Have you ever received unemployment benefits?

[sanabas]

You've profoundly misinterpreted how most Australians see welfare: "It isn't your money. Its ours. We pay the taxes. You take the money. We should have a say in how you spend our money." You could live of peanut butter and bread and save the money. That kind of frugality isn't the issue at the heart of the matter. Instead, the principle concern of people is what the others (i.e. those not deserving payments) are doing with the money.

Yeah, I know. But just because they're all wrong is no reason for me to change why I object to welfare quarantining. And I consider those regular and serious A current affair watchers with views like that to be more selfish than those who have made it on to the DSP despite only marginal claims for it.

The intention isn't to punish all welfare recipients, the implicit understanding is that those doing the right thing won't be punished since they must by definition be spending a responsible sum of money on the basics. Instead it is aimed at those who are breaking the rules and thus the trust of the people. Unfortunately, your also one of the people who won't have a voice in the debate -- ever -- but that's an entirely different matter.

Why won't I get a voice? I'm sure I could dream up some sort of effective publicity stunt. Maybe even ACA will come and film me, I can be the token welfare scammer. Or I'll go postal in the queue at centrelink, they won't know whether to be horrified at what I've done or grateful that I've eased the burden on them by getting rid of a few worthless dole bludgers.

Those who are breaking the rules are doing so by scamming, by cheating, etc. Quarantining a scammed payment won't change the fact that it's a scam. Those who are bending the rules by spending money given for their kids on their own stuff while ignoring the kids, that I have a problem with. But if that's the case, get DOCS to hassle them. Those that are spending their dole on dope, alcohol & ciggies, so what? If that's how they want to live, good luck to them. I am currently saving ~100 a week out of my DSP, without being particularly tight with my budget. I could probably squeeze another 50 out of it without too much hassle. So you can maybe argue that the DSP is way too much, but I dunno anyone who'd do that seriously. If I can save $100 a week for my own recreation, I say go me. For me, that recreation is going to be a new idiot box as a reward to myself for getting out of my current program, and then I'll think about stuff after that. If someone else can save $100 a week for their own recreation, I say go them. If for them, that recreation is 4 bottles of vodka a week, good luck to them. It's not for me, but who is anyone else to say my recreation is acceptable and someone else's isn't?

Incidentally, the amount of money I've been living off for large parts of the last 10 years makes me laugh when I see articles about how many people are falling below the poverty line, or how tough people are doing it with the world's current financial issues. I saw one story last year about how a couple were being forced to either sell their rental property, or sell their house and move into their rental property, and about just how tough it was to make ends meet, put food on the table, etc. I wish I could be that poor. I've seen others about just how tough, almost impossible it is to live on minimum wage, which is ~$480/week after tax. Again, I'd be happy if I could be that poor.

If you want to continue to fail at reading comprehension please do. If you can find some sort of endorsement of the practice and not what amounts to a tacit acknowledgment of its popularity and the likelihood of political support for the measures, tell me because I will have mistyped. Acknowledging that this dross is likely to find a place in the Australian political debate and will likely be passed into legislation IS NOT the same as supporting the measure.

Whacko. Now go and read my ninja edit, and check your own comprehension skills.

The very fact that this dross will find a place in political debate is indicative of the fact that there are a whole lot of clueless Andrew Bolt readers who need to eff off & die. Usually I stick to unfocused anger about all the idiots who really shouldn't be allowed to vote. Talk of some topics, particularly stuff about welfare, about mental health, about education, about things like teen suicide rates, etc, get the rage focused nicely. And the rage is focused at them, the sort of people who can vote in someone like Steve Fielding, not at you.

 

[sanabas]

I would be interested in hearing about people's experiences with mental health institutions, NGOs, welfare organizations etc. Apportioning funding for them is difficult to say the least. Numbers, I fear, don't convey all that much. They might look at people coming through the door but I don't think I've ever seen any systematic work on the incidences of prisoner redactivism for a prisoner referral center say.

