Some interesting reading in the ACCOS submission to the 2018 Minimum Wage case.

“Since the GFC, young people have been disproportionately affected by growth in unemployment and under-employment, and when they do secure the paid working hours they seek, it is more likely to be a low-paid casual job.”
“The minimum wage also impacts poverty indirectly through its relationship with the social security system. It is appropriate that a gap is maintained between social security payments and the minimum wage in order to ensure there is an adequate reward for paid work.”
“Family Tax Benefits supplement paid work, raising the disposable incomes of low-paid households. However, in recent years governments have reduced these payments”
“The real disposable incomes of low paid families have declined relative to those without children. Child poverty is increasing”
“The inadequate real growth in both minimum wages and working age social security payment levels (allowances and family payments) is contributing to the decline in relative living standards for people reliant on these income sources, when compared with both median and average wages growth over the last two decades.”

http://www.acoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/ACOSS-minimum-wage-submission-2018.pdf

Dear Paul,

Yes, it is harsh, but the only way to eliminate child poverty is to stop having the children. Certainly it is irresponsible to keep encouraging couples to have them - the world is utterly overcrowded by humans and more of these are certainly not what it needs. As the world cannot afford any more children, nobody should be made to believe that they can personally afford it.

“... the world is utterly overcrowded by (the wrong kind of) humans…”, non-Westerners and the poor who take but do not contribute. As the birth rates for Westerners plummet, there will be even less money, food and goods for the big breeders.

ACCOS is a professional whining and begging group, not to be taken seriously. They have never been known to say a good word about anyone or anything.

Dear Ttbn,

«non-Westerners and the poor who take but do not contribute.»

Kindly look at the back of your shirt and tell me where it was made.

His shirt Yuyutsu, is highly unlikely to have been made by anyone collecting Australian welfare.

Yuyutsu,
>Yes, it is harsh, but the only way to eliminate child poverty is to stop having the children.
Just because you're anti-state doesn't mean you should pretend it's impossible for the state to deploy the resources to eliminate child poverty.

>Certainly it is irresponsible to keep encouraging couples to have them
No it isn't. We've already fallen below replacement rate.

To Yuyutsu. As a counter point, it seems to me that those who are willing and active to help the next generation are those who are invested in the next generation as parents. Even if it's scope of 2 people having 1 child, that investment into the next generation is also a focus for any other young kid or young adult that the parent sees and relates to because of their own kids.

Those who don't have kids I hear the most often complain about "kids these days" but I hear that line only rarely from a parent.

Therefore in my opinion the best way to help the next generation and poverty level of the younger generations is to have a sizable part of society be engaged with the new generations as they grow up. (Basically to look after the next generation you need a sizable group of the previous generation to be parents.)

If we don't do that we make a new world without them in mind, and they then enter that world without the the help of someone trained by experience on how to get by. let them fall on their face and see who survives is a bad method that we would encourage if it wasn't for active parents teaching their kids as they grow the tools of being an adult in the present day.

Just my thoughts. ...on the other hand though, I think that if people wanted to not have children of their own for population concerns then let's all be pro adoption, and seek to make that a tangible reality.

Bob Hawke was widely criticised 30 years ago for his June 23rd 1987 statement "By 1990, no Australian child will be living in poverty,". The Hawke government failed to achieve this noble objective. To be fair to Hawke his government did manage to reduce child poverty by around 30% through a number of initiatives. They included;

A supplement for low-income families to help meet the cost of living.
Increasing existing family payments to reflect the cost of children.
Linking family payments to wage growth, to maintain pace with the cost of living and community living standards.
Rent assistance to help families and others on low incomes to cover the cost of rent.

The Hawke/Keating reductions in child poverty were short lived. From 1996 on, starting with the Howard government, child poverty increased in Australia.
"The share of children living below the poverty line (set at 50% of median household income) fell from 14 per cent in 1983 to 8 per cent in 1990, but then rose to 10 per cent in 2006). More recent research published by ACOSS and the Social Policy Research Centre (measured on a different basis, after deducting housing costs) found that child poverty rose from 15 per cent in 2004 to 17 per cent in 2014.

The Salvation Army’s (2017) survey of children in families states:

Survey of 1,495 children across 638 households; of these more than half (54%) experienced severe deprivation.

