Socialising the losses
Australian issues, Howard govt - - Posted on March, 28 at 1:19 pm by Ken L
WorkChoices - I wonder if, with the benefit of hindsight, Howard would want to give it such a catchy name? It would be harder for critics to keep talking about The 2006 amendments to the 1996 Workplace Relations Act. Anyway that’s by the bye.
It’s hard to have a rational discussion of WorkChoices because it affected so many different aspects of the employment relationship. Over here you have an employer saying how great it is that he can sack underperformers without having to worry about a lot of bureaucratic red tape. Over there is a worker bemoaning the way she was pressured into signing an AWA with no penalty rates. And here’s another employer whining about all the records she has to keep these days, while her workers jump for joy at being able to trade off two weeks annual leave for a big Christmas bonus.
All these voices are shouting a mixture of praise and complaint and no wonder it’s hard for innocent bystanders to make head or tail of it all. So I thought I’d add to the confusion by mentioning an aspect of WorkChoices that hasn’t received much attention. I’m talking about the way it lets employers transfer commercial risk to the welfare system.
Under the old award system, workers are entitled to severance pay if they are laid off on account of redundancy. They are also entitled to extended periods of notice, which in many cases is converted by the employer to payment in lieu of notice. The minimum payment under the award system is up to 20 weeks’ pay for workers with 10 years’ service. Some awards and collective agreements have substantially higher entitlements.
There’s no requirement for redundancy pay in agreements certified under WorkChoices. Most employers can be expected to resist including any provisions for redundancy pay. The last thing an employer wants when business turns down is to have to find large wads of cash for severance payments. So even if workers are capable of bargaining effectively, they are likely to be offered a higher weekly wage in lieu of any redundancy pay entitlement.
This is what the Tristar dispute was mainly about as I understand it - workers allegedly being kept on the books to avoid payment of severance pay until they could be transferred to a new WorkChoices agreement where they wouldn’t be entitled to any.
Now you can argue about the rights and wrongs of this for workers and employers but nobody (including the government) seems to have noticed the implications for the dole. One of the main justifications for severance pay is that it tides you over while you get another job. If you get laid off and get paid 3 or 4 months’ pay as a lump sum, you can’t just stroll down to Centrelink and start drawing Newstart Allowance immediately. There’s a waiting period that varies according to your severance payment.
However, if you don’t get any severance pay you can claim Newstart much sooner. This is so even if you traded off redundancy pay for a higher hourly rate under an AWA. Consequently you start being a cost to the government earlier than you would have if you’d had a lower hourly rate and a redundancy benefit. Which is good for workers I guess, they effectively get paid twice, but probably not an outcome that most people would think is desirable.
It’s really a disguised way for the state to protect employers from incurring a cost when they lay off workers. You and I pick up the tab, as always. Still it helps employers be flexible, and as we all know that’s the principal objective of contemporary public policy.
Posted in Australian issues, Howard govt |
March 28th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
It’s a good point, Ken, and well made.
Some have argued that the shift of risk from the private to the public has been a feature of “liberalisation” for the past few decades. In the developing world, where “structural adjustment” has been enforced, the impact has been quite severe. It’s meant massive debts.
March 28th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Interesting post Ken; the doco “the Corporation” has much to recommend including a description of ‘externalities’ - those being business costs that can be shifted to something or someone else. I guess this is just another example of this.
Would it be mean to view it as a form of welfare cheating?
March 28th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Bingo Ken you got it in one.
Much of the public congratulation indulged in by big business funded think tanks that accompanied WorkChoices once it became law, was an extended justification for lower minimum wages, (meaning lower in real terms, hence Howard’s careful promise concerning maintaining nominal minimum wages) This was supported on the grounds that the welfare system should ensure people can live, not the wages system! Representatives of the IPA and the CIS were particularly vocal on this point.
Now this raises an interesting question. When does government sponsored wage suppression (which is what Serfchoices is really all about) become a form of hidden corporate welfare, when at a time of full employment, the government can legislate to reduce the price of labour, and increase its supply (s457 visas/Welfare to Work measures) in ways which assist in keeping its overall ‘price’ down, despite increased demand in the market for this ‘commodity’?
