Australia are planning to drug test people on welfare

boombang

end of the road wrote: »

unfortunately it wouldn't get people in the working discipline. those who want to work are looking and doing what they can and the people we are talking about are unemployable and not wanted by employers.

Sadly I fear you might be right, but it would be interesting if the government gave it a trial for a year.

ceadaoin.

So they could be spending all their welfare money on alcohol and that's ok? Sounds like a waste of time and money based on the previous results in other countries tbh and just a way to turn welfare recipients into second class citizens

end of the road

bananabread12 wrote: »

Get rid of the minimum wage then and there will be plenty of jobs for these "unemployable" individuals. It's the only solution. At present if you're not worth 350 odd Euro a week then you're sent to the dole queue - the solution is simply, these people do not posses the skills that warrants E350. So get rid of it and employers might find work for them that they'll be willing to give 200, 250, 300 Euro or whatever towards...it's more than they're getting on the dole anyway.

there won't be jobs for them no . if they are unemployable they are unemployable. the minimum wage has to stay so that people can live and pay their basic costs. the minimum wage is vital to the economy and to cut down on exploitation. there is no work for the unemployable. it's nothing to do with wage or being worth a certain amount. your solution is not viable.

bananabread12

end of the road wrote: »

there won't be jobs for them no . if they are unemployable they are unemployable. the minimum wage has to stay so that people can live and pay their basic costs. the minimum wage is vital to the economy and to cut down on exploitation. there is no work for the unemployable. it's nothing to do with wage or being worth a certain amount. your solution is not viable.

Of course there will be jobs for them - it's simple supply and demand. This can be shown to you mathematically. How is the minimum wage vital to the economy? It doesn't even impact anyone earning over 9.55 an hour and only allows certain low-skilled labourers to corner the market. It makes poor people poorer.

Are you suggesting the first world countries that do not have minimum wages are falling apart? Heaven forbid.

end of the road

bananabread12 wrote: »

Of course there will be jobs for them - it's simple supply and demand. This can be shown to you mathematically. How is the minimum wage vital to the economy? It doesn't even impact anyone earning over 9.55 an hour and only allows certain low-skilled labourers to corner the market. It makes poor people poorer.

Are you suggesting the first world countries that do not have minimum wages are falling apart? Heaven forbid.

it's not simple supply and demand as there are enough workers for the work that needs doing. there is no work for the unemployable as they are unemployable, the removal of the minimum wage won't change that. the minimum wage is vital as it insures that in theory at least, people can pay their basic costs.

listermint

Grand plan if your all happy with increasing break ins and robberies and whatever else people on drugs to do get their fix.

Smart idea I suppose.



Cause and effect.

But sure people only see single lines of thought don't they.

steddyeddy

Oranage2 wrote: »

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2145603-australia-plans-random-drug-tests-for-people-receiving-welfare/

What do people think about this?

No a terrible idea in my opinion, money that tax payers give The government should not be used to buy illegal narcotics.

Tax payers also fund drug tests. Let's hope this ends up saving money unlike the tests in America.

Stupid idea thought up by people who get a boner at the thought of shaming people on welfare. It's nothing to do with saving money.

steddyeddy

seamus wrote: »

It sounds harsh from the thread title but actually isn't that awful when you look into it.

Though I'd object to including cannabis in the list, the goal is not to "punish" drug addicts, but rather aim to try and break the cycle whereby the government gives them money which then goes straight on drugs.

I'm skeptical about its effectiveness. Addicts are wiley barterers, and don't need to be in receipt of cash to trade their welfare for drugs. And other attempts at implementing such restrictions and random testing have had no success.

There are obviously also privacy and autonomy concerns about randomly drug testing people just because they're unemployed.

So while I'd file this one under "good intentions", it sounds like a big waste of money to me.

It's incredibly awful and actually quite stupid. It's in a similar bracket say this is good intentions as well.

It has cost the taxpayer more every time.

bananabread12

end of the road wrote: »

it's not simple supply and demand as there are enough workers for the work that needs doing. there is no work for the unemployable as they are unemployable, the removal of the minimum wage won't change that. the minimum wage is vital as it insures that in theory at least, people can pay their basic costs.

There is no specific set amount of jobs in the universe - jobs are created and destroyed on the basis of how much it costs an employer to hire someone. If employers demand labour at 7 or 8 Euro and hour, then how can this demand be met with supply when the government is saying it'll cost nearly 10? In this case, the State itself is directly impacting and intervening in the labour market and thus it is artificially restricting supply.

