I would be interested in statistics showing the pattern of weekly incomes and hours worked by wage earners earning $60,000 per year or less. The numbers of workers in each $10,000 bracket might also be interesting, as would the age distribution of workers in these income brackets.

I'm wondering how much the "average wage" might be skewed upward by the mining sector of our labour force.

A graph showing the distribution of earnings over the range I have suggested above might put handsome sounding figures in clearer perspective.

Likewise, graphs of hours worked per week by the lower-paid beneficiaries of "full employment" would be illuminating.

Sir Vivor, I agree it would be interesting to view such statistics; there is not enough information for us to rationally gauge the legitimacy of Federal Governments claims for the need of reform to foster apparent economic imperatives… I just don’t understand why the Federal Governments being hesitant and even refusing to release such data on the impact of its industrial relations changes, while they are more than happy to assert in Parliament that they have been good for the economy and workers.

I can't for the life of me imagine how anyone could vote the Government another term on the back of WorkChoices.

It is a fundamentally unAustralian law that pits worker against worker for the benefit of corporate profits.

The argument that it enhances flexibility and therefore will increase economic growth is great so long as the world wants Australian commodities and skills are in short supply, giving some workers bargaining power. My fear is what happens when the inevitable down turn comes. Those who had bargaining power will discover to their cost that they no longer do so. Employers will lay off thousands and screw down the wages and conditions of those who get to keep their jobs.

Parents would do well to consider the the impact of these laws on their children's working lives.

I'm afraid WorkChoices is a gun to the head of the Coalition. Stubbornness or arrogance or shear bloodymindedness is going to ensure that the government pulls the trigger and ends it's own tenure.

Howard's overreached with the extremist Workchoices, to be sure. But he intended to, in the expectation that Labor will roll it back to an extent when they get in.

But the coalition probably won't really be caned for Workchoices until the next recession. And because of the booming Chinese economy, that could be a generation away.

He's more likely to lose at the end of this year because of a "time for a change" public mood.

I think you're right grn.

WorkChoices is just one of many "negatives" that surround this government at the moment. Some of the others are...

interest rate rises, sycophancy with the US, Iraq, lack of alternative popular leadership within the Coalition, moribund climate change response, water fiasco, policy on the hop (eg Super Hornets), relationships with the states, perceptions of arrogance and tiredness in Howard, perceptions of hubris in Costello, failure to fix infrastructure bottlenecks, etc, etc, etc...

Can anyone add to the list?

Ten years ago I was fearful for the future employment prospects of my young teenagers as well as my own.

Today my daughter,who studied music, has an unskilled fulltime job earning in excess of $700 gross each week. Her tax is less than that she would have paid 10 years ago.

My son is in fulltime study. He works part time with me and between us we earn more than double my daughters weekly pay.

When keating was PM I lost one business and was on the bones of my ....! My loss was directly attributable to his ignorant belief he knew what was best for us all and at the time of his infamous claim 'this is as good as it gets'.

Nahhh you've all forgotten that.

Throughout John Howard's steady stewardship I've battled but at 50 odd I'll soon be able to retire to a small business opportunity that involves my great love and, more importantly my childrens' futures are pretty well assured.

Stuff all you ingrates, I'm no whinger, I'm going to show some gratitude where it's due. And if you think this labor mob is any different to keating's ragtag rabble of socialist ratbags you are going to be sadly disappointed.

The statistics that are usually bandied about are -

The average income is about $60,000
The mean income is about $38,000
The median income of all Australian adults is $26,000
The top quintile of incomes start at about $80,000

As you know mean and average mean the same thing. So I think the median income of wage and salary earners is $38,000.

Keith, will you put your daughter on an AWA when she comes to work for you in the face of deteriorating pay and condtions, especially in the unskilled sector? Not everybody's daddy has business that they can go and work for when times get tough.

Mate, the service station down the road from me sacked it's entire workforce and replaced them with junior workers on god only knows what kind of terms. One of the sacked workers held up her certificate for employee of the month that she had recently recieved.

Guess the boss was only paying lip service eh?

This is only the tip of the iceberg, the longer these obscene laws exist, the worse it will get, intitally in the already low-income sectors, but spreading to most other places in the event of an economic slow up.

Don't tell me Howard has Aussie workers best interests at heart, because I am seeing the opposite with my own eyes.

Ah Keith, as a student of history you obviously need to be reminded of the 22% interest rates under Malcom Fraser in the early 1980s. I don't have too much trouble remembering, as my wife's family lost the family farm when they couldn't afford to pay the interest on the overdraft. Funnily enough, the incompetent idiot who was Federal Treasurer from 1977 to 1983 is still in Parliament. His name? Yes, that's right. JOHN WINSTON HOWARD.