The real intent can be easily picked up if you listen to think tank representatives tout the ’salvic’ value of work as the panacea to poverty, which is defined as an ‘attitude’ problem, as opposed to a problem of not having enough money. One thing is certain, once the minimum wage falls relative to the median wage (as it is designed specifically to do), work by itself will not provide sufficient income to keep anyone. That is where the good old taxpayer, and of course, charities, come in.
The view that people actually need to earn enough to keep themselves and their families from their efforts in the labour market is being carefully redefined as the importance of ‘developing the work habit’. Business representatives are making it increasingly clear to governments (of all persuasions) that they expect someone else to ensure that people’s income is sufficient to actually feed, cloth and house them from their efforts in the labour market. Wages and conditions are simply at the discretion of the individual employer. Someone else can fix up any problems. Meanwhile of course, profits, dividends and reduced corporate taxes must be at ‘worlds best practice levels’ as befits the needs of an elite living in a global city.
March 28th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Very interesting perspective that hadn’t really occurred to me before.
The question for me is, is this a deliberate effort, or just poor policy planning?
March 28th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Yes, Ken, bingo.
Bingo. Bingo. Bingo.
Oh, you were being sarcastic?
Sorry, I wasn’t.
BTW where’s the unionist’s consideration for the unemployed?
Oh, thats right, they can’t afford union fees so how can there exist a union to ‘look after’ them?
Silly me.
March 28th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
The Workchoices policy will be used to accomodate the ‘climate change refugees’ from the Pacific Islands & Indonesia. As the recession hits everyone dives for the closest minimum wage job. Who needs Mexicans eh?
March 28th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Aint that the ever loving truth,added to that, is the fact that sooner or later this commodity boom in China is finy fuck finito finished,the shit is going to hit the fan shortly.
The world has all the plastic buckets and spades it needs,We have a rubbish collection in our suburb at the moment,and just a cursory glance of what’s outside peoples home is worth six units of economic theory at my local Uni.
On each pile of rubbish there are push bikes of all shapes and sizes,the only problem with them being flat tyres.A mate of mine picked up a tele for his garage,took the fucker home and plugged it in and watched the news.This tells me more in 30 seconds about the worlds economy,than Alan Greenspan could learn in a fucking lifetime.
Our own children are borrowing and spending money like drunken sailor’s,and hocking themselves up to the banks to the tune of telephone numbers, the chickens are on their way home to roost.Economists who believe this can go on forever at its current rate,obviously can’t tell the differance between shit and clay and would serve society better by cleaning fucking toilets.
March 28th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
“It’s really a disguised way for the state to protect employers from incurring a cost when they lay off workers.”
So what’s your problem with work choice then, Kenny? If the worker can get money from the dole office why does he give a shit where rhe money comes from.
You don’t understand markets do you? You have almost no understanding of how economics works.
Forcing employers to cough up cash during hard times has a chilling effect on hiring. You can’t see it in evidence but you know that firms will always go a few hires short just in case.
Now they can take a chance and the worker will still be able to draw a living form the dole office instead of the hard up employer having to fork out dole money because he can’t afford to keep the person on.
Unemployment is no longer buck passed to firms finding themselves in difficult times. Now it’s the dole office responibility—- as it should be instead of leglislating out social policy to hard up firms.
The left is truly illiterate when it comes to economics… even its most basic understanding. Kenny, you’re exhibit one.
March 28th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
” You don’t understand markets do you? ” - U & S. It amazes me that people like you keep using the “free market” excuse when this is simply a theory based on assumptions that don’t really wash in the REAL world that your kind just love to pretend only you understand. ( Not like those soft lefties who go on about people like they are more than just units of labour - jees!!! ) How about this for a theory. If the market ( cue everyone prostrate on the floor, quiet and full of love for the one true God )is so free, why do we increasingly see corporate profits rising? If your religion, oops sorry theory, is correct then increased profits will attract more entrants into the market, who will compete the profits down until everyone is pretty much just receiving payment for their labour and enterprise.Ever increasing profits are a sign of market forces dirtied or failing. Furthermore most economic theory of this kind was devised before rampant and highly effective advertising meant demand was increasingly supply side driven. That is, instead of rational humans ( another laughable assumption ), choosing how much they want/need of something independant of supply, the supplier now effectively tells them how much they want, thus polluting the free market further. How do you explain, using your superior understanding of economics, that in a time of the economy being pretty much close to capacity and employers complaining they can’t get enough staff, wages are falling in real terms? The obvious answer is that U & S stands for Uninformed & Superstitious. So before you repeat the crap you here your Dear Leader and his drunken chorus spew ad nauseum, try and question yor unquestioning love for this economic rationalism and what it says about you.
