2022 Election
So, if we don't reward the extraordinary how does society improve? I have never understood, though I can sort of appreciate the logic behind it, why we should reward mediocrity simply to keep everything close to equal.
I have just had major back surgery. Should the surgeon earn slightly more than a brickies labourer? Is it his or her fault that he or she may be more intelligent than the labourer and they want to use that intelligence to better themselves and maybe others?
Just to keep things close to equal?
If you want to have a crack you should be rewarded IMO.
How did we land on the moon, make medicine's to save people etc, etc. etc. I'm sure it's not all driven by money but it sure helps.
As said above. Rewards for effort don’t have to be levelled, just a ceiling put on the difference.
The surgeon is only able to achieve his potential because he is able to specialise in his task without worrying about the trains running on time or the sewerage system working. Society is a team. The surgeon would never achieve his skill set without the support and infrastructure provided by everyone around him. The surgeon is not solely responsible for his own success. He is tall as he stands on the shoulders of society. The surgeon was an unproductive child and student for the first thirty years of their life -completely dependent on the toil of those around them to survive. Why should the surgeon be gifted a million times the comfort level of the farmer who fed him his whole life despite the farmer requiring long term skills and confronted by risk themself?
Beautifully put DSDS.
It was once part of the social compact between labour and capital ..... now that's going to go straight over the head of the aspirational free money getting charging what like avarice is good amongst us.
Scomo knows he can't front up to a sector of the Australian public. Be it via the abc or other. He will be eaten alive. Safer to hide than confront those he throws under the bus. Pathetic gutless avoidance. Can't anserw anything that won't suit the great fable. The joke is people have read through the bullshit and he's lost at sea. Avoidance has been the defining character of his term. He doesn't anserw anyingthing. It's enabled him to operate with out being accountable this whole term. An will most likely be a retiring trait. Never offered much when he never had too. Easy come easy go. Will he reside in Australia after or will it be safety and anonymity overseas in retirement cause he sure as hell isnt liked here. All of his own doing I might add.
indo-dreaming wrote:DudeSweetDudeSweet wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:If you still have the political beliefs at 30+ that you did at 18, you either got very lucky or lack critical thinking skills to re access things and admit to yourself you were wrong.
I don’t really subscribe to this belief. When I was 18 I thought that the average working person deserved a dignified existence commensurate with the overall prosperity of the nation and that the wealth discrepancy between classes should not be too large as most people play an essential role in the functioning of a society.
I still believe this. Not much has changed with my political ideology. Nothing to do with luck.
The problem with that view is it ignores the fact that equality of opportunity doesn't equal equality of outcome, never has never will. (success is never equal)
The only way you can have the outcome you want is to penalise people for success and reward people for mediocrity. (the basis of leftism)
Which obviously doesn't work, it's why true socialism and communism always fail.
Over the last hundred years or so we have seen capitalism blossom, which has seen productivity and inovation increase and advances in human civilisation increase including living standards and less people in poverty.(80% of the world 200 years ago to only 10% today)
Its no different to surfing we all generally have a similar opportunity to be a ripper, but most of us will never be and the gap between kook and ripper will only get wider with time, but also in general the average level of surfing in the wider global community is always rising even if slowly.
Blowin well and truly nails it, the Jack system never ends well, for individual success the rest have to support the system for it to exist (respect rule of law and taxes).
The option you are promoting (BTW anti Australian) ends similar to the French revolution (let them eat cake).
How many people has scomo shown a dignified exsistance. Fuck all
Why would you want to excel then? For gratitude? I'm sure a lot of people do it for that and other unselfish reasons. I'm also sure that financial reward for excelling carries a lot of weight.
I’ve just described Australian society in the 1970s. You don’t think Back surgeons existed in Australia in the 70’s?
You do understand that capitalism thrived for a long time before it was distorted by neoliberalism? Do you understand the difference?
DudeSweetDudeSweet wrote:Not at all. It just means the CEO should only be paid a only few times that of the guy cleaning the shitters in the factory. The enterprise fails should either neglect their task. Obviously the CEO is selected from a smaller pool of available talent and their responsibility is greater therefore their remuneration should be larger. Larger should be a few times greater, not 10,000 times greater than the person at the bottom of the hierarchy.
Motivation towards success and achievement is provided but the society destroying disparity of wealth is avoided. Everyone wins.
