# Wrong Focus On Unemployment



## Michael Cornips (11 May 2011)

The policy framework in relation to unemployment is that  both sides of the Government believe that those who are unemployed choose not to work. The economic framework we operate in is that a 4.9% unemployment rate is full employment. And when the unemployment rate starts to approach 4.5% the Government believes that there is too much demand in the economy. On this basis, the RBA will lift interest rates to create unemployment and reduce demand.

Look at the rhetoric in today's newspapers:

Australian Financial Review (afr.com May 10, 2011): Treasurer Wayne Swan is to force the long-term jobless to re-engage with employers or lose their benefits, as Labor braces for a fight over its budget deficits.

The Age newspaper: (theage.com.au May 10, 2011): Swan budget to offer carrot to long-term jobless: Michelle Grattan, "TONIGHT'S budget will crack down on the very long-term unemployed as part of its stick-and-carrot policies for getting people into work and working harder." "With participation a central theme of the budget, the government will also apply a ''stick'' to teenage mothers to try to keep them in education. It will give ''carrots'' in the form of more generous support for families with older teenagers who stay at school and bring forward tax relief for lower-income earners."

You will notice that Government policy is not to create jobs, but to prepare people for jobs. That is a massive difference in policy approach. And the media follows the political lead with stories like those above which vilify those who cannot get job.

It is based on the premise that the unemployed choose not to work and therefore need to be "encouraged" to take those jobs that are supposedly available. It is great if you are a skilled worker, but it is bad luck if you are unskilled.

The simple fact is that full time employment has shifted to part time employment over the past 24 years. Is this full employment?







You can see it in the aggregate hours worked figures. You may be employed, but it is not for the full week. Even though the headline rate has improved to 4.9%, the number of hours worked simply has not recovered from the slump of a few years ago. Household bills are paid by cashflow generated by the number of hours you work, not by the fact that you just have a job.






Tonight's budget will be based on a self imposed political constraint of trying to balance the budget by 2013. As Steve Keen says in the following article <click here>, the Government is filling "the airwaves with alarm about the level of government debt in Australia (which) is truly surreal". He makes the point that American government debt is 15 times larger than Australia's - relative to our respective GDPs.

Given Australia's relatively low debt position, is it really appropriate that the government throws an anchor out to slow the economy by reducing expenditure/increasing taxes to the tune of $55 Billion over the next few years. And who will help pay for the slowdown? Those on social welfare who are not taking jobs that are being offered to them. It is interesting to see the Labor Party are more conservative than the Conservatives, but that is the nature of politics today.

Michael Cornips

(source: rba.gov.au)


----------



## IFocus (11 May 2011)

You are starting to sound like a left wing greeny sprouting facts like those above the howling mob of ordinary Australians will be here soon ready for a lynching....................


----------



## Michael Cornips (12 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> You are starting to sound like a left wing greeny sprouting facts like those above the howling mob of ordinary Australians will be here soon ready for a lynching....................




Economic policy in Australia is that both sides of government believes that 600,000 unemployed and 3,300,000 part-time employed is full employment. This official policy is enshrined in a concept called NAIRU (Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment) (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAIRU). The Australian bureau of statistics publish this number. And because the economy is at full employment the RBA is mandated to increase interest rates as unemployment approaches 4.5%. I am suggesting this as economic fact not opinion. Your mortgage rate will rise under this policy just like it rose to nearly 9% in 2008.
And on the basis that the economy has full employment the consequence is that policies are introduced to encourage people back to work to take the jobs that are readily available. I just disagree.


----------



## wayneL (12 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> the howling mob of ordinary Australians will be here soon ready for a lynching....................




Hey you're onto something here IF.

Finally a demarcation that make more sense than the outdated left-right paradigm:

The howling mob of ordinary Australians and the conniving Fabian misanthropes.


----------



## tothemax6 (12 May 2011)

That's OK,
The government shouldn't be stealing money from some and giving it to others who don't work anyway. Theft is theft, regardless of the thug and to whom he disperses the loot.
Then we should get rid of the RBA, use real money, and have market interest rates.

If a country ever does this, I will be submitting visa application papers.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 May 2011)

A classic case of human misery inflicted so as to benefit a few.


----------



## cynic (13 May 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> That's OK,
> The government shouldn't be stealing money from some and giving it to others who don't work anyway. Theft is theft, regardless of the thug and to whom he disperses the loot.
> Then we should get rid of the RBA, use real money, and have market interest rates.
> 
> If a country ever does this, I will be submitting visa application papers.




I take it from your comment that you've never had the experience of being between jobs and trying to pay a mortgage whilst applying for "job after job" and getting nowhere.

I've been there, done that, and have the utmost sympathy for any genuinely unemployed person on welfare. 

I am also grateful to be living in a country that offers some assistance to support the genuinely needy. Whilst I understand that this generosity does have the downside of attacting some fraudulent claimants as well, I think it is important to remember that there is a significant populace of genuinely needy welfare recipients.

Whilst I am very grateful for the generosity of the Australian taxpayer, I could really do without the social stigma. 

In my years living in this great nation I have met many other genuine welfare recipients. At the same time the majority of employers appeared to have no end of applicants to consider for their advertised vacancies.

And if anyone still wants to call myself and others a "dole bludger" then ask yourself when was the last time you limped (without the aid of crutches) more than 4 kms to get to work because of a recently fractured foot. And also ask yourself when was the last time you paid for an airflight (out of your own pocket) to attend an interview with a company that had already privately decided it wasn't going to hire you anyway! 
These are just two of many unsavoury experiences I've had during my working age years in Australia. Fortunately I've been luck enough to have had some positive one's too! 

So to all you generous taxpayers, please also try to be generous in your opinions as well. Same goes to the employers-please don't tell me I have to go and live in India or the Phillipines to work for a call centre answering calls on behalf of Australian enterpries!?  

The amount of the newstart allowance these days is barely sufficient to support an extremely frugal lifestyle let alone an opulent one!

There simply aren't enough paid jobs for everyone in Australia who wants one, so someone is always going to miss out - be thankful that it isn't you.


----------



## tothemax6 (13 May 2011)

cynic said:


> I've been there, done that, and have the utmost sympathy for any genuinely unemployed person on welfare.
> 
> I am also grateful to be living in a country that offers some assistance to support the genuinely needy. Whilst I understand that this generosity does have the downside of attacting some fraudulent claimants as well, I think it is important to remember that there is a significant populace of genuinely needy welfare recipients.
> 
> Whilst I am very grateful for the generosity of the Australian taxpayer, I could really do without the social stigma.



My life is no less unpleasant than yours, I can assure you. I know what being dealt the short straw in life feels like.

Nonetheless, recognize that welfare is theft. If a man who was in a bad spot came to your house and stole your money to help himself out - its still an evil thing. It becomes even more evil when a mob takes your money and gives it to him - there is no way you can fight a mob. Welfare is not the same as charity. In charity, people give money to unfortunates out of sympathy. In welfare, money is stolen and distributed in exchange for votes and power, and the recipients look at the government as their savior - not those from whom the money was taken. It is terrible.


----------



## Wysiwyg (13 May 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> Nonetheless, recognize that welfare is theft. If a man who was in a bad spot came to your house and stole your money to help himself out - its still an evil thing. It becomes even more evil when a mob takes your money and gives it to him - there is no way you can fight a mob.



I wholly agree that there is theft of welfare but not theft by everyone on welfare. If there were no welfare then people would actually be breaking into homes for something to eat or sell for money. Modern man cannot survive without money so they would get it anyway they could. Without welfare, anarchy would exist. However, with work for welfare everyone would be better off I believe.


----------



## wayneL (13 May 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> I wholly agree that there is theft of welfare but not theft by everyone on welfare. If there were no welfare then people would actually be breaking into homes for something to eat or sell for money.




This point was brought up on the radio here. Interestingly, it was pointed out that there was less crime during the great depression when there was NO welfare.


----------



## Wysiwyg (13 May 2011)

wayneL said:


> This point was brought up on the radio here. Interestingly, it was pointed out that there was less crime during the great depression when there was NO welfare.



Well that may have been because everyone else was doing it hard too.  I think an imbalance between the haves and the have nothings would be the reason in better economic times.


----------



## Julia (13 May 2011)

cynic said:


> I take it from your comment that you've never had the experience of being between jobs and trying to pay a mortgage whilst applying for "job after job" and getting nowhere.
> 
> I've been there, done that, and have the utmost sympathy for any genuinely unemployed person on welfare.
> 
> ...



Cynic, I completely agree with you.  It's so easy for those of us who are financially comfortable, in secure employment, or pleasant retirement, to be critical of "the unemployed".

So many have been made redundant at an age when potential employers will pass them over with the euphemistic excuse that they are 'over qualified' (translation: you are too old:  we can pay someone younger much less).

I've worked in the welfare sector for some years and seen the immense hardship experienced by many genuine unemployed people who are doing their utmost to get back into work.  The sense of rejection by employers is further exacerbated by social commentary - such as even seen on this usually decent forum - that 'welfare is theft' and other utterly silly statements.

I hope things turn around for you soon.  In the meantime, disregard the ignorant remarks of people who should know better and keep trying, hard though it I know it is.




tothemax6 said:


> Nonetheless, recognize that welfare is theft. If a man who was in a bad spot came to your house and stole your money to help himself out - its still an evil thing. It becomes even more evil when a mob takes your money and gives it to him - there is no way you can fight a mob. Welfare is not the same as charity. In charity, people give money to unfortunates out of sympathy. In welfare, money is stolen and distributed in exchange for votes and power, and the recipients look at the government as their savior - not those from whom the money was taken. It is terrible.



Tothemax6, you often make some interesting and valid posts, but the above is imo utterly unreasonable.
Would you really like to be part of a society which made no allowance for caring for those who need help, temporary or permanent?
There are imo very few of us who manage to traverse this existence without needing help in some form at some stage.
When people are temporarily out of work I hope we'll always be able to offer them basic support.

I have no idea how anyone can survive on the unemployment benefit which isn't even enough to pay the most basic rent or even rates/insurance etc if owning one's own home.

Certainly there are people who rort the system.  There always will be.  That is the price we accept for having just a basic measure of human compassion.



Wysiwyg said:


> Well that may have been because everyone else was doing it hard too.  I think an imbalance between the haves and the have nothings would be the reason in better economic times.



Agree.   It's easier to accept hardship if we perceive everyone else is doing it tough also.
An interesting example of the increase in community support was during the last war when in Britain the suicide rate about halved.  This was attributed to communities pulling together and having a common purpose.


----------



## Aussiejeff (14 May 2011)

Julia said:


> I've worked in the welfare sector for some years and seen the immense hardship experienced by many genuine unemployed people who are doing their utmost to get back into work.  The sense of rejection by employers is further exacerbated by social commentary - such as even seen on this usually decent forum - that *'welfare is theft'* and other utterly silly statements.




Utterly silly statements indeed.

Pray tell all you cynics, where do you think all that welfare money "stolen" from the Gummint coffers ends up? Salted away under mattresses, never to see the light of day? Buried in holes in the ground, to be lost forever?

NO! ALL that "welfare" money is actually re-distributed (via payments for goods & services - yes welfare recipients DO actually spend too!) back into the LOCAL economy (not generally frittered away in foreign lands via investments or overseas travel as many non-welfare recipients are wont to do from time to time) and eventually ALL this cash returning into the greedy greasy palms of Big Brother Taxman.

That's right. Essentially, you can think of welfare recipients as providing a significant source of steady income for local goods & services providers. A "cash redistribution service" for the Gummint as it were! Take away that source of regular, steady income & many small/medium businesses might find life a bit too hard of a struggle. They themselves MIGHT have to put their hands out for a Gummint bailout - aka "welfare for the business class".

So no. I don't see "welfare payments" for those struggling to fit into this mad, crazy commercial oriented world as a bad thing.

It's all part of contributing to the Money-go-round......in a caring, sharing way.


----------



## Aussiejeff (14 May 2011)

wayneL said:


> This point was brought up on the radio here. Interestingly, it was pointed out that there was less crime during the great depression when there was NO welfare.




Interestingly to note, the rate of housebreaking, burglary & general theft was so low back in those days (even without the Depression) _compared to now_ that most people back then never bothered locking up their house windows or doors or bothered to secure their car (if they were lucky enough to afford one).

I might also have the temerity to suggest that folks back then (of my dear departed grandparents/parents generations) had a VERY different code of morals & ethics and that the youngsters in society _then_ were a fair bit more disciplined than todays unfettered youth. 

IMHO if all welfare payments ceased today, you would not have a pretty outcome! 

My 1c...


----------



## explod (14 May 2011)

Aussiejeff said:


> Interestingly
> My 1c...




And I must say' that is one of the best 1 cents (as well as the post previous) I have read on ASF for a long time.

Hear hear


----------



## wayneL (14 May 2011)

Aussiejeff said:


> Interestingly to note, the rate of housebreaking, burglary & general theft was so low back in those days (even without the Depression) _compared to now_ that most people back then never bothered locking up their house windows or doors or bothered to secure their car (if they were lucky enough to afford one).
> 
> I might also have the temerity to suggest that folks back then (of my dear departed grandparents/parents generations) had a VERY different code of morals & ethics and that the youngsters in society _then_ were a fair bit more disciplined than todays unfettered youth.
> 
> ...




Yes.

Begs the question - How did we get from there to here; and can we ever get back again.


----------



## tothemax6 (14 May 2011)

Julia said:


> I've worked in the welfare sector for some years and seen the immense hardship experienced by many genuine unemployed people who are doing their utmost to get back into work.  The sense of rejection by employers is further exacerbated by social commentary - such as even seen on this usually decent forum - that 'welfare is theft' and other utterly silly statements.
> 
> Tothemax6, you often make some interesting and valid posts, but the above is imo utterly unreasonable.
> Would you really like to be part of a society which made no allowance for caring for those who need help, temporary or permanent?
> ...



That's all very nice - welfare is still theft.
Charity is not. Call me naive, but it is more moral that people are helped out of the goodness of others hearts, not by taking their money whether they like it or not. Taking money from others by force is a source of conflict, a source of bitterness between those who are stolen from and those who receive the loot, and a violation of common law. It is also a source of demographic degeneration, and a source of economic distortion to the downside.
Charity is moral, and sufficient. 


Aussiejeff said:


> Utterly silly statements indeed.
> 
> Pray tell all you cynics, where do you think all that welfare money "stolen" from the Gummint coffers ends up? Salted away under mattresses, never to see the light of day? Buried in holes in the ground, to be lost forever?
> 
> ...



You obviously didn't think this post through.

"Mugging is a form of economic stimulus. It takes money from those who were hoarding it in their wallets, and injects the funds directly into our retail industry. This in turn stimulates all of the other sectors as retailers buy more goods from distributors, which in turn request larger orders from manufacturers etc. Naturally, it is harder for a mugger, who has a low income, to go over seas to spend this money - so no 'frittering' occurs. Frittering, the process by which people spend their hard earned money on things that they enjoy, is evil. Mugging is therefore, good, and people who are mugged should be happy that everyone else benefited except them."

So in conclusion:


----------



## Aussiejeff (14 May 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> That's all very nice - welfare is still theft.
> Charity is not. Call me naive, but it is more moral that people are helped out of the goodness of others hearts, not by taking their money whether they like it or not. Taking money from others by force is a source of conflict, a source of bitterness between those who are stolen from and those who receive the loot, and a violation of common law. It is also a source of demographic degeneration, and a source of economic distortion to the downside.
> Charity is moral, and sufficient.
> 
> ...




There is a moral story about this subject that has been doing the rounds for a few hundred years.

I'm sure you've heard of it. It's called "Robin Hood".

Anyway, Robin Hood is portrayed as a "good guy". He robbed from the corrupt King John & his filthy rich cronies to give back (redistribute) to the poor and downtrodden. Funny how that moral story has struck a chord with the majority of societies worldwide in general. 

Q. Do you perceive Robin Hood's activities as beneficial in any way?

If so, you have been hoist on your own petard...


----------



## Macquack (15 May 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> That's all very nice - welfare is still theft.
> Charity is not. Call me naive, but it is more moral that people are helped out of the goodness of others hearts, not by taking their money whether they like it or not. Taking money from others by force is a source of conflict, a source of bitterness between those who are stolen from and those who receive the loot, and a violation of common law. It is also a source of demographic degeneration, and a source of economic distortion to the downside.
> Charity is moral, *and sufficient*.




If you haven't noticed, a sizeable proportion of our society are very quick at taking up charity when it applies to them, BUT when the tables are turned these same people would not give you the steam off their piss. 

So I am quite happy that the Government forces these tight arses to pay their fair share (via taxation) into what in effect is a government run insurance scheme. 

The amount paid and extent of access to welfare is a different question, but to say "Welfare is theft" is totally unreasonable.


----------



## tothemax6 (15 May 2011)

Macquack said:


> So I am quite happy that the Government forces these tight arses to pay their fair share (via taxation) into what in effect is a government run insurance scheme.
> The amount paid and extent of access to welfare is a different question, but to say "Welfare is theft" is totally unreasonable.



So why don't you put the gun to their heads yourself? They don't have the right to choose what portion of their property they do or do not donate, after all.
'Reasonable' refers to 'reason', and I follow no other methodology. 


Aussiejeff said:


> There is a moral story about this subject that has been doing the rounds for a few hundred years.
> 
> I'm sure you've heard of it. It's called "Robin Hood".
> 
> ...



I consider Robin Hood a hero, for different reasons to you - perhaps because I haven't left a gap in his story as you have. 
How did King John obtain this wealth? Was it by industry and toil? No sir, King John was a thief - he squeezed ever last penny that he could out of those who actually worked. Sure, his device was The Sheriff, rather than the ATO. And what was Robin Hood's role? Retributive justice - not 'distributive justice' (the fancy leftist word for 'theft and fencing'). He returned the stolen property by the only means that it could be - _by force_.

Long live Robin Hood


----------



## Macquack (15 May 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> So why don't you put the gun to their heads yourself? They don't have the right to choose what portion of their property they do or do not donate, after all.
> *'Reasonable' refers to 'reason', and I follow no other methodology.*




Oh dear, we are an intellectual are we?

Using your logic, all taxation is theft.


----------



## tothemax6 (15 May 2011)

Macquack said:


> Oh dear, we are an intellectual are we?
> Using your logic, all taxation is theft.



Nope, welfare is clearly a theft component of tax, police are clearly a service component of tax.
Perhaps tax bills should be split up as such, rather than laundering the money with the single phrase 'tax'. Then people would see what is taken, and what is given in exchange.

The purpose of a government is to *uphold *law, and the purpose of tax is to pay for those services required to do this.


----------