End of rant.
March 28th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
‘Casualisation of the consequences’, of Workchoices, is pretty much the unsaid government attitude. Just imagine how many workers are out there already with jobs that are above the dole , paywise , one fortnight and the next…. 10 to 15 hours. Not enough to pay the rent for 2 days.
No option but to attempt to stay on the dole to smooth out this insecure financial situation. Taxpayers pick up the tab for this wonderful new world of flexibility. And casualised workers go nuts applying for 4 jobs each fortnight, as well as working in demanding jobs, paying peanuts.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
I don’t generally cut and paste but time constraints demand it, sorry.
Source: me
March 29th, 2007 at 1:13 am
So Mark doesn’t think there should be any profits over and above the risk free rate of return in a free market because these profits would have to be compteted away. Is that how I am reading ya?
You’re illustration has one big huge flaw. It assumes perfect competition, but I guess only you and academic economists would believe there is such a thing. Markets are imperfect processes and never reach equilibrium. Let me know if I need to throttle up this lesson as I would only be too happy to help.
Have you any repsonse to the comments I made regarding Kenny’s poor understanding of Social welfare/sticking it to companies or is that out of bounds?
March 29th, 2007 at 1:31 am
Here is an excellent example in real life what happens when profits are rising.
Oil firms have made a lot of money from rising oil prices simply because all they had to do was pump it out of the ground.
Prior to the oil price hike - when oil was around $20-25 dollars- there was about $10-15 billion going into exploration.
Now the last estimate from the Petroleum institute is about $183 billion over the next 5 years worldwide.
So much for the price signal not working.
Actually that’s what you are saying, you know that don’t you?. You are actually arguing the price signal doesn’t work.
Mining house shouldn’t be competing away labor from the cities to the hinterlands (tradesmen are offered up to $150,000 to work in remote areas). It shouldn’t happen in your mind. That’s because in your world workers would just show up any
In sum.
Ken thinks hard up firms ought to be stuffed with social welfare payments made up of leglisated termination while Mark believes the price signal/ demand supply curves no longer work.
Good one guys.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Workchoices might have burned the Harvester “living wage” decision, the backbone of Australian Industrial Relations for 100 years, but the story ain’t over yet.
With Labour back in at the Next Federal, Judge Higgins will get the last laugh as his decision is resurrected, dusted-off, and reinstated at the core of the Federal Industrial system, where it belongs.
Free-Market Daleks like U&S will prolly say it’s a step backwards: Employers should be able to pay starvation wages here because that’s what they’re able to do in places like China and India, and the Taxpayers should pick-up the slack, because we’re all one big Global Economy.
I say it’s a reaffirmation of Australian values and our belief in a fair-go for everyone. If you want to play J.P Morgan, bugger-off to Bangladesh and live there. Oh, and by the way, wou won’t be able to sponge off the local Welfare System and use it to subsidise your profiteering, because there is no local Welfare System.
March 29th, 2007 at 10:15 am
You’re either a fool or a tool of the ’spinmeisters’ U&S…your slack attempts to justify a rigged & monopolised economic system come across as arrogant & insincere. One only has to look at the recent ‘beat up’ on the Iranian incident, the Thatcherite posings of ‘phoney Blair’ & the simultaneous escalation of Oil & Gold shares/futures to see the CON that is being perpetuated. The market is rigged from top to bottom & there is nothing you or any of your myopic kin can tell me that will alter that view.
March 29th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Anyone read about the possibility that Blackstone Group (yet another private equity group)is bidding for Channel TEN…here’s some info.on them:
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone_Group)
Groan. Our Channels are becoming nothing but playthings of American Corporate interests…purveyors of junk ads & cheap crap.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Might add…great stuff Phill, Mark, Evan et al…glad people can see thru the ‘free market’ rhetoric.
HECS, MEDICARE, The Industrial Relations System & the Superannuation plan were all briiliant policies implemented by the Labor Govt…sure, they all need (ed) tinkering around the edges…& might have seemed too money grabbing at the time…but across the World they are seen as SUPERB systems that were setup to assist the health & financial well being of the Australian people during a period of Globalisation & rampant Capitalism. Keating et al should be proud of themselves.
