Of course comparing our median wage to others in the OECD is a shoddy comparrison in isolation of all the other economic factors in those other countries.

How about we set an Australian wage $600.00 per week. This can apply to everyone from brickies labourers to professors of economics, think of the reduction iw our nations wages costs. Good idea? No I thought not, especially for those on 100's of thousands per year, the agruement changes then doesn't it. We must be rewarded for our skills/responsibilities/expertise etc,etc.

There is no greater responsibility in this country than trying to raise a family on starvation wages, if you lot had to survive on a disability pension and raise a child, you wouldn't last a week.

The basic wage should increase by 20% don't worry it will all find its way back into your greedy pockets, as people will buy what they need.

It strikes me that if you cut wage minima, or remove them altogether, that would also adversely affect the several million workers on or not much above the wage minima. Maybe that is why the idea is politically unattractive ?

Maybe we should follow the US lead where the minimum wage has not been increased for a decade and real wages have declined over the past generation. Or we could follow an Australian collective bargaining model which has driven strong wages growth and improved productivity.

I assume Des does believe that employers have a better bargaining position when he states -

The failure to allow individual agreements at wages below the minima is a tacit admission of the trade union case that employers have greater bargaining power and can force wages (or other conditions) down.

I can name a dozen employess in one work place who have had their wages reduced in one work place - becuase their bargaining positrin visa viz the employer was weak.

Changing jobs or relocation for most was not an option - another myth about the mobiltiy of workers - try it in rural australian and see how far you get.

Take away the minimum and wages will plummett - the exploitstion of guest woirkers will accelarate - fairness is not part of the system - you can not assume managers or employers will be fair

Des' thoughts may hold water in an intellectual mutual admiration society but not in the real world.

My fractured logic says, companies will employ the least number of employees needed to run the enterprise at the lowest possible rate of pay. Raising the minimum rate of pay does not reduce the minimum number of employees needed. Lowering the rate of pay does not mean the enterprise needs more staff.

The only difference is that lower wages equal bigger profits. This is exactly what Workchoices is meant to achieve.

Also Des you forgot the tens of millions of illegal workers in the USA and the fact that no job = no health insurance. Apples with Apples you know.

I note that Mr. Moore is very keen to reduce everybody's wages (bar his own, no doubt) to help the "poor people", but nary a word on increasing the productivity of these same people through education and training.

That's not a very rational approach.

I have just seen a news report which stated that 10% of Australian families rely on charities such as St Vincent de Paul for food parcels up from 4% 10 years ago, does that say anything to anyone? These are people on the minimum wage or $1 above.

Take away a minimum wage, watch the 10% increase, some of us are doing it very tough, ,in this prosperous land where the government has enough money for all its reduced serviceses and a lazy %10.8 billion just in reserve, while people are starving, Ah! the LUCKY COUNTRY, lucky for some.

"The failure to allow individual agreements at wages below the minima is a tacit admission of the trade union case that employers have greater bargaining power and can force wages (or other conditions) down. Yet the government itself argues that those employed on AWAs are better off than they were on awards."

Is it just me or does this seem to be a really silly argument. Of course those employed on AWA's are better off than they are on Awards, because AWA's MUST be set above awards. What are you trying to prove with this one?

Whilst not a fan of the union movement in general, I appreciate that there are those whose skills at bargaining and selling themselves (in a promotional sense) are greatly less than the general population. There are also those that are to a great degree locked into a job, because at the wages they are on they do not make enough to save to cover the costs of transferring jobs (whether it be going without pay for a few weeks, greater travel costs, relocations costs, new uniforms or whatever). I consider myself to be one of the lucky ones, who works in an industry with high demand for skilled employees, and who is quite happy to tell an employer where to get off if I dont get the conditions I want (within reason). Not everyone has that luxury. The author would do well to spend a few months living on the minimum wage before he recommended that it be cut from out IR system. Flawed though it may be, at the moment its better than nothing.

Des Moore. He never stops, does he. Des the main cause of poverty is not being without a job. Many workers (cleaners, security etc etc)have several jobs. They and there families are living in poverty. Des the main cause of poverty is not having any money.Therefore your bright idea of giving poor people less money (no doubt for more work)is as sickening as your good self. Des i and many other posters have repeatedly told you why the Govt is having trouble selling No Choices.
It is because they are clearly lying. The punters are awake. Bring on the election.

Argh. I can't help but feel the world would be a better place if Des Moore was made to work as a burger flipper at McDonalds for six months. Maybe then he'd be a bit less trusting in the future prospects of a world driven by corporate interests.

As it stands Des, Australia has a skills crisis. A shortage of workers. Lowering the minimum wage at a time when workers are needed would do what exactly, except make life even more difficult for unskilled single parents?

Des compares Australian minimum wages to the US and Spain. The US has the highest discrepancy between the rich and the poor in the entire world. Whilst Des seems keen on that kind of system, I'm less convinced that will lead to social stability.

Our other contender is Spain. Oh joy. Nevermind the plethora of economic woes.

Hedgehog is nearly right.

The public is astir, and the Election we had to Have looms large.

But you know, i reckon the 2 biggest problems the Governmet has re 'No Choices' is the Autocratic Council of Totalitarian Underdogs; and Auto-Fascists. The social omnipotence of the Autocratic Council does not go unnoticed by me; i wish we knew how many others know the truth there. This mob could stop the sun rising if they tried hard enough. They are in a position to anti-propogate the IR changes at whim. And while they make the opposition present fool-like campaigns in Parliament, in the real world they are 'working and asking and speaking and working' away at white-anting everything they dont stand for. So not only does the average bloke cop the wrangle at the 6 o,clock news, he also gets it at work and in the general social meileue of everyday Lefty-life. If average jo was allowed to exploit his intelligence better, not through a free market economy, but with it, setting himself up at his own pace, things might be different. But alas, work, work, work.

