Tristian,

I am constantly astonished with the guff that you write in these columns of yours. There are parts of what you've written which just come out as a lefty making lefty statements (which is fair enough - different people look at things differently), however there are times when you're of in the ideological wilderness.

"Enabling workers to bargain collectively must be part of this strategy - including acceptance of the legitimacy of pattern bargaining"

The legitimacy of pattern bargaining? Are you serious? One person getting (presumeably) and increase in pay becaue they work in an industry, irrespective of how (a) they personally perform; and (b) how the business they belong to is performing; is legitimate? I would love to see you justify why a person A, who works (poorly) for company ABC should recieve a payrise because they work in the same industry as person B who excels for company XYZ.

Let't take a simple example: Person A works for a corner deli. They don't work hard, however the deli (which is struggling financially) needs to keep them on because we have a labour shortage.

However Person B works for the IGA up the road and the IGA is profitable. Under pattern bargaining, the corner deli would have to pay the increase that Person B gets, irrespective of whether they can afford it.

Is this really your stance? In your crusade for "compassionate and just response to inflation" you'd just trample all over small business - the largest employer in the country?

There are plenty of other things to pick on in this 5 page piece of guff, however if this is indicative of your stance on things then your poosition is riddled with these impracticalities. We must all get on our knees and thank the lord that you're not in charge. I pity your students.

BN - the problem of prohibiting pattern bargaining is that the 'law of the jungle' can lead to a 'race to the bottom'. Without solidarity, it is difficult to maintain standards - especially with the weakened - and less-comprehensive - system embraced by the Federal government.

There are many ways of supporting business - without depending on the 'race to the bottom'... (eg: tax incentives) The problem with labour market deregulation - is that who knows where it will end? Take the US example - minimum wage approximately $6/hour...

most sincerely,

Tristan

Sorry Tristian, but that's rubbish.

Sparate employee groups negotiating outside of a "pattern" does not equate to a race to the bottom. There is no truth in that whatsoever. As an example, look at the mining industry where the average (or was it mean?) salary is now more than 100K a year inspite of individual negotiations. There is no race to the bottom there.

And you haven't answered my question from my previous comment: Are you willing to trample over small business in the name of a "compassionate and just response to inflation"?

You mention tax incentives: How is that going to help the small business in the scenario I outlined above? If they're already on the fringe of going backwards then what's the incentive going to be? An offset of the additional wage cost? How then do you work out which businesses will get that "incentive" and which ones shouldn't get it, and how much they should get?

What you're really suggesting is a bloated and inefficient government loaded with interventions into what is a private enterprise (the corner shop), all in the name of an unrealistic practice which has no place in the modern world (pattern bargaining). Think about the reporting load you'd need to put on the small business to meet the calculations so that the government would work out how much of a "tax incentive" they'd be entitled to.

As I said in my previous comment, it's hopelessly impractical and really belongs in ideological la-la-land.

It is astonishing that an article loke this can be published in 2008, as anything but satire.

It contains nothing of substance, just mealy-mouthed cant about the evils of capitalism, set about with a miasma of supposition and emotional dross.

This article is, at base, a form of Schadenfreude. Gloating over the present economic gloom, confident that it was caused by capitalism, and must perforce require a return to loony-left socialism.

But hold on. Where exactly is the fire?

For an article dedicated to a "cost of living crisis", it provides precious little by way of evidence that a crisis even exists at all.

But let's assume for a moment that we are enduring some form of crisis. What does the author offer as a cure?

To counter the high cost of oil?

"tax and welfare reform, and reform of industrial relations"

Yeah, that should do it.

Against the high cost of housing finance?

"investment in public housing stock could increase supply, bringing housing back within reach of ordinary Australian families, and also for the poor and vulnerable"

Gee, that was pretty easy.

Where are these homes to be built, by the way? Close to work, of course. And just who will subsidize them? The taxpayer, presumably, following the "tax and welfare reform".

That's all right then.

>>A revolution in transport infrastructure, and in the adoption of hybrid and electric vehicle technology - can provide better value and efficiency even while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.<<

Taxpayer-driven technology revolution?

Of course, government is renowned for encouraging innovation.

>>abandoning “Public Private Partnerships”, and turning to public debt financing and provision of infrastructure, can provide better value and fairness for consumers and taxpayers.<<

Back to the taxpayer. You're going to need him more and more, as interest rates zoom skywards.

Livin' is so easy, in a social paradise.

If it wasn't so sad, it'd be funny. Every single "remedy" offered will mire the country deeper into recession.

What is really needed is a lower-taxing regime that encourages innovation.

Regrettably, none of these concepts appears in the socialist economic lexicon.

Pericles - you make a real mess of my arguments there - cutting and pasting out-of-context to serve your own purposes...

Of course welfare reform isn't going to rectify peak oil... As I think I mention, this is now factored into economy structurally... In the long term reform of the transport sector is necessary. (see an earlier article of mine dealing with a 'transport revolution'....

ON the other hand, the most vulnerable will only be compensated for such developments by labour market regulation, tax and welfare reform, and a stronger social wage...

This isn't 'loony-left' stuff here - for many people it is a matter of survival...

And in no way do you deal with the fact that public finance is cheaper to secure than private finance..and that it is both more effecient - and can be fairer - than the PPP system...

You also mock the notion of expanding supply in the housing market - but have no reasonable alternative to offer...

That an $8 billion injection is seen as too much - or the domain of some 'loony left' - shows where we're at in this country... The economy - remember - is now valued at over $1 trillion... If we cannot afford $8 billion - considered in that context - what can we do?

There are several 'big ticket' infrastructure and service projects - that government can still provide more fairly - and more efficiently - than the private sector...

And that you deny a crisis - in face of skyrocketing oil, grocery, housing prices - and 'user pays' private infrastructure - I think you should be looking carefully at your arguments...

But at least you decided to make your opinion plain - that being one of the roles of this site I believe - and it's good to have an open exchange...

sincerely,

Tristan

Tristan

I agree there are solutions of sorts within the capitalist framework. But they will always be inadequate. For example how do we address the fact many people are low paid? Your suggestion - to increase their pay - is one temporary solution. But only with the aboliton of human labour as a commodity can we really address this - and become truly human.

The real issue to me is the wage slave relationship. Until that is overthrown and with it the manic and destructive drive to accumulate, we cannot move to a society based on satisfying human need and full democracy.