Don't do it

[martinw-48]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-15/renewed-calls-to-increase-newstart/11308340

What would I do if I could afford to replace my broken heater.
I'd miss all the shivering and chatter of teeth.
It's been so enjoyable these last seventeen years
I'd go crazy with the extra time on my hands if I could afford to buy a washing machine.
Twenty years of washing by hand has made sure that the Devil does not get access to my idle hands.
I'll become a rampant criminal with a washing machine in my life.
How dare anyone threaten my love of going to bed with an empty stomach.
I'd definitely be outraged if the government gave me more money to eat.
Definitely would be upset about waiting less than five years for a dental check up
I'd miss all the fun of trying to find clothes in my size at op shops.
That feeling of dread that I might not make it to my appointment with my Job Network Member as the needle of the fuel gauge approaches the E before I'm near town.
How dare anyone take that gut wrenching stress away.
I wouldn't feel alive.
The hunger pains
The feeling in the pit of your stomach every time you get a bill
I thank Josh for his resolve.
I need the pain and stress otherwise what would I do.. I might wake up and feel like I've died if I felt something different

[domino-710]

Just a question - do you have a link - saying different.

To call someone a liar - with proof - is not bad.

[myoclon1cjerk]

Oh how silly of me. Josh always tells the truth.

[zanadoo_56]

---

@domino-710 wrote:

It can only be assumed ' the government ' thought - perhaps - after 6 months an ethical company would keep on an employee - who has done the job for 6 months - and continue paying them accordingly.

Therefore - I'm not sure it is all the fault of a government not fulfilling their ' obligation '.

---

Hmm.  When you look at the track record of the government (and by that I mean ANY Australian government) they create these 'brilliant ideas' for a 'see, we are doing something good' reaction from the public....IMO without much thought about the consequences.  Either they are not very bright or they don't care....or both.

Think contracting out employment services, the pink batts scandal, solar panels, seniors employment etc.  You think they'd learn by now that contracting out services and dishing out buckets of money to companies for these various schemes has not been a roaring success.  What you get is the bare minimum work for the most money.....and the inevitable one hour expose on Four Corners.

I've also seen first hand the issues faced when the public service jobs are contracted out - less staff (with little guaranteesof long term employment), loss of skilset / corporate knowledge and it all costs more money than before.  Only recently I read that one department did not provide info requested on how much of their departmental work had been contracted out......because they hadn't a clue!

For the government's lack of foresight (and you think they'd have caught on by now), frankly I think it is their fault.

[davidc4430]

---

@springyzone wrote:

---

@davidc4430 wrote:

only after you have been required to live on newstart should you get to say if its a sensible payment to live on.

i know when i was on it my savings was dissapearing rapidly, how anyone actually 'lives' on newstart alone baffles me.

and, its time we stopped calling it money to tide us over until we find a job as we know there are thousands on it who will never get a job.

and no, they are not bludgers, just unemployables.

set up for a life of nothingness and possibly crime.

but allways a target for those wanting someone easy to blame for societies failures.

---

I never said all people on it were bludgers, I don't believe that. But I think most definitely it is classed as money to tide a person over between jobs. Frydenberg even said that-that 2/3 of those on it go on to full time work within the year.

I am very well aware that for some people, the likelihood of getting off it and into full time work is pretty small. I think if you're older, it is hard to get anyone to give you a chance. And for some people with health issues or a lack of skills, the chances of landing a job aren't great either.

As to whether it is a sensible payment to live on, you are never going to get 100% agreement about anything to do with welfare and saying anyone not on it should not have any input is not realistic.

The hard, cold fact is that if any welfare allowance got to too comfortable a level, the impetus to get a job would not be there for a few. The government has to strike a balance between being too generous or too harsh. It doesn't always get it right.

---

i was not saying you think those on welfare are all bludgers, it was only part of my comment.

many who like to comment on those on welfare automatically go the 'they are just bludgers' line having themselves never experiencing unemployment.

the same group are often heard saying 'the money is plenty to live off'

and 'they should lose it unless they do all the things we make them do in order to get it' like making a dog jump thru a hoop or no dinner.

to even think raising the amount from where it is would take it to a 'comfort level' that would deter one from wanting to work is apalling.

its remained the same for how long?

if the masses in a job were told there would be the same length of time before a raise in pay there would be riots.

its a national disgrace we as a sosciety presides over a sysem of giving out not enough and then threatening those people who recieve it that we will take it away if they dont behave like we tell them too.

and we do!

