Rent too expensive for unemployed: report

[weg]

Firth, often the issues creating transient living, going without essentials, etc, especially long term, are not housing affordability issues but social ones (I'm not referring to your upbringing specifically here).

IF those social issues are the result of alcohol, drugs, gambling, family violence (?partner who takes the welfare intended for the family), do you give these people more money, subsidise more expensive housing? If you do will the social issues improve/go away?

Just on the subject on housing affordability, I'm with Biggles. You don't throw people on the street, but you do expect them to take some responsibility for how they live, otherwise they live according to what they put in.

 

[Aaron Sice]

According to the April 2012 annual Anglicare study that Catherine Cashmore is reponding to 'housing stress' is defined as follows -

...so.....change the definiton....?

 

[Belbo]

...so.....change the definiton....?

No. Did you have anything . . . ?

 

[hobo-jo]

...so.....change the definiton....?

Fujitsu had a mortgage survey which was being published up until some point in 2010 which asked a range of questions that related to spending habits and similar to gauge household financial stress for those with a mortgage. I have never seen anything as complete since unfortunately.

The over 30% of income on housing rule leaves a lot to be desired as a measure of affordability/stress.

 

[Aaron Sice]

Fujitsu had a mortgage survey which was being published up until some point in 2010 which asked a range of questions that related to spending habits and similar to gauge household financial stress for those with a mortgage. I have never seen anything as complete since unfortunately.

The over 30% of income on housing rule leaves a lot to be desired as a measure of affordability/stress.

my point exactly. thanks.

 

[Fifth]

Fifth, just curious, what do you define as affordable rents?

A single unemployed person who wants to live within 10km of the CBD on their own in a one bedroom apartment that costs $300/wk, or two unemployed people who are prepared to live 40km from the CBD in a 2 bedroom unit that costs $200/wk, together and share all the costs?

There are plenty of places around under $200/wk, which would be $100/wk each, for accommodation. Wouldn't be cruisy, but certainly doable, if someone really had to, whilst they were actively looking for employment.

There's a difference between wants and needs. People not prepared (and I mean not prepared, not unable to) to work and pay for wants which include nice/convenient living standards, do not deserve them. If all they can afford on their benefits is a shared house in the outer suburbs, but they want to live by themselves in the inner suburbs, I do not define that as unaffordable rents for those on welfare.

I agree that sharing a house in the outer suburbs for $100/wk each is perfectly doable for many benefit recipients, but not all. Share accommodation rarely works for families with children, for instance. It can also result in an endless cycle of transient accommodation. For the stable, short-term unemployed, share accommodation isn’t a big deal, you can share with friends and it can even be fun. For the most desperately in need of accommodation, usually there are underlying problems, some of which are the cause of unemployment and some the result of. These people often don’t have anyone to share with or their only share options are likely to compound their dire situation (it’s pretty hard to get your life together when you’re living with a heroin addict, for instance).

I know the simple solution would be for these people to get jobs. There simply aren’t enough jobs. As I ranted about on another thread, we consider 5% official unemployment (unofficial rate is significantly higher) as full-employment. We aim to never let unemployment fall below this level for fear of wage inflation. This leaves a certain percentage of the population eternally unemployed, essentially taking a bullet for the team. Yes, as individuals, there will always be success stories of the determined jobless finding gainful employment. But not every unemployed person can or will.

I believe these people should be entitled to stable, independent accommodation. Maybe it’s not a ‘need’ but a ‘want’, I concede. I truly believe, however, that’s it’s in the best interest of society as a whole to avoid endemic socioeconomic segregation and I believe offering independent accommodation throughout the inner/middle/outer suburbs, not just pushing recipients to outskirts, is the best way to do this. For this same reason I loathe high-density public housing as I believe it to be segregating and only compounds social problems.

Firth, often the issues creating transient living, going without essentials, etc, especially long term, are not housing affordability issues but social ones (I'm not referring to your upbringing specifically here).

IF those social issues are the result of alcohol, drugs, gambling, family violence (?partner who takes the welfare intended for the family), do you give these people more money, subsidise more expensive housing? If you do will the social issues improve/go away?

Just on the subject on housing affordability, I'm with Biggles. You don't throw people on the street, but you do expect them to take some responsibility for how they live, otherwise they live according to what they put in.

