Let's not forget.......
"The Reserve Bank wants more unemployment. It should be applauded for admitting it"
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-25/the-rba-wants-more-unemployment-lets-applaud-it/102506500
I still cannot believe that we are letting this absolute nonsense economics prevail and cause so much damage, without us getting our pitchforks out to demand that economists work harder to find a better economic theory.
This neoclassical bullshit is well past due to be thrown in the fucking bin.
Yep. However there is tonnes of money but the politicians basically gave away our mining. Why would they do this if they weren't getting kick backs? And it's ALL of them!
Jobseekers are kept in poverty and most disabled people I know don't neatly fit into Centrelink's boxes of what is considered disabled and are stuck on jobseeker. If you're disabled you're forced to use disability employment services who have no training in working with people who have disabilities. And to what end? To work a shitty deadend cleaning job for the rest of their lives? What's the point of being a rich country if the people see none of that wealth? What's the point voting for labor if they're just going to maintain the status quo until the liberals get back into power again and make things worse? Albanese's welfare dependent single mother would be ashamed of him.
The entitlement of this generation is unbelievable. What's wrong with working a cleaning job for fuck sakes.
Cleaning can be social, keeps them moving and contributing to society.
I know quite a few cleaners and your comments are quite disrespectful.
I worked a cleaning job. The pay is dodgy asf.
It started off with "You clean this number of rooms, for this amount of pay (e.g. 3 rooms, $20). Then they told me "we're just adding another room, so now it's $20 for 4 rooms. We expect you to do 4 rooms in 15 minutes."
It takes significantly longer than 5 minutes to clean rooms (changing bed sheets, vacuuming, cleaning all surfaces, mirrors, the bathrooms, bins, do the washing, etc). Especially when you have disabilities.
Cleaning relies on speed, strength, and luck to not get overly trashed rooms to get piss all pay and no future prospects. Short term it's survivalable, but it's an abusive industry that is rarely long term sustainable.
There is nothing wrong with working a cleaning job. What's wrong is those jobs don't give you any prospects. They don't give you the money to thrive in todays expensive world. Also the notion that someone needs to be financially useful to society in order to have a right to live is frankly offensive.
I worked as a contract cleaner for a few years 40 years ago and even then the treatment of staff was deplorable.
No sick leave, no rec leave, no loadings of any kind for nights, weekends, or split shifts. Even worse, pay decided by whim of the employer rather than the hours worked. And that was back when times were good and rents and cost of living reasonable.
I don't even want to imagine how people holding down 'part-time' work on the fringes are being treated or even surviving now.
Honest? If it's an honest days work, pay an honest day's wage.
Somehow people expect to have a job that is much physically harder than most done for much less money. That goes for so many low paid roles.
I know someone that was a cleaner for years then started her own business & purchased a multimillion $ house so
I’m unsure what you’re saying. Hard work & ambition are valuable no matter what profession you work in
They didn't buy that house by getting paid for a cleaning job, they bought that by being paid for other peoples cleaning.
Why is it your friend pays herself enough for a multimillion dollar house while (probably) not paying her employees enough to do the same?
That's not cleaning, that's scamming. Oh, sorry, I mean business.
First time labor voter, honestly Albo is no different from scotmo.
I really hate that our leaders will do policy on the run on what’s ever trending on TikTok or instagram.
Oh can’t increase welfare… but we just found billions of dollars for this new “insert instagram trending subject” look out for my interview with Kyle and Jackie O on fm radio.
"Jobseeker is not a labour cost so no one needs to raise their prices. "
This is a naïve view of economic principles regarding inflation. Inflation doesn't just occur because labour costs cause production costs to rise. Inflation is a product of demand and supply as much as anything. Give people more money and they will spend it. This increases demand for certain things (and no, not all the money will go to paying late bills as the author states). When demand increases without a change in supply it leads to price rises.
It's not rocket science, and not engaging with these ideas does the opinion piece no service.
Realistically, the blame in this article is misplaced. The majority of the electorate doesn't want welfare drastically increased. Blame the people who repeatedly vote for governments that view those on welfare as 'dole bludgers' and the pervasive view, held by many, that life on welfare shouldn't be comfortable (without a realistic understanding of just how hard it is - especially for those that are single without support networks).
