Our economy is controlled such that we keep a percentage of workers unemployed to limit inflation.
Therefore, there are a number of workers who are unemployed for structural reasons; taking one for the team.
Then, why are we so mean to them?
Because being mean to them is the point. If they weren’t miserable, the employed workers wouldn’t be afraid of losing their jobs and might demand higher wages.
In fact the data shows that stronger social safety nets increase wages. That’s why neoliberal governments - including our coopted “labor” government - try to gut welfare.
Oh and the “inflation” thing is a lie. Higher wages do not cause inflation, but if economists said that out loud, then the grift would be obvious, so we’re given a BS line about the price of groceries.
God it would be terrible if groceries were to ever increase in price, wouldn’t it? Might cause some kind of crisis.
Because they’re not us, and we are stupid half evolved primates who can’t think beyond our own immediate surrounds.
“Everything is affordable if we choose to care about it”.
That’s a fantastic quote right there.
I thought Jobseeker was an emergency fund to assist with seeking jobs. I’ve literally opted for.homelessness over Centrelink payments because I knew I’d pick up work fast—and I did, KFC, which paid more, had free food, and was less effort while I kept looking for work. Feels worse to be on Jobseeker than to just pick up shift work and look for jobs while doing that. There’s no shortage of shift work.
So, I understand budget not being directed to it. There’s a limited amount. But every budget we deal with Australian’s what about meism. No one cares about politics until they’re not included in the budget.
Many people that end up in Jobseeker should be on the DSP or NDIS, but aren’t because of very onerous requirements. And some people get turned down from work, even the most basic jobs, because of discrimination of various forms.
And according to the article, raising Jobseeker would take only a tiny amount of the budget, while moving many of the most disadvantaged people out of poverty. Which is much better value for money than many of the other measures that are included in a typical budget.
And some people get turned down from work, even the most basic jobs, because of discrimination of various forms.
So, nothing to do with Jobseeker then. That money would need to be instead be allocated toward addressing those issues, not rewarding them by financially offsetting them with no way out of the hole.
Jobseeker has a very specific outline. You’re wanting to see that money go on other things that also have very specific outlines and are better suited.
So, nothing to do with Jobseeker then. That money would need to be instead be allocated toward addressing those issues, not rewarding them by financially offsetting them with no way out of the hole.
Addressing discrimination is the type of thing that takes decades to solve. In the mean time, what is an unemployed person who can’t get a job supposed to do? Become homeless and have their issues compounded dramatically? If you think that more public housing should be built, then I agree 100% but again, that’s something that takes a long time to fix and doesn’t help with the very immediate housing and food costs that poor people face.
I don’t really see a person being able to work, but remaining unemployed being related to there being no work available. It would either be intentional or invalidity of some form. As I mentioned, there is always casual work available. The organisation I work at, there’s always roles available that would net someone triple what Jobseeker does. There’s entire industries based on these roles.
If someone can’t get one of these jobs, it could only be invalidity and they shouldn’t be on the lower Jobseeker payments.
I thought Jobseeker was an emergency fund to assist with seeking jobs.
You’ve fallen for the rename. It didn’t used to be called “jobseeker”. It covers people who can’t work too.
There are separate things for that. You’re looking for things like invalidity payments, etc. It’s not all done under one thing anymore since that was very inappropriate. Jobseeker is the one for ability to work and seeking it, but currently don’t have it.
I’ve literally opted for.homelessness over Centrelink payments because I knew I’d pick up work fast—and I did, KFC, which paid more, had free food, and was less effort while I kept looking for work. Feels worse to be on Jobseeker than to just pick up shift work and look for jobs while doing that. There’s no shortage of shift work.
I don’t see how any of this is relevant to JobSeeker. I’m not sure you actually understand the purpose of the payment or how it works.
I’m not sure you actually understand the purpose of the payment or how it works.
Don’t worry, I definitely do. I spent two years on a project that specifically categorised different Services Australia (formerly DHS) services and cases. In order to do this, everything service had to be understood extremely thoroughly.
However, it doesn’t require all that. It is quite clear what it is for and explains it on the SA site.
Here is a good video https://youtu.be/o5ud6LWDL2I
I’ve literally opted for.homelessness over Centrelink payments
Then you’re dumb as fuck.
It was a logical choice and subsequently worked out as intended, which was much better.
Sure, I can broaden the options: You’re either dumb as fuck, leaving out important context that won’t apply to most people or just outright lying.
Whatever the answer is, you’re clearly trying to give the impression that you’re a bootstrap-pulling neoliberal that is morally above accepting welfare.
The only thing correct so far is that assumptions often lead to being farcically wrong.
But thanks for the chuckle. You’re like the MacGuyver of character development.
If you don’t want to be treated like a caller from a right-wing talkback radio station, try not sounding exactly like one.
You need Jesus in your life.
