Unemployment on the rise

THE slowing global economy is tipped to push Australia's unemployment rate to its highest level in more than a year as the volatility consuming world markets rocks business confidence.


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/unemployment-on-the-rise/story-fn7j19iv-1226113376955




So workers could be unemployed through no fault of their own. Will they protect themselves by demanding the dole be lifted above the poverty line?






WAYNE Swan yesterday rejected a Greens demand that he dump a planned one percentage point cut in corporate tax, saying governments could not spread opportunity without aiding economic growth.

Attacking a proposal by Greens leader Bob Brown to dump the tax cut and instead increase welfare benefits by $50 a week, the Treasurer said governments could improve the lives of citizens only if they created conditions in which business flourished. His comments came as the Greens' proposal caused confusion in opposition ranks, with Tony Abbott offering in-principle support for Labor's tax cut, but two of his frontbenchers opposing it because of its link to Labor's proposed $7.4 billion Mineral Resource Rent Tax

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/treasurer-defends-corporate-tax-cut-as-greens-demand-he-dump-it/story-fn59niix-1226030336036


Abbott: Get tough on the dole

EVERY long-term unemployed Australian would have half their welfare benefits quarantined under reforms being pushed by Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

He also says Work for the Dole should be compulsory for all people under 50 and that unemployment payments should be scrapped wherever there are too many unfilled, unskilled jobs.

Mr Abbott, who's long backed stricter welfare rules, is due to make the call in a lunchtime address to the Queensland Chamber of Commerce in Brisbane on Thursday.

http://www.whitsundaytimes.com.au/story/2011/03/31/abbott-calls-for-welfare-reform/

Unemployment benefits need to be lifted by at least $50 a week unless our government want rioters on their hands. It's only a matter of time, you can't suppress people forever and get away with it.

I made it through the 80's unemployment explosion, the Asian crisis, the GFC mark 1 and any other down turn in the last 30 years you can mention. I have never had a problem getting a job because i don't care what i do if i am unemployed. Easy answer get a job, move if you have to but stop crying that welfare is to low because that is simply crap. Welfare is a basics to tie you over to your next job, not a lifestyle choice that one can take.

A $50 a week increase is more than reasonable, and is long-overdue.

It is a CRIME that the unemployed haven't received a real-terms increase for TWENTY YEARS.

There is NO VALID EXCUSE for denying the u/e a raise, NONE WHATSOEVER.

Will it take scenes such as we have just witnessed in London before these
smack-KNUCKLES wake up to themselves?

ANY politician who supports this filthy scheme deserves IMMEDIATE dis-endorsement.

I am sorry to say that in this case, Swan is correct.
Pouring more taxpayer dollars into the endless black hole that  unemployment benefits represents does nothing to getting people off those benefits.
It merely supports them on enemployment benefits but doesn't support them in getting off those benefits.
But supporting business does realistically create a climate where business can grow, create more jobs and get people off the dole.

nairbe wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 6:58am:

I made it through the 80's unemployment explosion, the Asian crisis, the GFC mark 1 and any other down turn in the last 30 years you can mention. I have never had a problem getting a job because i don't care what i do if i am unemployed. Easy answer get a job, move if you have to but stop crying that welfare is to low because that is simply crap. Welfare is a basics to tie you over to your next job, not a lifestyle choice that one can take.

Always the old 'Get a Job' mantra.

The dole is too low to SURVIVE on. No if or buts. It's TOO LOW.

If the jobs aren't there (and they're NOT), you still need to SURVIVE.

FOR AS LONG AS IT TAKES.

All this 'it's not a lifestyle choice' and 'the jobs are out there' crap
is just that. CRAP.

VERY FEW 'choose' to be unemployed, and the jobs are NOT 'out there for the taking'.

ACOSS and other welfare groups have been supporting this increase since before the
GFC, since when the cost of living has skyrocketed, and the ONLY ones to get NO RELIEF
are the unemployed.

THOSE WHO DENY THE U/E AN INCREASE HAVE NO smacking IDEA.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 7:08am:

I am sorry to say that in this case, Swan is correct. Pouring more taxpayer dollars into the endless black hole that  unemployment benefits represents does nothing to getting people off those benefits. It merely supports them on enemployment benefits but doesn't support them in getting off those benefits. But supporting business does realistically create a climate where business can grow, create more jobs and get people off the dole.

Unemployment benefits are no-where NEAR adequate to support ANYONE.

Why is it so hard for some of you to even acknowledge that FACT?

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 7:08am:

I am sorry to say that in this case, Swan is correct. Pouring more taxpayer dollars into the endless black hole that  unemployment benefits represents does nothing to getting people off those benefits. It merely supports them on enemployment benefits but doesn't support them in getting off those benefits. But supporting business does realistically create a climate where business can grow, create more jobs and get people off the dole.

