High Unemployment and Fruit Picking

nightqueen on 09/09/2020 - 10:39
Last edited 09/09/2020 - 10:40

With unemployment reaching 10% plus and more than 2 million Australians out of work, there seems to be plenty of jobs in fruit picking and at the abattoirs. With our immigration significantly reduced and lots of backpackers leaving australia. We have jobs available, have low entry requirements and low levels of training.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2020-09-07/backpack-in-you…

Do we need to increase the pay of these 'unwanted' jobs? We might face significant price rises of fruit and vegetables if they are left to rot due to a shortage of pickers.

Poll Options

  • 94
    Fruit picking or abattoir work & contribute to Australia GDP
  • 217
    Collect job seeker or job keeper and chill at home
Education & Work

Comments

      • Pacify on 12/09/2020 - 22:57
        +4

        You do realise that for 99% of the population, to go "do fruit picking" you need to travel several hundred kms, and then figure out where you are going to stay.

        Personally, I'm very used to sleeping in a tent in a caravan park, but how many people are willing to live in a tent for weeks on end?

    • GG57 on 09/09/2020 - 11:52
      +4

      That is pretty simplistic. As others have said, if you are not near where the work is, there are other factors to be considered.

      Having said that, the attraction of work in the areas of the Sunshine Coast, Hawkesbury, Fremantle, Tamworth, Yorke Peninsula, Clare Valley, Eyre Peninsula, Wagga Wagga, Narre Warren, Northam, Tasmania, etc., sounds like a reasonably good gap year. All of those are locations for 'fruit picking jobs' on Seek.
      And some may be specifically interested in the (medicinal) cannabis jobs near Tamworth.

      • nightqueen on 09/09/2020 - 13:18

        A lot of those locations have great lifestyle like sunshine coast, Fremantle and Tasmania. Some locations aren't far from major cities and the cost of living is far lower than Sydney or Melbourne.

      • netjock on 09/09/2020 - 16:50
        +2

        That is pretty simplistic. As others have said, if you are not near where the work is, there are other factors to be considered.

        Humans have always migrated for food (hunters) even in agriculture you might leave fields unplanted to let them recover.

        It is a modern construct that you can stay put and have someone pay you for the pleasure of finding a job.

        • vetopower on 11/09/2020 - 08:59
          +7

          the pleasure of finding a job.

          Ahh yes, that pleasurable activity of finding a job during the worst economic downturn since the 1930s.

    • BangkokBreakfast on 10/09/2020 - 23:47
      +7

      There are also heaps fun ‘middle men’ who organise staff for multiple farms and take a cut of their earnings.

      Farmers paying top dollar, worker complains of low wage. Middle men laughing to the bank

      • monkeyfood on 11/09/2020 - 09:07
        -4

        and if your a female picker there could also be some "fun" extra bonuses on the table or under..

        • Baghern on 11/09/2020 - 14:24
          +1

          I think you drop this from the end of your comment….

          /s

        • serpserpserp on 11/09/2020 - 20:53
          +1

          Doubt they'd find that a bonus.

      • Pacify on 12/09/2020 - 22:58

        If you are working for a contractor, you are getting scammed - end of story.

        Never, ever work for a contractor. Only work for the farmer directly.

  • pegaxs on 09/09/2020 - 10:51
    +23

    And go home at the end of the 12 hours day from your $10/h fruit picking job with near wrecked knees, hips, shoulders and backs.

    I did it once when I was younger, and it's not worth the money. Until people are willing to pay $40/kg for strawberries or tomatoes, etc, then farmers that require fruit pickers are always going to struggle, because no one wants to do back breaking labour for minimum wage + piddling bonuses when they can start an OnlyFans account and get more a week than what a fruit picker makes in a year…

    • Hardlyworkin on 09/09/2020 - 11:51

      How many shillings did you earn picking back in your day?

