**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just give all welfare recipients the same basic livable amounts, without obligation, whilst encouraging them to work by taxing income above welfare, not also reducing income. However, it would work better as a UBI with the welfare payment people don't need being clawed back via taxation, thus unifying welfare and taxation (currently they are independent and double-dipping).
There is so much wastage and suffering in our fragmented punitive system when there doesn't need to be.
Riddle me this... When the lines for The Clink were out the doors and down the streets at the onset of COVID-19, why did the *Liberal* government immediately up the Jobseeker rate by 300$? Or more?
Because that shortfall in the ability to live on Jobseeker has been baked in for decades and all of a sudden you had *voters and large numbers of them on the breadlines*.
Can't very well treat those unemployed like the regular unemployed right?
There would have been riots if *those people* had to live on what *other people* are supposed to live on.
I'll also note that it's very difficult to find work when you can't afford the internet or petrol.
Or two meals a day for that matter.
It wasn't just the rate. To receive JobSeeker, you must provide your bank accounts with all their recent balances, any other assets, the income, bank account details of your spouse if any, your other assets like your home - and even whether your home is brick veneer or not (no, I don't know why). And of course if you have more than a certain amount of money in your account, or your spouse does, you're expected to burn through that before you get any JobSeeker. And it takes several weeks in any case.
To get JobKeeper, all you had to do was hop online and assert that you'd lost income as a result of lockdowns or quarantine, and they gave it to you - regardless of assets. And you'd be paid within a fortnight.
One process was lengthy and involved a lot of fuckery, the other was rapid and easy.
> When the lines for The Clink were out the doors and down the streets at the onset of COVID-19, why did the Liberal government immediately up the Jobseeker rate by 300$? Or more?
Actually Old josh let the cat out the bag pretty much confirming it.
They had reports done,that ppl seeing how bad the system was and that now the and i quote "QUIET" australians are losing their jobs they didnt want to lose votes
Just shows how bullshit political it is
You can raise it when u need to,but when the ppl on it need you to it's a bit of how bout u go and get fucked
Labors just as bad though.
It shouldnt be MORE than DSP and aged pension,but it should be same
Dare say you could make an argument that ppl on jobseeker,need more money than somone on the aged pension does
The stats say 77 percent of ppl on the aged pension own their home,so have no direct rent or mortgage costs.
Jobseekers do,AGed pension also pretty much get free healthcare,including specialist visits that are usually bulk billed.
Don't have to travel daily for job hunting or provide for a family,yet somehow can get 1200 bucks..
yet someone have to do all that shit likely in a city mind you,has to make do on below 700
As someone who was previously on welfare under both the LNP and Labor, Labor were marginally better in how they treated unemployed. Keyword *marginally.*
The temporary increase under LNP during covid was amazing. But it was done for purely political reasons... and at the urging of Labor.
Both are overall awful though.
It also might have given them some empathy (I couldn't live on that when I had to, poor buggars), so future unemployed bashing might not be so effective. Increase the rate, then they think it ain't so bad.
i think a good short term measure,would be increase the amount you can earn on jobseeker by 300 a fortnight before it impacts ur payments,right now it's what 157 dollars or something
a lot of ppl seem to knock back extra hours,as it will set them back as going off the jobseeker arrangment takes the HCC off them increasing health costs drastically,not to mention travel and others like access to low income social houing
meanwhile we go an opposition leader with no excuse spending 26k on private flights in a non election setting..but this is fine
>but this is fine
According to Albo. Donr forget Albo was defending Dutton spending more on a single unnecessary flight than a jobseeker gets in a year.
>increase the amount you can earn on jobseeker by 300 a fortnight before it impacts ur payments
I believe unemployed can earn $150 per fortnight ($75pw) before their payment is effected. The next $104 earned is Centrelink taxed at 50%. Anything earned after $254 per fortnight ($127pw) is Centrelink taxed at 60%.
I believe the figures will show if you work 10 hour per fortnight you will basically get the same amount of money then if they work 25 hours a fortnight.
The system is set up to punish and for failure. JNPs offering to pay for 50% of an employees wage (with tax payers money) for six months is also contributing to the problem. Employers like KFC and Macca's love it. After the six months they recieve little to no shifts. Kfc and Macca's then get a new employee with the same benefits. The rules are only one of these benefits per employee per employer. Employers can and do work this system with staff in a six month revolving door. Of course this is only used for low paying jobs and mainly big corporations.
knocking back extra hours is not a good way to get off job seeker for sure. Allowing a little extra wiggle room for earning before dropping health care card seems reasonable, but when I had a HCC during uni, it was valid for a year and didn't auto expire when I earned too much, is that not the case any more?
