Mega Thread The Random Thoughts Thread Part 4: Shitizens on Pootroll

[Papa G]

Answer my question and I'll answer yours.

If the premise of your question is actually asking that due to Sunday penalty rates there are somehow 10 times the amount of people who are able to afford to buy my goods, then it is a very stupid question.

 

[Steve Dore]

Bloody safe working procedures, I need to do one for our safety ladder it has three steps.

If it had any more you'd have to have Working At Heights certification to be able to use it.

 

[ScooterBrother]

If the premise of your question is actually asking that due to Sunday penalty rates there are somehow 10 times the amount of people who are able to afford to buy my goods, then it is a very stupid question.

You're still not answering the question

 

[Steve Dore]

Have you tried an aeropress?

https://alternativebrewing.com.au/p...7kzTCEryXw9YqHfyqxFPFyP3-tmO2Ld23JxoCghHw_wcB

No, I've never seen that before. Might have to give it a go.

 

[Papa G]

You're still not answering the question

Of course you would prefer 100 customers over 10. The point to make is silly though.

 

[Peck]

You're still not answering the question

I'd rather have zero customers and be a millionaire myself.

 

[Grave Danger]

Bill's zinger sausages...

 

[edgie]

lol of course it does

 

[ScooterBrother]

Of course you would prefer 100 customers over 10.

Fair enough, and you're right, of course you would.

The point isn't that by cutting the penalty rates your market shrinks by 10x, the point was wealth equality *is actually good for the economy*. Its why Kevin07 gave a bunch of people $900 in the middle of the GFC. It stimulates cash flow via scale.

By cutting the amount of money workers take home, you have also cut your potential revenue - employees are customers too. Not just directly but because the sorts of businesses we're talking about are reliant on disposable income.

For example - it might mean that when Mum who works in a cafe goes to dinner with her friends she gets a water instead of a wine. Or maybe the couple with the Dad who works retail after being laid off decide to share a main and get two entrees instead of going all out. Perhaps the uni student starts having instant coffee in the cafeteria instead of getting a barista made coffee. Maybe the dude having a gap year after high school decides to buy his stuff on sale from ASOS instead of going to Marion to try clothes on properly.

Anecdotally - Good friends of mine own a pub near the city, during the GFC they said they didn't notice a downturn in the number of people coming through the door, more that what they were ordering was reduced in value. People still wanted to go out but they had to be more careful. This action just made thousands of people more careful with their money. Thats not good for the retail and hospitality industry. Its the first to feel economic tightening.

Cut penalty rates, reduce the money people take home, and you're hurting business, not helping it.

If you are unable to pay the wages of staff in these industries, considering it's a consistent known and they're not high, then your business is unsustainable. That can be mitigated by any number of measure - raising prices, streamlining processes, cutting stock, renegotiating leases etc

 

[manureid]

All this stuff seems too serious for the Shihtzhu thread.

 

[Dylan8]

All this stuff seems too serious for the Shihtzhu thread.

what do you want to talk about manure

 

[manureid]

what do you want to talk about, manure?

Sure.

 

[DaTBird187]

what do you want to talk about manure

#organicgrowth

 

[Dylan8]

Leicester really should have given Raneiri the season. Surely winning the clubs only title in the hardest era for an unestablished power club to do so entitles you to a little more goodwill than a February sacking. They're still a chance to make the final 8 in the CL too. At least wait til they're out of that tournament.

 

[Papa G]

Fair enough, and you're right, of course you would.

The point isn't that by cutting the penalty rates your market shrinks by 10x, the point was wealth equality *is actually good for the economy*. Its why Kevin07 gave a bunch of people $900 in the middle of the GFC. It stimulates cash flow via scale.

By cutting the amount of money workers take home, you have also cut your potential revenue - employees are customers too. Not just directly but because the sorts of businesses we're talking about are reliant on disposable income.

For example - it might mean that when Mum who works in a cafe goes to dinner with her friends she gets a water instead of a wine. Or maybe the couple with the Dad who works retail after being laid off decide to share a main and get two entrees instead of going all out. Perhaps the uni student starts having instant coffee in the cafeteria instead of getting a barista made coffee. Maybe the dude having a gap year after high school decides to buy his stuff on sale from ASOS instead of going to Marion to try clothes on properly.

Anecdotally - Good friends of mine own a pub near the city, during the GFC they said they didn't notice a downturn in the number of people coming through the door, more that what they were ordering was reduced in value. People still wanted to go out but they had to be more careful. This action just made thousands of people more careful with their money. Thats not good for the retail and hospitality industry. Its the first to feel economic tightening.

Cut penalty rates, reduce the money people take home, and you're hurting business, not helping it.