      • pegaxs on 09/09/2020 - 12:20
        +53

        4 and 6 a month. And it was a 5 mile walk to get to work and it was up hill both ways. You thanked the station master on the way home and begged to be allowed back the next day. We worked 25 hours a day, 8 days a week. I would have to get up to go to work 30 minutes before I went to bed…

        My 15 brothers and sisters all had to share the same pair of shoes. You could buy a horse for £1 and a block of land for £4. Young kids these days don't know what hard work is or how expensive things were…

        Ahhhh…. but we were happy…

    • Reddich24 on 09/09/2020 - 11:56

      lol you assume that everyone who starts an onlyfans account makes bank. Who's going to to pay for a fat uggo's content.

      • psyren89 on 09/09/2020 - 12:24

        See Nikocado Avocado…

        • Reddich24 on 09/09/2020 - 12:58
          +1

          Haha, unfortunately this is something I have seen. I think it's youtubers/ people with a following that have these opportunities to make bank. For the most normal people I don't think its a feasible strategy.

      • pegaxs on 09/09/2020 - 12:26

        It's more of a euphemism for easier work to be found elsewhere… And trust me, after watching a few docos recently, there are plenty of "fat uggos" making bank on pay-for-porn platforms…

      • Ughhh on 09/09/2020 - 12:33

        Some People have weird fetishes, you'd be surprised.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/09/2020 - 12:54
          +3

          Anyone want to watch me file my bunions?

          For the right coin, I can probably figure out how to do it in VR too.

          • Ughhh on 09/09/2020 - 13:09
            +1

            @[Deactivated]: barf

            I once googled belly button fetish as a joke. To my surprise its a real thing. So, anything is possible. I'm too scared to google "bunions fetish".

          • pegaxs on 09/09/2020 - 14:05
            +2

            @[Deactivated]: I've subbed, smashed that like and rung that notification bell… Do you have a Patreon so I can get early access to your bunion filing?

            • [Deactivated] on 09/09/2020 - 14:08
              +1

              @pegaxs: I'll get onto it… kinda busy at the moment. Searched up Ughhh's belly button thing and I'm uh… incapacitated.

  • GG57 on 09/09/2020 - 10:52
    +1

    You are correct in that there is unemployment, and there are jobs available.
    But you cannot force people to work (in this country), particularly where the employment is not geographically located near the unemployed.

    If the pay for produce harvesters is increased, the cost of that produce will need to also increase. Finding a balance is the problem.

    • nightqueen on 09/09/2020 - 11:02
      +5

      So to pay fruit picking workers a living and satisfying wage, we as a society have to accept high prices or fruit and veges. Looks like COVID has significantly impacted our labour exploitation of backpackers

      • netjock on 09/09/2020 - 11:12

        Or just eat less. A good portion of the population is borderline overweight. Demand and supply economics. Demand stays the same and supply reduces, price goes up. But then demand finds substitutes (including eating less) for the supply and prices drop back.

        I lost like 3kg during the last 2 - 3 months of WFH. 5% body weight.

        • lunchbox99 on 09/09/2020 - 15:40
          +7

          not sure many of those are overweight from eating fresh produce. Unless you're juicing, eating fruit tends to be self limiting if you know what I mean (hint: I mean poo).

          • netjock on 09/09/2020 - 15:53
            +1

            @lunchbox99: You know even processed food comes from fresh produce as the source. If fresh produce (raw materials) go up so does cost of processed food and the wages of those factory works also go up. The whole logistics chain of inputs to final production goes up. There is no magic money tree that funds parts of the this.

            I've seen overweight and chubby vegetarians. It might not be the vegetables but it all adds up (weight and $). There is why they say if you want to save money cut down a cup of take away coffee a day and see it all add up.

            • lunchbox99 on 09/09/2020 - 16:06
              +3

              @netjock: lol, ok. Everyone is fat from eating too many fruit and veggies. Gotcha.

              • netjock on 09/09/2020 - 16:14
                +1

                @lunchbox99: Read the box from your processed foods. It lists the ingredients. Even donuts are made from flour that came from wheat and sugar that came from sugar cane which requires people to plant and harvest.

                You one of those people who don't know where food comes from? There is no magic processed food tree that boxes of cereal drops when you shake it.

                • lunchbox99 on 09/09/2020 - 16:36
                  +6

                  @netjock: Lol, yes I'm sure you were referring to people picking wheat, or cutting sugar cane by hand. That's exactly what everyone is talking about with the lack of backpacker pickers - the most highly mechanised farming that produces flour and sugar.

