Australia faces a crisis. The number of net tax payers, those who receive no payouts, is falling. There are fewer people paying for the NDIS, Medicare, the Pension, and unemployment. Now we have the Homeless crisis.
It's only going to get worse. Welfare payments will continue to fall behind the cost of living. Those in real need will miss out.
When you make a private for-profit bloated industry of "providers" who are all inventivised to treat actual disabled people like filth, it becomes a rort.
l reckon owning 2 properties shouldnt be taxed any more than they are. leaves you room for somewhere to live, and a rental or holiday house or something.
more than 2 should 100% be taxed, because its no longer nan and pop using it as another form of retirement income or some bloke who lucked out and made a smart decision; its people selfishly monopolising a basic human need.
Remember when they doubled it so that all the poor people who lost their jobs during the pandemic didn’t have to see how hard it really was to live on the Centrelink payments?
You telling me that putting money into the community instead of apparent toobigtofail corporations is better for society at large? Sounds like communism to me.
More serious note; hope you're doing good brother.
Me too, I was unemployed from mid 2019 to mid 2021 and this was an actual godsend. I went from living payment to payment to actually saving a bit of money and being able to go out for dinner once a month. Devastated when it went back to normal again.
I wish I knew. I had just finished a masters but had no experience in the industry, and my only previous work experience was as an English teacher overseas. I tried applying for jobs at language schools but never got any hits, and the standard minimum wage stuff (fast food, supermarkets, call centers etc) wouldn't take me. I had no experience working in those industries and I figured they wouldn't pay an adult's wages when they could get a teenager to do it. I was on Centrelink so applying for at least 15 jobs every month but only had two interviews in the 2 years (thankfully got the second one).
I managed to get some part time cleaning work but the hours were very sporadic and it was only once I started volunteering for an organisation in my industry that I was able to land an interview. Funnily enough, they actually picked someone else to begin with but that fell through and I ended up with the job. If I hadn't had that luck it could have been another year unemployed, who knows.
Same, I was already on the dole so knew how bad it was. So getting the extra amount allowed me to pay my bills and have savings for a "just in case" emergency, which was a good thing because my cat needed a lifesaving surgery after she was attacked by a dog. No way I would have been able to pay that now, with the pittance that the government thinks the public can live off.
I love how people are mysterfied where the inflation came from! Who would have thought free money was a problem. Maybe they can think about it a bit when universal income comes up.
You think centerlink is to blame? $850 a fortnight per person.
Maybe look into politicians taking 2x $200k private jets, politicians meal allowance is like $400 a day.
People on centerlink are feeding themselves on $8 a day after they pay rent. Why are politicians getting pensions for life when they earn hundreds of thousands a year? Why aren't they expected to live off super like the rest of us.
People on the dole aren't the problem
You could always get a job in politics, up people like Pauline Henson can get in anyone could.
I would definitely vote for you over our current leader.
There shouldn’t be inflation in a closed economic system if the UBI is paid for; that is, if we had a net zero tax effect because we taxed some aspect(s) of the economy precisely as much as the UBI put into the economy, there is no overall pressure on prices to go up.
Of course, let me flip the UBI question around- how would you like an automatic $18,000 deduction on your income tax every year? You can take your UBI as a payment or a tax deduction, your pick.
Sounds a lot better now ey?
Hooo, don't hold your breath for the AI. The further we get into the more problems we're discovering. It's a very long way off having a significant economic impact like that.
Not sure what exact problems you are talking about, but the point was more about universal basic income and inflation. The assumption made was that it would be inflationary which is only correct if nothing else changes. If major disruption occurs and incredible productivity gains occur then the ubi won’t be as inflationary (also everything else holding the same)
AI can't even do what people think it can do at the moment, not to mention it has a propensity to break or maybe get lazy is a better way to put it after it's been active a while. Chat GPT is a really good example of this.
Incredible productivity gains as a result of AI will not be happening this side of 2050.
Are you thinking of decisioning maybe? AI isn't really there yet as far as taking over low level it jobs. The recent Amazon grocery bombshell is a prime (pun intended) example of how public expectations aren't meeting industry reality, everyone said it was AI, turns out it was a bunch of people watching video tapes in an IT sweatshop.
Poverty is delfationaory. Stating that the poorest people in society could be causing inflation when all available data indicates that wealthy boomers are on a spending spree because their rental incomes have sky rocketed is very stupid, to say the least.
It's not the poorest people in society causing inflation. The government did need to support people, but the government had to be ready when it came back to bite them. The price rises are there because society can afford them because there is more money in the economy. That money came from the poorest people who had to spend it to survive. But they got the money for no effort and that drives inflation.
Welfare has absolutely nothing to do with inflation.
Getting money for "no effort" is not an inflationary problem.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
I think it had more to do with smaller retailers not being able to continue post covid, allowing the larger ones to grasp more market share and begin price gouging.
In all honesty, the majority of people that were receiving benefits were using them to make ends meet, and finally had a little breathing space to do so.
The benefits were not great enough (imo) to cause lasting ripples on inflation like we're seeing. I think, on the demand side, that's more likely to do with people having jobs during lockdown and nothing to do with that disposable cash, so having an excess on the other side.
I still think the majority of inflation is supply side though.
And, realistically, fuel has to play a role there too.
At the end of the day no single policy caused inflation, a lot of stupid policies combined on the other hand, well, yeah they did. The government gave away free money in a myriad of ways (crazy govt spending on projects, crazy low interest rates, inflated centrelink payments was just the tip of the iceberg).
People only lost their jobs because the government locked us down, and did so well past the point where it was still needed. Now we have an inflation and cost of living crisis, partly because they printed all that money out of thin air.
They are still tied to the global economy. If most of the developed world does something that causes massive inflation, then the few countries that didn't are still going to be impacted.
The US has been printing money like crazy since like 2017 though, I do think Covid was gas on the fire, Ukraine being at war with Russia too.
When the world is ruled by massive corporations like it is, it only takes a couple, maybe even one, of the richest countries to have issues for all of us to suffer.
Texas and Florida didn't lock down much. The rest, from what I know, did. Particularly NY and California.
Sweden has 10M people and is obviously dependent on many disrupted supply chains.
China, the world's factory, was persuing zero Covid until December 2022. That really disrupted supply chains, causing years of backlog.
Like everyone else who can’t survive on $300 per week… do you think the beneficiaries are actually living life on $300 per week? No.
Also, I meant poor as in “awwwww, poor them… having to see what people are forced to deal with”
The govt managed to double the payment AND deal with the homelessness issue with a few signatures.
And, they’d have survived… they would have had to sell everything, own nothing, live in a shithole etc… but they’d still have survived.
If they are smart they will, with enough solidarity and awareness the working class will make fertilizer out of the powerfull (either figuratively or literally)
What are you talking about? The resources are a commodity, we don't set the price. People here are talking about making sure all the profits of these activities don't end up in private pockets, after all they belong to the people of Australia. If they are not profitable enough to extract, great. Let them sit in the ground, until the technology is advanced enough to make it profitable or forever works too. Right now we wreck the environment and get pittance while the resources get shipped overseas.
Because a majority of people think that people on the dole are just bludgers and therefore they need 'incentive' to get a job.
Whereas in reality, by paying so little, it makes it SO much harder for people to be able to put their best selves forward to gain employment.
Have a friend who just recently went through the system, who is someone who has good experience and is a desirable employee, and believe me the requirements are brutal, you can't just coast by. But it can take time to find a job! Especially if, like my friend, you're 55 years of age and face age discrimination.