Totally agree regarding underlying problems (see above). And, no, it won’t magically cure these problems, but I honestly believe that without stable independent accommodation, there is next to no hope of these problems going away or improving. I’ve seen many people’s situations improve dramatically once they’ve been given safe, stable accommodation. Others, didn’t make an ounce of difference. And, yes, I’ve known clever individuals who managed to sneak their way to the top of public housing waiting lists time and time again, were provided with premium accommodation, only to skip out on the rent, rinse and repeat. I don’t know how they managed it. There will always be people who abuse the system.

Biggles, Weg, thank you both for genuine replies. I was expecting more ridicule, to be honest. Like I said, I don't expect people to agree with one another, how boring would life be, and I'm all for freedom of speech, I just don't believe 'bwahaha' is much of a contribution.

 

[Belbo]

my point exactly. thanks.

What point? There was no point in anything you (or he) said there. None.

 

[Tyrael]

I know the simple solution would be for these people to get jobs. There simply aren’t enough jobs. As I ranted about on another thread, we consider 5% official unemployment (unofficial rate is significantly higher) as full-employment. We aim to never let unemployment fall below this level for fear of wage inflation. This leaves a certain percentage of the population eternally unemployed, essentially taking a bullet for the team. Yes, as individuals, there will always be success stories of the determined jobless finding gainful employment. But not every unemployed person can or will.

To be honest Fifth I would have to disagree with this statement. Now I fully realise that there are a number of people who are unable to work due to Age, Health or a Disability of one form or another and I do believe that they should have the support of those of us who are able to work.
However in my current job I deal with unemployed, the employed and employers. With many of the unemployed I have worked to assist and based purely on my own experiences with a very large and diverse group of peoples, I would estimate that less than 15% of people currently on Unemployment benefits are actually looking for work and the vast majority are more than happy to simply receive Joe Bloggs' hard earned tax dollars instead of actually going out and getting a job. I have had interviews with the short and long term unemployed with many of the long term jobless proudly declaring that they have never had a job in their life and have no intention of ever getting one. In some cases these people have been on some form of welfare payment for more than 20 years. I'm not talking about one or two people, I'm talking about literally thousands of people over the last 7 years I have dealt with (approx 45,000+ different Individuals), with many turning up for interviews with prospective employers, walking out mid-interview leaving purely so they can say they turned up for the interview and didn't get the job.

I've seen people claim they've looked for xyz number of jobs per fortnight and when asked to see evidence for this they bring out a list of jobs for CEO and Executive positions that they wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting since their last job was as a trolley boy for a supermarket that they got fired from.

On the flip side, last week I interview a 16 year old girl who came from a family with 4 generations of family members who had never worked and had always been supported by Governement Welfare. She had been ostrasised from her family and thrown out of home because she actually wanted to educate herself and find work. Sadly this becoming a regular occurence.

Employers I speak to can't get reliable employees and in many areas there are thousands of Jobs available paying $35K, $45K or $60K and upwards but people are outright refusing to work so these employers are being quite literally being forced to hire migrant workers because apparently these jobs aren't good enough for the locals to get out of bed for.

There are more than sufficient jobs around but simply people aren't willing to either work or travel down the road (in one case I had 300 metres down the road) to actually take up the job offer and even attempt to contribute to society in any way shape or form.

As a result those of us that do actually have a job or regular income are continually having to support those that simply don't want to have a job and thus can't afford to support themselves or their families in reasonable and stable accomodation.

I agree with you that High density public housing is a terrible idea and I beleive it should be avoided at almost all costs, it truly is hideous and causes more problems than it solves. Until people are actually willing to get off their backsides and actually change themselves and the successive Governments in Australia actually start growing some teeth and maybe introduce something like Mandatory National Service or something to that effect, to force people to learn skills and get themselves some self-respect and intergrate with the rest of Society I sadly don't see our welfare dependent nation moving beyond the sense of self-entitlement that continous governemnts have pretty much forced on a large portion of society.

 

[Belbo]

Hello Tyrael,

Great post! An honest report from the front lines of a hopeless struggle. I think it backs up what everyone here either knows firsthand or otherwise strongly suspects: A large proportion of people on welfare don't want anything else. They just want to stay on welfare for their entire lives.

But no matter how true, Tyrael, your insights aren't enough to overcome Fifth's central argument: Our modern economic system actually requires a minimum of 5% permanent unemployment (with employment officially defined as only more than 1 hour paid work per week). The threat of unemployment is needed in our economic system to keep wage demands reasonable and employees reliable, and for that threat to be credible there must be a reserve army of available replacement employees constantly at hand. What you are reporting is the fact that many of those reserves have now become so comfortable with their welfare lifestyles that now they never want to see active service in their lifetimes.