There is work for these "unemployable" individuals - a lot of work. You can hire anyone to do anything. Hell, I could go out and hire one of these guys to mow my lawn but why would I when the State is telling me that it'll cost me nearly 10 Euro an hour?! I might as well just do it my self because I value that 10 Euro an hour moreso than I do my time of cutting the grass...

Far from the minimum wage law being the saviour of humanity that you're misleading people with, it's actually one of the biggest contributing factors in keeping these unskilled people out of work.

BillyBobBS

If this happened in Ireland we'd need at least 10,000 new Gardai for the jump in crime. Its a stupid idea.

end of the road

bananabread12 wrote: »

There is no specific set amount of jobs in the universe - jobs are created and destroyed on the basis of how much it costs an employer to hire someone. If employers demand labour at 7 or 8 Euro and hour, then how can this demand be met with supply when the government is saying it'll cost nearly 10? In this case, the State itself is directly impacting and intervening in the labour market and thus it is artificially restricting supply.

There is work for these "unemployable" individuals - a lot of work. You can hire anyone to do anything. Hell, I could go out and hire one of these guys to mow my lawn but why would I when the State is telling me that it'll cost me nearly 10 Euro an hour?! I might as well just do it my self because I value that 10 Euro an hour moreso than I do my time of cutting the grass...

Far from the minimum wage law being the saviour of humanity that you're misleading people with, it's actually one of the biggest contributing factors in keeping these unskilled people out of work.

there are no jobs to create for the people we are talking about.
employers don't want to pay anything, understandibly, so we have to have a minimum wage to insure a wage is paid. there is no supply for the demand to meet here as there will be enough work for those who want it once the recovery fully happens. the labour market is not being restricted, exploitation is bering restricted which is just, fair and correct, for the greater good. there is no work for the unemployable they are unemployable. it's nothing to with skills but general attitudes which cannot be changed. the minimum wage law is necessary and must remain to keep exploitation down and insure a fair days wage for a fair days work.

steddyeddy

BillyBobBS wrote: »

If this happened in Ireland we'd need at least 10,000 new Gardai for the jump in crime. Its a stupid idea.

People must have really unhappy lives to worry about social welfare 24/7.

Pkiernan

steddyeddy wrote: »

People must have really unhappy lives to worry about social welfare 24/7.

No. Just sick of paying 54% tax for layabout junkie dirtbags who should be put on a desert island and left there.

pickarooney

From a pragmatic point of view what's the most likely outcome?

- money wasted on a scheme that yields no useful results, most likely money going to politicians' friends and families

- dole suspended for some

- increased crime as addicts turn to stealing

- more money spent on legal proceedings and prison

What are the upsides? How is this not just another in the interminable list of schemes by the privileged classes to take from the middle classes while scapegoating the lower classes?

How does this address the root causes of addiction and despair?

Sam Kade

Pkiernan wrote: »

No. Just sick of paying 54% tax for layabout junkie dirtbags who should be put on a desert island and left there.

Down the pub one night a man like you started giving out about his tax money funding social welfare, one of the patrons came up to him and patted him on the back while saying the harder you work the more I get paid.

Yet another dole bashing thread :rolleyes:

end of the road

Pkiernan wrote: »

No. Just sick of paying 54% tax for layabout junkie dirtbags who should be put on a desert island and left there.

junkie dirtbags are only a tiny proportion of those on wellfare. so tiny they may as welll be non-existant. i am not overjoyed about them receiving wellfare either but i recognize the reality that it it's better they do then don't.
they can't be put on a desert island and left there as it would be against their human rights. we would be paying high taxes anyway even with a low wellfare bill.

bananabread12

end of the road wrote: »

there are no jobs to create for the people we are talking about.
employers don't want to pay anything, understandibly, so we have to have a minimum wage to insure a wage is paid. there is no supply for the demand to meet here as there will be enough work for those who want it once the recovery fully happens. the labour market is not being restricted, exploitation is bering restricted which is just, fair and correct, for the greater good. there is no work for the unemployable they are unemployable. it's nothing to with skills but general attitudes which cannot be changed. the minimum wage law is necessary and must remain to keep exploitation down and insure a fair days wage for a fair days work.