Incidentally, Paul Keating is no longer in Parliament, but "Honest John" still is.

Happy sailing!

Let's look at some hard nosed realities here.We either stop tarrif reductions and don't have cheap imports or absorb new technologies.The latter means we become an isolationalists state that does not want to compete on a global stage.This means poor quality goods and services as happened in the old USSR.

Our balance of payments deficit implies that we are not paying our way in terms of producing goods and services at competitive prices.Japan and Korea produces far superior motor vehicles at competitive prices than Aust or the US.

There is a "real fork in the road" that Labor fails to confront.We either become more competitive and pay for cheap imports upon which we ride upon the sweat and low wages of countries like China,or we become isolationists and wallow in ignorance with it's resultant poverty.

The real downside for the unskilled/uneducated in our western countries is that the likes of China and India have great masses of poor people that will keep world living standards low,since there is not enough energy or resources on the planet to support all people in the state of our present economic prowess.China and India will have great masses of cheap labour to draw upon for many decades to come and we will suffer more pain as a result.

When too many people fight over diminishing resources and energy,hardship does increase.

The "Bridge too far" does become a "fork in the road" that Kevin's perceptions,does not have the courage or honesty to confront.

Like it or not on election night conservative Australia will begine the debate on why they lost after such a huge mandate.
It will not be workchoices alone that can take the blame, it however was never part of Howard's mandate.
It however proves that we miss judged the man, even his enemy's said he was in touch with the Australian people, clearly he never was.
His greatest help came from poor leadership and direction in my party the ALP.
We now have both and conservative Australia should review a very long list including climate change workchoices the impending total failure in Iraq and an aging gentle man who thinks lie is spelled plausible denial, and that he alone knows it is not true.
Conservatives may well remember a far different John Howard than the one they blindly follow today after his hand crafted train wreck of an election.

I have read and re-read Arjay's first paragraph, and cannot find the sense in it. The best sense I can make of it is to assume "former" was meant, rather than latter.

Even so, I'm wary of reducing the problem to an either-or proposition which is then used to justify further simplified analysis and pessimistic fatalism.

"Let's look at some hard nosed realities here.
We
either
stop tariff reductions and don't have cheap imports
or
absorb new technologies."

The latter means we become an isolationist state that does not want to compete on a global stage.

This means poor quality goods and services as happened in the old USSR."

Put more simply,Kevin Rudd's view of IR reform as being "the bridge too far", does not does not consider the two choices ie "fork in the road" of either we go broke slowly and let the balance of payments worsen,or we become more competitive in order to keep industry here.

Many talk about all living standards on this planet rising,however that is not possible with too many people and diminishing resources/energy.Do we slow the rate of tarrif removal or even increase tarrifs in some areas in order keep industry and jobs.
It will be long time before China's low wage rate of $1 per hr rises significantly because of the enormous pool of cheap labor at hand.

We do not have a well balanced economy and when things do get tough again,we will have no means of supporting our extravgant Govt bureaucracies,social security or health systems.

Our Labor NSW Govt has done everything in it's power to destroy small business and still to this day lives in denial about it's stupid policies.The Iemma/Carr Govts have developed policies driven by fear of litigation and Union insanity.Why would business stay in NSW?

Our resources boom will prove to be our future poisoned chalice since real reform of Govt/PS,IR and business won't have kept pace with our competitors.

Workchoices is truly a croc. John Howard is quick to point out that it will create more jobs but avoids the fact that these jobs pay inferior wages under inferior conditions.

Example: My friend works at a pub. Her boss offered her work collective a small pay increase if they signed off on allowing new workers to be employed under AWA's. They took the pay rise. Funnily enough, they don't get weekend or public holiday shifts anymore because the new workers will do it for a third of the price. Worse, they put the drink prices up around the same time they started employing bartenders on $15/hr with no penalty rates or loading or laundry allowance. Do you think those kids are thanking John Howard for their good fortune? - Nope.

Everyone seems to know someone who has been affected by Workchoices (well at least every young person). I'm lucky, my pay conditions are set by a collective agreement - although it seems as though these GOOD jobs are getting harder and harder to find.

I think the author has overlooked the importance of awards in industrial relations. The purpose of awards may have once been a "one size fits all" approach to work place relations. But in dismissing the awards as such, the author neglects the importance of awards in manitaining minimum conditions in an industry.

Both EBA's and AWA's, pre-workchoices, needed to pass the "no disadvantage test". This was a condition to ensure that collective and individual agreements did not short-change employees. This test is no gone. Provided the five minimum conditions are met (3 of which do not apply to causal workers), the agreement is legal.

Awards are vital for mainting minimum standards.