                  Good one genius.

                  • netjock on 09/09/2020 - 16:44

                    @lunchbox99: You know all the apricots and pears that SPC makes into a can require fruit pickers to go out there to pick it off the field usually back packers.

                    the most highly mechanised farming that produces flour and sugar.

                    Sorry but no farming produces flour and sugar. You talking about Wheat and Sugar cane. There is another long process of transportation and further processing. You make it sound like you drive a harvester onto a field and white flour / sugar falls out the back end.

                    • lunchbox99 on 09/09/2020 - 17:40
                      +2

                      @netjock: I didn't bring up flour and sugar. You did. You claimed that people eating donuts, cereal and sugar is somehow related to farmers not being able to get seasonal backpackers to harvest fruit and veggies.

                      Are you like 12yo? "explaining" that flour and sugar come from wheat and sugar cane. Lol.

                      • netjock on 09/09/2020 - 18:06

                        @lunchbox99: You forgot you are the one who said you can't get fat from eating fresh produce. How does that related to getting back packers to harvest fruit and veggies?

                        How does your initial reply related to the supply demand economics on consumption comment I made? You're the 12 year old who don't understand I was talking about economics not fresh produce.

                        • lunchbox99 on 09/09/2020 - 18:26
                          +2

                          @netjock: You know what, you're right. Al the farmers need to do is convince people to eat less fruit and veggies. That will solve their problem of unpicked produce.

                          • netjock on 09/09/2020 - 19:20

                            @lunchbox99:

                            So to pay fruit picking workers a living and satisfying wage, we as a society have to accept high prices or fruit and veges

                            High prices for fruit and veges = search for substitutes or eat less (affordability) in economics. You haven't been following.

                            If you have 30 acres of pears and no labour force, convincing people to eat less isn't going to pick the pears. If you can only pick 10 acres with available workforce and price doubles consumers can either accept the new price bidding against other consumers look for substitutes (other fruits or imports) or eat less.

                            • lunchbox99 on 09/09/2020 - 20:16

                              @netjock: haha, that's great. I was quoting your original proposal and you proceed to debunk it using high-school level concepts of supply and demand. Awesome!

                              In any case, I'm out. This is boring.

                              • netjock on 09/09/2020 - 21:27

                                @lunchbox99: Did not see any quotation in your comment. Your lower than high school level of English.

                                • Agarwal on 09/09/2020 - 21:57

                                  @netjock: 'You're'

                                  • ozbjunkie on 10/09/2020 - 11:48
                                    +1

                                    @Agarwal: Actually it would be "you've a"

                                  • [Deactivated] on 11/09/2020 - 00:45

                                    @Agarwal: That's just as wrong. Lolz. Nice try though.

            • Dogsrule on 11/09/2020 - 10:17

              @netjock: That's because those 'vegetarians' are actually carbotarians. Those types tend to live their culinary life out of packets and boxes, not fresh fruit and vegetables.

        • serpserpserp on 11/09/2020 - 20:56

          Weird flex.

      • Headless on 09/09/2020 - 11:20
        +7

        Large supermarket chains also need to stop their bully tactics of forcing the lowest possible price from local growers, a friend of mine used to work for coles procurement, left after a few months due to immoral attitudes to suppliers, maximum profit always comes first…

      • greatlamp on 11/09/2020 - 07:15

        We still live in a global economy, and farmers practically everywhere else in the world still have access to their workforce.

        The retailer that refuses to sell cheaper imports will lose customers, no none will have the courage to support local growers

  • dizzle on 09/09/2020 - 11:12
    +11

    There's also the fact that they normally use migrant workers so that they can underpay with tough conditions. They often pay cash in hand so the workers don't pay taxes and can pay visitors without working visas.

    The majority of unemployed are not in areas that service these jobs. So an increase in pay will not assist this at all. People aren't going to break leases, move or pay for extra accommodation to get to these areas. That's part of why the authorities look the other way on employment/pay conditions when it comes to backpackers, and those that normally do this job.