I think that Kelly Slater is probably deserving of a fair share of sets at a break but I don’t think he should be entitled to all the good waves or even most of them. He’s just a person and he should be just as quick to hoot the punter beside him into a set if he’s been taking an excess share of the waves. That’s how a just society operates. I want to live in a just society and so should anyone who isn’t a greedy psychopath because we all need each other to exist the way we do. It behoves Kelly to remember that he may break his back on the next wave and he will need the other members of the lineup to help him get to shore alive. The fact that he does off the lip spinners better than they do means fuck all then. Same as the CEO charged with overseeing the manufacture of widgets of convenience ….he needs the nurse, the garbo and the shelf stacker at the supermarket to survive. All should be entitled to a dignified share of society’s rewards as they all contribute.to it’s success.
Personally i think most CEO's are completely overpaid as are all kinds of jobs, but really who are we to say, it's up to the company or share holders to have the say on that.
What do you actually want to happen?
For there to be a limit (ceiling) on how much a CEO can earn or a company earn?
That's just craziness, let's say Australia government some how enforced the idea, no idea how, all that would happen is these people and companies would move to a different country.
It also goes completely against peoples freedoms trying to limit what people or companies can earn.
BTW. if you were in the line up with Kelly, im sure he would naturally get a higher share of better waves than most as he has the knowledge, fitness and skill to be in the right place at the right time and then make the most of the opportunity. (take off late and deep and still make waves)
My grandfather went from breadwinner at age 12, feeding a large family in the industrial decay of the early 20th century English Midlands, through various working paths, to become a successful VP of a very large company. When he retired, he received a gold watch. The decisions his level of management made, were very conservative, and never risked blowing up things like the whole financial system. He was a modest, kind man who dressed with a hint of flashiness, but was most at home in his greenhouse, or wall-to-wall study full of books and learning. At his funeral, one of the other directors came to my father and I, and said working with him was the greatest honour of his career.
It's mind-numbing to watch the golden handshakes (eg 33Mil in 2007 for one bank CEO) given to top management today, and given the sheer level of risk and fragility in the financial system they have achieved. They aren't worth this, not in comparison to their predecessors.
indo-dreaming wrote:Personally i think most CEO's are completely overpaid as are all kinds of jobs, but really who are we to say, it's up to the company or share holders to have the say on that.
What do you actually want to happen?
For there to be a limit (ceiling) on how much a CEO can earn or a company earn?
That's just craziness, let's say Australia government some how enforced the idea, no idea how, all that would happen is these people and companies would move to a different country.
It also goes completely against peoples freedoms trying to limit what people or companies can earn.
And this is the flip side, if the disincentive is so strong, then the capable will head to more favourable pay/tax situations.
indo-dreaming wrote:DudeSweetDudeSweet wrote:Not at all. It just means the CEO should only be paid a only few times that of the guy cleaning the shitters in the factory. The enterprise fails should either neglect their task. Obviously the CEO is selected from a smaller pool of available talent and their responsibility is greater therefore their remuneration should be larger. Larger should be a few times greater, not 10,000 times greater than the person at the bottom of the hierarchy.
Motivation towards success and achievement is provided but the society destroying disparity of wealth is avoided. Everyone wins.
I think that Kelly Slater is probably deserving of a fair share of sets at a break but I don’t think he should be entitled to all the good waves or even most of them. He’s just a person and he should be just as quick to hoot the punter beside him into a set if he’s been taking an excess share of the waves. That’s how a just society operates. I want to live in a just society and so should anyone who isn’t a greedy psychopath because we all need each other to exist the way we do. It behoves Kelly to remember that he may break his back on the next wave and he will need the other members of the lineup to help him get to shore alive. The fact that he does off the lip spinners better than they do means fuck all then. Same as the CEO charged with overseeing the manufacture of widgets of convenience ….he needs the nurse, the garbo and the shelf stacker at the supermarket to survive. All should be entitled to a dignified share of society’s rewards as they all contribute.to it’s success.
Personally i think most CEO's are completely overpaid as are all kinds of jobs, but really who are we to say, it's up to the company or share holders to have the say on that.
What do you actually want to happen?
For there to be a limit (ceiling) on how much a CEO can earn or a company earn?
That's just craziness, let's say Australia government some how enforced the idea, no idea how, all that would happen is these people and companies would move to a different country.
It also goes completely against peoples freedoms trying to limit what people or companies can earn.
BTW. if you were in the line up with Kelly, im sure he would naturally get a higher share of better waves than most as he has the knowledge, fitness and skill to be in the right place at the right time and then make the most of the opportunity. (take off late and deep and still make waves)
Actually Indo, the only political party which explicitly tries to limit how much people can earn is the LNP. Their fundamental instinct and mission is to restrict the share of business profits which are allocated to workers in the Labour / Capital split.
It’s a zero sum game and the LNP have their fingers on the scales. If a business earns X amount then the net profit is divided between the owners/ executives and the workers. Less given to workers means more for the owners/ executives.
