"eople have no right to hold out for the job of their dreams while they are on unemployment benefits - Polidicks

[QUOTE=DogGunn;44912270]Yeah it's great news that certain parts of Abbott's policy is going through, because its all sooooo good... isn't it?[/QUOTE] This is unbelievably dumb. Of fucking course we want the good parts going through! Are you saying that none of the policy should go through because some aspects suck? I never even said it was all good. Reread my post.

didn't joe hockey respond to a question in a q&a saying "you should earn or learn", when said question was about a friend of the question-asker who had finished a degree but couldn't find a job and wouldn't be eligible for the dole or something i swear someone posted about this in a previous thread.

[QUOTE=Lemmingston;44912369]This is unbelievably dumb. Of fucking course we want the good parts going through! Are you saying that none of the policy should go through because some aspects suck? I never even said it was all good. Reread my post.[/QUOTE] I don't think you understand how this legislation is packaged...

[QUOTE=wingless;44911778]I like this part. I have a friend whose currently on Centrelink unemployment and yes one of the conditions is that you need to find work, and Centrelink is supposed to help you, act as an unemployment agency and give you offers. Except with my friend Centrelink has said for the past year and a half "We'll get too it soon", they've never once helped him. They're supposed to call him when they're ready but they never do and that's what he gets whenever he asks about it. He's found a few jobs in the meantime but has never really lasted long at one.[/QUOTE] The only reason your friend is not getting the support he needs, is due to the fact centerlink and the other agency's are too busy wasting precious time and resources trying to help people find jobs - who do not take the job for selfish reasons. I do not say this without a basis - I was on centerlink for a long time, but once I got a simple job I worked for 6 months there and then applied for the job I have had my eyes on for years and got it immediately. [B]SO[/B] many people abuse the benefits program, when this change takes place the amount of moochers it is going to kick off their couches and into jobs will far outweigh the amount of people who really are just having a tough time. Once these changes have taken effect, the people who actually need these services will be getting them, not the people who abuse them. This is the only thing i have thus yet agreed on with the Abbot Government - everything else he seems to do is utter bullshit.

Y'all know this is bad right, the dream job he's referring to is shit like plumbing or electrician to encourage more studying and getting more debt.

I forgot the P, big fucking deal

Has anyone actually complained about it?

[QUOTE=DogGunn;44912769]Has anyone actually complained about it?[/QUOTE] Was directly quoting this [QUOTE=Hellreaver;44912712]I hate it when eople do that too :/[/QUOTE] Forgot it was page 2 so

Broken clock is right twice a day.

Are there actually any statistics that show significant numbers of welfare recipients are "holding out"? Why do people automatically assume that its factual? Abbot is still a fuckhead blowing smoke to get his budget passed, ranting about welfare abuse because people who need a scapegoat eat that shit up.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;44913128]Are there actually any statistics that show significant numbers of welfare recipients are "holding out"? Why do people automatically assume that its factual? Abbot is still a fuckhead blowing smoke to get his budget passed, ranting about welfare abuse because people who need a scapegoat eat that shit up.[/QUOTE] but he's shown himself to be so trustworthy and sensible in the past!

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;44913128]Are there actually any statistics that show significant numbers of welfare recipients are "holding out"? Why do people automatically assume that its factual? Abbot is still a fuckhead blowing smoke to get his budget passed, ranting about welfare abuse because people who need a scapegoat eat that shit up.[/QUOTE] Of course not, because it's always been the case that if you are offered a job while on Newstart, you have to take it, just part of the agreement. The idea that people would try so much to scam a system so they earned well below the poverty line is laughable, but no-one has any perspective or context on the issue so they just go along with the paranoid idea that they're all dole bludgers. I understand it at the emotional level, people hate being scammed and have some not pulling their weight, and intuitively it's generally safer to be paranoid rather than trusting, but it's still flat out wrong and using that preconception to push your own agenda is really shitty.

