The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Saving the long term jobless > Comments

Saving the long term jobless : Comments

By Peter Saunders, published 4/4/2008

Many welfare groups have never embraced the principle that welfare payments should be conditional on the performance of certain tasks.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
The Centre for Independent Studies is a right wing think tank that wants small government . Under the previous government job network providers who criticised policy lost their funding.

Australia does not publish a meaningful unemployment figure. In 2007 Costello said Australia's unemployment rate was lower than Germany. What a pack of lies. In Germany you are counted as unemployed if you have less than 15 hours work a week, in Australia you are unemployed if you have less than 1 hour paid or unpaid in the survey period.

As Peter says the job network system now operating has been modified to remove the corrupt job network providers but I can't see that duplication of backoffice operations makes the whole system more efficient. It must cost to report back to the government and for the government to audit and oversee the providers.

The current job network ethos of any work is better than no work leads social welfare recipients to accepting part time jobs for 5 hours a week, claiming Newstart allowance to supplement their income. Employers who organise their workforce in this manner are having their wages bill supplemented by the taxpayer.

Australia needs to address the concept of full time work, review casual work which suits corporations more than it does workers. The new system needs to rout out corrupt employers that do not pay a living wage. I could name and shame an aged care home.

The job network requirements need to be reorganised so that Newstart Allowance recipients can take on seasonal agricultural work without losing their benefits or engage in massive amounts of bureaucratic palaver. Maybe we should permit people on Newstart allowance to remain in the countryside rather than forcing them to move to the cities to look for non-existent factory work.
Posted by billie, Friday, 4 April 2008 10:04:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Where is the employer's obligation to give a fair go, even if you're not of the dominant, most desirable socio-economic or cultural groups.

Nobody ever would give me a go for anything lasting in line with my skills and qual's because as soon as they see me, its "no way" from their perspective. I've even had offers withdrawn, and a couple of contract jobs axed once the client saw me and he/his staff expressed concern about my status.

It seems that being of opposite presentation to your anatomical or birth sex is a bar to skilled or semi-skilled ongoing employment of any kind.

And the job network don't try hard for you if you are also very hard to place. They are there to control, to push obligation.

How otherwise could I be of above average intelligence, skilled yet over 30 and had not worked for the majority of my adult life. Isn't this disturbing anybody? Is this the country I should be proud of saying is my own, is this the land of the fair go?
Posted by Inner-Sydney based transsexual, indigent outcast progeny of merchant family, Friday, 4 April 2008 2:10:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reading POVs like this reminds me that we have not come far from the smug Victorians or the welfare organisations we read about in Angela's Ashes and similar accounts.

The unemployed have no unions to protect them. They are one of the least heard from groups of Australians. They have no power, no voice, no representation. Their numbers may be large enough to be courted for votes but with no organisation or cohesiveness they pose no threat.

Their entire existence depends upon the whim, campaign rhetoric and political tides of people who have never met them and have as little knowledge of them as they do of Hottentots. They are talked about, provided for, governed and organised with no consultation, no understanding of their lives and little contact with reality.

The realities behind such WASP, PWE, and fine-sounding condescension as "Any job is better than no job" and "mutual obligation" are totally unknown by those who righteously mouth such slogans. The unemployed are depicted as uniformly shiftless, illiterate, dishonest, ungodly, criminal, Other. In the them and Us rhetoric they don't even warrant a capital letter. They do not exist when their betters consistently mis-quote their Lucky Country themes.

Yep. Certain organisations indeed have tried to disassociate themselves from schemes concocted over shiny boardtables by more privilleged beings. That's because they are working daily down in the shitepile where the average Aussie has never been and fears to go.

Geez. They don't need more schemes and plans and initiatives being made for their own good. They need to be listened to. But unless or until anyone else knows what its like to walk a mile in thier Vinnies shoes the "problem of the unemployed" is never going to be solved.
Posted by Romany, Friday, 4 April 2008 4:26:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BRAVO ROMANY!!