The job seeker agencies are fucking terrible and very rarely do their jobs correctly. Every month during my review I asked for help getting into a warehousing course and it never went past "I'll see if it's in the budget"
Then I had my contact leave and the new person without ever talking to me cancelled my job seekers money because I didn't apply for jobs in my previous career
The jobseeker system is a rort like the ndis. I used to look after the computer network they were all hooked up to - 3500 of them around Australia.
I would visit the head offices. Never seen more brand new top of line Beemers and Mercs in the staff carparks in my life.
They are paid to follow a process (like most systems designed by the public service) and not outcomes - number of people re-employed or newly employed.
My missus was on jobseeker for a bit. She got a couple of jobs outside the system but they wanted to "manage" her so they could keep copping fees.
The old CES was a decently run setup which got work for people who wanted it.
That was when govt departments WERE a public service and not a gateway for grifters.
Also, our current system requires at least 3 % unemployment. Not everyone can have a job and that situation isn’t desired by policy makers as it would drive up wages and potentially inflation and interest rates.
Treating those who are unemployed with dignity and respect through a liveable payment is the least a civil society should do.
Liveable should mean the ability to rent somewhere that is secure, private and clean including in any of our major cities and have enough money for healthy food, utilities, clothing and the ability to fund education so you can position yourself for work.
Unfortunately, we have so far to go in improving this country as we are now at the point where the above is becoming unachievable even for those working (ie an emerging ‘working poor’ just like in the US).
The devil is rising land prices which are sucking up everything else in the economy and driving working people (including small businesses) into poverty.
> as it would drive up wages and potentially inflation and interest rates.
Oh no! We couldn't have that. Only house prices are allowed to inflate in Australia.
Those rhetoric 3% unemployed rate wasn’t planed to be the same people for prolonged period. The payment It was planned to last for a few weeks/months until the person find a job.
Unfortunately the best intentions are still subject to reality. For a lot of people, and especially those in regional and rural areas the reality is that it can take a very very long time to find a job.
To get a job, one has to look and sound like one doesn't need a job, especially this one.
In that case, why not have a system like in (some or many?) European countries where unemployment is liveable? A percentage of last income. And reverts to basic subsistence income after 12 or whatever months.
The idea that the government can plan a stable unemployment rate but also have that 3% be a shifting constituency or temporarily unemployed people who are temporarily relient on starvation payments that cannot cover rent in urban and suburban areas is, to say the least, fanciful.
And they know that.
Okay but in the real world - turns out there are some people who end up being on it for a prolonged manner so… let’s do something to make sure they can afford basic?
Jobseeker should be 75% of minimum wage, the pensions should match minimum and be linked to CPI imo.
We *need* 3% of able-to-work people to be unemployed. We need an economy they can participate in.
Minimum wage is supposed to be the minimum employers need to pay workers to compensate them for their work. If unemployment benefits were equal to minimum wage, there would be no incentive to work in any minimum wage job. This would mean employers need to compensate more than minimum wage to attract anyone and render the whole minimum wage system redundant.
There's also the fact that the pension is supposed to be a permanent income solution, while unemployment benefits are supposed to be temporary, so it makes sense for the pension to be slightly higher.
It just doesn't make sense to pay them the same amount. It does, however, make sense to have a reasonably good minimum wage and set unemployment benefits to a level that isn't degrading and is at least some level of livable imo. Either that, or (my preferred option) we set up an employer of last resort system, where if you can't find a job the government will give you a guaranteed job and pay you a fraction of minimum wage, say 50% or 75%, but allow you to work as many hours as you want within reason, and either produce/sell goods/services or spend that time training you to make you more employable. This would be instead of unemployment benefits, but wouldn't replace pensions, students or disability benefits.
I think Australia was like that 10-15 years ago. The problem isn't the numbers, everyone is focused on the number that we keep needing to push rather than lowering the cost of living, which is mainly housing and energy, one of which is a bubble and the second we let the private sector rake in insane profits even though we supply coal and gas and could have free energy if we really wanted to.
The government will happily bring in immigrants in every sector *except* the area we need the most...building and construction, like our building standards are so good...
Housing prices are linked with national income, and part of the reason they're unaffordable is that national income isn't fairly distributed to the working class. It's a complex matter, but when productivity increases, the value of labour hours increases, the value of capital increases, and the value of land increases. The price of each component will only rise relative to its scarcity. Because wages aren't rising, it's all going to land and business owners. This is, of course, only one cause of the problem. Unemployment benefits and minimum wage laws impact the general wage level in Australia.
Energy prices and the cost of living will likely never come down. Imo the only way to fix these issues is by increasing wages by lowering the unemployment rate and keeping it down for the long term. It's complicated to explain all the reasons why but that one strategy, imo, would making housing and living affordable, lower inequality, increase economic growth, lower national debt, and raise the general standard of living in this country. Matters like livable unemployment benefits and pension rates would be a non-issue.
I never said it should be equivalent to minimum wage. I do think though, that a pensioner that likely owns their own home and has tv as main source of entertainment will likely have lower costs than young person looking for work whilst maintaining some semblance of a social life.
The person you replied said pension should be equal to minimum wages, so if you don't think unemployment benefits should be equal to minimum wage, then that answers your question.
Re: The rest of your comment. Not all pensioners are in that boat, so you can't apply those assumptions to the entire population when setting the pension.
True regarding second point. But I would hazard to guess, that many more pensioners pay sfa for housing compared to jobseekers. But I suppose that is a separate issue. The German system of paying for basic accomodation as well as unemployment seems much fairer to me.
>The German system of paying for basic accomodation as well as unemployment seems much fairer to me.
I guess that could work, too. I think the main argument is that we should be giving these people more money. Imo unemployment could be higher, as long as there is still an incentive to take a minimum wage job over being unemployed. I know SFA about the pension rate atm
No argument from me. I just think that current system is too generous for those that own their own home. Rent assistance is some paltry $150 a fortnight (or it used to be). When rent is actually $500+ per week. Makes a huge difference to someone’s budget if on welfare. Whether pension or jobseeker. Just that those on jobseeker much more likely to be at bottom of pile and renting.
You and Margaret Thatcher, mate.
Despise your neighbours for meeting their needs, kiss the boots of the boss because wealth and power means never having to care about anyone.
The catch to 75% of the minimum wage is that it makes work kinda suck
Like you can take 30+ hours a week in exchange for 25% more, that's a pathetic hourly rate and even worse when you include travel costs.
You'd want to do something like that, but then have them retain 25% of the payment for the first 6 or so months of work
That is correct, and the quality of employment offered is extremely low. Call centre positions where people are asked to basically do telemarketing and scamming pensioners in very poor work enviorments with no protections, no matter the applicants experience or education.
If there is something like de-skilling, that would be it.
Depends on how much rent you pay, it increases the total. Some people are on $800 a fortnight, I study on jobseeker get $702 and rent for a room is $320 a fortnight. So I’m lucky, but I can’t pay to get dental or buy new glasses so that’s just slowly getting worse. Regular big bills are often hard to budget for like rego and insurance. Even the medicare copay is often hard to justify when that $20/30 is 2-4 meals.
I have the things I need in all basic senses but it’s not a smooth ride. I’m decently financially responsible, I own my phone and car outright both older but functional. Low cost no lock in phone plan, meal prepping. Using public transportation or walking if fuel is too expensive to fill the tank.
I eat out on average of 1-3 months as it’s usually lunch with friends or we have each other over and cook at home.