This is where the LNP comes in. They do everything within their power to destroy workers power to demand a greater, or even a fair share, of the profits derived from the combined efforts of their labour and the owner’s capital contribution.
Without the unions and collective bargaining which the LNP has removed to the best of its ability, workers derive a far smaller share of profits.
The LNP opposes the freedom of people to earn money. They do not deny this.
You are well payed as a sole trader tradesmen because you are not as vulnerable to the LNP’s attack on worker power…..not yet you’re not.
But the LNP has long had you in their sights with their mass importation of immigrants and visa holders who are either willing or exploitable in order to lower how much they are paid. If we had 100,000 temporary visa electricians then your wages as an electrician would plummet and you would soon be earning Indonesian level wages.
Is this what you want Indo?
You want your entire family living hand to mouth even though you are a full time tradesmen when the LNP has pushed your earnings below the poverty line?
Keep on voting LNP then mate because that’s what they want to do to you. Their dream is to have sole traders like you made unviable do that you would have to be a wage earner for a big corporation. The big electrical corporation would have a CEO taking 90% of the money you earn now and claiming they’re worth every Penny whilst you do all the work for 10- of your current earnings.
This is how the LNP places limits on the freedoms of people to earn money.
The only dealings I have had with unions in the building industry have been bad.
On a union job and we were non union. Threatened to black ban the site where supposedly we were then required to then pay the costs of everyone on site whilst the black ban was in place.
We reluctantly paid the union fees, all with false names and addresses to avoid the yearly letter and demand for fees.
They did fuck all for any of us whilst we were a member of the union for the year. All about the money.
On another site one of the guys who the union rep demanded money was a bikie. He grabbed him by both ankles and hung him out the window and told him he's not getting a cent and to fuck off.
So much for a free country. That was in the eighties not seventies. Doesn't sound like utopia to me.
I still remember when a young Penny Wong was our union rep for the CFMEU, she would visit us every couple of weeks to see if we had any complaints. Hard women , I had a few heated discussions with her. Great bunch of blokes too helped us out a few times.
So you think it was the good nature of business and not unions which made it possible for the average Australian to derive a decent living from their efforts?
Why do you think Australia has a better standard of living than Indonesia?
Hint : Unions and collective power of Labour.
Unions aren’t perfect. Lots of shady and corrupt fucks attracted to unions. Are you telling me you’ve never had a bad outcome as a result of dealing with the opposite side of the ledger ie business?
To be honest, you sound like someone who’s complaining about electricity cause you got zapped by some dodgy wiring one time forty years ago. You fail to recognise how much your life has been improved by electricity because you take its presence for granted.
If it wasn't for unions and Guilds through history business bodys and bosses would have workers wearing loin cloths and getting paid peanuts.
Never had to deal with thugs in business no. If I did, I would avoid dealing with them again.
That time on site with the black ban, he didn't give a shit if he sent our small business to the wall. Was all about getting money for the union. This was happening repeatedly to people with small business. Some did go to the wall because of unions.
If it wasn't for the LNP taking away some of the unions power it would still be the same. As I said it's a free country. We didn't want to be in a union and neither did the people we employed. We looked after them. Had to give in to the threat and hand over the money to keep the peace.
Does anyone remember I think during the nineties when there was a massive concern about Australia losing too many good people to jobs overseas? One concern was CEO's going overseas to obtain better paying jobs than here.
There was a massive push to maintain these people or the concern we would be left with the dregs. This was the beginning of massive money for CEO's etc. I completely agree it's obscene and unwarranted the money they receive.
What do you propose we then do to change this, when the same money is offered to these people overseas?
Since 2000 in Australia, labour productivity has risen by almost 26%, but real wages by just 13%. In New Zealand, productivity has risen by 23% and real wages have remained unchanged.
Saul Eslake says we need to find a way to better share the rewards of productivity growth between employers and employees, or risk the rise of extremist populist politics.
https://www.acuitymag.com/opinion/productivity-is-up-why-not-wages#:~:te....
Real wages haven't been keeping pace with productivity for a while, which has put a constraint on overall sustainable economic growth.
https://aicd.companydirectors.com.au/membership/company-director-magazin...
When shit hits the fan and employees need representation. It's the unions that can help bring about fairer outcomes. Having needed representation and not being yet unionised left many in a very compromising position. Financially ethically and lawfully. Unions protect those who can't protect themselves. Unions wouldn't be needed otherwise. It's just an ethical counter balance of the workers voice. Without them explotation is rife and almost encouraged.