Superb post. But please, PLEASE do not refer to unemployed people as 'the unemployed'.

Your own post illustrates why. My strength of feeling about this came about from a professional situation where I saw a normally strong but reserved human-being who was repeatedly categorized by a colleague as being part of 'the unemployed'.

I saw this in the film "The Elephant Man":- he burst out in utter anguish that he was not THE unemployed..., he was a human being. That he was a PERSON, and should be referred to as that along with all other unemployed people.

I never forgot that. (And I hope the arrogant .rick who opposed me didn't either).

We won.
Posted by Ginx, Friday, 4 April 2008 4:40:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Saunders author of Poverty in Australia: Beyond the Rhetoric is back on his favourite rocking horse fulminating against the downtrodden and working poor acting as a "cover" for his political cohorts and reactionary counterparts. Saunders is not a naive professor, he understands only too well the agenda the Rudd government intends to carry out. The Financial Review, yes the same paper who published Saunders article)also published a REPORT from the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting on March 26, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the eight state and territory leaders, all from the Labor Party, formally adopted a sweeping agenda to implement a new “wave” of free-market measures. These measures will inevitably mean vicious attacks on workers, their jobs, wages, workplace conditions, safety rules and social services. The thrust of the report, after unravelling the 'jargon' or 'cover' is putting the boot into workers, the unemployed, and the disabled and to cheapen labour under a sweeping agenda the politicians and Murdoch laughingly call "brutopia". The reports "enhancing productivity” means driving up the rate of exploitation of workers’ labour power, while “workforce mobility” is largely about ensuring employers’ access to more freely-available supplies of lower-cost labour on a national basis. Under the heading of infrastructure, the report spoke of making reforms that were “critical to enhance Australia’s future economic performance”. Essentially too, the aim is to exploit the decayed condition of basic social facilities, such as roads, railways, water, energy, schools and hospitals, as the pretext for introducing “Public Private Partnerships”, a form of privatisation.
The "good professor for the poor" whilst mentioning "breaching" a soothing government euthemism for putting the boot into the disabled never explains how the government are driving them into substandard work and very high levels of exploitation.
Saunders attacks the notion that "welfare is a right, and it should be paid unconditionally to people who are in need of it." Of course it should! Just as the money is paid for through taxes for hospitals and education and is diverted into the pockets of the politicians and their cronies.
Posted by johncee1945, Friday, 4 April 2008 5:41:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ginx - ok, got your point. I used to refer to unemployed people as "we" until I left Australia for this job
Posted by Romany, Friday, 4 April 2008 6:41:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mutual obligation should be extended to all goverment programs where it can be successfully applied. The first that comes to mind is heath care - those who don't meet the mutual obligation requirements (i.e. look after themselves: those who aren't obese and don't smoke etc.) should be deprioritised in favour of those who do.

There are clear benefits to the whole of society where people actively look to improve things for themselves. I see nothing wrong with a bit of "stick", especially when the "carrot" doesn't encourage them.
Posted by BN, Friday, 4 April 2008 7:36:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good post johncee 1945.

Ah mutual obligation. I love this. Let's see. The tax system gives $60bn a year through what are called tax expenditures (deviations from the Haig-Simons tax benchmark) and is there any talk of mutual obligation there? No, because the recipients of this largesse (ie disguised grants) are usually (not always, but usually) really well off people or businesses.

Apologists for the system always find ways to stigmatise those who are its victims. This provides a cover for continuing the essentially exploitative nature of the system and the privileged position the few have at the expense of the many. It is part of the wider relentless propaganda campaign to try and convince Australians that the problem is the individual, not the system. And it helps tie wage slaves to the system.

Perhaps we should extend mutual obligation to all fields - something like "he who does not work shall not eat". Let's apply that to the dividend bludgers.
Posted by Passy, Friday, 4 April 2008 9:30:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ugh... cut and paste error... let's try this again:

Mutual obligation should be extended to all goverment programs where it can be successfully applied. The first that comes to mind is heath care - those who don't meet the mutual obligation requirements (i.e. who don't look after themselves: those who are obese and smoke etc.) should be deprioritised in favour of those who don't.

