About Unemployment and Job Vacancies

[ramblingboy42]

If our current registered 740,000 unemployed Australians put in the required 40 job applications to keep their welfare benefits then there will be almost 30 million applications for the 146,000 available jobs.

Excellent news.

Before the end of the first month all job vacancies should be filled.

Unfortunately there will still be 594,000 unemployed Australians.

It really doesn't compute.

[frantic]

If our current registered 740,000 unemployed Australians put in the required 40 job applications to keep their welfare benefits then there will be almost 30 million applications for the 146,000 available jobs.

Excellent news.

Before the end of the first month all job vacancies should be filled.

Unfortunately there will still be 594,000 unemployed Australians.

It really doesn't compute.

Actually the plan is to create more jobs, as to go through the resumes and applications you will need at least 1-2 more bodies in your hr dept. So if you can sort through 100 resumes a day, you will need 10,000 people to read 30 million in a month, working 7 days a week. :D:D

[Chucaro]

Someone that is quick enough will come with a cheap apps to fill and submit the job applications :D

[nugge t]

I would have thought zero unemployment would be an excellent result as 146,000 more people would have jobs.

740,000 minus 146,000 = 594,000 computes fine.

What doesn't compute to me is why there are 146,000 unemployed at any one time when there are 740,000 vacancies.

According to the stats supplied, it should only take 1 application to get a job, if someone is seriously looking for work.

[Chucaro]

Bugger! after posting the above post I found THIS (http://www.seek.com.au/go-mobile) :eek:
They are quick!!!!

[incisor]

If our current registered 740,000 unemployed Australians put in the required 40 job applications to keep their welfare benefits then there will be almost 30 million applications for the 146,000 available jobs.

Excellent news.

Before the end of the first month all job vacancies should be filled.

Unfortunately there will still be 594,000 unemployed Australians.

It really doesn't compute.

the facts in this thread more accurate than your fuel rebate one?

but yeah... we are obviously heading down the same path as england by the sounds of it...

[trog]

well i would like to know where all my applications have ended up. very rarely do i get an acknowledgement , even rarer to get an interview. the majority of these jobs are casual only , and the average life span of the " long term prospects " has been about 10 too 12 weeks. and i would guess that i am not on the bureaus statistics as i am not eligible for much more than a word of encouragement.

[ramblingboy42]

the only reason I said it doesn't compute is that all vacant jobs should be filled.

that means there will be no job vacancies.

all the employment services and agencies will close.

the previously employed personnel at all the agencies join the unemployed.

[nugge t]

the only reason I said it doesn't compute is that all vacant jobs should be filled.

that means there will be no job vacancies.

all the employment services and agencies will close.

the previously employed personnel at all the agencies join the unemployed.

Well they shouldn't...there are still 590,000 jobs available...and if anyone knows how to get a job, they should

[ramblingboy42]

Missed something somewhere

where did 590,000 jobs come from?

there are only 146,000 jobs available on the market now.

[ramblingboy42]

ahh, yep.
740,000 unemployed people....146,000 jobs available

think you just got your numbers mixed up

[nugge t]

Sorry, you are right..seniors moment.

Of course the vacancies are a rolling issue so new vacancies would also keep arising.

The one assumption of course is that all of the remaining 590,000 are genuinely looking for work but that goes into old territory.:D

[Bigbjorn]

Think of unemployment as being like the council swimming pool on a hot weekend. There are people jumping into the pool and people climbing out. Some stay in the pool only a brief time and some stay longer. Much longer in some cases. It is a moving feast, some might say. Around 4% or less unemployed is reckoned to be full employment. People losing jobs, people looking for jobs, and people about to start another job plus the hard core unemployed. There will always be a hard core of unemployable persons for various reasons, illiteracy, poor education, disabilities and handicaps, the unattractive-to-employers, the plain stupid, the mature aged, and of course, the determined bludgers who have learned to live on the pittance or have a covert extra something going for them. Do we just say to these people " Sorry, but you have had a fair suck on the public teat and your payments are going to stop after a given time" and cause great hardship and much crime? (Don't starve, steal!) Do we move to an unemployment insurance scheme like most USA states all of which have a time limit? A couple of years ago Michigan had a budget crisis and one thing done there to save the state govt. from bankruptcy was to reduce the maximum term of unemployment insurance payments from 24 weeks to 20 weeks. This in a time of disastrously high unemployment.

[frantic]

ahh, yep.
740,000 unemployed people....146,000 jobs available

think you just got your numbers mixed up

Your in trouble, pointing out he has the numbers wrong oooohhh!:D:D

But seriously, back when I was a teen applying for jobs (10% unemployed and 30% youth in my region)using snail mail and phone, mainly Sydney jobs as few in Gong)out of 300+ in a 10 week period I heard back from maybe 12-15 and got 4 interviews and 3 job offers. The lack of response could be disheartening to some people, you just need to think that it's their loss for not having you.

[to76]

... bearing in mind that there's not only "applicants" that aren't really looking/suitable for jobs, but also companies that advertise jobs that they don't intend to fill, e.g. to make themselves appear like a growing business to potential investors or to "motivate" existing staff ...

[nugge t]

and of course, the determined bludgers who have learned to live on the pittance or have a covert extra something going for them. Do we just say to these people " Sorry, but you have had a fair suck on the public teat and your payments are going to stop after a given time" and cause great hardship and much crime? (Don't starve, steal!)

Yes we should to this group although it is possible that some might get off their bums and work as opposed to steal. Starving can also be a great motivation to work.

to76, with all due respect I have never heard of that but you would thinki it is going to be a very very small number of companies who would either be in one of the situations you describe or be unethical enough to do it. Personally I would be out of there.

[trog]

... bearing in mind that there's not only "applicants" that aren't really looking/suitable for jobs, but also companies that advertise jobs that they don't intend to fill, e.g. to make themselves appear like a growing business to potential investors or to "motivate" existing staff ...

this seems to be the case with a lot of recruitment and labour hire. apply for the nominated job and find that it didnt exist and you were lured in to fill there books.

[DiscoMick]

There may be about 5 jobless for every advertised job, but that doesn't necessarily mean the unemployed have the skills or the abilities to do all those jobs. Historically, 5% unemployment has been regarded as effectively full employment.
For example, if you don't have the trade skills you can't expect to get trade jobs. The FIFO job my youngest son has could only be applied for by people with trade skills. And my oldest son's job didn't even exist when he was born. Same applies in other fields.
Also, with governments starving funding for the trade training system, and employers less willing to train their own workers, that's not going to change any time soon.
Then there are the jobseekers who have a variety of physical or mental conditions which make it impossible or difficult for them to do many of those jobs. For example, someone with a dodgy leg can't be expected to spend all day on their feet, while someone with Ross River Fever can't work for long periods.
Another problem is the active discrimination against job seekers aged about 55 or over. Many employers simply won't give them a go, even though they're often more reliable than younger workers.
So it's not as simple as it looks. We will never have nil unemployment - it's just not going to happen.


Plus, the whole idea that welfare spending is somehow 'out of control' is just factually wrong - simply not true. Here's a good column on the facts.


Andrew Forrest is wrong: welfare spending is not out of control | Business | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2014/aug/04/andrew-forrest-is-wrong-welfare-spending-is-not-out-of-control)

[Bigbjorn]

Another problem is the active discrimination against job seekers aged about 55 or over. Many employers simply won't give them a go, even though they're often more reliable than younger workers.

Andrew Forrest is wrong: welfare spending is not out of control | Business | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2014/aug/04/andrew-forrest-is-wrong-welfare-spending-is-not-out-of-control)

Mick, 45 is the danger age when job seekers become invisible, not 55. I worked for Social Security for a while as a Review Officer, Field Officer, and Fraud Investigator. I know well the problems faced by both the clients and DSS staff. Try to get a bludger cancelled due to poor efforts to find work and you come up against the appeals system. If the cancellation is upheld by the usually lily-livered Area Review Officers then one or other of the Appeals Tribunals are very likely to allow the appeal. Outcome? Staff become reluctant to action a cancellation as they are going to lose. So what is the point they think. You want to get long term bludgers off the books then change the legislation and give the staff some back-up.

nugge t, why don't you contact your local job service providers and get them to send a selection of local long termers to your factory for jobs. You will then see first hand the problems faced by both sides, employee and employer. You will be tearing your hair out, but never mind, you will be doing something worthwhile for the nation by relieving the welfare burden.

A greater problem than long term unemployed is the 800,000+ on disability Pensions. Many have some capacity for work but there are few employers who will give them a go. Many DSP's would be willing to undertake part-time or casual work that is within their capabilities but most employers refuse to take on anyone with a revealed disability. Just whisper "bad back" near the HR office and be shown the door. Many employers, including some of Australia's largest won't touch anyone with a compo history even if it was yonks ago and completely recovered.

[nugge t]

nugge t, why don't you contact your local job service providers and get them to send a selection of local long termers to your factory for jobs. You will then see first hand the problems faced by both sides, employee and employer. You will be tearing your hair out, but never mind, you will be doing something worthwhile for the nation by relieving the welfare burden.



used to always use the providers and before that Centrelink or whoever they were way back when.

I can write a book for you if you like. Have employed 2 Aussies in the last 5 years both from local job service providers. The first resigned and then asked for me to put that I sacked him on the seperation certificate. The current one ... not at work today.. has now had 5 days off in 8 weeks and the local snack bar owner is chasing him for money.

I am over it and am seriously thinking that the best option is to just shut up shop and employ no one as the decreasing reward is no longer worth the risk.

[Chucaro]

.................................................. .............
A greater problem than long term unemployed is the 800,000+ on disability Pensions. Many have some capacity for work but there are few employers who will give them a go. Many DSP's would be willing to undertake part-time or casual work that is within their capabilities but most employers refuse to take on anyone with a revealed disability. Just whisper "bad back" near the HR office and be shown the door. Many employers, including some of Australia's largest won't touch anyone with a compo history even if it was yonks ago and completely recovered.

And the disability do not have to be related to an old compo claim, just for the person to have a degenerative spine disease it is enough for reject the application.
Further more years ago (I do not know if the agency still working) was a government rehabilitation service who sponsored applicants to take further studies and also sponsor them to jobs paying the full wages for the first 6 months and then a proportion of it in the second semester.
After the 12 months the employer did not have any obligation to retain the employee.
That still was not enough for the HR department or senior management even if middle managers like to employ that individual. :mad:
And I can assure you that I know what I am talking about.

[Ean Austral]

Isnt the objective to get people out looking so they don't have time loitering around shopping centres or breaking into cars and houses.


Yeh I know pie in the sky stuff, but whats the alternative to the people who are just blatant dole bludgers. Sure there are legitimate reasons people cant work , but people who just couldn't be bothered need some kick in the arse type rule to make them stop bludging.


Doesn't matter what rule is enforced when it comes to unemployment there will be people who are unfairly treated , but what do we do , nothing and let the system continue to fester.?


Many years ago I commented to some work friends how I had been asked by 100's of back packers for work , but never any aboriginals , well one day I did get a young fella come and ask , so I gave the young bloke a go , after 6 weeks he said too hard, rather get my benefits, the family gets more when I don't work. He was a good worker, healthy , nothing wrong with him, and don't worry I have had plenty of white fella's do the same.


We are all quick to criticize but isn't something worth a try? , cause personally I don't think the current system is much chop


Cheers Ean

[Ean Austral]

Look at the figures supplied in the first post,


760,000 registered unemployed
146,000 job vancancies,


If every unemployed person applied for 1 job, why are not all the vacancies filled. ? That's 760,000 applications


Maybe the government thinks that if 760,000 people cant fill 146,000 job vacancies they are not trying hard enough, so if we make them put in 30 million applications we may reduce it a bit.


Just depends on how you want to view the numbers.


Cheers Ean

[3toes]

My father only employed ex prisoners in his business. Used to just ring the job centre and ask for another - they knew him and what he wanted. Sure some did not make it and left fairly quickly. Those who remained were good workers and very dedicated to him. They appreciated that someone was prepared to give them a chance as they came out of prison. These were not high skilled or paid positions but there was a high level of personal input required and resulting job satisfaction.

[lyonsy]

actully australia's dole bill is quite low for 1st world country.

our problem is tax breaks for the middle class family's why can you get tax benifits if your family earns upto a 150k.
but adged pension is more then all the other social security combined but that is a very taboo subject and dont be surprised if your 50 that offical pension age becomes 70 by time you can retire due to the massive amount of people going on the pension.

its also proven removing social secuity increase crime so remiving and having the starve or work attitude means steal to not starve

[lyonsy]

this seems to be flash in the pan american politics and trying to introduce the american system which works so well which is why the high unemployment area's have higher crime rates then 3rd wolrd country's

[DiscoMick]

Unemployment never falls much below 5%, even in the greatest booms. It briefly got down towards 4% during the latest boom and then rose in the GFC. Zero unemployment i just not going to happen.


http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/CaSHome.nsf/Home/Economy+Datasets#E3

[frantic]

Time to accept the reality that we had unemployment rates as low as0.3% not the fantasy that 4% is full employment.
In 1973 unemployment was 1.3% according to CES, 2.4% according to RBA, by 1974 it had tripled to 4%:o. So all through the hippie era of the sixties and almost halfway through the 70's it was around the 1-1.7% mark. Ditto from 1950-60.
http://www.rba.gov.au/statistics/xls/op8/4-15.xls

[Bigbjorn]

A friend, now retired, started work at a CES office in 1968. He told me that 6 weeks was then considered the benchmark for "long term unemployed". He also said that a CES branch manager would get his orifice reamed if he had too many long termers on the books. He was at a Brisbane bayside office that had 6 long termers and his boss got a going over because of the high number. Boss had a vested interest in maintaining the unemployment of one of the six. She was his mistress and he wanted her at home not at work so he could call at lunch time for a grub screw.