BotanyWhig the foreign workers are usually in the same cities as the unemployed Australians whose jobs they have taken. Check out all the Indian IT workers on St Kilda Road trams visiting client offices. 6 years ago the trams were full of [white] Aussies who are now unemployed or working at lower paid jobs in other areas.

Look, for example, at who does the low paid shifts at 7 Eleven, your local service station, car wash etc

Yes, I think we should look to Scandanavia as models for or society rather than Britain and the US.

Why won't anyone face the fact that in Australia we are living well beyond our means, and that there has to be a substantial cut in our standard of living. The only way we can compete with the new asian economies is to cut wages, which surely is better that having the jobs go overseas and leaving people here unemployed. If there are any diehards that want to bring back tariff protection, they should realise that overseas countries will not buy our products if we keep theirs out. The youngsters of today are going to be the first generation that will not live as well as their parents, mainly because of government policies over the last 40 years.

The solutions to our problem, which would take as many years to work as we spent creating them, are as follows:

1. At the moment it does not pay to save money. This needs to be corrected.

2. Similarly, there are excessive tax benefits for those who borrow. These should be reduced.

(note that the result of 1 and 2 over 40 years is 500 billion of foreign debt).

3. Reduction of welfare, so that wage reduction can be achieved while still leaving some incentive for working.

4. Suspension of immigration, except for a very small number of very skilled people.

I am aware that this is a very bleak solution to our problems. Unfortunately the alternative is worse. As we approach the end of the age of cheap oil we will have to tighten our belts and look back to the last 60 years as a golden age.

To end on a upbeat note, remember that in the turmoil and chaos to come, Australia is the only country with the four vital things. These are:

1. A surplus of food.

2. A surplus of energy.

3. A surplus of minerals.

4. Most important of all, a sea boundary.

History has proven that if you put too much control in one segment of the workforce/economy then corruption rises and usually someone suffers.

When the Unions had too much power businesses were put at jeopardy with wharf strikes etc.

Remember the reaosn Unions existed was that the rich had too much power and it was the little guys way of fighting back.

Like everything in life it is about balance. If a company like Telstra can put off 10,000 to 12,000 staff after the Senator Joyce had allegedly got the best deal for the bush then companies can do just about anything.

Very few of the CEO's start on the increasing sales side of the ledger... they usually decrease costs by sacking people. The thing that built this country was stable employment. That's right stable "full time" employment. It means you can borrow money, buy a houe, buy a boat, educate your kids.

With the push to more casual employment and work contracts a major protection for individuals is removed. I know a Liberal voter who as State Manager got sacked in a management shakeup... His Liberal views quickly changed that day!

We had many a discussion of how great his company was, and how secure he was. I warned him and then one day he was on the end of rationalisation. My advice to all who hold the market forces argument... Don't age! Your day of reckoning might be coming up soon.

We are dealing on a world scale here. CEO's will move to the next opportunity, with the next company, both here and overseas.

We must be comparable in order to attract the cream. Just like in any profession, those that are at the top of the rung get the most, those at the bottom get the least.

Yes its gone up, but that is life. If you cant get up to that level, dont winge. Conquer your own destiny. It upsets me that people are of a jealous nature, dont look over the fence, look at your own backyard and if you are unhappy with that, change it.

There are the doers and the dreamers. Usually those CEO's are doers, whilst many who fire shots at them are jealous dreamers. Why cant i have those things too? Go and do it. If you cant, get to the top of your own spectrum, whatever that may be.

And this comment "So we are blackmailed { some by mortage, some by other means} into remaining in the job, at reduced wages and conditions"

How is your employer using your mortgage as blackmail? Maybe you blackmail yourself with this as you are afraid of getting out of your comfort zone. Do you think your the only one out there with a mortgage and expenses? Risk v Return. You are choosing your destiny and you dont have to take anything. If you want to change, take the risk and if you want it bad enough, the universe combined with your perseverance will eventually reward you. This could be an important stepping stone or catalyst for change that may be very important in the scheme of your life. A great opportunity for you to do what your heart says.

Reducing conditions and wages are bad, but it takes 2 to tango, especially as you are intelligent and have the capacity to state your case, or find alternates.

Cmon folks, if it is to be it is up to me.

Realist,
I approach the C.E.O. subject not from jealousy, but from fairness, you say that lowering C.E.O.'s wages will not make anyone more wealthy, so why will lowering ordinary workers wages?

I am interested in your view, which is why I ask these questions, I have never been interested in reaching that level, however I fail to see why C.E.O's remuneration has increased from 4 to 63 times a.w.e in 30 years, when everyone else has not. Surely these things are relative, it adds costs to a business whether you pay the C.E.O. 4 X A.W.E OR 63 X A.W.E. or are you trying to say that if the C.E.O were offered $5 million instead of $10 million that he would not take the job? If that were so someone equally qualified would take it.

Or is it the case that business bids other employees rates down, while it bids C.E.O. rates upward, if so why? There appears to be no logic to me. The addittional cost of 63 employees in one still costs 63 employees. If there is a common sense explanation, please share.

With the emergence of new centres of wealth globally, the race for the best and brightest to run public companies is on a global scale and this is the market we must compare it to.

CEO's are in charge of millions/billions of dollars, their direction and success flows through to the security of all underneath them, and have perhaps thousands of people relying on them for their livelihood both as employees and shareholders.They cop the greif.

Therefore by comparing a CEO with an average worker, it is like comparing an orange with an apple. What has happenned in relation to CEO wages should be of little consequence to anyone beacause they play in a different ball game.

I suggest that CEO's in this day and age are accountable moreso than in the past, they go to Gaol moreso than in the past if they make mistakes, in this age they are scolded for it moreso than the past.

Therefore if their wages have gone up because CEO's are in global demand, they have added pressure and accountability, and they perform a role that requires the best of the best, good on them they deserve it.

I dont know about you, but if you pay peanuts you get monkeys, if i invest in a company i hope if they can budget it, they pay the CEO as much as possible, as this will attract the best of the CEO's.

They cannot, and should not, be compared to the 'average worker', it is like comparing holden commodores with ferrarri's and saying its wrong prices have gone up for ferraris when compared to commodores.

Like you and I, they have expenses and dealing with bigger numbers means they have larger expenses. If they make something successful they deserve it, i am delighted that when i get to the top of a PLC, wages are high. If you dont strive for getting to the top but yet you are not happy with CEO's paychecks, i suggest you ignore this fact. What other emotion is this than Jealosy Shonga? not meaning to antagonise.