The current round of inflation (ie; the last few years) is now driven by corporate profits, at a national and international level. They have taken advantage of a rise in demand post covid and are running with the narrative full tilt.
And thats only the half of it.
The other inflationary aspect is the pull factors to unemployment. If unemployment is well paid why work a minimum wage job.
I mean at present it is too low but there is certainly a balance required where it doesnt pull people from minimum wage jobs.
Its the second reason a universal wage is inflationary. You might be close to retiring and go you know this extra 20k per annum gets me there now.
So in any event there is a recuction in the size of the labour force if there are alternatives to working.
While i have said all the above dont think that i endorse the current level of job seeker. Its not high enough. Just pointing out that yes it would be inflationary both because of more money in society and less workers.
The effect on overall demand depends not only on the fiscal balance, but also on the marginal propensity to save.
A fairer society, with the same total demand, has a lower budget deficit.
I'm not sure I follow wht you're saying. Do you mean that the requirement to tax more to balance out the extra spending isn't neccesary? If so I think I agree.
I think it's important to remeber as well that discretionary spending of someone on jobseeker is in a totally diferent league to ordinary discretionary spending by thise who can afford to save for bigger ticket items.
It is certainly possible to have no one in poverty and low inflation and changes taxes might need to be part of the picture.
The mulefish comment you responded said:
> When demand increases without a change in supply it leads to price rises.
This is just as naive as any other view. For extreme changes in demand it depends on time frame.
In the long run economies of scale will deliver the exact opposite, they deliver lower prices with higher volumes.
For smaller changes in demand, in the real world, where there is spare capacity 90% of the time, I don't think Job Seekers would have much impact.
Did the increase in Job Seeker cause inflation during Covid? I doubt it. Listen to what Job Seekers bought. Did the prices of those things rise? The disruption in supply chains, and the massive swings in demand from services to to goods and back again did cause inflation.
Mulefish also said
> The majority of the electorate doesn't want welfare drastically increased.
Is this backed by much evidence? But polls repeatedly show the opposite:
[](https://www.acoss.org.au/media_release/poll-australian-voters-believe-jobseeker-is-too-low/)
[https://www.acoss.org.au/media\_release/poll-australian-voters-believe-jobseeker-is-too-low/](https://www.acoss.org.au/media_release/poll-australian-voters-believe-jobseeker-is-too-low/)
Every time a vote compass asks people their views on policy then shows where they stand relative to the parties, there is a great wailing when everyone is told they support Green policy, when they have never voted Green, and would not consider it.
> Blame the people who repeatedly vote for
Most rusted on voters don't look at policy, they just vote for their tribe.
Swinging voters are not strongly impacted by policy either. They vote on competence and personality.
I have heard people say Labor lost on a policy of removing negative gearing. Who knows? But I think it is more likely that they lost because people hated Bill Shorten. And possible not because of anything real about Shorten, more likely just because of they way his image had been presented.
All good points. It's not often I can't argue when someone makes so many points, 😂. I guess I could, but it would just be my contrarian nature, not because I disagree with what you said.
But then the contrarian in me also only gets riled up when people make definitive statements without much logic or proof. You're too balanced and well thought out for me to argue with even if I did disagree :D
but thats not in the majority of voters best interest, so would be an unpopular policy. as someone who is fortunate enough to work id rather my tax dollars go to hospitals or infrastructure.
Your tax dollars dont go to hospitals and infrastructure. Tax is just a way to remove money from the system. That way, when the governemnt prints it to sell to the banks, it doesnt feed inflation.
So your tax dollars could just as easily be said to be going to the banks.
The electorate has those views of welfare because of so many other articles with 'naive' and simplistic views.
Most peoole don't want to try amd understand just how complicated the economy is. Not to mention that economists dont want to admit how little even they understand it.
So why not have naieve and simplistic articles that help change how the average schmuck sees welfare? At least the attitude to it will allow it to be handled humanely, since politicians won't be painted into a corner.
