ABC TV "4 CORNERS" program about Telstra Australia dictatorship to staffs & customers?

Anthony Horan <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> And the actual number is irrelevant anyway, the modern
>> reality is that an official unemployment rate of less than 5%
>> means that anyone who actually wants a job can get one.

> Firstly, that depends on how you define "job".

Nope, there is only one viable definition, paid work.

> Secondly, saying to an unemployed software engineer "but you
> could get work cleaning **** off toilets for the rest of your life"
> might be the Howard way, but it's completely irrelevant to reality.

There's plenty of work for unemployed software engineers, ****wit.

---

› See More: ABC TV "4 CORNERS" program about Telstra Australia dictatorship to staffs & customers?

Anthony Horan wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:31:53 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> And the actual number is irrelevant anyway, the modern
>> reality is that an official unemployment rate of less than 5%
>> means that anyone who actually wants a job can get one.
>
> Firstly, that depends on how you define "job".
>
> Secondly, saying to an unemployed software engineer "but you could get work
> cleaning **** off toilets for the rest of your life" might be the Howard
> way, but it's completely irrelevant to reality.
Thats the Mrs Rudd way tony

>>> And the actual number is irrelevant anyway, the modern
>>> reality is that an official unemployment rate of less than 5%
>>> means that anyone who actually wants a job can get one.
>
>> Firstly, that depends on how you define "job".
>
> Nope, there is only one viable definition, paid work.

True, but with the govs definition, employed means an hour a week or more. A
worker with 5 hours work cannot earn enough to pay rent, let alone buy food.
..
>> Secondly, saying to an unemployed software engineer "but you
>> could get work cleaning **** off toilets for the rest of your life"
>> might be the Howard way, but it's completely irrelevant to reality.
>
> There's plenty of work for unemployed software engineers, ****wit.

No there isn't. If they had work, they wouldnt be "unemployed software
engineers" )

Two Bob <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>> And the actual number is irrelevant anyway, the modern
>>>> reality is that an official unemployment rate of less than 5%
>>>> means that anyone who actually wants a job can get one.

>>> Firstly, that depends on how you define "job".

>> Nope, there is only one viable definition, paid work.

> True, but with the govs definition, employed means an hour a week or more. A worker with 5 hours
> work cannot earn enough to pay rent, let alone buy food. .

Pity that the standardised OECD unemployment rate that involves a lot more
work than that is within 0.1% so in practice there are **** all in that situation.

>>> Secondly, saying to an unemployed software engineer "but you
>>> could get work cleaning **** off toilets for the rest of your life"
>>> might be the Howard way, but it's completely irrelevant to reality.

>> There's plenty of work for unemployed software engineers, ****wit.

> No there isn't.

Yes there is.

> If they had work, they wouldnt be "unemployed software engineers" )

Wrong again, they're the ones picky about who they are prepared to work for.

Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
> Two Bob <[email protected]> wrote

>>>>> And the actual number is irrelevant anyway, the modern
>>>>> reality is that an official unemployment rate of less than 5%
>>>>> means that anyone who actually wants a job can get one.

>>>> Firstly, that depends on how you define "job".

>>> Nope, there is only one viable definition, paid work.

>> True, but with the govs definition, employed means an hour a week or more. A worker with 5 hours
>> work cannot earn enough to pay rent, let alone buy food. .

Those get income support.

> Pity that the standardised OECD unemployment rate that involves a lot more work than that is
> within 0.1% so in practice there are **** all in that situation.

>>>> Secondly, saying to an unemployed software engineer "but you
>>>> could get work cleaning **** off toilets for the rest of your life"
>>>> might be the Howard way, but it's completely irrelevant to reality.

>>> There's plenty of work for unemployed software engineers, ****wit.

>> No there isn't.

> Yes there is.

>> If they had work, they wouldnt be "unemployed software engineers" )

> Wrong again, they're the ones picky about who they are prepared to work for.

"David Clayton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> Now now, just because the way the count of "Unemployed" has changed (on a
> regular basis) in the last 30 or so years shouldn't stop pollies comparing
> "Apples with Oranges" to suit their agendas.

It never has before.

> Doesn't one hour of work a week now count a person as "employed"?

As I already pointed out, ZERO hours qualifies you as "employed", unless you
are *specifically* on full unemployment benefits.

MrT.

"Two Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> True, but with the govs definition, employed means an hour a week or more.

Where does this bogus figure come from? The real figure is zero. The simple
fact is that there is *NO* specific definition of employed, only those
*unemployed and recieving full work support benefits*.

>A worker with 5 hours work cannot earn enough to pay rent, let alone buy
food.

There are some workers on 40 hours a week who can barely manage that!

> >> Secondly, saying to an unemployed software engineer "but you
> >> could get work cleaning **** off toilets for the rest of your life"
> >> might be the Howard way, but it's completely irrelevant to reality.
> >
> > There's plenty of work for unemployed software engineers, ****wit.
>
> No there isn't. If they had work, they wouldnt be "unemployed software
> engineers" )

He is correct using the Howard test, but as you also pointed out, an
unemployed SE might choose not to clean toilets.
He may then soon find himself to be considered "employed" on a wage of
$ZERO!!!!!!!!!!

