on ya Col

Col R,
“…the world can work in one of two ways, either the “rollercoaster” and potential “freefall” of a free-trade, non-interventionist system or the tariff protected, embargo and quota system of a protected economy – but not both ways at the same time.” A stark choice of black and white - but not necessarily so.

Most professional disciplines appear to operate within a regulatory framework, whether it is in the financial service area, accounting profession or building industry etc. A dichotomy between non-regulatory/interference ‘systems’ vs the achieving of perfect autonomy emanates from pre-pubescence into adult hood. We all prefer autonomy, but often not its implied responsibility. Intrinsic to the idea of autonomy, at any level, is the maturity relating to the values implicit within either family or society. Implied is a certain ethical base or morality, if you like. In our Western culture, we can neither separate society from government, nor society from it s values, but ironically and deservedly so, ‘Church from State’.

Historically, over regulation is shown to be counterproductive; it encourages the corruption and societal injustices it seeks to eliminate. The over regulatory and repressive social agenda as found within the failed Communistic experiment stifles not only political and economic growth but personal freedom.

The amount of Government intervention applied within a democracy is always going to be contentious. Minimalist Government intervention, often taken as merely a philosophical standpoint, is nevertheless the ideal. The moral authority given to Government by society will always need to inform our ‘social-capitalism’. If institutions, corporations or businesses, however, are given full autonomy and regulated only by an amoral market place our function will become ‘valueless’

Alex, You are absolutely correct, “some understand and some do not”

That much has not changed but the work place has changed in the past 50 years from one “model” to another model or operation. Doubtless it will change as much in the future as it has in the past.

As for “Choice is the key, it is worth more than you can imagine, and we have it more than anyone else ever has. The last thing young people want is to give that up for some "job security"”

Absolutely, choice to negotiate our own terms; choice to decide where to put our superannuation (and not somewhere where either an employer or union can control it); choice to decide when to move on and not be tied into a system which expects 30 years of continuous employment before you die.

Alex, go for it and make the best for yourself, you are not responsible for the bad choices others will make and want to tie you down with. You are responsible only for your self.
By growing as an individual, your personally developed sense of philanthropy and compassion will determine who you then decide to help in life, not those who government have decided to “help” with the fruit of your effort.

Relda “Most professional disciplines appear to operate within a regulatory framework, whether it is in the financial service area, accounting profession or building industry etc.”

Agree absolutely Relda, my own being highly regulated and governed.
Similarly, “markets” have grown and existed since beginning of civilization.

The point, most professions, trades and markets are “Self-Regulatory”.
The notion that we need legislation or government to control labor wage negotiations as a “non self-regulatory” process is nonsense. With government interventionism and paternalism the vested interest and we have seen the way unions have pressured their minions in socialist governments is corrupt, for a process which should be “self-regulatory”.

With the shortage of workers at present, now is the time that “workers” can negotiate best terms, not when Keating was running with 12%.

I reckon we agree.

Thanks Bruce.

Hello again Col,

Markets have certainly grown since the dawn of civilisation, but do we desire the same market place as existing in ancient times or those of around the industrial revolution. Point being, we have evolved with structures containing certain values, anciently held, but spasmodically applied.

“…most professions, trades and markets are “Self-Regulatory”.” - Yes, but underpinned by Gov’t authority (e.g. ASIC).

Increases in award wages do not necessarily increase unemployment - as is demonstrated, they have actually increased by over $100 per week in nominal terms and by over $40 in real terms since 1996. According to Neo-Classical economics, these increases in award wages should have resulted in a fall in employment especially for award reliant workers. However, Australia has experienced strong employment growth since 1996. A minimum standard pays people what they’re worth without sacrificing employer bids for skills in demand.

Allowing employers to remove their ‘dead-wood’ is important, this however has little to do with basic wage or working conditions. A rise in the basic wage, for example, may cause manufacturers to dismiss some of their least efficient hands. As a result the efficiency of the average worker in employment is raised.

I’m unable to find anything to fault in section 88B(2) of the Work Relations Act, which specifically states (in relation to Australian Industrial Relations Commission):

In performing its functions under this Part, the Commission must ensure that a safety
net of fair minimum wages and conditions of employment is established and maintained, having regard to the following:
(a) the need to provide fair minimum standards for employees in the context of living
standards generally prevailing in the Australian community;
(b) economic factors, including levels of productivity and inflation, and the desirability of attaining a high level of employment; and
(c) when adjusting the safety net, the needs of the low paid.

CR,

You're on a safe bet there; you need never to provide proof of the merits of a self regulatory market because no one has.

Your belief in this appears to me more ideologically driven more than anything else. (as are all your OLO pronouncements)

You may recall Adam Smith’s ‘hidden hand theory’ that apparently matched supply to demand - therefore allowing markets to become self-regulatory.

But even Smith could not extrapolate and provide empirical proof that this hidden hand was real.

It's interesting to note that the current economic boom has been generated through a regulatory framework of labour mixed with deregulatory choices.

I for one don't thinks you can claim one side or the other is the most efficient.

More spin from the employers on OLO. What additional choices does Work Choices give to workers? Apart from the ability to “trade in” 2 weeks annual leave I can see none of the magical choices.

Reward for effort has always been there, over award payments were common. If I thought I was worth more pay for my efforts I would say so to my boss. Nothing has changed in this area by the introduction of Work Choices.

Individual agreements were available if you wanted, collective agreements were available if you wanted.

What we have now in fact reduces choices.

It really does not matter because Work Choices will be found to be unconstitutional as was Justice Higgins “Harvester Judgement” which established a minimum wage in 1907.

“The High Court found Higgins's decision constitutionally invalid because the legislation was essentially concerned with the regulation of employment conditions, a power not held by the Commonwealth Parliament and not capable of being supported by the excise power. The High Court further found a tax based on compliance with certain labour conditions which could differ from State to State was a discrimination within the meaning of section 51(ii) and a preference within the meaning of section 99.”

Plus it does not matter what the unemployment rate is at the next election, with higher interest rates and higher inflation Howard will lose, as has every Govt. that has increased two out of three of these indicators during a term in office.