And then there is the Auto-Fascist. The self appointed so and so somewhere who doesnt want all this intellectualism abound. This person will ruin your day, deplete your energies and honourable intentions and seek to acheive such diverse responses from the universe such as 'carmic reflux', 'sexual desirability', 'supremo-intellectuala' and whatever else can be gleaned and enslaved from your presence.

I think that my freinds is the sum total of Australian work-place culture and the IR 'fight'! Its better known as 'Class warfare'. Wages dont come in to it for Mr Avrage, nor indeed for intellectual aspirants.

Federal parliamentarians receive an Annual Allowance; Ministers receive a Salary; Parliamentary Office-Holders receive a Salary; MPs receive an Electorate Allowance and are entitled to receive other Benefits including Travel, Retirement Travel and Superannuation benefits.

Background
A legislative and policy history of this topic can be found in Remuneration of Members of the Parliament of Australia Research Paper No 30 1999-2000 by Margaret Healy and Geoff Winter. Use this Research Paper for historical information only as the Appendices are now out-of-date. The paper will not be revised.

Administration
Executive responsibility
The responsible Ministers, with selected adminstered legislation, are:

The Hon John Howard MP, Prime Minister.
Governor-General Act 1974

Senator the Hon Nicholas Minchin, Minister for Finance and Administration.
Parliamentary Allowances Act 1952, Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948, Parliamentary Entitlements Act 1990.

The Special Minister of State, The Hon Gary Nairn MP, has specific responsibility for administering some allowances and benefits under this legislation.

The Hon Kevin Andrews MP, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations.
Remuneration and Allowance Act 1990, Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973

The usual suspects are the ones who decide how much THEY get paid.

We need to listen to Des Moore.

Obviously as there are lots of unemployed people the potential employers are not willing to pay the costs of employing them.

There is plenty of work to be done - even though some of it is pretty menial - let an open wages market set the price without interference.

But, in our society everyone should be entitled to a reasonable income. That doesn't have to come from wages though. Let us say we decode tp guarantee every worker an income of $600 a week as a previous respondent suggests. Whatever doesn't come from a wage payment should come from a government transfer payment.

Those who choose to opt out of the workforce should get a "retirement"income, probably less than the $600 guaranteed to a worker, but enough to live on.

The "market"is real and can't be wished away by ideology. But a just society can supplement what the market offers.

How about this idea ..dont tax people that earn low wages so they get the keep the money that would get churned through the goverment system and paid back too them in benifits ..seem like a waste of effort ..after all everyone pays gst ..so any money you spend is taxed allready ..as low paid workers spend a larger proportion of there earnings just to live there effectively paying more tax in proportion to what they earn anyway .

I wonder if Mr Moore has ever attempted to live on the minimum wage. I have. It is not easy, and I struggled to keep my head above water. Eventually I managed by getting a second job. And I know several people who were in similar, or worse, finacial positions.

Moore also compares Australia to the USA. According to the US beureu of Labor Statistics, there were 7.8 million people who were classified as "Working Poor (see the wikipedia article for a good definition)" in 2004, although the figure is disputed (both as being too high or too low). People who are classed as working poor, are, more often than not, earning minimum wage or higher. People earning the minimum wage, yet living in poverty is not okay. This is not a situation we should emulate in Australia.

These statistics do not reflect the state of employment of many illegal immigrants, as pointed out by someone prviously.

Everybody deserves, to quote the unfortuante Kim Beazely, "a fair day's pay for a fair day's work". Unless the minimum wage gaurauntees this, particularly in a time of record low unemployment (if you consider 1 hour a week to be employed), how can we ensure that Australia does not gain a class of working poor?

isn't it possible that an increase in the minimum wage would increase unemployment, further increasing the difficulties for those currently on the minimum wage?

assuming a microeconomic story holds where firms understand their marginal product of labour and the wage level.

ok, so we have a firm with 10 employees. each employee produces a level of output that is gradually declining as a result of a limited amount of machines. if the output (or marginal product) of the 10th employee is worth $600 and minimum wage is $600, ok, firm keeps him/her as an employee. now, assume the pay commission determines real wages to be too low and increases the minimum wage to $700. all of a sudden, the benefit to the firm of hiring that 10th employee is gone. he/she is earning more than their marginal product. firm fires that employee. reviews the 9th employee only to discover that his/her marginal product is $650, fires them. moving on to the 8th employee determines their marginal product to be $700 so is indifferent but decides to retain them as an employee.

ok, so the minimum wage has increased, high-fives for the eight employees who remain. however, two employees are now unemployed. their transfer payments are less than the minimum wage so are actually worse off as a direct result of the increase in the minimum wage.

not everyone's a winner when the minimum wage increases.

Country Gal
"Is it just me or does this seem to be a really silly argument. Of course those employed on AWA's are better off than they are on Awards, because AWA's MUST be set above awards. What are you trying to prove with this one?"

Just wanted to remind you that this was the idea behind workchoices, to remove awards. There are only 5 minimum standards now, the minimum wage being one of them. So, as has been shown, employees can be offered/forced onto AWA's that are worse of than they had before, but still above the 'national award'. No overtme rates, leave loading etc.

