Prior to the September 2013 election, then opposition leader, and now Prime Minister, Tony Abbott said that he would be the "infrastructure Prime Minister" and that Australia would be "open for business". He also said that he would be the Minister for Women.
When he announced his first cabinet there was major criticism from all political corners concerned about the lack of women. At that point in time Foreign Minister Julie Bishop was the only one to make it into cabinet.
Fast forward to over a year since he was elected as Prime Minister and Abbott is still being criticised for his "women problem" which he vehemently denies saying he loves women.
There are two important political events and actions which make me think that the Government does in fact have an issue with women but that women have an issue with the Government. It's a bit of a chicken/egg situation. So let's talk about that today.
Every Prime Minister has their trademark policy. For Gillard and Rudd it was the carbon tax. For Abbott it is the paid parental leave scheme. Under Abbott's proposal, women who have children will be able to claim six months of their wage. It would however be capped at $100,000 (so $50,000). This has been met with much opposition from the Australian public with people concerned that Abbott is only helping out wealthy women on high wages.
However, people are forgetting one other major major major issue with paid parental leave. It's great the Government wants to make it easier for women to have children and support them early in life, but getting a full wage for six months doesn't compensate for the next 4.5 years when the child needs to go to daycare. Australian daycare costs anywhere from $70 to $150 a day, depending on whereabouts you send your kids and how many you have.
This is a huge problem because the average woman's wage, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald is around $50,000 by the time she's in her 40s. Men's is significantly higher. What this means is that when a married couple choose to have children, more often than not the woman will have to stay at home because of the sheer cost of childcare.
Let's take the average Aussie woman. She earns $50,000 a year plus superannuation. After tax that is $41,453. Childcare on the other hand, lets say the woman has two children and is married. If she sends her two kids to daycare that's $90 per child or $180 per day. Each week that is $900 for five days a week. If you multiply that by 48 weeks then that's $43200. That is actually more than the average woman's take home pay. She's in deficit by $1747. Even with Family Tax Benefits Part A and FTB B, the average family would only be better off by around $4724.15 (assuming they qualify for the full amount of FTB B and not FTB A). It makes more economic sense for a woman to stay at home, but the problem with that is women's careers do not advance as fast as men's. They miss out on contributing to their superannuation, and if that's the case then if the couple divorces then the woman is more likely to end up in poverty later in life.
Let's say the couple only has one child. That's $21,600 a year in childcare. The couple has two options. Either stop at one child so they are in a good economic position, or they could delay having another child for five years so that their pockets don't take too much of a hit.
If a couple has two children at once, then on the average woman's salary, the couple will make a loss and it's not viable for the woman to work.
The Daily Telegraph today reported that childcare is expected to go up in the next year or so. What this means is that women are actually still going to be faced with the choice, children or career. With the current Government's policy it's not economically viable for women to work. The policy is designed to keep women answerable to men, because let's face it, if you don't have money, you don't have power and if you don't have power you have to rely on someone else to make decisions for you.
The Government doesn't seem to understand the problems women face, and that's probably because there are only two women in cabinet (up from one a week ago). By not having women in cabinet these issues simply aren't aired and behind closed doors there's a chance that the cabinet ministers are saying "oh don't worry about that, we're in charge, women can answer to us". Maybe not in those words and maybe not at all, but sometimes you wonder.
Surely the Government would be better to subsidise childcare rather than making it harder for women to work. Surely they'd be better to open daycare centres with flexible hours rather than your standard 9-5 situation. And surely they'd be better to reduce the cost of childcare so that women can work and contribute to the economy.
If the Abbott Government keeps going the way they are they're going to end up with no female voters and just as a one term government despite other policies stacking up. The Abbott Government is effectively saying that women must answer to men and not have their own careers or freedoms.
Sunday, December 28, 2014
Friday, December 26, 2014
How to not gain weight over Christmas
Don't you love how every Christmas the mainstream media write articles about overindulgence and how to lose weight after the break? Isn't it absolutely awesome that they tell you before Christmas to gorge on sweet food and the standard meals then the very next day they tell you how to lose weight?