There are clear benefits to the whole of society where people actively look to improve things for themselves. I see nothing wrong with a bit of "stick", especially when the "carrot" doesn't encourage them.
Posted by BN, Saturday, 5 April 2008 6:23:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Johncee1945,

Clearly no one told Johncee about the repeated failures of the command economies. Your “marxist’ analysis is simplistic, fear mongering and absolutely typical of the rubbish that you see in socialist papers and pamphlets. You don’t actually use any of the primary source to show where it is you believe you have uncovered the jargon or cover to get at your ‘truth’.

It should be obvious to even the most short sighted that you are better off being poor in a country like Australia than being a worker or a professional in any of the third world or socialist countries. Many in the third world live on less than a dollar a day. Our poor are nowhere near this level. I know I’ve been on gov’t benefits during my four years at Uni and I received less than 75% of what most unemployed people receive.

Futhermore the level of unemployment is almost an historical low. The mining boom has been very good to Australia. Young people, often unskilled are able to earn more than $100,000 a year in boom related industries. This has spread over into other areas, increasing wages across the board.

So ‘Enhancing productivity’ means driving up the rate of exploitation of workers’ labour power does it? What absolute dribble. Unreconstucted Marx.

“Welfare is a right, and it should be paid unconditionally to people who are in need of it." Utter rot. The loony left has for too long maintained this focus on the rights of citizens whilst ignoring their responsibilities. This has led to the untenable situation in which people view their gov’t handouts as a right as part of their chosen lifestyle. It is not the communities responsibility to provide lifetime support for those who don’t like to work.

ISbdtipomf

If I went to a job interview for a serious position dressed as a monkey I woudn’t get a job either. It’s your right to dress as you see fit and I’ll defend that right for you. Surely it’s an employers right to employ those they see fit as well
Posted by Paul.L, Saturday, 5 April 2008 4:37:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul.L says "that you are better off being poor in a country like Australia than being a worker or a professional in any of the third world or socialist countries." "Many in the third world live on less than a dollar a day."
Well what does that say about capitalism? And the rightwing politicians worldwide who are responsible for the reactionary debased conditions you mention. By the way workers wages are being driven downwards worldwide with no end in sight. According to Paul's rationale workers are better off here being poor and should be grateful. Who precisely should we be grateful for?
The politicians who are plundering the public treasury and selling off everything they can get their hands on? Such as handing over to their cronies the public water supply and electricity infrastructure? or the disgraceful state of the hospitals? The worst of the hospital reports to come to light back in 2004 concerns the deaths of 19 patients in four years due to inadequate care at Camden and Campbelltown hospitals. According to nurse Nola Fraser, the 19 deaths represent merely the tip of an iceberg. “In reality, we’re talking about hundreds of deaths and thousands of cases of people who’ve received gross negligence and gross mismanagement in their cases and who are just lucky to be alive today.” Recent reports have widened the hospital scandal, with claims of further deaths due to inadequate care at other metropolitan hospitals, including the Prince of Wales hospital, one of Sydney’s largest.
The growing death toll is only the latest symptom of a public hospital system that is collapsing under the weight of a two-decade assault by Liberal and Labor state and federal governments. Starved of funds, public hospitals have been shut, emergency wards and beds closed, hospital waiting lists lengthened and jobs cut. Record numbers of nurses have quit. The deaths have then be used as a justification for handing over the hospitals to the finance predators.
Posted by johncee1945, Saturday, 5 April 2008 6:56:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Uh huh.

You mean centrelink payments are actually to benefit those who aren't fortunate enough to obtain a job? If I weigh up the benefits and costs of the welfare system it is society who comes out in front, and way out in front, not the unemployed people of which a few mightn't actually want to work.

And mutual obligation is very flexible. That's why the rules claim "payments MAY be stopped for a certain period." It's just every now and again someone will be used as an example of what can happen if you don't do what you're told, when you're told, and how you're told! In other words the individual can't win against society, or dissent is much less likely.