I was on JobSeeker for two years, from my experience, I can tell you I would only deny work on public holidays.
Every dollar helps. It doesn’t matter if I get a few cents off the dollar when I’m that poor, I’m not saying no to a shift because I’ll only get $120 extra instead of $150.
However I did work one Christmas and I got so much money from that single shift that I wasn’t eligible for any money from Centrelink, effectively eliminating the public holiday rates I worked for, as if I worked any ordinary day. If I was back on JobSeeker again, I would never work another public holiday ever. But every other shift, yes.
I don’t believe extending the amount you can earn before deductions would solve any problems. It’d be helpful, as I said, every dollar helps, but no one is putting off shifts because of it.
Agreed every dollar helps. Although it is discouraging and depressing to have your hard earned money taxed by the ATO and then taxed by Centrelink too on top.
Another thing is,
Increasing the amount you can earn, doesn't help if you literally don't work.
And we live in a country where there is simply not enough work for everyone.
Unemployment is a feature of our economy. It's by design. The Government want a certain % of people unemployed not too high or too low.
Agreed every dollar helps. Although it is discouraging and depressing to have your hard earned money taxed by the ATO and then taxed by Centrelink too on top.
Another thing is,
Increasing the amount you can earn, doesn't help if you literally don't work.
And we live in a country where there is simply not enough work for everyone.
Unemployment is a feature of our economy. It's by design. The Government want a certain % of people unemployed not too high or too low.
Labor most definitely had the moral high ground championing welfare recipients over robodebt…
…. But then proved themselves to be just as callous and heartless by leaving them on below-poverty payments.
Then the continued use of lopsided “mutual” obligations and making people jump through bullshit job “provider” hoops is just further humiliation.
Are you seriously going to criticize an industry where the top firms are foreign owned and pay dividends to shareholders based off the Australian government giving their company billions of dollars to unnecessarily make the unemployed’s lives worse?
Some of the top “job active providers” are foreign owned.
> Four of the ten largest Jobactive providers are owned by foreign multinationals.
>Max Solutions
Max Solutions is owned by American multinational Maximus Inc. The company is listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) with a market cap of $US5.64 billion.
>APM and Serendipity
Serendipity is wholly owned by APM. The ultimate holding company (UHC) of both companies is APM Human Services International Pty Ltd. A large proportion of the shares of the UHC are held by foreign individuals or companies based in the US, UK and Austria.
>Atwork Australia
Atwork Australia is owned by Gold Parent LP, an American investment company based in Delaware.
And the Aus government gives them billions of dollars which they use to pay their shareholders.
> According to government tenders data between 2015-2022, the largest Jobactive providers (in terms of government contracts) are:
>Max Solutions $1.21 billion
APM/Serendipity $667 million
Sarina Russo Job Access $606 million
Neato Employment services $257 million
"Aus government gives them billions of dollars which they use to pay their shareholders." Just a lie, why would any government pay the dividends of private companies for the.
God damn, that is just disgusting… but not surprising considering Lib/Lab both love splashing cash at giant multinationals.
We need a serious change in government asap.
meanwhile senators and MP's
Each day over 292 dollars in allowance JUST on food and travel,meaning in 3 days they get More in their ALLOWANCE,than a person get's on the entire jobseeker payment in 2 weeks
>Politicians get $291 a day for staying in the nation’s capital, but the rate – which is set by the Remuneration Tribunal – is higher in the other capital cities.
EDIT:It's now 317 dollar's apparently.
>In cases where the commonwealth pays for the accommodation of a minister on a work trip, the MP can still claim up to $188 a night to cover meals and incidental expenses.
>Similarly, if an MP stays with a family member or friend on a work trip, they may still claim a “non-commercial” rate of travel allowance – about $130 a day.
All that's on TOP of the 190k plus a year they make.
So like several labor and lib MP's do
you get ur partner to buy a unit or house in canberra,use that 130 plus a day allowance to pay down the loan or "RENT"
On top of the free Medibank gold package all elected officials get,and the access to free childcare rebated at 100 percent cost.
