Rod -


 RSt>> 'quite a bit of evidence'? Enlighten me, please,

 RS> I was talking about HIS earlier mail. You appear to think I was talking
 RS> generally.

In *either* case, please enlighten me. Snip a few bits to prove your
argument correct. Prove it to me and I'll shut up, promise. 8^)

 RS> There is also quite a bit of evidence of lots of people being
 RS> quite happy to bludge on the dole/welfare for as long as we are silly
 RS> enough to keep paying that out too.

 RSt>> (anecdotal stuff does *not* count).

 RS> You can proclaim that if you want Russ, it counts anyway. I happened
 RS> to know one particular person who has bludged off the dole for TWENTY
 RS> years, has never actually ever worked since he was booted out of school
 RS> twenty years ago. He is very proud of the fact that he has only ever
 RS> paid $1.25 or something in income tax in his entire life. He aint
 RS> alone.

I don't doubt this, it may well be true. However, let's look at the
logic:

(1) I know a man who was unemployed and didn't want to work.
(2) There are unemployed people.

(4) Unemployed people do not want to work.

Can you say the word "generalisation"?

 RS> There is a wealth of evidence for example of people rocking up
 RS> to the Sunshine Coast etc to just live on the dole. Nimbin has also
 RS> been notorious for having the vast bulk of the people there bludging
 RS> off welfare after having chosen to move there. One of them was even
 RS> silly enough to brag about it on 60 Minutes, she reconed she should
 RS> be paid double coz she claimed she was looking after the environment.
 RS> The Minister for Dole Bludgers promptly went apoplectic with rage.

I DON'T deny that some are rorting the system - if there is a scam to
be had, some people will find a way; human nature I suppose. I DO have
trouble with:

(A) Your 'wealth of evidence'. Where?
(B) 'the vast bulk of the people there bludging off welfare' What are
    your figures and from where did you get them?

As above, I AGREE that some are probably rorting the system (I do not
think the figure is quantifiable, though, for various reasons).  I
cannot however, like you, tar all the unemployed with the same brush.

 RSt>> Sources appreciated.

 RS> The stats on the number on the dole etc are published periodically, it
 RS> really is rather interesting to look at the specific places where you
 RS> can bludge on the dole in maximum comfort. Or rather obscene actually.

You didn't answer my question.

 RS> Be interesting to see if the new government rips that feather bed away.

Irrelevant.

 RSt>> So there IS a safety net to help us when we are "inevitably
 RSt>> unemployed", but we shouldn't avail ourselves of it?

 RS> Yes, you should make your own provision for the inevitable times when
 RS> you are between jobs and not spend everything you earn while working.

Low-income earners would probably not be able to do this. What would
you suggest for them? As for me, I don't mind paying tax for an albeit
imperfect welfare system. After seeing various countries first-hand, I
am grateful to have the system, as I am with Medicare.

 RSt>> They do indeed, and plenty essentially volunteer to live like that.

 RSt>> 'plenty'. Enlighten me again... please quantify 'plenty'.

 RS> You know what the word means. No use trying to pretend it doesnt
 RS> happen.

I'm not - I agree that it certainly CAN (and probably does) happen. I just
don't believe in pulling a quantifier from thin air and using it to validate
a basically dodgy argument.

 RSt>> How do you *know* Jon doesn't try very hard to find work?

 RS> That was rather obvious from his silly comment about '10 applications',
 RS> he clearly is just satisfying the bureaucratic requirement to continue
 RS> to receive the dole, it aint about counting applications, its about
 RS> putting your brain into gear and increasing your employability etc.

As ridiculous a generalisation as I have ever seen. Your logic really
is underwhelming at times, Rod.


Cheers...


russell{at}seranis.com.au


--- Spot 1.3a #754