I'm curious to know why they don't just tell people to resist the urge to overindulge full stop. Sure, Christmas is a time for celebration and with that often comes food. But why can't people be sensible about it?
As we see all year round, people struggle to keep the weight off as it is, so around comes Christmas and on go a couple of kilos. This isn't the case for everyone, but for some people they overindulge and eat too much.
Fitness and health doesn't stop just because it's Christmas time. Nobody is saying you have to go to the gym on Christmas Day, and let's face it, some are closed so you have a valid excuse. The ideal situation however is that people will not overindulge and that they won't let their fitness regime take a backseat just because it's Christmas.
You have to go to the gym all year round to keep weight off. What makes people think that around Christmas time it would be any different? Why think that around Christmas time the calories won't count? The calories count all year round as does the exercise.
Sure, celebrate, but have smaller portions and don't forget to exercise. It's simple, just don't overeat.
I'm curious to know why they don't just tell people to resist the urge to overindulge full stop. Sure, Christmas is a time for celebration and with that often comes food. But why can't people be sensible about it?
As we see all year round, people struggle to keep the weight off as it is, so around comes Christmas and on go a couple of kilos. This isn't the case for everyone, but for some people they overindulge and eat too much.
Fitness and health doesn't stop just because it's Christmas time. Nobody is saying you have to go to the gym on Christmas Day, and let's face it, some are closed so you have a valid excuse. The ideal situation however is that people will not overindulge and that they won't let their fitness regime take a backseat just because it's Christmas.
You have to go to the gym all year round to keep weight off. What makes people think that around Christmas time it would be any different? Why think that around Christmas time the calories won't count? The calories count all year round as does the exercise.
Sure, celebrate, but have smaller portions and don't forget to exercise. It's simple, just don't overeat.
Thursday, December 25, 2014
The NZ media is at it again with their portrayal of people who move to Australia
New Zealand citizens have been moving to Australia for decades and decades. As you all know, in 2001 the Howard Government decided that too many Kiwis were coming over, receiving welfare and basically bludging off the Government. Up until then the Government allowed Kiwis to move over and claim welfare immediately under a Closer Economic Relations agreement the trans Tasman nations have with eachother.
Since then, Kiwis have still be able to move over and live and work indefinitely. Kiwis can still claim Medicare and they can still get some family welfare payments.
The Government has been lobbied for the last few years by the New Zealand media through articles and through politicians themselves, primarily those on the left.
Every time the argument comes up there is one thing that is always at the forefront of the debate - that Kiwis work, pay taxes yet can't get welfare.
Before I proceed further, I am a New Zealand citizen leaving in Australia. I call myself a New Zealand citizen because I consider myself Australian without the citizenship, that I'm Australian in every way other than legally.
Anyway, enough about me, the New Zealand Government and ex pat Kiwis who come over to Australia say the same thing time and time again, "I want welfare, why can't I get welfare?"
As a legal New Zealand citizen this makes me incredibly frustrated because it portrays us as bludgers. It portrays us as only wanting to come to Australia for what we can get from the country. It makes us look like we don't really care about the country or its people, that we just want to take take take.
Here's the thing folks; some of us just want the right to vote, to participate in democracy and yet we are unable to.
The TV3 article which prompted this blog post was about welfare, and nowhere, not once did it mention voting. Not once did it mention loyalty to Australia. Not once did it mention that people wanted to make Australia their permanent home. It was all about money and welfare and what they could get out of the country and some of those interviewed even said that they were going to go back to New Zealand at some point.
I have to ask the question, why oh why does the New Zealand media insist on portraying us all as bludgers? Why oh why are they forgetting the ANZAC spirit and why oh why do they think that NZ citizens don't truly care about Australia?