See now one reason why Australia has a fairly lenient welfare system (compared to the U.S. for example) is because well, there's no way the bloody convicts will ever overrun this place and so far away from home. Can you imagine? It can't happen!
Posted by Richard_, Saturday, 5 April 2008 11:41:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In 9 articles since August 2005, including this one, Saunders has on only two occasions made any pretence at responding to the arguments of his many critics : http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6576#98291&page=0 and http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3737#12265.

This indicates to me that Saunders, himself, must have little confidence in the underlying substance of case he is trying to put.

---

The title of this article "Saving the long term jobless" is a misnomer. As one who has been forced to jump through the hoops on a number of past occasions the "mutual obligations" that Saunders embraces are sadistic and simply designed to dissuade people who should be entitled to claim benefits from doing so.

---

Paul.L has presented two contrary arguments. The first is that welfare recipients are still well off in comparison to people living in third world countries. Presumably he would be happy to see welfare recipients live like people in Haiti or Bangladesh. In fact, with stories of people being forced to share not only houses, but rooms, in some capital cities due to the skyrocketing cost of housing (i.e. the transfer of wealth from the rest of us into the pockets of unproductive land speculators), I would not be so sure that our welfare recipients are truly that much better off than many living in those countries.

Paul.L's second argument is to imply that we are all fabulously wealthy because of the resources export boom.

Indeed, there seems to be some truth in the argument that even some ordinary semi-skilled workers are doing very well at the moment. However this should be put into a broader perspective. Not everyone can enjoy the sorts of wages on offer. One first has to be prepared to move to the mining regions. Secondly, cost of living in those areas, including the costs of housing, tend to be highly inflated.

(tobecontinued)
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 6 April 2008 1:01:47 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(continuedfromabove)
The more critical point is the environmental dimension. Frankly, I find it appalling that so many apparently uncaring people choose to revel in what should rightly be seen as an environmental calamity. The Australian landscape is being scarred by the mineral exports boom, global warming is being made considerably worse and horrific levels of pollution are being poured into the atmosphere, water and ground in countries to which we export our minerals. Moreover, the boom is based upon the extraction of non-renewable resources which will not be available to future generations.

The current mineral resources export boom is an unnatural development in our economy which should be ended as soon as possible. If it is not our planet will pay the terrible price. And if it is, as I argue it should be, then the short term prosperity of which Paul.L writes will end
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 6 April 2008 1:04:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saunder's essay is entirely invalidated by his acceptance of government unemployment statistics.

A Bulletin Gallop poll of 1999 identified (as I recall) 23%; and the Australian Independent's 2006 survey of a proved demographic corridor on the Sunshine Coast; ostensibly a region flush with tourism revenues, found 19%. This has since been updated to 21%.

Incredulous readers are welcome to take these figures to your region's Job Network personnel for the predictable stone-faced bored confirmation. I found the same response from Emerald to Brisbane.

So what value do you put on an academic who bases his evaluation on a criterion of lies and propaganda? About the same credibility you would accord to an expert who talks about jobs, not mentioning that these are mostly part time. How does one eat and pay rent on a part time income? And what of one's children? This is the entire point of employment.

What all this pivots on is definition. In any science, definitions must be consistent. Since 1890, the definition of employment has been 'a job that pays a livable wage'; conversely, unemployment being the absence of this.

Howard redefined 'employment' as having one hour of work, study or training in a week; regardless of payment or otherwise. Can cruelty and cynicism cut much deeper?

I look forward to the day when the Howards and Saunders of this world face the people's justice for their crimes.
Posted by Tony Ryan oziz4oz, Sunday, 6 April 2008 5:36:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul L
Do you honestly think its better to be unemployed in Oz than employed in say, China? If so I would love to know on what basis you make this statement?