In the early eighties I worked on various high rises in the boom on the Gold Coast. Safety was non existent and blokes died . My first job steel fixing started on the 36th floor on the peninsula building. There were no hand rails or any barricades on the deck , it was just a straight drop over the side if you weren’t paying attention . There were so many accidents with cranes and shit it was crazy , all for $50 a day cash in hand . Decades later working on new shipping birth for FMG a young kiwi lad said to me “ fuck man look at my pay ! I’m so glad to be part of a union, these conditions are unreal “ He was very appreciative of what those that had come before him , had endured and fought for, in order to get a good wage and benefits for working in a harsh and demanding environment . Sure there’s been plenty of corruption and criminal activity amongst union officials and its members, no different from big business and governments I guess .
velocityjohnno wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:Personally i think most CEO's are completely overpaid as are all kinds of jobs, but really who are we to say, it's up to the company or share holders to have the say on that.
What do you actually want to happen?
For there to be a limit (ceiling) on how much a CEO can earn or a company earn?
That's just craziness, let's say Australia government some how enforced the idea, no idea how, all that would happen is these people and companies would move to a different country.
It also goes completely against peoples freedoms trying to limit what people or companies can earn.
And this is the flip side, if the disincentive is so strong, then the capable will head to more favourable pay/tax situations.
velocityjohnno wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:Personally i think most CEO's are completely overpaid as are all kinds of jobs, but really who are we to say, it's up to the company or share holders to have the say on that.
What do you actually want to happen?
For there to be a limit (ceiling) on how much a CEO can earn or a company earn?
That's just craziness, let's say Australia government some how enforced the idea, no idea how, all that would happen is these people and companies would move to a different country.
It also goes completely against peoples freedoms trying to limit what people or companies can earn.
And this is the flip side, if the disincentive is so strong, then the capable will head to more favourable pay/tax situations.
In many cases its part of what pushes up high paid wages, because you're often competing for talent in a global market.
On the flip side the aim with favourable wages and tax situations is too encourage talent to Australia.
It's the same with foreign investment, countries aim to encourage companies to their country to set up and invest with favourable tax conditions even with subsidies, grants, loans, financial guarantees.
DudeSweetDudeSweet wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:DudeSweetDudeSweet wrote:Not at all. It just means the CEO should only be paid a only few times that of the guy cleaning the shitters in the factory. The enterprise fails should either neglect their task. Obviously the CEO is selected from a smaller pool of available talent and their responsibility is greater therefore their remuneration should be larger. Larger should be a few times greater, not 10,000 times greater than the person at the bottom of the hierarchy.
Motivation towards success and achievement is provided but the society destroying disparity of wealth is avoided. Everyone wins.
I think that Kelly Slater is probably deserving of a fair share of sets at a break but I don’t think he should be entitled to all the good waves or even most of them. He’s just a person and he should be just as quick to hoot the punter beside him into a set if he’s been taking an excess share of the waves. That’s how a just society operates. I want to live in a just society and so should anyone who isn’t a greedy psychopath because we all need each other to exist the way we do. It behoves Kelly to remember that he may break his back on the next wave and he will need the other members of the lineup to help him get to shore alive. The fact that he does off the lip spinners better than they do means fuck all then. Same as the CEO charged with overseeing the manufacture of widgets of convenience ….he needs the nurse, the garbo and the shelf stacker at the supermarket to survive. All should be entitled to a dignified share of society’s rewards as they all contribute.to it’s success.
Personally i think most CEO's are completely overpaid as are all kinds of jobs, but really who are we to say, it's up to the company or share holders to have the say on that.
What do you actually want to happen?
For there to be a limit (ceiling) on how much a CEO can earn or a company earn?
That's just craziness, let's say Australia government some how enforced the idea, no idea how, all that would happen is these people and companies would move to a different country.
It also goes completely against peoples freedoms trying to limit what people or companies can earn.
BTW. if you were in the line up with Kelly, im sure he would naturally get a higher share of better waves than most as he has the knowledge, fitness and skill to be in the right place at the right time and then make the most of the opportunity. (take off late and deep and still make waves)
Actually Indo, the only political party which explicitly tries to limit how much people can earn is the LNP. Their fundamental instinct and mission is to restrict the share of business profits which are allocated to workers in the Labour / Capital split.
It’s a zero sum game and the LNP have their fingers on the scales. If a business earns X amount then the net profit is divided between the owners/ executives and the workers. Less given to workers means more for the owners/ executives.
This is where the LNP comes in. They do everything within their power to destroy workers power to demand a greater, or even a fair share, of the profits derived from the combined efforts of their labour and the owner’s capital contribution.
Without the unions and collective bargaining which the LNP has removed to the best of its ability, workers derive a far smaller share of profits.
The LNP opposes the freedom of people to earn money. They do not deny this.
You are well payed as a sole trader tradesmen because you are not as vulnerable to the LNP’s attack on worker power…..not yet you’re not.