Feel free to ask me anything you're interested in about mental health stuff, I'll answer if I can. Though maybe it needs a separate thread. I've never had legal problems, which is partially down to luck, mostly down to other stuff. I've never been in long term institutionalised care, because I do have a decent level of functioning most of the time, and because I have enough insight and enough intelligence to have a great deal of input into my own treatment. I do know quite a few people who have been in them. To me at least, it seems counter-productive for a few, and it feels like they've passed the point of no return, that they're no longer capable of acquiring the skills to live in the community with minimal support. I've spent a lot of time in short term care, i.e. psychiatric wards, both closed & open, and been the subject of treatment orders & involuntary admissions a couple of times. I have a lot of experience with various community organisations, from outreach stuff to occasionally receiving charity donations to the sort of residential program I'm a part of currently. Also various training/job placement sort of things. I've been on DSP for ~10 years, I've worked at various points in that time, I am currently getting my crap together, back at uni, and actually going to get a pair of degrees. Speaking of a lot of time in psych wards, I just did a quick count. I reckon I've spent nearly a whole year in them.

also i said the vast majority of charities clients fall into this category.... Not that the vast majority of "loonies" use the services. the people who use these services regularly, often face multiple challenges , homelessness/drug/alcohol/unemployment and mental illness.

Fair enough. The people I know who do frequently access that sort of stuff tend to be a bit of a wider range in terms of issues. Though certainly multiple issues can be really problematic.

AS far as plenty of long term institutions .... i recently took a guy to one to gain admission on his request,( he was hearing voices) he was refused although he has a long history with them, a couple of days latter he robbed the chemist at knife point , the same chemist he gets his daily medication from, he's admitted now , but apart from his homelessness , metal illness, he now has court to deal with, on the whole a good job is done but it still has a long way to go

Yep, there can certainly be more, and things can certainly be done better. Knowing some of the magic words to push their duty of care buttons can help a lot with getting a bed. I hate hospital, it is an absolute last resort, and I'm good at avoiding it. So when I do want to be admitted, I almost always am.

 

[Masada]

Yeah, I know. But just because they're all wrong is no reason for me to change why I object to welfare quarantining. And I consider those regular and serious A current affair watchers with views like that to be more selfish than those who have made it on to the DSP despite only marginal claims for it.

I'm kind of indifferent to the whole matter. Welfare reform simply isn't something I typically get interested in. Kinda like me and medicare.

Why won't I get a voice? I'm sure I could dream up some sort of effective publicity stunt. Maybe even ACA will come and film me, I can be the token welfare scammer. Or I'll go postal in the queue at centrelink, they won't know whether to be horrified at what I've done or grateful that I've eased the burden on them by getting rid of a few worthless dole bludgers.

Do you seen any Australian politician standing up and saying: "I defend the right of X to spend $10 a month of food to feed himself." I can see the retort now: "What's he do with the extra money?" Those would be the only means to get yourself heard and honestly, the first is an invitation to disaster -- selective editing! -- while the second is just going to get you shot... -- non-lethal taser anyone?

Those who are breaking the rules are doing so by scamming, by cheating, etc. Quarantining a scammed payment won't change the fact that it's a scam.

That's apparently already been addressed...

Those who are bending the rules by spending money given for their kids on their own stuff while ignoring the kids, that I have a problem with.

That was the principle aim of welfare guaranteeing, in the first instance.

But if that's the case, get DOCS to hassle them.

I'm starting to believe that children are often better never having DOCS getting involved. Of course, that might be a Territory thing but the propensity of children to die under the Ministers care is alarming... I don't believe an already overstretched and institutionally dysfunctional agency like DOCS is the agency to achieve things. Its also important to note that if it had been doing its job we wouldn't be here talking about its failures now would we? Heh.

Those that are spending their dole on dope, alcohol & ciggies, so what? If that's how they want to live, good luck to them.

It also had the ancillary effect of reducing discretionary income which reduced substantially grog and drug intake. Its a blunt instrument, but I suspect that the administrative ease of piling it on everyone saves substantial amounts of manpower and money and makes it very difficult for Centrelink to mess up the whole protecting the children mandate.

I am currently saving ~100 a week out of my DSP, without being particularly tight with my budget. I could probably squeeze another 50 out of it without too much hassle. So you can maybe argue that the DSP is way too much, but I dunno anyone who'd do that seriously. If I can save $100 a week for my own recreation, I say go me. For me, that recreation is going to be a new idiot box as a reward to myself for getting out of my current program, and then I'll think about stuff after that. If someone else can save $100 a week for their own recreation, I say go them. If for them, that recreation is 4 bottles of vodka a week, good luck to them. It's not for me, but who is anyone else to say my recreation is acceptable and someone else's isn't?