And economist after economist reject the notion of any of this increasing jobs or lowering unemployment. All that can come of lowering the minimum wage is an increase in profits for business, perhaps at the expense of workplace productivity.

As an addition to BruceBruce's comments, I will point out that workchoices removes the "no disadvantage test", to which CountryGal refers. Legally, AWA's can be offered to employees that are worse than the current award. Thus, while CounrtyGal's comment may have been valild in the pre-workchoices world, it is not now.

Until 2002, I was a professional all of my life - both in clinical and academic spheres.

2002 - nursing accident assisting a patient. I was deamed unfit for nursing after that by QHealth (surgery did not work). I was not offered any form of rehabilitation or any other re-training.

I applied for multiple other positions during 2003 - anything that I could think of. I was not successful - probably due to my age and my disability.

I then developed Irritable bowel syndrome in March of 2004 - the most debilitating thing that I can think of for a person who truely wants to work. Going to the loo each am until around 12 mid-day is not fun!

I am writing this now because I am not sleeping because of diarrhoea. I suppose I am sorry for myself. I hate getting the disability pension - wow! $200 per week - is that below the poverty line?

I have recently (past three months or so) been doing volunteer work for a community NGO mental health service. I love it. But ugh! Have been away for a week due to IBS diarrhoea.

OK, I am sorry for myself
And yes, I have literally got the sh**s!

Cheers
Kay

FencePost, and I think, Des Moore, have brought up the idea of the government making up the difference between market wages and subsistence for low income people. The problem is that this scheme was tried (and failed) before, in early 19th century England (google 'Speenhamland system'). The taxes to support it were rates at the local parish level rather than federal taxes.

Wages were depressed because the employer knew that the parish would make up the difference between the wages he paid and what the worker needed to survive. Previously independent workers ended up in the system because they were unable to compete with subsidised labour, just as they are now often unable to compete with illegal immigrants or "workfare" clients. Labourers with a bit of property, say a small piece of land, had to sell it and consume the proceeds before they could get help. Social inequality grew.

As more and more people were drawn into the system, the rates went up and benefits were reduced. Eventually, the wages plus benefits were less than the wages alone before Speenhamland. Smaller employers were hurt more by the higher taxes than they were helped by the cheap labour. The real winners were the large scale employers with many employees. Eventually the system simply became unaffordable and collapsed, with the workhouse system being introduced in its place. Why does FencePost think the outcome would be any different now?

Indeed. Why should anyone but the employer pay for the labour from which they obtain a profit.

BruceBruce i think most economists would agree that allowing market forces to determine wage rates would reduce inefficiencies or 'unemployment' (be that equitable or not).

i'm not sure which economists in particular you were referring to but google 'phil lewis minimum wage'. he is one of the economists directly advising the fair pay commission.

Divergence has offered a strong critique of my suggestion that the market should determine wages and Government should make up the difference between the market price and a reasonable income.

I don't know how to respond effectively. I resist the argument that because it once did not work before (as per the historical example) that it could not work now. I mean, it is working now! For the unemployed the wages equal nil, and the minimum income is whatever the government benefits are, and we seem to accept this as viable.

There would certainly need to be some mechanism to prevent any exploitative employers paying less than the market (if that be possible) and relying on government to pick up the burden.

I fair minimum rate of pay is an amount that the average family can live on. People place to much confidence in market forces, do none remember the last two world market crashes. As for the stupid arguement about a $600 or$700 if the business is making so little profit that it could not afford that increase it should go bankrupt as market forces philosophy dictates, as it does not serve a market properly. Tory extremeists always want to force the "slaves" wage down so they can pocket more profit, how about a nice big "wage cut" for Des, I'm sure he'd enjoy that, wouldn't you Des?

Pell

I'm sure googling a patsy for the government will retrieve your desired result, but try replacing the name with 'economist' and add unemployment rate, and you will find some diversifying views.

But, I had digressed, and was referring to workchoices as a whole when I mentioned the unemployment rate, but still, it appears to be a more popular view that lowering the minimum wage would actually have a detrimental affect on not only the unemployment rate, but the siciety as a whole. After all, after a decade of "unprecedented rises in real wages", we still find ourselves with a worsening cost of living ratio. Making the cost of living worse for those at the bottom of the spectrum will create jobs how?

Only businesses with over 100 employees would be able to afford a new employee given a marginal cut in minimum pay, and, given that companies run with only the staff required, they will not hire another simply because the money is there, this would be re-channelled as "profit".

FencePost,

Under Speenhamland a worker could not get benefits unless he had a job. This is entirely different from the present situation where if an unemployed person is hired the employer has to (or did until recently) pay him award conditions. No doubt unemployment would be significantly reduced if wages were heavily subsidised, and staying unemployed would not be an option.

"Market wages" are a movable feast. The government can tighten up the labour market by giving older workers generous incentives to retire early or cracking down on child labour (in the countries that still have it). It can also flood the labour market with immigrants or guest workers, either openly or by winking at illegal immigration. George Borjas of the Harvard Economics Dept. has calculated that there was about an 8% pay cut in real terms for US unskilled workers between 1980 and 2000 because of mass migration (www.borjas.com). Whole industries can be exported overseas through outsourcing. The government can engineer high house prices to force mothers of small children into jobs. A truly free market in labour does not exist.

It is hard to see what mechanism could prevent the Speenhamland downward spiral. Once some businesses started exploiting subsidised labour their competitors would have to do the same or go under.

Q: How many economists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None. They're all sitting around waiting for the invisible hand of the market do it for them.

The parliamentary base salary is $118,950 per year, effective from 1 July 2006.