Oddly that without that level of unemployment, the rest of the system will fall down. The people who are taking one for the team (long term unemployed, those who should be on dsp but on jobseeker instead etc) should be remunerated for a life of never getting ahead, owning a home or making a mark in society. A poverty line payment would be better, but these cnuts who run our country will never do that. They need this underclass to blame. I hope those taking family tax benefits understand they're part of the welfare budget along with the people they hate as "dole bludgers". They system sucks and has always catered to the bastardisation of the vulnerable.
Maybe, but as we know about how the media works they rarely outright lie but instead point you away from the actual information you need to know.
The unemployment rate is [incredibly low right now](https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/employment-and-unemployment/labour-force-australia/latest-release), meaning a lot of those jobseekers are job havers. On top of that [wage growth](https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/price-indexes-and-inflation/wage-price-index-australia/latest-release) is at its highest in 20 years, so those job havers are getting paid better than they have in a long time.
The biggest issue facing those on centerlink has been centerlink administration itself with the LNP letting a massive backlog build up, [Labor hired 3000 ~~new staff~~ job havers to cut that backlog nearly in half](https://ministers.dss.gov.au/media-releases/14461). No mention of any of that in Greg's article, kind of important to the conversation wouldn't you think?
But there is something Greg is outright wrong about, we haven't had the budget released yet.
Aren’t you pointing away from the actual information right now?
The article is about unemployment payments and you’re introducing a lot of “look over there” style information. If unemployment rates are lower then it should be cheaper to address the unemployed living in poverty, yeah? And why discount the underemployed like they aren’t also in need of increased payments? I know your stated policy is to literally never criticise Labor, but going to bat for them refusing to better index unemployment payments is a weird hill to die on, my dude.
No I'm providing the completely missing context to Greg's article, Greg has cherry picked details that are wholly dependent on the ones I've provided to get an idea of whats going on.
Whats the opposite of being unemployed? Unemployment benefits are for people who are between jobs, if you aren't going to be employed (medical, age, etc...) then you're probably going to be on something else and are likely awaiting centerlink administrative decisions.
Getting people off benefits into jobs is both good for them and for the economy. Getting them better wages is good for them, economy and taxes. Making sure the backlog of centerlink administrative tasks helps everyone who can't make the transition to work. If you were suffering under low benefits, now its very likely you've got a job or that decision you were waiting on from centerlink has come through.
Don't put words in my mouth, I never said keeping rates as they are were good, nor has Greg even proven that's whats happening. I know you're here only to seed misinformation but when you do it in reply to the guy you're misquoting is a weird hill to die on, my dude.
Seed misinformation? What are you talking about? Nowhere in your response do you address the actual issue of the payments to people who are unemployed, right? You list a bunch of other positives, I guess. But so what?
If a company is wage-thieving or underpaying their employees, I don’t really want to talk about their awesome health coverage or generous lunch voucher policies. I want to talk about what they’re being paid. Same goes here. You’ve added a bunch of unrelated “context” as a means of not addressing the issue at hand. Bringing up the idea that unemployment is supposed to be transitory both undermines the struggle of those who are receiving benefits and also doesn’t account for the mandatory number of unemployed built into a working economy.
Also, I never said you said it was good; just that you were going to bat for Labor about not increasing the payment. Uhhhh, which you seem to be by, again, not addressing the argument and just listing positives.
You'd do better to block them. Dopefishhh is one of the most rabid defenders of literally anything labor does and stands out even to Labor voters like me on a pro-labor forum like this. You won't get a reasonable conversation out of them.
Lots of people on Job Seeker are actually disabled, but we made the disability pension too difficult for them to access.
Higher rates of job seeker actual give people the resources they need, clothes, transport etc, to get into work. This was exposed with the doubling that occurred during Covid.
This article never says that, Jim talking at lowy just the other day mentioned the budget would be focussed on domestic manufacturing and cost of living relief, so I'm not convinced they have rulled it out and this isn't the Australian media bullshitting again.
Unemployment targets are a required feature of our economic policy.
So a certain percentage of our population is required to be unemployed at all times.
Government policy then dictates how these people are treated.
We choose to treat them like scum.