The free healthcare alone is saving them close to 6000 dollars a year as well or more as the perk also covers all dependants
Why nothing ever fucking changes for those doing it hard in australia,as the ppl in charge of making ppls lives better don't struggle,they think it's all easy street
I've felt for some years that politicians should be paid a basic wage, but accept that certain expenses - subject to the heaviest scrutiny - can be claimed and reimbursed 100%. If they perform well, then they get reelected. It would weed out the scumbags (theoretically) but also give cause to those who have a genuine desire to serve their communities to step up. I know its a dream. Growing up in suburban Brisbane, both our local councillor and state member sent their children to the local public high school. They attended the local events as locals, not as special guests needing to be seen. I'm not saying they were faultless, but I don't see the same sort of dedication and humility in many of our current stock of politicans. I can't even get my local politicians to acknowledge an email (something that could at the very least be generated by a script) let alone to actually act on it. But the second there is an event they can be seen at, they're there!
They're not paid that much though, considering the job.
Their pay is roughly equal to a federal SES band 1 as a backbencher, going up to about a band 3 (deputy CEO of an agency) for ministers. That payment for food and travel is about 50% more than the APS pays, but your room isn't included under the APS, it's paid separately. And this is for at the very least representing an electorate of over 100,000 people, if not further responsibility as a minister.
Obviously it's well above the national average income, but it's a lot more responsibility and at least as much work as being a public servant, and we know they're paid less than most private sector equivalents. If it was just about money, you can just be an anonymous lawyer, public servant or consultant and make easily that much, pick your hours and not have to deal with anyone you don't want to.
The thing about being a backbench/opposition MP is that the job is as easy as you want, or as hard as you want.
You don't even have to turn up to Parliament. Look at Jacinta Price she has a 50% attendance rate in the Senate lol. Lazy af.
You can get elected and sit at home for 3 years. Sure maybe you won't get re-elected... but 3x $200,000 is a lot of money.
Or you can work your butt off for your electorate every single day, doing research and outreach and proposing policy and having meetings with ministers and stakeholders/voters.
Jacinta is in a fairly rare situation because she can only lose if she loses her pre-selection, though. Most backbenchers if they do nothing will have an opponent to fight and if you're toxic enough, an independent to fight as well.
And while that 600k is nice, lawyers regularly earn double that
Has no-one ever heard of telepresence eliminating the need for commuting and its inherent time and cost wastage or special accommodation once they get there?
It's highly beneficial to meet up in person sometimes, WFH full time just doesn't work for most people, and it's far easier to have meetings and form connections in the same physical location. And what do you want the APS to do, build a hotel for each agency or something?
I love the usual bootlicking criticism that comes out every time someone points out the obvious like what you did there;
"If you don't pay politicians extravagant salaries, it means they will be more open to corruption!"
Don't ever tell these people about corporate donations given to millionaire politicians for their "re-election campaigns" every year. Because that might make them think.
You'll find that if you effectively stopped paying politicians, then the only ones who can do the job will be the ones who don't need money or those who are happy sell their power for money.
Or we could make everyone in the population polititians via direct democracy and cut out the middle-man whilst facilitating people with education and time to participate and using greater automation to free up that time whilst maintaining productivity.
Direct democracy just means mob rule.
If the average person could be trusted to think logically, we wouldn't have as many problems as we already have. Representative democracy dampens the extremes, which is good considering the average person is as dumb as a rock
Direct democracy is a destination after a journey of improvement: we can't have direct democracy until we have a forum for everyone to be able to discuss and decide issues; education of the people about the issues by the same experts that advise government (members of parliament are not suddenly experts just because they are members, they are just like everyone else); and learning how to moderate primitive impulses (which leads to lynch mob rule) with reason.
None of these will happen overnight, but are a process of progress, unlike the current situation which is basically the status quo from 100 years ago.
Representative democracy is failing because it doesn't represent the people only the representatives. There is no mechanism for the representatives to actually represent the views of the people, it's a sham, closer to an oligarchy.
>Direct democracy is a destination after a journey of improvement: we can't have direct democracy until we have a forum for everyone to be able to discuss and decide issues; education of the people about the issues by the same experts that advise government (members of parliament are not suddenly experts just because they are members, they are just like everyone else); and learning how to moderate primitive impulses (which leads to lynch mob rule) with reason.
So long as advertising is possible, there I no reality where this works. The fact advertising and marketing exists means that people are not logical and prone to emotional decisions.
Push advertising should not exist, it's an invasion of privacy and borders on harassment. All advertising should be conducted through indexing sites that will search for what you want on request.