PRIME Minister John Howard has defended the latest pay rise for federal politicians, saying "smaller salaries will attract MPs of lower calibre".

Why is this different for low paid workers? If they had a decent wage they would be able to improve their lives not exist from day to day.

Hey Hey Ho Ho Nasty Johnny's got to GO.

Divergence and Fencepost are in dialogue, and I, Fencepost, have to accept that Divergence obviously knows a lot more than I about these matters.
An important issue seems to be that, if Government subsidizes wages through transfer payments, what is to stop employers from driving down wages in the knowledge that the taxpayer will eventually foot the bill. I don't know the answer. But it seems clear that the minimum wages are currently at a level where many are unemployed and the taxpayer foots the bill. Perhaps there does need to be a minimum wage, but determined not on the basis of what a family needs to live on but on the basis of what is required to secure maximum workforce participation. Then let transfer payment make it up to a decent income. If we have to have Government control, let the control level not be one which prices people out of the dignity of work.

Steve Madden “If they had a decent wage they would be able to improve their lives not exist from day to day.”

How patronizing.

If “they” were to consider their own circumstances and think beyond the immediate they could enrol in a course at some institution, (University, TAFE, correspondence school, whatever) to train or retrain, thereby investing in themselves and aspiring to greater incomes by having “marketable skills” to sell, rather than relying on some quasi-mythical minimum pay-rate to protect them from falling into chronic poverty.

It is the challenge to every employee to sell their worth just as it is the challenge of every employer to sell the benefits to employees of working for them (and there are plenty who cannot do that too).

As someone who has faced many “employment challenges” in my lifetime I can assure everyone, the worker who develops “marketable skills” will always have a better pick of jobs compared to the worker who sits back and expects the world to provide him or herself with any job, at minimum wage rates or not.

Col, who is patronising? Col pay attention. Society needs people who work as cleaners. Society needs people to care for the aged and the young. I could go on but i am sure most posters have got the drift. Now Col, heres the rub.
In a decent society these workers deserve a living wage. Got it.
No choices is all about ensuring these workers dont get a living wage.
That is why your mate Des Moore cops a bagging every time he pops his head up.

Col

How prey tell does someone working 40 hrs a week to keep a roof over the families head get to retrain?

Your simplistic post misses the fact that we need to pay even the "marketable skills challenged" a decent wage. This will allow them to consume, the holy grail of capitalism.

Failure to do this will result in divisions in our society, the cracks are showing already.

Hedgehog “In a decent society these workers deserve a living wage. Got it.”

We all have the right to decide to work or not. We all have the right to decide how much we will work for.

One way for people to improve their earning potential is to improve the skills which they offer.

I would hope you “Got It” that an individuals life is up to the individual and their earning potential is up to how much they are prepared to accept for their labour. A “decent society” does not need to interfere in the private commercial negotiations between employee and employer.

As dear Margaret Thatcher said

“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state”

By imposing a minimum wage, you are implying the state is, somehow “responsible” for wage rate negotiation, exactly as dear Margaret warns us against.

Steve Madden “How prey tell does someone working 40 hrs a week to keep a roof over the families head get to retrain” simple, do it on the weekends of evenings, just like most of us with tertiary qualifications had to do.

“Failure to do this will result in divisions in our society, the cracks are showing already.”

Hardly a compelling argument for the interdiction of the state.

The real “cracks” start when the winds of change blow against a rigid and immobile structure – the sort of structure which an interfering state builds from all that power which it accumulates from the pleadings of the insecure.

Experience and observation of the rigid economic structures in UK in 1970’s, where socialist government policy was dictated by unionists and payrises were banned in the national interest, displayed how far down the path to a dictatorship a country can travel in just a few years when the weak minded are running it.

Col,

The advice on getting ahead is of course correct so far as an individual is concerned. However, let's suppose everyone took your advice - ignoring the fact that many have IQs that are too low for much formal education or training. The cleaners, nursing home aides and so on would still be needed, and there would still be only so much opportunity at the top. A large population of educated young people who cannot get work or can only get work far below their qualifications leads to organisations like al-Q'aida or the Muslim Brotherhood.

It isn't good for any of us if the people who do the necessary menial work cannot live with dignity or meet their basic needs. My life might be easier if I had a slave, but I don't want it improved on those terms. I don't think that either a minimum wage or government top-ups to market wages is the answer (except in sheltered workshop situations - I agree with Fencepost about the value of work). I would say that we should make our politicians tighten up the labour market: decentralisation for cheaper housing, allowing mothers to work less or not at all if they have babies at home, training our own young people instead of importing skilled migrants or guest workers, an end to mass migration, and so on.

It is worth pointing out that 'lacemaker' was a euphemism for prostitute in Victorian England, because such women were so poorly paid that they often had to supplement their wages in this way.

Kevin Andrews,what this man knows about workers is just a joke,and now further waste of taxpayers money to give him an assitant,yes an assitant perhapds to teach him about workers

Why is it that Singapore has a much higher standard of living than its neighbours? Perhaps it is because the Singapore government has actively pursued the idea of higher wages for everyone rather than cutting the wages to a minimum? If you increase wages (through a higher minimum wage) then you give more people more money to spend which in turn gives more economic activity. Those jobs that are not worth doing because people have to pay too much to employ people will disappear - but so what. The people who are available will be able to be employed on jobs where their salaries are worthwhile. Increasing the minimum wage forces employers to find work that is worth doing for the wage they have to pay.

Col, u clearly just dont get it. Let them eat cake is your mantra. Your crap about the individual is sickening as it is transparent. It is nothing but code for exploiting the weak. Shame on you Col. I hope you never get down on your luck and have to live in the type of society you advocate for.