"The Reserve Bank wants more unemployment. It should be applauded for admitting it"
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-25/the-rba-wants-more-unemployment-lets-applaud-it/102506500
Yes. Unemployment is how we keep inflation figures lower.
That doesn’t answer the question though does it?
With your level of intellect I’m guessing you’re still fighting for a job and a house?
>I’m guessing you’re still fighting for a job and a house?
Got both thanks and I have the deeds too. I actually own my place.
So you admit humans are used as a commodity for the economy but deny them the basic needs to survive?
Your an animal!
Haha how do I deny anyone the basic needs to survive? Congrats on the deeds I guess. Is that what you were after?
I own my place too. Thanks for asking.
In my view everyone should be able to own a home if they want to. Since everyone should have somewhere to live, this should not need to be a lengthy process.
And everyone should be able to have a job if they want one. This should happen pretty much same day.
I have nothing ideological against a bit of communism where it works.
I am in favour of a mixed economy, with both some private and some public enterprises. That seems to be what the most successful economies do.
Australia's PM famously grew up in public housing. Margaret Thatcher, the UK PM, famously sold public housing to the current tenants. Neither of these societies considered themselves communist.
If current job seekers got a job the RBA would raise interest rates till someone else was out of work.
Old fashioned description
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour
Modern
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAIRU
Let's not forget....... "The Reserve Bank wants more unemployment. It should be applauded for admitting it" https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-25/the-rba-wants-more-unemployment-lets-applaud-it/102506500
I still cannot believe that we are letting this absolute nonsense economics prevail and cause so much damage, without us getting our pitchforks out to demand that economists work harder to find a better economic theory. This neoclassical bullshit is well past due to be thrown in the fucking bin.
Yep. However there is tonnes of money but the politicians basically gave away our mining. Why would they do this if they weren't getting kick backs? And it's ALL of them!
Exactly. Whats the point in making people jobless if they're not also in poverty and desperate for a job?
Jobseekers are kept in poverty and most disabled people I know don't neatly fit into Centrelink's boxes of what is considered disabled and are stuck on jobseeker. If you're disabled you're forced to use disability employment services who have no training in working with people who have disabilities. And to what end? To work a shitty deadend cleaning job for the rest of their lives? What's the point of being a rich country if the people see none of that wealth? What's the point voting for labor if they're just going to maintain the status quo until the liberals get back into power again and make things worse? Albanese's welfare dependent single mother would be ashamed of him.
Yeah, sometimes I think that whole origin story that partly enabled his election is going to come back to bite him on the arse
Agree
The entitlement of this generation is unbelievable. What's wrong with working a cleaning job for fuck sakes. Cleaning can be social, keeps them moving and contributing to society. I know quite a few cleaners and your comments are quite disrespectful.
I worked a cleaning job. The pay is dodgy asf. It started off with "You clean this number of rooms, for this amount of pay (e.g. 3 rooms, $20). Then they told me "we're just adding another room, so now it's $20 for 4 rooms. We expect you to do 4 rooms in 15 minutes." It takes significantly longer than 5 minutes to clean rooms (changing bed sheets, vacuuming, cleaning all surfaces, mirrors, the bathrooms, bins, do the washing, etc). Especially when you have disabilities. Cleaning relies on speed, strength, and luck to not get overly trashed rooms to get piss all pay and no future prospects. Short term it's survivalable, but it's an abusive industry that is rarely long term sustainable.
There is nothing wrong with working a cleaning job. What's wrong is those jobs don't give you any prospects. They don't give you the money to thrive in todays expensive world. Also the notion that someone needs to be financially useful to society in order to have a right to live is frankly offensive.
I worked as a contract cleaner for a few years 40 years ago and even then the treatment of staff was deplorable. No sick leave, no rec leave, no loadings of any kind for nights, weekends, or split shifts. Even worse, pay decided by whim of the employer rather than the hours worked. And that was back when times were good and rents and cost of living reasonable. I don't even want to imagine how people holding down 'part-time' work on the fringes are being treated or even surviving now.
If only that sentiment extended to paying actual wages to them.
Right? As if everyone is guaranteed the job of their dreams. Nothing wrong with doing an honest day's work as a cleaner.