Instead of taking the EASY way out like Howard & Costello are by dismantling our foundations & safety nets & selling us out to the Multi-National Corporations & Military Industrial Complex…the Laborites did their best to compromise, increase productivity, respect worker’s rights & allow a certain amount of upward mobility & empowerment whilst retaining a ‘fair go for all’ environment.
Just because investors & some Corporations didn’t pull their weight because they didn’t like the TAX burden or extent of income distribution, doesn’t mean that the Labor era was unsuccessful. I think we all realise now that mistakes were made…but we also recognise the extent of market & financial manipulation that goes on…it’s not difficult to damage a pro worker Government, to take the economy hostage & create recessions. To give the perception that only highly competitive, free market systems are GOOD for you. There’s NEVER been a free market system in the modern age…there never will be. It’s in the interest of all & sundry to regulate, hinder, obstruct, rig & so on…the style of regulation & ‘the fix’ all depends on who you are trying to assist & support.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
“There’s NEVER been a free market system in the modern age…there never will be. It’s in the interest of all & sundry to regulate, hinder, obstruct, rig & so on…the style of regulation & ‘the fix’ all depends on who you are trying to assist & support.”
Nasking,and the quiker the fucktards are made aware of that fact,we then can get on and try save the planet.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Invig,
Your solution is superficially attractive, but first you will have to convince the electorate to pay the tax required to pay for it all. I don’t like your chances.
U&S, you really are are a silly rationalist billy. The holy grail of ‘equilibrium’ is just that, a ‘holy grail’, a completely fictitious, completely theoretical construction around which the whole edifice of rationalist assumptions about the way in which the world is supposed to work, is constructed.
You are as ignorant of economics as you are of history, but your assumptions concerning the way the world works, while having currency among a certain coterie, rapidly loses its lustre once people are able to cast their verdict on its real world effects. That process is called an ‘election’ and I am looking forward to the next federal election very much. In the real world inhabited by Australians the idea that employees should take a haircut on wages and conditions whilst employers pocket the difference, and throw onto the taxpayers the results of this particular piece of social engineering, is becoming widely understood, and deeply resented.
Whatever you may think, this is also understood by the federal government, who may be a little less robust than you in proposing that the only way to ensure that everyone who needs a job actually has one, is to pay everyone around $5.00 an hour. But if you think that a job, any job is better than no job at all, why don’t you ask around and see how many people volunteer to help you just for the chance to be around you for 38 hours a week. Lol.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Love that “throttle up” the arguement. In combination with the oil example ( absolutely laughable - oil as the pricing signal working perfectly, with price set by a cartel, lol ) suggests we got a good ol boy from the industry maybe. Oh, and I haven’t even mentioned a little thing called externalities yet. You know how it works - big business sees an area where profits can be concentrated and fenced off, but large parts of costs can be spread out amongst the general population ( biggest example - environmental degradation ) and not included in the pricing signal, thus producing distorted markets ( demand higher than it should be, excess funds allocated for exploration, lack of funds spent on exploring alternatives.) But hang on, that’s your whole point isn’t it - bad luck, I’m making money and you’re not, ohh and just for my amusement, you can bear the risk as well. We pay money in higher proportions to entrepeneurs because they are meant to bear the risk and in return have access to remuneration for undertaking that risk. Perhaps you and your generation of business men don’t have the balls and just want everyone else to pick up the tab.:)
March 29th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
US&S virtous attack is amazing. I’d question is economic credentials. Surely any intelligent business person plans for the future. Redundancy payments should be factored into the cost of employing and put aside and not just placed in profits it is (or was) an entitlement under the law. This simply reminds me of the incompetency of past governments were public service superannuation (which they contributed to) was effectively regarded as consolidated revenue and spent elsewhere, hence the need for a future fund.
Next you’ll be saying super shouldn’t be paid by employers despite the fact that employees took a cut in real wages for this to occur under Hawke and Keating, or worse why pay wages at all, those starving in Africa would love to come to Oz to work for food only. Grow a brain. Economics is not just about business, its about utility. I want something therefore I’m prepared to work for it, or I want something so I’m prepared to take a risk and go into business, or I’ve got an idea that other people may want to trade.
The left aren’t economically illiterate they simply recognise market failure as a fact of life, as well as government failure. My question to you is how do you think the Australian economy will fair if people don’t feel secure in their jobs given that most of our growth has been driven by consumption rather than investment, the fact that we have debt levels any banana republic would be proud of and the fact that we don’t value add much at all with our production.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Love that “throttle up” the arguement.