So, you're both right. The system needs the unemployed; the unemployed oblige by living permanently off the system. Do you want to know what else? Welfare is protection money paid to avoid social strife, and politics at its best is the art of uncomfortable compromise. Welcome to liberal democracy: The worst social system on Earth - apart from all the others!

 

[Aaron Sice]

What point? There was no point in anything you (or he) said there. None.

..........

 

[Fifth]

To be honest Fifth I would have to disagree with this statement. Now I fully realise that there are a number of people who are unable to work due to Age, Health or a Disability of one form or another and I do believe that they should have the support of those of us who are able to work.
However in my current job I deal with unemployed, the employed and employers. With many of the unemployed I have worked to assist and based purely on my own experiences with a very large and diverse group of peoples, I would estimate that less than 15% of people currently on Unemployment benefits are actually looking for work and the vast majority are more than happy to simply receive Joe Bloggs' hard earned tax dollars instead of actually going out and getting a job. I have had interviews with the short and long term unemployed with many of the long term jobless proudly declaring that they have never had a job in their life and have no intention of ever getting one. In some cases these people have been on some form of welfare payment for more than 20 years. I'm not talking about one or two people, I'm talking about literally thousands of people over the last 7 years I have dealt with (approx 45,000+ different Individuals), with many turning up for interviews with prospective employers, walking out mid-interview leaving purely so they can say they turned up for the interview and didn't get the job.

I've seen people claim they've looked for xyz number of jobs per fortnight and when asked to see evidence for this they bring out a list of jobs for CEO and Executive positions that they wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting since their last job was as a trolley boy for a supermarket that they got fired from.

On the flip side, last week I interview a 16 year old girl who came from a family with 4 generations of family members who had never worked and had always been supported by Governement Welfare. She had been ostrasised from her family and thrown out of home because she actually wanted to educate herself and find work. Sadly this becoming a regular occurence.

Employers I speak to can't get reliable employees and in many areas there are thousands of Jobs available paying $35K, $45K or $60K and upwards but people are outright refusing to work so these employers are being quite literally being forced to hire migrant workers because apparently these jobs aren't good enough for the locals to get out of bed for.

There are more than sufficient jobs around but simply people aren't willing to either work or travel down the road (in one case I had 300 metres down the road) to actually take up the job offer and even attempt to contribute to society in any way shape or form.

As a result those of us that do actually have a job or regular income are continually having to support those that simply don't want to have a job and thus can't afford to support themselves or their families in reasonable and stable accomodation.

I agree with you that High density public housing is a terrible idea and I beleive it should be avoided at almost all costs, it truly is hideous and causes more problems than it solves. Until people are actually willing to get off their backsides and actually change themselves and the successive Governments in Australia actually start growing some teeth and maybe introduce something like Mandatory National Service or something to that effect, to force people to learn skills and get themselves some self-respect and intergrate with the rest of Society I sadly don't see our welfare dependent nation moving beyond the sense of self-entitlement that continous governemnts have pretty much forced on a large portion of society.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Tyrael (I’m glad I’m not the only posting epic replies – I feel less crazy!). It’s good to hear the perspective of someone directly involved. I share many of your frustrations and I think we both agree that welfare dependency is a serious problem.

On an individual basis, I know there are those who are able but unwillingly to work. Anyone determined enough can find a job, but not everyone. When I said not everyone can find a job, I meant on a collective rather than individual level. There are far more unemployed than there are available jobs. This will not change because our economic system is relies on a pool of unemployed, as Belbo explained far more eloquently above.

I might be coming across as welfare-lovin’ leftie, but I’d honestly love nothing more than for Australia to return to the level of (true) full employment not seen since the demise of our production industry. In my sunshine and lollipops universe, we would be creating jobs and forcing the physically and mentally capable into employment, not entirely dissimilar to your mandatory national service idea. I concede, however, that this will never work under our current economic system.

