This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The Abbott Government

Jump to new
It's a couple of days since I highlighted there's 363 tax expenditures that could have been targeted to help with the budget. I knew we had a lot of holes in the tax system, but 363 just in tax expenditures is one of the reasons we have world beating levels of revenue loss.

Instead the argument seems to revolve (devolved) around biased fallacies (or is that phallicies considering the mainly male contributors)

For a stock / economically focussed website so often the discussion is anything but.

Surely there's plenty to discuss in terms of preferable ways for the Government to get the budget on a more balanced footing. Sayign the current budget attempt is unfair does not automatically make one against getting the budget balanced, though if you are against it then at least don't do a labor / PUP and provide some alternative measures rather than the Abbottesque NO NO NO.

Even taking out the tax free status of the primary residence still leaves plenty of tax expenditures fat that could be hacked into. Surely plugging some of the holes in the leaky tax sieve is as good, if not better option in a slowing economy, as to spending cuts to move the structure of the budget in a better direction.

I find it incomprehensible the same Govt who thought keeping a log book for 3 months was just tooo onerous believes 40 job applications a month is perfectly reasonable. Ideology does not make good policy.
 
I find it incomprehensible the same Govt who thought keeping a log book for 3 months was just tooo onerous believes 40 job applications a month is perfectly reasonable. Sydboy 007
Click to expand...

I disagree Sydboy on this one. I think this could be the core of a very, very good idea.

Let's imagine shall we, that say 10,000 job seekers take on board the idea of seriously writing to some of the largest employers groups looking for work.

Imagine if they put together a strong cover letter, an effective resume and a willingness to have a go at a variety of positions if offered an opportunity.

Imagine if they have access to the email addresses of the HR officers of these orgs, and perhaps a few CEO's as well. Each month they send these, say 200 companies, 400,000 emails with resumes touting their skills and willingness to be jump into the workplace - if they are given a chance. They could even suggest that the companies forward their letters to the PM.s office to show just how committed Australians were to being gainfully employed.

What do you think would be the effect of such an activity on the people, the companies and the government ?

Any thoughts ?
 

Hmm. Trying to decide if there's a level of sarcasm in there or if you're being for real.

Will take it at face value and say:

* The Government has already come out and said the jobs you apply for have to be a fit for your current skill set, so applying for a job and saying you're willing to learn may not pass muster with the dole police.

* I work in IT and have seen a massive down shift in the willingness of employers to help with training of staff. These days IT companies would much rather compete for the same pool of skilled workers than actually employ someone who's got a bit of talent and initiative and let them skill up on the job. The expectation these days is to work full time and then use your personal time to gain more skills, sit exams at your own expense.

Look to the resource companies and the way they let their skilled work forces atrophy then had the audacity to whinge when wages took off like a rocket.

Now if you're post was sarcastic, I'm all for it. Employer groups are already getting worried about being inundated with annoying applications. If the unemployed help to bring their nightmares into reality I'm sure the BCA and ACCI will be giving Abbott and Abetz plenty of encouragement to get rid of this stoopid idea.

I'd really hoped these though bubble policy decisions would be finished with Labor, but the Abbott Government seems to be bringing them out at least as fast as Rudd ever did.

Still waiting for the supposed adults to show themselves.
 
I've no doubt basilio's post was if not actually sarcastic, very much tongue in cheek.

The government has already conceded that the 40 applications per month was an overreach.
Sadly, just another example of them failing to think something through properly before making an announcement.
And, I suppose, an example of their collective lack of real life/business experience.
 
Julia said:
Sadly, just another example of them failing to think something through properly before making an announcement.
.
Click to expand...

Equally sad is their desire for punishment of their class enemy (I don't think that is too strong ), than actually trying to create jobs or find people work.

The main targets for these punitive measures should be young long term unemployed who show no desire to get jobs, and I think we all know that these people exist, although we don't know the proportion of unemployed that they make up.

People who have been in and out of jobs, or just entering or reentering the workforce should be given the benefit of the doubt and assisted with finding a job, by funding application costs such as transport, professional resume writers and employment agencies.

I agree with Julia that a lot more thought should be put into this problem. The "solutions" proposed by the Coalition is indicative of a lazy one size fits all sledgehammer approach to a complicated problem.
 


The companies SPAM boxes would get overloaded and the IT guys would be asked to fix it.
Therefore an increase in IT jobs would be one result.
 
SirRumpole said:
Equally sad is their desire for punishment of their class enemy (I don't think that is too strong ), than actually trying to create jobs or find people work.
Click to expand...
I really don't think that's the basis of their thinking, Rumpole. More just a lack of understanding of the reality of some people's lives, where - no matter how many training courses they dutifully do - they're just unlikely to get a job. Technology has removed many of the jobs people like that could do and did with pride. I do believe that at least most of the government is motivated by the strong belief, which most of us here would share, that a person with a job is going to have a greater sense of self belief, satisfaction at earning for themselves, making a contribution, being part of the mainstream etc than sitting around doing nothing useful.

The liberal philosophy is founded on the notion that governments should not do for anyone what they can do for themselves. I strongly support that, and expect you do too.

But they need to be realistic. There are many more unemployed than jobs available, and the unemployed know that. Yes, it's good to be pro-active in applying for as many jobs as possible, but I expect there's little that's more soul destroying than to have sent off hundreds of applications without receiving so much as an acknowledgement in return.

One of the problems, if I'm understanding the situation correctly, is that the employment agencies receive funding based on how many people are on their books. Wouldn't it be more sensible for them to be funded only for those people for whom they find a job?

The main targets for these punitive measures should be young long term unemployed who show no desire to get jobs, and I think we all know that these people exist, although we don't know the proportion of unemployed that they make up.
Click to expand...
I don't know either. Neither do I know the proportion of benefit recipients who spend it largely on booze and cigarettes. But from more than 12 years with a community agency assessing emergency relief applications, I'd say it is very small indeed.

So I'm appalled by Andrew Forrest's suggestion that all recipients of government benefits, except age pensioners and veterans, should be subjected to a cashless managed income, presumably with a card or vouchers that will restrict what they can buy.

This is effectively saying to people, we don't think you're responsible enough to appropriately work out your own budget, even when most of these folk will have been doing a great job of managing the paltry amount they receive over many years.
It would be to create a second class of citizen.

Yes, Andrew, it was necessary in some grossly dysfunctional aboriginal communities where all the money went on grog, but there is no indication that's the case in the broader community.

I hope the government will dismiss this insulting suggestion. That really would be class warfare.
 

It is probably better than a Green/Labor wrecking ball approach.
 
Thanks for the feedback on my proposal for jobseekers to take "seriously" the governments desire for the unemployed to make 40 job applications a month.

I accept it is a far out idea. In effect it is a response to the utter madness of the governments intention of forcing the unemployed to make ridiculous numbers of job applications for non existent jobs.

My proposal takes on board the challenge of the non existant jobs and invites job seekers to show just what they have to offer as employees and repeatedly invite the largest companies to actively consider them for new positions.

My thinking is that actually taking on board the governments BS proposal would certainly show up it's stupidity. But on another level I would like to think that if 10,000/ 50,000/ 100,00 jobseekers did put their best foot forward in a concerted effort to show they were ready, willing and capable of being employed then the current demonisation of the unemployed would be comprehensively challenged.
 
Technology has removed many of the jobs people like that could do and did with pride.
Click to expand...

Yes, and so has a reduced desire for customer contact by businesses.

Three of the big employment prospects for unskilled youth 20 years ago were petrol pump attendants, bank clerks and checkout staff. The first has been almost completely replaced by self service, and the last two are well on the way to that result via ATMs.

I don't think that the creeping casualisation of the work force through technological change and the desire by business for as little contact with the pesky customer as possible has fully made its mark on some of our politicians who seem to think that jobs are as easy to get as they always have been. I think it's just basic laziness and head in the sand attitude by politicians, plus the ivory tower syndrome as well.

The liberal philosophy is founded on the notion that governments should not do for anyone what they can do for themselves. I strongly support that, and expect you do too.
Click to expand...

Yes I do believe that up to a point.

The government has great resources which it can channel into the solving of problems. Individuals generally have few resources by comparison. Whilst it is beholden on the individual to do as much for him/herself as they can it is also beholden on the government to help future taxpayers to attain that status for the benefit of both. Those individuals who do not make an effort can't expect continual help from the rest of us. Those that do try can and should be helped to remove themselves from the role of a burden to that of a contributor.
 
SirRumpole said:
Care to explain that comment ?
Click to expand...

Rumpy, you stated the Coalition Government were using "sledge hammer" approach on one to fit all, meaning they are determined to cut down on welfare cheats.....however, no matter what governments try to do to reduce unemployment, there will always people who will be unemployable.....people who do not have the intelligence to do some of the most simple things.......I once had a paper products factory......I showed a young employee 23 times how to tie up a bundle of newspaper...he still could not do it after the 23 rd time.......I gave up in the end......the end result was he finished up on the unemployment scarp heap.

The Green/Labor wrecking ball approach to our economy resulted in higher unemployment, a large deficit, a huge debt, thousands of businesses going to the wall with so much red tape, a reduction in business confidence, mining ventures put on hold and the wrecking of the live cattle trade with Indonesia.

Now that's what I call a wrecking ball!
 

If the first statement is true (I don't know but I'll take your word for it), then there seems to be an incentive for an agency to have full books and not find people jobs. In which case , your second statement makes perfect sense.
 

Problem with this is agencies will screen potential applicants and those with little to no qualifications, or extended periods of unemployment would basically get excluded from assistance. Why help someone with a low chance of gaining employment if you only get paid on successful outcomes?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...rational-harmful-bias-against-the-unemployed/

It’s maddening to see such imaginary fears become real barriers to solving our employment crisis. A field study by Northeastern University economics Ph.D. candidate Rand Ghayad and another led by Kory Kroft at University of Toronto sent out fake resumes to employers. The studies found strong evidence that employers’ willingness to consider applicants dropped like a stone after the candidates had been unemployed for six months. The companies actually preferred candidates with no relevant experience to those with a background in the field but who’d been out of work for a stretch.

