Many people that end up in Jobseeker should be on the DSP or NDIS, but aren’t because of very onerous requirements. And some people get turned down from work, even the most basic jobs, because of discrimination of various forms.
And according to the article, raising Jobseeker would take only a tiny amount of the budget, while moving many of the most disadvantaged people out of poverty. Which is much better value for money than many of the other measures that are included in a typical budget.
And some people get turned down from work, even the most basic jobs, because of discrimination of various forms.
So, nothing to do with Jobseeker then. That money would need to be instead be allocated toward addressing those issues, not rewarding them by financially offsetting them with no way out of the hole.
Jobseeker has a very specific outline. You’re wanting to see that money go on other things that also have very specific outlines and are better suited.
So, nothing to do with Jobseeker then. That money would need to be instead be allocated toward addressing those issues, not rewarding them by financially offsetting them with no way out of the hole.
Addressing discrimination is the type of thing that takes decades to solve. In the mean time, what is an unemployed person who can’t get a job supposed to do? Become homeless and have their issues compounded dramatically? If you think that more public housing should be built, then I agree 100% but again, that’s something that takes a long time to fix and doesn’t help with the very immediate housing and food costs that poor people face.
I don’t really see a person being able to work, but remaining unemployed being related to there being no work available. It would either be intentional or invalidity of some form. As I mentioned, there is always casual work available. The organisation I work at, there’s always roles available that would net someone triple what Jobseeker does. There’s entire industries based on these roles.
If someone can’t get one of these jobs, it could only be invalidity and they shouldn’t be on the lower Jobseeker payments.
Many people that end up in Jobseeker should be on the DSP or NDIS, but aren’t because of very onerous requirements. And some people get turned down from work, even the most basic jobs, because of discrimination of various forms.
And according to the article, raising Jobseeker would take only a tiny amount of the budget, while moving many of the most disadvantaged people out of poverty. Which is much better value for money than many of the other measures that are included in a typical budget.
So, nothing to do with Jobseeker then. That money would need to be instead be allocated toward addressing those issues, not rewarding them by financially offsetting them with no way out of the hole.
Jobseeker has a very specific outline. You’re wanting to see that money go on other things that also have very specific outlines and are better suited.
Addressing discrimination is the type of thing that takes decades to solve. In the mean time, what is an unemployed person who can’t get a job supposed to do? Become homeless and have their issues compounded dramatically? If you think that more public housing should be built, then I agree 100% but again, that’s something that takes a long time to fix and doesn’t help with the very immediate housing and food costs that poor people face.
I don’t really see a person being able to work, but remaining unemployed being related to there being no work available. It would either be intentional or invalidity of some form. As I mentioned, there is always casual work available. The organisation I work at, there’s always roles available that would net someone triple what Jobseeker does. There’s entire industries based on these roles.
If someone can’t get one of these jobs, it could only be invalidity and they shouldn’t be on the lower Jobseeker payments.