It was announced about 3 weeks ago that the company that makes Bonds clothing would be closing down part of its operation with the loss of 1850 jobs. Whilst the workers there do the hard physical work that keeps the company profitable and/or afloat, they have been repaid with a loss of a job and possibly their entitlements as well.

Compare this with Sarah Murdoch and the other celebrities who have featured in Bonds ads over the years. Presumably they did not do this for nothing. She gets good money for simply posing in front of a camera, no shedding of sweat, but just to look her lovely self. It is completely unfair that such disparity between effort and reward occurs. It is also pretty un-Australian.

Seeing as the Sarah Murdochs of this world have already got their squillions, how about they donate all the dough they made from the ads to the workers that are doing it tough or that may be missing out on their entitlements etc. It might buy the workers some time to find their next job. If they can’t find one, it will go towards making their retirement a touch more comfortable.

Trouble is RobP it is not Sarah Murdoch's fault that Bonds is moving offshore. She did a job and got paid a fee at the market rate.

Is it fair that a person gets paid a squillion for modelling? No it isn't but our whole economic system values the work we do on what the market dictates. Is a model worth more than a nurse? Most would argue NO but in this economy a model will make a business a lot of money by appearing in their Ads, a nurse won't. This is the unfortunate reality.

Yes it would be nice if she donated her money to the workers just as it would be nice if I donated money to the workers, or any other person.

It is entirely up to her. I suspect she and her husband do donate to many other worthy causes.

What's with the sudden interest in what one specific company is doing.

What they have done is no different from what many other companies have been up to over the last decade.

I would speculate that, without using people like Sarah Murdoch to advertise their wares, Bonds wouldn't have experienced the economic success they have over the years. Yes, they are a household name, but that alone isn't enough to entice people to buy Bonds undies. So, in a way, Sarah Murdoch has helped secure jobs until now. Should she give money back? I don't think so.

Should the tradies that got called into the factory for various jobs over the years pay their money back too?.

People often hate me because I'm beautiful too.

Nobody objects to a smart man earning money from his natural gifts. But a beautiful woman is somehow undeserving because her beauty is natural.

The smart man reads and educates himself to magnify his natural intelligence. Very noble. A beautiful woman spends hours at the gym and spends lots of time on her appearance. She's a shallow troll!

'She gets good money for simply posing in front of a camera, no shedding of sweat, but just to look her lovely self. It is completely unfair that such disparity between effort and reward occurs. It is also pretty un-Australian.'

un-Australian? Do you work for A Current Affair?
I'm sure she sweats her ass off at the gym, and looks mighty sexy doing it too.

I did a quick survey of the Bonds product in our household - predominantly my son's underwear - and found that every single item was made in China.

This prompted a little more research, and I quickly found a 2007 paper from Victoria University's Centre for Strategic Economic Studies...

www.cfses.com/documents/wp29.pdf

...that provides a little more perspective, with less jingoism.

According to the report, full-time employment in the broad category "Textiles Clothing Footwear and Leather Industries" fell by 60% in the twenty years 1985 to 2005, from 104,800 to 42,800 workers.

More sepcifically, the local garment and garment-related textiles production industries in 2007 employed 29,748 people, a 25% fall from 2002.

I guess that these figures take on a fresh perspective in the face of an economic downturn, but it is a bit precious to turn on the advertisers and the talent they employ, when a trend that has been in place for decades, simply continues.

Did anyone complain that they were selling Chinese clobber before the latest round of sourcing adjustments? Don't recall any.

Incidentally, I found this to be one of the more thought-provoking statistics from the report:

"Household expenditure data (ABS 2006b) reveals that the three lowest income quintiles spend respectively AUD$12.75, $19.50 and $30.68 per week on clothing, whilst the upper two quintiles spend AUD$46.40 and $67.07 per week. Only in the highest income quintile does weekly household expenditure on clothing exceed expenditures on alcohol and cigarettes."

Imagine the outcry when we find ourselves drinking Tsingtao and smoking Jingjieyuxi...

"Nobody objects to a smart man earning money from his natural gifts."

Society should be just as critical of a man's worth as a woman's. Just in case people think I'm picking on her because she's a she, I'd say exactly the same thing about Ian Thorpe or any other male in the stellar celebrity category.

I'm not from A Current Affair and I'm not in a union.

These issues are not new, but the Bonds example just provides a lightning rod for years of frustration of ordinary people.