Thanks
oil as the pricing signal working perfectly, with price set by a cartel, lol ) suggests we got a good ol boy from the industry maybe
So you missed the point that the piece signal has induced an 18 fold increase in exploration and development. Thought so. Proving again that you’re just as illiterate as the rest of the leftist gaggle of fools.
———————————
In combination with the oil example ( absolutely laughable - oil as the pricing signal working perfectly, with price set by a cartel, lol ) suggests we got a good ol boy from the industry maybe
When a lefty has no argument there always the suspect motive to drag out. Ah no, I am not from that industry Mr. Public Servant.
—————————–
. Oh, and I haven’t even mentioned a little thing called externalities yet.
You fool.. Stop bringing out irrelevant issues until you apologise for your prior illiteracy.
————————-
You know how it works - big business sees an area where profits can be concentrated and fenced off, but large parts of costs can be spread out amongst the general population ( biggest example - environmental degradation ) and not included in the pricing signal, thus producing distorted markets ( demand higher than it should be, excess funds allocated for exploration, lack of funds spent on exploring alternatives.)
See above. We’re talking about the price signal and how you got that wrong, not externalities, you goose.
————————
But hang on, that’s your whole point isn’t it - bad luck, I’m making money and you’re not, oh and just for my amusement, you can bear the risk as well.
Is this supposed to be part of the argument? It’s getting worse
——————-
We pay money in higher proportions to entrepeneurs because they are meant to bear the risk and in return have access to remuneration for undertaking that risk.
Really? Who would pay me to go to the track and bet of on a horse? We owe nothing to anyone unless they come out with the right product we wish to buy.
———————
Perhaps you and your generation of business men don’t have the balls and just want everyone else to pick up the tab.:)
Ah no. We just want taxeaters like you off our back.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
US&S virtous attack is amazing.
Not to normal people who think stealing is wrong.
————————
I’d question is economic credentials.
You can. I do have them, unlike you who thinks a dumb argument should be listened to. Please tell us again, how the price signal is no longer relevant. LOL
—————————–
Surely any intelligent business person plans for the future.
Yes they do, genius.
———————————-
Redundancy payments should be factored into the cost of employing and put aside and not just placed in profits it is (or was) an entitlement under the law.
Mark is a cash flow expert now. He’s going to tell business how to allocate cash flow. Doofus, if business is told to factor in redundancy costs, they will. But it will just go into total factor wage costs and limit the number of people that can be hired. Unless of course you have eliminated the price signal as you tried to do above and now tell us that wage factor costs are not relevant and therefore throw 300 years of economic theory out the window.
—————————-
This simply reminds me of the incompetency of past governments were public service superannuation (which they contributed to) was effectively regarded as consolidated revenue and spent elsewhere, hence the need for a future fund.
We’re not talking about that. Doofus. It’s irrelevant to the discussion.
Next you’ll be saying super shouldn’t be paid by employers despite the fact that employees took a cut in real wages for this to occur under Hawke and Keating, or worse why pay wages at all, those starving in Africa would love to come to Oz to work for food only.
I’m not any such thing. I’m just telling you that wages costs whether direct or indirect form part of total factor wages and cannot be ignored unless you want to go broke. I really don’t think you even understand what is a solvent business and what isn’t
———————————–
Grow a brain.
Good argument. Well thought out.
———————-
Economics is not just about business, its about utility. I want something therefore I’m prepared to work for it, or I want something so I’m prepared to take a risk and go into business, or I’ve got an idea that other people may want to trade.
Economics is the study of how best to allocate scarce resources. If you wish to define it some other way please let us know. I would like to point out that your new definition is appalling. LOL
The left aren’t economically illiterate they simply recognise market failure as a fact of life, as well as government failure.
Market failure to people like you- in Left land- is something they don’t like. It’s personal preferences dressed up as market failure. Give us an example of market failure that isn’t a personal preference, Doofus.
—————————–
My question to you is how do you think the Australian economy will fair if people don’t feel secure in their jobs
Don’t they? Please show evidence. I bet you’re just making this shit up as you go along.
————————–
given that most of our growth has been driven by consumption rather than investment,
Blame this on government policy that would be made even worse by the clowns in the ALP who truly don’t understand economics. They are true illiterates advised by true illiterates.
