Unemployment up to 5.3% (10 month high)
- Thread starter buzzlightyear
- Start date
do you know how to operate a gun?
Nope. But I choose to live in areas where I don't need one to feel safe.
ok you're safe for a few years. careful what you ask for was all i was saying.
thing is..... im safe working for the government unless I did something really bad like steal and then i'd get sacked. For instance just say i dont win my level 3 position it doesn't mean i will become unemployed as I am a permanent level 2 public servant and no one can take that away from me! I would get placed somewhere else in another wa government department becuase I would go on some list a redeployee list i think its called. im pretty much set!
Thats the beauty of the public service! edited to say
A good example of this is... there is one lady who works for us who is not very productive as she is constantly falling asleep (she may have some disorder that is undiagnosed i dunno) Anyway she doesnt get any work done because of this! She is a permananent level 1 which means the she is a permanent fixture working as a government employee. She cant be sacked. She is lucky she was made permanent before her condition worsened.
Last edited:
Do you really think unions are interested in the unemployed? Have you ever heard of last on - first off? There's even the term 'workerism', referring to the union movement's antipathy toward distributing resources to anyone but themselves, particularly the unemployed.
Left-wing: What does that even mean any more, when no-one across the Aust political spectrum (except the Katter-style lunar right) wants to upset rational resource allocation or free trade, let alone cares for the rhetoric of 'nationalising the means of production'? Have you even stopped to think how alike our political parties are on every core concept of economic policy?
No, frankly, what you are doing is simplisitically substituting team support for independent thought, claiming clarity follows from the shallowest of political rhetoric, and seeking personal confirmation merely by association with a likely electoral routing. What's embarrassing is that you actually think that counts as clever. Seriously, that is genuinely embarrassing to behold.
thing is..... im safe working for the government unless I did something really bad like steal and then i'd get sacked. For instance just say i dont win my level 3 position it doesn't mean i will become unemployed as I am a permanent level 2 public servant and no one can take that away from me! I would get placed somewhere else in another wa government department becuase I would go on some list a redeployee list i think its called. im pretty much set!
edited to say
A good example of this is... there is one lady who works for us who is not very productive as she is constantly falling asleep (she may have some disorder that is undiagnosed i dunno) Anyway she doesnt get any work done because of this! She is a permananent level 1 which means the she is a permanent fixture working as a government employee. She cant be sacked. She is lucky she was made permanent before her condition worsened.
That's where our taxes go?
No, I already knew that. Just joking. I can't stop laughing.
I think it's incorrectly called the 'missionary position', but he's explicitly on his very, very last chance, and has in fact been working like a Trojan all week (including stepping up to work sorely-needed overtime this Saturday morning). It's not just a question of patience though: Replace him, with what?
The sad fact I've found is, if someone's unemployed and looking for a job then they're either the first person ditched in the last downturn or they're not really interested in having a job. Good workers simply move from employment to employment without a break, simply accepting the better offer as they go. Keeping them is the challenge, because it takes not one but two pay rises in one go to keep them. And that upsets everyone else.
And that's another of my bug bears ... dept of housing houses should be for those in desparate need, with a time limit of 5yrs unless they are elderly or diagnosed with an incurable mental health issue.
5 years is plenty long enough to get yourself sorted out and back on your feet, even if you're a sole parent.
As I said - it's a lifestyle choice rather than a need.
I don't disagree with you Lizzie, however it is rarely that simple.
A not insignificant percentage of this is generational passed down thru households.....monkey see, monkey do. The system then perpetuates the entitlement as if it didn't it may get too tough on those truly deserving for that transient period be it months or up to five years as you mention and they miss out.
The same occurs with some workcare/workcover claimants who despite non-serious and simple musculo-skeletal injuries end up falling victim to the sick role image. They aren't necessarily malingerers; they truly believe they are sick/ill. That system also perpetuates the development of chronic dependency as does the legal profession that represents plaintiffs. There is a paucity of incentive to improve as this penalises their entitlements.