Speaking of Black holes, how much tax dollars have been wasted in Afghanistan by Liberals and Labor?


Imagine how much better the economy would be if these billions had been directed to welfare recipients and had been spent in Australia on food and other basics.

Imagine all the jobs this would of created ... In Australia !!!

Unemployment can happen to anyone any time, both young or old.  Those that are working today, could be the ones the are unemployed tomorrow.  Yes the dole is far to low, and there should be an immediate increase in benefits.  I am not saying make it easy for the unemployed, but we have to be fair about it.  A fair increase in benefits is long, long overdue.   :(      

nairbe wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 6:58am:

I made it through the 80's unemployment explosion, the Asian crisis, the GFC mark 1 and any other down turn in the last 30 years you can mention. I have never had a problem getting a job because i don't care what i do if i am unemployed. Easy answer get a job, move if you have to but stop crying that welfare is to low because that is simply crap. Welfare is a basics to tie you over to your next job, not a lifestyle choice that one can take.

Yes the dole would, if it kept the unemployed and their families above the poverty line.

All the dole is is punishment for the unemployed. Punishment because management and government got it wrong and the workers are the ones that take the blame.

The problem is, Woody, that facts are wasted on this mob.

May as well piss up-wind.

Kat wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 7:24am:

The problem is, Woody, that facts are wasted on this mob. May as well piss up-wind.

These same people rejected lifting pensioners out of poverty ... yet by making their opposition public, Liberals then Labor anti pensioners backflipped.

The same thing will happen with this, as more workers realise their job is not that safe.

id be fine with cutting all the job agencies funding 100% and then using that extra money to raise the dole

____ wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 7:29am:

Kat wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 7:24am: The problem is, Woody, that facts are wasted on this mob. May as well piss up-wind. These same people rejected lifting pensioners out of poverty ... yet by making their opposition public, Liberals then Labor anti pensioners backflipped. The same thing will happen with this, as more workers realise their job is not that safe.

Your right green.
Jobs are not safe under Labor.

In ANY functioning economy, there NEEDS to be a pool of
unemployed workers available to fill the void when people
die, retire, emigrate, are injured, change jobs etc.

Something like the interchange bench in a game of football.


NOW.....


Doesn't it make sense to treat those 'reserves' relatively
well, and keep them healthy and happy?

Or does it make more sense to vilify, denigrate, abuse
and discriminate against them, and deny them enough
funds to live with a bit of dignity, as we do here?



I know which makes more sense to me.



**Just as an aside: - In over 35 years in (and out of) the
work-force, I've only ever met ONE PERSON who fits the
stereotypical 'dole-bludger' pattern. ONE! They are
virtually non-existent, a myth created by Howard as a
weapon against Whitlam (funny how unemployment then
skyrocketed under Fraser/Howard, wasn't it?), and
perpetuated during his time as PM.**

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 7:44am:

____ wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 7:29am: Kat wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 7:24am: The problem is, Woody, that facts are wasted on this mob. May as well piss up-wind. These same people rejected lifting pensioners out of poverty ... yet by making their opposition public, Liberals then Labor anti pensioners backflipped. The same thing will happen with this, as more workers realise their job is not that safe. Your right green. Jobs are not safe under Labor.

or Neo Con Liberals


Cutting public servants, cutting investment into energy efficiencies, cutting cutting cutting ... All Abbott wants to do is increase unemployment.

____ wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 8:03am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 7:44am: ____ wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 7:29am: Kat wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 7:24am: The problem is, Woody, that facts are wasted on this mob. May as well piss up-wind. These same people rejected lifting pensioners out of poverty ... yet by making their opposition public, Liberals then Labor anti pensioners backflipped. The same thing will happen with this, as more workers realise their job is not that safe. Your right green. Jobs are not safe under Labor. or Neo Con Liberals Cutting public servants, cutting investment into energy efficiencies, cutting cutting cutting ... All Abbott wants to do is increase unemployment.

Increasing unemployment will also happen when Labor's air tax drives business overseas you know.
And given that Labor has the nation back in hock, it will once again be up to the Coalition to pay off the debt.
As for Labor's promise to pay the debt by 2012/2013, I'll beleive it when it happens.

nairbe wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 6:58am:

I made it through the 80's unemployment explosion, the Asian crisis, the GFC mark 1 and any other down turn in the last 30 years you can mention. I have never had a problem getting a job because i don't care what i do if i am unemployed. Easy answer get a job, move if you have to but stop crying that welfare is to low because that is simply crap. Welfare is a basics to tie you over to your next job, not a lifestyle choice that one can take.

exactly. and well done to you neither me nor my late husband ever wanted for a job or used any form of welfare during our working lives..what is today  some think they are owed..[reminds me of the mindset in England] a single pensioner only got $30 a week.. and in getting that about $20 a week in other bonus was taken away..

if getting a job is impossible why not get an education..I bet there is something  extra for them if they go to TAFE or whats wrong with apprenticeship..all sorts of things out there..that leads to a working life...

