Boaz_David but you voted for this government and you must have realised that the agenda was further economic reforms that would take away protection of our industries.
Now you argue that the workers should pay for the choice that you took when you voted for the neo-liberal reforms.

Mollydukes, Great point! I don't expect those who blame the working class for their lack of wealth to understand their own ideological hypocrisies. What I’ve become accustomed to hearing and reading is this.

1. When all the economic arrows point toward the government they voted in as poor economic managers -- they’ll point to toward import substitution and China.

2. When their business go belly they’ll blame those they employ. Finally, when we don’t agree with them, they’ll blame us for being lefty idealists who don't live in their supposed real world.

Yawn!

They voted for the neo-CON’s labour deregulation, border protection and the GST.

But don’t expect them to explain how productivity is linked to labor market deregulation. Howard and Costello haven’t got around to telling them what their standard parrot answer to this yet. But I suspect they’ll just blame China too.

BOAZ_David,
so what your recommending protectionism instead of IR reform?

Plerdsus, your oh so right. However it seems it's going to be the lowest paid workers that will have to foot the bill.

David, we find agreement! (Is that the heavens falling?!)

It is not that our businesses/businesspersons are greedy (though surely they exist in plentiful numbers). It is that they compete against nations who use a lower-paying, more cost effective labour system than the ‘average’ Australian company. A few points:

1. In Australia most people have an expectation to relative comfort, given how our leaders live. And why shouldn’t they? It’s on the backs of the labours of many that the wealthy live. Giving people access/opportunity to a comfortable life encourages a desire to work towards it. Current policy, as David states, reacts to a problem without looking for a cure, with a consideration for the people. Just where in any academic field does it say that profit comes before people?

2. Arguments that competition is good for the economy is irrelevant to the standard of living associated with that economy. It refers to the efficiency and profitability of the economy, not the standards of living, the availability of opportunity and equity in a days work for a days pay (how does one compare a $500/week life endangering job to a $10million bonus to dump an incompetent manager?)

3. Having only a sneaking suspicion at this point – no evidence YET – I suspect that the goods exported from China and like countries, is funded by investment from politically associated business groups (US, Australian, etc.) who obtain substantial returns on their investment in industries producing goods from slave-like labour. What effect do the FTA’S really mean for Australians? Free trade for whom?

4. Rather than paying a little less for products sent to us from overseas we should be promoting paying a little more for products of this country. Besides assisting the local workforce, it says ‘no’ to the ideas of capitalist first, society second. I for one check where something is made and happily pay more if it comes from Australia, rather than from the hands of a 14 year old earning $10 a week.

David, though we have certain ideological difference, I am glad we have found some common ground...

Go for it, Tinker Bell, please read my commentary on the same presently burning subject concerning the point of view published by Jim McDonald - June 30-2005.

To find the answer we need to go back in history and re-discover where the valuable arbitration and workplace relations set-up we have now grew from. Your comment about lack of understanding would certainly apply to the younger public, especially as the history of industrial relations is a specialised subject mostly only taught in universities. In fact, maybe John Howard could do with a good read of it.

The IR changes to the work place are supposed to make us more competitive in the global market. That is if we lower production costs by lowering basic wages we will be able to compete with the likes of China and other aspiring economies.

We really need to be campaigning for reform throughout the global market - eg a living wage for Chinese workers and the outlawing of child labour. This would create a truly level playing field when there is no advantage for corporations to go 'offshore' and exploit workers in developing countries if they received wage parity with the rest of the western world.

Idealistic? - Sure! I like to dream...