I’ve also known many people who genuinely wanted to work, but stopped looking for work because finding even the most menial job proved too difficult. Yes, if these people had persevered, they’d have doubtlessly found work eventually. Those who find themselves stuck in a cycle of joblessness or poverty aren’t exactly the poster children for making the best decisions, though. The insidious aspect of welfare dependency, I believe, is that often breeds feelings of hopelessness and annihilates a person’s sense of self-worth. I’m sure you’ve come across many recipients who lacked the self-confidence to so much as fill out a basic form. These are often perfectly intelligent, capable people who have complete lack of faith in themselves.

There are some people who work the system unapologetically, some who even boast of their exploits. I believe, maybe wrongly, that these are the minority. I agree that the majority of long-term unemployed aren’t actively looking for work. In my experience (in no way a reflection of the statistical reality), most who don’t look for work do so not because they don’t want a job but because they’re convinced they won’t be able to get a job. It’s a cycle of defeatism engineered by our government. If the government actually wanted these people to work, they’d force them into work. Simple. Instead, they make them jump through endless, pointless and often humiliating hurdles which only reinforce the cycle.

For whatever reasons, unemployment is here to stay. Cancelling benefits won’t have the desired result of mass migration into the workforce, it will just result in a very poor and very angry underclass. It’s just a matter of determining the appropriate level of benefits. The government’s approach is usually ‘enough to keep them from rioting’. Some think this is too much, some think it too little.

 

[HiEquity]

I just noticed this little snippet in the Opposition Leader's budget reply speech:

Welfare quarantining for long term unemployed people should be extended from the Northern Territory to the rest of the country.

I had no idea this was Coalition policy - when did this happen?

Anyway, I can only say that I agree. I find the current policy of quarantining only for indigineous people to be fundamentally racist. This proposal would stop that problem.

In my view, when people take taxpayer's money it is entirely reasonable for it to be largely spent on what taxpayers want to see it spent on - eg food and shelter for themselves and their families. After all, it's not their money and they should have limited discretion over how it gets spent.

If people earn their own money then they should be able to spend it on what they like.

Hopefully such a scheme, if (and it's a big "if" of course) well designed, would make the welfare lifestyle sufficiently unattractive to make more people want to get away from it. And provide families who need more of the basics with just that, instead of the funds being channelled towards the alcohol and tobacco industries.

Another reason to vote Coalition...

 

[Belbo]

I just noticed this little snippet in the Opposition Leader's budget reply speech:

I had no idea this was Coalition policy - when did this happen?

Anyway, I can only say that I agree. I find the current policy of quarantining only for indigineous people to be fundamentally racist. This proposal would stop that problem.

In my view, when people take taxpayer's money it is entirely reasonable for it to be largely spent on what taxpayers want to see it spent on - eg food and shelter for themselves and their families. After all, it's not their money and they should have limited discretion over how it gets spent.

If people earn their own money then they should be able to spend it on what they like.

Hopefully such a scheme, if (and it's a big "if" of course) well designed, would make the welfare lifestyle sufficiently unattractive to make more people want to get away from it. And provide families who need more of the basics with just that, instead of the funds being channelled towards the alcohol and tobacco industries.

Another reason to vote Coalition...

I've no doubt that such a policy will be very popular with many voters. Just as I have no doubt it won't actually have any real impact on its targets other than to make their existences that much more miserable. This sort of politics is called populism, and it has very close affinities to fascism. Now what were you lecturing Aaron C about?

 

[HiEquity]

Now what were you lecturing Aaron C about?

Inappropriate comparisons with fascism when the subject matter in question actually has nothing to do with genocide etc...

And populism has far closer affinities with democracy than fascism.

 

[Belbo]

Inappropriate comparisons with fascism when the subject matter in question actually has nothing to do with genocide etc...

And populism has far closer affinities with democracy than fascism.

Wrong. Fascism has no intrinsic connection to genocide (that would be an historical act of national socialists). Its essence is the total dominance of the collective whose embodiment is the state. Democracy by contrast revolves around the protection of minority interests from domination by either the majority or the state. Populism is precisely about the domination of minority interests by an alleged popular (i.e. majority) interest, and is usually dressed up in anti-statist rhetoric to give it a facile democratic veneer.

It may be the will of the majority at any given time to stomp on the weakest in a society, but that doesn't make that act democratic. And this is particularly so when that minority is the unemployed, whose systemic presence as an anti-inflationary counterweight in the economy is structurally required. It rather makes that act of sheer cruelty populist. Such cruelty simply acquires state form in fascism, hence its affinity. Using the state to tread on the weak is at heart fascistic.