He's right. The goal of unemployment benefits is to remove the need for its own existence. You need a job, any job you can handle, as long as it's a job. You can move up from there, if you wish, but thinking your dream job is going to waltz along any minute now is a pipe dream

The goal of unemployment benefits is also subsistence because you can't very easily survive without funds I say get rid of the stupid jobseekers benefits systems and replace them with a universal basic income instead. Would remove a lot of the stupid box ticking bureaucracy that takes place which wastes a lot of money and resources. All this checking to see whether somebody has made job applications or not and various other bullshit is just a fucking waste of time and even those who don't want to work don't really do that much damage anyway, nowhere near enough to even consider starving them off. It should be acceptable for someone to choose to survive off of subsistence money.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;44913128]Are there actually any statistics that show significant numbers of welfare recipients are "holding out"? Why do people automatically assume that its factual? Abbot is still a fuckhead blowing smoke to get his budget passed, ranting about welfare abuse because people who need a scapegoat eat that shit up.[/QUOTE] I don't know of any hard stats, but from the friends and family I've seen go on unemployment, it just boils down to the personality and place in life people are. Most of my friends who have gone on unemployment needed it because their places of work suddenly closed down since restaurants where I used to live were always changing and going out of business. They lived on it for maybe a month or two while applying to many other places. Now, in my family, I've had people stick with unemployment for as long as they possibly could, filling out applications for shit they never expected to get simply because there was a requirement to fill out X number of apps per month or week to show you were actively seeking employment. It was a calculated measure because they knew they either had something lined up in a few months or in the case of my grandpa, he was about to collect SS, so he didn't feel like working until that point after his job let him go so he just played the system. I've seen it work great and save people's asses and I've seen people abuse the hell out of it. I'm not sure what measures you can employ that wouldn't be just as costly as letting a few people game the system for a bit.

[QUOTE=Angua;44912692]Y'all know this is bad right, the dream job he's referring to is shit like plumbing or electrician to encourage more studying and getting more debt.[/QUOTE] What? You're guaranteed to find a job if you go into those trades. This isn't some useless university degree bullshit we're talking.

So what are you supposed to do in the mean time if you have no money to even eat or pay rent, let alone travel?