If you are unable to pay the wages of staff in these industries, considering it's a consistent known and they're not high, then your business is unsustainable. That can be mitigated by any number of measure - raising prices, streamlining processes, cutting stock, renegotiating leases etc

Mmmmm, your theory is intriguing, you've turned me around, evoking Kevin07 may have just been the clincher. I now believe that to kick start the economy, every worker should immediately demand a 10%.... no make it 20% pay rise. The more money people have to spend, the better for the economy right? Why haven't those nincompoops in Canberra thought of this already?? What a bunch of dumb dumbs.

 

[manureid]

Leicester really should have given Raneiri the season. Surely winning the clubs only title in the hardest era for an unestablished power club to do so entitles you to a little more goodwill than a February sacking. They're still a chance to make the final 8 in the CL too. At least wait til they're out of that tournament.

Unless he wanted out as well, a baffling move.

 

[edgie]

Mmmmm, your theory is intriguing, you've turned me around, evoking Kevin07 may have just been the clincher. I now believe that to kick start the economy, every worker should immediately demand a 10%.... no make it 20% pay rise. The more money people have to spend, the better for the economy right? Why haven't those nincompoops in Canberra thought of this already?? What a bunch of dumb dumbs.

I know you're being extremely sarcastic but the reason people in Canberra haven't considered it is because they don't think of much else besides how to keep the distribution of money to fewer pockets, not more.

 

[Papa G]

I know you're being extremely sarcastic but the reason people in Canberra haven't considered it is because they don't think of much else besides how to keep the distribution of money to fewer pockets, not more.

 

[ScooterBrother]

Mmmmm, your theory is intriguing, you've turned me around, evoking Kevin07 may have just been the clincher.

I am no fan of Kevin07 but that tactic was widely lauded by Economists around the world for the Australian economy being saved from the depth of the GFC.

I now believe that to kick start the economy, every worker should immediately demand a 10%.... no make it 20% pay rise. The more money people have to spend, the better for the economy right? Why haven't those nincompoops in Canberra thought of this already?? What a bunch of dumb dumbs.

Absolutely, provided everything goes up by that much to support such a hike. In the choice of cheap shit vs high standards of living for the majority, personally, I would like the latter.

 

[ScooterBrother]

https://independentaustralia.net/po...k-about-what-actually-did-save-australia,5644

So, although having money in the bank, surplus budgets, solid banks, mineral reserves, a cashed-up customer nearby and strong prices are all handy, they don’t explain Australia’s sudden ascendancy. Only one analysis does. We see this when we examine the 2009/10 stimulus packages. The evidence suggests these were critical.

Every developed economy was impacted by the upheavals of late 2007 and following. As markets collapsed and workers were sacked in their millions, governments scrambled to understand events and effect a response. Only one developed nation emerged almost unscathed from that turmoil. Australia had been 12th-ranked economy in the world in 2007, but found itself clear world leader on economic wellbeing by 2010. It has since forged further ahead.

What did Australia do differently from the rest of the world?

Firstly, Australia moved swiftly with sizeable cash handouts to families. While other regimes were wondering what was happening, the Rudd Government shovelled out billions to be spent however households wished. According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), in the early months of the GFC the Rudd Government gave 3.3% of its GDP to households. Next highest was the USA, which allocated just 2.4%. Not enough, it seems.

All others were below this — mostly well below. The 34 member nations of the OECD – the grouping of developed, free enterprise democracies – averaged just 0.7%. Economist David Gruen described this as ‘…an extraordinarily rapid fiscal policy response.’

https://independentaustralia.net/po...k-about-what-actually-did-save-australia,5644

 

[Arthur Dunger]

I'd be interested to know if it was reported by someone recently on holiday

You thinking all about me again?

 

[Andre]

Mmmmm, your theory is intriguing, you've turned me around, evoking Kevin07 may have just been the clincher. I now believe that to kick start the economy, every worker should immediately demand a 10%.... no make it 20% pay rise. The more money people have to spend, the better for the economy
right? Why haven't those nincompoops in Canberra thought of this already?? What a bunch of dumb dumbs.

And Keynesian economics has done such wonders for so much of Europe. How is bullshit 'pump priming' through undirected cash (Kevin07) or higher wages that depress job numbers for the unskilled/semi-skilled still considered a good thing?

 

[Papa G]

And Keynesian economics has done such wonders for so much of Europe. How is bullshit 'pump priming' through undirected cash (Kevin07) or higher wages that depress job numbers for the unskilled/semi-skilled still considered a good thing?

Didn't you read that article by the world famous and highly respected Independent Australia publication Andre?

 

[El Zorro]

And Keynesian economics has done such wonders for so much of Europe. How is bullshit 'pump priming' through undirected cash (Kevin07) or higher wages that depress job numbers for the unskilled/semi-skilled still considered a good thing?

Decreasing salaries has never created a job, nowhere in the world. It just doesn't work. It just makes bigger executive bonuses. You neo-liberals make me laugh (or cry, depending on the day).

 

[edgie]

I'd like to retract 'extremely sarcastic' and replace it with 'deliberately obtuse'.