20% could not afford medical treatment or medicine, and 30% could not afford a yearly dental check-up for their child

Half could not afford up to date school items and 56% did not have the money to participate in school activities.
55% could not afford a hobby or outside activities for their child.

Almost 60% could not afford an internet connection for their child

Nearly 40% could not afford fresh fruit or vegetables every day and nearly one in four could not afford three meals a day for their child.

Parents experienced shame and guilt that their children had to go without, although there was little that they could do to change the situation.

This crap screams Cloward and Piven.
- Welfare Industrial Complex -
But it's interesting.
It's as if we've been social engineered to either now accept socialism, or decide not to have kids at all.
Why has it become so expensive to give a bit of food and clothing just to have kids that become detached from reality anyway?
Isn't it really a twist on so called successful western society when people are choosing to not have so many kids themselves?
Depopulation agenda silently at work..
It makes me wonder about family sizes now. Does a 'do the right thing' responsible male choose to have less kids now (on average) than the irresponsible women who have kids backed by government handout?
Kids raised by the state and owned by the community. Attack on the family.

Dear Aidan,

«Just because you're anti-state doesn't mean you should pretend it's impossible for the state to deploy the resources to eliminate child poverty.»

Suppose the state could (and wanted to) eliminate child poverty at current population numbers, then people would say: "Ah, now I can bring even more children to the world because the government will care for them".

This is driven by genetic animal nature, which is very powerful and cannot be extinguished merely by well-wishing intellectual ideas. Behind all grandiose justifications, is this raw desire of the genes to multiply, affecting both rich and poor - and I condemn the royals, Kate and William, for their poor example.

How many more children/humans could governments support?
But even if it was trillions, what would be left of the quality and purpose of life? Perhaps it was technically possible to squeeze even larger numbers of humans into this planet (including even Mars and some moons of Saturn), what would be the point?

Increased numbers require increased regimentation: ant colonies are very efficient and you may like to live in one - but I don't.

Regardless of what I think of states, this criticism is not specifically about the state - take for example Not_Now.Soon's charitable idea of adoption: it is well-meaning, but the results would be similar.

No children - no child poverty!

«We've already fallen below replacement rate.»

After a century of being far above that rate, replacement is not an option: human population needs to fall back to sensible levels, at least a 9 digit number if not 8, certainly not 10.

Providing more money for children produced by couples who can’t afford to have them is a great incentive for these couples, or single women, to have more. More children raised in homes that dont have the financial, emotional or physical resources to raise the ones they already have.
Any couple or single woman on a permanent low income who continues to have children are already proving they are not responsible parents, so the last thing we want to do is encourage them to have more.
Quality over quantity every time.
What’s the point of increasing the population in that method if the result is even more people on welfare, dependant on an ever shrinking tax payer pool.
Look at the stats on home environment for youth with criminal issues, mental health and drug issues. The majority are from welfare income families or single mothers.
We would be better off providing incentives for working mothers to have more children.

I really hate it when people virtue signal in regards to overpopulation Yuyutsu; don't take this personally it a standard response:
If you believe so whole heartedly that the world is over populated, then why don't you put your money where your mouth is and kill yourself for your cause. Why stop there? Kill your whole family if that's what you truly believe, at least we could say you willing to do what it takes to stand up for that which you believe in.
But the second you start imposing your beliefs on others and pointing the finger saying others shouldn't have kids and that were overpopulated, you become a hypocrite, because to stand up for what you believe in ya gotta kill yourself.

"Survey of 1,495 children across 638 households; of these more than half (54%) experienced severe deprivation", says Paul.

What did their parents take their mobile phone off them, because they were costing $100 a week in phone bills?

And they couldn't afford a hobby for gods sake. Yep the poor taxpayer is supposed to stand outside the grog shop, to make sure the parents coming out can still afford a hobby for their kids. Oh what a grand world this socialist world is, personal responsibility not required, someone else will pay.

Then we have ACOSS, what a bunch of self serving youbos they are. Any more than a casual examination will show their only interest is more social workers, at higher pay rates. That of course requires more welfare cases in need. So what do their surveys find? Yep you guessed it.

Every time another university turns out yet another social worker, we have to find another 4 welfare cases to justify their education, & future employment. Aint socialism grand!