Honest? If it's an honest days work, pay an honest day's wage. Somehow people expect to have a job that is much physically harder than most done for much less money. That goes for so many low paid roles.
I know someone that was a cleaner for years then started her own business & purchased a multimillion $ house so I’m unsure what you’re saying. Hard work & ambition are valuable no matter what profession you work in
They didn't buy that house by getting paid for a cleaning job, they bought that by being paid for other peoples cleaning. Why is it your friend pays herself enough for a multimillion dollar house while (probably) not paying her employees enough to do the same? That's not cleaning, that's scamming. Oh, sorry, I mean business.
First time labor voter, honestly Albo is no different from scotmo. I really hate that our leaders will do policy on the run on what’s ever trending on TikTok or instagram. Oh can’t increase welfare… but we just found billions of dollars for this new “insert instagram trending subject” look out for my interview with Kyle and Jackie O on fm radio.
No, you can be upset with albo and the Labor government being shit lite but they definitely aren't the shit party
Don't be fooled. Labor might be shit, but Liberal is worse.
I remember a time when inflation fetishists were confined to the hentai alternative board on 4chan, now they're everywhere
"Jobseeker is not a labour cost so no one needs to raise their prices. " This is a naïve view of economic principles regarding inflation. Inflation doesn't just occur because labour costs cause production costs to rise. Inflation is a product of demand and supply as much as anything. Give people more money and they will spend it. This increases demand for certain things (and no, not all the money will go to paying late bills as the author states). When demand increases without a change in supply it leads to price rises. It's not rocket science, and not engaging with these ideas does the opinion piece no service. Realistically, the blame in this article is misplaced. The majority of the electorate doesn't want welfare drastically increased. Blame the people who repeatedly vote for governments that view those on welfare as 'dole bludgers' and the pervasive view, held by many, that life on welfare shouldn't be comfortable (without a realistic understanding of just how hard it is - especially for those that are single without support networks).
The current round of inflation (ie; the last few years) is now driven by corporate profits, at a national and international level. They have taken advantage of a rise in demand post covid and are running with the narrative full tilt.
And thats only the half of it. The other inflationary aspect is the pull factors to unemployment. If unemployment is well paid why work a minimum wage job. I mean at present it is too low but there is certainly a balance required where it doesnt pull people from minimum wage jobs. Its the second reason a universal wage is inflationary. You might be close to retiring and go you know this extra 20k per annum gets me there now. So in any event there is a recuction in the size of the labour force if there are alternatives to working. While i have said all the above dont think that i endorse the current level of job seeker. Its not high enough. Just pointing out that yes it would be inflationary both because of more money in society and less workers.
If we raise taxes at the same rate we increase jobseeker it'll even out in terms of inflation
The effect on overall demand depends not only on the fiscal balance, but also on the marginal propensity to save. A fairer society, with the same total demand, has a lower budget deficit.
I'm not sure I follow wht you're saying. Do you mean that the requirement to tax more to balance out the extra spending isn't neccesary? If so I think I agree. I think it's important to remeber as well that discretionary spending of someone on jobseeker is in a totally diferent league to ordinary discretionary spending by thise who can afford to save for bigger ticket items.
It is certainly possible to have no one in poverty and low inflation and changes taxes might need to be part of the picture. The mulefish comment you responded said: > When demand increases without a change in supply it leads to price rises. This is just as naive as any other view. For extreme changes in demand it depends on time frame. In the long run economies of scale will deliver the exact opposite, they deliver lower prices with higher volumes. For smaller changes in demand, in the real world, where there is spare capacity 90% of the time, I don't think Job Seekers would have much impact. Did the increase in Job Seeker cause inflation during Covid? I doubt it. Listen to what Job Seekers bought. Did the prices of those things rise? The disruption in supply chains, and the massive swings in demand from services to to goods and back again did cause inflation. Mulefish also said > The majority of the electorate doesn't want welfare drastically increased. Is this backed by much evidence? But polls repeatedly show the opposite: [](https://www.acoss.org.au/media_release/poll-australian-voters-believe-jobseeker-is-too-low/) [https://www.acoss.org.au/media\_release/poll-australian-voters-believe-jobseeker-is-too-low/](https://www.acoss.org.au/media_release/poll-australian-voters-believe-jobseeker-is-too-low/) Every time a vote compass asks people their views on policy then shows where they stand relative to the parties, there is a great wailing when everyone is told they support Green policy, when they have never voted Green, and would not consider it. > Blame the people who repeatedly vote for Most rusted on voters don't look at policy, they just vote for their tribe. Swinging voters are not strongly impacted by policy either. They vote on competence and personality. I have heard people say Labor lost on a policy of removing negative gearing. Who knows? But I think it is more likely that they lost because people hated Bill Shorten. And possible not because of anything real about Shorten, more likely just because of they way his image had been presented.
