BAYGON

Because they are long term unemployed the employer offers them a short term trial - the problem for me was that I knew that some employers were simply taken advantage of the financial incentives offered to take on long term unemployed; once the incentives finished so did the job

You are right to some extent, however, most long term unemployed are in this situation for a reason.

Either they are unreliable, or their skill levels are low. There are also the ones with minor dissabilities, through no fault of their own, however, the system fails to realise this and expects employers to pay 100% wages in return for say 70% productivity.

This is why they loose their jobs. It is also the reason I won't employ someone on this scheem.

I did once, however I realised that the job would be to hard for him, so I terminated him so he would at least have some 'credit' left for the next employer. I was almost taken to the cleaners for that by the department as they said I had broken the agreement. I only acted in good faith.

I guess this is yet another example of why set pay rates don't work at times.

I agree with col.

There are 'poor people' and there are people who can loose everthing and become poor.

Now if you are one of us who have worked hard for what you have, then just because you may one dayloose everything, does not mean that you will be poor, as, it is often the 'fight in the dog' that matters, not the 'dog in the fight'.

People who are self made, often made it form leaving thier comfort zone and taking risks.

Risks like starting or buying a business. Commiting huge sums of money to buy property 'off the plan', thinking that the market will be strong when you get to sell.

I can assure you that if I lost everything, and I almost have a couple of times, then I would not be poor for long as we usually tend to learn from our mistakes and come back even stronger.

It's a bit of a rush!

>>RobP, I wonder if this is really true:
"I guess that people in poverty take a certain decision to shield their weaknesses from painful exposure because poverty seems like the easiest way out..."<<

Grim, can you think of a better reason why people get into poverty? Who would choose to live, say, on the street otherwise? There has to be some underlying reason. I'm fairly sure it's some sort of weakness as there can't be many people who prefer to live that way, can there?

I'm sorry, RobP, I thought I did list the reasons, fairly comprehensively. It's difficult to be brief, without leaving things out.
Specifically, I would suggest these people made a series of bad or unfortunate decisions, each one contributing to the downward slope. There have been an abundance of stories (possibly apocryphal) about homeless ones being ex stock brokers, ex lawyers, insurance agents, etc. The end result being a profound depression, where the homeless one decides he/she is basically where they 'deserve' to be.
Col and Rehclub may be partially correct when they suggest that many of the extreme poor have a strong sense of 'fate' forcing them into their situation.
I would think this should engender greater sympathy and support from the rest of us, not less.
From a societal point of view, the worrying aspect is the sort of character traits currently required for success, compared to traits which tend to be disadvantageous.
Bad traits: humility, modesty, generosity, empathy, lack of ambition, sensitivity...
Good traits: Arrogance, conceit, greedy, rapacious, ambitious, insensitivity...

PetertheBeliever “The responsibility for the 100 poorest people in Australia whoever they are rests firmly with the three East Coast State Governments. Tasmania is too cold, I think because I saw very few homeless in Hobart”

The “responsibility” rest firstly with those 100 people, unless you are suggesting they are cognoitively impaired, in which case, they should have a court appointed guardian, empowered to administer their affairs.

The “likely hood” is: the 100 poorest are so bereft of the necessary documentation (re the recent Victorian bushfires) that they are denied “government welfare support”, they are likely to be effectively “itinerant nomads” (romantically “swagman” style) and most likely burden no one else with or through their choice of lifestyle.

To assume “government” is by default, the responsible authority is to assume we have an absolute “Nanny State” and that is and never should be so.

Rehctub I agree wholly with your view. Being self-supporting and self sufficient are the first steps to self-esteem.

I suspect as a “dog” you would be quick to lick your wounds and get back into the frey.

“wealth” is not limited to material possessions but to the richness of experiences and love we attract largely through our attitude.

I occasionally mention Maslow here.. anyone who is unaware of Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs” should take time out to google, read and understand them and then you will have a better chance to understand what rehctub is talking about when he says “It’s a bit of a rush”

- because that rush comes from events found in the upper half of the hierarchy.

Anyone who associates “poverty” exclusively with material wealth is missing out on most of life

All of our “wealth” is only experienced by how it is interpreted through our senses and the organ between our ears and the sources of that wealth is not exclusively “material”.

On the Queensland government website I found the following:

Information about community services for young people, seniors, indigenous communities, multicultural resources, pensioner concessions, resources for women, people with disabilities, volunteers, rural and regional communities, community assistance and funding

Assistance and funding
Indigenous services
Multicultural services
People with disabilities
Rural and regional services
Seniors services
Volunteer services
Women
Youth services
Last updated 29 January 2009

I could find nothing that is being done by the government for those at the bottom. Something may be going on, but I couldn't find it.

I started this string with the hope that it might be seen and inspire an article about those at the bottom comparable to the Sunday Mail article about the rich 100.

So far there has been much speculation about how the very poor got that way.

What research has been done?

Any ideas about going beyond speculation and actually finding out?

Any information about what is being done?

I think religious groups may have done something, but I am not sure precisely what they have done.