I don't disagree with much of that Yabby. People do make unwise choices at times and I am all for people taking personal responsibility.

It is difficult to explain to someone who has never been in a position where they have lost control over their bodily health and where they now find they are confined and limited by that loss of function. But people adapt and they find creative ways to work around and within those limitiations as needed.

I reckon some social supports to assist that process have long term benefits for all of society. Not only in the assurance of a social safety net should any of us be in that situation, but helping people back to work or to provide transport say for the disabled has spin off benefits for everyone. However there will always be some people who will never work and who will need 24/7 care. Compassionate societies acknowledge this and ensure people are treated with as much dignity and respect as possible.

Why do people complain so much about these sorts of supports when there is so much other government waste and middle class welfare to those who don't need it. Compared to the amount of real government waste I have seen in my lifetime social benefits pale by comparison.

In saying that there are people who do take advantage of the system but they are not the norm. The statistics Rachel outlines in the article are relevant and indicate the hullabaloo around social welfare payments. Much of it bluster and overdone outrage about the minority of bludgers while ignoring legitimate cases - almost the reverse of the tall poppy syndrome.

Some form of 'work for the dole' arrangements or skills training or even literacy/numeracy programs are appropriate in reducing dependency on welfare. If someone is not truly disadvantaged or disabled there is no reason why they cannot undertake a 'crappy' job until something better comes along. I certainly have done my share as a young woman while studying and on re-entering the workforce. You do what you have to do.

*In saying that there are people who do take advantage of the system but they are not the norm*

But there are a hell of a lot of them, Pelican. People in the
community know that. I know it. If I want casual labour, I can find
a whole lot on a disability pension, who will work for cash. They
can mix concrete, you name it.

To claim that no tough love is needed is rubbish.

The problem remains that whilst you have that fog and those people
sucking on the Govt teat because they can, there is less money
for those who really are deserving.

I also agree with you, there is much Govt waste and Govt bungling.
But that goes right back to the good intentions of some, of
protecting public servants. Even if a public servant has no aptitude
at all for the job, it is incredibly difficult to get rid of them.

No wonder there is so much waste and so many poor judgements, which
cost us all.

Personally I was a terrible employee, as I questioned everything.
When I saw huge waste at a job, I'd point it out and ask why it
was done in that manner. The answer was usually "because that is
how we have always done it" But that is the kind of attitude that
Govt Depts thrive on, for year upon year. Nobody has a stake in
the game, so nobody cares and nothing gets changed.

So are you saying that welfare is to much or that work conditions other than cash are not good enough to attract the disabled whom you say can mix concrete etc.

Or is because the business people themselves like to pay cash in order to avoid having to afford an employee the rights that might come with a real job. I suspect the latter.

It's true business, doesnt want to provide the disabled and long term unemployed with real jobs. It's not that these people would not want them. Business people would prefer to pay them cash on one hand in order that they avoid paying appropriate taxes and obligations.

Business is only interested in employing these people if they can do so cheaply, even better if they can exchange them for employee,s with real jobs. This was the whole thrust of Workchoices.

And frankly Yabby you preach from a charlatans pedestal, if you think that people don't now understand that the only way to get business/corporations to do the right thing, is make them.

Howard thought he would give his mates at the big end of town unbridled power. Australian families now are beginning too suffer the consequences of this.It is starting to bite in the first post.

*Business people would prefer to pay them cash on one hand in order that they avoid paying appropriate taxes and obligations*

Not so, Thinker 2. It is far more expensive to pay cash, for then
there are no wages to deduct from tax, so I pay tax at my highest
marginal rate on that money.

Those on a disabled pension want cash, because they could lose their
pensions if it was known that they had income from mixing concrete.

Fact is, in WA, where I live, anyone who wants a job, has a job.
Those floating around, who have free time to do a bit of casual
work here and there, which is all that I hire these days, are
either workers prepared to come and work on weekends and then it
goes through the books, which I prefer. The other option is
no labour at all and if you have ever mixed a concrete slab of any
size, its a hard task on your own.

So it is far more expensive for me to hire these people, but its
either that or the work does not get done. Luckily I hire less
and less people these days, where I can, I do it myself.

"Not so, Thinker 2. It is far more expensive to pay cash, for then
there are no wages to deduct from tax, so I pay tax at my highest
marginal rate on that money".

Does Yabby, this imply, that you pay itinerant workers (for want of a better term), higher hourly rates of pay than you would have otherwise payed a normal employee ?. This is the point Yabby. But not all of the point. Is this labor employed "off the books", because it is the preferred choice of the employee, or because it is the only choice for many such employee's ?. I think the latter.

If so , then this employment model serves the purposes of businesses seeking to maximise exploitation of employees. I think there is strong evidence that would show that this is the case. If we were to compare the percentage of people employed this way the then, and the now in Australia.

This lowest common denominator effect is affecting our economy in ways not anticipated by the insipid ideological architects of our modern economy. Nervousness is an underlying factor for consumers, uncertainty in the workplace, still a concern for many.

Many jobs depend upon whether you are "in the clique or not in the clique", and this alone is your sole job security. An imbalance, or power shift has occurred Yabby, and it is too far in one direction in my view.

Employers/business leaders who enjoy the privilege of pillar-ship in our society, should aspire (in my utopia), to lead by example and for all. Not just aspiring, to be the best at exploitation, as a formulae for success. I know I'm dreaming Yabby.

Thinker 2, when I employ people I pay them around 30 $ an hour.
I think that's fair money and I would be quite happy to work for
that.

I can't make head or tail of much of the rest of your post, You seem
to insist that as an employee, you are being exploited. If
you feel so exploited, so go and start your own business.

A bucket, broom and vacuum, hey presto "Thinker 2's Cleaning
Services" are just about ready to go.