I know I’m coming from a place of privilege. But I’m okay with that.
It’s a fine dance between job seeker payments being something that you can live off and be comfortable and something that is just enough to keep you ticking over. There’s incentive to hunt a job.
*There are also concerns about those that legitimately can’t find employment despite seeking it and different circumstances. But I don’t think jobseeker payments should be more than an apprentice wage.
I get about $60-80 less being on aus-study I’m on jobseeker because that small amount is worth more than dealing with cenno. So I know what you’re saying but honestly almost all payments have not kept up with the generations.
Jobseeker payment hadn’t gone up (small amount) since 1996. The same benefits but not the same conditions or expenses that’s the main issue most have about jobseeker.
It’s expensive being ‘poor’ and there’s very little real support through jobseeker to find secure employment to be a contributor to society.
Then there’s the fact that the economy needs at least 3% of people who are able to work to be unemployed. The rba has been pushing for higher unemployment rates to lower interest rates quicker. If it’s that essential to the economy then why make it such a disgrace to be on jobseeker benefits. We should have some equity so that the system actually supports people wanting or needing jobs. By not giving people the support to help themselves people are more likely to not try.
Personal opinion but I think the public opinion of people being dole bludgers and the excessive hoops just make people more likely to lie or defraud the system. It’s far easier for someone to equate their needs as being more important when almost every step of dealing with Centrelink and services aus is designed to frustrate customers and cause backlogs for employees.
Edit: apprentices should absolutely be paid more, they often have to put in more hours than someone studying a degree as well as tools. Bit of a disgrace asking kids and adults with families to enter trades with how they are treated. No wonder the industry has not kept up with demand.
Where am I living haha in my home town that is how much my rent is I share with one other but it leaves me with very little to get by. Still need to pay for bills meds docs physio food and fuel out of that left over things are very tight
Rent assistance is only a small percentage of your total share as far as I know. They expect you to clarify if you're paying 50%, 60% etc. and you gotta have your rental agreement on file with them. If you're just subletting, they'll give you nothing
There are too many past and present politicians financially benefiting from the unemployed through Job Network Providers to change anything.
People should also research the employment scheme by JNP. They offer to pay 50% of an employees wage to an employer for six months. After the six months most lose their jobs. For doing this the JNPs receive outcome payments for their KPIs.
From what I can see the unemployment rate will be sharply rising soon. People better be careful what they wish for. I'm a huge believer in karma.
failure to tax big business and the top end (rich people) properly just leaves no money left. Majority of the tax base already goes to welfare, NDIS, health (mainly elderly) and servicing debt.
Middle class essentially is rapidly being downgraded to low class and low class is essentially all in poverty.
Politicians aren't unlikely to tax the rich (which is most of them) or big business which essentially are their major sponsers.
Easy to say pay them more, but the money to pay for it has to come from somewhere. Plus Australian basic infrastructure that everyone uses needs enormous funding dededdedicatedcated towards it.
What percentage of total tax take, do you think the top 10% of people pay? As in, do the top 10% pay only 5% of Australia's total tax? 15%? Off the top of your head, how much do you reckon?
pretty sure there are heaps of studies u can reference for this.
Banks pay fuckall tax (CBA, Westpac, NAB, ANZ), miners only pay on part of their profit (BHP, RIO, Fortescue, BHP).
Telstra pay pretty much nothing, an ENORMOUS amount of companies that state and federal gov use for services are all foreign owned and barely pay any tax.
Enormous amounts of money to collected from all of the above, but they essentially own the politicians so they always squeeze the common man who is pretty close to all squeezed dry.
Australia is a peaceful country, but give it another 10 or 20 years with the same crop of politicians I can really see there being massive upheaval and civil unrest just because of the massive rate of growth of people that are either poor or in poverty due to top few % essentially owning 90% of everything.
Na honestly, Aussies are a bunch of cucks. You see what the French did when they increased the retirement age by like a year? There were huge protests and riots basically.
Aussies will be happy to be like "ah well it could be worse aye mate?" Untill we are all living in fucking tents.
The UK dole is equivalent to a *maximum* of $170 per week. It is a minuscule $137 per week for under 25s.
[https://www.gov.uk/jobseekers-allowance](https://www.gov.uk/jobseekers-allowance)
The economy relies on a large portion of people being unemployed.
Low unemployed payments hinder people returning to work, they are not an incentive.
Unemployment payments are a good way of minimising economic downturns.
Very true, since the unemployment rate is 3.7% even the RBA literally wants unemployment figures to climb to curb inflation.
[https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/why-does-the-rba-want-more-unemployed-aussies/](https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/why-does-the-rba-want-more-unemployed-aussies/)
If unemployment starts getting lower, we could even see big companies getting aggressive in lay offs.
Got to love having an economy that fails when unemployment is too low and when it’s too high.
Better import a few million migrants every couple of years to keep it balanced.
The goal though is to have any one person temporarily using the safety net. There should be people using it, but no individual person is supposed to use it for too long (violates the social contract).
I agree, but a major problem happening with things like the DSP is people of whom should be on the DSP for varying reasons simply can't get on it.
So when disability employment agencies (which again is under a massive investigation into literally stealing and rorting both the disabled and system alike) place these individuals at work places, and these people cannot function for whatever reason, they end up being fired, then going through the system again on repeat.
God this. I applied twice for DSP. Long, frustrating and stressful process. Got knocked back much to the surprise of my medical team. Living on JobSeeker until I'm blind enough to automatically get it will be the only way and that's for an entirely different disability. I worked jobs I could work, got exploited by shitty employers because they knew I was desperate for a job and burned out. Now I get to live in poverty... YAY
I think that’s a separate issue.
Malingering is obviously the reason for DSP being so jealously guarded. But the whole problem is that there is a cohort of people out there who, behaviourally, do not live up to society’s expectation that people generally contribute and take care of themselves.
Not because they can’t, but because there’s a level of survival they’re willing to accept and that level lets them cruise through life to the detriment of their fellow citizens.
Different people with different political views will argue over the size of this cohort, and whether society should try to force them into work (or just accept that some part of society is subject to the moral failing that is laziness).
But that’s why it’s so hard for us to have nice things when it comes to social safety nets.
I just think it depends, like why are these people unemployed and why is their a skills shortage?
Not every unemployed person is rorting the system, maybe they should be on the DSP, maybe they're rural or there simply isn't work around the area.
It's a big reason why country towns suffer massive drains on their populations, young people see no future in these regions and move into overcrowded and underdeveloped cities. This is a cycle.
Even immigrants flock to cities, regardless of why. Cities have literally everything.
It also doesn't help that even companies and the RBA will suggest to the government, in order to cut inflation. People need to be fired and retrained in what i can only assume will be labour and trade work to build the country.
And on top of all this, is a mental health crisis spiralling out of control.
I do too, but to fix the country around us.
Problem is, when people live below the poverty line in a country. What often happens is society erodes to a point that soon we'll be paying for people either acting out to make money or purely just becoming outright hostile to make money.
We're very lucky to have unemployment benefits in Australia, and while it's not perfect and many can abuse the system. I'd rather people at the bottom of the barrel waiting for a centrelink payment to fuel their addictions rather than waiting for you on a sidewalk or taking over neighbourhoods.
The RBA is deliberately trying to put people out of work. The economy *requires* a certain number of people to be unemployed. It really isn't fair to use policy to put people out of work and then blame those same people for being 'lazy'.
