Unemployment hits 12 year high, and higher than in the US

[Power Raid]

Of course

go back and read the question and have a think about it

 

[Grin]

I also feel many think they are the good guy because they "represent" the worker but I ask the question who represents the unemployed who are cut out of the employment market because of union behaviour?

That's the point I was originally trying to make. Cuts in wages and conditions will be argued as compasionate. I further argued that wages and conditions can be cut more harshly where they don't need to compete with unemployment benefits.

That doesn't mean lower take home wages

But I bet the argument will be that it does mean cuts in working conditions and at least real wages. And that this will be argued as the compassionate thing to do.

I understand that there is an economic theory that says that cutting wages and conditions leads to higher employment. I don't argue that that philosophy exists. What I'm saying is that the current government is trying to create an environment which supports cuts to wages and conditions. High unemployment helps this. No unemployment benefits for a sizeable number of the unemployed definitely helps this, as does reduced regulation of labour markets. The demonisation of all unions by painting them as all corrupt on the back of a handful of corrupt officials from a couple of unions helps reinforce the narrative that the baddies want to maintain wages and conditions and the goodies want to reduce them as an act of compassion for the unemployed.

You see if I'm wrong. I'll happily acknowledge it if I am. But I reckon you can see it coming from a mile away.

 

[Empire_Persian]

If people apply for more jobs, unemployment will drop, simples!

Actually, if people stop applying for jobs, unemployment will drop!*


*according to the ABS.

 

[medusala]

You'll stick to your version of reality.
Of course any one with even the most basic understanding of economics understands that unemployment is far more complicated.

You seem to think the price elasticity of demand with respect to labour is irrelevant ie Veblen / giffen.

If the price of a good/ service goes up do you think demand will fall, stay the same or fall?

Simple question. Please enlighten us with your knowledge.

 

[Grin]

You seem to think the price elasticity of demand with respect to labour is irrelevant ie Veblen / giffen.

I never said that.

If the price of a good/ service goes up do you think demand will fall, stay the same or fall?

Simple question. Please enlighten us with your knowledge.

Sure.
I'll make it real simple:
Employment is far more complicated than price/demand.
I.e. The price of labor isn't the sole dictator of demand for Labor.
Pretty basic stuff hey Meds.

I can give you some simple examples if you really want me to continue your humiliation.
Alternatively, you could stop pretending that you have half a basic layman's understanding of economics, which is all I have. Yet even I know this, pretty basic stuff.

 

[Power Raid]

That's the point I was originally trying to make. Cuts in wages and conditions will be argued as compasionate. I further argued that wages and conditions can be cut more harshly where they don't need to compete with unemployment benefits.


But I bet the argument will be that it does mean cuts in working conditions and at least real wages. And that this will be argued as the compassionate thing to do.

I understand that there is an economic theory that says that cutting wages and conditions leads to higher employment. I don't argue that that philosophy exists. What I'm saying is that the current government is trying to create an environment which supports cuts to wages and conditions. High unemployment helps this. No unemployment benefits for a sizeable number of the unemployed definitely helps this, as does reduced regulation of labour markets. The demonisation of all unions by painting them as all corrupt on the back of a handful of corrupt officials from a couple of unions helps reinforce the narrative that the baddies want to maintain wages and conditions and the goodies want to reduce them as an act of compassion for the unemployed.

You see if I'm wrong. I'll happily acknowledge it if I am. But I reckon you can see it coming from a mile away.

Why would you automatically assume that

It seems you have a closed mind to improving people's lives and our economy

 

[Grin]

Why would you automatically assume that

It seems you have a closed mind to improving people's lives and our economy

Huh?
So by predicting that the right will argue for cuts to wages and conditions and that increasing the numbers of the working poor and hammering the already working poor will be couched as a compassionate thing to do, is me being closed minded and not wanting to improve the economy?

How so?

You shouldn't need to construct silly, nonsensical straw man arguments. You can either agree with my prediction or disagree and, if you like, make one of your own.

I think you're offended by my prediction because it demonstrates how predictable the right are and how obvious it is that high unemployment is likely to help their aim of radically slashing wages and conditions, if Gina Rineheart is to be believed, to 3rd world levels.

 

[Power Raid]

Huh?
So by predicting that the right will argue for cuts to wages and conditions and that increasing the numbers of the working poor and hammering the already working poor will be couched as a compassionate thing to do, is me being closed minded and not wanting to improve the economy?

How so?

You shouldn't need to construct silly, nonsensical straw man arguments. You can either agree with my prediction or disagree and, if you like, make one of your own.