I'm not sure how we overcome this issue. It's probably similar to other prejudices like against older workers, and sometimes young workers too.

I do feel there is a sense in society that if you're long term unemployed it's because you want to be, or you're just not putting enough effort into finding a job, and that's what the Government was trying to tap into. I'm glad that so far it looks likely to have failed. Possibly the increased job insecurity has played a part to this.

The best solution would be to focus on improving the tradeables sector, especially manufacturing to create jobs, but I fear the hollowing out that the RBA has allowed to occur with their high dollar policy will make future employment prospects quite bleak for an extended period.

Possibly being a bit less risk adverse and creating a fund for startups and small business might be a way forward. Not sure if it's possible to replicate silicon valley, but certainly there's plenty of talent in the USA we could hire to help with vetting potential companies for Govt assistance in their initial stages. Make sure they have some skin in the game, and also get some of the rewards of success, along with the Govt. Done right I'd say it could get to the stage of being like the CEF where the income it earns could eventually lead to it being self funded.

FIIG has teamed up with with MH Carnegie to provide debt financing - Alternative Debt Service - for companies that were too small for MH Carnegie to take a stake it, but are still screened by them since they have a level of expertise with investing in entrepreneurial and high growth companies. Those willing to take on the higher risk can gain access to higher yield bonds. Why can't the Govt do something similar since the banks have pretty much exited this space? With historically low interest rates the Govt could provide finance to appropriately vetted companies and wouldn't need to charge obscene interest rates, which would hopefully increase the chance of success for the borrowing companies.

We urgently need to move away from being a quarry and house flipping economy before it's too late.
 
As someone that has been the unemployment system a few times and talked to a few that have worked in it - the system is broken. JSA (Job Services Australia - no idea if it has been renamed yet) companies want to take credit for jobs clients get when the JSA company had nothing to do with it - for the extra finacial rewards. Many develop crappy inhouse training courses to get govt funds. There is a lack of measuring how well the courses work.

Over time the JSA companies evolve to be more efficient at ticking the correct boxes with the govt to keep the money coming in. Far too many that work for the JSA companies don't have their heart and mind in the jobs. It is simply a job for them too. Those that put in the effort are very clear. They actually communicate properly with their unemployed clients. They take an interest in their client and develop an understanding. Such client managers are rare (at least in NW Tasmania) and seem to have their managers on their back more.

Govt ministers views on how the system works is very different to the experience of many those that it is designed to assist. The changes seem to be more about the politics and not about the national best interest. It does drive some people out of the system which makes the unemployment figures look better.

So many of the Work for the Dole programmes are useless. A small number of good projects get the publicity and the majority of the people never learn about how many of the projects exist and how unhelpful for the unemployed they are.

It all looks to me as a case of politics and the desire to look like they are doing something without doing much.
 

The real "wrecking ball" was the high AUD brought about by the Labor government's success in avoiding the GFC and a strong financial regulation system (maintained by both Labor and Liberal governments) which meant that Australia was a safe haven for funds while other currencies were crashing through the floor.
 
boofhead said:
It all looks to me as a case of politics and the desire to look like they are doing something without doing much.
Click to expand...

Boofhead, its a sad tale you tell but none of it is surprising. Just more proof to me that Government spending/welfare is not the solution to social and economic problems.

In fact the opposite is true because the political class get themselves voted into office on the back of promises to spend other peoples' money and the voters vote for them because they think this is a way for them to get ahead with the least amount of effort.

Whenever Labor Government gets into power they display a talent for making things worse. When the Coalition gets into power they try to fix things but never succeed. Especially now when they are hamstrung by a Senate which is awash in the most "unrepresentative swill" that our voting system has ever managed to disgorge.
 
OK, that's a reasonable point. However, I don't believe it's impossible to find some compromise that is a considerable improvement on the status quo of being paid per no of clients on the books.
Boofhead has sadly confirmed the reality of the situation.

Perhaps the privatisation of job agencies was the first mistake? Were things better when the government run CES was functioning? Not ever having looked for a job in this country I have no idea, but some people will know about this.

I don't find it surprising that people out of work for longer are going to find it more difficult to get a job.
Potential employers will, even subconsciously, consider that no other employer has wanted this person for x period of time.
In contrast, someone recently retrenched because of their employer falling over will likely be a more appealing candidate.

I'm not sure about assistance to the unemployed to start their own businesses. So many fail. I'd have thought anyone who had the talent and initiative to start something themselves would already be doing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Give Tony the Job!
Replies
12
Views
950
sptrawler
Tony Abbott - Indigneous envoy
2 3
Replies
43
Views
4K
sptrawler
Superannuation pain must extend to politicians
Replies
14
Views
6K
sptrawler
The Environmental Nazi Hunter
Replies
6
Views
4K
Glen48
R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...