As an anecdote, I've been on an AWA. I was paid $9.70/hour (pretax) to haul large boxes around. The work was hard, and left me with just enough cash to get through the week. I could barley keep up with rent, and couldn't afford my uni textbooks. My story is not particularly unique.

Workchoices is not short term legislation. It is long term legislation that is designed to shift the balance of power to employers favour gradually. The "sky hasn't fallen in" yet, as Joe Hockey has stated, but conditions and job stability for those in low paid, menial and unskilled labour will most likely get work, particularly if the economy encounters turbulence.

Arjay said: "Put more simply,Kevin Rudd's view of IR reform as being "the bridge too far", does not does not consider the two choices ie "fork in the road" of either we go broke slowly and let the balance of payments worsen,or we become more competitive in order to keep industry here."

True competitiveness is measured by productivity. As demonstrated both here and abroad, deregulating the labour market does not necessarily lead to greater productivity levels. In fact, in the first six months since WorkChoices, productivity growth went backwards by a further 1.6 percent.

Once again, I concur that the the balance of payments crisis needs urgent attention. Australia now seem permanently trapped in Banana Republic territory. However, Rudd isn't responsible for the Howard Government's failure to address our negative savings rate. He isn't responsible for the Howard's Government failure to encourage more investment in new export and import-replacement industries needed to service our growing debt. He isn't responsible for the Howard's Government failure to address infrastructure constraints. He isn't responsible for a tax system which encourages investment in the debt-intensive property market at the expense of more productive areas of the economy.

Mr. Howard came to the "fork in the road" and went into reverse.

John Howard must go! He has stripped Australian workers of their rights, fought for over the last 100 years. He has taken the term 'thrown onto the scrap heap' to whole new levels for the over 50's unemployed in this country. You can't go any lower than homeless! When are Australian voters going to vote this idiot out, before the damage is to great to repair?

The choices are these,we either select areas we think we can compete in and maintain tarrifs in accordance with the poor wages that third world countries pay their workers,then we can have a truely level playing field,or we lower our living standards to theirs in order to keep industry here.IR is about giving employers the upper hand so our industries will remain competitive.

There is no doubt that our country is bleeding to death with industry rapidly relocating where labour is cheapest.I think our Govt's solutions have been too simplistic.There are no level playing fields.Everything is weighted towards the countries where labour is cheapest.There is no such thing as a level playing field.There are no international rules by which businesss and their workers play by.Would we play The World Game under such conditions?If so,this would mean players could use rocket launchers on their opposition.

A chinese manufacturer near me has relocated in China and pays his workers $1 per hr.There are at least 100 workers waiting outside his factory waiting to take their jobs if they falter.How do we compete against that?

Why not maintain a degree of tarrifs and at the same time give tax incentives to businesses who remain here and use high tech solutions to combat India's/China's unlimited sources of cheap labour.There are not enough resources and energy in the world to raise third standards to that of ours,so why do we want to lower ours to theirs when we have enormous natural resources and a small population?

If the Coalition do not wake up and see some of the unfair aspects of IR and the future potential to create a serf culture once again,they will lose the next election and we will be left with a lame duck party comprised of Rudd's Duds.

Sir Vivor: "I have read and re-read Arjay's first paragraph, and cannot find the sense in it. The best sense I can make of it is to assume "former" was meant, rather than latter."

I agree, Sir V. But since he doesn't appear to have acknowledged your comment, one wonders whether Arjay actually comprehends or cares. While there is an obvious intelligence in there somewhere, it usually expresses itself in somewhat obtuse terms.

Tak: "Workchoices is truly a croc."

If you mean that it is a living policy dinosaur, that is toothsome, slimy and a threat to unwary humans - well then I agree with you absolutely :)

If you meant that Workchoices is truly a crock, I would concur without reservation. I say this as a small business owner and employer of casual staff.

Sorry Arjay - I was a bit hasty there.

Having reread your last post I think I may have been a bit harsh on you. I agree that a better compromise between a global free-for-all and local protectionism is both possible and necessary.

One of John Howard's greatest gifts to the Australian people is Bank Fees.

Under his PM ship bank fees have started virtually at zero and now exceed 10 billion $ per annum. And climbing faster than CPI.

Why doesn't anyone raise his part in not only allowing this, but actively encouraging it. Home affordability has gone out the window under Howard. Bank Fees are the unseen weapon he bashes families with, and he smiles.

With the GST on top Howard has destroyed more families than the Black Death did all those decades ago.

I'm still waiting to see what Union proposals Rudd will foist upon us?

Robyn ,it was Keating who deregulated the banking system.They should never have sold the Commonwealth Bank.It should have been corporatised and the profits used for infrastructure.

The GST was a mistake,the states got more taxes and just grew their bureaucracies.There was supposed to be a trade off in reduction of other taxes.It never eventuated.Tax is the drug of big Govts who increasingly make us dependant upon them.

