Tristan, here's the actual GS report. It was prepared for the Equal Opportunity in the Workplace Agency.

http://www.eowa.gov.au/Pay_Equity/Files/Australias_hidden_resource.pdf

"Male productivity has historically averaged over double that of female productivity
over the past 30 years. We refuse to believe that a female with the same educational and
work experience as a male will be 50% less productive in a similar role."

As you see, on the one hand they have good data suggesting that women are not as productive as men, but because they are writing an advocacy piece for an organisation that has a strong predisposing discriminatory bias to increase employment for women, they include a statement of "belief", which seems incongrupus in an economic document. It was the Greeks'and the rest of the PIGS "refusal to believe" that the free ride would ever come to an end that has led to the current problems for their countries.

It seems to me that you also have a problem in preferring a "belief" that increased welfare is desirable over the hard data that shows it's simply unaffordable.

Peter Hume; you say the labour of the capitalist isn't what's important. (for me, as matter of justice)

But if that were the case the capitalist who inherited $10 billion from his father; delegated all management, lived a life of excess and never worked a day - would be in the same category as the small business person who worked an 80 hour week to keep their head above water. There's no comparison - and even without an exact measure it illustrates the injustice.

Then you say LTOV is wrong because of the subjective factor...

Then let's take a producer's co-operative - let say one like producing canned fruit. All that they produce comes from workers and from nature. Just because there is a subjective element that doesn't mean these goods don't come from the combination of labour and nature.

And let's say the business wasn't a co-operative - but there was one capitalist/manager and 500 workers. Let's say that the income of the capitalist/manager was 100 times that of one if their workers. Even without an exact measure - is this fair? And even without an exact measure - can we deny a surplus is being extracted at some level?

Or to put the question at another level. Purely hypothetically - If a teacher makes $100,000/year and a nurse $20,000 (with similar levels of work intensity and skill)- even with the assumption of a subjective element - by our best estimate would this situation be fair? (the point being that the subjective element shouldn't be used to rationalise economic/distributive injustice)

Antiseptic - a few points re: your arguments about women's labour.

First: 'Productivity' could be lower because of women's concentration in 'caring' professions where it is difficult to achieve productivity improvements. (eg: through mechanisation) This doesn't make underpayment fair. The human and social value of labour is more than the surplus that can be extracted from it. A doctor or a nurse is not worth less than a factory worker because the factory worker achieves greater productivity via robotics/mechanisation.

Apart from this work needs to be seen as self-realisation as well; so in this sense women have a right to self-realisation through work; But on the other hand in capitalist society domestic labour is unpaid and hence undervalued; Greater support for women OR men who choose domestic labour including child rearing (social reproduction) deserve greater (including financial) support without stigma. The problem is especially difficult with single parents who are being forced back into the workforce just when their kids need them the most...

re: Welfare - The point is that with active labour market policies there is no excuse to leave the unemployed in dire poverty - and facing stigma. And the argument that it is unaffordable doesn't hold up to scrutiny either. Many European nations manage fine with far more generous programs than we have.

Tristan
I think you’re trying to have a bet each way.

One the one hand if you’re going to argue that the market rate for labour is not the fair rate, you need to show by what principle the fair rate is determined.

Marx reasoned that capitalism is exploitative by theorising that the final value of a good was derived from the labour factors of production that had gone into it, and only the labour factors. The value of non-labour factors such as capital or land involved, he imputed to labour still further back in time. In this, Marx adopted the core of what was wrong about the theory of the classical economists Smith and Ricardo – the labour theory of value.

But even if this theory were correct, it would not justify a state-mandated wage increase. It would.it would justify the expropriation of all capitalists, and the abolition of privately-owned capital in favour of the working class as a whole – internationally.

However you yourself are not adhering to the labour theory of value – for good reason, because it’s quite plainly wrong, is easily disproved, and is indefensible. (That’s not how prices are formed. They are formed by people deciding whether they prefer the good to the asking price. They assess this by comparing with the other values in their scale of values. All these values are subjective. However the prices are not subjective, because people adjust what they are willing to pay or accept according to what others are paying or accepting.)

Therefore there is no objective principle by which the market price could be distinguished from the fair price, and your claims of "undervaluation" are invalid.

On the other hand, if capitalism is morally deplorable, then by your own theory we are not morally entitled to participate in its benefits.

So far as unemployment is voluntary, your argument is invalid, and so far as it is involuntary, the problem is precisely the policies that you advocate.

Therefore none of your proposed policies can be justified, even in your own terms.

Changing the dividend imputation system is not a good idea. The current system works well because the tax is paid at the taxpayers marginal rate. It is a very progressive system. Low income earners and super funds pay a low rate and high income earners pay their full marginal rate. How can you complain about that?

Shares are not owned by the "rentier class". Most big companies are controlled by funds, mostly superfunds.

Changing the imputation system would have a significant impact on the earnings of superfunds and would negate many of the benefits raising the super guarantee to 12%. The most badly effected would be young people because the lower earnings rate would be compounded over many years.

Tristan, I agree with you on the issue of self-realisation, but I think you're ignoring the many women who feel themselves entirely satisfied with the role of mother.

This is a piece from the SMH, by a trio of academics from Monash, on the subject

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/calling-older-mothers-selfish-is-a-sign-of-misconception-20111011-1liyy.html

from the article:

"We investigated the childbearing desires, expectations and outcomes of 569 Victorian women aged 30 to 34 selected randomly from the Australian electoral roll."

"We found that almost all the women we interviewed wanted to have children. Only 20 (less than 4 per cent) had decided they definitely did not want to have children.

However, many of the women (80 per cent) had fewer children than they desired. The women were still of reproductive age but when asked if they were likely to have children in the future, more than half (54 per cent) said this was unlikely because of circumstances often beyond their control."

"Those who did not have a child said the main reason was not having a partner, or being unable to find a partner willing to commit to fatherhood. Very few women wanted to have a child while single."

"Women with partners also reported that a main barrier was their partner's reluctance to have a child, or another child. Some said that disagreement over childbearing threatened their relationships, and that they avoided talking about wanting children in case their partners left."

"The second reason was the burden of higher-education debts. These imposed a particular barrier to securing housing, because couples were finding it difficult to pay debts that each had incurred in gaining their qualifications, at the same time as meeting the requirements of a mortgage."

"Many said it was difficult to contemplate even a short period on a single income"

Do they sound "self-realised" to you?