RightSaidFred wrote on Feb 19
th, 2018 at 1:25pm:
crocodile wrote on Feb 19
th, 2018 at 11:56am:
BigOl64 wrote on Feb 18
th, 2018 at 5:20pm:
RightSaidFred wrote on Feb 18
th, 2018 at 4:50pm:
Bam
So for all unemployed its someone else's fault ?
You really are pathetic.
So which economic theory covers your silly notion that throw cash at dole bludgers will provide a massive boost to the economy ? Fairies at the bottom of the garden Volume 1
FYI you failed to address that key point in your little rant.
When people hire someone they are looking for qualifications and experience in relevant fields if you think that is discrimination then you are truly an idiot you don't mind throwing mindless insults around so live up that moron !
Even if it is someone else's fault they find themselves unemployed, it is not someone else's responsibility to find them a job.
Personal responsibility is just that.
Unfortunately, it isn't quite so simple. The RBA actively targets the inflation rate by manipulating the size of the money supply. Consequently, full employment is not achievable. There will always be a small pool of unemployed as a result of the tradeoff between employment and inflation due to shrinking labour supply. It is government policy so it seems reasonable that the displaced are not treated like child molesters.
In Australia in practical terms we have full employment, theoretically economists regard 3% full employment, to get Australia below 5% would require a cultural change for many who prefer welfare. In some suburbs the unemployment rate is 1-2% so to claim there is an unemployment problem in this country would laughable .... it does not get better then it is now.
We don't have full employment. We haven't had real full employment for over 40 years. It was dishonest for the RBA or whoever it was to redefine "full employment" from the correct definition of "everyone has a job" to the deceitful "most people have job and fkk everyone who isn't working".
RightSaidFred wrote on Feb 19
th, 2018 at 1:25pm:
I think the other issue is driving an unemployment rate towards zero would out spend the welfare cost by huge factor.
You're wrong. The amount of money that's spent on controlling and managing the unemployed is greater than the direct payments to them. Abolishing all of this wasteful spending and redirecting the money to unemployed people in exchange for useful work at award wages would have a comparable cost to the current system.
Unemployment benefits: $14,000 per person per year
Indue card: $10,000 per person per year (some people only, may change if abolished)
Job services networks: $7000 per person per year
Work for the Dole: $3000 per person per year
Other services: roughly $5000 per person per year
Total cost: $39,000 per year (all figures estimated - this estimate is probably on the low side because it doesn't include Centrelink's administration costs)
Full time work at the minimum wage: $37,000 per year, less tax = $33,000 per year
Even if we leave out the Indue card (because it's only a trial), it's possible to create jobs for 4 days of work a week with the same amount that is spent now.
Unemployment only exists because the government allows it to exist. The government could, if it chose, create enough jobs for everyone, and for about the same amount of money.