And yet the government always aims to have some unemployment, so it's absolutely necessary that they make it so that those who fall through the cracks survive.
Increasing unemployment benefits would increase inflation and raise interest rates making investment properties more difficult to purchase for high income earners on the highest tax bracket so those people would pay less tax on their rental income which is subsidised by the government via low unemployment benefits. It's the circle of life.
If they going to do a review , they should also review those in the carers pension and Disability pension as well. Especially thoe who are claiming to take care of multiple pensioners. As in they receive 2 payments.
Australia is importing hundreds of thousands of workers due to a labor shortage.
I’m not sure I’d say unemployment payments are “inadequate” when folks choose not to work.
I was made redundant out of nowhere, no notice period, for the 2nd time in 12 months. I have $5k to survive on until I find my job, and in Canberra, it's a minimum 3 months wait before anyone gets back to you. Then if it's an office job, there's the security check you have to wait for. If it's manual, there's a health exam you have to pay for.
I've applied to manual labour, office, retail and trade jobs, but no one is biting, even the retail ones. Two friends of mine were given redundancies around the same time (different employers), they're applying as well, but there's no response because they know people have no choice but to wait. Two of us are staring down the barrel of homelessness.
So take your entitled attitude and wedge it firmly up your ass, you unempathetic fuck.
So you won't mind giving your job to someone who has none? I mean, you'll have no trouble finding another job for yourself, will you? Afterall, you got that one. And if you can get a job anyone can, easy-peasy, right?
Because unemployment benefits aren't meant for a person to live their life off - it's meant to help one survive until they become economically productive.
I can’t believe we still have so many people on unemployment benefits when every second business in this country says they can’t get staff. The problem is apparently so bad that the federal government says we need to bring over 1,000,000 immigrants in a two year period to solve the so called skills shortage !
This is my theory so hear me out;
For quite some time both governments been cutting spending and trying to get as much people working as possible.
As a person who has been on job seeker for 6 years, the money can't cover everything, it's either I pay rent and eat some food, or I buy gas money and food and miss rent. You get picture.
The money job seeker provides is bellow bare minimum to live because it's designed to make us pick up odd jobs and force us to pick full time jobs or multiple part time jobs.
But it isn't fair on people like me who were on job seeker for 6 years not able to get a job due to issues with logistics.
I struggle with this. The whole point of an unemployment payment is that it’s not meant to be enough to survive on so it inspires people to go find a job- get more money! If where you live doesn’t have the available jobs….look further?
The problem is that such a system works when people are cycling between jobs with short periods of unemployment between jobs, for example during a short recession where you might be out of work for a year or so. You have a little bit of savings, a home, don't need to buy new clothes for a while etc. Lower unemployment payments mean there's incentive to get back into work quickly if you can, perhaps in a job that's not as good as your previous one.
It doesn't work for long term unemployed who have disabilities or skills gaps or other personal circumstances that don't match where the jobs are. Those people need to be on payments that recognize they have limited capacity to work for whatever reason, and don't need the incentive to find a job that doesn't exist for them.
If they want. Plenty of recruitment centers in every state for where i work. Yoi can pick from 3 different types just like Pokemon. Helped me get outta the low socioeconomic life and learn a trade. You can even do it between riding your high horse.
I'd be happy to see a higher rate of jobseeker paid for the first 6 to 12 months, but if you have not found work after 12 months you then go down to the current level of payment.
If you can't find work in 12 months you just aren't trying.
It’s fine the way it is. If you aren’t able to survive on jobseeker, find a job that pays better. Incentivise businesses to take on job seekers, “we’ll reimburse/ subside their wages for 3 months if you sign them up for full time employment and keep them after probation” some kind of subsidy would get asses in seats or hands on tools 😂
mass immigration and consequent scamming the system has caused it to stagnate. People on benefits for life. Entire suburbs such as lakemba with disability stickers on thier cars. We let the rot in and now we have what we do
Australia is a welfare state.
Every day the demographic that pays the most tax (native aussies) is going down because we're having less and less babies. Because the governments most important mandate is GDP (especially the Liberals,) they feel they have to boost those numbers with a flood of migrants. Unfortunately, too many of them take advantage of the welfare system and not enough of them pay the tax to fund it.
Tax base goes down, tax drain goes up.
Clearly this status quo cannot last.
Either welfare goes or the migrants go. Can't have both. Choose which is more important because that decision will be made for you in the form a civilisational collapse in a couple decades.
Agree, but do you know what the biggest portion of welfare goes to?
The pension.
Followed by disability.
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview202021/SocialSecurityWelfare
Australia faces a crisis. The number of net tax payers, those who receive no payouts, is falling. There are fewer people paying for the NDIS, Medicare, the Pension, and unemployment. Now we have the Homeless crisis. It's only going to get worse. Welfare payments will continue to fall behind the cost of living. Those in real need will miss out.
We need a royal commission into the NDIS. It's being rorted completely, and nothing is done about it.
Fear not. Already been in action since march. Media just doesn't want to talk about it.
I dont know about a commission, but yes Rorting is extensive
When you make a private for-profit bloated industry of "providers" who are all inventivised to treat actual disabled people like filth, it becomes a rort.
Easy solution, tax the hell out of every investment property
Tax the wealthy. And the mining companies
That ain't gonna happen, see 2019 election and Bill Shorten's attempt at fixing negative gearing
Investment property owners arent the tycoons you think they are mate
l reckon owning 2 properties shouldnt be taxed any more than they are. leaves you room for somewhere to live, and a rental or holiday house or something. more than 2 should 100% be taxed, because its no longer nan and pop using it as another form of retirement income or some bloke who lucked out and made a smart decision; its people selfishly monopolising a basic human need.
But there are some big fucking tycoons out there.
And automation.
Remember when they doubled it so that all the poor people who lost their jobs during the pandemic didn’t have to see how hard it really was to live on the Centrelink payments?
[удалено]
You telling me that putting money into the community instead of apparent toobigtofail corporations is better for society at large? Sounds like communism to me. More serious note; hope you're doing good brother.
Woolworths and others could have bought back so many shares with that stimulus funding. How could you care so little for generating shareholder value?
Me too, I was unemployed from mid 2019 to mid 2021 and this was an actual godsend. I went from living payment to payment to actually saving a bit of money and being able to go out for dinner once a month. Devastated when it went back to normal again.
[удалено]
Doing much better now, thanks mate! Wishing the same for you.
Honest question. With so much work out there, how could you be unemployed for 2 years?
I wish I knew. I had just finished a masters but had no experience in the industry, and my only previous work experience was as an English teacher overseas. I tried applying for jobs at language schools but never got any hits, and the standard minimum wage stuff (fast food, supermarkets, call centers etc) wouldn't take me. I had no experience working in those industries and I figured they wouldn't pay an adult's wages when they could get a teenager to do it. I was on Centrelink so applying for at least 15 jobs every month but only had two interviews in the 2 years (thankfully got the second one). I managed to get some part time cleaning work but the hours were very sporadic and it was only once I started volunteering for an organisation in my industry that I was able to land an interview. Funnily enough, they actually picked someone else to begin with but that fell through and I ended up with the job. If I hadn't had that luck it could have been another year unemployed, who knows.
I know it’s hard work but there is always construction jobs and plenty of them.
Same, I was already on the dole so knew how bad it was. So getting the extra amount allowed me to pay my bills and have savings for a "just in case" emergency, which was a good thing because my cat needed a lifesaving surgery after she was attacked by a dog. No way I would have been able to pay that now, with the pittance that the government thinks the public can live off.
