, etc, are all valid excuses
> (documentation required). All it does is create a massive make work
> scheme for public servants, both in Centrelink and outside. Head of
> welfare at one tafe, where lots of unemployed do literacy, access
> and other studies, said it now requires 1+ person full time to provide
> documentation to Centrelink for students to appeal breaches.
Only because they are too stupid to automate it.
> Funniest joke, declare $20 a week income, and
> centrelink leaves you alone. You still get full dole too.
Completely trivial to pull the plug on that stupidity.
>> Agreed, that was more of an over-reaction on my behalf towards
>> bludgers. I just can't understand their mentality, but I've said
>> more times than I can count in here that we NEED welfare and can't
>> afford to let people starve, because that is where society starts to
>> fall apart, violent crime becomes rampant, etc.etc. and as you say,
>> parts of the US are good examples.
> Look closely, it is starting to happen locally.
Pigs arse it is.
>> I like my pov commune idea though... Let them see what real life is
>> about,
> lol, life stopped being "living off the land" when the
> closures act took away all the commons in england
> and force people into the cities to look for work.
No it didnt.
> To live in Australia, you are forced to have housing,
Another pig ignorant lie.
> which costs, you are forced to have income for food and services
> ( lots of land [lose welfare]and lost of water can replace some food).
You dont need lots of land or water to feed yourself.
> The next reccession will notbe the cake walk the last one was.
More utterly mindless silly stuff.
> A lot of the population could provide for themselves in the
> countryside then. Now, they are all trapped in the city.
More utterly mindless silly stuff.
Crouching Nun, Hidden Cucumber
I agree with all of that.
>Now, people such as yourself, Nun, will shout "bludger" and point at
>statistics suggesting that average families are rolling in other
>taxpayers' hard earned dollars but as always, you miss the point. It is
>that very largesse - and the bureaucratic mismanagement of it - that IS
>the problem.
The systemic problems are something I have repeatedly
pointed out for years.What I've had a go at you about before
is your call for MORE welfare, delivered under the guise of
special tax treatment.
>It is a ridiculous way to "support" families since what it
>really does is reward complacency and inactivity. It stifles incentive and
>penalises effort but the moment someone suggests that the tax system would
>offer a better solution since increased benefits would be related to
>increased effort/earnings you scorn and ridicule them and list a whole
>host of "reasons" why they are wrong and why the current system is a
>better solution
You wont find me arguing that the current system of massive
tax-welfare churn is a good system.Nowhere.Far from it.You'd
have to be a bit retarded to even think that from my posts.
What I find is a poor system is your wish for income
splitting.
But I can find income splitting to be a second rate system,
while believing the current system is simultaneously a third
rate one.
>and how rewarding hard work by breadwinners would result
>in the absolute collapse of the entire economy, the domestic incarceration
>of all women and deliver us all into third-world squalor well before the
>GST manages to do it (I threw the GST in since your doomsday predictions
>mirrored those around the introduction of the GST).
Complete lies.
My gripe at your income splitting is very similar to my
gripes at the current system -its effect on the
participation rate in era of tightening labour markets, its
effect on the dependency ratio and its effect on
productivity growth.Your proposed system delivers it with
special tax reductions whereas the current system delivers
it through special tax/welfare transfers.
The end results as far as my gripes are concerned are the
same.
As for the GST, well I supported that.
I support a HIGHER GST rate, applied universally, as a means
to fund higher tax free thresholds and a tax rate
equalisation between the company rate, the CGT rate and the
top marginal income tax rate.
>And so here we are still, with people such as yourself effectively
>supporting tax-welfare churning as a viable solution to what is,
Not at all, and if you honestly believe that, you've failed
completely to grasp the content of the debate.
> in
>reality, a taxation-only problem whilst at the same time complaining that
>churning is a vast and ridiculous waste of effort.
>
>Stop churning. It rewards bureacracy and inactivity and nothing more. It
>stifles families. It reduces choice for parents. It kills incentive and
>penalises effort. It is anti-marriage and anti-family (it mainly affects
>heterosexual relationships). It is, quite simply, a ridiculous waste of
>time. It is the result of a generation of fundamentalist-feminist
>scaremongering about women chained to kitchen sinks completely devoid of
>any ability to act independently of their over-bearing husbands. It is a
>nonsense.
>
>Recognise family-income in the tax system
And here's the REAL difference.You want special tax
treatment for family income splitting, leaving the rest of
the fucked system basically in tact, whereas I want lower
tax rates across the board, with tax entry thresholds so
high that no single person pays tax and receives
unemployment benefits at the same time, and where income
from different sources are treated equally.On Family benefit
provisions, I want dependents given a transferable tax free
threshold with direct transfers given to low income earners
that earn less than the increased thresholds, but at lower
rates of value per dependent than currently exists.
We've had this argument over and over and over, and you
still arent listening to what I'm actually saying.That
happens when you get obsessed.And you wonder why I poke fun
at you.