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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

‘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.