Condemned to a life of poverty
Hard-hearted rise in dole payment works against everyone’s interests, explains
THIS week the Prime Minister trumpeted a pathetic increase in unemployment benefits by $25 per week. This safety net has remained under the poverty line for 20 years, under Labor and Liberal governments.
For those without children, the payment will rise from $282 per week to $307.
The poverty line, set at half median income, is $457 per week for a single adult.
A reliable analysis shows 3.24 million people (13.6 per cent of the population), including 774,000 children under 15, living below the poverty line.
How can this be accepted, in Australia, the 20th richest country in the world (purchasing power per capita out of nearly 200 countries).
Australia’s unemployment benefit is the second worst of all OECD countries, just above that of Greece, which was recently close to bankruptcy.
The Liberals justify this subsistence level of support by ideology, not morals.
In plain-speak, their justification narrative is: we want an economy where everyone can get a job and support themselves and if we support too much, people won’t seek a job and they’ll keep living off everyone else and this will worsen and end up a burden on workers, so people must be pushed to get a job, so keep their support low (they’ll get sick of living frugally) and make it harder to retain support by tightening the rules (you must continuously seek a job and will be penalised if you turn one down, because turning one down means you don’t want to work), and besides, we
already supply free health and education (ignore stuffed hospital waiting rooms, unaffordable out-of-pocket costs so we just won’t see a doctor or dentist, and putting your kids in uniforms and paying for the books and activities all the other kids have and look down on you because your stuff is from the op shop).
I’m not going to argue the gross flaws in this conception of people. People are simply not motivated like this.
Read The WEIRDest People in the World (Heinrich, 2020) for a deeply researched refutation based on psychology, sociology and anthropology of people’s behaviour and motivation over the past 1500 years.
If we were motivated like the political conception above, there would be no Western world. What I want to point out is Australia’s political direction is increasingly buying into a seriously damaging zero sum game, and that whilst Australia floats on wealth, the politics of our safety net is morally bankrupt.
Zero sum = if I get more, you must get less. So, raise income support for some, everyone else loses more tax, the economy turns to sludge.
Yet income support was recognised from the 1600s as a win:win strategy. If you allow persistent poverty, you physically damage kids’ brains, who grow up less productive, and even more dependent on support. Rulers in the Middle Ages recognised that raising people out of poverty resulted in them getting to work and living a productive life. Raising their population above poverty was a cash cow. How have modern Australian politicians lost this old and obvious lesson? Do politicians not read history, psychology or sociology? Clearly not.
Here are three take-home points from a lot of such reading. I wish our political leaders had the sense to acknowledge and act on them.
We exist in the same system. If you damage a generation of kids’ brains and psychology by allowing poverty for their caregivers, you will deprive us of future geniuses who will contribute far more than their childhood support cost. We would all be richer for generous support, not poorer.
Individuals are worth more than ideology. Holding kids at disadvantage to make your economic point is morally wrong. Advocate for every precious child and put your economic vision second. Sure, aim for it, but not by ransom.
You must look beyond your boundaries to see the bigger picture. No politician will be remembered for achieving a bottom line. We will remember those who gave us a lifeline here and now till we get going, telling us we’re worth something, and not just a drag.