Back to the Centrelink system, there will be exceptions for those with chronic physical and psych/mental disabilities, however I am amazed that unemployment recipients don't need to "clock-in" at a Centrelink office at least several times per week at a morning hour. If they were working they would need time accountability, why not when they are getting a benefit.
Unfortunately it can sometimes become a situation of a hand-out, rather than a hand-up
the problem is it still entrenches a welfare mentality and sense of entitlement into the middle class. I have plenty of friends who are stay at home mums because they dont want to lose their benefits. so we are paying people who are quite capable of getting a job .... I would rather be paying this money to those who really need it, and getting the middle class off government benefits.
A voice in favour of reason rather than recrimination. That's the point, isn't it: They're holding you back? It's a sorry day when someone makes their measure - indeed, advocates a measure - against the losers in this thing called the human race. But I do understand, you personally didn't cause it. I feel compelled though to ask, why do you feel you have to celebrate it? Grant welfare to the unneedy ahead of the needy? Who's your nanny?
Its not their house!!! its OURS i.e. mine and yours otherwise known as the idiot tax payers who actually work.. Their only claim to wanting to continue to live there is social circles and location i.e. who the f$%#%k doesnt like a city view for free.
The excuse they have been there for 20, 40 or their entire life doesnt sway my view for a single second.
The government should sell, profit and use the proceeds to build more housing in cheaper areas. This stimulates the economy while still satisfying a growing need for government housing.
So you feel its more "humane" to leave someone on a waiting list for years on end because there isnt enough housing just so some sack of water, carbon producing drop kick can continue till death living in a 1+ million dollar harbor front apartment?
Give me a break.
The excuse they have been there for 20, 40 or their entire life doesnt sway my view for a single second.
The government should sell, profit and use the proceeds to build more housing in cheaper areas. This stimulates the economy while still satisfying a growing need for government housing.
So you feel its more "humane" to leave someone on a waiting list for years on end because there isnt enough housing just so some sack of water, carbon producing drop kick can continue till death living in a 1+ million dollar harbor front apartment?
Give me a break.
two sides of the same coin, read my earlier post.
By providing benefits to the middle class it gets to the point were it economically doesnt make sense for both husband and wife to work - so they dont and they do backflips to get full benefits and live off the state to supplement their lifestyle (this is NOT the intention of welfar). I do however agree I prefer people who work rorting the system over those who do absolutely nothing...
Those attacking Labor on welfare reform I agree to a large extent but the other side is no different with the Libs installed policies helping the middle class slip into a cycle of state dependance. Rudd\Labor in the past have tried welfare reform e.g. to remove carers allowance... he tried to do this because every man and his dog started claiming carers allowance its one big rort. However like any well intentioned policy there are those who are genuinly carers who get shot in the crossfire. But the libs used the word "carer" to full advantage to fool those of us who automatically imagine some kind of nurse helping the sick and not the son of some drop kick dad who rorted centrlink stating his hurt knee prevents him from ALL forms of work and now his son is his "carer"! oh please!
This is a highly charged topic with no real, realistic or quick solution.
By providing benefits to the middle class it gets to the point were it economically doesnt make sense for both husband and wife to work - so they dont and they do backflips to get full benefits and live off the state to supplement their lifestyle (this is NOT the intention of welfar). I do however agree I prefer people who work rorting the system over those who do absolutely nothing...
Those attacking Labor on welfare reform I agree to a large extent but the other side is no different with the Libs installed policies helping the middle class slip into a cycle of state dependance. Rudd\Labor in the past have tried welfare reform e.g. to remove carers allowance... he tried to do this because every man and his dog started claiming carers allowance its one big rort. However like any well intentioned policy there are those who are genuinly carers who get shot in the crossfire. But the libs used the word "carer" to full advantage to fool those of us who automatically imagine some kind of nurse helping the sick and not the son of some drop kick dad who rorted centrlink stating his hurt knee prevents him from ALL forms of work and now his son is his "carer"! oh please!