But the LNP has long had you in their sights with their mass importation of immigrants and visa holders who are either willing or exploitable in order to lower how much they are paid. If we had 100,000 temporary visa electricians then your wages as an electrician would plummet and you would soon be earning Indonesian level wages.
Is this what you want Indo?
You want your entire family living hand to mouth even though you are a full time tradesmen when the LNP has pushed your earnings below the poverty line?
Keep on voting LNP then mate because that’s what they want to do to you. Their dream is to have sole traders like you made unviable do that you would have to be a wage earner for a big corporation. The big electrical corporation would have a CEO taking 90% of the money you earn now and claiming they’re worth every Penny whilst you do all the work for 10- of your current earnings.
This is how the LNP places limits on the freedoms of people to earn money.
With all respect Blowin that's complete garbage which makes no sense at all, the government (be it LNP or Labor) wants Australian's to be successful they want you to be as productive as possible and earn decent money and pay lots of tax they have all kinds of schemes and incentives to help small business, they don't want just big business they want a well balanced mix of small and big business, both have their place.
There is no benefit to them for people to earn very little and big companies to take everything, especially if you swallow the whole leftist narrative that big business doesn't pay any tax. (which is of course is not true and a Michael West article picking out ten companies from thousands of companies , companies that are not making money like airlines etc so doesn't make this narrative true, but it does get lots of clicks because its what people want too believe, its reinforcing narratives people want to beleive)
The problem we have in Australia is many businesses have become unviable or close to on a global scale, because unions have forced wages so high they cant compete.
Thats why they have tried to keep wage growth in check to prevent the situation getting worse, but even then they havent done a very good job, LNP have been in power for 19 out of 25+ years, yet Australia has the highest minimum wage in the world almost $1USD higher than any other country.
As for importing workers, we generally only import workers where we have shortages, like fruit/veggie picking because farmers have trouble getting workers, you can say because $$$ earnt are too low but are you willing to pay much more for your fruit & veg???
There is all types of other areas we encourage international workers into likely Doctors especially for regional areas, i don't think doctors are underpaid or doing it hard because we get doctors from OS.
In regard to your electrician scenario, it would be pointless to import too many electricians and the ones that are imported would need to be licensed and up to our standard, so none are ever going to come from Indonesia or similar countries, in Indonesia for all areas of building including electricians anyone can be an electrician, if you were Indonesian, you could start an electrical business tomorrow (no training needed, no licensing needed, not even any checks or certificates issued on work done, and yeah there is issues with quality and safety when things are his relaxed)
BTW. Imported workers from developing countries are far from exploited, for them it's like winning a golden ticket to earn more money than they every could back home, its a win win scenario for both employer and worker, of course again workers should only be imported if a industry cant get workers though.
indo-dreaming wrote:DudeSweetDudeSweet wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:DudeSweetDudeSweet wrote:Not at all. It just means the CEO should only be paid a only few times that of the guy cleaning the shitters in the factory. The enterprise fails should either neglect their task. Obviously the CEO is selected from a smaller pool of available talent and their responsibility is greater therefore their remuneration should be larger. Larger should be a few times greater, not 10,000 times greater than the person at the bottom of the hierarchy.
Motivation towards success and achievement is provided but the society destroying disparity of wealth is avoided. Everyone wins.
I think that Kelly Slater is probably deserving of a fair share of sets at a break but I don’t think he should be entitled to all the good waves or even most of them. He’s just a person and he should be just as quick to hoot the punter beside him into a set if he’s been taking an excess share of the waves. That’s how a just society operates. I want to live in a just society and so should anyone who isn’t a greedy psychopath because we all need each other to exist the way we do. It behoves Kelly to remember that he may break his back on the next wave and he will need the other members of the lineup to help him get to shore alive. The fact that he does off the lip spinners better than they do means fuck all then. Same as the CEO charged with overseeing the manufacture of widgets of convenience ….he needs the nurse, the garbo and the shelf stacker at the supermarket to survive. All should be entitled to a dignified share of society’s rewards as they all contribute.to it’s success.
Personally i think most CEO's are completely overpaid as are all kinds of jobs, but really who are we to say, it's up to the company or share holders to have the say on that.
What do you actually want to happen?
For there to be a limit (ceiling) on how much a CEO can earn or a company earn?
That's just craziness, let's say Australia government some how enforced the idea, no idea how, all that would happen is these people and companies would move to a different country.
It also goes completely against peoples freedoms trying to limit what people or companies can earn.
BTW. if you were in the line up with Kelly, im sure he would naturally get a higher share of better waves than most as he has the knowledge, fitness and skill to be in the right place at the right time and then make the most of the opportunity. (take off late and deep and still make waves)
Actually Indo, the only political party which explicitly tries to limit how much people can earn is the LNP. Their fundamental instinct and mission is to restrict the share of business profits which are allocated to workers in the Labour / Capital split.
