Captain Gh3y
Rhinorhondothackasaurus
can kids even get welfare for doing nothing?
I believe so, if they can prove their financial situation to be in need of it (i.e. their parents are poor).Captain Gh3y said:can kids even get welfare for doing nothing?
Omium said:a) No-one cares what you think
b) I dont need to imagine, im stuck with you.
c) very Accurate description of yourself.
SO SO SO AGREE!incentivation said:Its interesting. The only student in the article who expressed a view remotely close to reality was the student from Sydney Secondary College; a coed, comprehensive, publicly funded school.
I see no compelling reason why we should keep students at school beyond year 10 if they are disinterested in formal education. It merely works to make the lives of teachers, and fellow students more difficult, and furthers the entreching of schools from lower socio-economic areas at the bottom of the HSC rankings.
Instead of retaining these students at school, we should be nurturing their career prospects through the promotion of apprenticeships and similar ideas. The resources utilised in maintaining such a large number of students at school who would otherwise be employed in the workforce would be better used elsewhere. Additionally, it would be adding to the potential productive capacity of the economy by increasing the participation rate.
I attended a public school with a large number of students within this category, and the completion of the HSC (keyword completion) has done little in terms of providing opportunity.
Tell your parental to move to Temora.Schroedinger said:Yeah that drives me utterly spare and was one of the main reasons why I didn't want to become a doctor; purely because of the people I would have to interact with.
Also, as the child of a Doctor, it's a fucking shit profession. Sif spend 6 years learning to do stuff to only get paid 100K plus like ten years in.
Not even worth the effort when you can get paid that much fuckin sitting on your arse playing internet poker nowadays. SUPBAZOOKAJOE.
As others have said, introduce measures which make it more difficult to obtain youth focused welfare. i.e. requirements to participate in programs etcaMUSEd1977 said:Because it reduces the number of dole bludging teenagers?
True to some degree, however it makes no sense in my opinion keeping those students at school who have little interest and could be more productive elsewhere.That is an excellent generalisation you have made there. Just because teenagers are interested in staying in school, does not mean they are going to do well. My grade had 60 odd stay on to Year 12, and only 10 or so people get a UAI of 80+. This isn't an indication of us being from a "lower" socio-economic area - we are part of the Sutherland Shire. I do agree though it will make it even tougher for teachers and students to work and study at an optimum level because more distractions means less teaching and learning time.
Rudd's plan is superficial on many levels. It would be more practical to have particular high schools entirely focused on technical education similar to the old model which existed prior to the 80's. I fear that with Rudd's model, it will get to a point where schools opt to abandon the idea due to a lack of interest and funding. It would be a more efficient use of resources to target the funding to particular schools, as oppose to having all schools recieve a small amount of funding.Ruddkips plans to put together trade school options (I can't remember the name right now, basically you learn a trade whilst staying at school) could be a way to have both options available. I like the plan he put forward, just hope he actually delivers.
Why what bothers me? That kids can drop out at 15 because they can't hack it in school, so they do nothing? Gee, I can't see why that would bother me.bassistx said:If their parents can't pass the assets and income tests, then they don't get YA. I don't see why it bothers you so much, Katie.
If they're looking for a job or studying, then they get it (I can understand why). But otherwise, no, they are not entitled to it. So it shouldn't really be an issue here.
I can understand people sitting playing playstation 24/7 is quite a waste of oxygen, but if we're not paying them to sit there (tax->YA), then it's none of our business what they do, is it? If they aren't annoying teachers and they don't want to go to uni, then let them do whatever the heck they want. If they want a life, opportunities are available (apprenticeships, etc) but if they wholeheartedly want to do absolutely nothing, there's no use in keeping them at school. So long as we aren't paying them to sit at home, it shouldn't be of any concern to us what they do (yes, we have a trade shortage, but they don't want to work so you can't force them).
I just think that they should have the choice whether to work or not as much as they have the choice to continue their studies or not. They will get a job eventually or maybe just live in their parent's basement.
I was going to say.... If their parents are "poor", I doubt they'd be able to "slum it", either. On the contrary, their parents would push them to get a job and bring in some extra income into the household, I reckon.boris said:Why what bothers me? That kids can drop out at 15 because they can't hack it in school, so they do nothing? Gee, I can't see why that would bother me.
If they're leaving because they're not academically inclined and have aspirations (and seek traineeships/apprenticships/skills courses) then fine.
If they can't hack school because they're little pricks and don't like authority the worse thing they can do is to sit at home and do nothing. That is when it leads to trouble. If they're the kind of kids whose parents will let them drop out and just do nothing but sit in the basement, then it's fairly obvious there is a lack of parental care and as such the kids are probably going to get into mischief.
If they're getting YA for doing nothing that pisses me because we're paying for them to do nothing. if they don't get YA because their parents earn too much, then the chances of them being allowed to slum it in the basement doing nothing will be slim.
Usually when that's the case the parents are too stupid to 'push' their kids to do anything at all in the first place, starting with school... or not taking drugs... or not having several kids by 19, etc.bassistx said:I was going to say.... If their parents are "poor", I doubt they'd be able to "slum it", either. On the contrary, their parents would push them to get a job and bring in some extra income into the household, I reckon.
Well if you could be bothered (which I can't) I think it'd be fairly easy to construct an argument showing how letting kids do nothing leads to increased criminal activity which impacts communities and therefore us. Or, they go to jail and cost us more than the Youth Allowance amountbassistx said:But in any case, like I said, if we aren't paying them to stay at home, it shouldn't be any of our business what they do.
Poor people are stupid? Poor parents make their kids work hard so they get good grades, go off to uni, and get good jobs. That's how I see it, anyway.Captain Gh3y said:Usually when that's the case the parents are too stupid to 'push' their kids to do anything at all in the first place, starting with school... or not taking drugs... or not having several kids by 19, etc.
Playstation. I can't be bothered either.Well if you could be bothered (which I can't) I think it'd be fairly easy to construct an argument showing how letting kids do nothing leads to increased criminal activity which impacts communities and therefore us. Or, they go to jail and cost us more than the Youth Allowance amount
Have a look at those dole bludgers around Sydney. I don't see them pushing their children hard enough. Maybe to drugs and a shit life, but thats it.bassistx said:Poor people are stupid? Poor parents make their kids work hard so they get good grades, go off to uni, and get good jobs. That's how I see it, anyway.
But whether the parents have money or not, we can't just sort of make a generlisation that people with a certain socio-economic background will drop-out and do nothing.
Playstation. I can't be bothered either.
Have you actually asked these people if they encourage their kids to take drugs?Smithereens said:Have a look at those dole bludgers around Sydney. I don't see them pushing their children hard enough. Maybe to drugs and a shit life, but thats it.
We have some "successful" Aboriginals. But like I said earlier some people don't want to study or work - they are just either bored or suicidal. If you're going to say all Aboriginals are "bludgers", then it's also safe for me to say that all Aboriginals suffer from depression. This can really get in the way of study/work/anything in day-to-day life. Why are they drinking the crap out of themselves? I'm sure there's a reason. People drink to forget, to get away. They don't poison themselves everyday for no reason.Take a look at the Aborigines. Self-explanatory.
Same in Italy. I'm thinking a lot of Europe is like this?bittersweet787 said:I recently got back from Student Exchange in Poland, and over there, you do not complete school until you are 19!!
Same here.PS Leaving school when I am 18, and it does not bother me in the slighest.
I'm sure they could organize distance-ed though?Born2baplacebo said:No way. Then the single 14 yr old mothers have to stay in school.
lol I like you.Born2baplacebo said:And what have the Polish done lately that was so fucking unreal that we had to conform to a country that originally sucks historically and contemporenously?