I was unemployed in Australia. I had to send my kids to school some days with no lunch. We could not afford to rent a place without sharing - and what kinds of persons do you imagine want to share with a mum and two kids? We ate once a week from charity handouts along with all the street people. We had no refrigerator or washing machine. When my kids got nits from the infestations at school we couldn't afford the lotion to eradicate them. All our teeth developed cavities.

I now live in China where I earn the same wage as my Chinese colleagues. We can eat at 5 star restaurants and stay in 5 star hotels whenever we wish. My apartment which is supplied fully furnished features all mod cons including drying machine, water cooler, air con. We can go to theatres, the ballet, theme parks or any kind of entertainment which beats standing with the druggies and the pushers and the wino's every Monday night for a free hamburger and an apple.

You, my man, are talking through your hat. Or at the very least through total ignorance. Read Tony Ryan's post, or Daggett's. And pray like hell you don't ever end up destitute through no fault of your own, living on this system which you laud.
Posted by Romany, Monday, 7 April 2008 1:09:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Romany

You do well to keep the anger out of your voice; instead, binding your injuries with measured dignity. Good for you, girl.

I spent a few years in that soul-destroying pit of hell known as Centrelink's Newstart, so I have some ability to empathise. But I was spared the far more cruel emotional torture of trying to raise children under that regime; mine being already almost adult. My heart goes out to you, Romany.

It occurs to me that you have a unique perspective; one that I, as a political writer, could benefit from immeasurably. I simply could not duplicate your Australia/China experience. Actually, you have probably saved me from falling into the omni-present propaganda trap... making blind presumptions about China. So I am indebted to you.

I would be very grateful if you would provide me with your ongoing experiences and observations of China. You can gauge where my values and head-space are by visiting http://www.mathaba.net/authors/ryan

If you wish to proceed, I can be contacted at tonyryan43@gmail.com

It may lift your morale a little to know that there is a quiet movement in Australia that will assuredly turn things around, and it has every prospect for success. In fact there is very little chance that it won't succeed, and it represents an entirely new political paradigm. But I will leave that to your judgement.

That invitation is, of course, extended to anyone else who would like to see genuine democratic electoral consensus-driven policies in Australia, along with equal rights and equal opportunity. If one considers the overlapping impacts of these three values, it can be seen that the outcome can only be egalitarian prosperity... a democratic meritocracy, if you like. Tony Ryan oziz4oz
Posted by Tony Ryan oziz4oz, Monday, 7 April 2008 12:03:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Romany,

A couple of issues. China is socialist in name only, having given over to market forces in many areas. China is now merely an autocracy, and an ugly one at that.

I’m sure you wouldn’t have to get your shoes dirty walking past drug dealers and prostitutes as you went to the ballet in Australia if we sent them to “reeducation camps” for forced labour for ten years, or just executed them. Then we could start on the disabled and the mentally ill. Where would you draw the line? I am glad you are living well and that it doesn’t trouble your conscience to profit from such a brutal regime. Good for you. I hope you sleep well at night.

The real test for China, ( I never even mentioned China in my post, by the way ) is how well off are those without work? Those who aren’t lucky enough to live in the economic powerhouses or on the Olympic/tourist trail?

You say >> “Read Tony Ryan's post, or Daggett's. Pray like hell you don't ever end up destitute through no fault of your own, living on this system which you laud.”

Now its you who is talking through your hat. I lived on the centrelink system for over 5 years. One year on Jobsearch allowance and 4 years on less than ¾ of that amount on Austudy. I know exactly what I am talking about when it comes to Centrelink. Dagget doesn’t know his arse from his elbow, and he couldn’t stand you because China is “scarring the landscape” to a much greater extent than we are in Australia. And Tony statistics are highly supect. How does he determine unemployed? Anyone who isn’t working a 40 hr week? A family where only one person is working?

Where in Australia was it that you lived romany? Armidale? South Yarra? How much were you living on?
Posted by Paul.L, Monday, 7 April 2008 12:34:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul.L wrote: "I lived on the centrelink system for over 5 years. One year on Jobsearch allowance and 4 years on less than ¾ of that amount on Austudy. I know exactly what I am talking about when it comes to Centrelink."