It’s a zero sum game and the LNP have their fingers on the scales. If a business earns X amount then the net profit is divided between the owners/ executives and the workers. Less given to workers means more for the owners/ executives.
This is where the LNP comes in. They do everything within their power to destroy workers power to demand a greater, or even a fair share, of the profits derived from the combined efforts of their labour and the owner’s capital contribution.
Without the unions and collective bargaining which the LNP has removed to the best of its ability, workers derive a far smaller share of profits.
The LNP opposes the freedom of people to earn money. They do not deny this.
You are well payed as a sole trader tradesmen because you are not as vulnerable to the LNP’s attack on worker power…..not yet you’re not.
But the LNP has long had you in their sights with their mass importation of immigrants and visa holders who are either willing or exploitable in order to lower how much they are paid. If we had 100,000 temporary visa electricians then your wages as an electrician would plummet and you would soon be earning Indonesian level wages.
Is this what you want Indo?
You want your entire family living hand to mouth even though you are a full time tradesmen when the LNP has pushed your earnings below the poverty line?
Keep on voting LNP then mate because that’s what they want to do to you. Their dream is to have sole traders like you made unviable do that you would have to be a wage earner for a big corporation. The big electrical corporation would have a CEO taking 90% of the money you earn now and claiming they’re worth every Penny whilst you do all the work for 10- of your current earnings.
This is how the LNP places limits on the freedoms of people to earn money.
With all respect Blowin that's complete garbage which makes no sense at all, the government (be it LNP or Labor) wants Australian's to be successful they want you to be as productive as possible and earn decent money and pay lots of tax they have all kinds of schemes and incentives to help small business, they don't want just big business they want a well balanced mix of small and big business, both have their place.
There is no benefit to them for people to earn very little and big companies to take everything, especially if you swallow the whole leftist narrative that big business doesn't pay any tax. (which is of course is not true and a Michael West article picking out ten companies from thousands of companies , companies that are not making money like airlines etc so doesn't make this narrative true, but it does get lots of clicks because its what people want too believe, its reinforcing narratives people want to beleive)
The problem we have in Australia is many businesses have become unviable or close to on a global scale, because unions have forced wages so high they cant compete.
Thats why they have tried to keep wage growth in check to prevent the situation getting worse, but even then they havent done a very good job, LNP have been in power for 19 out of 25+ years, yet Australia has the highest minimum wage in the world almost $1USD higher than any other country.
As for importing workers, we generally only import workers where we have shortages, like fruit/veggie picking because farmers have trouble getting workers, you can say because $$$ earnt are too low but are you willing to pay much more for your fruit & veg???
There is all types of other areas we encourage international workers into likely Doctors especially for regional areas, i don't think doctors are underpaid or doing it hard because we get doctors from OS.
In regard to your electrician scenario, it would be pointless to import too many electricians and the ones that are imported would need to be licensed and up to our standard, so none are ever going to come from Indonesia or similar countries, in Indonesia for all areas of building including electricians anyone can be an electrician, if you were Indonesian, you could start an electrical business tomorrow (no training needed, no licensing needed, not even any checks or certificates issued on work done, and yeah there is issues with quality and safety when things are his relaxed)
BTW. Imported workers from developing countries are far from exploited, for them it's like winning a golden ticket to earn more money than they every could back home, its a win win scenario for both employer and worker, of course again workers should only be imported if a industry cant get workers though.
Jesyaaas.
Boycott businesses that don't treat their workers right.
.
Indo said “ BTW. Imported workers from developing countries are far from exploited, for them it's like winning a golden ticket to earn more money than they every could back home, its a win win scenario for both employer and worker, of course again workers should only be imported if a industry cant get workers though. “ ………yep these guys struck gold……. https://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2011/04/27/3202280.htm
Do we still have a FTA with China ? https://theconversation.com/factcheck-could-the-china-australia-fta-lock...
There's work safe looking after safety on work sites etc. Working conditions have never been better from a safety perspective. We don't need unions for that.
oxrox wrote:There's work safe looking after safety on work sites etc. Working conditions have never been better from a safety perspective. We don't need unions for that.
Just interested, why do you think we have these “never better” conditions? Did they materialise through the benevolence of the employers?
oxrox wrote:There's work safe looking after safety on work sites etc. Working conditions have never been better from a safety perspective. We don't need unions for that.
But where how and why did it start ? …….Workplace health and safety had always been important to the union movement, and the ACTU ensured it was an integral component of the Accord.