I think you're offended by my prediction because it demonstrates how predictable the right are and how obvious it is that high unemployment is likely to help their aim of radically slashing wages and conditions, if Gina Rineheart is to be believed, to 3rd world levels.

well you couldn't be more wrong. That's OK, I would have thought the same thing in my 20s.

Have a think about it a bit more and open your eyes to the fact that price is not always the issue. There is no point going into it in too much detail as you have cited the same concept in your own post above. So as usual, you are just trying to engage in an argument for arguments sake.

But in the case you are serious, think of it like "competitive advantage" where on one simple line you could have price and the other efficiency. A key part of efficiency is alignment and understanding for motivated workers. For those struggling to find work, the work for the dole is and integration to full employment through subsidised pay makes complete sense for those who can only compete by price.

 

[Empire_Persian]

We need to lower minimum wage, so we can employ more people.

Theoretically speaking if a firm wanted to employ more people and hold their total wages expenditure constant, then they would have to decrease their cost per unit of labour.

So you are saying that the total salary paid to all employees, would remain around the same.

In reality anything could happen - a firm may increase total wages expenditure because the lower cost per unit of labour makes it more viable, or, a firm may not increase employment because they want to retain improved margins from the decline in wages.

It's pretty simple. You have a set amount you can pay staff.
You have four staff.
You cut their wage and you can now employ a fifth person.
You still spend the same on total staff, your product does not become cheaper. You just get to pay people less.

Ostensibly, if the cost per unit of labour decreases then your product does become cheaper to make.

In reality, a firm may or may not pass on that saving to their customers. Every business is different.

Increasing employment is not as simple as reducing wages, because there are a myriad other variables that influence a firms decision to employ, like profit and productivity.

 

[madmug]

Lets face it, the biggest problem is the high cost of doing business (red tape & other regulatory costs), the consistently high $A, Economic Globalisation which has mangled both low & high skilled manufacturing. The jobs aint their. If you cut welfare & make paupers & people start living in dumpsters you will not grow employment.

As an example, here in Tassie we have lost places like Silk & Textiles who made worlds best Sherridan sheets etc. All made cheap & crap quality overseas, Blundstone Boots, Simplot Veges, Catapillar equipment, Then add Bigger joints like EZ who produce Zinc use to have 3-4000 workers, now 600! with improved systems, then all the insurance company offices & other company offices, the work all done on line & in offices in Melbourne, Sydney & Brisbane, etc, etc, etc. Then if you export from here it costs as much to ship a container 200km to Melbourne as it does to get it to China. Good for Victoria, its killing Tassie. Thats why we fight for freight equalisation.

So to all you economic whizz kids, please give a little old state a GST buck for a cup of coffee!

Tassie, the canary in the coal mine! Aging population & Economic Globalisation, its a problem soon coming to a state near you!!!

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

They'll couch it in terms of being compassionate to the unemployed.
Ie. The unemployed are doing it so tough that it's compassionate to give them a greater chance of getting a job by smashing minimum wages.

High unemployment suits the Liberal's industrial relations agenda. Especially if theres minimal or no unemployment benefits to compete with low wages and conditions in a deregulated labour market.

Bingo. The whole point of the work-for-the-dole nonsense is to attack the minimum wage

 

[Empire_Persian]

So to all you economic whizz kids, please give a little old state a GST buck for a cup of coffee!

The GST is redistributed to give states the fiscal capacity to deliver the same standard of services.

As sad as the situation is in Tasmania, the GST is not redistributed to improve outcomes or fix structural problems in state economies.

 

[Gough]

Madmug you goddamn fool you mentioned GST, you know what's gonna happen now.

 

[Empire_Persian]

Madmug you goddamn fool you mentioned GST, you know what's gonna happen now.

All the fat kids will be fighting for the last slice of birthday cake.

 

[Grin]

integration to full employment through subsidised pay makes complete sense for those who can only compete by price.

I agree with this.
Programs that subsidise wages for the long term unemployed sounds like a great idea to me, as long as there isn't exploitation of the system. Ie. retrenching workers as soon as their subsidised period ends only to employ another subsidised worker, unless it is made clear at the start of the employment period, to both the worker and the government agency, that the worker will only be employed for as long as the subsidy lasts.
It's certainly a better option in my opinion than work for the dole or cutting unemployment benefits entirely for the young.
I wonder if this sort of thing had been tried in the past.

That you think my prediction is "entirely wrong" that, after cutting unemployment benefits to a sizeable group of young people, the argument will follow that cutting wages and conditions to the lowest paid workers will be couched in terms of being a compassionate thing to do for the unemployed, is your prerogative. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if I'm wrong. As I have said on a couple of occasions already in this thread, I'll be very happy to admit it if I am.