I sure wish I could have had Austudy for four years when I went to University, instead of:

(a) working full time and studying part-time and
(b) studying full-time and having to work to support myself, because I was not entitled to receive payments under the restrictive Austudy entitlement rules that Saunders would undoubtedly support.

As a consequence my academic grades suffered as did my subsequent career.

So, it would be interesting to know exactly what pronouncements that Paul.L thinks he is entitled to make from having been a Centrelink recipient himself:

That they are too generous?

That others are not entitled to the same payments that he was once able to receive?

I would also be interested to know exactly it is I wrote that makes Paul.L feel that he is entitled to write of me that I do not "know (my) arse from (my) elbow"?

Whatever Romany is able to do with her life in China is rather beside the point I was making about the ecological vandalism committed by both Australia and China, of which, as I wrote before, Paul.L apparently approves.
Posted by daggett, Monday, 7 April 2008 1:29:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PaulL,

I know you didn't mention China - you spoke about "any" third world or socialist country. I suggested China but could as easily give comparisons of life in other countries in which I have lived that fit within these parameters.However, currently I live here.

I am unsure where you are getting your information from, but I reiterate that you are talking through your hat as you obviously do not live in China. Do you truly believe that I don't have to "get my shoes dirty" walking past drug dealers and prostitutes (did I bring them into the mix?)here? In a country with a population of over 1.2billion it could indeed be argued that I encounter far more here than in Oz. The difference is that I am not lumped with them simply because of my circumstances.I live in a city of over 7 million people: of course that side of life is well represented.

Yes, I know you mentioned you were on Austudy for some years. As was I after being on Newstart for over 3 years. So you will also know exactly what I lived on. When you were on Austudy did you have two kids? Perhaps too you had parents and a family home to fall back on if things got really tough? We did not.

When on Newstart did you have to start off from scratch providing everything from beds and sheets to knives and forks to scissors and excercise books for two other people as well as yourself? If you did not I again claim that your statement "I know what I'm talking about" is invalid.

ps As for Daggett "hating" me? What relevance does that have to the fact that his figures (which, as he also stated, are verifiable) are more accurate than yours?
Posted by Romany, Monday, 7 April 2008 2:01:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good point, Romany.

I have heard so many stories of people claiming to have done it tough, but they neglect to give us a full picture. Did they own their own home and not have to pay rent? Did they own a reliable car which did not break down? Were they able to obtain cheap accommodation close to campus? Did they have a network of family and friends to support them? Did they manage to get through without suffering personal misfortunes such as a relationship breaking down? etc? etc?

---

In regard to China:

I have to say that in spite of China apparently treating some of its citizens well, it seems to me that many others are not treated so well, not to mention the Tibetans.

Also the desire of so many Chinese (and Indians, Pakistanis, etc) to live as middle class people in the First World now live (and as most in the First World once did) poses a serious threat to our biosphere. How we can hope to prevent this threat from becoming a horrific reality is an issue that needs to be urgently addressed, although perhaps this is beyond the scope of this discussion.
Posted by daggett, Monday, 7 April 2008 3:25:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul.L says "that you are better off being poor in a country like Australia than being a worker or a professional in any of the third world or socialist countries." "Many in the third world live on less than a dollar a day."

That's utter rubbish. The Indian middle class in India lives far more comfortably than a poor person in Australia. Middle class Indians have servants, drive new cars, buy new clothes, send their children to study in UK, USA and Australia.
Posted by billie, Monday, 7 April 2008 4:30:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The spiteful and unwarranted attack on Romany has pushed focus away from Saunder's central theme... the misrepresentational claims of 3-8% unemployment when both the Bulletin and AIA demonstrated (respectively) 23% and 21%.

This has been only part of a coordinated and inhuman attack against Australian workers by the elitist movement, more familiarly known overseas as neo-feudalism. They say that truth is the first casualty of war; so can we conclude that this is a full-blown class war? Considering that the ALP is as committed to impoverishing workers as their conservative predecessors, its a fair enough conclusion.

meanwhile, card-carrying neo-feudalist Paul has questioned the accuracy of my figures (21%), so I will expand on the definition of employment used.