I agree. But try explaining that to certain unnamed government departments.

Whacko. Now go and read my ninja edit, and check your own comprehension skills.

Granted. Apologies. Really the only excuse I can make is I saw Andrew Bolt and my eyes misted over. That or the relatively late hour... I prefer the first!

The very fact that this dross will find a place in political debate is indicative of the fact that there are a whole lot of clueless Andrew Bolt readers who need to eff off & die. Usually I stick to unfocused anger about all the idiots who really shouldn't be allowed to vote. Talk of some topics, particularly stuff about welfare, about mental health, about education, about things like teen suicide rates, etc, get the rage focused nicely. And the rage is focused at them, the sort of people who can vote in someone like Steve Fielding, not at you.

I'm fairly ambivalent. The Australian political landscape is populated by fools, in large part. I usually don't care much who wins. Although I'm getting increasingly confident in my assertion that Rudd was a dud. Cami might owe me an apology

 

[sanabas]

I'm kind of indifferent to the whole matter. Welfare reform simply isn't something I typically get interested in. Kinda like me and medicare.

The supposed need for welfare reform doesn't interest me much. Bad welfare reform that would make stuff worse, that annoys me.

Do you seen any Australian politician standing up and saying: "I defend the right of X to spend $10 a month of food to feed himself." I can see the retort now: "What's he do with the extra money?" Those would be the only means to get yourself heard and honestly, the first is an invitation to disaster -- selective editing! -- while the second is just going to get you shot... -- non-lethal taser anyone?

I only have very limited knowledge of the debate over quarantining welfare in the NT, I sorta noticed the debate, and that was about it, because I wasn't particularly sane at the time. But weren't there a lot of vocal opponents to it, for various reasons?

Suicide by cop is one I've never seriously thought about.

I'm starting to believe that children are often better never having DOCS getting involved. Of course, that might be a Territory thing but the propensity of children to die under the Ministers care is alarming... I don't believe an already overstretched and institutionally dysfunctional agency like DOCS is the agency to achieve things. Its also important to note that if it had been doing its job we wouldn't be here talking about its failures now would we? Heh.

DOCS appears to be rooted, for sure. But it may partially be biased reporting, because I only ever hear about their stuffups. But that's an argument to fix DOCS. It's the sort of thing that I think should still betheir responsibility. If they're not up to it, fix them so they are.

I'm fairly ambivalent. The Australian political landscape is populated by fools, in large part. I usually don't care much who wins. Although I'm getting increasingly confident in my assertion that Rudd was a dud.

I switch between apathy and futile despair. My vote doesn't count anyway, given that I'm in one of the safest Labor seats in the country, and I'll get 1 Labor, 1 Lib as my senators. But really, the difference between them seems to be shrinking all the time, and I increasingly find myself being really, really unhappy with both. We get a choice between centre-right and centre-a bit more right. The last one we had that was anywhere even vaguely to the left was Gough Whitlam.

I asked this question in a different forum, is there any country with a two-party system that actually works?

 

[kosiosko 1]

@ Masada

again i would agree with you, but
I build things and would still say regardless of the causes , interest rates dampen the economy when raised,( and i expect several more) the first hit is low end housing, then we under-build new dwellings, creating a shortage in lower end housing , existing rents climb,existing house prices rise, fueling the perception of a housing bubble, when in fact its a shortage of entry level housing ,this cycle continues with each successive rise, till the cost of money busts the low end housing construction first,( the least able to respond to change) leading to a sudden increase in unemployment. 60's 70's 80's 90's, (to some extent pre 2005)all saw sudden peaks in people leaving the industry, The good people in the industry have nothing to worry about unless its a general recession across all industries. so again i say i agree with your view, but all the new entrants to the industry won't understand WHY they are now unemployed, to them it will be raised interest rates to offset inflation lead to their unemployment, especially with so much talk about high house prices, inflation etc. Your average 25 year old hasn't seen a bust yet, they only know the good times , as you said very good times at that

 

[illram]

How so?

I will explain thusly:

Free pre-college schooling regardless of a person's willingness to learn is a pretty damned good one to argue against(I call this welfare since it is a form of redistribution by allowing access to services regardless of ability to pay). I think you should only be allowed to get free schooling if you actually want to learn. Otherwise, go work at 7/11 or whatever.