MrT.

Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote
> Two Bob <[email protected]> wrote

>> True, but with the govs definition, employed means an hour a week or more.

> Where does this bogus figure come from? The real figure is zero.
> The simple fact is that there is *NO* specific definition of employed,
> only those *unemployed and recieving full work support benefits*.

That last, the bit about benefits, is just plain wrong. Thats just the number who
are receiving benefits and is an entirely different separately quoted statistic.

>> A worker with 5 hours work cannot earn enough to pay rent, let alone buy food.

> There are some workers on 40 hours a week who can barely manage that!

Bull****.

>>>> Secondly, saying to an unemployed software engineer "but you
>>>> could get work cleaning **** off toilets for the rest of your life"
>>>> might be the Howard way, but it's completely irrelevant to reality.

>>> There's plenty of work for unemployed software engineers, ****wit.

>> No there isn't. If they had work, they wouldnt be "unemployed software engineers" )

> He is correct using the Howard test, but as you also pointed
> out, an unemployed SE might choose not to clean toilets.

> He may then soon find himself to be considered "employed" on a wage of $ZERO!!!!!!!!!!

Nope.

> Anyone currently 'working' for telstra is always free to leave if they
> dont like the detail.

Yep

> And with a 4.x% unemployment rate, there are plenty of other jobs
> available for anyone who wants one.

Agreed

>
>

"Anthony Horan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 07:19:57 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> And with a 4.x% unemployment rate, there are plenty of other jobs
>> available for anyone who wants
>> one.
>
> Maybe it's time you stopped quoting that bogus unemployment rate so
> beloved
> of the Howard government.

The same methodology used by the former LABOR Govt, fool.

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Anthony Horan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 07:19:57 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>> > And with a 4.x% unemployment rate, there are plenty of other jobs
> available for anyone who wants
>> > one.
>>
>> Maybe it's time you stopped quoting that bogus unemployment rate so
> beloved
>> of the Howard government.
>
> Yes the latest ABS stats show less than 10 million employed, and over 20
> million population.
> That's an "unemployment" rate of more than 50%!!!

UNemployment is the rate of people NOT employed

Employed is 1 hour a week. Like it or lump it, its been the same criteria
for decades.

> And even the governments own "welfare" rate is much higher, as they
> happily
> point out every time they want to reduce it.

Which indicates they report on both, and have no difficulties understanding
the difference
>
> MrT.
>
>

"Anthony Horan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:31:53 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> And the actual number is irrelevant anyway, the modern
>> reality is that an official unemployment rate of less than 5%
>> means that anyone who actually wants a job can get one.
>
> Firstly, that depends on how you define "job".
>
> Secondly, saying to an unemployed software engineer "but you could get
> work
> cleaning **** off toilets for the rest of your life" might be the Howard
> way, but it's completely irrelevant to reality.

Your problem.

Rod is correct -with ~5% unemployment, ANYONE who wants a job will get one.

Michael J <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Anthony Horan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 07:19:57 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>
>>>> And with a 4.x% unemployment rate, there are plenty of other jobs
>>>> available for anyone who wants one.
>>>
>>> Maybe it's time you stopped quoting that bogus unemployment rate so
>>> beloved of the Howard government.
>>
>> Yes the latest ABS stats show less than 10 million employed, and
>> over 20 million population.
>> That's an "unemployment" rate of more than 50%!!!

> UNemployment is the rate of people NOT employed

Nope, there are plenty who choose not to be employed
and plenty more who cant legally be employed too.

> Employed is 1 hour a week. Like it or lump it, its been the same criteria for decades.

>> And even the governments own "welfare" rate is much higher, as they happily point out every time
>> they want to reduce it.

> Which indicates they report on both, and have no difficulties
> understanding the difference

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 04:57:35 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> Anthony Horan <[email protected]> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>> And the actual number is irrelevant anyway, the modern
>>> reality is that an official unemployment rate of less than 5%
>>> means that anyone who actually wants a job can get one.
>
>> Firstly, that depends on how you define "job".
>
> Nope, there is only one viable definition, paid work.

The definition as used by the government and the media has no connection
with reality.

Someone who can only get five hours a week of work is considered "employed"
by the statistics, but that person would not be able to live on what they
make.

>> Secondly, saying to an unemployed software engineer "but you
>> could get work cleaning **** off toilets for the rest of your life"
>> might be the Howard way, but it's completely irrelevant to reality.
>
> There's plenty of work for unemployed software engineers, ****wit.

Obviously statistical spin-doctoring isn't the only thing you foolishly
take literally.

"Michael J" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Anyone currently 'working' for telstra is always free to leave if they
> > dont like the detail.
>
> Yep
>
> > And with a 4.x% unemployment rate, there are plenty of other jobs
> > available for anyone who wants one.
>
> Agreed

I wonder how many ex- Telstra employees are going to get those jobs in the
mining industry though? Or the building industry, or all those other job's
that need trained workers yet refuse to train them?

MrT.