I've no idea as to what this "recovery" is that you're expecting? Our GDP is greater today than it was in 2007, our GNI today dwarfs what is was back in 2007, our gross domestic product per capita is well above what it was in 2007. There is nothing to recover. We're far and away above whatever we lost post-recession so I'm not sure what it is you're expecting to recover from....

In any event, you cannot argue with mathematics. The minimum wage kills jobs. This is not my opinion here, this is a mathematical fact. Do you wish me to post academic studies in relation to such areas?

Tsipras

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »

Absolutely great idea. My brother used to think that his social welfare payments were best spent on cans of Karpackie, Amber Leaf rollies, and heading out to Connemara in a loud, death-trap of a car to smoke weed with other man-children. 

The marijuana ended up 'doing his head in', so he gave it up. He now has a job, a sensible haircut, and hobbies that involve more than getting high on a Tuesday evening while playing Fifa 17 with other government artists.

Your brother sounds much better craic than you

steddyeddy

Pkiernan wrote: »

No. Just sick of paying 54% tax for layabout junkie dirtbags who should be put on a desert island and left there.

If people really think that their 54% tax goes towards drug addicts then they don't deserve a decent wage. Absolute stupidity.

Irish Guitarist

How about handing out free drugs but lacing them with some kind of poison? Get rid of poor people that way.

Wanderer78

bananabread12 wrote: »

I've no idea as to what this "recovery" is that you're expecting? Our GDP is greater today than it was in 2007, our GNI today dwarfs what is was back in 2007, our gross domestic product per capita is well above what it was in 2007. There is nothing to recover. We're far and away above whatever we lost post-recession so I'm not sure what it is you're expecting to recover from....

In any event, you cannot argue with mathematics. The minimum wage kills jobs. This is not my opinion here, this is a mathematical fact. Do you wish me to post academic studies in relation to such areas?

with one of the worst homeless/housing crisis to ever exist in most recent times,you d have to ask, does all this gdp/gni stuff really matter, and does it really reflect whats actually happening in our societies?

dont forget, theres equal amounts of peer reviewed work claiming things such as minimum wage are important to have a properly functioning economy, so.....

....anyhow, back to the thread, yet more deeply misinformed politicians and policy makers.......:rolleyes:

Oranage2

Sam Kade wrote: »

Pkiernan wrote: »

No. Just sick of paying 54% tax for layabout junkie dirtbags who should be put on a desert island and left there.

Down the pub one night a man like you started giving out about his tax money funding social welfare, one of the patrons came up to him and patted him on the back while saying the harder you work the more I get paid.

Yet another dole bashing thread :rolleyes:

I don't see how it's a dole bashing thread, I think people have a strong opinion that people receiving state help shouldn't be wasting this money on illegal drugs and funding criminal activities.

We have one poster saying we'll need 10,000 more gardai, and another poster saying it's only a small fraction of of welfare.

The people who would be willing to commit crime to fund their drug use are already commiting crimes.

For your average Joe shmoe, it might prevent him/her doing drugs if they knew they might be tested.

And I don't get the AH love for people on welfare.

Most people on welfare are career spoongers with no skills and aren't activily seeking work, Or students with no real experience nor qualified who won't take a job they see as beneath them.

The Joe shmoe stories of a guy losing his job are far and few between and I bet Joe shmoe is actively seeking employment and will likely find a new job within a year, maybe 2.

Wanderer78

Oranage2 wrote: »

I don't see how it's a dole bashing thread, I think people have a strong opinion that people receiving state help shouldn't be wasting this money on illegal drugs and funding criminal activities.

We have one poster saying we'll need 10,000 more gardai, and another poster saying it's only a small fraction of of welfare.

The people who would be willing to commit crime to fund their drug use are already commiting crimes.

For your average Joe shmoe, it might prevent him/her doing drugs if they knew they might be tested.

And I don't get the AH love for people on welfare.

Most people on welfare are career spoongers with no skills and aren't activily seeking work, Or students with no real experience nor qualified who won't take a job they see as beneath them.

The Joe shmoe stories of a guy losing his job are far and few between and I bet Joe shmoe is actively seeking employment and will likely find a new job within a year, maybe 2.

id suggest some more research on this!

Oranage2

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Oranage2 wrote: »

I don't see how it's a dole bashing thread, I think people have a strong opinion that people receiving state help shouldn't be wasting this money on illegal drugs and funding criminal activities.

We have one poster saying we'll need 10,000 more gardai, and another poster saying it's only a small fraction of of welfare.