    • GG57 on 09/09/2020 - 11:21
      +3

      "…underpay…tough conditions…cash in hand…don't pay taxes…without working visas"

      Some of those may exist in some examples, but there are government sponsored programmes that cover most of those items and provide the agricultural (and other) industries with a workforce so that we can buy a mango in Coles/Woolies in Melbourne.

      Just because the producers cannot find Australian workers to do the jobs doesn't mean that everyone is trying to scam the system.

  • [Deactivated] on 09/09/2020 - 11:20
    +14

    Do we need to increase the pay of these 'unwanted' jobs?

    No.

    We need to decrease the "pay" of people without jobs.

    • GG57 on 09/09/2020 - 11:25
      +11

      Or introduce a Universal Basic Income for all?

      • brendanm on 09/09/2020 - 11:57
        +5

        Yes, then I can quit work, hurray!

      • [Deactivated] on 09/09/2020 - 12:56
        +7

        I will be in support of Universal Basic Income when people the proponents of the former also advocate for Universal Basic Labour.

        • brendanm on 09/09/2020 - 13:33
          +1

          Head on over to whingepool, and have a look at the work for the dole thread, if you want to see how that will go down with the bludgers. Got penalty boxed many a time for commenting on that thread.

          • [Deactivated] on 09/09/2020 - 13:37

            @brendanm: Work for dole would operate on the presupposition that the dole has to be there.

            I am with the bludgers. They shouldn't have to work. Period. (Whether they then get money for doing nothing, well, that's on them.)

        • ozbjunkie on 10/09/2020 - 11:52

          I'm pretty happy with my I come and my work is super easy. In spite of that (or perhaps, because of that) I'm pretty sympathetic to people not wanting to do hectically shit jobs for terrible pay.

          I mean I don't want my tax going to them as free money either. But my sympathy remains. What do we do with all the z<-1 IQ people. Do their lives have to be shit house?

          • [Deactivated] on 10/09/2020 - 12:28
            +1

            @ozbjunkie: No it doesn't but neither does it mean they can choose not to do the tough jobs.

            At some point, we have to live with what we have be it finances or ability. People with greater ability get to the privilege of doing more interesting things so by extension, those with lesser ability will have to settle for mundane jobs.

            Call it "cruel" but that's reality. You don't want dropkicks to operate your children then you're going to have to give them a less desirable job.

            (I'm sure when they announce the automation of picking jobs, the same group of unskilled workers will protest the loss of job options.)

            • ozbjunkie on 10/09/2020 - 12:36
              +1

              @[Deactivated]: It is reality. And it is a cruel reality. Perhaps a natural one, or perhaps one of man's making, I'm not sure that I'm clever enough to work out which.

              But regardless, most dropkicks don't actually want to be dropkicks. And even the most pitiful person should ideally inspire pathos lending more towards compassion than pity. And certainly not disregard.

              But I am a softy. And an idealist. And perhaps that's my failing.

              • [Deactivated] on 10/09/2020 - 12:48
                +1

                @ozbjunkie:

                most dropkicks don't actually want to be dropkicks.

                Most fat people don't want to be fat. It is within the control of the overwhelming majority yet they still are.

                Wanting does not require effort.

                it is a cruel reality. Perhaps a natural one

                I wanted to be a model and the power forward for the Celtics.

                The NBA didn't change their standards for me and I don't blame nature.

                It's reality. Nature or otherwise is immaterial.

                idealist. And perhaps that's my failing.

                No offence. All idealist are failures by definition. Idealism in contextual definition is an unachievable scenario. If you set out to do the unachievable, despite what feel good TV specials say, you're going to fail.

                • ozbjunkie on 10/09/2020 - 12:57
                  +3

                  @[Deactivated]: Ahh but failed idealists can achieve such great things.

                  It is OK to fail to achieve perfection in thought and speech and deed, in fact, it is expected, it is unavoidable. But let's not stop trying to achieve those impossibilities, for that would truly constitute defeat.

                  And by the way, your phrasing doesn't bother me, I also kinda don't care because I'm fine and comfortable. Just highlighting why I think certain people are responding with "you hate poor people" and the like.

                  I recognise you don't hate less fortunate people.