Col.

So now we all have to have a tertiary education to "sell ourselves for a job with decent pay".

Many many people do not have this choice, some cannot due to intellectual reasons, some like single parents cannot because of other responsibilities, some have chronic illness, some have disabilities and some are just plain stuffed after a heavy physical day.

You seem to be saying the market will fix everything, sorry it will only lead to misery and social dislocation.

divergence are you suggesting that everyone who works in the cleaning industry or in aged care has a low iq? is it possible that some of the workforce simply work jobs that satisfy them or they feel are rewarding? i agree with Col that people are responsible for their own training and placement and it's quite possible that a lot of labour in those industries find the work rewarding and 'what they wanted to do'.

what happens when people undertake training to further their own situation and there's a paucity of labour in any market? supply-demand, wage rises. this encourages people back to the market - the mechanism is driven by market forces here. not price floors.

ok, economics 101 - price floors create market inefficiencies. in the labour market this is unemployment. now i'm not saying that the minimum wage is a bad thing, in fact the unemployment it creates gives the working population an incentive to work hard. however, to advocate an increase in the minimum wage without considering the macro impact is rather short-sighted.

Shonga, you indicated that burdened with external pressures, if a firm collapses because of an increase in costs then it shouldn't be operating anyway. fair enough. so you're opting for unemployment so those employed have a higher wage. it is a trade-off and that's one option.

Brucebruce, to suggest that firms will simply 'absorb' these costs into their 'profit margins' isn't true. it's not macquarie bank paying minimum wage to a labourer on a construction site. it's not rio tinto paying minimum wage to a warehouse employee or woolworths paying minimum wage to a cashier. an increase in minimum wage will have a much greater impact on small business owners. those whose 'profit margins' don't make the front page of the financial review. those who will react to an increase in wages.

unfortunately it is a trade-off. it'd be great to be capable of lifting minimum wages and the standard of living and not experience a recession or a spike in inflation or higher unemployment but it's not the case.

How long is it since you've been paid the minimum wage, Mr Moore ?

peff,

I never said that all cleaners had low IQs, but just take a look at the normal distribution for the proportion of the population with IQs below 85, say. These people can hardly retrain as astrophysicists.

According to a study by Ingrid Lindsley that appeared last year, "Causes of Overeducation in the Australian Labour Market", nearly 30% of Australian workers are overqualified for their jobs, so retraining or getting more education is not a panacea.

In my opinion, tightening up the labour market would be of more use than the minimum wage. If our lower skilled (or even skilled) people are forced to compete with all of the Third World, then of course wages will be depressed.

Hedgehog “Your crap about the individual is sickening”

I am happy to rely on my view that “the individual is everything”, if we were to take your view, of individual subordination to the social collective, we would be in a more prickly mess than hedgehogs.

Stalin thought that individuals, except himself, should be subordinate and millions suffered and died as a consequence, I know of no one being disadvantaged by someone else exercising “freewill”

What most people like you seem to believe is your rights should preserved but other peoples should be curtailed because those others might make better life decisions and achieve more than you.

So keep your low views to yourself, I would rather associate with crap than socialism, from which the stink which pervades off the gross hypocrisy is a lot worse.

Oh and I have been, as you say, “down on my luck” a number of times, used my own resolve to overcome it and recover and (I think) grown from the experiences.

Steve Madden “You seem to be saying the market will fix everything, sorry it will only lead to misery and social dislocation”

We all have shortcomings, we all have to deal with them., It is part of growing into a whole individual. Certainly, such “growth” is the first thing to be lost if you look at developing some universal safety net designed to rectify every deficiency we each might have.

Re “other responsibilities of single parents”. As a divorced father of two, the last thing I would ever consider would be abrogating my responsibilities of being a father onto the state. It will always seem sad that so many people would rather “throw in their hand” and seek government intervention instead being responsible and “playing the hand they are dealt”.

As dear Margaret said

“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”

Col someone has to break this to you. You have grown into a bitter twisted soul. Your last ranting post seems like a desperate plea for help. Join us brother. Join us in our quest for a just society. Let go of your love and admiration for Dear Maggie,Cute Ronnie, Cuddly Idi,Gorgeous George and Hilarious Johnnie. Consider lending your hand to a nieghbour. Consider not voting in your own self intrest.Sit down and read Workchoices and the Independant Contractors Bill. Ask yourself what they really are about.If you cant concede the bleeding obvious, catch up with Des Moore , Bob Day et al at your next HR Nicholls Society meeting and have a nice cup of tea.

Col

Your superciliuos ravings about a moral society are a load of bollocks.

You are advocating survival of the fittest, a dog eat dog Australia where you endlessly chase the goal of a bigger share of the pie.

A fair days pay for a fair days work is all I ask.

I hope you feel well in your uncaring life, I also hope that real misfortune never affects you.

What you are advocating is called greed. Sad, greedy old Col what are you doing here? You should be studying, increasing your productivity not spewing sewage on OLO.

Steady on Steve. Col is just sticking up for Des.Yes Des, that greedy advocate for a dog eat dog society. Where Govt. keep there noses out of Corporations Business. Except of course when Govt is slavishly paving the way for more corporate plundering. Independant Contractors indeed.

When I hear someone say that you can help the poor by paying them only the crumbs left from the peanuts eaten by the bosses, I wonder from which etheral plain they get their thinking from. Obviously these people have absolutely no idea about being poor.