The sad reality is that many people actually genuinely don't care about Australia and many people who come over here don't have loyalty to this country.....they are the ones who ruin it for the honest ones who emigrated for the right reasons - for a better life, for opportunities.
If we aren't going to give to the Australian economy, then maybe Australia should actually just shut the door permanently and axe the 444 Special Category Visa. If New Zealand citizens aren't going to show some appreciation to Australia, why should the Government keep supporting us?
I say this as someone very loyal to Australia, who is counting down the days until I can apply for my permanent residency, and I say it as someone who thinks that Kiwis need to really consider things before they move over here. If they aren't going to be loyal to this great nation, the best nation on earth, why should the Australian Government keep giving?
On the other hand, as a New Zealand citizen who desperately wants my Australian citizenship I find the rules very unfair and I'm very disappointed that the Howard Government granted Man Haron Monis citizenship when it was clear that he posed a threat, yet honest NZ citizens have to jump through hoops. It's hardly fair.
And it's hardly fair that the New Zealand media, NZ Government and the NZ public keep on missing the point about what's important. It isn't getting welfare. It's the right to vote. It's participating and integrating as a true Australian citizen.
Since then, Kiwis have still be able to move over and live and work indefinitely. Kiwis can still claim Medicare and they can still get some family welfare payments.
The Government has been lobbied for the last few years by the New Zealand media through articles and through politicians themselves, primarily those on the left.
Every time the argument comes up there is one thing that is always at the forefront of the debate - that Kiwis work, pay taxes yet can't get welfare.
Before I proceed further, I am a New Zealand citizen leaving in Australia. I call myself a New Zealand citizen because I consider myself Australian without the citizenship, that I'm Australian in every way other than legally.
Anyway, enough about me, the New Zealand Government and ex pat Kiwis who come over to Australia say the same thing time and time again, "I want welfare, why can't I get welfare?"
As a legal New Zealand citizen this makes me incredibly frustrated because it portrays us as bludgers. It portrays us as only wanting to come to Australia for what we can get from the country. It makes us look like we don't really care about the country or its people, that we just want to take take take.
Here's the thing folks; some of us just want the right to vote, to participate in democracy and yet we are unable to.
The TV3 article which prompted this blog post was about welfare, and nowhere, not once did it mention voting. Not once did it mention loyalty to Australia. Not once did it mention that people wanted to make Australia their permanent home. It was all about money and welfare and what they could get out of the country and some of those interviewed even said that they were going to go back to New Zealand at some point.
I have to ask the question, why oh why does the New Zealand media insist on portraying us all as bludgers? Why oh why are they forgetting the ANZAC spirit and why oh why do they think that NZ citizens don't truly care about Australia?
The sad reality is that many people actually genuinely don't care about Australia and many people who come over here don't have loyalty to this country.....they are the ones who ruin it for the honest ones who emigrated for the right reasons - for a better life, for opportunities.
If we aren't going to give to the Australian economy, then maybe Australia should actually just shut the door permanently and axe the 444 Special Category Visa. If New Zealand citizens aren't going to show some appreciation to Australia, why should the Government keep supporting us?
I say this as someone very loyal to Australia, who is counting down the days until I can apply for my permanent residency, and I say it as someone who thinks that Kiwis need to really consider things before they move over here. If they aren't going to be loyal to this great nation, the best nation on earth, why should the Australian Government keep giving?
On the other hand, as a New Zealand citizen who desperately wants my Australian citizenship I find the rules very unfair and I'm very disappointed that the Howard Government granted Man Haron Monis citizenship when it was clear that he posed a threat, yet honest NZ citizens have to jump through hoops. It's hardly fair.
And it's hardly fair that the New Zealand media, NZ Government and the NZ public keep on missing the point about what's important. It isn't getting welfare. It's the right to vote. It's participating and integrating as a true Australian citizen.
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Sydney's terrorism - the day the Lindt cafe was taken hostage.
Nearly 72 hours have passed since the gunman took the Martin Place Lindt cafe hostage on Monday morning at 9:44am.
