The reason why people who work in welfare talk about the “lifers” is that they’re the ones that stick with them. Most of the people who go on welfare aren’t there long. They don’t make much of an impression on caseworkers, who only see them a few times before they good. The lifers do stick because they get seen a lot more. So caseworkers often have a skewed perception about the demographics of their clients. For every lifer there are four faceless clients who will be replaced by four new clients in a few month’s time. The lifer will still be there.
And what percentage of lifers are people with disabilities or parents of children with disabilities? Is it really all that unreasonable for these people to receive a life stipend?
Abosolutely wrong. As unemployment goes up, wages go down. Supply and demand. The more desperate people there are to take jobs for slave labor wages, the less the companys have to pay, and if you are already high payed, then they will find a reason to lay you off and hire somebody cheaper.
Thank you!! I’ve had much different experiences than that and known of too many of the other variety (again, my sister worked as a caseworker for our welfare department for several years and I had experience actually being on the system).
I also remember seeing a “newszine” article regarding people who defraud the system by going across state lines and signing up for benefits for more than one SS#, I don’t remember what the percentage was though.
I knew that it wasn’t the “all people on welfare were black teens” as has been the popular myth, but again, in my area, there are too many people on it for years (decades in some cases) who have no valid reason why they couldn’t work.
I still think there are too many people abusing or using it for a career. While I agree with all here that shodan’s (and his ilk) ideas and opinion of the subject are over the top and ridiculous, I do support reform of the program. When I said that I supported it, I did NOT mean that it should be designed to make legitimate recipients even more miserable either.
Reform should be designed to help those that have a legitimate claim and oust those that don’t. That there aren’t more abusers than legitimate recipients shouldn’t change that. It looks as if things have changed a LOT since I last looked into it (I looked up a few other sites :)). If I remember, the original welfare program (back in the 30s) was supposed to be just for a few months, just to get people on their feet, it would be nice if we could get to the point where people wouldn’t have to rely on it more than that.
I’ve had CanvasShoes for my screen name for YEARS before old spice came up with their guy perfume name (if that’s what you’re referring to?, I don’t know much about guy perfume).
It’s a long story, but boils down to a pair of cute little teal/plaid canvas shoes, and wicked witch of a psycho supervisor, and it being rebellious statement and overall joke with my former company against her. This was ages ago, but I’ve used Shoes for so long and don’t want to have a different screenname for each group, or board I belong to.
Can we get a new phrase, please? I’m about sick to death of this particular cliche. I think we need to thrown it in the trashheap along with SDMB’s other trite favorites, such as “Think about the children!” and “I wasn’t even alive when slavery existed so I have nothing to feel guilty about!”
I’m one of those people who if I went out to work the cost to the state would be far far higher than it is to pay me family assistance and parenting payment. No employer is going to be thrilled with the amount of time I need to take to my kids to their various appointments and the time I need when one or the other kid is in crisis mode. I’m due for my appointment with welfare where they will attempt to draw up an agreement with me where I have to do something to show that I contribute to society. The good old mutual obligation crap. I’m hoping one university class will get me off the hook.
Kambuckta, there’s been some major (and almost totally unannounced changes) to the way you can earn money when you’re on welfare. We’ve just been switched to a system where we are reviewed yearly on after tax income instead of fortnightly on untaxed income. If it works the way we’ve been told it will, it should eliminate that evil thing where it could actually cost money if you worked.
Washing machine?!? Suits?!??! Poor people should wear house elf rags to an interview, and if they’re dingy, they should pound out the dirt on rocks in the river.
Surely the $1 in quarters you put in the laundry could have been put towards a down payment on a four bedroom house! FOOLISH POOR PERSON.
Funny you should mention that JbJ, one of the things I found the most horrible to deal with was having to use the cheapest soap, and often having to wash clothes with dishsoap, or even shampoo with it if we’d run out before “the check” came.
Nowadays? The leftover psychological aspect of that is that I’m always buying nice smelling soaps, and cleaning supplies, just for fun (sick huh?). I probably have a 4 month supply of those little plugins in my junk drawer. I buy stuff I don’t even need, just because of the memories of doing without, in such a sucky way.
** KellyM ** I can see some of the points you make are vary vali I do understand what you are saying. I only wish you could see things from my perspective as well. I am glad you are honest when filing out paperwork. I just have seen a few people who have impressed a negative image about welfare to me. I do hope you forgive me for that.
I appreciate those who use the system as it as meant to be used. Just to help them out when they are down, and looking to get back on their feet with a little help. I just hate to think about those ( evidently there are fewer than I suspected there were ) “lifers”.
I wish that we lived in a perfect world, where we all had plenty of steak and lobster to eat, doctors and medicine at our disposal, and we all only had to work 20 hours a week.
I would find a cite but I’m being lazy.
I’m not “abosolutely wrong” (sic) but take your point.
In the capitalist system, full employment would mean wages go down. By keeping a ‘reserve army of labour’ on minimum wage when required but often umemployed, it means that my salary stays relatively high because companies make profit. Under a capitalist system, full employment couldn’t work.
Maybe it is more dependent on the percentage of unemployed and the skills of those who are employed?
Sorry, but your still wrong. The fewer the people there are to choose from, the more that businesses have to compete for those employees, and the wages always go up. Its always been that way. Look at the IT industry right now. Companys are laying off high payed IT people so that they can hire back cheaper people because there are thousands of us right now that will work for a lot less than would have two years ago.
Also, businesses do better with higher numbers of employed(total employment is impossible), because there are more consumers.
If you think that the company that employs you is going to give you a higher salery just because they are making money then you are clueless. Companys will pay you only what they have to to keep you, and if there is high unemployment, that amount they have to pay you to keep you is much less.
Are you talking about the FTB (either A or B…I’m never sure which is which) Prim? I know that can be assessed yearly, but if you undercalculate your projected earnings, yer’ up shit creek with Centrelink from what I’ve heard.
If you’re referring to something else, then I would be VERY INTERESTED to find out what is going on. Because I am a casual worker, and my wages can fluctuate from nothing to $500 per fortnight, it would be better for me to have my income assessed annually (especially if it is after tax!!) I’m EXCITED now!! What’s the deal?
Oh, and good luck with finding some sort of ‘mutual obligation’ task with C/Link. For the most part, I’ve found them pretty helpful, especially if you don’t rock up in moccies and leggings. If you tell THEM what YOU want to do, they seem to want to go out of their way to give you a hand…well, that’s what I’ve found anyway. YMMV of course
I plan to think of him next time I buy steak and the next time I go to a movie. I’m very pleased that Australia and NZ have respect for the dignity of people even if they are on welfare and we have no such thing as food stamps. We get money just like the real folks and we can budget for food, housing, bills and luxuries. Imagine that! Some of us even live within our means and have luxuries.
Ah, I remember Social Services. My particular fave was when I told them that I needed some money to avoid being evicted from my apartment. If I had the money, I could have stayed in my apartment long enough to have my first paycheque from the new job processed, at which point I could have payed the rent.
They told me that since I was going to get enough money to pay the rent after I was evicted I made too much money to get any money before I was evicted.
Once I was evicted and had enough money to keep my apartment, if I hadn’t been evicted, which I wouldn’t have been if they hadn’t had to deny me money because I was soon going to have enough to stay there if I hadn’t been evicted because they couldn’t help me because I was going to have some money after I got evicted, they would be able to help me out.
This, and the amount of paperwork that was required to explain why I dared to work for one half day and make $30.00 Canadian while I was on unemployment benefits, despite the fact that I would have continued to get the benefits even if I hadn’t worked or had worked and hadn’t reported it, explains everything you would ever need to know about Welfare lifers, conservatives, and the vast gap where anyone trying to avoid either extreme gets fucked over with extra tread marks.
