Opinion Politics (warning, may contain political views you disagree with)

Remove this Banner Ad

Not every casual is living paycheck to paycheck

Lol, People don't choose to be casually employed. Nor does ANYBODY set aside the extra 17.5% per hour, or roughly $3.50p/h each pay. They use it to get by on the reduced hours due to the shiftwork conditions they're working under.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I often get a smirk on my face whenever I see smug, sanctimonious woke flogs get exposed for the arseholes they are. This is no exception.



Check the idiot's Twitter activity.

It seems the haters are cretins.
 
The MP that said casuals won’t need to be paid extra or sick leave during the down turn is a muppet and clearly doesn’t realise (or doesn’t care) that the casualisation of the workforce has resulted in a class of working poor who are going to get smashed by this
Christian Poster's comments were ignorant and tone-deaf, bordering on cruel. He may have 5 degrees but sitting in his ivory tower, collecting his $7000 a week, he's totally clueless about the reality for most of us. I recently got a nice government contract job and the hours have already been savagely cut due to flipping coronavirus. Anxiety levels sky-high.
Van Badham's article says it all:
 
Casuals pay is approx $20 an hour. Very few work a full week. Shouldn't be a problem for them to put 20 % of their pay away for a rainy day. :rolleyes:
I know most probably are and it will be a big problem if people get sick but not ALL casual work gets extremely low pay. I've got $40+ an hour casual as a tradesman, many years ago. Even swimming instructor I sometimes do now is $31.

edit - still low, but not $20 an hour.

"The national minimum wage applies from 1 July each year and apply through to the end of June in the following year. The rate that currently applies until 30 June 2020 for an adult (aged 21 years or over) is $740.80 per week or $19.49 an hour. The hourly rate is calculated on the basis of a 38 hour week for a full-time employee. Casual employees receive a casual loading of 25% giving them a minimum hourly rate of $24.36 per hour."
 
Last edited:
I know most probably are and it will be a big problem if people get sick but not ALL casual work gets extremely low pay. I've got $40+ an hour casual as a tradesman, many years ago. Even swimming instructor I sometimes do now is $31.

edit - still low, but not $20 an hour.

"The national minimum wage applies from 1 July each year and apply through to the end of June in the following year. The rate that currently applies until 30 June 2020 for an adult (aged 21 years or over) is $740.80 per week or $19.49 an hour. The hourly rate is calculated on the basis of a 38 hour week for a full-time employee. Casual employees receive a casual loading of 25% giving them a minimum hourly rate of $24.36 per hour."

It's not how much the hourly rate is it's how many hours you work.
 
I know most probably are and it will be a big problem if people get sick but not ALL casual work gets extremely low pay. I've got $40+ an hour casual as a tradesman, many years ago. Even swimming instructor I sometimes do now is $31.

edit - still low, but not $20 an hour.

"The national minimum wage applies from 1 July each year and apply through to the end of June in the following year. The rate that currently applies until 30 June 2020 for an adult (aged 21 years or over) is $740.80 per week or $19.49 an hour. The hourly rate is calculated on the basis of a 38 hour week for a full-time employee. Casual employees receive a casual loading of 25% giving them a minimum hourly rate of $24.36 per hour."

It's been a long time, so maybe things have changed... But casual was without leave, without holiday pay and being told at any time that I'm not working tomorrow. If you are a permanent casual (walk like a duck, talk like a duck, but no you aren't an employee) you can amass savings. But when you are getting short term gigs by labour companies, 2 weeks in between contracts, get 3 or 4 of those in a year and your savings are screwed, unless you live with your parents.
 
I know most probably are and it will be a big problem if people get sick but not ALL casual work gets extremely low pay. I've got $40+ an hour casual as a tradesman, many years ago. Even swimming instructor I sometimes do now is $31.

edit - still low, but not $20 an hour.

"The national minimum wage applies from 1 July each year and apply through to the end of June in the following year. The rate that currently applies until 30 June 2020 for an adult (aged 21 years or over) is $740.80 per week or $19.49 an hour. The hourly rate is calculated on the basis of a 38 hour week for a full-time employee. Casual employees receive a casual loading of 25% giving them a minimum hourly rate of $24.36 per hour."

I'm a casual worker by choice. I don't get an hourly rate as such but a half or full day. 90% of the time I'm doing full days and 4 to 5 days a week minus public hols. Full day equates to $465.

I'm bloody lucky that my quals have helped me financially however the ave casual worker are those who don't have degrees and the employer holds total power by force of contract.

Things could get ugly if businesses shut down.as they will be the first to be moved on.
 