Bob Hawke, in true socialist fashion, sure spent a lot of other people's money on no-hopers, didn't he. And, he still didn't manage to keep his 'promise'. In the same socialist fashion, Malcolm Turnbull is spending a lot of other people's money on no hopers (Gonski 2.0) - soon to be followed by Snowy 2.0 - and NDIS, complaints about which we hear nightly on TV. Soon we will have NDIS 2.0, which means throwing more of other people's money at another failed pipe dream with 0.0 results.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Yes, those who have kids are anxious about the welfare of the next generation - this is completely natural.

But one needs to think not just about the next generation, but also about the next after that and the next and the next over the long term. Also one needs to think not only of the material well-being of future generations, but also about their spiritual welfare and having a meaning to their life.

Sooner or later this pattern of population growth must stop and be reversed. If not in the our generation then in the next or the one after that. Sometime there will be a major crisis and the larger the population at the time, the deeper that crisis. But naturally people do not want this crisis to occur in the lifetime of their children or grandchildren which they already know and love personally.

---

Dear Critic,

I am not imposing my beliefs on anyone - I share them, then you do what you like about it. If you decide to act counter to my advise, then your own children or grandchildren will suffer, that's up to you, because by then neither yourself nor myself will be around on this planet. There is no need to kill ourselves - nature takes care of that anyway.

From what I have read, much of childhood poverty is due to the poor spending decisions of their parents on pokies, booze and drugs, which is a strong argument for controlling welfare payments.

Well said Shadow Minister. I would like to see if poverty levels have risen or fallen with population increases or decreases. Or it it is more that the resources are being spend in an ill manner.

We could also just ask why certian needs are so expensive that some have to choose to not eat because they can't afford it. With modern technology shouldn't it be easier to live cheaply not more expensively?

A load of rubbish Shadow, where did you read that garbage in the 'Beat Up' Bolt column in your favorite rant the Murdoch gutter press, 'The Daily Telecrap'?

Hasbeen, why are you so jealous of anyone with a rudimentary education? Its not their fault if you missed out completely in the brains department.

Yuyutsu, to keep a reasonable balance of those capable of producing to support the growing army of non producers, particularity those non producers that refer to themselves euphemistically as "retired" really never to produce again. Would it not be better if for every new born hatched, two old farts were dispatched. And think of the asset acquisition such a beneficial scheme would entail. Not to mention the pension saving. Of course it would be preferable if the scheme operated on a voluntary basis, among persons 65 and over. The requirement would be around 600,000 souls per year for dispatching, to balance the 300,000 new bods being born. I am sure there would be plenty of elderly volunteers for the high jump so numbers will never be a problem.

Dear Yuyutsu,
Who exactly do you imagine would say: "Ah, now I can bring even more children to the world because the government will care for them"?

People are not slaves to their animal nature, and the biological urge to reproduce can usually be satisfied by having one or two children. A few people have big families, but in rich countries most don't except in situations where there's a perception of underpopulation. The countries with very big families tend to be those where the parents can't be confident of all their children surviving long enough for them to become grandparents.

As poverty falls, so too (usually) does family size. But wanting population to decline an order of magnitude is far from sensible.

Yutsu and paul
I heard an interesting opinion recently whereby the reason the baby bonus was set up as it was, was to aid in the dumbing of society.

When you think about it, common logic suggests that a far better way would have been rather than pay any Mums to have babies, would have been to provide free child care up to $5,000 in total for working Mums having babies and returning to work.

Of cause this would have assisted greatly in the problem of unwanted kids to irresponsible parents but the fact is that what the governments may have actually dome was to produce a generation of people who have a large portion reliant on welfare, therefore making them somewhat controllable. Harsh, but quite possibly spot on the money.

I mean why else would a government give two dead beats five grand when the chances were high that they would have another dead beat.

Hence, we are what we sow.

Like it or not, $250 per week to stay in bed till all hours is truly bizzar.

Dear Paul,

«Would it not be better if for every new born hatched, two old farts were dispatched.»

No.

Well not if you believe that life has a purpose, otherwise indeed, why not kill'em all?

Retirees are in fact in the best position to fulfil life's purpose: now that they no longer have to waste their time in the workforce, they can finally afford to pursue the spiritual path full-time without such distractions.