[QUOTE=mastfire;44911639]in the us Arizona require you to find work to get benefits but idk about the other states[/QUOTE] which is stupid and totally defeats the purpose of welfare.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;44913128]Are there actually any statistics that show significant numbers of welfare recipients are "holding out"? Why do people automatically assume that its factual? Abbot is still a fuckhead blowing smoke to get his budget passed, ranting about welfare abuse because people who need a scapegoat eat that shit up.[/QUOTE] You get this kind of retardation in a lot of countries these days, but let's use the USA as an example. Take a look at this Forbes article: [URL="http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2014/03/19/the-war-on-poverty-wasnt-a-failure-it-was-a-catastrophe/"]The War on Poverty Wasn't A Failure -- It Was A Catastrophe[/URL] Now these guys pull out the big guns, and start dropping all kinds of stats and numbers right out of the gate. But if you actually read what they're saying, their article is garbage. This isn't an article about the "War on Poverty", this is a declaration of war on Welfare. This article is full of incredibly sensationalist (and bullshit) lines like "As crime rates (driven by rising numbers of fatherless boys) rose in the cities" (notice there are no stats for [I]that[/I] number), and my personal favourite "Because many middle-class mothers had to go to work to permit their families to bid for houses in good school districts (as well as pay the higher taxes that the expanded welfare state required), self-supporting families had fewer children." Yes, let's just ignore the entire women's rights movement, along with increasing numbers of women getting higher education degrees and actually wanting to work/have a career and not just be a baby-maker. In-fucking-credible analyis Forbes. But as always, it gets better: "As Social Security and Medicare benefits were made more generous, people reduced their savings. The Personal Savings Rate (which is calculated as a percent of disposable income) has fallen by more than half since 1967 (from 12.2% to 5.6%). In other words, when people found that they didn’t need to save as much to avoid being poor in old age, they didn’t save as much." Hmm, interesting. Considerably lower interest rates, higher tuition fees (and thus debt), less value for your dollar in day-to-day life. But no, somehow this genius has found the real culprit, and that culprit is Welfare. Good fucking god. A first year economics student could take this entire article to pieces just by quoting lines from his text book. This is ridiculous. The gems continue: - "In 1950, the answer to this question was, “Get a job, make money, get married, and support a family.” The War on Poverty changed this to, “Just show up. Don’t worry, you won’t have to support the children that you might father—the government will force taxpayers to do that. In fact, you might even be able to live off the women and children that are living off the welfare state.” " - "As the dependent underclass expanded, struggling middle class families were increasingly forced to delay having their own children, and to have fewer of them. This was because the middle class not only had to pay the taxes required to support the welfare state, but also found itself forced to pay for private schools, or to bid for expensive housing in school districts where their children would not be exposed to the children of the increasingly chaotic underclass." - America's public education system is dog shit, once again the "crime and chaos" without any statistics to back it up - "Compounding the damage done by the welfare state is the long-term shift in “sex ratio,” which is the number of adult males per 100 adult females. Western civilization as we know it evolved during a time when women were in relatively short supply, due mainly to death in childbirth. From 1790 to 1910, the sex ratio in the U.S. hovered around 104. Around 1910, medical science began to get a handle on death in childbirth, and the sex ratio began falling. It hit 100 in 1945 and bottomed out at about 95 in 1970. The decline in the sex ratio broke the “female sex cartel,” which had permitted women to demand marriage and fidelity as the price of dependable sex. Today, only men that want to get married for reasons other than sex get married. Lots of college-educated men seem to want to be married, but it appears that a much lower percentage of high school dropout males are looking to wed. This may be because those men feel that they have little to offer to a family, or because today’s welfare state strongly discourages low-income people from marrying each other." - Wow. We have a much more advanced understanding of human sexuality and happiness than we did then. Not everyone should be married, not everyone should be monogamous. So don't worry FP, the War on Welfare is being waged by retarded and misinformed conservatives everywhere. And these are the kinds of talking points they have: "women have to make babies", "men are animals with urges to procreate", "the poor can't control themselves, they just adapt", etc... Actual numbers of people abusing welfare? I can't speak for Americans or Australians, but in Canada, the highest estimates place welfare fraud at ~3% of the welfare budget. 3 whole percent. Consider for a moment that income tax fraud accounts for something like 23 times more money than welfare fraud (in Canada), and it's clear to see which problem is worth more money. Is it going to work out the same for you Aussies? Probably not, but I imagine the idea is the same: welfare fraud is a pretty small issue compared to things like income tax fraud and corporate welfare.

Tony Abbott for Argentinian Prime Minister 2015, pls. This is a policy we could make use of.

Corporations and businessmen abusing tax loopholes and other forms of tax evasion is a much more serious, prevalent problem and is far more of a drain on the economy than welfare fraud.

[QUOTE=Eonart;44912273]I really should be doing this but I'm really awkward about asking for actual help like that, I've pushed away some services that say they can help me because I unconsciously believe I don't need help, no matter how much I try to tell myself that I do and get fucked over because of that. My leg has been problematic for over 5 years and I've only actually started seeing doctors recently about it because it's been getting way worse recently. Even then, I only started seeing them because I told someone about what was going on with my leg recently and they wouldn't stop begging me to actually reach out about it. And I already said earlier, Centrelink told me themselves that I don't need to be actively looking for a job right now so I can just chill for now. [editline]26th May 2014[/editline] This forced work thing only starts next year thankfully but who knows, my leg might still be screwed by then.[/QUOTE] Then the entire problem lies with you. Social services or whatever shouldn't actively go around and ask people if they are sure they aren't worse off than they initially told them. There are people who are in way more fucked positions than you, that still have to work. Yet all you have to do is get a fucking paper from a doctor, yet you sit here and complain about how you might have to work for the money you're being given.