————————-
the fact that we have debt levels any banana republic would be proud of and the fact that we don’t value add much at all with our production.
If people are happy to keep high debt levels, that is up to them. What’s your solution? ban them from borrowing?
March 29th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
[...] Ken L at Surfdom argues that the relaxation of severance pay obligations under Workchoices is simply another case of socialising the losses, because it ‘lets employers transfer commercial risk to the welfare system.’ [...]
March 29th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
We need AWA’s, and no Unions, I’ve got 40 employee’s who are now on AWA’s and this is the only way I can do business, as the world becomes more globalised I will have to be able to bring my employees wages down to those of 3rd world countries to compete with them, I shouldn’t be expected to pay overtime or penalty rates when our Asian neighbours are able to do this work for much less, it’s just not competitive, if the people of Australia want to enjoy the benefits of globalisation their going to have to get used to the fact that we will have to work longer hours for less money and I urge you to vote for Mr Howard at the next election, because he will get us into this position quicker than anyone else. The Boss
March 29th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Sorry to disappoint you U&S but I’m a different Mark to the one talking about corporate profits. I should have made that clearer. Your right I shouldn’t question your economic credential, just your thinking, little fella.
But you have to admit that the Libs have had 10 years of unprecendented gowth and done bugger all with it. I’m not saying Labor would have done any better. As for the ALP being illiterate well they’re more than likely advised by the same people, RBA, Treasury, what your answer shows me little fella is that you don;t understand how government works.
—————————
ME: Surely any intelligent business person plans for the future.
YOU: They do, genius.
ME: Really? So everyone receives there redundancy payouts and super and they don’t businesses don’t experience cash flow shortages, little fella
______________________
YOU: Doofus, if business is told to factor in redundancy costs, they will.
ME: Rubbish. Perhaps most comptetent businesses do but I can list a lot of businesses that don’t little fella.
_____________________________
YOU: But it will just go into total factor wage costs and limit the number of people that can be hired.
ME: Agreed, but that’s not the point. The point being made is that a previous cost to business is now potentially being imposed on the public purse, little fella
————————————-
ME: You: simply reminds me of the incompetency of past governments were public service superannuation (which they contributed to) was effectively regarded as consolidated revenue and spent elsewhere, hence the need for a future fund.
YOU: We’re not talking about that. Doofus. It’s irrelevant to the discussion.
ME: Your right ignore the point that people don’t plan for the future.
______________________________________________________________
ME: you’ll be saying super shouldn’t be paid by employers despite the fact that employees took a cut in real wages for this to occur under Hawke and Keating, or worse why pay wages at all, those starving in Africa would love to come to Oz to work for food only.
YOU not any such thing. I’m just telling you that wages costs whether direct or indirect form part of total factor wages and cannot be ignored unless you want to go broke. I really don’t think you even understand what is a solvent business and what isn’t
ME: You are correct, but you seem to only focus on the price signal sent by employers, not those sent by employees.
———————————–
ME: Grow a brain.
YOU: Good argument. Well thought out.
ME: You are correct this was uncalled for.
———————-
ME: Economics is not just about business, its about utility. I want something therefore I’m prepared to work for it, or I want something so I’m prepared to take a risk and go into business, or I’ve got an idea that other people may want to trade.
YOU: Economics is the study of how best to allocate scarce resources. If you wish to define it some other way please let us know. I would like to point out that your new definition is appalling. LOL
ME: You are correct with your text book definition. I did not clearly make my point, but now release I need to spell it out for you little fella. You seem to ignore the fact that people will only supply labour at an appropriate price signal. I believe that underlying our choices is a thing called utility.
—————————-
ME: The left aren’t economically illiterate they simply recognise market failure as a fact of life, as well as government failure.
YOU: Market failure to people like you- in Left land- is something they don’t like. It’s personal preferences dressed up as market failure. Give us an examUS&S virtous attack is amazing.
Not to normal people who think stealing is wrong.
ME: But that’s it isn;t it? you are talking theoretically the market doesn’t fail, but in the real world preferences do affect markets. I love the fact you heavily criticised the other Mark, by having a go at his perfect competition argument, yet use the same when it suits you. That’s the problem with economic arguments, we all cross over theory and practicality.