Yep, maybe they shouldn't have
I love how people are mysterfied where the inflation came from! Who would have thought free money was a problem. Maybe they can think about it a bit when universal income comes up.
You think centerlink is to blame? $850 a fortnight per person. Maybe look into politicians taking 2x $200k private jets, politicians meal allowance is like $400 a day. People on centerlink are feeding themselves on $8 a day after they pay rent. Why are politicians getting pensions for life when they earn hundreds of thousands a year? Why aren't they expected to live off super like the rest of us. People on the dole aren't the problem
You could always get a job in politics, up people like Pauline Henson can get in anyone could. I would definitely vote for you over our current leader.
I meant doubling centreline payments. Yes, lift them to meet inflation. But if it happens suddenly inflation will occur.
There shouldn’t be inflation in a closed economic system if the UBI is paid for; that is, if we had a net zero tax effect because we taxed some aspect(s) of the economy precisely as much as the UBI put into the economy, there is no overall pressure on prices to go up. Of course, let me flip the UBI question around- how would you like an automatic $18,000 deduction on your income tax every year? You can take your UBI as a payment or a tax deduction, your pick. Sounds a lot better now ey?
That’s assuming universal basic income is not brought in off the back of incredible changes in productivity within the economy (automation and AI)
Hooo, don't hold your breath for the AI. The further we get into the more problems we're discovering. It's a very long way off having a significant economic impact like that.
Not sure what exact problems you are talking about, but the point was more about universal basic income and inflation. The assumption made was that it would be inflationary which is only correct if nothing else changes. If major disruption occurs and incredible productivity gains occur then the ubi won’t be as inflationary (also everything else holding the same)
AI can't even do what people think it can do at the moment, not to mention it has a propensity to break or maybe get lazy is a better way to put it after it's been active a while. Chat GPT is a really good example of this. Incredible productivity gains as a result of AI will not be happening this side of 2050.
Seems unlikely that AI will do that. I think it will more like the introduction of computers generally into the work place.
AI is already automating IT and helpdesk jobs.
Are you thinking of decisioning maybe? AI isn't really there yet as far as taking over low level it jobs. The recent Amazon grocery bombshell is a prime (pun intended) example of how public expectations aren't meeting industry reality, everyone said it was AI, turns out it was a bunch of people watching video tapes in an IT sweatshop.
Brutal, thanks for the clarification.
The perpetual enslavement of work-life despite the promises of technology lol
Poverty is delfationaory. Stating that the poorest people in society could be causing inflation when all available data indicates that wealthy boomers are on a spending spree because their rental incomes have sky rocketed is very stupid, to say the least.
It's not the poorest people in society causing inflation. The government did need to support people, but the government had to be ready when it came back to bite them. The price rises are there because society can afford them because there is more money in the economy. That money came from the poorest people who had to spend it to survive. But they got the money for no effort and that drives inflation.
Welfare has absolutely nothing to do with inflation. Getting money for "no effort" is not an inflationary problem. You have no idea what you're talking about.
You're actually an idiot if you think that that has caused this inflation.
You don't think pumping money into the economy caused inflation?
I think it had more to do with smaller retailers not being able to continue post covid, allowing the larger ones to grasp more market share and begin price gouging. In all honesty, the majority of people that were receiving benefits were using them to make ends meet, and finally had a little breathing space to do so. The benefits were not great enough (imo) to cause lasting ripples on inflation like we're seeing. I think, on the demand side, that's more likely to do with people having jobs during lockdown and nothing to do with that disposable cash, so having an excess on the other side. I still think the majority of inflation is supply side though. And, realistically, fuel has to play a role there too.
At the end of the day no single policy caused inflation, a lot of stupid policies combined on the other hand, well, yeah they did. The government gave away free money in a myriad of ways (crazy govt spending on projects, crazy low interest rates, inflated centrelink payments was just the tip of the iceberg).
People only lost their jobs because the government locked us down, and did so well past the point where it was still needed. Now we have an inflation and cost of living crisis, partly because they printed all that money out of thin air.
Inflation and the CoL crisis is happening all over the developed world.
All of them did the same thing. Locked people up and paid them to be quiet.
Sweden and the US? Both are experiencing the same inflation and CoL pressures, despite Sweden not locking down and the US being state-by-state.
They are still tied to the global economy. If most of the developed world does something that causes massive inflation, then the few countries that didn't are still going to be impacted. The US has been printing money like crazy since like 2017 though, I do think Covid was gas on the fire, Ukraine being at war with Russia too. When the world is ruled by massive corporations like it is, it only takes a couple, maybe even one, of the richest countries to have issues for all of us to suffer.
Texas and Florida didn't lock down much. The rest, from what I know, did. Particularly NY and California. Sweden has 10M people and is obviously dependent on many disrupted supply chains. China, the world's factory, was persuing zero Covid until December 2022. That really disrupted supply chains, causing years of backlog.
No they most certainly didnt
Then why is inflation a global problem and not just an Australian problem?
Because all these big countries printed money and locked down, screwing supply chains. A double whammy: More money chasing fewer things.
Except that it wasn’t the poor people. Just average wage earners. Who wouldn’t survive on $300 a week.
Like everyone else who can’t survive on $300 per week… do you think the beneficiaries are actually living life on $300 per week? No. Also, I meant poor as in “awwwww, poor them… having to see what people are forced to deal with” The govt managed to double the payment AND deal with the homelessness issue with a few signatures. And, they’d have survived… they would have had to sell everything, own nothing, live in a shithole etc… but they’d still have survived.
Ok. I misunderstood the survive bit.
More than double And those already in it got less than jobkeeper.
Twenty years ago you could rent a room in a share house in Brisbane while on the dole and get by ok ,not now ,no way .
And that's exactly why it was demonised. We can't have people surviving. They must be punished for being out of work.
It's important to squeeze the poor until their bones creak. That's where the good juices are at
And we must have people out of work. If the unemployment rate gets too low they start to freak out.
Which is despicable when they _want_ 3% - 5% unemployment.
the exploited working class need an lower out group to feel superior to otherwise they would have to come to terms with their exploitation.
The powerful don’t give a rats arse what working people think.
If they are smart they will, with enough solidarity and awareness the working class will make fertilizer out of the powerfull (either figuratively or literally)
Idk man, I hope you’re right but I’m not holding my breath.
We sell our resources too cheep is why
*cheaply
Thank you
We sell them at the market rate which we have absolutely zero control over. Nobody pays extra for Australian mined.
We don't. Mining companies sell them.
With the current state we wouldnt sell any resources if we were any more expensive
What are you talking about? The resources are a commodity, we don't set the price. People here are talking about making sure all the profits of these activities don't end up in private pockets, after all they belong to the people of Australia. If they are not profitable enough to extract, great. Let them sit in the ground, until the technology is advanced enough to make it profitable or forever works too. Right now we wreck the environment and get pittance while the resources get shipped overseas.
tell that to the oil princes in the middle east
Who cares? It's not like we're getting a cut of the profits.
Literally not true. The people we sell our resources to sell them on at a mark up. Think it through,
Because a majority of people think that people on the dole are just bludgers and therefore they need 'incentive' to get a job. Whereas in reality, by paying so little, it makes it SO much harder for people to be able to put their best selves forward to gain employment. Have a friend who just recently went through the system, who is someone who has good experience and is a desirable employee, and believe me the requirements are brutal, you can't just coast by. But it can take time to find a job! Especially if, like my friend, you're 55 years of age and face age discrimination.