In the 1950s and 1960s unions had begun to campaign against the use of asbestos in construction and mining sites, and through the 1970s and early 1980s had successfully written health and safety provisions into employment agreements.
In 1984 the federal government created the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, confirmed in statute the following year. Alongside the implementation of new laws on the state level, this led to new and more extensive standards to protect workers. Today, the ACTU proudly continues this tradition and is seeking to further health and safety protection, particularly in the area of mental health. https://www.actu.org.au/about-the-actu/history-of-australian-unions
Guys I think you have missed the point.
Yes we need unions and CEOs get paid alright but...
Many multinational businesses are making truck loads of the Ching Ching and we let them do it without paying anything back (taxes)..
If we just get large enterprise to pay their fair share we will have plenty to pay workers and citizens..
Lets keep our eyes on the main prize and work backwards
velocityjohnno wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:Personally i think most CEO's are completely overpaid as are all kinds of jobs, but really who are we to say, it's up to the company or share holders to have the say on that.
What do you actually want to happen?
For there to be a limit (ceiling) on how much a CEO can earn or a company earn?
That's just craziness, let's say Australia government some how enforced the idea, no idea how, all that would happen is these people and companies would move to a different country.
It also goes completely against peoples freedoms trying to limit what people or companies can earn.
And this is the flip side, if the disincentive is so strong, then the capable will head to more favourable pay/tax situations.
The top tax rate is a perfect example. Ours is somewhat not too bad at 45% but there are some advocating for this to be 70%+. That's pure insanity. I remember an occasion when a GM role was vacant in the business I'm in. I and my mate from work talked about applying. But it didn't take long until we realised it was not worth it. Basically, it was ~$50k extra but an exponential rise in accountability. It didn't make sense to me, basically, you need to give half of that money to the government and your subsidies for daycare evaporate. I crunched some numbers and figured out it was probably worth $20k in net cash increase. So neither of us applied, the increase was not proportional to the expectations that came with the role. Now, if it was $100k...Maybe.
flollo, that $20k you mentioned is more than a a single person with dependents gets for Job Seeker. Just sayin.
Blackers and Supa. I understand that would have been driven mainly by unions. They have their place no doubt. As I said their power was too great and that needed to be addressed.
Blingas wrote:Guys I think you have missed the point.
Yes we need unions and CEOs get paid alright but...
Many multinational businesses are making truck loads of the Ching Ching and we let them do it without paying anything back (taxes)..
If we just get large enterprise to pay their fair share we will have plenty to pay workers and citizens..
Lets keep our eyes on the main prize and work backwards
Agreed. Daylight robbery by a lot of the multi nationals. Must change.
If the LNP doesn't win the election, I wonder how News Limited will be able to explain its (supposed) reach and power.
Feel the media diversity: the colour liftouts from today’s Melbourne Herald Sun, Adelaide Advertiser, Brisbane Courier Mail and Sydney Daily Telegraph #ausvotes pic.twitter.com/c3BbDsdnWy
— australian kitsch 🦘 (@OzKitsch) May 7, 2022
https://www.theshovel.com.au/2022/05/06/morrison-flawlessly-recites-coal... Morrison flawlessly recites Coalition’s zero-point climate policy
“The setting of sensibility was now so far to the left that Dutton and Simmonds had to essentially concede a statist green conception of politics. It was the clearest sign to me, to date, that some sort of shift was under way. Vox pops confirmed this; the Greens were the winners of the morning.”
A sign of things to come or just a brief moment in a single electorate?
Maybe just too many beans and a lot of hot air?
https://www.crikey.com.au/2022/05/03/the-breakfast-club-in-dutton-land/
Side note: how good have Guy Rundle's articles been this election?
Yeah, insightful and highly readable.
Question for the crew:
Can anybody provide any information around the Sustainable Australia Party and their supposed racism? I've done some reading and the contention seemingly stems from their 70,000 a year capped immigration policy and from the best of my reading, little else.
Here's a statement from the party themselves addressing these concerns:
"They support a non-discriminatory migration program – but one that is sustainable – at the long-term average of 70,000 per year, and which does not lower our refugee intake.
They are overwhelmingly motivated by concern for the environmental degradation, havoc and unsustainability of a world increasing by 80 million people every year, an Australia now increasing by an extra million people every 2 and a half years, and, in my city, Melbourne’s relentless 130,000 annual growth.
They agree with the Nobel Peace Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, who pointed out that our key economic performance indicator, GDP, totally fails to factor in climate change. They want action on climate change, and cannot see this happening while our world continues its path of rapid population growth. They are horrified by the impact of drought and fire on our landscape. They are dismayed by the fact that both global and national population have increased by over 50% in the past 50 years, while our wildlife has shrunk by the same amount.