CNN story citing a statistical analysis of High School Dropouts:

The report goes on to note: "Americans without a high school diploma have considerably lower earning power and job opportunities in today's workforce. Over a working lifetime from ages 18-64, high school dropouts are estimated to earn $400,000 less than those that graduated from high school. For males, the lifetime earnings loss is nearly $485,000 and exceeds $500,000 in many large states. Due to their lower lifetime earnings and other sources of market incomes, dropouts will contribute far less in federal, state and local taxes than they will receive in cash benefits, in-kind transfers and correctional costs. Over their lifetimes, this will impose a net fiscal burden on the rest of society.

High School dropouts also wind up costing all of us more by being more likely to be incarcerated or accused of a crime. Nearly 70% of all inmates in US prisons are dropouts.

Here is another handy-dandy chart about how much dropouts cost:

How Much Does a
High School Dropout Cost?
Researchers have started to examine various annual and lifetime costs associated with high school dropouts.
• The United States could save between $7.9 and $10.8 billion annually by improving educational attainment among all recipients of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, food stamps, and housing assistance (Garfinkel et al., 2005).
• A high school dropout contributes about $60,000 less in taxes over a lifetime (Rouse, 2005).
• If the male graduation rate were increased by only 5 percent, the nation would see an annual savings of $4.9 billion in crime-related costs (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2006b).
• America could save more than $17 billion in Medicaid and expenditures for health care for the uninsured by graduating all students (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2006a).

Link.

In sum, it benefits society financially to pay for all those lazy good for nothing bums to finish high school.

Universal healthcare for people who purposely harm their health is also a good form of welfare to argue against. If you eat a burger a day or routinely smoke cigarettes, you shouldn't have any coverage for obesity-related issues and cancer(provided the cancer can be linked to the product, anyway), respectively.

If you are unhealthy and cannot afford your own healthcare you are a net drain on society because the law mandates that you are treated at least for emergency care. Unless you would also prefer to remove laws mandating that everyone must be treated for emergency care regardless of ability to pay, we (taxpaying, bootstrap wearing goody-two-shoes) pay for our non-bootstrapped fellow citizens when their burgers and cigarettes catch up with them.

Also, one thing leads to another. You don't graduate from high school, you don't get a job that provides healthcare because the best you can do is mow lawns under the table or something, you get sick because you're poor and are therefore more likely to have a poor diet and poor health, and you then add more of a drain by having to be provided healthcare on other people's dime. And emergency care no less, which is a lot more expensive and less efficient than preventative care which you could be getting if you had a healthcare plan. (And if you were more educated you might be more inclined to utilize preventative care, or at least be a generally healthier individual.)

If we as a society provide you with a high school education and healthcare, in the long run it costs us less. You don't have to be a compassionate granola eating hippie to think this is a good idea.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

@RRW. What do you mean by "demographics"?

There are demographic correlations, obviously, but people from any "demographic" can find themselves screwed. It is always individual circumstances that happen to correlate. What are your individual circumstances? You think you got your job because you were white?

 

[Quackers]

@RRW. What do you mean by "demographics"?

There are demographic correlations, obviously, but people from any "demographic" can find themselves screwed. It is always individual circumstances that happen to correlate. What are your individual circumstances? You think you got your job because you were white?

man he's in Ireland there is like no non-whites there lol.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

I'm not sure how anyone can stay on unemployment benefit for any length of time. I've had the last week off on Leave and daytime TV has made me want to chew my own face off.

I'd rather work for Charity *shudders* than watch any more poor quality programming ripping off some other successful poor quality programming.

 

[Arwon]

My biggest problem with the whole welfare quarantining thing is that all the ire directed at welfare spending is directed at a tiny sliver of the pie chart - 6% if memory serves.

I suspect most Australians don't realise that the vast majority of our welfare budget goes to pensions, veterans benefits and disability payments, none of which you ever really see get the same level of scrutinty and hoop-jumping that unemployment payments get. Maybe - maybe - disbility payments are starting to get some attention, but still. That don't generate much Today Tonight copy.

 

[Camikaze]

It goes the other way in fact. There is as much controversy when the pension isn't raised as when unemployment benefits are.

 

[Arwon]

Which is fine, pensions are important. I just want people to have some PERSPECTIVE!

Actually I'd like to hear an "OMG INTEREST RATES" story that focussed on pensioners with savings, and people with superannuation, benefiting from higher interest rates as opposed to mortage holders being screwed.

But I guess that outer suburb mortage holders are the narrow slice of the population who control Australian politics...

 

[Camikaze]

It's much easier for the media to complain about things than to present the good side of a story.

 

[Arwon]

So why no "OMG SUCKS FOR PENSIONERS AND OTHER PEOPLE WITH SAVINGS" story about lower interest rates then?

 

[Camikaze]

Okay, fair enough, but people not having enough money to pay the mortgage is more of a complaint than people not having to pay as much tax on their investments.

 

[Masada]

I only have very limited knowledge of the debate over quarantining welfare in the NT, I sorta noticed the debate, and that was about it, because I wasn't particularly sane at the time. But weren't there a lot of vocal opponents to it, for various reasons?

Principally white academics and those already involved in the 'welfare dependency' system. Neither, in my opinion, has much in the way of credibility anymore. The first haven't managed despite all their efforts and obvious intelligence to achieve all that much. Simply put, they avoid the hard choices which is probably because they are almost invariably 'racist' in implementation. Point in case is the aboriginal out-station debate. The second group is quite broad, it can encompass charities, land councils and other bodies dependent on aboriginal dysfunction for their budgets. Invariably they will deny that they have an interest in keeping aboriginals in a state of dependency. That is usually only partially true with most only targeting one aspect of the problem -- i.e. alcohol dependancy, drug use, domestic violence etc. -- there are always going to be positive feedback stemming from the un-tackled parts. You can have someone turn away from the drink only to have them get into the gunga which in turn leads almost invariably back to the former and so forth. Most have failed and now spend a substantial part of their time lobbying to increase resources while simultaneously stymieing any positive attempts at reform by third parties or government. "Our aboriginals" is a powerful motivator for both. Finally, it doesn't help that most of the objections are philosophical and not practical. There simply isn't much reason not to do it. I oppose it personally but my arsenal is rather limited all I can say is: human rights (and frankly, that's really weak) while its supporters can typically counter with: complete societal collapse bought on by a torrent of booze and drugs.

Suicide by cop is one I've never seriously thought about.

... you could just cross the border and have that happen by default

DOCS appears to be rooted, for sure. But it may partially be biased reporting, because I only ever hear about their stuffups. But that's an argument to fix DOCS. It's the sort of thing that I think should still betheir responsibility. If they're not up to it, fix them so they are.

DOCS is rooted. I don't see a means of fixing it.

I switch between apathy and futile despair. My vote doesn't count anyway, given that I'm in one of the safest Labor seats in the country, and I'll get 1 Labor, 1 Lib as my senators. But really, the difference between them seems to be shrinking all the time, and I increasingly find myself being really, really unhappy with both. We get a choice between centre-right and centre-a bit more right. The last one we had that was anywhere even vaguely to the left was Gough Whitlam.

I can vote CLP that's about the only consolation.

I build things and would still say regardless of the causes , interest rates dampen the economy when raised,( and i expect several more)

Persistently high and spiking inflation is worse than the higher interest rates required to keep it down.

the first hit is low end housing, then we under-build new dwellings

Correct, but that has had little seemingly to do with higher interest rates. And more to do with historically rapid population growth and an already strong domestic economy. Remember that housing construction for the last decade has been relatively strong by historical standards.

till the cost of money busts the low end housing construction first,( the least able to respond to change) leading to a sudden increase in unemployment. 60's 70's 80's 90's, (to some extent pre 2005)all saw sudden peaks in people leaving the industry,

Sure. But where your going wrong is attributing the relatively high cost of money to the housing construction industry and not as in the sixties et. al. to external economic influences. The housing industry is usually the first to suffer but to the best of my understanding has never caused an Australian recession. It can usually prolong them but it doesn't, on its own, cause them.

but all the new entrants to the industry won't understand WHY they are now unemployed, to them it will be raised interest rates to offset inflation lead to their unemployment, especially with so much talk about high house prices, inflation etc. Your average 25 year old hasn't seen a bust yet, they only know the good times , as you said very good times at that

Yeah. They see the result rising interest rates as the principal cause. When its merely a symptom.