It is a hard situation to fix and jacking up wages or paying dust will not help. What we should learn is that such policy of abolishing the minimum wage will only lead to big business using this to increase company profits which entails yet another hefty salary increase and another gorgeous bonus because after all, two more trucks loaded with gold bullion just isn't enough.

As the wages go down, big business who control and manipulated the market for their own financial gain, will increase what we pay with some lame excuse but only to fill their pockets.

People, if we must have ideology, throw the zealous globalists and commies into the ocean without a raft and use the true ideals of fascism which is about allowing the state to run essential infrastructure and allow small business to run like normal. Allow the farmers to set the price, not big business. Allow families to live like people, not scavengers seeking out their scraps for the night or month.

There is no reason to end democracy unless the people are too short sighted and too selfish which tends to be the way in this so called civilised society.

Oh hedgehog” You have grown into a bitter twisted soul.”

Not at all, I am a particularly happy individual who is in control of his life and future and not needing to interfere, as you seem to want to do in the private decisions plans and strategies of people you do not know.

You are the one who introduced your low vernacular to the debate (eg “crap”). Such descent is typical of the know-it-all nobody who is frustrated with the life achievement (or lack there of). Bitter Twisted soul is merely you projecting your social inadequacies (just as your choice of expression “crap” projects inadequacies in your vocabulary).

Steve Madden “Your superciliuos ravings about a moral society are a load of bollocks.”

Like hedgehog, you display your own paucity of expression and poor spelling (mixed with a pretentious style of the wannabe).

“What you are advocating is called greed.”
Not at all – I am advocating self-reliance, the stuff which strengthens communities, instead of your dull minded leveler’s attitude of a "safety net" paid for by taxing personal incentive and innovation out of existence and thus, weakening the general community overall.

When you have something to say I will listen but I will not be holding my breath

Hedgehog “Independant Contractors indeed.”

I have spent over 20 years as an independent contractor, working across a range of industries and continents. I presently have more work than I can handle, based on achieving performance levels which more than satisfy my government and commercial clients. It is a good lifestyle where I decide who I will work for. That is better than being a frustrated nobody who begrudges other people success and independence – now, that is bitter and twisted

I suggest you find somewhere to crawl up and die and stop wasting good air.

Col

You really are a nasty little neo- fascist:

“The working class can kiss my ass, I have the foreman’s job at last” is one of your more enlightening comments. You imply that self reliance and a decent wage are mutually exclusive, I vehemently oppose your view.

I’m all right Jack, is your philosophy a philosophy of greed, arrogance, selfishness and ultimately the seed of your own miserable existence.

You seem to be arguing for the removal of any minimum wage, easy for you to do. As an individual contractor do you have a minimum rate for your services? Do you consider yourself “better” than others because you are self employed? Have you ever employed others?

I believe in giving others a helping hand to improve their lives, you want to trample them into the dirt so you can advance your own pathetic race for wealth.

Sorry Col you are completely wrong, find a time machine and return to Thatcher’s England where you can fit in with the other economic rationalist peanuts of the era.

“Reality hasn't really intervened in my mother's life since the seventies.” - Carol Thatcher, Margaret Thatcher's daughter

Has reality ever intervened in your life Col?

Steve Madden “You_really_are_a_nasty_little_neo-_fascist:”

And you are a pretentious, left wing tosser,

Now we have the niceties out of the way.

“I believe in giving others a helping hand to improve their lives, you want to trample them into the dirt so you can advance your own pathetic race for wealth.”

Oh how paternalistic of you –
I do not need to trample anyone, if you knew me you would realize how wrong you are but like most know-all socialist busybodies, you arrogantly proclaim to know what is best for everyone else and feel it your right to trample the rights of others into the dust to enforce your know-all view onto them.

As for ““Reality_hasn't_really_intervened_in_my_mother's_life_since_ the_seventies.” - Carol_Thatcher,_Margaret_Thatcher's_daughter”

Let us see what the net has to say about your source, Carol Thatcher

“She (Carol Thatcher) is known to have had an unsuccessful relationship in 1974 with Jonathan Aitken, now a convicted criminal who has served a prison sentence. Her mother kept Aitken out of her Cabinet…”

OR maybe “Dumpy and dull, she (Carol Thatcher) felt overshadowed by her more glamorous brother, whom she believed was always her mother's favourite.”

This suggests the malignant logic of a failed daughter is being projected onto her far more successful mother.

Carol Thatcher has never amounted to much, it is pitifully sad when you bring to the debate the ravings of someone who has achieved nothing as support for your pathetic reasoning in character assasination of a woman who you are not fit to walk in the shadow of.

As for “Has reality ever intervened in your life Col?”

You bet it does – I live with the reality of everyday learning to live with my limitations, enjoying life, doing what needs to be done and not asking for a handout from anyone.

I wonder if you can say the same or are you looking for that social safety net, which seems the best you can aspire to, to help you get your sorry ass out of a hole?

Col do I remember you saying on a previous forum that you are an English accountant without university training? You really are an anachronism in Australian society. Why don't you return to where you belong.

Col and I have rarely seen eye to eye on topics such as these, however his pompos attitude steals away his basic arguements, which is sad, I don't agree with those arguements, but would defend with my last drop of blood his right to make them.

Col, you are an exceptionally courageous man, with the hurdles you have overcome, and I pay tribute to you, and your sense of responsibility to your children. I know you are not interested that my IQ is 122, that I am totally and permenently disabled from a work related accululated accident, however I make this point. If you are bringing home the minimum wage trying to feed and cloth 3 children, paying rent, and having nothing left, how does one find $600 to accomplish a T.A.F.E. course, when working shiftwork. My wife is studying Nursing Science at university, as she won a scholarship, or it would have been economically impossible.