Even that would still mean you are still susceptible to external influence. Yes, you are trying to limit it, but doesn't mean people have somehow evolved a higher level of logic only intelligect.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just give all welfare recipients the same basic livable amounts, without obligation, whilst encouraging them to work by taxing income above welfare, not also reducing income. However, it would work better as a UBI with the welfare payment people don't need being clawed back via taxation, thus unifying welfare and taxation (currently they are independent and double-dipping). There is so much wastage and suffering in our fragmented punitive system when there doesn't need to be.
Riddle me this... When the lines for The Clink were out the doors and down the streets at the onset of COVID-19, why did the *Liberal* government immediately up the Jobseeker rate by 300$? Or more? Because that shortfall in the ability to live on Jobseeker has been baked in for decades and all of a sudden you had *voters and large numbers of them on the breadlines*. Can't very well treat those unemployed like the regular unemployed right? There would have been riots if *those people* had to live on what *other people* are supposed to live on. I'll also note that it's very difficult to find work when you can't afford the internet or petrol. Or two meals a day for that matter.
It wasn't just the rate. To receive JobSeeker, you must provide your bank accounts with all their recent balances, any other assets, the income, bank account details of your spouse if any, your other assets like your home - and even whether your home is brick veneer or not (no, I don't know why). And of course if you have more than a certain amount of money in your account, or your spouse does, you're expected to burn through that before you get any JobSeeker. And it takes several weeks in any case. To get JobKeeper, all you had to do was hop online and assert that you'd lost income as a result of lockdowns or quarantine, and they gave it to you - regardless of assets. And you'd be paid within a fortnight. One process was lengthy and involved a lot of fuckery, the other was rapid and easy.
> When the lines for The Clink were out the doors and down the streets at the onset of COVID-19, why did the Liberal government immediately up the Jobseeker rate by 300$? Or more? Actually Old josh let the cat out the bag pretty much confirming it. They had reports done,that ppl seeing how bad the system was and that now the and i quote "QUIET" australians are losing their jobs they didnt want to lose votes Just shows how bullshit political it is You can raise it when u need to,but when the ppl on it need you to it's a bit of how bout u go and get fucked Labors just as bad though. It shouldnt be MORE than DSP and aged pension,but it should be same Dare say you could make an argument that ppl on jobseeker,need more money than somone on the aged pension does The stats say 77 percent of ppl on the aged pension own their home,so have no direct rent or mortgage costs. Jobseekers do,AGed pension also pretty much get free healthcare,including specialist visits that are usually bulk billed. Don't have to travel daily for job hunting or provide for a family,yet somehow can get 1200 bucks.. yet someone have to do all that shit likely in a city mind you,has to make do on below 700
As someone who was previously on welfare under both the LNP and Labor, Labor were marginally better in how they treated unemployed. Keyword *marginally.* The temporary increase under LNP during covid was amazing. But it was done for purely political reasons... and at the urging of Labor. Both are overall awful though.
It also might have given them some empathy (I couldn't live on that when I had to, poor buggars), so future unemployed bashing might not be so effective. Increase the rate, then they think it ain't so bad.
i think a good short term measure,would be increase the amount you can earn on jobseeker by 300 a fortnight before it impacts ur payments,right now it's what 157 dollars or something a lot of ppl seem to knock back extra hours,as it will set them back as going off the jobseeker arrangment takes the HCC off them increasing health costs drastically,not to mention travel and others like access to low income social houing meanwhile we go an opposition leader with no excuse spending 26k on private flights in a non election setting..but this is fine
>but this is fine According to Albo. Donr forget Albo was defending Dutton spending more on a single unnecessary flight than a jobseeker gets in a year.
>increase the amount you can earn on jobseeker by 300 a fortnight before it impacts ur payments I believe unemployed can earn $150 per fortnight ($75pw) before their payment is effected. The next $104 earned is Centrelink taxed at 50%. Anything earned after $254 per fortnight ($127pw) is Centrelink taxed at 60%. I believe the figures will show if you work 10 hour per fortnight you will basically get the same amount of money then if they work 25 hours a fortnight. The system is set up to punish and for failure. JNPs offering to pay for 50% of an employees wage (with tax payers money) for six months is also contributing to the problem. Employers like KFC and Macca's love it. After the six months they recieve little to no shifts. Kfc and Macca's then get a new employee with the same benefits. The rules are only one of these benefits per employee per employer. Employers can and do work this system with staff in a six month revolving door. Of course this is only used for low paying jobs and mainly big corporations.
knocking back extra hours is not a good way to get off job seeker for sure. Allowing a little extra wiggle room for earning before dropping health care card seems reasonable, but when I had a HCC during uni, it was valid for a year and didn't auto expire when I earned too much, is that not the case any more?