The people who would be willing to commit crime to fund their drug use are already commiting crimes.

For your average Joe shmoe, it might prevent him/her doing drugs if they knew they might be tested.

And I don't get the AH love for people on welfare.

Most people on welfare are career spoongers with no skills and aren't activily seeking work, Or students with no real experience nor qualified who won't take a job they see as beneath them.

The Joe shmoe stories of a guy losing his job are far and few between and I bet Joe shmoe is actively seeking employment and will likely find a new job within a year, maybe 2.

id suggest some more research on this!

I'd love to read up on statics if you could point me in the right direction

up for anything

BillyBobBS wrote: »

If this happened in Ireland we'd need at least 10,000 new Gardai for the jump in crime. Its a stupid idea.

Set a thief to catch a thief. Take all the career welfarists and send them to Templemore for training not that they'd need much training in keying in breathalysers tests that didn't actually take place.

seamus wrote: »

Though I'd object to including cannabis in the list,

Why? I'm sick of hearing about it being non-addictive and harmless. It may have been back in the 60s but these days it's poison especially to the youngsters of this country.

bananabread12 wrote: »

I'd be favour of abolishing the welfare system altogether. It's broken in it's current form. Far too many bowzies taking advantage of it knocking around the place in need of a serious income decrease to come to the sudden realisation that to you need to make your own way in this world.

So what are you going to put in its place? What about all those OAPs drawing the non-contributory pension? Is it down the mines and up the chimneys with them? All those disabled people? Fuck 'em, is it? Are you going to be happy about stepping over the thousands and thousands of homeless that will be littering the streets? It'll be interesting to know what your plan would be if you could abolish the welfare system altogether.

Someone suggested drug testing the public section - perhaps it would actually be better to send in independent time and motion experts, from other countries preferably, to spend a month in all the public sector departments in the country. They'd fall about the place laughing especially when they did a stint in Turas Nua listening to the internal joshing about how many of 'yours' got jobs this month! :rolleyes:

end of the road

Oranage2 wrote: »

For your average Joe shmoe, it might prevent him/her doing drugs if they knew they might be tested.

it won't unfortunately.

Oranage2 wrote: »

Most people on welfare are career spoongers with no skills and aren't activily seeking work, Or students with no real experience nor qualified who won't take a job they see as beneath them.

incorrect i'm afraid. the evidence says otherwise.

Oranage2 wrote: »

The Joe shmoe stories of a guy losing his job are far and few between and I bet Joe shmoe is actively seeking employment and will likely find a new job within a year, maybe 2.

wrong, those stories are quite high and it can take a lot longer to find a job for some.

Wanderer78

Oranage2 wrote: »

I'd love to read up on statics if you could point me in the right direction

it requires a lot of digging, id recommend literature on complex issues such as psychological issues(mental health issues), behavioural problems, complex learning disabilities, personality disorders, neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism etc etc

flutered

Gazzmonkey wrote: »

Its not illegal to have drugs in your system in most situations but it is wrong to have your hand out to the state expecting free money then spending it on drugs.

So only spongers need tested

so why not test every one in recipt of goverment money, the pm his cabinet, all politicos, all public servents, why just welfare

ceadaoin.

Anyway they have ebt cards for welfare recipients here in the states. They are just traded for cash to buy drugs and/or alcohol by those who wish to get high and drunk. Makes no difference. Except to the companies who run the system of course, they make millions off the backs of poor people

flutered

Oranage2 wrote: »

I don't see how it's a dole bashing thread, I think people have a strong opinion that people receiving state help shouldn't be wasting this money on illegal drugs and funding criminal activities.

We have one poster saying we'll need 10,000 more gardai, and another poster saying it's only a small fraction of of welfare.

The people who would be willing to commit crime to fund their drug use are already commiting crimes.

For your average Joe shmoe, it might prevent him/her doing drugs if they knew they might be tested.

And I don't get the AH love for people on welfare.

Most people on welfare are career spoongers with no skills and aren't activily seeking work, Or students with no real experience nor qualified who won't take a job they see as beneath them.

The Joe shmoe stories of a guy losing his job are far and few between and I bet Joe shmoe is actively seeking employment and will likely find a new job within a year, maybe 2.

Most people on welfare are career spoongers with no skills and aren't activily seeking work, Or students with no real experience nor qualified who won't take a job they see as beneath them.

can you supply any links which supports your arguement