Captain Col ; Why would you condemn someone to work on poverty wages when you had the choice to invest in an industry policy to create higher waged employment?

You argue as if there are only two choices - a 'labour market that clears through complete deregulation' or high unemployment. There ARE alternatives, however. Surely its better to employ people building public infrastructure than to completely deregulate and allow them to be exploited on poverty wages flipping burgers for $6 an hour!

Also some kinds of labour are unconditionally necessary. Someone always has to do the cleaning for instance. Raising their wages won't destroy the work - though it would redistribute wealth somewhat.

In some instances 'the market will not bear' big increases in wages - eg: if applied in Aged Care WITHOUT increasing government funding and subsidies. But with a National Aged Care Insurance Scheme government could put enough money into the system to provide both for aged care workers and registered aged care nurses - while ALSO improving the quality of care with quotas and nurses on site 24/7....

In child care meanwhile - the sector could move to a co-operative model... Which would require less government subsidies to provide a fair wage for the workers than with private enterprise (because private enterprise has to deliver profits and dividends), but make the system accessible for families.

I'd agree we can't have *absolute* equality. And we probably shouldn't. You have to account for skills, difficulty, conditions, hours etc... But there should be more equality than we have now. That can be achieved by giving a fair go to the low paid as I suggest here. But also through the social wage and other social insurance. Including Medicare, Aged Care Insurance, Disability insurance, other social insurance, High quality state education, high quality transport and communications infrastructure and the like.

Why anyone would choose a US-inspired social and economic model over the model epitomised by the Nordics and other like European examples is beyond me. Social cohesion and happiness as opposed to polarisation, social dysfunction, crime, exploitation ('winners and losers') etc.

calwest,
"Except where it was way over budget and way behind schedule, with no resolution in sight for the manifest management problems, right?"
WRONG!

Labor's NBN was good value despite the budget overruns and the delays (many of which were caused by trying to address the cause of the budget overruns). But there was room for improvement. The Libs improved it by incorporating the existing HFC, but then ruined it by wasting gigabucks on the dead end technology of FTTN. And there've been no great improvements in the management either.

I didn't say the NDIS would enable MOST people to work. But enabling more of them to work is significant. When you uncaringly denounce something that will enormously improve the quality of disabled people's lives as "a catastrophic waste of money", you're ignoring the benefits it will bring.

It's true that education depends on far more than just funding, but ee do know that more resources can lead to better outcomes, especially if they're directed to where they're most needed (which is what Gonski was all about). It's certainly fanciful to think education could be hindered by more funding.

I agree there's a hard working and talented minority who'll do well regardless, but that's not enough. Schools should work on developing everyone's talent in a way that keeps them sufficiently interested to maintain sufficient enthusiasm to work hard. It's not cheap but it's increasingly important if we want to remain successful.

The massive decline in literacy and numeracy is a myth. But there has been a huge shift in the relative importance of different things. Kids today neither have nor need many of the abilities that were essential in the 1950s, but kids in the 1950s would be equally stumped on much of the current curriculum.

As for economics, I go with the evidence.

Rhrosty,
"Aidan, if we know there are tax loopholes? WTF?"
THOSE WERE YOUR WORDS NOT MINE!

I said if tax loopholes are the problem then we should close them. I stand by that comment. I know closing tax loopholes isn't easy and it's often a game of cat and mouse. But it's still the best solution to the problem. And it's certainly much better than denying a large section of the population access to the essential services that their taxes pay for. And you seem to have failed to comprehend that means testing is also subject to loopholes.

Jettisoning the tax system and risking replacing it with something much worse is a recipe for disaster. Gradual reform is much less destructive.

Here goes (again) Tristan. Part 1

You say, "Surely its better to employ people building public infrastructure than to completely deregulate and allow them to be exploited on poverty wages flipping burgers for $6 an hour!

No it's not. In other words you are saying we should pay higher wages than the people are worth. And furthermore you are telling taxpayers to pay those wages and so waste their taxes paying say $100 for something of $50 value. So a government infrastructure project will always be wasting taxpayers money if low skilled workers were forced upon otherwise profitable businesses, or alternatively employed directly by the government.

As for flipping burgers, my son started doing that in high school probably for less than that and he's done it ever since. He now owns a Macdonalds franchise holding at least his first $million in equity. And you would mock that as "exploited on poverty wages". Lefties fail to understand that flipping burgers can be the start of a millionaire's life. My son is just one example. He still flips burgers every day. Others flip burgers and then progress. At least they have work experience, some training, discipline, standards and self respect.

As for your next silliness, "Someone always has to do the cleaning for instance. Raising their wages won't destroy the work - though it would redistribute wealth somewhat." No. Somebody doesn't always have to do the cleaning. If cleaners are too expensive, more and more companies won't employ them. Raising their wages without raising their productivity will destroy their work as surely as the sun rises in the east. And redistributing the wealth is simply code for robbing the rich to pay the poor. Do that and the rich will shove off to a nation that values their abilities, and who will pay the poor then?

Continued - Part 2

I don't look to the US for a social model. The US used to be a nation of individuals untrammelled by too much red tape. Entrepreneurs could grab an idea and run with it and make their fortune ... and largely keep it. Obama and many of his predecessors have gradually destroyed this creating a majority of social welfare bludgers who will forever for lefty governments giving them more and more welfare.

The different, homogenous culture of the Nordic nations means that socialist policies are more acceptable. Wait a while for the effect of opposite cultures eg refugees. The locals will be less and less willing to dish out welfare to alien non-contributors. We don't have the Nordic culture (thank goodness) so their system won't work here.

If you believe "Social cohesion and happiness as opposed to polarisation, social dysfunction, crime, exploitation ('winners and losers') etc." then I have a very prominent harbour bridge for sale for you.

In a proper capitalist society, everyone is a winner. Those working hard win wages. Those taking risks as entrepreneurs can win if their ideas deserve to win. If not they can try something else. Those bludgers win their just deserts, exactly what they are worth. Amazingly, many simply change their minds and having realised there's no freebies, pull their finger out and work themselves.

That's enough economics for you. Try it out yourself.

Captain Col, it's not a matter of paying higher wages than people are worth; instead we should enable them to do a job that's worth more.

Decreasing wages is a way of coping with failure, not a strategy for success.