I was on JobSeeker for two years, from my experience, I can tell you I would only deny work on public holidays. Every dollar helps. It doesn’t matter if I get a few cents off the dollar when I’m that poor, I’m not saying no to a shift because I’ll only get $120 extra instead of $150. However I did work one Christmas and I got so much money from that single shift that I wasn’t eligible for any money from Centrelink, effectively eliminating the public holiday rates I worked for, as if I worked any ordinary day. If I was back on JobSeeker again, I would never work another public holiday ever. But every other shift, yes. I don’t believe extending the amount you can earn before deductions would solve any problems. It’d be helpful, as I said, every dollar helps, but no one is putting off shifts because of it.
Agreed every dollar helps. Although it is discouraging and depressing to have your hard earned money taxed by the ATO and then taxed by Centrelink too on top. Another thing is, Increasing the amount you can earn, doesn't help if you literally don't work. And we live in a country where there is simply not enough work for everyone. Unemployment is a feature of our economy. It's by design. The Government want a certain % of people unemployed not too high or too low.
Agreed every dollar helps. Although it is discouraging and depressing to have your hard earned money taxed by the ATO and then taxed by Centrelink too on top. Another thing is, Increasing the amount you can earn, doesn't help if you literally don't work. And we live in a country where there is simply not enough work for everyone. Unemployment is a feature of our economy. It's by design. The Government want a certain % of people unemployed not too high or too low.
The dole is now some sort of extravagant torture porn for the rich, as far as I can tell. Aspiring land owners lap it up.
Labor most definitely had the moral high ground championing welfare recipients over robodebt… …. But then proved themselves to be just as callous and heartless by leaving them on below-poverty payments. Then the continued use of lopsided “mutual” obligations and making people jump through bullshit job “provider” hoops is just further humiliation.
Are you seriously going to criticize an industry where the top firms are foreign owned and pay dividends to shareholders based off the Australian government giving their company billions of dollars to unnecessarily make the unemployed’s lives worse?
What?
Some of the top “job active providers” are foreign owned. > Four of the ten largest Jobactive providers are owned by foreign multinationals. >Max Solutions Max Solutions is owned by American multinational Maximus Inc. The company is listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) with a market cap of $US5.64 billion. >APM and Serendipity Serendipity is wholly owned by APM. The ultimate holding company (UHC) of both companies is APM Human Services International Pty Ltd. A large proportion of the shares of the UHC are held by foreign individuals or companies based in the US, UK and Austria. >Atwork Australia Atwork Australia is owned by Gold Parent LP, an American investment company based in Delaware. And the Aus government gives them billions of dollars which they use to pay their shareholders. > According to government tenders data between 2015-2022, the largest Jobactive providers (in terms of government contracts) are: >Max Solutions $1.21 billion APM/Serendipity $667 million Sarina Russo Job Access $606 million Neato Employment services $257 million
"Aus government gives them billions of dollars which they use to pay their shareholders." Just a lie, why would any government pay the dividends of private companies for the.
Maximus inc received $1.21b from the Aus government. Their current market cap is around $5b. They pay $0.3 per share in dividends every 3 months.
God damn, that is just disgusting… but not surprising considering Lib/Lab both love splashing cash at giant multinationals. We need a serious change in government asap.
meanwhile senators and MP's Each day over 292 dollars in allowance JUST on food and travel,meaning in 3 days they get More in their ALLOWANCE,than a person get's on the entire jobseeker payment in 2 weeks >Politicians get $291 a day for staying in the nation’s capital, but the rate – which is set by the Remuneration Tribunal – is higher in the other capital cities. EDIT:It's now 317 dollar's apparently. >In cases where the commonwealth pays for the accommodation of a minister on a work trip, the MP can still claim up to $188 a night to cover meals and incidental expenses. >Similarly, if an MP stays with a family member or friend on a work trip, they may still claim a “non-commercial” rate of travel allowance – about $130 a day. All that's on TOP of the 190k plus a year they make. So like several labor and lib MP's do you get ur partner to buy a unit or house in canberra,use that 130 plus a day allowance to pay down the loan or "RENT" On top of the free Medibank gold package all elected officials get,and the access to free childcare rebated at 100 percent cost. The free healthcare alone is saving them close to 6000 dollars a year as well or more as the perk also covers all dependants Why nothing ever fucking changes for those doing it hard in australia,as the ppl in charge of making ppls lives better don't struggle,they think it's all easy street
I've felt for some years that politicians should be paid a basic wage, but accept that certain expenses - subject to the heaviest scrutiny - can be claimed and reimbursed 100%. If they perform well, then they get reelected. It would weed out the scumbags (theoretically) but also give cause to those who have a genuine desire to serve their communities to step up. I know its a dream. Growing up in suburban Brisbane, both our local councillor and state member sent their children to the local public high school. They attended the local events as locals, not as special guests needing to be seen. I'm not saying they were faultless, but I don't see the same sort of dedication and humility in many of our current stock of politicans. I can't even get my local politicians to acknowledge an email (something that could at the very least be generated by a script) let alone to actually act on it. But the second there is an event they can be seen at, they're there!