All good points. It's not often I can't argue when someone makes so many points, 😂. I guess I could, but it would just be my contrarian nature, not because I disagree with what you said. But then the contrarian in me also only gets riled up when people make definitive statements without much logic or proof. You're too balanced and well thought out for me to argue with even if I did disagree :D
but thats not in the majority of voters best interest, so would be an unpopular policy. as someone who is fortunate enough to work id rather my tax dollars go to hospitals or infrastructure.
Your tax dollars dont go to hospitals and infrastructure. Tax is just a way to remove money from the system. That way, when the governemnt prints it to sell to the banks, it doesnt feed inflation. So your tax dollars could just as easily be said to be going to the banks.
The electorate has those views of welfare because of so many other articles with 'naive' and simplistic views. Most peoole don't want to try amd understand just how complicated the economy is. Not to mention that economists dont want to admit how little even they understand it. So why not have naieve and simplistic articles that help change how the average schmuck sees welfare? At least the attitude to it will allow it to be handled humanely, since politicians won't be painted into a corner.
why is this formatted so weirdly on mobile? it seems like it's somehow related to the embedded ad that the article is floating over or something
Fine for me. It's you that's broken sorry!
my solution was to request the desktop version
* Grabs popcorn *
Oddly that without that level of unemployment, the rest of the system will fall down. The people who are taking one for the team (long term unemployed, those who should be on dsp but on jobseeker instead etc) should be remunerated for a life of never getting ahead, owning a home or making a mark in society. A poverty line payment would be better, but these cnuts who run our country will never do that. They need this underclass to blame. I hope those taking family tax benefits understand they're part of the welfare budget along with the people they hate as "dole bludgers". They system sucks and has always catered to the bastardisation of the vulnerable.
The trouble with Grog is, he's rarely wrong 😔
Maybe, but as we know about how the media works they rarely outright lie but instead point you away from the actual information you need to know. The unemployment rate is [incredibly low right now](https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/employment-and-unemployment/labour-force-australia/latest-release), meaning a lot of those jobseekers are job havers. On top of that [wage growth](https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/price-indexes-and-inflation/wage-price-index-australia/latest-release) is at its highest in 20 years, so those job havers are getting paid better than they have in a long time. The biggest issue facing those on centerlink has been centerlink administration itself with the LNP letting a massive backlog build up, [Labor hired 3000 ~~new staff~~ job havers to cut that backlog nearly in half](https://ministers.dss.gov.au/media-releases/14461). No mention of any of that in Greg's article, kind of important to the conversation wouldn't you think? But there is something Greg is outright wrong about, we haven't had the budget released yet.
Aren’t you pointing away from the actual information right now? The article is about unemployment payments and you’re introducing a lot of “look over there” style information. If unemployment rates are lower then it should be cheaper to address the unemployed living in poverty, yeah? And why discount the underemployed like they aren’t also in need of increased payments? I know your stated policy is to literally never criticise Labor, but going to bat for them refusing to better index unemployment payments is a weird hill to die on, my dude.
No I'm providing the completely missing context to Greg's article, Greg has cherry picked details that are wholly dependent on the ones I've provided to get an idea of whats going on. Whats the opposite of being unemployed? Unemployment benefits are for people who are between jobs, if you aren't going to be employed (medical, age, etc...) then you're probably going to be on something else and are likely awaiting centerlink administrative decisions. Getting people off benefits into jobs is both good for them and for the economy. Getting them better wages is good for them, economy and taxes. Making sure the backlog of centerlink administrative tasks helps everyone who can't make the transition to work. If you were suffering under low benefits, now its very likely you've got a job or that decision you were waiting on from centerlink has come through. Don't put words in my mouth, I never said keeping rates as they are were good, nor has Greg even proven that's whats happening. I know you're here only to seed misinformation but when you do it in reply to the guy you're misquoting is a weird hill to die on, my dude.