                  But you don't have much love for some of them. That much is clear.

                  • [Deactivated] on 10/09/2020 - 13:07

                    @ozbjunkie:

                    Ahh but failed idealists can achieve such great things.

                    So can realists. In fact, they may achieve the same thing.

                    When you shoot for the moon, you'll fall where everyone else falls regardless of how high they intended to shoot.

                    But you don't have much love for some of them.

                    It makes no difference whether I love them more or less.

                    • ozbjunkie on 10/09/2020 - 13:21

                      @[Deactivated]: And in achieving the same thing, perhaps neither are failures, or else they both are, which again suggest neither.

                      If you shoot for the moon, you might at least glimpse beyond the clouds, rather than very correctly grumbling something about a bullet not being able to escape the orbit and ruining all the fun.

                      It makes no difference to you. But it might make a difference to the way others perceive you. Which may make a difference to you. At least in terms of the number of straw-man arguments levelled against you on ozbargain.

                      • [Deactivated] on 10/09/2020 - 13:38
                        +6

                        @ozbjunkie:

                        It makes no difference to you. But it might make a difference to the way others perceive you.

                        Spot on.

                        It took me a long time to learn this, too long in fact - I am a lot happier if I don't care what others think about me. I'm getting there.

                        • ozbjunkie on 10/09/2020 - 16:08
                          +3

                          @[Deactivated]: Well, I share that aim, to be unmoved by other's criticism and also unmoved by their praise. But casting that aside … I enjoy reading your thoughtful comments.

                          Take care till next time.

                          • [Deactivated] on 11/09/2020 - 00:52

                            @ozbjunkie: This was a great read. Thanks.

                            • ozbjunkie on 11/09/2020 - 09:40
                              +1

                              @[Deactivated]: Thanks :)

                              Yes I thought we both did well. No name calling, no bitchiness. Disagreement without animosity isn't so unpleasant really. But it is quite rare.

      • netjock on 09/09/2020 - 15:56
        +2

        Isn't that like the first home owners grant which turned into vendor's grant?

        Giving everyone $10k as universal basic income just makes everyone $10k richer, we're not much better than where we started. Those who need it will spend it. Those who have good jobs will save it (or put it into an investment property boosting house prices).

        Universal basic income is no magic money tree.

        What I never understood is if we're paying JobSeeker anyway why do job seekers work for the government for 20 hrs per week. I know a lot of non recyclables ending up in the recycling bin and need people to sort through.

        • TheBird on 11/09/2020 - 01:28

          if we're paying JobSeeker anyway why do job seekers work for the government for 20 hrs per week

          They don't.

        • Mr Haj on 11/09/2020 - 15:17

          I wonder what is happening with our recycling at the moment now that everyone is rejecting it. Sorting through recycling would be nearly an impossible task for human labour.

          • netjock on 11/09/2020 - 15:31

            @Mr Haj: Better than people sitting at home playing on the Xbox, watching TV or just panicking over how they are going to meet JobSeeker commitments to attend interviews.

            Probably going to land fill which is will cause a problem down the track.

          • TheBird on 12/09/2020 - 12:25

            @Mr Haj: From the stories I've heard, some of it is done by technology, some is done by hand, depending on how each company handles it. There's a lot that is just ignored.

      • Blue Cat on 11/09/2020 - 17:11

        Yes, just print more money, that worked our perfectly for Zimbabwe and Venezuela!
        Wait…

    • Reddich24 on 09/09/2020 - 11:38
      +20

      Agree, lets send the peasants to work houses ( Which these farms basically are). There's a reason they hire internationals for these jobs, no australian is willing to put up with the conditions they are offering

      • [Deactivated] on 09/09/2020 - 12:41
        -3

        You're trying to make a facetious remark on the basis that I am in support of conscription of the poor.

        Too bad I made no such suggestion/support. In fact, I am very much against conscription.

        The poor can do what they think is best for them. If they think unemployment is better than working as a picker, I support their right to choose.

        If they think going hungry is better than the indignity of labour, I support their right to choose.

        If they want me to pay for their decision… tough.