Mark Davis in the Sydney Morning Herald today http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/working-poor-total-almost-a-million/2007/04/15/1176575687722.html
reported that there were 1 one million working poor living in households where at least one adult has a job.

The minimum wage is $13.46 per hour.

"The low-paid employees were concentrated in labouring, clerical and services roles and worked mainly in the hospitality and wholesale and retail trade industries. They spent a significantly higher proportion of their household budgets on necessities - food, housing, clothing, utility bills and transport - than the average household."

In my view WorkChoices will be a thing of the past if just the right people are bothering to pursue JUSTICE!
Not until last week did I have time to read the 14 November 2006 judgment of the High Court of Australia, as I was busy finishing other books and have them published and now having started on my next book, due to be published next month about WorkChoices legislation I had to read the judgment.
Well, my book in Chapter 22 sets out why the judges went so of the rails and why there is no doubt by me that the decision will be overturned.

See also my blog http://au.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH

If I had been a Member of parliament I could have on my own prevented, using constitutional grounds, the amendment Bill (WorkChoices) to have even been put to a vote, as while it takes a majority to pass a Bill it takes only one person to prevent a Bill from being permitted to be voted upon using the correct procedure.

It is terrible that with so much suffering to many innocent people, even loosing their homes because they cannot service their mortgage, lawyers appearing before the High Court of Australia never bothered to appropriately pursue the case.
Even so I was not at Court and neither read their submissions, the High Court of Australia judgment makes it all too clear how narrowed the lawyers presented the case.

So, instead of winging about the problems with WorkChoice I spend the past week working on exposing what is wrong with the legislation as well as the Courts judgment. Now it is up others to use it and then have the judgment overturned.
Those who desire to have a copy of this Chapter 22 of my book can get it by email, at no cost, as such it is not some sales gimmick.

See also my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com

Arjay. I made no mention of who deregulated banks in OZ. Where did you come up with that?

What I said was that Bank Fees have gone from virtually zero to what they are today. Under Howard. Clear? Deregulation does not mean you allow banks to rip off customers forever at an ever increasing rate, outstripping CPI by at least double, per annum. To Howard it does obviously.

If you wish to point out the government who made major changes to the future of our economy then point to Labor. They are the ones who gave Howard today's supposed good times.

And the statement about 22% under Fraser. It was indeed and the Treasurer at that time was....John Howard. A record he is so proud of but won't talk about. Well said Johnj.

GST was no mistake. Howard's 25 year dream in fact mate. Both major parties love it and it won't be going anywhere except up.

Keith seems to have read some pamphlets distributed at union rallies. By conservatives. Seems to have regurguitated all the labels they provided him with.

Belly seems to want to rewrite history. No one said Howard was in touch with the people, except Liberals of course. What they said is he knows how to appeal to many at election time, buying votes. Try research Belly.

Anyone who supports No Work Choices should check out the AWA's revealed today which state no pay rise for the duration of the AWA. Five year agreements. Now what fool would sign that in the first place? Only someone who had NO WORK CHOICE. Howard's legislation is a farce but it will stay around long term as all legislation mostly does. Labor will find it useful too and will keep the bulk of it, as usual.

Again though I find the issue here to be barracking for one major or the other. They are both the same and will operate identically in power. There is no choice if you vote for either.

It should be kept in mind that it is all about power and while the major parties are bickering, as they always do, in the end the constituents are ending up worse, regardless which political party or parties are in power.

In my view, if everyone were to vote for INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE, even if it was only once, then the major political parties would get a shock like anything and find that their cozy arrangements of keeping power is cut down.
They may just then get the message that people are fed up with their lies and deception.

The current problem is however that people are too gutless to speak with their head instead of with their wallet.

So many people voted for the Liberals and now may have just found to have lost their job and family home and perhaps their family gone to pieces because when they voted for John coward they had based their mortgage payments upon security of employment. Well, since then WorkChoices came in and with either a reduced incomes (despite working the same hours or more) or having lost their job altogether (so the employer could hire staff on AWA at a cheaper rate, they lost the ability to pay their debts.
I have personally no problems with WorkChoices as it doesn’t affect me. I have no debts and so in that regard can live comfortable but like hell do I like it to see others suffering. The fact that it doesn’t harm me doesn’t mean I should ignore the suffering of others.

So often we hear employers not having put it in and when they go broke the workers have lost their monies. If this is JUSTICE then perhaps I came from another planet, after all I was an “alien” coming to this continent.
Time and again we hear about pensions being duped and all their superannuation gone, and this underlines the crooks are plenty and getting away with it and what about those having lost the lot. Lets try to deal with this problem! Is that too much to ask?