This is a highly charged topic with no real, realistic or quick solution.
Hey tcocaro and belbo. Next time you drive over the bridge and see that huge housing apartment with 360 degree views of the city\harbour, wave to me. I'm here in a rental looking at you plebs crossing the bridge
If you, lizzie, Aaron, and Belbo actually looked at the facts, you would know that many of these places you mention are not housing commission, but owner occupied and rentals. Maybe they were housing commission years and years ago. The government is clearly smarter than you lot.
It's a common misconception in Sydney that the building is housing commission.
Maybe you should do less "sweating blood" and more thinking. Or stop listening to the Somersoft property bulls
Studios rent for ~$390+/wk McMahons Point - studio
2br rent for ~$700/wk McMahons Point - 2br
2br buy for ~$900K McMahons Point - 2br buy
Your an absolute muppet thinking we were stating the whole building was department of housing. Much more likely we were stating correctly based on my rpdata confirmation just moments ago that a big chunk is.
So please next time you walk out the door of your apartment your paying $700 for look next door and wave to your neighbor paying nothing.
I personally was talking about this building;
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30243864@N00/4315990605/
Do you even need to check rpdata to confirm its government housing?
So please next time you walk out the door of your apartment your paying $700 for look next door and wave to your neighbor paying nothing.
I personally was talking about this building;
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30243864@N00/4315990605/
Do you even need to check rpdata to confirm its government housing?
Hey tcocaro and belbo. Next time you drive over the bridge and see that huge housing apartment with 360 degree views of the city\harbour, wave to me. I'm here in a rental looking at you plebs crossing the bridge
If you, lizzie, Aaron, and Belbo actually looked at the facts, you would know that many of these places you mention are not housing commission, but owner occupied and rentals. Maybe they were housing commission years and years ago. The government is clearly smarter than you lot.
It's a common misconception in Sydney that the building is housing commission.
Maybe you should do less "sweating blood" and more thinking. Or stop listening to the Somersoft property bulls
Studios rent for ~$390+/wk McMahons Point - studio
2br rent for ~$700/wk McMahons Point - 2br
2br buy for ~$900K McMahons Point - 2br buy
not knowing sydney i thought the posts were saying the whole building was housing commission, maybe i misread them.
oh that's an ugly building, i don't care what Jesus has to say about it
concentrating public housing in one area is a recipe for disaster. it creates ghettos and despair. but i guess if you send the ghetto far enough out you don't need to look at it.
poverty and welfare is complicated and won't be solved by a thread on SS.
It is merely an acute example of an apartment block which is department of housing literally on sydneys harbor front and arguably one of the best bits of land in the city.
As a developer we get approached countless times from department of housing to buy end units of our stock, regardless of their location.
In all my posts I have made clear this thread is more running commentary rather than a thread for any kind of solution.
And apologies if I came across as the whole building, governments dont do that anymore particularly thanks to the failed Villawood expirement.
As a developer we get approached countless times from department of housing to buy end units of our stock, regardless of their location.
In all my posts I have made clear this thread is more running commentary rather than a thread for any kind of solution.
And apologies if I came across as the whole building, governments dont do that anymore particularly thanks to the failed Villawood expirement.
No matter where you go, including North West Sydney, public housing tenants always pay less than the locals (the sydney harbour area is no different). I'm sure in all locations, the locals begrudge that the bludgers pay much less.
Paying less than $700 mate. Jealous much, while you trudge all the way out to the Western Suburbs
, even public tenants are living better. But maybe also get a history leason on why the Sirius building you linked was built. If my family lived around the harbour and the government was forcing everyone out to develop, then I'd expect to be accommodated around the harbour still at government expense. I'm sure not all tenants are the original lot however.