————————
ME: My question to you is how do you think the Australian economy will fair if people don’t feel secure in their jobs
YOU:Don’t they? Please show evidence. I bet you’re just making this shit up as you go along.
ME: Clearly I need to spell it out for you. I did not state that people do not feel insecure yet, but what if they do. Given that our economy is very much consumer driven and in essence we are a small service economy with an export market pretty much limited to resources, people will spend less and the arse will fall out of many sectors within the economy. Admittedly most of this reduction in expenditure will be a fall in imports.
————————–
ME: given that most of our growth has been driven by consumption rather than investment,
YOU: Blame this on government policy that would be made even worse by the clowns in the ALP who truly don’t understand economics. They are true illiterates advised by true illiterates.
ME: What are you implying only governments invest in infrastructure?
————————-
ME: the fact that we have debt levels any banana republic would be proud of and the fact that we don’t value add much at all with our production.
YOU: If people are happy to keep high debt levels, that is up to them. What’s your solution? ban them from borrowing?
ME: No, but don’t come crying to me when the collector comes knocking little fella.
The simple fact of the matter is most of the comments on this blog are rationale. By all means you are entitled to your views little fella, which you express very confidently and with a certain level of authority and intimidation. But your young liberal views would only be endorsed by people who have limited life experience and would not be endorsed by the majority of Australians. If your so confident by all means stand for parliament on your policies then who will look like the doofus.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
You should stop expecting redundancy and just be grateful that you have a job, no-one should need to go onto the dole, there’s plenty of jobs out there. The Boss
March 29th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Boss
I’m grateful for my job, but why do you expect me or anyone to take a paycut to keep an uneconomical business viable. You’ve just proved my point that you expect people to work for nothing yet don’t undertstand that the wealth we enjoy today can be attributed to distributing (think Multiplier effect). There is no point is producing goods that don’t have a demand because no one has any money to purchase it.
If you can’t employ people at minimum wage then reassess your position in the marketplace.
Personally I’m sympathetic to business and people willing to take a risk, but Australia’s future is in markets which require highly skilled labour to produce goods and services that have a high return.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
ME: Surely any intelligent business person plans for the future.
YOU: They do, genius.
ME: Really? So everyone receives there redundancy payouts and super and they don’t businesses don’t experience cash flow shortages, little fella
U&S
And point is what, there are good and bad businesses around? Wow, another startling program on the discovery channel.
______________________
YOU: Doofus, if business is told to factor in redundancy costs, they will.
ME: Rubbish. Perhaps most comptetent businesses do but I can list a lot of businesses that don’t little fella.
U&S
See above. The point is that increase total factor wages and you chill the employment market. You can see this very easily in demand/supply curves. Demand is downward sloping unless someone can prove otherwise and end up with a Nobel Prize in economics.
_____________________________
YOU: But it will just go into total factor wage costs and limit the number of people that can be hired.
ME: Agreed, but that’s not the point. The point being made is that a previous cost to business is now potentially being imposed on the public purse, little fella
U&S
Yep, lets mandate social policy to business by stealth but when it is removed and properly brought back to where it belongs- the public purse- we have people like you and Kenny getting all concerned about the public coffers.
The dole ought to be paid by the state, not mandated out to commercial enterprise. That’s theft by stealth, something Left Land is very good at.
————————————-
ME: You: simply reminds me of the incompetency of past governments were public service superannuation (which they contributed to) was effectively regarded as consolidated revenue and spent elsewhere, hence the need for a future fund.
YOU: We’re not talking about that. Doofus. It’s irrelevant to the discussion.
ME: Your right ignore the point that people don’t plan for the future.
U&S
Ah, it is irrelevant to our original discussion which is where should the payment of the does originate. You seem to think it is ok to steal from the private sector. I think it’s wrong.
______________________________________________________________
ME: you’ll be saying super shouldn’t be paid by employers despite the fact that employees took a cut in real wages for this to occur under Hawke and Keating, or worse why pay wages at all, those starving in Africa would love to come to Oz to work for food only.
YOU not any such thing. I’m just telling you that wages costs whether direct or indirect form part of total factor wages and cannot be ignored unless you want to go broke. I really don’t think you even understand what is a solvent business and what isn’t
ME: You are correct, but you seem to only focus on the price signal sent by employers, not those sent by employees.
U&S
Worker react to the number of jobs on offer. That is the best guide they have in the labor market.
What’s the scariest thing that can happen to a worker? In 95% of the case most people hate their jobs so it’s not losing their jobs what they fear most. What workers fear the most is finding another job. Labor market reform eventually broadens out the number of jobs. That is the best bargaining stick workers have against bosses. Bosses fear losing good workers the most. I know , as I have been in the position many times.
———————————–
ME: Grow a brain.
YOU: Good argument. Well thought out.
ME: You are correct this was uncalled for.
———————-
ME: Economics is not just about business, its about utility. I want something therefore I’m prepared to work for it, or I want something so I’m prepared to take a risk and go into business, or I’ve got an idea that other people may want to trade.
YOU: Economics is the study of how best to allocate scarce resources. If you wish to define it some other way please let us know. I would like to point out that your new definition is appalling. LOL
ME: You are correct with your text book definition. I did not clearly make my point, but now release I need to spell it out for you little fella. You seem to ignore the fact that people will only supply labour at an appropriate price signal. I believe that underlying our choices is a thing called utility.
U&S
OK. And the very best way to ensure workers react to the appropriate price signal is to broaden the labor market as much as we can.
—————————-
ME: The left aren’t economically illiterate they simply recognise market failure as a fact of life, as well as government failure.
YOU: Market failure to people like you- in Left land- is something they don’t like. It’s personal preferences dressed up as market failure. Give us an examUS&S virtous attack is amazing.
Not to normal people who think stealing is wrong.
ME: But that’s it isn;t it? you are talking theoretically the market doesn’t fail, but in the real world preferences do affect markets. I love the fact you heavily criticised the other Mark, by having a go at his perfect competition argument, yet use the same when it suits you. That’s the problem with economic arguments, we all cross over theory and practicality.
U&S
I want to see real live evidence of market failure. Please stop talking about it and show evidence. We’re not talking about personal preferences here, just a real live example of failure.
———————————–
————————
ME: My question to you is how do you think the Australian economy will fair if people don’t feel secure in their jobs
YOU:Don’t they? Please show evidence. I bet you’re just making this shit up as you go along.
ME: Clearly I need to spell it out for you. I did not state that people do not feel insecure yet, but what if they do. Given that our economy is very much consumer driven and in essence we are a small service economy with an export market pretty much limited to resources, people will spend less and the arse will fall out of many sectors within the economy. Admittedly most of this reduction in expenditure will be a fall in imports.
U&S
Please show evidence
————————–
ME: given that most of our growth has been driven by consumption rather than investment,
YOU: Blame this on government policy that would be made even worse by the clowns in the ALP who truly don’t understand economics. They are true illiterates advised by true illiterates.
ME: What are you implying only governments invest in infrastructure? But you have to admit that the Libs have had 10 years of unprecendented gowth and done bugger all with it. I’m not saying Labor would have done any better. As for the ALP being illiterate well they’re more than likely advised by the same people, RBA, Treasury, what your answer shows me little fella is that you don;t understand how government works.
U&S
Yes they advised, but they are advised in terms what priorities they put on the table. It seems the Political arm of the Union Movement- the ALP- is now advocating big government projects: as always these projects will turn into a boondoggle for their political masters. I would much rather hope but am disappointed with political party that is supposed to be for small government rather than one a party than promotes silly ideas like this Optic fibre network.
————————-
ME: the fact that we have debt levels any banana republic would be proud of and the fact that we don’t value add much at all with our production.
YOU: If people are happy to keep high debt levels, that is up to them. What’s your solution? ban them from borrowing?
ME: No, but don’t come crying to me when the collector comes knocking little fella.
U&S
Fine with me. I’m gal you’re on my side on this. With a little work around the edges I think we could actually get you into the Libertarian Party- where you would be happier.
——————————————-
The simple fact of the matter is most of the comments on this blog are rationale. By all means you are entitled to your views little fella, which you express very confidently and with a certain level of authority and intimidation. But your young liberal views would only be endorsed by people who have limited life experience and would not be endorsed by the majority of Australians. If your so confident by all means stand for parliament on your policies then who will look like the doofus.
Yes. I may be standing for parliament under the Libertarian Party. Visit the website and the blog. I think you’ll like it.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
9399 3255
My my you are the tricker,but hey your medication is on the way 3 pills and it will all go away.I didn’t know inmates had access to the net in the nut house.
But you do have a sense of humour right? You do? well carry on taking the piss I like it.