They also think that rapid population growth is bad for ordinary Australians, fuelling overdevelopment, job insecurity, wage stagnation, housing unaffordability, traffic congestion, the destruction of our tree cover, and the loss of a say by ordinary people in the character of their cities and towns."
https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/sustainable_australia_partys_pos...
I would personally like to see a higher intake of refugees, but besides that difference of opinion the policy seems well considered to my mind.
Can any crew help me understand this? Does the criticism go beyond the reduced intake? Any thoughts would be much appreciated.
I’m in somebody else’s house now and ABC is on (I disconnected TV from my house so I don’t know what’s going on). Albo is speaking and all he’s talking about is how bad Scomo is, how Turnbull disowned him, how John Howard wouldn’t recognise the Liberal party, bla, bla…This might be true but bloody hell, I’m so not interested in this sort of rhetoric, from whichever side it’s coming from. Isn’t there anything better he can talk about?
jwithay wrote:Question for the crew:
Can anybody provide any information around the Sustainable Australia Party and their supposed racism? I've done some reading and the contention seemingly stems from their 70,000 a year capped immigration policy and from the best of my reading, little else.
Here's a statement from the party themselves addressing these concerns:
"They support a non-discriminatory migration program – but one that is sustainable – at the long-term average of 70,000 per year, and which does not lower our refugee intake.
They are overwhelmingly motivated by concern for the environmental degradation, havoc and unsustainability of a world increasing by 80 million people every year, an Australia now increasing by an extra million people every 2 and a half years, and, in my city, Melbourne’s relentless 130,000 annual growth.
They agree with the Nobel Peace Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, who pointed out that our key economic performance indicator, GDP, totally fails to factor in climate change. They want action on climate change, and cannot see this happening while our world continues its path of rapid population growth. They are horrified by the impact of drought and fire on our landscape. They are dismayed by the fact that both global and national population have increased by over 50% in the past 50 years, while our wildlife has shrunk by the same amount.
They also think that rapid population growth is bad for ordinary Australians, fuelling overdevelopment, job insecurity, wage stagnation, housing unaffordability, traffic congestion, the destruction of our tree cover, and the loss of a say by ordinary people in the character of their cities and towns."
https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/sustainable_australia_partys_pos...
I would personally like to see a higher intake of refugees, but besides that difference of opinion the policy seems well considered to my mind.
Can any crew help me understand this? Does the criticism go beyond the reduced intake? Any thoughts would be much appreciated.
It's pretty simple there is people out there that as soon as they hear the word "reduce immigration" they hear "racism", it's why the Greens aren't focussed on the issue.
I use to be concerned about the whole unsustainable population growth thing, but the reality is globally long term it's not the issue you would expect, as it is now without immigration most developed countries are actually going into negative pop growth(death rate higher than birth rate) and Asia is even predicted to be doing the same mid century, its only Africa where growth is still going up to the end of this century, but globally there will be a point in our kids life time where global population is predicted to decrease.
"World population likely to shrink after mid-century, forecasting major shifts in global population and economic power
With widespread, sustained declines in fertility, the world population will likely peak in 2064 at around 9.7 billion, and then decline to about 8.8 billion by 2100 -- about 2 billion lower than some previous estimates, according to a new study."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200715150444.htm
BTW. Technically the refugee resettlement rate in Australia is already much higher than the recorded figure, as a large number of family members of refuges resettled in Australia, bring in family members on various family reunion visa's, some countries actually record this in their refugee resettlement stats, we do not.
I can’t provide a definitive answer to racism in Sustainable Australia, I would need to do more research. But overall, I’m pro migration which is contrary to the general sentiment here and it’s also contrary to the policy being proposed by Sustainable Australia. Australia is already one of the hardest places in the world to move to and I don’t want to see further restrictions.
This is an interesting read from Aug last year.
"Australia's fertility rate is at a record low. This expert says it's a disaster waiting to happen"
"Australia's birth rate continues to be below what is considered necessary for the population to replace itself," Dr Allen explains."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-24/fertility-rates-in-australia-at-a...
indo-dreaming wrote:This is an interesting read from Aug last year.
"Australia's fertility rate is at a record low. This expert says it's a disaster waiting to happen"
"Australia's birth rate continues to be below what is considered necessary for the population to replace itself," Dr Allen explains."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-24/fertility-rates-in-australia-at-a...
Might be a good thing with all the crap humans have been dishing up of late. A wee chance of a light breather or a chance to re evaluate. Taxes or not. Population is going to become more of an issue. Boom or bust. Scomo policies dont encourage me to add to the mess. We can't even deal with real problems many Australians are already facing. Is scomo pro life anti abortion. And Will we see religious views persecute those that seek abortion as we are seeing unfold in America. I hope not.
.