Come on you guys (apart from Pelican), you know what the issue is I'm trying to raise here. Is it actually fair that the people who do the work and get their hands dirty only receive the measly crumbs off the table? Deep down I think we all know the answer.

"I guess that these figures take on a fresh perspective in the face of an economic downturn, but it is a bit precious to turn on the advertisers and the talent they employ, when a trend that has been in place for decades, simply continues."

Sounds like a bit of a wimp-out, Pericles. So, if some people have disproportionally, and in some cases unfairly, profited from ordinary workers before, that makes it OK for it to continue? It still doesn't address the issue of why people who only HAPPEN to be sitting at the top of the pile get the lion's share of the rewards. You wouldn't be one of them by any chance?

It would be a fitting gesture if at some point in time Sarah, Thorpie and all the rest that have been given armchair rides to the top redress the ledger with the society that put them there.

Armchair rides?

I'd love to see you put in the hours and hours of training it takes to be an olympic gold medalist swimmer. When your average factory worker turns up to work Thorpie has already done 4 hours of physical labour.

What's it do for anyone, other than to entertain them.
He's effectively getting very rich for getting very fit!

*Is it actually fair that the people who do the work and get their hands dirty only receive the measly crumbs off the table?*

It seems to me RobP, that you have no idea how the world works.
CEOs are simply workers whose hands are closest to the cookie
jar, so they get a bigger slice. Life is not fair, get used
to it.

Fact is that its consumers who decided that Bonds would have
to take their manufacture offshore. The company involved
hasn't been making any real money, has its arse full of debt
and has to make its products at a price that consumers are
prepared to pay. Clearly that is not the case, or they would
have no need to go offshore.

I would dispute the fact that workers get crumbs. In relative
terms, Australian workers get life on a plate. Overtime payments,
long service leave, holiday leave loading etc. Conditions that
few in this world can even dream about. I gather that one of
those workers is in line for 200k$ worth of "entitlements". Hardly
crumbs.

Fact is that Australian workers would have to be some of the
most mollycoddled workers on the planet. I don't blame entrepreneurs
for taking work offshore, for it is the electorate who showed in the
last elections, that they seem to think that they should insist
on all this mollycoddling.

Fair enough, if that is what people insist, don't blame entrepreneurs for going elesewhere.

The question is why the system creates the celebrities and give them so much money?
Why they pay more money to celebrities than to persons who improve the conditions in our world, save or extend our life?
BUT the REAL question is why they pay money to celebrities?
The big problem for the businesses is not how to produce a product, a top quality product with very low price BUT HOW TO SELL IT!
Advirtising TAKES A HUGE PART of the total cost of the products, some times may be 80-90%.
Studies found that we (the customers) like and remember and run back from celebrities than from any one else.
Because the customers, (most of them are low income employees) prefer celebrities, the businesses have no other way than to pay million of dollars to celebrities to attract us and sell their products.
THE REAL, THE BIG PROBLEM IS IN CUSTOMERS HEAD!
When we do not use our brain then not only we buy expensive products but even worst, WE LOSE OUR JOB!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Yabby,

I know exactly how the world works. Thanks for your free character assessment and gratuitous advice, but I will say something about it.

I said absolutely nothing about Bonds taking its operation offshore. Zip. I was using the Bonds situation to make another point that goes much deeper into society.

"I would dispute the fact that workers get crumbs. In relative
terms, Australian workers get life on a plate."

Maybe they do get it better than other countries, but that wasn't the point. The point is, relative to some in this country, they are getting the sharp end of the stick. Get it?

I know this argument's as old as the hills, but the fact is it's still happening.

*THE REAL, THE BIG PROBLEM IS IN CUSTOMERS HEAD!*

Ah Antonios, slowly you get it :)

If Nike pay say Tiger Woods 20 million to promote
their shoes, then find their sales increased by
100$ million extra profit, because consumers take
notice of that and buy their overprices shoes,
don't blame Nike or Tiger Woods.

Consumers make free choices and it is neither up to
the company concerned or the sports star who gets
paid, to convince them any differently.

Yabby!
Who are you? You are a permanent promoter of business's interests on this forum!
You wrote that "Life is not fair, get used to it"
Life not only is not fair BUT is not logical too.
You know, you understand the huge cost for the golden boys, for the CEO, for the celebrities, the huge cost which greats huge problems not only to customers, not only to employees BUT ALSO TO BUSINESSES, TO EMPLOYERS.
Is not time, Yabby, for some limits on the maximum expenses for golden boys, CEO or celebrities?
Taxpayer's money are not for the golden boys, CEO or celebrities.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Sorry RobP, I must be having one of my slow days.