As part of the 2006 survey, respondents were asked to select a meaningful definition of employment; verbatim:

Working or training for one hour per week (nil selections);
Having a part time job (nil selections);
Having a full time job which does not pay enough to live on (11%);
Having a job which provides a livable income (89%).

The demographic corridor surveyed has proved to accurately represent the Australian mainstream since 2001, so I believe I am justified in concluding that Aussies reject the Government's and academia's definition, and that 89% consider unemployment to be that state in which a person does not have a job that pays a livable wage.

Very clearly, this is Australia's democratic selection, and it is also that adhered to by this nation for more than a century. Thirdly, it is a definition with meaningful scientific consistency.

Other parts of the survey identified 21% of Aussies as being in this category.

I have challenged critical economists to repeat the survey and been greeted by silence. Can there be a more elequent refusal to confront the truth?
Posted by Tony Ryan oziz4oz, Monday, 7 April 2008 9:44:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
‘Last year the Job Network placed 186,400 long-term unemployed people in jobs lasting AT LEAST THREE MONTHS (my capitals)’ –what are these jobless people whinging about. Expectations way above your station to think that you should be able to plan anything-housing, insurance (eg: health and income cover), choosing the kind of eduction you want for your children. As Paul so succinctly put it: you are still better of than people in third world countries. I can’t fathom why comparing Australia to a third world country could be seen as relevant by some, but there you have it.

Not to mention that much of this work is for casual hours only. Or part time. What a silly comment, quite breathtaking that people think they can get away with a statement like this to support an argument for success.

It is very legitimate to sound the alarm bell that too many people are pushed into short term temporary work. Creating a revolving door may make the unemployment figures look good, by having any number temporarily in a job for a few casual hours, but it is a lie really isn’t it? A bit like denying having sex when fellatio is a regular occurrence.

‘…success rate of these programs was at least as good as that of the highest-performing programs internationally. So the Job Network is out-performing other countries ... It has become a world leader, and the results have been so impressive that other countries are now copying what we have done.’

Other countries, what other countries? Naming them would have enabled disbelieving people like me to verify this for myself. This is utterly unsupported rubbish. Professor Saunders would have put a big fat red mark against a statement like this if a student had dared to submit a paper in his faculty, at least that is to be hoped, using these kinds of throw away lines to support an argument.
Posted by yvonne, Monday, 7 April 2008 10:43:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The next story-taller: “the Job Network is out-performing other countries and doing better than the system it replaced”.

Doing WHAT? Put government money in pockets of agency-owners by putting slaves into two month job-something at their mates places, sharing government perks with them to improve national-liberal Howard-lies-style employment statistics?
Posted by MichaelK., Tuesday, 8 April 2008 12:04:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What bemuses me is the habit some people have of constantly referring to the failure of socialism while pointing to countries like Australia as a shining example of capitalist success.

It is as though they fail to see (or acknowledge) that the capitalist society they celebrate is supported by socialism. Is absolutely everything privately owned for profit? Hospitals, water supply, main roads, policing etc? Of course not, and I take extreme issue with anyone who says they should be. A visit to the U.S where many of these things have been flogged to the highest bidder brought it savagely home to me how vitally important it is for the most important things to remain socialised. The most disturbing sight was not so much the high level of poverty, but the high level of poverty amid great wealth.

And of course we all know what a superior system this is don't we? The robust health of the free-for-all American economy is proof of that eh?

Of course whenever there is a problem, some people are quick to claim that it is not too much unrestrained free market capitalism that is causing it but rather too little. If only absolutely everything were flogged off to the highest bidder and governments stopped regulating and got out of the way, everything would be so much better right? No, it wouldn't be.

Capitalistic societies must be supported by some measure of collective ownership and direction (also known as socialism) for the long term health of society.
Posted by Fozz, Saturday, 12 April 2008 8:26:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy