Because being mean to them is the point. If they weren't miserable, the employed workers wouldn't be afraid of losing their jobs and might demand higher wages.

In fact the data shows that stronger social safety nets increase wages. That's why neoliberal governments - including our coopted "labor" government - try to gut welfare.

Oh and the "inflation" thing is a lie. Higher wages do not cause inflation, but if economists said that out loud, then the grift would be obvious, so we're given a BS line about the price of groceries.

God it would be terrible if groceries were to ever increase in price, wouldn't it? Might cause some kind of crisis.

Because they're not us, and we are stupid half evolved primates who can't think beyond our own immediate surrounds.

Many people that end up in Jobseeker should be on the DSP or NDIS, but aren't because of very onerous requirements. And some people get turned down from work, even the most basic jobs, because of discrimination of various forms.

And according to the article, raising Jobseeker would take only a tiny amount of the budget, while moving many of the most disadvantaged people out of poverty. Which is much better value for money than many of the other measures that are included in a typical budget.

I thought Jobseeker was an emergency fund to assist with seeking jobs.

You've fallen for the rename. It didn't used to be called "jobseeker". It covers people who can't work too.

I’ve literally opted for.homelessness over Centrelink payments because I knew I’d pick up work fast—and I did, KFC, which paid more, had free food, and was less effort while I kept looking for work. Feels worse to be on Jobseeker than to just pick up shift work and look for jobs while doing that. There’s no shortage of shift work.

I don't see how any of this is relevant to JobSeeker. I'm not sure you actually understand the purpose of the payment or how it works.

I've literally opted for.homelessness over Centrelink payments

Then you're dumb as fuck.