        • Reddich24 on 09/09/2020 - 12:56
          +2

          No, no no I thought we were wailing on the poor?

          • [Deactivated] on 09/09/2020 - 12:57

            @Reddich24: Wail on the poor? Never.

            Wail on the bludgers? Never miss a chance.

            • serpserpserp on 11/09/2020 - 21:20
              +1

              @[Deactivated]:

              Wail on the poor? Never.
              Wail on the bludgers? Never miss a chance.

              How can you tell the difference?

              I think people have this unrealistic perception of a "bludger". I think there are actually very few bludgers on the welfare. While some might make themselves seem like they are living a comfortable free money life, they are in fact more uneducated and less privileged than they appear. There is a lot of mental health issues out there in that demographic that people tend to want to gloss over because it suits their agenda.

              If I am 18 and have no support networks, no family wealth, a basic (if at all) high school education, a swag of bubbling low level mental health issues, and have moved to the city to better my chances at life does that make me poor?

              What about if they went out and bought a PS4 with some JobSeeker money to fill in the time while they figure out what they are going to do in their life? Is that a bludger?

              What about Doris who is a 60 year old divorcee former house wife who was systematically kept down by her husband all her life to look after her kids (that don't see her anymore) and now because she had no tools in life has no cash and lives in a share house with a woman of similar fortune. Is she poor?

              What about if she buys a bottle of $5 wine to drink every day because she is also trying to figure out what she'll do from here. Is she a bludger now? What about 5 years from now when she is doing the same thing? Is adding time to these scenario's making one go from poor to bludger?

              • [Deactivated] on 11/09/2020 - 21:44

                @serpserpserp:

                While some might make themselves seem like they are living a comfortable free money life, they are in fact more uneducated and less privileged than they appear.

                Living comfortably.

                Uneducated and less privileged.

                These are two separate things. Just because someone is less educated and less privileged does not mean they are less comfortable.

                Now I get you're trying to say that we can't judge someone else's living situation (one rhetorical question has greater impact, just a heads up.). I agree. We shouldn't judge but your stance on the issue is predicated upon the notion that welfare when provided is good.

                There is a flip side to welfare. There is the recipient but there is also the benefactor.

                Consider that there are struggling families. Families that are trying to give their children a better start so they do not end up on welfare. Some may even be single parents working multiple jobs. To generate the income to support the development of these children, they end up in a higher tax bracket and inadvertently pays for welfare, welfare that goes into the pockets of those who consider unemployment a lifestyle.

                How do explain to these people that your position is righteous and their reluctance to pay for someone else's lifestyle equates to selfishness?

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 09/09/2020 - 12:58
          +6

          I made no such suggestion

          What you suggested was making the poor, even poorer.

          • [Deactivated] on 09/09/2020 - 13:03

            @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: I am making the poor poorer as much as you not going to a charity right now and donating bags of money is making hungry children hungrier.

            (Also, not suggestion of conscription. You're shooting for an alternate goal there.)

            • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 09/09/2020 - 15:46
              +1

              @[Deactivated]: I said you suggested. You suggested.

              • [Deactivated] on 09/09/2020 - 18:06
                -1

                @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: No. I did not suggest. You merely claimed I suggest.

                I may have suggested making bludgers poorer. If all bludgers do is take money from the tax paying worker, then yes, they're being "made" poorer.

                If you insist I suggested, you are implying all poor people are bludgers and/or all bludgers are poor.

                I don't know about you but I don't believe in either of those assumptions. I believe that there are people who work and are still poor. Reducing dole payments do not affect them. In fact, if the tax burden is decreased, the working poor are better off.

          • ozbjunkie on 10/09/2020 - 12:04
            +1

            @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Or just suggesting they pull themselves up by their bootstraps (used in the old sense of that phrase) in a way that seemed flippant and facetious.

            It's like the joke about how "people making Nike shoes are paid $2 an hour" … "Uh. That sucks, they should quit".

        • vetopower on 11/09/2020 - 09:16
          +1

          If they want me to pay for their decision… tough.

          Diddums. You should relocate to a country where you do not have to contribute to a welfare system.

          Mexico has an extremely low level of social welfare spending on a per capita basis. I hear Tijuana is a lovely spot, if you don't get murdered that is.

