Hypocrisy of The Left

[Gough]

I marched before I could walk and I've been part of change your dull intellect couldn't even begin to image.

 

[LanceRomance]

Which I always found interesting. A young person can have such strong views on something then sell them out to make more money. Makes me think there may be correlation between working conditions and conservatism.

Australia is behind many other countries in the sense that a large number of companies use anecdotal or reactionary ideas to run their businesses. You see things like high turnover of employees, disgruntled employees (yep, they'll believe in your business goals and want to take it somewhere) and senseless inefficient practices just because it's the way things are done.

Wonder if smarter business practice and different work conditions would shift people's ideologies or if age and experience always move certain people toward the right.

Yeah. Years ago I studied that at uni. People were trying to emulate japanese business models.

 

[LanceRomance]

I marched before I could walk and I've been part of change your dull intellect couldn't even begin to image.

Banning Christmas decorations in suburban shopping strips?

 

[LanceRomance]

I think it's more that young people are more likely to be idealistic. As you get older you tend to become more realistic and accept that there are things that can't or shouldn't be changed, despite your good intentions.

Many on the left are quick to assume that those on the right are mean-spirited because they don't agree with their solutions to the world's problems. Really it's more the case that we just don't think those solutions would work, and would probably make things worse.

The minimum wage is a classic example of the disconnect between left and right. The left can't understand why anyone would oppose a minimum wage except for reasons of greed. People like myself think the minimum wage hurts more people than it helps.

What makes you say that about minimum wage? I havent heard that before

 

[Mningasimisonda]

I think it's more that young people are more likely to be idealistic. As you get older you tend to become more realistic and accept that there are things that can't or shouldn't be changed, despite your good intentions.

It is true. Some things are annoying but have no real alternative and strangely hold things together.

However, others are not like that and are quite clearly beneficial to pursue. Some people go a long way pursuing them and make a lot of money while also making a positive difference. Others buy into the rat race, which I believe tends to be easier.

I'm still not sure what would drive the protester to support measures that are clearly anti-environmental or anti-social. I would thought they'd just have less time to focus on these things.

 

[pokerspiv]

What makes you say that about minimum wage? I havent heard that before

People won't hire someone if they contribute less to their bottom line than what it costs to pay them. The effect of the minimum wage is to price many people out of work.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...e-effects-of-a-minimum-wage-that-is-too-high/

So instead of working for a wage that some consider too low, the effect is that those people don't work at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#Debate_over_consequences

 

[LanceRomance]

People won't hire someone if they contribute less to their bottom line than what it costs to pay them. The effect of the minimum wage is to price many people out of work.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...e-effects-of-a-minimum-wage-that-is-too-high/

So instead of working for a wage that some consider too low, the effect is that those people don't work at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#Debate_over_consequences

Decent argument.

Business owners still should provide the safest possible workplace for their workers. Not that you suggested the opposite.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

The minimum wage is a classic example of the disconnect between left and right. The left can't understand why anyone would oppose a minimum wage except for reasons of greed. People like myself think the minimum wage hurts more people than it helps.

It's an interesting one, because setting it too low is like asking for slaves. It's symbolically a minimum value for a person for an hour.

On the other hand setting it too high makes it not viable to do many things. I'm not sure there is a clear answer except balancing it where people can live off it and businesses can thrive.

Left will choose one end of this range because they think quality of living matters more, right will choose the other end because they think thriving of business matters more.

There's arguments for either case. Left might say if you can't do what you do and pay people enough, your business is not viable. However, if everyone pays people more then shops will charge more for products and basic services so each dollar of wages will buy less.

Right will say pay low then everyone can get a job. However, some proposed wages are so low that they aren't worth working for and it just means people can work their ass off and stay poor while those earning higher wages get stuff cheap.

In a way, it's cool that something so simple needs such in depth social and economic analysis.

 

[pokerspiv]

There is a third solution, which is to abolish the minimum wage altogether and simply subsidise the income of low-income earners. Called a basic income or a negative income tax. Most economists think this is a far better solution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

Most of the people made unemployable by the minimum wage are receiving welfare already anyway, so actually just instituting a basic income wouldn't cost any more than welfare currently does.

 

[LanceRomance]

There is a third solution, which is to abolish the minimum wage altogether and simply subsidise the income of low-income earners. Called a basic income or a negative income tax. Most economists think this is a far better solution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

Most of the people made unemployable by the minimum wage are receiving welfare already anyway, so actually just instituting a basic income wouldn't cost any more than welfare currently does.