I still don't quite know what to say about it. It's not just close to home for me, it IS home for me and thousands of others grieving people.
On Monday morning I had planned to have lunch at the lower end of Martin Place. Little did I know that would be a disrupted. A workmate turned to us and said "a cafe's been taken hostage". We were all shocked and went to the newspaper websites and 2GB. We tried to carry on working. Around 11am it became apparent that wasn't possible and the boss called to say we could go home. We stayed. Then around 1:15pm I went up to Martin Place to see what was unfolding. There were crowds gathered outside the cordon. When I got back another workmate said we could go home. At that point we did end up going home, half of us anyway. My work building is situated about 150 metres from Martin Place, and a further 100 metres from the hostage site.
I've seen cases were terrorists take public transport - stations or buses or trains hostage and I live over the bridge so I wasn't sure how I'd get home. I wasn't sure what would be safe. In the end I decided walking would be safer as did other people I passed on the Harbour Bridge. I walked about six kilometers home and by the time I left the city it was becoming deserted, a stark contrast to the thousands of people you normally have to bump past on the foothpath.
When I got home i was glued to 2GB and ABC - 2GB had better coverage with Ray Hadley and Ben Fordham.
Eventually around midnight I went to bed still in shock at what had unfolded just hours before. I was scared so I slept with my light on and the TV on but muted. Around 6am I woke up and saw text on the screen saying "two dead" and my heart sank, even writing this I, along with Sydney shed a tear for our city and the two innocent lives of Tori Johnston, the cafe manager and lawyer and mother Katrina Dawson at the hands of the gunman (whose name I will not be referring to in this article).
Yesterday the city gained some normalcy and routine, expect it was different. People had it written on their faces, the grief at what had happened and at lunch time florists had queues of people wanting to buy flowers. I went across to the post office and bought a card and a soft toy to place at the memorial. I was asked by the staff member if I wanted it wrapped, and all I had to say was, "it's for...." and she knew. We didn't say it was for the Martin Place memorial. I wrote my note, sunglasses on in the post office, thinking, "this could have happened here".
I walked up Martin Place and placed the toy and card and took a moment to remember Tori and Katrina.
Yesterday after work I went back up there, there was another memorial, at the cafe's building, as close as people could get. Some people were crying, the mood was very sombre indeed. It was horrible but so comforting to see an entire city unite in tragedy and show they care. The entire city is hurting right now, we're hurting for the lives lost and we're hurting for the fact such an atrocious act could happen in our homes, a peaceful city in a peaceful country.
This afternoon I had a work meeting directly across from the Lindt Cafe and looked at it, and took a photo, still in disbelief at what happened. It still seems very surreal to think in our city, in our country, a madman was unleashing his terror on innocent people.
The gunman was known to police and he was known to ASIO. He slipped through the cracks and was somehow allowed to stay in Australia, somehow allowed to commit sexual offenses against women and acted as an accessory to his wife's murder. He was also out on bail and showed disrespect to Australian soldiers lost in Afghanistan.
The only questions I have right now, because Sydney is grieving is, why is that this terrorist who wasn't a genuine refugee granted refugee status? Why was he on Centrelink? Why didn't Australia extradite him when Iran asked? And why are criminals allowed to wage war on Australia, yet hard working New Zealand citizens with blood ties to this country who are patriotic to Australia have to jump through hoops to get citizenship? Why was the border access to NZ citizens restricted yet criminals can gain entry?
Answers will of course come out in the coming weeks and months but for now, we, as Sydneysiders stand together to grieve for the lives of Katrina Dawson and Tori Johnston. We share their pain and we offer our sympathies.
I still don't quite know what to say about it. It's not just close to home for me, it IS home for me and thousands of others grieving people.
