The RBA’s policy deliberately creates unemployment. So why do we treat the jobless so badly?
87 comments · 98% upvoted · source · other discussions
87 comments · 98% upvoted · source · other discussions
If it was pleasant being unemployed, you’d not be properly motivated to accept the shitty conditions at your next underpaying job.
artsrc [OP] 11 points · Apr 2026 · :flag_nsw: New South Welshian
There is evidence that misery is not actually well supported by evidence:
https://theconversation.com/first-lift-jobseeker-then-add-on-fully-funded-unemployment-insurance-155383
https://theconversation.com/what-happens-when-you-free-unemployed-australians-from-mutual-obligations-and-boost-their-benefits-we-just-found-out-157506
Flat-Banana3903 2 points · Apr 2026 · :flag_qld: Queenslander
the conversation is hardly the single source of truth lol
aussiegreenie 6 points · Apr 2026 · Flairless
At least the people writing are experts in their field.
Swank_on_a_plank 8 points · Apr 2026 · :flag_qld: Queenslander
Unfortunately, I think that's the issue people have with it.
olucolucolucoluc 0 points · Apr 2026 · ✈️ on Walkabout
Key point being "in their field". And a lot of them either get their theories debunked or found out as frauds later. But by that point The Conversation starts to paint them as disgraced and therefore absolve themselves of publishing their work(s).
aussiegreenie 3 points · Apr 2026 · Flairless
That is total bullshit. It is the typical anti-intellectual statement that is used to cover corruption. Do you know who are staisitcally more likely to be frauds? Politicians and "Business Leaders"
artsrc [OP] 5 points · Apr 2026 · :flag_nsw: New South Welshian
Yes, but it is the only external source cited so far in this thread.
If you have evidence that cruelty leads to better outcomes, to combat the two entirely different pieces of well researched evidence to the contrary, post it.
olucolucolucoluc 1 points · Apr 2026 · ✈️ on Walkabout
That's not how genuine debate works. It is up to YOU to provide multiple, verifiable, different sources to make/back up the claims YOU are making.
artsrc [OP] 2 points · Apr 2026 · :flag_nsw: New South Welshian
Ironically I provided two pieces of evidence to back up claims. Those conversation articles were two different avenues to pursue the question of the impact of misery on employment outcomes.
The unemployment insurance one referenced a series of studies on the impacts of targeted income replacement level, versus poverty level, unemployment insurance for a period.
The other looked at the impacts of economy wide doubling of job seeker, and removing mutual obligations during COVID.
olucolucolucoluc 0 points · Apr 2026 · ✈️ on Walkabout
And yet you missed the point. Both were from the same publisher.
artsrc [OP] 2 points · Apr 2026 · :flag_nsw: New South Welshian
They are both papers by academics that reference peer reviewed research.
For example from the unemployment insurance one:
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27574/w27574.pdf
olucolucolucoluc -1 points · Apr 2026 · ✈️ on Walkabout
Peer review research is known for its flaws.
I ain't touching a sketchy PDF link btw.
artsrc [OP] 2 points · Apr 2026 · :flag_nsw: New South Welshian
The organisation is : https://www.nber.org
Peer reviewed research is flawed. It is also the most reliable source there is.
olucolucolucoluc -1 points · Apr 2026 · ✈️ on Walkabout
No it isn't. Peer reviewed by its definition = echo chamber.
Also lmao citing a North American dominated "non-partisan" economic org is an oxymoron. Any org dominated by one group is by its very nature partisan in some way.
load 0 more replies →
WastedOwl65 1 points · Apr 2026 · Flairless
Yet, you're here whinging!
Flat-Banana3903 1 points · Apr 2026 · :flag_qld: Queenslander
I like to highlight to simple people their error of their ways, it is what I do