I'm a casual worker by choice. I don't get an hourly rate as such but a half or full day. 90% of the time I'm doing full days and 4 to 5 days a week minus public hols. Full day equates to $465.

I'm bloody lucky that my quals have helped me financially however the ave casual worker are those who don't have degrees and the employer holds total power by force of contract.

Things could get ugly if businesses shut down.as they will be the first to be moved on.
All 3 of my housemates have already been told they'll be out of a job if things get bad.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Lol, People don't choose to be casually employed. Nor does ANYBODY set aside the extra 17.5% per hour, or roughly $3.50p/h each pay. They use it to get by on the reduced hours due to the shiftwork conditions they're working under.
I choose to work casually, we do exist..
 
Most of my study isn't really conducted in macroeconomics but I guess I have some knowledge and I have an understanding of the conventional theories.

Firstly, I'd be careful with these articles. Any talk of shifting the goal posts to win an argument is risky imo. We don't need to use these 'alternative' macroeconomic theories to dispute the arguments put forward by hardcore neoliberals. Their arguments can be used to come to the conclusions that I'm sure you and I share. In many cases their theories lack emperical evidence that alone is enough to discredit their ideas and lead you to alternate conclusions.

What I'm trying to say is, it's pointless to have an argument with someone while you're both kicking at a different set of goal posts. We can use traditional economic logic to discredit these neoliberal theories and it's the best way to go about it.

Personally haven't read much about this alternative monetary theory and hesitant to comment having only read two articles, would rather see some peer reviewed stuff but I don't have time for that. Yes a government doesn't have to run a balanced budget (heck even scotty from marketing floated the idea as treasurer) I think our govts blind pursuit of a surplus is reckless. Traditional theories again, allow for the idea of not running a balanced budget.

I also don't think economists are in some conspiracy to lie to us.

I know the second article brought up Zimbabwe and that's the first criticism you're probably likely to face with these ideas. A government can't just continuously print money, I know the article was like "oh they don't print it anymore, gotcha" but it did at least recognise that pumping money into the economy (whether by printing it or pressing buttons) can cause inflation. And look, this article advocated controlled injections into the economy, it was putting huge faith in the government to not over or under do it (I'll humour the idea that the government controls the supply of money). It said "oh if they over do it, they can tax more" but you can't just raise taxes overnight.

Look Keynes may well be right about the argument being impeccable but he's definitely right about it being a hard sell. I reckon these kinds of theories need a lot more work before they become mainstream, if they are to ever (big if).

Economics is becoming a lot more empirical these days, more scientific if you like, more accurate. You can probably find a bunch of papers that'd support your arguments with actual, quantifiable evidence you can throw numbers at em. Nothing triggers the traditional economists like the paper that showed an increase in minimum wages increased employment rates (not decreased). Best part is the best ones tend to be short.

You seem to have done some reading of the convetional theories and boy, there's some huge gaps. I'd suggest finish that reading before turning to alternatives. I certainly haven't learned all there is to know about the conventional theories so I'm no authority
What do you think about all the "quantative easing" going on right now and about to happen? They're basically creating currency from nothing yeah?
 
What do you think about all the "quantative easing" going on right now and about to happen? They're basically creating currency from nothing yeah?
Yeah well, quantitative easing is a relatively new idea, a few countries trialled it in the GFC, this would be the first time in Australia. Without too many examples of it it's hard to say exactly what will happen, long story short, I think it's worrying we're at this point.

Keep an eye on the housing market, there's the potential for prices to inflate rapidly. In most markets, asset prices should increase. The aussie dollar will likely undergo a bit of a devaluation as well.

Yeah essentially the RBA is increasing the money supply by buying government bonds from businesses, in the hope that businesses will invest, create jobs and cash flow will increase.

Whether it works who knows, I'm not really educated enough to do anything other than speculate and things are changing every day. I'll probably have a different opinion come next week.
 
Can this ****wit ScoMo be any more confusing with his messaging.

We're not closing the schools
Keep your kids at home.
We're shutting down non-essential businesses
Shops are still open
If you earn money you are essential.

He's trying to have a bet both ways and getting lost in the middle. Grow a spine and make the call.
 
SloMo is so ridiculous. Just lockdown the country, yet he’s a whimp. Economy vs health. He’s obviously chosen.

Probably trying to chart the middle road between the two extremes, opens him up for criticism on either side
Some will think like me he's favouring health too much, some that he's favouring the economy too much. The fact he's pissing off zealots on both sides is not good for him politically but probably means he's doing an OK job in shit circumstances. And I don't even like the guy.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top