 

[medusala]

This of course means that the cost of living would not decrease. But people on the minimum wage would now find it much harder to survive.

Why are those on the minimum wage more important than those priced out of the labour market?

Who are you to tell anyone else at what price they can sell their labour?

 

[Max zero]

Continuing your specious arguments theme?

Who am I to tell anyone at what age they can send their kids to work?

Do you want us to compete with China and India for sweatshops? Because if there is one thing that the world loves to do, it's exploit people! So there will also be a demand for sweatshop workers!

Australian businesses are already competing with Chinese and Indian sweatshops.

They are losing as well.

How many people hear buy online? How many of use here and marvelled at how much cheaper buying online is? Why do you think its so much cheaper?

People want the cheapest stuff. Sweatshops make the cheapest stuff.

The people reading this post are ultimately the ones to blame.

 

[medusala]

Continuing your specious arguments theme?

Hardly specious. It is rather extraordinary the people like you feel that you can tell others at what price they can sell their labour. Cant have people decide for themselves, they just don't know what's good for them.

Do you want us to compete with China and India for sweatshops? Because if there is one thing that the world loves to do, it's exploit people

The argument of the desperate. Again, tell me what makes you so special you can tell an adult the price at which they must sell their labour?

Why have you so little concern for the plight of the unemployed? Are you a member of a union? Your arguments are parroting their misology.

The people reading this post are ultimately the ones to blame.

Bit Harsh Max. Not all of us are drinking the Kool Aid.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

well you couldn't be more wrong. That's OK, I would have thought the same thing in my 20s.

Have a think about it a bit more and open your eyes to the fact that price is not always the issue. There is no point going into it in too much detail as you have cited the same concept in your own post above. So as usual, you are just trying to engage in an argument for arguments sake.

But in the case you are serious, think of it like "competitive advantage" where on one simple line you could have price and the other efficiency. A key part of efficiency is alignment and understanding for motivated workers. For those struggling to find work, the work for the dole is and integration to full employment through subsidised pay makes complete sense for those who can only compete by price.

the biggest issue is in fact that any cut in pay to hire more staff is short term at best.

current economics shows that efficiency is king, because shareholders demand constant growth.
cutting wages will only work for so long.

hire a 5th person when 4 people could do the job before

downturn comes shareholders still demand growth.

sack one person, back to 4 people who can do the job. growth continues.

anybody who thinks cutting wages is a sustainable model is insane, there are people who lie and say its the answer because it pads their back pocket, but they don't really believe it.

EBA's, personal contracts, etc, etc have all cut entitlements and benefits thus reducing companies wage bill's and yet we still here cries of "wages are too high" it's bullshit and you know it.

we have already cut wages in real terms through loss of penalty rates, etc, etc. as well as pay increases lagging behind the cost of living and inflation. yet we still here the same old plea.

where was the downturn in unemployment we should have seen?

we should have been able to employ more people know a large portion of workers have had their wages cut, especially at the lower unskilled spectrum that doesn't strong union support protecting them.

this cutting wages argument is as dumb as hockeys "poor people don't drive" line.

the poorest WORKING people live in areas with high unemployment away from where the job's are and often have very poor public transport. thus relying on personal vehicles to commute to work increases. they travel further and more often by car than anyone else.

yet joe hockey relies on the unemployed and retired to justify ******* them over.

This is no different manipulation of facts to justify ******* the worker again.

you're telling me that if you're allowed to cut wages tomorrow, your going to higher more people, rather then take the increased profits to show your shareholders your the s**t look how much money you've raised?

BULLSHIT! if you're a competent business owner you should aiming for maximum efficiency, if you have hired less than the minimum amount of workers, your falling you need to look at cutting costs in other areas because that's what your competitors would be doing.

even if you haven't maximised profits through correct staffing level's someone else has, meaning they are more efficient and thus more profitable then you. so even if you drop wages and higher someone else to catch up, they don't have to and they still do a better job then you.

the worker should not be exploited to make up the shortfall for poor business management.

 

[medusala]

we should have been able to employ more people know a large portion of workers have had their wages cut, especially at the lower unskilled spectrum that doesn't strong union support protecting them.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Hardly specious. It is rather extraordinary the people like you feel that you can tell others at what price they can sell their labour. Cant have people decide for themselves, they just don't know what's good for them.



The argument of the desperate. Again, tell me what makes you so special you can tell an adult the price at which they must sell their labour?