On Monday morning I had planned to have lunch at the lower end of Martin Place. Little did I know that would be a disrupted. A workmate turned to us and said "a cafe's been taken hostage". We were all shocked and went to the newspaper websites and 2GB. We tried to carry on working. Around 11am it became apparent that wasn't possible and the boss called to say we could go home. We stayed. Then around 1:15pm I went up to Martin Place to see what was unfolding. There were crowds gathered outside the cordon. When I got back another workmate said we could go home. At that point we did end up going home, half of us anyway. My work building is situated about 150 metres from Martin Place, and a further 100 metres from the hostage site.
I've seen cases were terrorists take public transport - stations or buses or trains hostage and I live over the bridge so I wasn't sure how I'd get home. I wasn't sure what would be safe. In the end I decided walking would be safer as did other people I passed on the Harbour Bridge. I walked about six kilometers home and by the time I left the city it was becoming deserted, a stark contrast to the thousands of people you normally have to bump past on the foothpath.
When I got home i was glued to 2GB and ABC - 2GB had better coverage with Ray Hadley and Ben Fordham.
Eventually around midnight I went to bed still in shock at what had unfolded just hours before. I was scared so I slept with my light on and the TV on but muted. Around 6am I woke up and saw text on the screen saying "two dead" and my heart sank, even writing this I, along with Sydney shed a tear for our city and the two innocent lives of Tori Johnston, the cafe manager and lawyer and mother Katrina Dawson at the hands of the gunman (whose name I will not be referring to in this article).
Yesterday the city gained some normalcy and routine, expect it was different. People had it written on their faces, the grief at what had happened and at lunch time florists had queues of people wanting to buy flowers. I went across to the post office and bought a card and a soft toy to place at the memorial. I was asked by the staff member if I wanted it wrapped, and all I had to say was, "it's for...." and she knew. We didn't say it was for the Martin Place memorial. I wrote my note, sunglasses on in the post office, thinking, "this could have happened here".
I walked up Martin Place and placed the toy and card and took a moment to remember Tori and Katrina.
Yesterday after work I went back up there, there was another memorial, at the cafe's building, as close as people could get. Some people were crying, the mood was very sombre indeed. It was horrible but so comforting to see an entire city unite in tragedy and show they care. The entire city is hurting right now, we're hurting for the lives lost and we're hurting for the fact such an atrocious act could happen in our homes, a peaceful city in a peaceful country.
This afternoon I had a work meeting directly across from the Lindt Cafe and looked at it, and took a photo, still in disbelief at what happened. It still seems very surreal to think in our city, in our country, a madman was unleashing his terror on innocent people.
The gunman was known to police and he was known to ASIO. He slipped through the cracks and was somehow allowed to stay in Australia, somehow allowed to commit sexual offenses against women and acted as an accessory to his wife's murder. He was also out on bail and showed disrespect to Australian soldiers lost in Afghanistan.
The only questions I have right now, because Sydney is grieving is, why is that this terrorist who wasn't a genuine refugee granted refugee status? Why was he on Centrelink? Why didn't Australia extradite him when Iran asked? And why are criminals allowed to wage war on Australia, yet hard working New Zealand citizens with blood ties to this country who are patriotic to Australia have to jump through hoops to get citizenship? Why was the border access to NZ citizens restricted yet criminals can gain entry?
Answers will of course come out in the coming weeks and months but for now, we, as Sydneysiders stand together to grieve for the lives of Katrina Dawson and Tori Johnston. We share their pain and we offer our sympathies.
Sunday, December 14, 2014
Well duh! My response to Michelle Bridges
Day after day after day after day we are bombarded in the mainstream media with the latest fad on how to lose weight fast, but they're exactly that, fads. They won't have long term lasting effects. Instead of looking for a quick fix to a healthy weight and fitness there is only one way to ensure long lasting effects.
Australian fitness guru and The Biggest Loser mentor Michelle Bridges gives five simple tips to lose on News.com.au today, and as you can imagine, News.com.au treats the reader as if they're absolutely stupid by saying, "what you never knew". Um News.com.au, I hate to break it to you, we actually DO know how to live a healthy life.
