Australia proposes drugs tests for jobseekers

[Svartalf]

but you don't understand, the poor could get better off if only they had the will to, so they are evil, lazy and dangerous... they could contaminate others with their evil laziness and nobody would want to do honest work anymore (of course, being a CEO is not 'honest' work anyway...)

[pErvinalia]

I don't get why spending money on non-essentials is a problem for the unemployed and not for anyone else. Especially when the cumulative non-essentials of the rich; massive houses, heated swimming pools, private jets, yaughts, jet-skis 6 litre engine cars etc. do massive, lasting environmental harm a poor person can't even compare to - and without the societal pressure and moral distain a poor person has to endure for what amounts to only damaging themselves really. Plus at least all of their welfare goes back into the economy. They're not putting their dole into offshore accounts. Nor are any of them vulture capitalists legally making a packet off the poverty and misfortune of others.

(waits for 42 to appear and tell us all about the "wealth creators" in society...)

[Svartalf]

wealth accumulators you mean?

[pErvinalia]

Haha, yeah.

[Tyrannical]

Pay'em in weed to make them work picking fruit lol

[Svartalf]

You want a Mexican uprising, don't you, stealig their jobs like that... plus , let's face it, payment in weed does not fill the munchies bowl, meaning that you'd either still have to pay them a dole in money, or you'd be feeding a secondary weed traffic as the fruit pickers resold part of their 'pay' to eat and pay rent.

[Brian Peacock]

but you don't understand, the poor could get better off if only they had the will to, so they are evil, lazy and dangerous... they could contaminate others with their evil laziness and nobody would want to do honest work anymore (of course, being a CEO is not 'honest' work anyway...)

Indeed. Trudging round town on the bus to find the best shoes at the best price for you kids, or doing your shopping at three different supermarkets to get the best deals, isn't laziness. Laziness is paying the nanny to do it.

[Forty Two]

Money is being paid out unjustifiably,

How is it unjustifiable? If these people are poor and unemployed, then it is justified.

If they're using the money for things that are not necessities of the food, clothing, shelter, heat and hot water variety, then it's unjustified. If a person is destitute, that poverty doesn't make spending money on quaaludes and hookers justified.

You said paying the money out is what would be unjustified, not the spending off it on non-essentials. If someone is poor and unemployed, then paying them money is justifiable. If they spend some of that money on gratuitous non-essentials, then that's a problem, but it still doesn't justify leaving a member of society destitute. And as I said, drug addiction is a medical/social problem. Dishing out moral opprobrium, or even worse, cutting off payments, isn't a solution to getting someone off drugs.

Paying the money out for use on non-essentials is unjustified. If someone is poor and unemployed, then paying them money to help them with necessities and get back on their feet, so that the payments can then stop later on, is justifiable. I'm not suggesting in any way leaving a member of society destitute. I'm suggesting giving them the means to buy necessities, while taking reasonable steps to stop them from buying junk.

Technology today would allow the system to include various products and exclude others. Get up to the register at the Food-Mart, and scan the items. Hand the lady the welfare card, and she swipes it. If there are items in the pile like scratch off lotto tickets, pipe tobacco and butt-plugs, then the transaction should reject, the items un-scanned and then the check out can continue. The person can pay for the lotto tickets, tobacco and butt plugs with their own money, not the State's money.

and the payments represent a subsidy toward lack of participation in the economic activities in the country,

There are more job seekers than jobs available. It's increasing economic activity, as without that welfare payment the vast majority of these people would have no money at all to spend in the economy.

That does not justify wasteful spending. It justifies payment of money to the needy for their needs. It doesn't justify what we're talking about, which is wasteful spending.

You are moving the goalposts. You said that in these cases it subsidises a "lack of participation in the economic activities in the country". It does no such thing, as I explained.

It does, as I have explained, because if you subsidize people by making welfare payments, it discourages job seeking. E.g., if you were to give people $5,000 in welfare, it helps out, but it doesn't allow people to stay home. People will use that money but have to scratch out a living by somehow earning more money. If, however, welfare is raised to $25,000 a year, then you have just made it way easier for people to reject economic opportunities, particularly those that are not pleasant or rewarding. Raise it again to $50,000 in welcare, and now you'll have an increasing percentage of people who forego economic opportunities and simply live within their average salary, which they make for not working. That's subsidizing lack of participation in economic activity.

In other words, this does not have to be the false choice between side A (those who want to be generous and make sure that money is doled out without the slightest possible condition or judgment) and side B (those who only grudgingly, if at all, want to dole out funds to only the extremely needy, who are made to be embarrassed and feel guilty about it). There is a middle ground here, where there is both a recognition of the need to assist people in need and a willingness to give people a hand up, but also a recognition that like all groups of people there are elements within the group who will take advantage and be abusive of the system, and that it's necessary to accommodate both of these interests. Adopting that third, middle ground, position does not make a person disdainful of the poor, or accusatory of them in the sense of suggesting that they are a majority slothful, wasteful, group who waste the largess of others on luxuries.

It does when that person focuses on the poor and largely ignores the biggest welfare recipients and drug abusers in society - the rich and wealthy.

I'm for cracking down on them more. It's not either or.

I thought we were talking about a hypothetical person. I wasn't referring to you, necessarily.

It's not "either or" for anyone. Being against welfare fraud does not necessitate or even imply being ok with other kinds of fraud.

[Hermit]

...if you were to give people $5,000 in welfare, it helps out, but it doesn't allow people to stay home. People will use that money but have to scratch out a living by somehow earning more money. If, however, welfare is raised to $25,000 a year...

...it only becomes a problem if there are more job vacancies than job seekers. Not a situation in any countries I know of. This has been pointed out to you already, but you studiously ignore it.

[pErvinalia]

and the payments represent a subsidy toward lack of participation in the economic activities in the country,

There are more job seekers than jobs available. It's increasing economic activity, as without that welfare payment the vast majority of these people would have no money at all to spend in the economy.

That does not justify wasteful spending. It justifies payment of money to the needy for their needs. It doesn't justify what we're talking about, which is wasteful spending.

You are moving the goalposts. You said that in these cases it subsidises a "lack of participation in the economic activities in the country". It does no such thing, as I explained.

It does, as I have explained, because if you subsidize people by making welfare payments, it discourages job seeking. E.g., if you were to give people $5,000 in welfare, it helps out, but it doesn't allow people to stay home. People will use that money but have to scratch out a living by somehow earning more money. If, however, welfare is raised to $25,000 a year, then you have just made it way easier for people to reject economic opportunities, particularly those that are not pleasant or rewarding. Raise it again to $50,000 in welcare, and now you'll have an increasing percentage of people who forego economic opportunities and simply live within their average salary, which they make for not working. That's subsidizing lack of participation in economic activity.

You literally just ignored my post where I explained that there are more jobseekers than jobs, therefore it can't be subsidising a lack of participation in economic activities. And, again, it is increasing economic participation, as without that welfare payment, those people would have nothing to spend into the economy. And what's all this nonsense about welfare being $50,000 a year? What universe are you from?

[Tyrannical]

You want a Mexican uprising, don't you, stealig their jobs like that... plus , let's face it, payment in weed does not fill the munchies bowl, meaning that you'd either still have to pay them a dole in money, or you'd be feeding a secondary weed traffic as the fruit pickers resold part of their 'pay' to eat and pay rent.

It's farm work. They get fed, and tents too.

Think of it as a travelling homeless encampment. Except with better food and weed, and not dirtying up the cities.

[Brian Peacock]

Vote Ty: For A Better World.