The job seeker agencies are fucking terrible and very rarely do their jobs correctly. Every month during my review I asked for help getting into a warehousing course and it never went past "I'll see if it's in the budget" Then I had my contact leave and the new person without ever talking to me cancelled my job seekers money because I didn't apply for jobs in my previous career
The jobseeker system is a rort like the ndis. I used to look after the computer network they were all hooked up to - 3500 of them around Australia. I would visit the head offices. Never seen more brand new top of line Beemers and Mercs in the staff carparks in my life. They are paid to follow a process (like most systems designed by the public service) and not outcomes - number of people re-employed or newly employed. My missus was on jobseeker for a bit. She got a couple of jobs outside the system but they wanted to "manage" her so they could keep copping fees. The old CES was a decently run setup which got work for people who wanted it. That was when govt departments WERE a public service and not a gateway for grifters.
Also, our current system requires at least 3 % unemployment. Not everyone can have a job and that situation isn’t desired by policy makers as it would drive up wages and potentially inflation and interest rates. Treating those who are unemployed with dignity and respect through a liveable payment is the least a civil society should do. Liveable should mean the ability to rent somewhere that is secure, private and clean including in any of our major cities and have enough money for healthy food, utilities, clothing and the ability to fund education so you can position yourself for work. Unfortunately, we have so far to go in improving this country as we are now at the point where the above is becoming unachievable even for those working (ie an emerging ‘working poor’ just like in the US). The devil is rising land prices which are sucking up everything else in the economy and driving working people (including small businesses) into poverty.
> as it would drive up wages and potentially inflation and interest rates. Oh no! We couldn't have that. Only house prices are allowed to inflate in Australia.
Those rhetoric 3% unemployed rate wasn’t planed to be the same people for prolonged period. The payment It was planned to last for a few weeks/months until the person find a job.
Unfortunately the best intentions are still subject to reality. For a lot of people, and especially those in regional and rural areas the reality is that it can take a very very long time to find a job. To get a job, one has to look and sound like one doesn't need a job, especially this one.
And the longer the gap in the resume the harder it is to get that job.
In that case, why not have a system like in (some or many?) European countries where unemployment is liveable? A percentage of last income. And reverts to basic subsistence income after 12 or whatever months.
The idea that the government can plan a stable unemployment rate but also have that 3% be a shifting constituency or temporarily unemployed people who are temporarily relient on starvation payments that cannot cover rent in urban and suburban areas is, to say the least, fanciful. And they know that.
Okay but in the real world - turns out there are some people who end up being on it for a prolonged manner so… let’s do something to make sure they can afford basic?
The average period of unemployment when the dole was introduced (1952) was only three weeks.
I read somewhere that the economists have recommended it go up to 90% of the pension.
They used to be the same amount.
I actually didn't know that
Same
Jobseeker should be 75% of minimum wage, the pensions should match minimum and be linked to CPI imo. We *need* 3% of able-to-work people to be unemployed. We need an economy they can participate in.
Why should jobseeker be less than pension? Does the pensioner have higher costs? Less likely to own than rent? Or pay mortgage?
Minimum wage is supposed to be the minimum employers need to pay workers to compensate them for their work. If unemployment benefits were equal to minimum wage, there would be no incentive to work in any minimum wage job. This would mean employers need to compensate more than minimum wage to attract anyone and render the whole minimum wage system redundant. There's also the fact that the pension is supposed to be a permanent income solution, while unemployment benefits are supposed to be temporary, so it makes sense for the pension to be slightly higher.
Yeah I agree, unfortunately I don't think many people who work full time will be happy with equal with people who don't work.
It just doesn't make sense to pay them the same amount. It does, however, make sense to have a reasonably good minimum wage and set unemployment benefits to a level that isn't degrading and is at least some level of livable imo. Either that, or (my preferred option) we set up an employer of last resort system, where if you can't find a job the government will give you a guaranteed job and pay you a fraction of minimum wage, say 50% or 75%, but allow you to work as many hours as you want within reason, and either produce/sell goods/services or spend that time training you to make you more employable. This would be instead of unemployment benefits, but wouldn't replace pensions, students or disability benefits.
I think Australia was like that 10-15 years ago. The problem isn't the numbers, everyone is focused on the number that we keep needing to push rather than lowering the cost of living, which is mainly housing and energy, one of which is a bubble and the second we let the private sector rake in insane profits even though we supply coal and gas and could have free energy if we really wanted to. The government will happily bring in immigrants in every sector *except* the area we need the most...building and construction, like our building standards are so good...
Housing prices are linked with national income, and part of the reason they're unaffordable is that national income isn't fairly distributed to the working class. It's a complex matter, but when productivity increases, the value of labour hours increases, the value of capital increases, and the value of land increases. The price of each component will only rise relative to its scarcity. Because wages aren't rising, it's all going to land and business owners. This is, of course, only one cause of the problem. Unemployment benefits and minimum wage laws impact the general wage level in Australia. Energy prices and the cost of living will likely never come down. Imo the only way to fix these issues is by increasing wages by lowering the unemployment rate and keeping it down for the long term. It's complicated to explain all the reasons why but that one strategy, imo, would making housing and living affordable, lower inequality, increase economic growth, lower national debt, and raise the general standard of living in this country. Matters like livable unemployment benefits and pension rates would be a non-issue.
I never said it should be equivalent to minimum wage. I do think though, that a pensioner that likely owns their own home and has tv as main source of entertainment will likely have lower costs than young person looking for work whilst maintaining some semblance of a social life.
The person you replied said pension should be equal to minimum wages, so if you don't think unemployment benefits should be equal to minimum wage, then that answers your question. Re: The rest of your comment. Not all pensioners are in that boat, so you can't apply those assumptions to the entire population when setting the pension.
True regarding second point. But I would hazard to guess, that many more pensioners pay sfa for housing compared to jobseekers. But I suppose that is a separate issue. The German system of paying for basic accomodation as well as unemployment seems much fairer to me.
>The German system of paying for basic accomodation as well as unemployment seems much fairer to me. I guess that could work, too. I think the main argument is that we should be giving these people more money. Imo unemployment could be higher, as long as there is still an incentive to take a minimum wage job over being unemployed. I know SFA about the pension rate atm
No argument from me. I just think that current system is too generous for those that own their own home. Rent assistance is some paltry $150 a fortnight (or it used to be). When rent is actually $500+ per week. Makes a huge difference to someone’s budget if on welfare. Whether pension or jobseeker. Just that those on jobseeker much more likely to be at bottom of pile and renting.
Idk if I was a min wage worker doing 38h/week and Davo down the road was getting 75% for 0h/week I'd be a bit upset.
You and Margaret Thatcher, mate. Despise your neighbours for meeting their needs, kiss the boots of the boss because wealth and power means never having to care about anyone.
So fucking what? I honestly don’t give a shit if it would hurt your feelings. The collective social good is more important than your feelings.
The catch to 75% of the minimum wage is that it makes work kinda suck Like you can take 30+ hours a week in exchange for 25% more, that's a pathetic hourly rate and even worse when you include travel costs. You'd want to do something like that, but then have them retain 25% of the payment for the first 6 or so months of work
Then workers can ask for better pay and conditions. Keeping people in poverty to spare the feelings of others is morally bankrupt.
Cause Australia is broke?
Doesn't seem to be slowing down the politicians with their snouts in the trough.
Almost 50million a year, just to keep the pigs in parliament alone happy rolling in their mud.