It is becoming clear to me that your post had nothing to do with Bonds underwear or Pacific Brands, and everything to do with class warfare.

I thought we had long since moved on from such a shallow and envious attitude, but clearly some haven't.

>>Is it actually fair that the people who do the work and get their hands dirty only receive the measly crumbs off the table?<<

That is as logical and convincing as asking "Is it deserving of our sympathy that these folk spend more on alcohol and cigarettes than they do on clothes?"

Neither argument makes any sense.

Most people in Australia subscribe to the view that if you work hard, you get rewarded. Sue Morphet, Pacific Brands CEO, was one of six kids raised in that mecca of silvertails, Bacchus Marsh. When her father died at age 50, she was a biology teacher at a Catholic school, married with two kids.

Are you suggesting that she should not have developed a career for herself, and be commensurately rewarded for doing so?

That is not to say there haven't been abuses of the system, and I would be the first to the barricades where companies are pillaged by the privileged. But I do not see that tearing down the building is a constructive response to the door being painted the wrong colour.

Our economy is built on achievement, not some spurious concept of "equality of outcome for all".

>>Sounds like a bit of a wimp-out, Pericles. So, if some people have disproportionally, and in some cases unfairly, profited from ordinary workers before, that makes it OK for it to continue?<<

You have not yet made a case, RopP, for disproportion and unfairness. You have simply observed normal commerce at work, and found it not to your liking.

spot on Pericles, RobP is being mean and tricky in his arguments. Advertising, that is getting your product known about is a pretty basic part of commerce. Rob is yet to advance a reason why Sarah should give her fees back.

The amount of money which is paid for celebrities, golden boys or CEO is huge.
Soon or later, many companies have big problems of cause their huge expenses to celebrities, golden boys or CEO.
These expences not only create problems to bysinesses but to employees AND THE WHOLE SOCIETY.
Under our system, every one is free to do what ever legal she/he wants, it is not their duty to care if their legal acts create local, national or international problems, if they create social or political problems.
The question is if the persons with the high income, understand or care at all for the problems they have created to innocent people, to families or childrens.
We know that about 18 billions of dollars which American taxpayers gave for the creation of new jobs went for bonus and aeroplains for private use of the golden boys and CEO.
When the celebrities, golden boys or CEO with their extremely high cost have created huge problems to the whole system, including businesses and shareholders, then we have no other way than to put a maximum mixed income for the celebrities,golden boys or CEO and we can do it with many ways.
No it is not celebrities, golden boys or CEO duty to return any cent from the money they took legaly.
IT IS OUR SOCIETY'S DUTY TO PROTECT ITS SELF FROM THE HIGH COST OF CELEBRITIES, GOLDEN BOYS OR CEO.
We can do it with many ways and WE MUST DO
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaid

RobP in relation to the crux of your argument, one way that workers at the coalface (should that be solarface) can share in the wealth of their labour is to become an automatic shareholder in the company.

When the business does well the worker also get a proportional bonus in the same way as the CEO or senior executive team even if it is a smaller percentage.

This creates incentive, increases productivity/quality and reduces disparity at the same time.

*one way that workers at the coalface (should that be solarface) can share in the wealth of their labour is to become an automatic shareholder in the company.*

This is what pisses me off about this "them verus us" argument,
which so many claim.

Workers at the coalface already have 9% of their salary paid
into their super funds, even if companies make losses. Take
a good look at the major shareholders in the top 200 ASX
companies and it is largely super funds, representing the
owners of the companies, ie workers.

It seems to me that it has never occured to the likes of Antonios
and others, that he and other workers in fact own the "big business"
which they claim to hate.

Yabby
Mine is not a 'them vs us' argument but a win/win argument I would have thought.

Do you really believe workers own the company merely through shares via superannuation? That is too simplistic Yabby.

Workers are not empowered shareholders - they have no say in how these companies are managed, how high executive salaries, bonuses or payouts should be. Workers have no power to prevent pillaging by corrupt executives and how many workers have had their super lost to mismanagement and fraudulent practices. Many are now totally reliant on the government Age Pension or have to remain in paid employment for much longer to recoup losses.