The cost of the text books alone has meant we have had to cut down to two small meals per day, this is the only way our family will be able to live instead of survive in the future,if Debbie manages to pass the course, if not we will simply exist. All the economic theory in the world is worth diddley squat if you have nothing to eat. Col has been fortunate that his own character has pulled him through, some of us are not built that tough, and need regulation to ensure our family eats. Perhaps if the federal government had spent some of it's $10.8 billion on R&D into solar energy, wind power, hydro electricity the businesses overhead costs could have been bought down making it easier to make a profit and pay minimal wages for services rendered?

So Col is an accountant, what a hoot :)

When was the last time you worked for a wage Col? How many tax minimisation schemes have you set up? Is your car leased through your company? Is your “home office” a tax deduction ? In fact do you pay any tax at all?

I realise that these forms of corporate welfare are perfectly legal, it is just that the PAYG tax payer does not have these options.

Would the lowering of wages be of benefit to you personally? Of course, your clients profits would be higher enabling you to charge more for your services. Once again your motives are based on personal greed.

Col you are not an independent contractor, not even a sole trader. From your posts you are a company director in partnership with another person. I suggest it is in your interest and those of your clients to drive wages to the bottom.

Did unemployment triple under Maggies first two terms of office? Did she reduce income tax and increase VAT effectively benefiting the wealthy?

I also suggest that you have no comprehension of the difficulties faced by those on the minimum wage. If you comment on this issue, as is your right, please do not distort your situation to back your untenable position.

No Col I am not looking for that social safety net, I am living with incurable leukaemia. I am fortunate to have worked hard all my life and now own my own home and car. I am debt free.

I play the hand I was dealt to the best of my ability. Unlike you I help others, I do not trample them for my own selfish, parasitic needs as you do.

Billie “You really are an anachronism in Australian society. Why don't you return to where you belong.”

I am a naturalized Australian and "where I belong", if you cannot deal with the diversity of our values (yours and mine) it is merely because you have none of your own, I suggest you leave, your absence would not even be noted.

Anachronism, a part of my income comes from developing new software applications used by commerce and a part of government, hardly “Anachronistic”

Steve Madden “How many tax minimisation schemes have you set up?”

None, I do not even do my own tax returns.

How many have you lusted after?

“Is your car leased through your company?”

No, is yours?

“Is your “home office” a tax deduction ?”

No, is yours?

I claim my tax agent costs and computer expenses though, but most of my income is generated through the development and deployment of software in commercial and government run facilities.

Costs incurred in the generation of assessable revenue are assessable deductions, just like depreciation is on a negative geared investment property.

“In fact do you pay any tax at all?”

Oh I certainly do, one of us has too.

“Once again your motives are based on personal greed.”

Oh so quick to assume and ready to categorize to suit your own pet theories and prejudice.

Regarding Margaret Thatcher, If unemployment increased it was because she stopped pork barreling nationalized industries, which the socialists had been featherbedding for years and which cost so much that innovation and development were lost on such a massive scale that the whole national economy was stagnating.

“I play the hand I was dealt to the best of my ability. Unlike you I help others, I do not trample them for my own selfish, parasitic needs as you do.”

You have no idea as to my personal philanthropy or what I do to help others. You are just sad and ignorant, someone who projects his inadequacies by blaming and vilifying those who do not agree or pander to your patronizing views and whims.

Col
You hit the nail on the head with “Costs incurred in the generation of assessable revenue are assessable deductions, just like depreciation is on a negative geared investment property.”

Why do you use revenue and not income? Is it because being a company director your income is not related to your companies revenue.

A small business I worked for had one employee, me. The business owner paid himself $1,500 per week. He paid his wife $2,000 per week (even though she did NO work for the business) the $800 a week rent on the house was paid by the business ( It was run out of the garage), the 5 series BMW was on a company lease as was the Prado Grande. The full time house keeper and child minder was paid for by the company. All legitimate assessable deductions.

My point is that people in your position have assessable deductions (corporate welfare), people on the minimum wage have very few if any deductions and their employers are more than willing to see them as expendable tools.

Col you never have answered my question about employing people and the fact you are not an individual contractor.

Oh I forgot, one other word to describe you Col, LIAR

Steve,
I follow your philosophy as strongly as you do, however to the best of my knowledge Col is what is termed as "a financial adviser" and from past disagreements with Col I have found through independent means that he is not a liar, merely a product of conservative thinking.JWH idolises Menzies, Col Thatcher.

With minimum wages to be argued over seems like pure hypocrisy to me when reading the story in yesterday's The Age newspaper entitled BHP's dollar-for-US-dollar pay rises where it is again thrown in our faces 25% pay rises for BHP's non-exectutive directors, some of whom also enjoy remuneration from other companies similtaeneously. BHP C.E.O. Goodyear {it's a good year every year for him} made $8.7 million last year, up $2.1 million on the previous year, and here we are discussing whether or not a Woolworths check out lady, who performs a valuable service, should be afforded a decent living wage.

I am not argueing that this immoral 63% increase in C.E.O.'s pay packets this year just gone is illegal, what I am saying is that if business can pay executives this way, and have legal tax deductions as well, what moral case can be mounted against a reasonable increase in the basic wage, to bring it up to a living wage. Does Australia really want to be known for the oppression and poverty of it's un-skilled and semi-skilled working class?

Col is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.Lets look at the history of Col's politics.

