As everyone addresses the problems of the unemployed in the third person I feel somewhat voyeurish reading this article and post - which is relevant to my point.

Instead of writing the unemployed off as a problem, it would appear to me that the most economically viable way of assessing us would be as currently wasted assets. While economists and Ministers continue to speak in the abstract about the effects of downsizing and work agreements it appears that they are slow to recognise the effects these have had on the demographics of the unemployed. While main stream Australians continue to regard the unemployed as shiftless, unskilled and inhabiting some wasteland of socio-economic slumland, things have in fact changed drasticlly down here in the vast underbelly of Oz.

I have been unable to find the results of any survey which collates the numbers of skilled or tertiary educated unemployed persons. Neither Centrelink itself nor Government agencies have any regard for such persons and continue what seems to be a punitive policy of ignoring peoples skills and qualifications in order to set them to menial or labouring jobs; thus enforcing the feeling of culpability one feels about being jobless. The very real problems devolving from this are a causual factor in our soaring mental health problems.

Rather than various departments finding "solutions" to a problem they have no working knowledge of, inter-disciplinary consultation is vital: not only amongst departments such as Education and Health, but from amongst the ranks of the unemployed themselves. Nurses, child-care workers, skilled tradesmen...rather than allowing their much-needed skills to be lost, could be utilised to administer training and courses to other unemployed persons. If other Australians could only be made to understand that the ranks of the unemployed have swelled over the past few years with middle class, trained personnel who are, in fact, sentient beings, we could be turned into assets to the economy.

Romany,
I am a disabled pensioner, who feels your pain. Having only risen to the humble position of purchasing clerk, I appreciate what it is that you are saying. Our most precious resource should be our people, especially our intellegent, educated people. Apparently our economy is squed in such a way that your type of person is redundent in it? Why.

My disability is generalised anxiety disorder with accompanying chronic major depression, insomnia, and phobia's. A compliment of the pace, and workload of the end of the 20th century, a precursor to the 21st century. I am genuinely "good for nothing" somedays I simply do not have the emotional strength to get out of bed, a disgusting state of affairs for me I can assure you.

Back to you and this economy, I expect what it is trying to coerce you into doing is to start a small business, risk your life savings, which may end up in the pocket of a wealthy person, then go to the government for support, which will not be forthcoming. You can then be classified as a "business failure" to add to your woes. The sad part now is that if you have a nervous breakdown as I did, you will not nessescerly go onto a disability pension, but newstart instead.

Meaning that you will have to spend your pittance on petrol to apply at job interviews, petrol is cheap anyway, if you are an MP.If I sound sarcastic, it is only because I am. Unemployment 4.9% ? Yes if you count people with anything over 1 hour per week as employed.

Shonga, I think the overall aim is high real wages. But Australia's minimum wage is a very high proportion of average wages, a far higher proportion than in other OECD countries, and many people can not be profitably employed at such wages. Better to get them in the workforce with lower wages (and better welfare-to-work transition arrangements) than leave them unemployed. Once you are currently employed/have recent work experience, more opportunities open up.

I'm also a disability pensioner, no prospect of working regularly, as a result of work-related depression which exacerbated viral illnesses, so I'm also aware of that side of the equation. Like you, I can often do little or nothing, I did manage to do a little paid work from home on a when-I-was-fit-to basis, it showed that I could still produce (as an economist) but demonstrated how far I was from being able to work regularly or reliably. And I accepted a low pay rate rather than turn down the opportunity.

PS the paid work followed work which I agreed to do free as (a) I thought it was in the public interest and (b) to see if I still could.

Faustino,
I understand your reasoning, however I find it absolutely incredible that the economy is unable to afford to pay ordinary working people, starvation wages of the type I "didn't" enjoy, yet it can afford 66% pay increases to c.e.o.'s on million of dollars to begin with. Imagine how many ordinary working people could be employed on subsistance pay rates as I was, for the cost of all the grossly overpaid executives in this country adding to labour costs. I am not suggesting executives be reduced to our subsistance levels, merely that the formula return to the 70's where an executive was paid 4 times the average weekly earnings, instead of the current 60 times the average weekly earnings. If that were to occur perhaps the cost of Australian labour would drop to a level where we in the starvation wage bracket, or now starvation pension bracket could be afforded a little more money in our pockets, which we would then circulate throut the community to small business and create more jobs through increased demand a positive domino effect.

Shonga, Faustino I agree with both of you.

We need practical and positive incentives to re-enter the workplace. In the transition from welfare to paid employment we need tax breaks and adjustments of benefits at a less prohibitive level.

And some simple common sense applied to the 'value' of executive pay. Sacking low level workers with the excuse that a company is suffering from financial difficulties while management are never expected to take a pay cut or even a wage-freeze on income has to stop. Also some equity in the value of work provided by employees. After all without production line workers what is actually produced? CEO's don't make the widgets - the workers do. Equal pay for equal work needs to be redefined.