Why have you so little concern for the plight of the unemployed? Are you a member of a union? Your arguments are parroting their misology.



Bit Harsh Max. Not all of us are drinking the Kool Aid.

what a crock of s**t, people don't have any negotiating power at the lowest level of employment.
you think some high school dropout walks into maccas and put's his price at $6.50 or whatever those poor pricks get paid?

the employer offers the least he can because he knows the job seeker as no options. minimum wages protect employee's from exploiting the worker and you know it!

how does dropping wages help the unemployed? it simply does not create job's when the model for a profitable business is efficiency? businesses already employ the minimum amount of staff required. it does not create job's.

4 people doing a job that requires a minimum of 4 people will always create the most amount of profit no matter how much those people get paid.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

instead of posting graphs let's see the numbers. wages dropped under your model employees should have increased.

Instead of clinging to what you get taught at uni look at the real world and see it's not being replicated. a clear indication that the model is bogus.

 

[Power Raid]

the biggest issue is in fact that any cut in pay to hire more staff is short term at best.

current economics shows that efficiency is king, because shareholders demand constant growth.
cutting wages will only work for so long.

hire a 5th person when 4 people could do the job before

downturn comes shareholders still demand growth.

sack one person, back to 4 people who can do the job. growth continues.

anybody who thinks cutting wages is a sustainable model is insane, there are people who lie and say its the answer because it pads their back pocket, but they don't really believe it.

EBA's, personal contracts, etc, etc have all cut entitlements and benefits thus reducing companies wage bill's and yet we still here cries of "wages are too high" it's bullshit and you know it.

we have already cut wages in real terms through loss of penalty rates, etc, etc. as well as pay increases lagging behind the cost of living and inflation. yet we still here the same old plea.

where was the downturn in unemployment we should have seen?

we should have been able to employ more people know a large portion of workers have had their wages cut, especially at the lower unskilled spectrum that doesn't strong union support protecting them.

this cutting wages argument is as dumb as hockeys "poor people don't drive" line.

the poorest WORKING people live in areas with high unemployment away from where the job's are and often have very poor public transport. thus relying on personal vehicles to commute to work increases. they travel further and more often by car than anyone else.

yet joe hockey relies on the unemployed and retired to justify ******* them over.

This is no different manipulation of facts to justify ******* the worker again.

you're telling me that if you're allowed to cut wages tomorrow, your going to higher more people, rather then take the increased profits to show your shareholders your the s**t look how much money you've raised?

BULLSHIT! if you're a competent business owner you should aiming for maximum efficiency, if you have hired less than the minimum amount of workers, your falling you need to look at cutting costs in other areas because that's what your competitors would be doing.

even if you haven't maximised profits through correct staffing level's someone else has, meaning they are more efficient and thus more profitable then you. so even if you drop wages and higher someone else to catch up, they don't have to and they still do a better job then you.

the worker should not be exploited to make up the shortfall for poor business management.

what are you banging on about?

go back and read my post

 

[Power Raid]

I agree with this.
Programs that subsidise wages for the long term unemployed sounds like a great idea to me, as long as there isn't exploitation of the system. Ie. retrenching workers as soon as their subsidised period ends only to employ another subsidised worker, unless it is made clear at the start of the employment period, to both the worker and the government agency, that the worker will only be employed for as long as the subsidy lasts.
It's certainly a better option in my opinion than work for the dole or cutting unemployment benefits entirely for the young.
I wonder if this sort of thing had been tried in the past.

That you think my prediction is "entirely wrong" that, after cutting unemployment benefits to a sizeable group of young people, the argument will follow that cutting wages and conditions to the lowest paid workers will be couched in terms of being a compassionate thing to do for the unemployed, is your prerogative. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if I'm wrong. As I have said on a couple of occasions already in this thread, I'll be very happy to admit it if I am.

yep, there are issues with any system we choose. Personally, I would like to see bad employers named and shamed. By that I mean the individual managers, the board and the company should be listed if found "guilty" of such behaviour.

For repeat offenders, I would even go as far as naming the wives.

I hate filth like that who abuse their responsibilities.

 

[Grin]

Why are those on the minimum wage more important than those priced out of the labour market?

Because, as I have already explained to you, employment is far more complex than the price of labour.
This is of course very obviously to anyone with the most basic understanding of economics who isn't entirely ideologically driven.

In any case. You have just proven my point that by getting rid of unemployment benefits you can slash wages and conditions far more harshly. You can couch hammering the wages and conditions of the working poor as a compassionate thing to do for the unemployed.

You ideologically driven wingnuts are so predictable.
Just like communists and religious fundies.