My biggest problem with the whole welfare quarantining thing is that all the ire directed at welfare spending is directed at a tiny sliver of the pie chart - 6% if memory serves.

Pensions are sacrosanct. Goes back to the social compact of the Keynesian state. Pay taxes, get pension and live in relative comfort for the rest of your life. It's that simple. Unemployment benefits are not sacrosanct. They don't represent quite the same level of commitment. They're just meant to bridge you to the next job. You don't have a right as per the social compact to draw them. Its a privilege for the unemployed.

It goes the other way in fact. There is as much controversy when the pension isn't raised as when unemployment benefits are.

You pay taxes for 40 years. There's a reasonable expectation that you can live on some of the proceeds comfortably. The same isn't true of unemployment benefits. They're only there to bridge the divide between jobs.

 

[.Shane.]

Have you ever received unemployment benefits? Whatever you want to call it - The Dole, jobseekers allowance etc. - have you ever received it?

I'm interested in people's attitudes to it in different countries. How do people view those ''on the dole'' in your country? How do you feel about it? How do we stop people abusing the system? Should there even be a system?

In Nov. 2001 I was laid off by an employer that was entering bankruptcy. I filed and was on unemployment for about 5 months.

 

[Camikaze]

You pay taxes for 40 years. There's a reasonable expectation that you can live on some of the proceeds comfortably. The same isn't true of unemployment benefits. They're only there to bridge the divide between jobs.

You've earned money for 40 years. There's a reasonable expectation that you can live on some of the proceeds comfortably.

Of course, there's no way I'm suggesting that the pension should be scrapped or is useless or that old people should support themselves; I'm just saying that those reasonable expectations go both ways.

 

[sanabas]

My biggest problem with the whole welfare quarantining thing is that all the ire directed at welfare spending is directed at a tiny sliver of the pie chart - 6% if memory serves.

I suspect most Australians don't realise that the vast majority of our welfare budget goes to pensions, veterans benefits and disability payments, none of which you ever really see get the same level of scrutinty and hoop-jumping that unemployment payments get. Maybe - maybe - disbility payments are starting to get some attention, but still.

Nor should it get the same level of scrutiny and hoop-jumping. Unemployment is designed to be short term, there shouldn't be incentives to stay on it, there should be hoops because if things are working ideally, people are only on it for a brief stay, those receiving these benefits should see their situation, particularly wrt eligibility, changing fairly rapidly, hence the frequent hoops.

old age pension, disability pension, vets benefits (dunno much about this one) are meant to be long term. People receiving these shouldn't see their situation change much. It's reasonable to not waste a lot of resources doing frequent checkups.

I agree there needs to be better scrutiny of who gets on in the first place, both old age types who actually have a big stack of assets, and disability types who have a medium term illness, or a long term, medium impact illness, who'd be better off getting some sort of middle ground between the DSP and the dole, say a 12 month exemption from actively searching for work, in order to get treatment regime sorted, to get training/specialist help from the jobseeker organisations that specialise in working with those sort of cases, and a better structure for things like permanent part time work, so there's more incentive for people to avoid the DSP and be doing as much work as they are capable of. As it stands currently, there's little incentive for someone on the DSP working 5 hours a week to start building up towards 20-25 hours, or towards near fulltime minimum wage stuff. There's incentive to do ~1 day a week, there's incentive to get a decent paying full time job. But there's very little middle ground, particularly for those in some form of community housing where increased work means more tax, less DSP and higher rent. The difference in net cash per week after rent between 5 hours and 20 hours can actually be pretty small.

So why no "OMG SUCKS FOR PENSIONERS AND OTHER PEOPLE WITH SAVINGS" story about lower interest rates then?

Because it's not a story. Pensioners don't have savings that get screwed over by interest rates. Say I've managed to tuck 10 grand away through diligent saving of my pension. Say the official rate drops 2%, and all of that is lost from the interest the bank gives me. That's $200. There's no story to be had there, especially since lots of pensioners would very rarely see their balance go above $1000, meaning lower interest rates cost them $20 a year at most, and more likely closer to $5.

 

[azzaman333]

So why no "OMG SUCKS FOR PENSIONERS AND OTHER PEOPLE WITH SAVINGS" story about lower interest rates then?

Old people are boring.