Do they have a history of helping people worse off than themselves?
Do they have a record of granting more freedom,improving living standards and fighting inequality?
Had they wanted the abolition of child labour?
Had they wanted the abolition of the slave trade?
Did they want to create the right to form trades unions?
Did they want shorter working hours or the establishment of a decent basic wage?
Had they wanted universal suffrage?
Did they want votes for women?
Did they want Medicare, universal state education, or anything else that improved the rights, power and prosperity of the majority of ordinary people in the world?
The answer Col, is no.
You are a self intrested shell of a human. You are also clearly not very happy given your constant nasty remarks to other posters who simply point out what a turd you are.

hedgehog,
As usual you are very difficult to argue with, presented with the facts. I'd say the prosercusion rests!

Steve, being called a liar by a deluded troll like you is no great upset, I suggest you get back under your bridge and contain yourself to trying to scare young children, such endeavours are more in your league.

Thankyou Shonga for your defence of me and the denial of the deluded ramblings and misrepresentations of Steve Madden, doubtless he see liars everywhere, it is common among those who simply project their own shortcomings.

Hedgehog – I notice you repeatedly used the term “they” in your last post,

Oh the big bad “they” (or “Them”).

Your piffling drivel is pitiful, a simplistic “Them and Us” debate in which, to excuse your own inadequacies, you presume that the “them” or “they”, somehow have a special advantage which you are denied.

You are partially right.

What you lack and “they” possess is strength of character.

When faced with a challenge of hurdle, “they” face and resolve to overcome it.

You whine and moan and demand the intercession of government.

Hedgehog, you wrote of me “You are also clearly not very happy given your constant nasty remarks to other posters who simply point out what a turd you are.”

The hypocritical pot calls the kettle black?

I am surprised GY has not pulled you up for flaming, none the matter, I will deal with you in his absence.

I will repeat, I am a very happy individual, the people who share their lives with me could confirm that, my partner, my business partners, my professional peers, friends, family and business associates etc. etc.

I am certainly a happier soul than you, who can only get himself up by fatuously speculating about someone you have never met, me (unlike your name sake, I do not dally around the hedgerow with small critters of the night searching for bugs and grubs to nibble on and where, doubtless, you would be well at home).

I do not seek or need to tell others how they must live, how much they are allowed to earn or even interest myself in who earns more than me. I am happy for people to make the best of their lives and respect me to make the best of mine, shame you do not share such a philosophy, instead applying your low vocabulary in vain attempts at abusing your betters.

I suggest as far as turds go, you are an expert, you continually expel them with every post and utterance, I think you would be a success with South Park, the inspiration for Mr Hanky.

So why do we have a minimum wage? To stop employers exploiting people with little wriggle room, and to stop desperate people from bidding each other down in a race to the bottom.

I understand the dole is about $12,500 a year? Roughly? And the minium wage comes in around $18,000 a year? So in theory, people prepared to earn, say, $14,000 are either being stuck on too little welfare or earning too much for their labour.

But think about it - is there ANY job, no matter how menial, or mind-numbing, that only deserves $1,500 PER YEAR more than the dole for WORKING full-time?

I know I would rather sit on my bottom than work all day for such pittance extra. By setting the minimum wage at a certain level, it encourages people to actually bother going for those menial, boring, low-status jobs. And makes them at least marginally worthwhile.

I understand the economics behind the 'but if people are prepared to work for less than we should be able to pay them that', but that dosn't make it ethically right, and in a wealthy country like Australia, we should not be trying to lower the wages of the poor.

Col

Thanks for your latest riveting addition to the discussion. My description of you as a LIAR is based on my reading of your posts on OLO, theage.com, politicalforum.com, smh.com and abc.net.au. (yeah I know I should get a life :)

You know exactly what I am refering to.

Your modus operandi hasn't changed in years has it, make an inflammatory comment, then when someone replies, cut and paste a part of their reply with your personal venom attached.

(I think this is referred to as being a troll).

Col how about answering specific questions and backing up your point of view?

Or are you an attention seeking nobody who deliberately disrupts fora for your own personal gratification. (as your history suggests)?

Now Col,
we both know we don't see eye to eye on these subjects, and that's democracy, I have no problem with that, and my dialog is basic as when I left school a Junior pass was what was expected of a student, only 30% went on to what they called senior, the average family couldn't afford to send their children to uni, even if they were bright enough to have gone. The one point I strongly disagree with in your previous post was "your betters" mate, education, money, material wealth, swimming pools or anything else does not make anyone better than the next person. In the eyes of God and the law we are all equal. I get a bit upset myself from time to time as you know, but I would never entertain the thought of being any better or worse than my fellow man.

Steve Madden “My description of you as a LIAR is based on my reading of your posts on OLO, theage.com, politicalforum.com, smh.com and abc.net.au. (yeah I know I should get a life :)”

Your accusation still lacks any detail to substantiate it.

All I can conclude is you are a delude weasel. Twisted and bitter beyond hope over your own deficiencies and shortcomings that you project your own capacity for lying onto those who challenge you own held view.

At least you would have gained some insight from reading my posts, scattered wide as they may be, I am surprised you did not come across me in the Pakistani Tribunal site (doubtless your research is as patchy and deficient as much of what else you do and write).

SHONGA “but I would never entertain the thought of being any better or worse than my fellow man.”

You are most likely right SHONGA, but when faced with trolls I am almost driven to place them into the social / intellectual / developmental ranking they deserve.

Thank you, for your candid observation to my ethicacy

See you were home alone on Sat. night Col. Hope you were counting all your money. I myself was out having a good time with friends.