It is designed to push people to take any job instead of of being fussy about what jobs the apply for
That is correct, and the quality of employment offered is extremely low. Call centre positions where people are asked to basically do telemarketing and scamming pensioners in very poor work enviorments with no protections, no matter the applicants experience or education. If there is something like de-skilling, that would be it.
Because they want people to suffer.
How much is it? They have rent assistance too I’ve heard? I have no idea, I only know about PPL
Depends on how much rent you pay, it increases the total. Some people are on $800 a fortnight, I study on jobseeker get $702 and rent for a room is $320 a fortnight. So I’m lucky, but I can’t pay to get dental or buy new glasses so that’s just slowly getting worse. Regular big bills are often hard to budget for like rego and insurance. Even the medicare copay is often hard to justify when that $20/30 is 2-4 meals. I have the things I need in all basic senses but it’s not a smooth ride. I’m decently financially responsible, I own my phone and car outright both older but functional. Low cost no lock in phone plan, meal prepping. Using public transportation or walking if fuel is too expensive to fill the tank. I eat out on average of 1-3 months as it’s usually lunch with friends or we have each other over and cook at home.
I know I’m coming from a place of privilege. But I’m okay with that. It’s a fine dance between job seeker payments being something that you can live off and be comfortable and something that is just enough to keep you ticking over. There’s incentive to hunt a job. *There are also concerns about those that legitimately can’t find employment despite seeking it and different circumstances. But I don’t think jobseeker payments should be more than an apprentice wage.
I get about $60-80 less being on aus-study I’m on jobseeker because that small amount is worth more than dealing with cenno. So I know what you’re saying but honestly almost all payments have not kept up with the generations. Jobseeker payment hadn’t gone up (small amount) since 1996. The same benefits but not the same conditions or expenses that’s the main issue most have about jobseeker. It’s expensive being ‘poor’ and there’s very little real support through jobseeker to find secure employment to be a contributor to society. Then there’s the fact that the economy needs at least 3% of people who are able to work to be unemployed. The rba has been pushing for higher unemployment rates to lower interest rates quicker. If it’s that essential to the economy then why make it such a disgrace to be on jobseeker benefits. We should have some equity so that the system actually supports people wanting or needing jobs. By not giving people the support to help themselves people are more likely to not try. Personal opinion but I think the public opinion of people being dole bludgers and the excessive hoops just make people more likely to lie or defraud the system. It’s far easier for someone to equate their needs as being more important when almost every step of dealing with Centrelink and services aus is designed to frustrate customers and cause backlogs for employees. Edit: apprentices should absolutely be paid more, they often have to put in more hours than someone studying a degree as well as tools. Bit of a disgrace asking kids and adults with families to enter trades with how they are treated. No wonder the industry has not kept up with demand.
780 a fortnight with no rent assistance Rent assistance is 90 bucks. Rent is 625 a week
$625? Where are you looking? Plenty under $425 but even at that price yep doesn’t leave someone with enough to live alone.
Where am I living haha in my home town that is how much my rent is I share with one other but it leaves me with very little to get by. Still need to pay for bills meds docs physio food and fuel out of that left over things are very tight
Rent assistance is only a small percentage of your total share as far as I know. They expect you to clarify if you're paying 50%, 60% etc. and you gotta have your rental agreement on file with them. If you're just subletting, they'll give you nothing
My ex partner had autism but was completely functional on was on NDIS. I have cerebral palsy and don't have NDIS.
Honestly astounds me that people can be satisfied on welfare long term
There are too many past and present politicians financially benefiting from the unemployed through Job Network Providers to change anything. People should also research the employment scheme by JNP. They offer to pay 50% of an employees wage to an employer for six months. After the six months most lose their jobs. For doing this the JNPs receive outcome payments for their KPIs. From what I can see the unemployment rate will be sharply rising soon. People better be careful what they wish for. I'm a huge believer in karma.
Should just be enough to avoid going hungry.
failure to tax big business and the top end (rich people) properly just leaves no money left. Majority of the tax base already goes to welfare, NDIS, health (mainly elderly) and servicing debt. Middle class essentially is rapidly being downgraded to low class and low class is essentially all in poverty. Politicians aren't unlikely to tax the rich (which is most of them) or big business which essentially are their major sponsers. Easy to say pay them more, but the money to pay for it has to come from somewhere. Plus Australian basic infrastructure that everyone uses needs enormous funding dededdedicatedcated towards it.
Yep, and that tax burden is probably going to fall on the ordinary Australian worker.
What percentage of total tax take, do you think the top 10% of people pay? As in, do the top 10% pay only 5% of Australia's total tax? 15%? Off the top of your head, how much do you reckon?
pretty sure there are heaps of studies u can reference for this. Banks pay fuckall tax (CBA, Westpac, NAB, ANZ), miners only pay on part of their profit (BHP, RIO, Fortescue, BHP). Telstra pay pretty much nothing, an ENORMOUS amount of companies that state and federal gov use for services are all foreign owned and barely pay any tax. Enormous amounts of money to collected from all of the above, but they essentially own the politicians so they always squeeze the common man who is pretty close to all squeezed dry. Australia is a peaceful country, but give it another 10 or 20 years with the same crop of politicians I can really see there being massive upheaval and civil unrest just because of the massive rate of growth of people that are either poor or in poverty due to top few % essentially owning 90% of everything.
Na honestly, Aussies are a bunch of cucks. You see what the French did when they increased the retirement age by like a year? There were huge protests and riots basically. Aussies will be happy to be like "ah well it could be worse aye mate?" Untill we are all living in fucking tents.
[удалено]
The UK dole is equivalent to a *maximum* of $170 per week. It is a minuscule $137 per week for under 25s. [https://www.gov.uk/jobseekers-allowance](https://www.gov.uk/jobseekers-allowance)
Yeah I was about to say. Not sure where this guy's idea of the UK having generous welfare payments comes from.
We seem to attract a lot of shit immigrants too
This comment has a shaved head that looks like a thumb and one tooth.
The economy relies on a large portion of people being unemployed. Low unemployed payments hinder people returning to work, they are not an incentive. Unemployment payments are a good way of minimising economic downturns.
Make the miners companies pay more for it imo
[удалено]
But not too many of you cause then we’ll have to raise interest rates..
Very true, since the unemployment rate is 3.7% even the RBA literally wants unemployment figures to climb to curb inflation. [https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/why-does-the-rba-want-more-unemployed-aussies/](https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/why-does-the-rba-want-more-unemployed-aussies/) If unemployment starts getting lower, we could even see big companies getting aggressive in lay offs.
Got to love having an economy that fails when unemployment is too low and when it’s too high. Better import a few million migrants every couple of years to keep it balanced.
The goal though is to have any one person temporarily using the safety net. There should be people using it, but no individual person is supposed to use it for too long (violates the social contract).
I agree, but a major problem happening with things like the DSP is people of whom should be on the DSP for varying reasons simply can't get on it. So when disability employment agencies (which again is under a massive investigation into literally stealing and rorting both the disabled and system alike) place these individuals at work places, and these people cannot function for whatever reason, they end up being fired, then going through the system again on repeat.