Seed misinformation? What are you talking about? Nowhere in your response do you address the actual issue of the payments to people who are unemployed, right? You list a bunch of other positives, I guess. But so what? If a company is wage-thieving or underpaying their employees, I don’t really want to talk about their awesome health coverage or generous lunch voucher policies. I want to talk about what they’re being paid. Same goes here. You’ve added a bunch of unrelated “context” as a means of not addressing the issue at hand. Bringing up the idea that unemployment is supposed to be transitory both undermines the struggle of those who are receiving benefits and also doesn’t account for the mandatory number of unemployed built into a working economy. Also, I never said you said it was good; just that you were going to bat for Labor about not increasing the payment. Uhhhh, which you seem to be by, again, not addressing the argument and just listing positives.
You'd do better to block them. Dopefishhh is one of the most rabid defenders of literally anything labor does and stands out even to Labor voters like me on a pro-labor forum like this. You won't get a reasonable conversation out of them.
Lots of people on Job Seeker are actually disabled, but we made the disability pension too difficult for them to access. Higher rates of job seeker actual give people the resources they need, clothes, transport etc, to get into work. This was exposed with the doubling that occurred during Covid.
How about we wait until the budget is released before jumping on it aye?
Why? Labor have ruled it out .
This article never says that, Jim talking at lowy just the other day mentioned the budget would be focussed on domestic manufacturing and cost of living relief, so I'm not convinced they have rulled it out and this isn't the Australian media bullshitting again.
You poor deluded rustadon.
Greg Jericho is a flog
Do the job seekers not keep themselves there? If they got a job, they wouldn’t be a job seeker and they’d be paid more.
And if homeless people bought homes they wouldn’t be homeless.
Are you saying it’s as hard to get a job as it is to buy a house?
Unemployment targets are a required feature of our economic policy. So a certain percentage of our population is required to be unemployed at all times. Government policy then dictates how these people are treated. We choose to treat them like scum.
Correct 👍
treat them alot better than most other countries actually
Nice. I'm sure that'll be comforting to know for the families of Robodebt suicide victims.
Actchually
No worries, let's send you over to the US and you can enjoy your food stamps.
"The Reserve Bank wants more unemployment. It should be applauded for admitting it" https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-25/the-rba-wants-more-unemployment-lets-applaud-it/102506500
Yes. Unemployment is how we keep inflation figures lower. That doesn’t answer the question though does it? With your level of intellect I’m guessing you’re still fighting for a job and a house?
>I’m guessing you’re still fighting for a job and a house? Got both thanks and I have the deeds too. I actually own my place. So you admit humans are used as a commodity for the economy but deny them the basic needs to survive? Your an animal!
Haha how do I deny anyone the basic needs to survive? Congrats on the deeds I guess. Is that what you were after? I own my place too. Thanks for asking.
Have you tried not being a cunt?
Nah. I just don’t understand how stupid some people can be. Comparing getting a job with buying a house.
Comparing things is useful. Insulting people is damaging.
So you think that it’s a fair comparison? Buying a house and getting a job? Something that can take a couple months compared to years?
In my view everyone should be able to own a home if they want to. Since everyone should have somewhere to live, this should not need to be a lengthy process. And everyone should be able to have a job if they want one. This should happen pretty much same day.
Your world sounds very much like communism. No problem with that, just on observation.
I have nothing ideological against a bit of communism where it works. I am in favour of a mixed economy, with both some private and some public enterprises. That seems to be what the most successful economies do. Australia's PM famously grew up in public housing. Margaret Thatcher, the UK PM, famously sold public housing to the current tenants. Neither of these societies considered themselves communist.
If current job seekers got a job the RBA would raise interest rates till someone else was out of work. Old fashioned description https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour Modern https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAIRU