Coronavirus - Australia
-
@nzzp said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@antipodean just because we can manage, doesn't make it good. A few weeks is one thing, but remote working without collaboration sucks for a bunch of the stuff that works better face to face. The number of problems that get solved in 10 minutes over a piece of paper, after days of back and forward emails is remakrable. Basically, everyone is stupid.
You know more than you can say, more than you can write down.
One thing I've noticed people hate is turning their video on. But if you do that then you're not far off face to face and you can have some really productive calls that way as the experience for everyone (verbal and non-verbal communication) is pretty good.
Instead people seem to want to email. Fucking pointless emails that could be sorted with a quick call are the death of me.
I think working from home 2 or so days per week could be great for a lot of people. It'd have a big impact on traffic etc and give people a couple of 'admin' days per week where they actually get work done without interruptions.
I reckon the landscape is going to change significantly as a result of this, for the simple reason that's its way easier to give people something (ability to work from home) than take it away again.
-
@No-Quarter said in Coronavirus - Australia:
I think working from home 2 or so days per week could be great for a lot of people. It'd have a big impact on traffic etc and give people a couple of 'admin' days per week where they actually get work done without interruptions.
This is it for mine. I don't think many people will end up working from home full-time, but 1-2 days a week? I reckon it might happen a lot more.
Could make a real difference to the property market, with 'dormitory suburbs' on the fringes of Sydney becoming more attractive if people only have to commute three days a week.
-
Generations of Australians will be burdened with this. What business that has already closed its doors is going to take back on an employee without customers? Despite the increase in newstart allowance, it's still not enough to cover anyone who earned the median wage in Australia. So now you can't evict a renter for six months for non-payment. So are the banks going to take the hit? Which means super funds, which means some of them are going to need to become more liquid to meet obligations to retirees. Which devalues assets...
And the government seems to think that there'll be a rebound, oblivious to the fact that in a services economy there's no V shape rebound. People don't consume services that they missed out on. There'll be no one getting their lawn mowed 10 times in the first week or drinking 1000 cups of coffee because they would otherwise have consumed those services. A lot of those companies operate on thin margins and Australians are generally heavily indebted.
So if the government wants to absorb those costs, it simply means succeeding generations will pay. An increasingly heavy price.
-
JobKeeper is also a massive kick in the guts for the low income workers in essential roles. I'm thinking aged care workers, supermarkets, servos etc. They probably make $1600-$2000 a fortnight slogging it out at risk.
Now Karen was on the dole and worked 1 day a week at the local Pub making $120 a week. Karen now stays at home and gets $1500 a fortnight.
-
I thought the presser was a bit waffley, but the idea is sound. Ish.
It's money in and money out. It doesn't help with the rent. It makes business owners centrelink.
Not sure I know the alternative though, so I'm not throwing any shade.
-
Looking at it from a third party point of view, NZ seems to be over reacting, whilst Oz seems to be a little bit relaxed about it.
The only thing I'm sure of, is the the number of cases is a completely irrelevant statistic, unless every single person is getting tested every single day. The statistics coming out of countries are on the whole, garbage. Italy doesn't have an 11% mortality rate and it doesn't have 100,000 cases. It has 100,000 positive tests and 11% of these people have died. Not died from it.
Australia does seem to have done cracking job of getting big numbers tested though, whilst NZ seems to be treating this as some sort of a competition, which they are winning. Jacinda's global PR team is using it's own exponential graph.
-
@mariner4life I still think a Universal Basic Income for all is a better option. That way no one falls through the cracks. Those working frontline get a bonus and those with the extra cash spend it in the economy.
-
@chimoaus said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@mariner4life I still think a Universal Basic Income for all is a better option. That way no one falls through the cracks. Those working frontline get a bonus and those with the extra cash spend it in the economy.
Spend it where?
-
@mariner4life This week my car broke down so I had to pay a mechanic, my car insurance premium was also due. There goes my $1000. I'm sure people would find a way to spend free money.
-
Why do people who have jobs and are working need income support?
-
@mariner4life Likely because many are low income workers who struggle on their current incomes. I think the supermarkets pay close to $25 an hour. That is what $800 after tax a week. Pretty tough for a family to pay the rent, groceries and live on that.
-
@chimoaus said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@mariner4life Likely because many are low income workers who struggle on their current incomes. I think the supermarkets pay close to $25 an hour. That is what $800 after tax a week. Pretty tough for a family to pay the rent, groceries and live on that.
That's not what we are talking about though is it?
-
@mariner4life I don't know the right answer, all I know is it seems odd that essential workers who are most at risk receive the least amount of support because they have a "job". I don't see how it is fair I will hopefully get $1500 a fortnight because I am out of work yet my wife still has to get up and go to work and be at risk and gets $0 support.
-
Because they have an income. Yes they have to work for it, but isn't that the general idea?
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
So if the government wants to absorb those costs, it simply means succeeding generations will pay. An increasingly heavy price.
Works for everything else the Libs have done this century. Why stop?
-
Think the idea is relatively robust.
$1500 a fortnight is about 80% of the median salary (~$49k). About half the national average salary, too.
If it is used for top-ups to help companies keep employees - that need to meet hurdles, let's not forget - then it helps business stay up for the next few months.
It isn't ideal, but what is? Pay everyone the same and give us food ration cards? YA BLOODY COMMIE!!
-
@NTA said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
So if the government wants to absorb those costs, it simply means succeeding generations will pay. An increasingly heavy price.
Works for everything else the Libs have done this century. Why stop?
Fuck off leftie
-
@mariner4life said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@NTA said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
So if the government wants to absorb those costs, it simply means succeeding generations will pay. An increasingly heavy price.
Works for everything else the Libs have done this century. Why stop?
Fuck off leftie
Maybe this virus is just ScoMo playing six-dimensional chess to kill the boomers claiming franking credits?
-
I'm rolling my eyes so hard
-
@NTA If I qualify it will be a great program, if I don't It will be terrible
I agree it sounds good, but there will still be plenty who do not qualify. Probably be a few businesses that have let casuals go but have not had a 30% drop.
In my own personal circumstance I am out of work but am not an Australian citizen so Jobseeker could be an issue. If my employer is not eligible I get $0. If my employer is eligible I could get $18,000 over 6 months. So I will now wait patiently to see how my employers turnover is looking.