New-borns, on the other hand, still have a long and arduous road ahead, first they need to go through complete helplessness and being misunderstood, then they need to go through painful childhood illnesses, the debilitation of schooling and associated bullying, the teen-stupidities and their repercussions, then in some cases the worst of all - conscription and wars, then many years of struggling to pay bills and raise children, all that before they can really push the gas full ahead on spiritual progress. New-borns, since they still did not receive any education, have little to lose by dying or by not being born to begin with.
---

Dear Aidan,

If people weren't slaves to their animal nature, then why would they bring children into this already-overcrowded world? Sorry, I've read this most depressing book, "The selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, where he details how those swindler genes trick us around insidiously to believe that what they want is also what we want. Other than for our genes, ourselves have no good reason to eagerly desire to become grandparents.

Now why must the order of magnitude of humans be reduced?

Because with current population, regimentation cannot be avoided and that in turn defeats life's purpose. In the previous century, it was still possible in rare cases to escape civilisation and its regimes, yet to do that, one already needed to withdraw into very harsh conditions such as deep Siberia: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/for-40-years-this-russian-family-was-cut-off-from-all-human-contact-unaware-of-world-war-ii-7354256/
With current population, however, and the technology that is needed to keep it alive, this is tragically no longer possible - and why should one have to suffer such a harsh climate anyway just in order to be free?

Dear Rehctub,

How true, thanks for this insight about "child-care".

«Like it or not, $250 per week to stay in bed till all hours is truly bizzar.»

Well given the machines' gradually taking over beneficial, down-to-earth productive work and the increase in professions that do more harm than good, as well as the demands on employees to behave unethically, perhaps paying someone $250 to stay in bed and do no harm is a good idea after all.

"If people weren't slaves to their animal nature, then why would they bring children into this already-overcrowded world?"
Because they choose to. But few nowadays choose to have big families, even though that's what would fit best with out animal nature.

And this world isn't really overcrowded. Bits of it are crowded, but that's because most people prefer to live near lots of other people. There's more interesting things to see and do, as well as more opportunities to make money.

I don't know where you got the idea that life's purpose is to escape regimentation. There are still plenty of places you can go to get away from the crowds. But completely cutting yourself off from civilisation for decades at a time is the very antithesis of life's purpose!

Yuyutsu, is it not incongruous of the old farts, say those over 75, that they wish to bat on even though they have (possibly) enjoyed a good long innings already. The magnanimous thing to do is a Good(for)all and volunteer for the high jump. I also suggest a one off government cash payment of $20,000 for the voluntary, to provide a spoofo funeral, and a decent nosh up, including party pies and sausage rolls, after woulds down at the local RSL. Can't be fairer than that.

Dear Aidan,

«few nowadays choose to have big families, even though that's what would fit best with out animal nature»

Animal nature itself is tricky and versatile: Dawkins explains in his book how the genes adapt and select different tactics in different situations. The bottom line is, they want to multiply and propagate themselves, only the tactics vary.

Why should we serve them at all?

«There's more interesting things to see and do, as well as more opportunities to make money.»

Yes, this would suit a materialist view of life.
Personally I am not out looking for interesting things and the reason I need money, is to buy my freedom. If I could have my freedom without money then I wouldn't need money.

«I don't know where you got the idea that life's purpose is to escape regimentation.»

This is a means, not an end: regimentation strangulates the spiritual purpose of life, thus renders life meaningless. Once regimentation is out of the way, we are still responsible to fulfil our life's purpose, but at least society then doesn't stop us.

«But completely cutting yourself off from civilisation for decades at a time is the very antithesis of life's purpose!»

Saints and sages have done so for millennia.

For others, so long as civilisation is agreeable to their religion, it may temporarily support their life's purpose, but ultimately life's purpose cannot be transient, while civilisation is: transient means may be used on the way, but nothing is worthy of being called "purpose" unless it is everlasting.

Yet to keep it down to earth, look at the link I provided earlier: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/for-40-years-this-russian-family-was-cut-off-from-all-human-contact-unaware-of-world-war-ii-7354256/

What would you say better serves life's purpose: retreating to the Siberian wilderness where the family was able to continue practising its religion, or succumbing to the demands of Stalin's regime?

---

Dear Paul,

It all boils down to the question whether or not life has any purpose higher than getting $20,000 to buy party pies and sausage rolls for our family and friends.

Yuyutsu, the $20k is not just for party pies and sausage rolls, it was remiss of me not to mention cocktail franks as well, my personal favorite at any wake, sauce included goes without saying.