Why should people have to take just any job they get? The whole idea of the classic need for a job is growing increasingly archaic. A shit-ton of minimum wage jobs could become fully automated in the matter of a few years, but no company will do that because they will be labeled job destroyers. So we have people wasting their lives doing crap jobs because there is this deeply ingrained societal idea that everyone needs to work in order for society to function, and if you don't work you're labeled as some sort of leech. It's abysmal.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;44914414]Corporations and businessmen abusing tax loopholes and other forms of tax evasion is a much more serious, prevalent problem and is far more of a drain on the economy than welfare fraud.[/QUOTE] But but if we say that welfare fraud is the problem we can solve that by simply dropping welfare expenses . Sure the main problem still persists and boy if you're not in a stable well paid job then fuck you. Can't go after the rich after all without them who would support poor ol' Tony.

Holy shit, what? You have to starve for six months before you can even apply for benefits? Also, obligatory response to the "just get a job!" people: [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXnifPfxK0Q[/url]

[QUOTE=Valnar;44914604]Why should people have to take just any job they get? The whole idea of the classic need for a job is growing increasingly archaic. A shit-ton of minimum wage jobs could become fully automated in the matter of a few years, but no company will do that because they will be labeled job destroyers. So we have people wasting their lives doing crap jobs because there is this deeply ingrained societal idea that everyone needs to work in order for society to function, and if you don't work you're some sort of leech. It's abysmal.[/QUOTE] For profit companies not for automation? Hah don't be ridiculous they're all gonna go in head first and that's great! Don't need people wasting their lives doing menial unrewarding labor for poor/average pay. Amazon is a good example of this and it will rapidly start to pick up speed as the robotics expenses drop, which they will. Come now youth unemployment is already over 50% in Spain and it will not change for the better. There really are only so many ways this can end, and most of them are bad and none of them will be easy.