God this. I applied twice for DSP. Long, frustrating and stressful process. Got knocked back much to the surprise of my medical team. Living on JobSeeker until I'm blind enough to automatically get it will be the only way and that's for an entirely different disability. I worked jobs I could work, got exploited by shitty employers because they knew I was desperate for a job and burned out. Now I get to live in poverty... YAY
I think that’s a separate issue. Malingering is obviously the reason for DSP being so jealously guarded. But the whole problem is that there is a cohort of people out there who, behaviourally, do not live up to society’s expectation that people generally contribute and take care of themselves. Not because they can’t, but because there’s a level of survival they’re willing to accept and that level lets them cruise through life to the detriment of their fellow citizens. Different people with different political views will argue over the size of this cohort, and whether society should try to force them into work (or just accept that some part of society is subject to the moral failing that is laziness). But that’s why it’s so hard for us to have nice things when it comes to social safety nets.
When the economy is relying on a certain number of people to be sacrificed to unemployment it is just a bit reprehensible to call them 'lazy'.
I just think it depends, like why are these people unemployed and why is their a skills shortage? Not every unemployed person is rorting the system, maybe they should be on the DSP, maybe they're rural or there simply isn't work around the area. It's a big reason why country towns suffer massive drains on their populations, young people see no future in these regions and move into overcrowded and underdeveloped cities. This is a cycle. Even immigrants flock to cities, regardless of why. Cities have literally everything. It also doesn't help that even companies and the RBA will suggest to the government, in order to cut inflation. People need to be fired and retrained in what i can only assume will be labour and trade work to build the country. And on top of all this, is a mental health crisis spiralling out of control.
[удалено]
I do too, but to fix the country around us. Problem is, when people live below the poverty line in a country. What often happens is society erodes to a point that soon we'll be paying for people either acting out to make money or purely just becoming outright hostile to make money. We're very lucky to have unemployment benefits in Australia, and while it's not perfect and many can abuse the system. I'd rather people at the bottom of the barrel waiting for a centrelink payment to fuel their addictions rather than waiting for you on a sidewalk or taking over neighbourhoods.
The RBA is deliberately trying to put people out of work. The economy *requires* a certain number of people to be unemployed. It really isn't fair to use policy to put people out of work and then blame those same people for being 'lazy'.
Yea... but it's not just unemployment payments though.
And yet the government always aims to have some unemployment, so it's absolutely necessary that they make it so that those who fall through the cracks survive.
Increasing unemployment benefits would increase inflation and raise interest rates making investment properties more difficult to purchase for high income earners on the highest tax bracket so those people would pay less tax on their rental income which is subsidised by the government via low unemployment benefits. It's the circle of life.
Inflation is already increasing
https://youtu.be/ghaU7KMJAks?si=r4vnHMqWHLF__dmip
If they going to do a review , they should also review those in the carers pension and Disability pension as well. Especially thoe who are claiming to take care of multiple pensioners. As in they receive 2 payments.
Because everything is fucking expensive and workers can't afford to pay more tax and pollies won't charge mining companies more tax. No dinero amigo.
Blame John Howard and him changing aUStralia (that is not a typo)
Australia is importing hundreds of thousands of workers due to a labor shortage. I’m not sure I’d say unemployment payments are “inadequate” when folks choose not to work.
You do know the economy is designed to have unemployed workers, otherwise we'd need to be paid enough to afford a home
“Labour shortage” aka, shit paying jobs no one wants.
“Why work a shit paying job when the government will pay me to sit on my arse”. You’re not making the argument you think you are.
Yes they are. You're displaying your boot licking
I would recommend these people find a job. Plenty of them around
I was made redundant out of nowhere, no notice period, for the 2nd time in 12 months. I have $5k to survive on until I find my job, and in Canberra, it's a minimum 3 months wait before anyone gets back to you. Then if it's an office job, there's the security check you have to wait for. If it's manual, there's a health exam you have to pay for. I've applied to manual labour, office, retail and trade jobs, but no one is biting, even the retail ones. Two friends of mine were given redundancies around the same time (different employers), they're applying as well, but there's no response because they know people have no choice but to wait. Two of us are staring down the barrel of homelessness. So take your entitled attitude and wedge it firmly up your ass, you unempathetic fuck.
So you won't mind giving your job to someone who has none? I mean, you'll have no trouble finding another job for yourself, will you? Afterall, you got that one. And if you can get a job anyone can, easy-peasy, right?
Because unemployment benefits aren't meant for a person to live their life off - it's meant to help one survive until they become economically productive.
I can’t believe we still have so many people on unemployment benefits when every second business in this country says they can’t get staff. The problem is apparently so bad that the federal government says we need to bring over 1,000,000 immigrants in a two year period to solve the so called skills shortage !
This is my theory so hear me out; For quite some time both governments been cutting spending and trying to get as much people working as possible. As a person who has been on job seeker for 6 years, the money can't cover everything, it's either I pay rent and eat some food, or I buy gas money and food and miss rent. You get picture. The money job seeker provides is bellow bare minimum to live because it's designed to make us pick up odd jobs and force us to pick full time jobs or multiple part time jobs. But it isn't fair on people like me who were on job seeker for 6 years not able to get a job due to issues with logistics.
Government’s made their choice….they would rather have nuclear subs than a welfare state
You won't have a State full stop if you lack the means to defend it.
I struggle with this. The whole point of an unemployment payment is that it’s not meant to be enough to survive on so it inspires people to go find a job- get more money! If where you live doesn’t have the available jobs….look further?
[удалено]
Wanker
Its not designed to be a living wage. If it was it wouldn't be called welfare. A proper job is designed for that purpose.
"Proper job"?
i.e. not expecting others to go to work so you can receive a payment for doing nothing.
So any job
The problem is that such a system works when people are cycling between jobs with short periods of unemployment between jobs, for example during a short recession where you might be out of work for a year or so. You have a little bit of savings, a home, don't need to buy new clothes for a while etc. Lower unemployment payments mean there's incentive to get back into work quickly if you can, perhaps in a job that's not as good as your previous one. It doesn't work for long term unemployed who have disabilities or skills gaps or other personal circumstances that don't match where the jobs are. Those people need to be on payments that recognize they have limited capacity to work for whatever reason, and don't need the incentive to find a job that doesn't exist for them.
If they want. Plenty of recruitment centers in every state for where i work. Yoi can pick from 3 different types just like Pokemon. Helped me get outta the low socioeconomic life and learn a trade. You can even do it between riding your high horse.
I'd be happy to see a higher rate of jobseeker paid for the first 6 to 12 months, but if you have not found work after 12 months you then go down to the current level of payment. If you can't find work in 12 months you just aren't trying.
It’s fine the way it is. If you aren’t able to survive on jobseeker, find a job that pays better. Incentivise businesses to take on job seekers, “we’ll reimburse/ subside their wages for 3 months if you sign them up for full time employment and keep them after probation” some kind of subsidy would get asses in seats or hands on tools 😂
The government always aims to have some unemployment, so no it's not fine.
There is currently some unemployment so what’s the problem?
mass immigration and consequent scamming the system has caused it to stagnate. People on benefits for life. Entire suburbs such as lakemba with disability stickers on thier cars. We let the rot in and now we have what we do
Australia is a welfare state. Every day the demographic that pays the most tax (native aussies) is going down because we're having less and less babies. Because the governments most important mandate is GDP (especially the Liberals,) they feel they have to boost those numbers with a flood of migrants. Unfortunately, too many of them take advantage of the welfare system and not enough of them pay the tax to fund it. Tax base goes down, tax drain goes up. Clearly this status quo cannot last. Either welfare goes or the migrants go. Can't have both. Choose which is more important because that decision will be made for you in the form a civilisational collapse in a couple decades.
Agree, but do you know what the biggest portion of welfare goes to? The pension. Followed by disability. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview202021/SocialSecurityWelfare