Anyway, the five tips are as follows:
1 - No such thing as good and bad foods.
2 - Choosing what fruit to eat isn't a problem.
3 - Don't eat crap out of a box.
4 - You can avoid weight gain during Christmas.
5 - Exercise more during holidays.
These are all common sense, and if more people actually employed these tips rather than looking for a quick fix there would be fewer obese and overweight people in Australia.
Why on earth do people not understand that maintaining a healthy weight isn't something you can switch on and off? You have to eat healthy ALL the time or you WILL gain weight. Not exercising will cause you to store fat no matter what you eat/drink/put into your body. It's all common sense and the sooner people realised this the better.
I disagree with Bridges on being able to eat ALL foods and that it's about portion size and moderation. There are some foods that some people just can't eat.
Otherwise though, this column is really just common sense and people need to stop thinking only about instant gratification and start thinking about what the long term effects of eating unhealthy food and not exercising will be.
Australian fitness guru and The Biggest Loser mentor Michelle Bridges gives five simple tips to lose on News.com.au today, and as you can imagine, News.com.au treats the reader as if they're absolutely stupid by saying, "what you never knew". Um News.com.au, I hate to break it to you, we actually DO know how to live a healthy life.
Anyway, the five tips are as follows:
1 - No such thing as good and bad foods.
2 - Choosing what fruit to eat isn't a problem.
3 - Don't eat crap out of a box.
4 - You can avoid weight gain during Christmas.
5 - Exercise more during holidays.
These are all common sense, and if more people actually employed these tips rather than looking for a quick fix there would be fewer obese and overweight people in Australia.
Why on earth do people not understand that maintaining a healthy weight isn't something you can switch on and off? You have to eat healthy ALL the time or you WILL gain weight. Not exercising will cause you to store fat no matter what you eat/drink/put into your body. It's all common sense and the sooner people realised this the better.
I disagree with Bridges on being able to eat ALL foods and that it's about portion size and moderation. There are some foods that some people just can't eat.
Otherwise though, this column is really just common sense and people need to stop thinking only about instant gratification and start thinking about what the long term effects of eating unhealthy food and not exercising will be.
Saturday, December 13, 2014
The Politics of Envy
For the last few years all we've heard in the mainstream media is, "the one percent this" and "the one percent that". We've heard that income inequality is growing and that the gap between the rich and the poor is increasing. We've heard stories that it's unfair that those at the top have money and that those at the bottom don't have money. Businesses have been told they need to increase wages and start paying people a "living wage", that they're underpaid and overworked and staff are constantly treated badly. Basically we've been fed a bunch of stories about how it's the fault of those at the top that we aren't progressing up the food chain and we've been told by the media we should be angry that there are the haves and have nots.
This infuriates me for a few simple reasons which I'll expand on during the course of this blog post.
The world does NOT owe you a living. Having your caviar with a silver spoon, 2 horses and a boat isn't a God Given right. Nor is having the latest iPhone (although it does come in handy when you're bored on public transport) or the latest Louis Vuitton bag and being able to buy the latest consumer toys. These are all "nice to haves" that people should work for. They're a status symbol if you like but for some reason people think that they are entitled to them, but the problem is, if everyone has something, it loses its value and status. It's basic supply and demand but that's a blog for another time.
So let's get back to the politics of envy. A few days ago a friend posted a comment on Facebook (to protect their identity I won't go into further detail) and I responded with some judgemental comments about those working in certain fields. The group of people I was attacking said that they weren't like that, that they were there only while studying and that they were in fact intelligent. Okay, maybe you believe that to be true, but having worked in that field which I look down upon I disagreed - the reality is that this particular field I refer to does not offer personal growth and it is where careers go to die.
One person who replied to me said I was being arrogant, egotistical, judgemental and that she, a Sociology student (and FYI I studied two Sociology papers at uni - Sociology of the Media and Social Policy & Social Justice), was trying to prevent people like me holding people back and judging people based on their profession and income.