          • [Deactivated] on 11/09/2020 - 09:21
            +1

            @vetopower: It takes a special person to support welfare for the wilfully unemployed.

            That's what we're talking about here just incase context is lost on you.

            • vetopower on 11/09/2020 - 09:28
              +1

              @[Deactivated]:

              It takes a special person to support welfare for the wilfully unemployed.

              I support welfare for everyone regardless of their circumstances.

              So you're a person of all talk and no action. That sounds a lot like the type of person you're criticising.

              • [Deactivated] on 11/09/2020 - 10:05

                @vetopower:

                regardless of their circumstances.

                A conscious decision to avoid work is not "circumstance".

                So you're a person of all talk and no action.

                I go to work for my money. Takes action. Not circumstance.

                As far as I can tell, you are also all talk. It's a forum. It's all talk.

                Anyway, I good luck with your endeavours. All the best.

                • vetopower on 11/09/2020 - 10:26
                  +4

                  @[Deactivated]:

                  A conscious decision to avoid work is not "circumstance".

                  You don't even know what the word circumstance means. Embarrassing.

                  I meant exactly what I said: I support welfare for everyone regardless of their circumstances. That includes people who make 'a conscious decision to avoid work'.

                  I honestly don't care. The amount of public money spent on people who 'make a conscious decision to avoid work' is tiny. If people were genuinely worried about waste of public funds, there would be 1000 other programs that you would stop before stopping welfare for the unemployed.

                  I go to work for my money. Takes action. Not circumstance.

                  You're judging people for taking a 'conscious decision to avoid work'.

                  I'm judging you for taking the 'conscious decision' to stay in Australia when there are plenty of alternatives out there that will allow you to live out your utopia of not paying welfare.

                  All talk, no action.

        • Antikythera on 11/09/2020 - 12:35
          +2

          the argument for the dole is an anti-crime one.
          if the options are starve or steal, people wont starve.

          the dole makes the rich people's lives safer.

          the dole is also cheaper than prison.

          rather than rally against the dole you should be arguing for mandating permanent contraception for dole recipients.

          • [Deactivated] on 11/09/2020 - 12:42

            @Antikythera: From a pragmatic perspective, we are in agreement.

            I am not strongly against dole for the unemployed so the issue with hungry criminals is fairly moot. It is more to do with people who choose not to work.

            The concept of preventing criminal behaviour becomes less relevant. Dole for the unemployed is to alleviate desperation from inability, not unwillingness.

            • serpserpserp on 11/09/2020 - 21:47

              @[Deactivated]:

              It is more to do with people who choose not to work.

              There are very little of these people about. There is also a lot of mental health types that might say they are choosing not to work where in fact they couldn't actually pull it together to do even the simplest job.

              So even if you could successfully pick out those people who genuinely choose not to work and not give them welfare. It isn't like the magnitude of change from that would do anything to our society. Just the cost involved in trying to weed those people out would swallow up any economic benefit.

              • [Deactivated] on 11/09/2020 - 21:56

                @serpserpserp:

                There are very little of these people about.

                Let's not pretend that either of us has any useful stats on this.

                I have worked with a statistician who has told me it is impossible to gauge this as there is no measure for intention. The gauge most statisticians use to approximate this is welfare recipients and job applications.

                Because applying for jobs is a binary outcome, many welfare recipients do a terrible job applying, ie. Applications that would never succeed.

                Centrelink recognises this so they incentivise businesses to hire welfare recipients. Centrelink also recognise that many of these people who get the jobs then do not show up.

                The ones they show up then do a terrible job so they will get fired which would then allow them to resume collecting welfare.

                So, we don't know how many but to imply that it is "only a few" is disingenuous. Government does not create policy to combat isolated incidence.

                The reason why we do not separate wilful and involuntary unemployment is because there is no way to measure intent, and because of the many other purposes of welfare - preventing crime and voting blocks.

                (In addition to the wilfully unemployed, we also have those that are not wilful but do not make any attempt to be employed, and those who contribute greatly to their own unemployment - think presentation, hygiene and gender study qualifications.)

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join