I am sure there are some who have the misfortune to fall through the crackes..but $50 a week sheeeeeeeeeeeeez...I wouldnt get out of bed for that either..

and dont forget it makes it harder for those that are not earning much more than the dole.

in tough times I might have some sympathy .. but wayne swan talks about 1.6.million jobs out there...???????????????????????????????????????

gillard talks about they are all about saving and creating JOBs..

they are out there.. the govt tells me so.

Kat wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 7:14am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 7:08am: I am sorry to say that in this case, Swan is correct. Pouring more taxpayer dollars into the endless black hole that  unemployment benefits represents does nothing to getting people off those benefits. It merely supports them on enemployment benefits but doesn't support them in getting off those benefits. But supporting business does realistically create a climate where business can grow, create more jobs and get people off the dole. Unemployment benefits are no-where NEAR adequate to support ANYONE. Why is it so hard for some of you to even acknowledge that FACT?

nobody is suggesting otherwise. but at the same time, it isnt meant to be an alternative to working. If it were then why woudl anyone work? I understand you are unemplyed. I was too for almost 2 years. It sucks. And i couldnt get the dole AT ALL.

But you cant simply raise one welfare payment and not others and before long, the cost has blown out to unsupportable levels.

This will be fun. Financial dumb and dumber having it out in public.

Also, some kind of scheme where those unemployed with no skills, or those whose
skills have become out-dated (a far bigger problem than either side of politics will
acknowledge) can get some DECENT training or re-training is a MUST.

We CANNOT bleat about skills-shortages and bring in foreign workers while refusing
to train our own unemployed, who are perfectly capable and wiling to do the work,
but can't get the training.

We NEED, and should DEMAND a scheme such as the one Keating had going, in which
an u/e person was given a (subsidised) job for six months, full-time, with a pay-rate
approx halfway between the dole and the relevant award for the job. These were REAL
jobs, not make-work schemes.

These jobs included approx one month of TRAINING in that particular job. This
training was RECOGNISED training, with RECOGNISED certificates/tickets at the
end, not worthless paper as so many Govt training schemes are.

The main reasons that WfD is such an abject failure are the same reasons Keating's
scheme was successful ie The unemployed got a FAIR WAGE for participating, they
got DECENT TRAINING, and there was a better-than-even chance that a job would
eventuate on completion.


WfD provides NONE of this.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 8:15am:

Kat wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 7:14am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 7:08am: I am sorry to say that in this case, Swan is correct. Pouring more taxpayer dollars into the endless black hole that  unemployment benefits represents does nothing to getting people off those benefits. It merely supports them on enemployment benefits but doesn't support them in getting off those benefits. But supporting business does realistically create a climate where business can grow, create more jobs and get people off the dole. Unemployment benefits are no-where NEAR adequate to support ANYONE. Why is it so hard for some of you to even acknowledge that FACT? nobody is suggesting otherwise. but at the same time, it isnt meant to be an alternative to working. If it were then why woudl anyone work? I understand you are unemplyed. I was too for almost 2 years. It sucks. And i couldnt get the dole AT ALL. But you cant simply raise one welfare payment and not others and before long, the cost has blown out to unsupportable levels.

Point #1....No, I have work, not f/t, but it's a job, and I pay tax
on it. I also do vol. work. I have been u/e, tho.

Point #2....But the Govt did EXACTLY THAT when they
gave the pensioners an increase, but not the unemployed.

Kat wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 8:24am:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 8:15am: Kat wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 7:14am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 7:08am: I am sorry to say that in this case, Swan is correct. Pouring more taxpayer dollars into the endless black hole that  unemployment benefits represents does nothing to getting people off those benefits. It merely supports them on enemployment benefits but doesn't support them in getting off those benefits. But supporting business does realistically create a climate where business can grow, create more jobs and get people off the dole. Unemployment benefits are no-where NEAR adequate to support ANYONE. Why is it so hard for some of you to even acknowledge that FACT? nobody is suggesting otherwise. but at the same time, it isnt meant to be an alternative to working. If it were then why woudl anyone work? I understand you are unemplyed. I was too for almost 2 years. It sucks. And i couldnt get the dole AT ALL. But you cant simply raise one welfare payment and not others and before long, the cost has blown out to unsupportable levels. Point #1....No, I have work, not f/t, but it's a job, and I pay tax on it. I also do vol. work. I have been u/e, tho. Point #2....But the Govt did EXACTLY THAT when they gave the pensioners an increase, but not the unemployed.

and why did that happen? TO APPEASE the Greens. pure politics.

Given we couldn't afford to re-build Queensland without taxing middle income families, I fail to see how we can afford to dish out more money to losers.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 6:55am:

Unemployment benefits need to be lifted by at least $50 a week unless our government want rioters on their hands. It's only a matter of time, you can't suppress people forever and get away with it.

Suppress?  Well, maybe this is a far-out concept for some, but they could always get a smacking job.

Raise the dole by $50 a week.  That's fine by me - but introduce a time limit that they can access the dole for.  If I've got to work, so can they.  I don't owe anyone a living.

... wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 11:32am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 6:55am: Unemployment benefits need to be lifted by at least $50 a week unless our government want rioters on their hands. It's only a matter of time, you can't suppress people forever and get away with it. Suppress?  Well, maybe this is a far-out concept for some, but they could always get a smacking job. Raise the dole by $50 a week.  That's fine by me - but introduce a time limit that they can access the dole for.  If I've got to work, so can they.  I don't owe anyone a living.

Oh FFS, Wes, you are not so stupid as to be unable to extrapolate as to the likely outcome of depriving already marginalised and impoverished people of the cash needed to purchase essential goods, services and shelter (and the occasional treat) in a money-driven market economy!?

How long do you think you would go without $$$ - and therefore food and safe shelter - before you would start robbing those around you who have money and/or readily-liquidated goods!?

Surely, you must know that: what you propose is a recipe for an escalation in petty theft and increasingly-violent crimes by increasingly-desperate and disenfranchised street urchins - and a rapid deterioration in the personal safety, security and living standards of everyone in our society-cum-economy!?

Is it not obvious, that regular payments to individuals, of above-subsistence-level welfare benefits, are somewhat of an insurance against anarchy for everyone!?

What they need to do is crack down on all the lazy, unkempt, the drug users and welfare mums and kick their lazy arses off the couch and into the real world. Most of ‘em would be too lazy to riot anyway, come on out of bed let's riot!! PMSL

Especially all those gender ambiguous Goth looking freaks.

Then give 50 bucks to genuine job seekers.

FriYAY wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 11:45am:

What they need to do is crack down on all the lazy, unkempt, the drug users and welfare mums and kick their lazy arses off the couch and into the real world. Most of ‘em would be too lazy to riot anyway, come on out of bed let's riot!! PMSL Especially all those gender ambiguous Goth looking freaks. Then give 50 bucks to genuine job seekers.

Oh FFS! For such educated people, how is it that you still have NFI about human socio-economic relations!?

Equitist wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 11:45am:

... wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 11:32am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 6:55am: Unemployment benefits need to be lifted by at least $50 a week unless our government want rioters on their hands. It's only a matter of time, you can't suppress people forever and get away with it. Suppress?  Well, maybe this is a far-out concept for some, but they could always get a smacking job. Raise the dole by $50 a week.  That's fine by me - but introduce a time limit that they can access the dole for.  If I've got to work, so can they.  I don't owe anyone a living. Oh FFS, Wes, you are not so stupid as to be unable to extrapolate as to the likely outcome of depriving already marginalised and impoverished people of the cash needed to purchase essential goods, services and shelter (and the occasional treat) in a money-driven market economy!? How long do you think you would go without $$$ - and therefore food and safe shelter - before you would start robbing those around you who have money and/or readily-liquidated goods!? Surely, you must know that: what you propose is a recipe for an escalation in petty theft and increasingly-violent crimes by increasingly-desperate and disenfranchised street urchins - and a rapid deterioration in the personal safety, security and living standards of everyone in our society-cum-economy!? Is it not obvious, that regular payments to individuals, of above-subsistence-level welfare benefits, are somewhat of an insurance against anarchy for everyone!?

I am FOR the idea to raise the dole by $50 a week.

But lets not pretend theres not a significant element who are just taking the piss - rocking up to centrelink week after week, year after year claiming they have looked for 10 jobs every fortnight, but somehow, can't land even one of them.  When do you tell these wastrels that enough is enough?

Raise the dole by $50 a week.  That's fine by me - but introduce a time limit that they can access the dole for.  If I've got to work, so can they.  I don't owe anyone a living.     Absolutely not, you cant introduce a time limit.  Hands up all those that are unemployed, that know how long they will be out of work.   :(    

Equitist wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 11:49am:

FriYAY wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 11:45am: What they need to do is crack down on all the lazy, unkempt, the drug users and welfare mums and kick their lazy arses off the couch and into the real world. Most of ‘em would be too lazy to riot anyway, come on out of bed let's riot!! PMSL Especially all those gender ambiguous Goth looking freaks. Then give 50 bucks to genuine job seekers. how is it that you still have NFI about human socio-economic relations!?

we all know somebody who uses the expression "human socio-economic relations" doesnt either

wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 11:51am:

Raise the dole by $50 a week.  That's fine by me - but introduce a time limit that they can access the dole for.  If I've got to work, so can they.  I don't owe anyone a living.     Absolutely not, you cant introduce a time limit.  Hands up all those that are unemployed, that know how long they will be out of work.   :(

Theres no certainty on an exact figure, but lets face it - if you haven't found a job after a year, you haven't been looking.  

barnaby joe wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 11:52am:

Equitist wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 11:49am: FriYAY wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 11:45am: What they need to do is crack down on all the lazy, unkempt, the drug users and welfare mums and kick their lazy arses off the couch and into the real world. Most of ‘em would be too lazy to riot anyway, come on out of bed let's riot!! PMSL Especially all those gender ambiguous Goth looking freaks. Then give 50 bucks to genuine job seekers. how is it that you still have NFI about human socio-economic relations!? we all know somebody who uses the expression "human socio-economic relations" doesnt either

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Oh FFS, who gives a fat rats clacker.

Weed out the undeserving. May be some national service for the laziest and most stupidly dressed?

And a sticnk meter, yeah, a stink meter, um sorry you smell, no free money for you today, bye-bye.

smellovision

Of course I understand that people with no means of support will go to drsatic measures to survive.

But this has got to be balanced by resposibilities - the individual has the repsonsibility to actually put in a bit of effort to survive on their own.

Cooperation is a 2 way street - I'm happy to chip in to help in times of need, but patience and resources are finite.  You cannot go on draining them indefinitely, while providing absolutely nothing in return.

... wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 11:32am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 6:55am: Unemployment benefits need to be lifted by at least $50 a week unless our government want rioters on their hands. It's only a matter of time, you can't suppress people forever and get away with it. Suppress?  Well, maybe this is a far-out concept for some, but they could always get a smacking job. Raise the dole by $50 a week.  That's fine by me - but introduce a time limit that they can access the dole for.  If I've got to work, so can they.  I don't owe anyone a living.

I agree with you on the point, the world does not anyone a free living, but if there are statistically 6% of people unemployed, there will not be a job out there for everyone, that is simple fact.
If the jobs are there and not being filled by lack of skill of the workers, the government should put more emphasis on training people instead of simply poaching skilled workers from other countries.
Years ago when I was a shift worker, having a regular job, I used to look in the papers for jobs advertised and go and look how many people applied, and I found that there were often some 25 people applying for one unskilled job, and that on a cold morning when the temperature was close to zero degrees.
So don't try to blame every unemployed for lack of interest in a job; sure some people are more motivated than others, but we are all different, and in race there can only be one winner and someone will finish last.

Theres no certainty on an exact figure, but lets face it - if you haven't found a job after a year, you haven't been looking.   Well I am afraid to say that is simply not so.  People that are out of work for one year or more are classed as long term unemployed.   (And there are many of them )   There are many rules and checks on the unemployed, and yes they do look for work.  They have to in order to be able to continue getting their benefits.    ;)

FriYAY wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 11:55am:

Oh FFS, who gives a fat rats clacker. Weed out the undeserving. May be some national service for the laziest and most stupidly dressed? And a sticnk meter, yeah, a stink meter, um sorry you smell, no free money for you today, bye-bye.

Onya Rosco!

Simple solutions from simple minds: give the lazy and disenfranchised some guns!  Better still, lock them away for a while and teach them how to load and fire those guns - and then let them loose...under surveillance and threat of losing access the freaking Dole...again...on a rigid timeframe...

"Who's the 'loser' now!? Bye bye..."

Equitist wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 12:12pm:

FriYAY wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 11:55am: Oh FFS, who gives a fat rats clacker. Weed out the undeserving. May be some national service for the laziest and most stupidly dressed? And a sticnk meter, yeah, a stink meter, um sorry you smell, no free money for you today, bye-bye. Onya Rosco! Simple solutions from simple minds: give the lazy and disenfranchised some guns!  Better still, lock them away for a while and teach them how to load and fire those guns - and then let them loose...under surveillance and threat of losing access the freaking Dole...again...on a rigid timeframe... "Who's the 'loser' now!? Bye bye..."

D'oh....

Cause national service gives people guns d'oh.

Thanks for your input Homer.

Perhaps they could have shower stalls and a barber at the dole office. Clean some of the lazy scum bags up.

wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 12:08pm:

Theres no certainty on an exact figure, but lets face it - if you haven't found a job after a year, you haven't been looking.   Well I am afraid to say that is simply not so.  People that are out of work for one year or more are classed as long term unemployed.   (And there are many of them )   There are many rules and checks on the unemployed, and yes they do look for work.  They have to in order to be able to continue getting their benefits.    ;)

No, they have to SAY they've looked for work.  This usually takes the form of looking through the phone book and writing random business names in their book - soemtimes actually done in the centrelink office!  I've seen it wiv me own 2 eyes...

And the big fatties too.

10 minutes on the tread mill and fresh fruit and vegetable stamps for you porky.

... wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 12:26pm:

wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 12:08pm: Theres no certainty on an exact figure, but lets face it - if you haven't found a job after a year, you haven't been looking.   Well I am afraid to say that is simply not so.  People that are out of work for one year or more are classed as long term unemployed.   (And there are many of them )   There are many rules and checks on the unemployed, and yes they do look for work.  They have to in order to be able to continue getting their benefits.    ;) No, they have to SAY they've looked for work.  This usually takes the form of looking through the phone book and writing random business names in their book - soemtimes actually done in the centrelink office!  I've seen it wiv me own 2 eyes...

Hmmnnn...imagine being an employer of predominantly-low-skilled workers running a business in a high unemployment area - and being harassed on a daily basis throughout the year, by literally thousands of vulnerable, disadvantaged and/or otherwise 'unemployable' and dejected people, who are forced to make/document serial inquiries about non-existent work opportunities and rejections!?

A single parent friend of mine worked as a casual for PixiFoto for well over 5 years (plus various other jobs on-call over that time) - until she was recently laid-off when her store was closed...

When she first started at Pixi, a job vacancy Ad would yield about 20 genuine and at least partly-suitable applicants - a few of whose resumes would warrant an interview - and most of them receiving an actual response of some kind from the prospective employer...

Once the Howard Govt introduced Welfare to Slavery, a single job vacancy Ad would yield about 200 inquiries/applications - including a file-box full of written applications mostly from desperate mothers of young children - and sometimes with none of the applications warranting a phone call much less an actual interview...and the highly-pressured, poorly-paid and inexperienced ridiculously-young managers often neglecting to respond to any of the applicants (and resenting associated ongoing harassment from Control-link chasing up whether the single mums had actually applied)...

Such a stupid wasteful, inefficient and counter-productive system designed by stupid pollies and bureaucrats - to benefit poorly-goaled privatised Job Network Parasites at the expense of everyone else!

There seems to be a few here that have first hand knowledge of 'inside the dole office'   lol

I claimed unemployment benefit when I was 19 in the 6 months between going to university and leaving school.

My parents told me to do so, they had paid a king's ransom into the country for near on 30 years so we had definitely paid for the right for me to get it.

I don't have an issue with people claiming benefits, what I do have an issue with is people thinking they should get more and more for doing nothing and that taxpayers should fund it.

We can't afford it.
The country is in debt.
The country had to bring in a levy to pay for Queensland.

How can we afford to give more dole money without affecting taxes for people who work?
It can't be done!!!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 12:55pm:

I claimed unemployment benefit when I was 19 in the 6 months between going to university and leaving school. My parents told me to do so, they had paid a king's ransom into the country for near on 30 years so we had definitely paid for the right for me to get it. I don't have an issue with people claiming benefits, what I do have an issue with is people thinking they should get more and more for doing nothing and that taxpayers should fund it. We can't afford it. The country is in debt. The country had to bring in a levy to pay for Queensland. How can we afford to give more dole money without affecting taxes for people who work? It can't be done!!!

We can afford and the O.P states how.

Now as far as the economy, it is not just money, it is the social structure of our society that is at risk by forcing the growing number of unemployed into poverty.
The families of the unemployed also suffer from poverty ... this includes children. Yes neo con Liberals are happy to lock up children behind barb wire, Labor are happy to political profit from trading children. Yet the majority of Australians are not so black hearted.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 12:51pm:

There seems to be a few here that have first hand knowledge of 'inside the dole office'   lol

Yep, because I used to get austudy - Do your excuses only apply for those who DON'T try to better themselves?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/its-so-hard-to-get-good-help-these-days/story-e6frg71o-1226036872820


Quote:

It's so hard to get good help these days    THE WRY SIDE Stephen Matchett    From: The Australian    April 11, 2011 12:00AM A BUSINESS lobby was complaining (surprise!) the other day about what dills we are, saying millions of Australians are all but unemployable, what with many of us being illiterate and innumerate to the extent that we can't work out how many beans make five. This (another surprise) makes us too expensive to employ, given we lack basic business skills, which seem to include everything from algebra to brain surgery. This set off all the critics who like nothing better than complaining that we do not deserve our prosperity and what will we do when the mining boom ends. But before this rending of bespoke suits and gnashing of capped teeth got out of hand we learned we are not alone in being idiots. The day after, The Wall Street Journal ran the same story. Except it was about India, where headhunters complain about graduates' poor skill-sets. (I often wonder why recruiters are called headhunters, when using the name for the former is such an insult to the latter. But I digress.)    Entitlements needn't be bad for business The Australian, 26 Jul 2011    More students turn to tutors for help Adelaide Now, 18 Jul 2011    High school mathematics number crunch The Daily Telegraph, 4 Jul 2011    Indians may fill skills shortage gap Adelaide Now, 4 May 2011    Job future looks rosy for new graduates The Australian, 15 Apr 2011 The complaints were much the same as we hear at home. The Indian Association of Aggrieved Employers, or something like that, is angry they cannot get qualified people to work in call centres (What do you need to know? Hanging up when somebody wants to complain isn't that hard.) They also allege graduates do not have a clue in a bucket when it comes to doing the maths on how many clues the average bucket holds. This cheered up the WSJ no end. When Americans are not worrying about foreigners taking over -- "dang Canadians!" -- they fret about their jobs being exported to India. But it appears Indians are as ill-educated as the Yanks, or us for that matter. In fact the Indians are worried their businesses will start exporting jobs to, yes, the US. This proves three things (assuming this is the number that comes after two; I was never any good at maths). First, employers are like spouses, they focus on faults, always yearning for the perfect employee. Second, they think the only thing standing between them and record profits is the workforce. And, finally, if managers were so upset about their employees they would move the business. But generally they don't. Who wants to live in Bangalore, or Baltimore?

I do think staying on the dole is far to easy, I know of a few examples where there is plenty of work in some regional towns yet unemployment levels are high and employers have to bring in overseas workers.
I cant say everyone on the dole are bludgers but there are quite a few people out there who would rather be on the dole than work.
I also think that people should be willing to travel anywhere in Australia to work, people who will only work within easy reach of their home should not be getting govt benefits.

Quote:

yet unemployment levels are high and employers have to bring in overseas workers.

i'd say that's likely employers lying about the situation so they can bring in overseas workers regardless

... wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 1:07pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 12:51pm: There seems to be a few here that have first hand knowledge of 'inside the dole office'   lol Yep, because I used to get austudy - Do your excuses only apply for those who DON'T try to better themselves?

I remember going into the DHSS all those years ago.

bugger me dead there were some outright losers of society in there.

Real scum people.

barnaby joe wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 1:41pm:

Quote: yet unemployment levels are high and employers have to bring in overseas workers. i'd say that's likely employers lying about the situation so they can bring in overseas workers regardless

In these cases I dont agree..I have first hand experience with the employers in these towns and in every case they would prefer locals to the added expense of bringing non english speakers out on 6 mth visas.

I love how these dingbats use neo con as some sort of excuse for leftard derision.  

Neo (young) con (conservative)

Yep I’m a young conservative.

PMSL

____ wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 7:23am:

All the dole is is punishment for the unemployed. [/color][/font][/size]

The green assclowns want to piss away our money like a bunch of drunken sailors on these bludgers.

Being unemployed is usually a temporary condition the dole was never meant to be a lifestyle choice.

Pensioners are usually old frail or disabled who i dont expect to work again they should never be put in the same group as dole bludgers who can work.

If those on the dole want more money they could get a job why breed a handout mentality.

A quote from JFK

Quote:

Ask not what your country can do for you-ask what can you do for your country

Dopey leftards are happy breeding a handout mentality!

FriYAY wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 2:27pm:

I love how these dingbats use neo con as some sort of excuse for leftard derision.   Neo (young) con (conservative) Yep I’m a young conservative. PMSL

yeah but neocon means something different from just a conservative who is of a young age

barnaby joe wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 3:06pm:

FriYAY wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 2:27pm: I love how these dingbats use neo con as some sort of excuse for leftard derision.   Neo (young) con (conservative) Yep I’m a young conservative. PMSL yeah but neocon means something different from just a conservative who is of a young age

It can mean anything you want i guess.

I recon it means "Rosco is a legend"


Now back to the dole my next move would be..

I'm sorry, what language was that!!? You're not trying, no free money for you.

Kat wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 7:11am:

Always the old 'Get a Job' mantra. The dole is too low to SURVIVE on. No if or buts. It's TOO LOW. If the jobs aren't there (and they're NOT), you still need to SURVIVE.

The good news for those without a job is:


Quote:

Budget to forecast 500,000 new jobs By AAP My Small Business The Australian economy will create another 500,000 new jobs during the next two years, Treasurer Wayne Swan says. AAP Published: 03 May 2011 http://content.mycareer.com.au/advice-research/search/federal-budget.aspx

I have asked Mr Swan's office to get in touch with you.

Neo means..new, modified, recent, revived..its does not mean young

My wife just started working again this week after more than a year off to have a baby.

Was looking for maybe 2 weeks.  Bang! 2 job offers - she takes the 1 she preferred.

It's not that smacking hard.  I repeat - if you can't find a job after a year, it's because you haven't been looking, and maybe the threat of having no dole might motivate you.

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 3:21pm:

Neo means..new, modified, recent, revived..its does not mean young

Yep,and con means to deceive.
Neo con, the new deceivers.