It got me thinking about, the politics of envy, nowhere in the comments said person posted did she say that maybe these people are trying to better themselves, maybe this is temporary. Instead I was criticised because, how dare I have an opinion on desirable and undesirable jobs, and how dare I think that people should aspire to me.
This is one of the main factors in income inequality. Instead of looking at the wider issue - education and employment, all those on the left side of politics do is complain about how hard done by they are. But instead of complaining about what you don't have, wouldn't you be better off spending that time working on how to improve what you have and improve your economic position? This could be through further study or working longer hours. It could be taking a job that pays more money.
Instead of focusing on what people can't do, and complaining about their economic position, they'd be better to focus on what they can do and how they can improve their economic position.
Say someone is working part time or someone lives in a small town, as Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Harvey Norman founder Gerry Harvey have said, they can't be choosy about what jobs they take. Many people seem to have this idea that taking a job below their skill level is beyond them, but there is nothing to say that job has to be long term, and it is much easier to job hunt for something you truly want while you have a job that pays the bills, than to look while unemployed. Anecdotal evidence frequently suggests that those who are unemployed find it harder to get work than those who are in work.
Another thing is that low paying jobs are not even meant to be long term. They are only meant to be short term and you're supposed to upskill and develop your talents and what you can offer employers. People fail to remember this, and are so often focused on the politics of envy which prohibits personal and professional development.
This infuriates me for a few simple reasons which I'll expand on during the course of this blog post.
The world does NOT owe you a living. Having your caviar with a silver spoon, 2 horses and a boat isn't a God Given right. Nor is having the latest iPhone (although it does come in handy when you're bored on public transport) or the latest Louis Vuitton bag and being able to buy the latest consumer toys. These are all "nice to haves" that people should work for. They're a status symbol if you like but for some reason people think that they are entitled to them, but the problem is, if everyone has something, it loses its value and status. It's basic supply and demand but that's a blog for another time.
So let's get back to the politics of envy. A few days ago a friend posted a comment on Facebook (to protect their identity I won't go into further detail) and I responded with some judgemental comments about those working in certain fields. The group of people I was attacking said that they weren't like that, that they were there only while studying and that they were in fact intelligent. Okay, maybe you believe that to be true, but having worked in that field which I look down upon I disagreed - the reality is that this particular field I refer to does not offer personal growth and it is where careers go to die.
One person who replied to me said I was being arrogant, egotistical, judgemental and that she, a Sociology student (and FYI I studied two Sociology papers at uni - Sociology of the Media and Social Policy & Social Justice), was trying to prevent people like me holding people back and judging people based on their profession and income.
It got me thinking about, the politics of envy, nowhere in the comments said person posted did she say that maybe these people are trying to better themselves, maybe this is temporary. Instead I was criticised because, how dare I have an opinion on desirable and undesirable jobs, and how dare I think that people should aspire to me.
This is one of the main factors in income inequality. Instead of looking at the wider issue - education and employment, all those on the left side of politics do is complain about how hard done by they are. But instead of complaining about what you don't have, wouldn't you be better off spending that time working on how to improve what you have and improve your economic position? This could be through further study or working longer hours. It could be taking a job that pays more money.
Instead of focusing on what people can't do, and complaining about their economic position, they'd be better to focus on what they can do and how they can improve their economic position.
Say someone is working part time or someone lives in a small town, as Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Harvey Norman founder Gerry Harvey have said, they can't be choosy about what jobs they take. Many people seem to have this idea that taking a job below their skill level is beyond them, but there is nothing to say that job has to be long term, and it is much easier to job hunt for something you truly want while you have a job that pays the bills, than to look while unemployed. Anecdotal evidence frequently suggests that those who are unemployed find it harder to get work than those who are in work.
Another thing is that low paying jobs are not even meant to be long term. They are only meant to be short term and you're supposed to upskill and develop your talents and what you can offer employers. People fail to remember this, and are so often focused on the politics of envy which prohibits personal and professional development.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)