My knock on that would be that businesses would underpay significantly knowing the govt will make up the rest. Would have to be policed

 

[pokerspiv]

My knock on that would be that businesses would underpay significantly knowing the govt will make up the rest. Would have to be policed

Market forces would still be at work though. Businesses who underpaid would lose workers to businesses who were willing to pay more. The good thing about the NIT is that wages would still attain the equilibrium level, and if that happened to be less than the current minimum wage, then the people earning less would have their wages topped up.

The other good thing about an NIT is that it removes disincentives to work under the current system e.g. if you are a welfare recipient you could be no better off if you suddenly got offered a part-time job. Under an NIT you would always be better off financially if you chose to accept the job.

The final point is that there are positive aspects of having a job that are not related to how much you are paid. It's better for people to be working than not working. And having a job of any kind makes it far more likely that you'll be offered a better job somewhere down the track.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

Yeah. Years ago I studied that at uni. People were trying to emulate japanese business models.

It's not always a people thing. Some ideas for management and incentive that are used to be "smarter" are ridiculous. I think I find the tendency to not analyse the systems the most frustrating. It's not hard to take a step back and say what are we doing, how can we do this best? Or hire someone to do that and improve your business if it's not your thing. Not doing it can seem like burning money and torturing employees.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

Market forces would still be at work though. Businesses who underpaid would lose workers to businesses who were willing to pay more. The good thing about the NIT is that wages would still attain the equilibrium level, and if that happened to be less than the current minimum wage, then the people earning less would have their wages topped up.

The other good thing about an NIT is that it removes disincentives to work under the current system e.g. if you are a welfare recipient you could be no better off if you suddenly got offered a part-time job. Under an NIT you would always be better off financially if you chose to accept the job.

Such competition would require an excess of businesses though, i.e. close to zero unemployment in an area, or a lack of unemployed people of reasonable skill. There are always businesses around who are willing to scrape the bottom of the barrel and just have high turnover too.

There's also the morale issue, in what it would do to a person to work hard for a week to earn wages then need to have the government top them up.

 

[pokerspiv]

There's also the morale issue, in what it would do to a person to work hard for a week to earn wages then need to have the government top them up.

Having a low paid job is better for morale than having no job at all. As stands currently, if you offered an unemployed person a job mowing your lawn for $15 an hour and they accepted the job, that would be illegal.

 

[madmug]

Having a low paid job is better for morale than having no job at all.

So what would the unemployment benefit be worth in this type of scenario?

 

[pokerspiv]

So what would the unemployment benefit be worth in this type of scenario?

Here's a post explaining the 30/30 plan floated by the LDP back in 2007. The numbers are out of date now but the concept remains the same.

http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/news/press-releases/1238-30-flat-tax-to-increase-living-standards

Welfare would be replaced by a sliding scale of payments (called a Negative Income Tax, or NIT) starting at 30% of $30,000 for those with no other income. As income was earned, NIT payments would be reduced until income reached $30,000.

For example, if you earned $0, you would receive 30% of $30,000. If you earned $10,000, you would receive 30% of $20,000. If you earned $25,000 you would receive 30% of $5,000. No tax would be paid at any of these levels.

To break those figures down to weekly, then the $30,000 would be equivalent to $575 per week. So for example if you earned half of that ($287 per week), then the welfare system would pay you an additional (30% of $287) $87 per week. If you earned 2/3rds ($385 per week) then the welfare system would pay you an additional (30% of $190) $57 per week. If you earned nothing then you would receive $192 per week (similar to the full rate of Newstart in 2007). If you earned exactly $575 per week then you would pay no tax and receive no welfare. And you would pay 30c in the dollar for every dollar earned over $575 per week..

Again though these are 2007 figures, the tax free threshold (and therefore the payments at each level) would need to be adjusted upwards for 2014 prices. If you implemented this policy today it would make more sense to use a TFT of $50,000pa, which would mean that a totally unemployed person would receive $288 per week.

This is the biggest benefit of the NIT, compared to the current welfare system:

"Probably the biggest advantage of Reform 30/30 is that the effective marginal tax rate (EMTR) is always 30%. Under the current system the EMTR is variable and can be higher than 80%, creating a major disincentive to earn additional income.

"30/30 solves the poverty trap which locks low income families into welfare. Under our policy, low income earners can climb the 'ladder of prosperity' to higher incomes and a better standard of living," said Mr Petersen.