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 3:21pm:

Neo means..new, modified, recent, revived..its does not mean young

And a NEWborn baby would be......old or young?

young has a very different meaning
new conservative/ young conservative, modified conservative/ young conservative, recent conservative/ young conservative, revived conservative/young conservative.
Young does not fit in at all with those definitions and has a very different meaning when used with the word conservative

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 3:21pm:

Neo means..new, modified, recent, revived..its does not mean young

LOL fail

Neo is a prefix from the ancient Greek word for young "neos" (νέος) which derived from the Proto-Indo European word for new "néwos".

A neo conservative and a young conservative are not the same.
I am over 50 so I can be a Neo Conservative but Im 30 yrs to late to be a Young Conservative  :)

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 3:40pm:

A neo conservative and a young conservative are not the same. I am over 50 so I can be a Neo Conservative but Im 30 yrs to late to be a Young Conservative  :)

Gotcha ;)

FriYAY wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 3:32pm:

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 3:21pm: Neo means..new, modified, recent, revived..its does not mean young LOL fail Neo is a prefix from the ancient Greek word for young "neos" (νέος) which derived from the Proto-Indo European word for new "néwos".

Actually..I am going on the modern 21st century meaning..read ya dictionary coz thats where I got it from  :D

AAaaanyhoo, semantics aside, 'neocon' is right up there with 'far/hard right' as the most incorrectly used words on the forum.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/neo

For an online version  :)

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 3:41pm:

FriYAY wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 3:32pm: adelcrow wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 3:21pm: Neo means..new, modified, recent, revived..its does not mean young LOL fail Neo is a prefix from the ancient Greek word for young "neos" (νέος) which derived from the Proto-Indo European word for new "néwos". Actually..I am going on the modern 21st century meaning..read ya dictionary coz thats where I got it from  :D

Ya, but that doesn't change its origin though.

And looking again the origin is from young (greek) and new.

... wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 3:42pm:

AAaaanyhoo, semantics aside, 'neocon' is right up there with 'far/hard right' as the most incorrectly used words on the forum.

yeah when you get wankers talking about how abbott and certain members of the liberal party are 'far/hard right' i just lol

far right is like julius smacking evola or francis parker yockey, not tony abbott

barnaby joe wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 3:45pm:

... wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 3:42pm: AAaaanyhoo, semantics aside, 'neocon' is right up there with 'far/hard right' as the most incorrectly used words on the forum. yeah when you get wankers talking about how abbott and certain members of the liberal party are 'far/hard right' i just lol far right is like julius smacking evola or francis parker yockey, not tony abbott

Any more than the GREENS or Labor a far left, in fact Labor aren't even left at all they're a right wing party by today's standards.

Along with Robb, Minchin and Heffernan, Abbott is part of the dry faction in the Liberal Party which puts him in the hard right category.

The modern Labor Party is hard right when compared to Robert Menzies and his origional Liberal Party

skippy. wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 3:52pm:

barnaby joe wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 3:45pm: ... wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 3:42pm: AAaaanyhoo, semantics aside, 'neocon' is right up there with 'far/hard right' as the most incorrectly used words on the forum. yeah when you get wankers talking about how abbott and certain members of the liberal party are 'far/hard right' i just lol far right is like julius smacking evola or francis parker yockey, not tony abbott Any more than the GREENS or Labor a far left, in fact Labor aren't even left at all they're a right wing party by today's standards.

yeah thats stupid too calling labor FAR LEFT is retarded though i guess the greens are more extreme to the left than the liberals are to the right

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 3:53pm:

The modern Labor Party is hard right when compared to Robert Menzies and his origional Liberal Party

Yep ,the modern Labor party is to the right of Menzies, if Menzies were around today, the rightards here would call him a commo.

john curtin would have been called a nazi by just about everybody on every side of australian politics if he was around today lol

so would winston churchhill in british politics its pretty funny

Menzies would never have allowed the Chinese to enter our parliament house. He would have stood by Bob Brown in denouncing the Communists.

barnaby joe wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 3:56pm:

john curtin would have been called a nazi by just about everybody on every side of australian politics if he was around today lol so would winston churchhill in british politics its pretty funny

Read Menzies diaries..its pretty much what he says about Churchill  :)

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 3:57pm:

Menzies would never have allowed the Chinese to enter our parliament house. He would have stood by Bob Brown in denouncing the Communists.

i dont know what he would have thought of letting the chinese into australia period buddy

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 3:53pm:

The modern Labor Party is hard right when compared to Robert Menzies and his origional Liberal Party

Firstly that is a ridiculous assertion and secondly RIGHT and LEFT are not relative descriptions. they are absolute ones.

There is NO excuse to not raise the 'dole'.

NONE WHATSOEVER.