See John Tomlinson's article here OLO "Mutual obligation’ policies do little to help the poor and underemployed" for a much more erudite understanding of the policy and demographics of unemployment.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1979

Jon Tons,
yours is an inspirational story in its context. But I'm inspired by a different context in which people don't draw their self-worth from recognised, salaried work--the more money the more self-worth. Your examples suggest vocation to a certain extent, with the appliance repairer for instance, though I don't think it is, unless vocation means drawing your self-respect from what's expected, a work ethic devoid of craft and pride and verifiable need. What do you mean by "work"? If work's just drudgery, the price of peace of mind, you're making a virtue of psychological enslavement, in fact a fetish of it. Those who put their whole stock in their work, their labour, not their inspiration, are legion. It seems to me you haven't yet divorced yourself from your speech-writing days; you're still on song and haven't considered the possibility of life untrammelled with a work-ethic. Your Vietnames baker perhaps saw through the patronage you're promoting--which maintains the kings and queens in their castles as well as their minions--if not, I know people who do.
You seem like an enlightened guy but this piece just teaches people to conform.
Inspirational stuff.. but people need to be uninspired.

The problems are well identified, but the solution is not to have two doles - the solution is to abolish the dole altogether, to be replaced as a safety-net by a negative income tax.

Accordingly, everyone - whether they work or they don't, whether rich or poor, will receive a basic subsistence payment unconditionally. There shall be no testing whether one wants to work (and whether one works already is a matter for the tax office). As there will no longer be a financial disincentive to work, most people will want to find (or create) work because that way they will end up with more in their pocket.

Without the dole, there will be no dole-bludgers, while good and honest people will no longer be humiliated.

Hi Rainier, - Thanks for that reference to John Tomlinson's still relevant article from 2004 - "Mutual obligation’ policies do little to help the poor and underemployed" http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1979

I agree it is a "a much more erudite understanding of the policy and demographics of unemployment."

However while Tomlinson lays the blame at the feet of politicians saying "This is a paternalistic imposition upon the entire community in an attempt to change the motivation of a few." I think the truth might be that it is a paternalistic imposition BY the entire community ... (or by the vast majority of taxpayers anyhow). I also reckon that it would never be politically accepted that "reciprocal obligations should not be attached to elementary income support programs". That is an idea I myself would challenge, but only if the paternalism was dropped first.

I do agree that the current Centrelink mutual obligations system is counterproductive and unjust, denying basic human rights. So given the political barrier to change, I think there is another way to skin this cat if we begin by addressing the question of rights, putting aside both "noblesse oblige" and "socialist solidarity" for long enough to do so. see http://bit.ly/vtcDO7

Apparently, Landrights4all, as is obvious from the correspondence you brought, the government is only interested in increasing its "workforce", so that more people will earn the money which it prints and taxes. It is willing to finance those it brands "job-seekers", but only for its own sake, only because it considers this a good investment.

So let the mask be torn once and for all - the government is not interested in the poor and needy or in the welfare of its subjects, never did, but only in its own power-base. Let it be therefore known that Australia has no safety-net!

Hi Yuyutsu - I am sure most people would not agree with you - they would see themselves either on the left in social solidarity with the poor or on the right as believers in noblesse oblige. In reality however I think you are right.

If we accept what you say, then the only way forward is to propose a creative responses that might appeal to the self interests of the majority, whether they are from the patronising right or the bleeding heart left, while also empowering the poor.

One idea I have some faith in is to gradually evolve productive, enriching & empowering UNemployment opportunities. see http://www.ntw.110mb.com