 

[HiEquity]

Your distinction between National Socialists and Fascists is well made but if we are getting technical (from wiki):

Fascism promotes political violence and war, as forms of direct action that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality

Fascism's goal to promote the rule of people deemed innately superior while seeking to purge society of people deemed innately inferior is a prominent far-right stance.

Not to mention eugenics and the rest, with which I won't insult your intelligence.

So I maintain that the principle of quarantining welfare payments is actually nothing like fascism and the comparison is completely ridiculous. Your label is an example of Reductio ad Absurdium combined with a smattering of Reductio ad Hitlerum. And yes we have recently seen people on the right stoop to these lows just as much as those on the left.

In my simple world, you will also have to educate me as to how democracy protects the interests of minorities without majority agreement for such? I can only think of the separation of powers through the courts but that feature is a product of majority popular support and democracy so isn't really relevant.

 

[Belbo]

So I maintain that the principle of quarantining welfare payments is actually nothing like fascism and the comparison is completely ridiculous. .

It's a principle now? How very highminded! And what will enacting this 'principle' do to reduce unemployment and welfare dependency? Will it result in full employment being redefined as say only 0.5% unemployed? No. So instead of calling it a principle how about being honest and calling it by its proper name: a jackboot. And the mistake you are making about democracy is thinking that what defines it is the institutionalisation of the will of the majority, when what actually defines it is the limits it places on that will even while giving it effect.

 

[HiEquity]

It's a principle now? How very highminded! And what will enacting this 'principle' do to reduce unemployment and welfare dependency? Will it result in full employment being redefined as say only 0.5% unemployed? No. So instead of calling it a principle how about being honest and calling it by its proper name: a jackboot. And the mistake you are making about democracy is thinking that what defines it is the institutionalisation of the will of the majority, when what actually defines it is the limits it places on that will even while giving it effect.

Happy to call it a policy if that makes any difference?

And speaking of ridiculous comparisons, you just keep on giving with a label like "jackboot" - again comparing something completely non-violent with something very violent indeed. It's nothing at all like a "jackboot" to ensure families are provided with food and shelter and not held at the mercy of irresponsible family members.

BTW I expect such a policy to slightly increase the participation rate and slightly reduce the unemployment rate at the same time, mainly through swelling the ranks of the part time and casually employed. And make substantial inroads into the alcoholism, domestic violence and drug addictions we know are so over-represented in the ranks of the long term unemployed, despite their low level of welfare income.

But please, I'm sure you can do better than "jackboot"? Why not have another go?

 

[Belbo]

Happy to call it a policy if that makes any difference?

And speaking of ridiculous comparisons, you just keep on giving with a label like "jackboot" - again comparing something completely non-violent with something very violent indeed. It's nothing at all like a "jackboot" to ensure families are provided with food and shelter and not held at the mercy of irresponsible family members.

BTW I expect such a policy to slightly increase the participation rate and slightly reduce the unemployment rate at the same time, mainly through swelling the ranks of the part time and casually employed. And make substantial inroads into the alcoholism, domestic violence and drug addictions we know are so over-represented in the ranks of the long term unemployed, despite their low level of welfare income.

But please, I'm sure you can do better than "jackboot"? Why not have another go?

Ah, now I see. You're supporting rearranging the deckchairs into a less odious configuration to assuage your middle class guilt about structurally benefiting from the necessity of significant (i.e. 5% minimum) unemployment. The passengers of that ship may be damned, but nobody can say you don't weep and plead for bettering of their blighted sacrificial existences, right? Such 'sentimentality of the powerless' would be forgiveable if you were only an outside observer, but being a democracy you're also a participant, so as a disproof of the jackboot-rule it is utterly disingenuous. Somebody is blowing sugar up your ***, and you're whistling in tune with it.

 

[HiEquity]

Ah, now I see. You're supporting rearranging the deckchairs into a less odious configuration to assuage your middle class guilt about structurally benefiting from the necessity of significant (i.e. 5% minimum) unemployment. The passengers of that ship may be damned, but nobody can say you don't weep and plead for bettering of their blighted sacrificial existences, right? Such 'sentimentality of the powerless' would be forgiveable if you were only an outside observer, but being a democracy you're also a participant, so as a disproof of the jackboot-rule it is utterly disingenuous. Somebody is blowing sugar up your ***, and you're whistling in tune with it.

OK Belbo I have made every effort to try to follow your posts and make sense of them but with that one I'm just putting up the white flag...