 

[madmug]

Here's a post explaining the 30/30 plan floated by the LDP back in 2007. The numbers are out of date now but the concept remains the same.

http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/news/press-releases/1238-30-flat-tax-to-increase-living-standards


Considering this, one asks why is the approach under the last budget so diametrically opposed to this approach? Its the same party isnt it?

The Abbott/Hockey budget approach to unemployment is totally vidictive & negative. It would simply cause increased pain, anxiety, crime, incarceration, recidivism & the unnecessary associated financial & societal costs that would incur. I know some sad little souls would think thats fun. I'd rather see the situation eased if not 'fixed' with some common sense & a bit of care & probably a lot less cost overall.

Eliminating the poverty trap with the current punitive costs of getting off welfare has always needed to be fixed. The above concept allows for a more 'seemless' slide on the 'upward' scale. Ie not being penalised for improving ones income & work position.

So maybe you should go & see yer mate Tone & 'shirfront' some sense into him.

 

[Jiska]

There is a third solution, which is to abolish the minimum wage altogether and simply subsidise the income of low-income earners. Called a basic income or a negative income tax. Most economists think this is a far better solution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

Most of the people made unemployable by the minimum wage are receiving welfare already anyway, so actually just instituting a basic income wouldn't cost any more than welfare currently does.

If I'm reading that right, the cost to the employer is reduced and the cost to the Government increased?

 

[Floor Pie]

If I'm reading that right, the cost to the employer is reduced and the cost to the Government increased?

I've had this conversation with him before.

Huge incentive to pay your worker less, and increase your bottom line.
If you pay under a certain amount, the government will pay the rest.

I wonder what choice McDonalds, Coles, Big W, Woolies, etc will make?

The cost of living will stay the same, taxes will increase to subsidies the pay, and the pay will be less than the minimum wage, so people will need a second job.

100% employment in a situation where, let's say, 20% need a second job? Yeah, businesses will be fighting each other to pay their staff higher...

 

[pokerspiv]

If I'm reading that right, the cost to the employer is reduced and the cost to the Government increased?

No, since under the current status quo, the person cannot legally work for under $17 an hour. So instead they receive Newstart/Disability pension. Remove the minimum wage so the welfare system and the employer would each pay a share of the basic income, instead of taxpayers covering the whole amount.

 

[pokerspiv]

I wonder what choice McDonalds, Coles, Big W, Woolies, etc will make?

Perhaps they will choose to hire some people older than 15 now that it becomes legally possible again.

The companies you named already pay people less than the adult minimum wage, since Australia has a lower minimum wage for teenagers.

 

[pokerspiv]

Considering this, one asks why is the approach under the last budget so diametrically opposed to this approach? Its the same party isnt it?

The Abbott/Hockey budget approach to unemployment is totally vidictive & negative.

I'm not sure if I'm getting you? No, the LDP and The Liberal Party are 2 quite different parties.

Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott are from the Liberal Party. David Leyonhjelm is the sole representative of the LDP in parliament.

 

[pokerspiv]

If I'm reading that right, the cost to the employer is reduced and the cost to the Government increased?

The cost to the employer is not reduced at all, since employers already do not hire anyone who contributes less in productivity than it costs to hire. And as I have already noted a few posts up, employers also compete with each other for workers. If you are worth $20 an hour but your employer is only paying you $10, it won't be long before someone comes along and offers more.

I have explained to this concept to Floor Pie before but he has failed to grasp it. I expect better from you.

 

[Floor Pie]

Perhaps they will choose to hire some people older than 15 now that it becomes legally possible again.

The companies you named already pay people less than the adult minimum wage, since Australia has a lower minimum wage for teenagers.

They hire adults... Plenty of adults work at the places I named...

I remember why I gave up talking to you. You have no idea.

You've read a few wiki pages, and have convinced yourself you know what's what.

 

[Jiska]

No, since under the current status quo, the person cannot legally work for under $17 an hour. So instead they receive Newstart/Disability pension. Remove the minimum wage so the welfare system and the employer would each pay a share of the basic income, instead of taxpayers covering the whole amount.

Riiiiiight. So you're saying if we lower the minimum wage, that will create more jobs?


If you have 10 workers on the minimum wage, and then remove it, you'll have 30 workers on a lower wage through less hours and instead of 20 people on benefits, you'd have 30 people on benefits?