It doesn't have to be a them vs us argument.

*Workers are not empowered shareholders - they have no say in how these companies are managed,*

Of course they are, but most simply can't be bothered. Workers
can remove their money from one super fund, join a super fund that
suits their beliefs etc. Some super funds are in effect run to a
large extent by unions and do extremely well!

Workers are free to ring their super fund, express their opinion
and threaten to withdraw their membership if that super fund does
not care a hoot about their interests. If more did it, you can
bet your bottom dollar that super funds, who are there to represent
workers, would pay attention!

Most workers simply can't be bothered.

Why should I have to advance a reason for why Sarah and co should pay her fees back? Isn't it obvious from what I've already stated? It's because she is an undeserving beneficiary, simple as that. If either of you (Pericles, palimpsest) worked at the coalface, you'd know that.

Don't imperiously give me this crap about the laws of commerce, Pericles. All of man's laws (including the laws of commerce) are unfair on the ordinary people. In other words, there is a limit to which they can work before they are deemed to have reached their limit. And the system quickly sorts them out. The only people for whom these rules do not apply are the Anointed Ones. I can only assume that by your tacit support for Sarah, you are her are as one in that regard.

Now which part of "She gets good money for simply posing in front of a camera, no shedding of sweat, but just to look her lovely self. It is completely unfair that such disparity between effort and reward occurs." as I put earlier, don't you understand. It's clear to me that you guys have never seen life from below the cloud layer. And BTW, it's not class warfare (it may sound like class warfare because I had to borrow, at short notice, a language to get across what I'm trying to say), it's at its core a FAIRNESS issue. Get it yet??

The fundamental base of social injustices is what Antonios referred to earlier. Why is it that some jobs are valued and remunerated more than others, especially celebs? Who set the template for this? It's as though at some early point in man's evolution, a large rock was dropped in a shallow pond and the waves have been rebounding ever since. Why, for example, is commerce regarded more highly than human or social endeavours? When you think about the implications of this question, you'll realise that many other types of iniquities arise from it, given how hard some people chase money in their lives.

RobP

I take greater issue with CEO's and other executive staff than I do with Sarah Murdoch et al.

The disparity between workers and executives is beyond any concept of parity.

BTW Doing casual work in film and TV as I do; I am aware that it is a lot harder than it looks. But I really don't want to argue with you on this. I agree that A list celebs get paid more than they are worth but linking this to Pacific Dunlop is tenuous at best and pointless at worst.

“RobP in relation to the crux of your argument, one way that workers at the coalface (should that be solarface) can share in the wealth of their labour is to become an automatic shareholder in the company.”

Pelican, I think this is probably half right. Workers will get a better deal if they have these arrangements, but as long as there is such a large power disparity between them and their employers, they won’t see the full value of the extra work they have to do to secure the deal in the first place. Something more needs to happen. Not sure what though.

“It seems to me that it has never occured to the likes of Antonios and others, that he and other workers in fact own the "big business" which they claim to hate.”

Yabby, the problem with this argument is that the ownership of the ordinary shareholder is only nominal and not realisable to them. In effect, their wealth is sequestered in the system, where they often have no access to it at key points in their life. The other point is that the large institutional shareholders typically do all the decision making at company AGMs. The ordinary “Mum and Dad” shareholders are often treated like pesky mozzies. But I shouldn’t have to tell you this of course as you know how the world works!

Again, shareholder wealth is great in theory, but can be like a house of cards when the wealth is attempted to be realised by its “owners”. By then, the only thing share-holders may actually realise is that they’ve provided the capital to prop up a Ponzi scheme that mostly benefits the few.

“Most workers simply can't be bothered.”

No doubt this is true but then again workers either do not have enough incentive to be bothered or the path they need to take to get to a better place is fraught with pitfalls. These reasons can easily put the kybosh on people who, in a smoother course of events, could be bothered.

Fractelle,
Of course you're right in that the question's intentions weren’t expressed clearly enough but now they are one does need to examine our system of values. Specifically how humanely perverse they are rewarding some for beneficial acts of nature and punishing others that aren’t so lucky. Hard work by choice is one thing but the selectivity of obscene rewards are another.

Pericles,
You are having a “slow” day calling this topic “class war” or about envy is uncharacteristically simplistic at best and disingenuous at worst.

In the context of this topic the expressed view (by several posters) of currently practiced capitalism is tantamount being a modern defence of Dickensian attitudes.

