imacentristmoderate,

I don't know what generation you are, but I remember the days with a mortgage and a single income, when women stayed home until the kids went to school (no organised child care). There were very few luxuries, and life was pretty ordinary, but that's what our parents did, and we didn't expect much else.

I don't really know how hard it is today, with two incomes and child care to pay for. But, I think expectations are higher these days. Things that my generation and before saved up for are now wanted immediately, and are obtained with credit, another huge expense. I don't particularly blame young people for that because they have been encouraged into by the 'system', big business and politicians. It all worked for a while, but not any more. We have been duped into thinking that we can live on debt. All we can do now is be like Mr. Micawber and, if we earn 20 shillings, spend only 19/6, until we get society and the economy re-balanced; and that is going to take much better politicians than we have now.

Dear Cobber,

Obviously I would never support non-free arrangements. Period.

If there is any coercion to take up jobs in Australia, then it comes from Centerlink, threatening to cut people off benefits if they fail to take up a particular job which they don't like, doesn't pay well enough or is unethical. While it is definitely wrong and I do believe that welfare should be unconditional, I am not aware of any coercion whatsoever on the side of employers, nor is it their business to provide social-security.

As for fairness, on a single-life basis, not only are we under no obligation to provide fairness - but it is simply impossible, hard as we may neurotically try: The world we live in is inherently unfair: one is born short the other tall, one intelligent, the other stupid, one prone to obesity and diabetes, the other naturally fit despite eating junk, one needs just one bowl of food a day to fill their stomach, the other needs ten such bowls or much more expensive food due to dietary limitations. One lives in peace while the other is chased out of their home by the Assad regime or the Islamic-State, one has plenty of food, the other starves in Africa, etc. etc. etc. I do believe that fairness is eventually achieved in the very longer term, but that's altogether a different matter.

If a potential employee wants to know what others are getting, then they can demand it as a condition for their services (and leave if their demand is not met), but I personally don't consider this a good idea: one should ask themselves whether the deal they are about to enter is worthwhile for them or not and decide solely on the merits (or demerits) of the offer they get - otherwise this can lead to gossip, jealousy and frustration.

Who is this industry competing with that they need to cut the wages of workers? Well, the fact is they compete with each other, so reducing wages won't change the competitive market for labour. It just moves income from workers to the pockets of employers.

Will it create more demand? Maybe and maybe not, but it will certainly reduce aggregate demand because less income in the pockets of workers reduced consumption in the economy.

Dropping penalty rates won't make us more competitive with overseas markets, except on the spread sheets of pointy heads. In reality I don't visit Indonesia to consume a cup of coffee, I head down to my local barista.

So it's a 24/7 workplace today is it? Who said that? It isn't as families have to have some time off to attend to family matters, but I guess that's only important if you are a nine to fiver or a member of parliament.

When members of parliament take a cut in pay and work 24/7 then I might take the suggestion seriously. What's next I wonder - overtime and shift work rates?

ttbn, growth in employment has attracted people back into the jobs market, hence the growth in employment with an unchanged unemployment rate – this is not uncommon in an upturn.

I think that in a modern market economy with high mobility, government should have no part in wage-setting - that should be between the employer and the employed. The first requirement for the employer is that the employer should add to the value of the business at least the cost of their employment. Employees will have their own priorities as to wages, hours, days of the week, location and various other trade-offs, it can best be sorted out without government. Competition between employers will raise wages to reflect the value of more sought-after employees and skills. There will be better signalling to employees as to what skills are valued, and where the opportunities are, than with mandated rates and conditions.

This means no minimum wage. Many unemployed people, particularly if they have been out of work for some time, will not immediately make good employees, and their wage should reflect the value the employer expects them to add. Once someone is in the workforce, and has a proven ability to do the basics, such as turning up, working as instructed, not slacking off, then they become much more employable, their options open up.

doog, not everyone wants to work 38 hours – cf students, mums at home wanting a change of scene and a bit more income rather than an income to support the whole family, etc. And changes can not be “all about the workers” – jobs exist because people take the risk in investing in business opportunities, and the job market must make it possible for employers to have reasonable prospects of making a profit. If not, why would they bother? Most start-ups fail within a year, few make five years, discourage job creation by a bias towards workers and the jobs won’t materialise.

As for what constitutes a “healthy economy,” that will be determined by the interaction between customers and suppliers, whose choices in a market economy will direct resources and spending to their most-valued uses.

yuyutsu, welfare should be unconditional? Nonsense, no one has the right to demand that others support them willy-nilly. Of course if the community (you me and other taxpayers) provides support to those in need, it should expect recipients to make what efforts they can to become self-reliant. It is also far better for the individual that they engage and contribute rather than bludge. And no, I’m not saying that everyone on welfare is a bludger.

mael, see my previous posts.