[QUOTE=FlakAttack;44914286]You get this kind of retardation in a lot of countries these days, but let's use the USA as an example. Take a look at this Forbes article: [URL="http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2014/03/19/the-war-on-poverty-wasnt-a-failure-it-was-a-catastrophe/"]The War on Poverty Wasn't A Failure -- It Was A Catastrophe[/URL] Now these guys pull out the big guns, and start dropping all kinds of stats and numbers right out of the gate. But if you actually read what they're saying, their article is garbage. This isn't an article about the "War on Poverty", this is a declaration of war on Welfare. This article is full of incredibly sensationalist (and bullshit) lines like "As crime rates (driven by rising numbers of fatherless boys) rose in the cities" (notice there are no stats for [I]that[/I] number), and my personal favourite "Because many middle-class mothers had to go to work to permit their families to bid for houses in good school districts (as well as pay the higher taxes that the expanded welfare state required), self-supporting families had fewer children." Yes, let's just ignore the entire women's rights movement, along with increasing numbers of women getting higher education degrees and actually wanting to work/have a career and not just be a baby-maker. In-fucking-credible analyis Forbes. But as always, it gets better: "As Social Security and Medicare benefits were made more generous, people reduced their savings. The Personal Savings Rate (which is calculated as a percent of disposable income) has fallen by more than half since 1967 (from 12.2% to 5.6%). In other words, when people found that they didn’t need to save as much to avoid being poor in old age, they didn’t save as much." Hmm, interesting. Considerably lower interest rates, higher tuition fees (and thus debt), less value for your dollar in day-to-day life. But no, somehow this genius has found the real culprit, and that culprit is Welfare. Good fucking god. A first year economics student could take this entire article to pieces just by quoting lines from his text book. This is ridiculous. The gems continue: - "In 1950, the answer to this question was, “Get a job, make money, get married, and support a family.” The War on Poverty changed this to, “Just show up. Don’t worry, you won’t have to support the children that you might father—the government will force taxpayers to do that. In fact, you might even be able to live off the women and children that are living off the welfare state.” " - "As the dependent underclass expanded, struggling middle class families were increasingly forced to delay having their own children, and to have fewer of them. This was because the middle class not only had to pay the taxes required to support the welfare state, but also found itself forced to pay for private schools, or to bid for expensive housing in school districts where their children would not be exposed to the children of the increasingly chaotic underclass." - America's public education system is dog shit, once again the "crime and chaos" without any statistics to back it up - "Compounding the damage done by the welfare state is the long-term shift in “sex ratio,” which is the number of adult males per 100 adult females. Western civilization as we know it evolved during a time when women were in relatively short supply, due mainly to death in childbirth. From 1790 to 1910, the sex ratio in the U.S. hovered around 104. Around 1910, medical science began to get a handle on death in childbirth, and the sex ratio began falling. It hit 100 in 1945 and bottomed out at about 95 in 1970. The decline in the sex ratio broke the “female sex cartel,” which had permitted women to demand marriage and fidelity as the price of dependable sex. Today, only men that want to get married for reasons other than sex get married. Lots of college-educated men seem to want to be married, but it appears that a much lower percentage of high school dropout males are looking to wed. This may be because those men feel that they have little to offer to a family, or because today’s welfare state strongly discourages low-income people from marrying each other." - Wow. We have a much more advanced understanding of human sexuality and happiness than we did then. Not everyone should be married, not everyone should be monogamous. So don't worry FP, the War on Welfare is being waged by retarded and misinformed conservatives everywhere. And these are the kinds of talking points they have: "women have to make babies", "men are animals with urges to procreate", "the poor can't control themselves, they just adapt", etc... Actual numbers of people abusing welfare? I can't speak for Americans or Australians, but in Canada, the highest estimates place welfare fraud at ~3% of the welfare budget. 3 whole percent. Consider for a moment that income tax fraud accounts for something like 23 times more money than welfare fraud (in Canada), and it's clear to see which problem is worth more money. Is it going to work out the same for you Aussies? Probably not, but I imagine the idea is the same: welfare fraud is a pretty small issue compared to things like income tax fraud and corporate welfare.[/QUOTE] This post deserves to be published somewhere better than Facepunch.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;44915322]This post deserves to be published somewhere better than Facepunch.[/QUOTE] Yea that was well spoken.

[QUOTE=Angua;44915273]For profit companies not for automation? Hah don't be ridiculous they're all gonna go in head first and that's great! Don't need people wasting their lives doing menial unrewarding labor for poor/average pay. Amazon is a good example of this and it will rapidly start to pick up speed as the robotics expenses drop, which they will. Come now youth unemployment is already over 50% in Spain and it will not change for the better. There really are only so many ways this can end, and most of them are bad and none of them will be easy.[/QUOTE] While companies do tend towards automation there are probably some automatons that are held back by the possible backlash of "destroying jobs". How do you think people would react to McDonald's announcing an automatic burger maker? How about Starbucks implementing automatic kiosks for coffee (automatic coffee kiosks already exist and they are pretty cool)? I don't doubt that these big companies are putting R&D but I do think they have pause over actually implementing them.

[QUOTE=Valnar;44915765]While companies do tend towards automation there are probably some automatons that are held back by the possible backlash of "destroying jobs". How do you think people would react to McDonald's announcing an automatic burger maker? How about Starbucks implementing automatic kiosks for coffee (automatic coffee kiosks already exist and they are pretty cool)? I don't doubt that these big companies are putting R&D but I do think they have pause over actually implementing them.[/QUOTE] I don't believe big companies are too concerned about the backlash. Everyone shrugged and said "It had to happen" when millions of jobs were axed or outsourced after the financial crisis. Also, grocery stores have phased in self-checkout stations, and people flock to them because it takes far less time than waiting in line behind someone buying enough food for a small army. If it makes things faster and cheaper, Americans won't really give a shit about how many McJobs are lost as a result. They'll just say "Those people should get a real job" while the McServer machine spits out Big Macs and large Cokes. Bribe them with convenience or a lower price and nobody is going to say shit about automation taking away jobs.