From TFA, it appears the trend is actually rapidly accelerating, including this interesting fact:
>Four in five jobs created in the past two years have been in the non-market sector, which are occupations in industries heavily influenced by government spending and regulation.
When I read this as an Australian tax payer, it frustrates me, I feel like my tax money is directed into paying peoples wages doing pointless jobs. Going into supporting systems and paying for things like NDIS which are frequently fraudulent.
How much of these positions and payments are needed I can't say. There has been times in the past where I was unable to get any assistance when I needed it badly, only to be hit with additional tax payments to pay when I had no money to give.
I am working my proverbial arse off, living frugally, not getting into trouble in a private sector role to get ahead, paying huge tax like a chump, getting zero financial assistance. Its days like this when I feel like I too should just scheme the system and not work, it sure would be less stressful and less work.
Maybe this article was designed to incite these exact feelings, if they did, well mission accomplished.
> Maybe this article was designed to incite these exact feelings
It's the AFR, that's exactly the purpose of the article. All we need is some union-bashing, praise for return to the office and clumsy attempts to frame Labor's overwhelming electoral success as weakness and we'd have hit AFR bingo.
You've hit the nail on the head. The article is disingenuous in entirety.
Nearly every business in Australia that registers for GST and has eligible fuel expenses they can claim, receives a govt subsidy - so technically, that is what would account for most of the 50% of voters that rely ... eh ... I wish I could think of a funny smart-arsed way to use the term rely in an equally most overly generous but technically right manner.
Why? I immediately thought: Which country and starting to read the article gives the answer.
Americans seem to assume that there is only one country and abroad is an exception needing extra disclaimers.
Edit: The article also says the study is by a right of center thinktank. Would that also be needed to be mentioned in the title? Of course it would the context. But the rule is not to editorilize, we can read and think ourselves.
The article (from the AFR) is from a right of Australian centre media source commenting on a right of centre study .. the article seems to overstate the study which itself paints a picture of Government waste.
The reality more like 30% of Australians work for the government directly or indirectly (on government funded projects, public infrastructure, flow jobs on from policing etc.) and 20% receive some form of income assistance (which mean as little as a one off funeral leave assistance payment or any number of other small occasional assists).
Missing from both (near as I can see so far) is any appreciation of the positive circular effects, those that work for government also pay taxes back into the system and mostly work in ways that grease the wheels for others to be more productive.
I won't deny there are issues in the Australian economy that need to be addressed, but both this article and the report on which it comments read more as opinion pieces from particular PoV.
https://archive.ph/Hm6wj
Easy solution: Don't let them vote.
I kid, I kid. Just channeling my inner Heinlein. There is a conversation to be had about perverse incentives, though.
They shouldn't be voting indeed. And I am not kidding at all.
All they can vote for is proliferation of government policies and limiting freedoms of people who are actually creating value.
When a government sells off a power plant and the new operator does nothing but jacks up the price, is that creating value?
From TFA, it appears the trend is actually rapidly accelerating, including this interesting fact:
>Four in five jobs created in the past two years have been in the non-market sector, which are occupations in industries heavily influenced by government spending and regulation.
If you were in this situation, why would you ever vote to give yourself less money?
There’s always the risk of economic collapse lol
Shh..don't mention this to the Socialists.
When I read this as an Australian tax payer, it frustrates me, I feel like my tax money is directed into paying peoples wages doing pointless jobs. Going into supporting systems and paying for things like NDIS which are frequently fraudulent.
How much of these positions and payments are needed I can't say. There has been times in the past where I was unable to get any assistance when I needed it badly, only to be hit with additional tax payments to pay when I had no money to give.
I am working my proverbial arse off, living frugally, not getting into trouble in a private sector role to get ahead, paying huge tax like a chump, getting zero financial assistance. Its days like this when I feel like I too should just scheme the system and not work, it sure would be less stressful and less work.
Maybe this article was designed to incite these exact feelings, if they did, well mission accomplished.
> Maybe this article was designed to incite these exact feelings
It's the AFR, that's exactly the purpose of the article. All we need is some union-bashing, praise for return to the office and clumsy attempts to frame Labor's overwhelming electoral success as weakness and we'd have hit AFR bingo.
You've hit the nail on the head. The article is disingenuous in entirety.
Nearly every business in Australia that registers for GST and has eligible fuel expenses they can claim, receives a govt subsidy - so technically, that is what would account for most of the 50% of voters that rely ... eh ... I wish I could think of a funny smart-arsed way to use the term rely in an equally most overly generous but technically right manner.
[stub for offtopicness]
Note: this is for Australia
Australia, please update the title.
Why? I immediately thought: Which country and starting to read the article gives the answer.
Americans seem to assume that there is only one country and abroad is an exception needing extra disclaimers.
Edit: The article also says the study is by a right of center thinktank. Would that also be needed to be mentioned in the title? Of course it would the context. But the rule is not to editorilize, we can read and think ourselves.
The article (from the AFR) is from a right of Australian centre media source commenting on a right of centre study .. the article seems to overstate the study which itself paints a picture of Government waste.
The reality more like 30% of Australians work for the government directly or indirectly (on government funded projects, public infrastructure, flow jobs on from policing etc.) and 20% receive some form of income assistance (which mean as little as a one off funeral leave assistance payment or any number of other small occasional assists).
Missing from both (near as I can see so far) is any appreciation of the positive circular effects, those that work for government also pay taxes back into the system and mostly work in ways that grease the wheels for others to be more productive.
I won't deny there are issues in the Australian economy that need to be addressed, but both this article and the report on which it comments read more as opinion pieces from particular PoV.
Sorry - tried to update too late