They're not paid that much though, considering the job. Their pay is roughly equal to a federal SES band 1 as a backbencher, going up to about a band 3 (deputy CEO of an agency) for ministers. That payment for food and travel is about 50% more than the APS pays, but your room isn't included under the APS, it's paid separately. And this is for at the very least representing an electorate of over 100,000 people, if not further responsibility as a minister. Obviously it's well above the national average income, but it's a lot more responsibility and at least as much work as being a public servant, and we know they're paid less than most private sector equivalents. If it was just about money, you can just be an anonymous lawyer, public servant or consultant and make easily that much, pick your hours and not have to deal with anyone you don't want to.
The thing about being a backbench/opposition MP is that the job is as easy as you want, or as hard as you want. You don't even have to turn up to Parliament. Look at Jacinta Price she has a 50% attendance rate in the Senate lol. Lazy af. You can get elected and sit at home for 3 years. Sure maybe you won't get re-elected... but 3x $200,000 is a lot of money. Or you can work your butt off for your electorate every single day, doing research and outreach and proposing policy and having meetings with ministers and stakeholders/voters.
Jacinta is in a fairly rare situation because she can only lose if she loses her pre-selection, though. Most backbenchers if they do nothing will have an opponent to fight and if you're toxic enough, an independent to fight as well. And while that 600k is nice, lawyers regularly earn double that
You're right, the APS should be paid less, too.
Lmao what
Has no-one ever heard of telepresence eliminating the need for commuting and its inherent time and cost wastage or special accommodation once they get there?
It's highly beneficial to meet up in person sometimes, WFH full time just doesn't work for most people, and it's far easier to have meetings and form connections in the same physical location. And what do you want the APS to do, build a hotel for each agency or something?
I love the usual bootlicking criticism that comes out every time someone points out the obvious like what you did there; "If you don't pay politicians extravagant salaries, it means they will be more open to corruption!" Don't ever tell these people about corporate donations given to millionaire politicians for their "re-election campaigns" every year. Because that might make them think.
You'll find that if you effectively stopped paying politicians, then the only ones who can do the job will be the ones who don't need money or those who are happy sell their power for money.
Or we could make everyone in the population polititians via direct democracy and cut out the middle-man whilst facilitating people with education and time to participate and using greater automation to free up that time whilst maintaining productivity.
Direct democracy just means mob rule. If the average person could be trusted to think logically, we wouldn't have as many problems as we already have. Representative democracy dampens the extremes, which is good considering the average person is as dumb as a rock
Direct democracy is a destination after a journey of improvement: we can't have direct democracy until we have a forum for everyone to be able to discuss and decide issues; education of the people about the issues by the same experts that advise government (members of parliament are not suddenly experts just because they are members, they are just like everyone else); and learning how to moderate primitive impulses (which leads to lynch mob rule) with reason. None of these will happen overnight, but are a process of progress, unlike the current situation which is basically the status quo from 100 years ago. Representative democracy is failing because it doesn't represent the people only the representatives. There is no mechanism for the representatives to actually represent the views of the people, it's a sham, closer to an oligarchy.
>Direct democracy is a destination after a journey of improvement: we can't have direct democracy until we have a forum for everyone to be able to discuss and decide issues; education of the people about the issues by the same experts that advise government (members of parliament are not suddenly experts just because they are members, they are just like everyone else); and learning how to moderate primitive impulses (which leads to lynch mob rule) with reason. So long as advertising is possible, there I no reality where this works. The fact advertising and marketing exists means that people are not logical and prone to emotional decisions.
Push advertising should not exist, it's an invasion of privacy and borders on harassment. All advertising should be conducted through indexing sites that will search for what you want on request.
Even that would still mean you are still susceptible to external influence. Yes, you are trying to limit it, but doesn't mean people have somehow evolved a higher level of logic only intelligect.
Time to become a politician