[springyzone]

---

@davidc4430 wrote:

---

i was not saying you think those on welfare are all bludgers, it was only part of my comment.

many who like to comment on those on welfare automatically go the 'they are just bludgers' line having themselves never experiencing unemployment.

the same group are often heard saying 'the money is plenty to live off'

and 'they should lose it unless they do all the things we make them do in order to get it' like making a dog jump thru a hoop or no dinner.

to even think raising the amount from where it is would take it to a 'comfort level' that would deter one from wanting to work is apalling.

its remained the same for how long?

if the masses in a job were told there would be the same length of time before a raise in pay there would be riots.

its a national disgrace we as a sosciety presides over a sysem of giving out not enough and then threatening those people who recieve it that we will take it away if they dont behave like we tell them too.

and we do!

---

I am coming at it from a different perspective and that is, that there is no such thing in life as a guaranteed right to anything. I think that welfare, on the whole, is the sign of a very civilised society. You won't find it in every society around the world. And even in our own country, access to benefits is light years away from the amount of help people received even 50 years ago.

So our system is not a national disgrace at all.

That is not to say I think the benefit amounts should stay stationary or even that they are at what they should be. I do know something of what it is like for people to live on benefits. My brother was on Newstart, I have a sister in law on the aged pension, my own husband was unemployed for a time and we got nothing, because I was working. Nevertheless, with 3 children & a mortgage it wasn't easy falling back onto one (much smaller) wage.

And that's where I get the idea that benefits such as Newstart are meant as an emergency fund to tide people/families over hard times.  It's not a benefit as such. My husband never got a cent because although he was unemployed, we were deemed as already having money coming in. And that is fair enough.

I also understand that for a lot of those on newstart, they would welcome a full time job. But there are certainly some on various welfare benefits who are rorting the system so no, it is not 'appalling' to suggest there are some who don't want to work. I have a couple of friends working in the system who could lead you to a dozen or two cases.

I'm not suggesting all or even most people on welfare are like that, but it does mean the government has to monitor the welfare payments.

I would think Josh is telling the truth about 2/3 finding employment within the year. Too easily challenged if a lie. You're missing the obvious. It means that 1/3 of those on it DON'T find employment within the year. That's a lot. And they are the ones the government should be targeting with extra help and perhaps higher payments.

[myoclon1cjerk]

http://theconversation.com/what-we-missed-while-we-looked-away-the-growth-of-long-term-unemployment-...

[martinw-48]

Problem is most are not real jobs.
A six month subsidized position is only changing a statistic for the sake of being able to to deceive the tax payers into thinking the government is doing something.

[springyzone]

---

@martinw-48 wrote:
Problem is most are not real jobs.
A six month subsidized position is only changing a statistic for the sake of being able to to deceive the tax payers into thinking the government is doing something.

---

That's part of the problem. I would imagine the government hopes that by giving a subsidy, a person becomes a more attractive proposition for an employer and if they stay 6 months on the job, they will learn the ropes and an employer will want to keep them on, rather than start all over again.

I know it doesn't always work that way and I think there should be checks and balances for employers who rort this system. Maybe there already are.

What it does of course is take someone off the unemployment stats and when they come back on, they look like newly unemployed.

But I think this is only a part of the problem. There are more and more people now in casual employment, without the same conditions they would normally have as a worker. I think it is important for workers to be in a union. I know some unions go too far but on the other hand, I've seen what happens to some of those who aren't in any union.

For unemployed or under employed people, I think it is important for them to put the word out, to talk to friends, neighbours etc as there are a lot of things that are found by word of mouth. Many years back, when my children were little, a friend recommended me toan acquaintance who wanted some casual cleaning done in her house a couple of hours a week. That woman recommended me to another friend and so it went. Before long, I was knocking back work as I really only wanted a few hours and I gave it all up when i went back to full time work. That's just an example, but I think it is typical that if you are in some sort of work, even very casual, it seems easier to get other work along the same lines. You seem to get to hear of it.

I've known a few other people who lost jobs and got new ones through word of mouth. It wouldn't have been enough on its own but it at least got them an interview.

[martinw-48]

No checks or balances.
Employers can use as many of these six month scams as they want.
Nobody is going to give you a job and pay the full amount when they can just send you packing and get another subsidized employee.
No employer does stuff out of kindness.
It's all about the bottom line.
They don't care if they have to train a new person.
The last "job" I had that was subsidized the employer received eleven thousand in subsidy and total wage bill including superannuation was eighteen thousand six hundred and fifty dollars

[martinw-48]

Actually made a big mistake with the maths.
I cost them nothing.
Total wage bill was ten thousand one hundred and fifty dollars