No one is denying the right for people to raise themselves up or make a profit but to take the quantum leap to justify 3rd world factory practices/ conditions in the name of profit over humanity? The idea that if you won’t be my slave and be happy with what I deem is apposite then I’ll go where people are worse off, have less power and exploit their poverty ….please. What part does morality play in this view?

Likewise it is morally moribund to simply say that’s the way it is so I have to join in.
Like there isn’t other ways/ activities the capital could be used. Where in capitalism does it say either once invested I must follow the pack or I have an inalienable right to exploit (trade off others poverty)?

Neither does the humbleness of ones birth got anything to do with the topic. What’s wrong with Bacchus Marsh? The rest of that bit is irrelevant i.e. I spent time growing up in Clifton Hill orders of magnitude rougher and my dad died at 42 so what! Surely it’s what one does with ones power and money that counts.

RobP is suggesting and I agree that the disproportionate fees some people get are wrong.

PS neither is industrial democracy a hindrance to profit

Yes, there are some egregious examples of executive greed out there, examinator. I am not defending them.

But I suggest that your defence of RobP's screw-the-rich approach to life is borderline ridiculous.

>>In the context of this topic the expressed view (by several posters) of currently practiced capitalism is tantamount being a modern defence of Dickensian attitudes.<<

I'm defending child labour up the chimbley and dad-down-the-sewer now? Oh, please. Stay real.

And I'm not sure what this means.

>>to justify 3rd world factory practices/ conditions in the name of profit over humanity?<<

Are you suggesting that a Chinese worker should not be allowed to sell his labour at the prevailing market rates? What would you like to tell his wife and children, when you cast him on the labour scrap-heap through some muddle-headed theory of equality for all?

>>Neither does the humbleness of ones birth got anything to do with the topic. What’s wrong with Bacchus Marsh? The rest of that bit is irrelevant<<

I was merely pointing out that the CEO of Pacific Brands had made her way in big business from Bacchus Marsh, rather than from Toorak. Furthermore, if there were not the fruits of success available to her, would she not have preferred to stay safe and cosy in a Catholic School in Mentone?

>>RobP is suggesting and I agree that the disproportionate fees some people get are wrong.<<

I'm aware of that.

And I am saying that if Sarah Murdoch is able to put a price on her services that a company is prepared to pay, then you have no right to get in her way.

The general public identifies with these people. They trade upon this - that's what they employ agents for, to keep abreast of their market value.

What would you prefer, a government tariff administered by bureaucrats in Canberra?

Yep, that would put things right in a jiffy.

Pericles,

"But I suggest that your defence of RobP's screw-the-rich approach to life..."

Asking Sarah Murdoch to donate back to the workers - and I stress asking not dictating or mandating - is not "screwing the rich". Like what world do you live in? Get a sense of balance. Uncle Rupert would make her Bonds fee in about half an hour. All I'm saying is that Sarah could/should/whatever give back what the Murdoch family has already made many, many, many times over. Like, hello, what's so bad about that? Or is it a case of the principle that's important for you here?

*Yabby, the problem with this argument is that the ownership of the ordinary shareholder is only nominal and not realisable to them*

That ownership is clearly in their names. Yup, they can't spend
it all tomorrow, or many would not have a cent left, by retirement
time. That is fair enough. Govt accepts that some people are
too unreliable and stupid with their own money, to be trusted with
it. That does not mean, that it is not paid to them in due course,
when they retire.

*large institutional shareholders typically do all the decision making at company AGMs*

They do it on behalf of workers and workers hardly care about
what happens at AGMS, or they would question their super funds.
They don't.

Workers have as much say in those companies as they do in who
gets to be in Govt. Individually, they perhaps don't matter, but
as a united group, they could matter hugely, if they chose to.

*The ordinary “Mum and Dad” shareholders are often treated like pesky mozzies.*

They might be and those mums and dads are free to sell their shares,
if they don't like the board and the board pays no notice to their
concerns. OTOH I've seen pesky mums and dads have huge influence
on boards. Wesfarmers sold off their timber milling division,when
they got sick of greenies complaining at board meetings, for instance.

This whole notion that workers have no power and bosses have all
the power, is simply hogwash. One needs the other. If you don't
like the boss, find another job or start your own company, if you
think it so easy to be a boss. Then you will find out who the real
bosses are, i.e. consumers.

Yabby
I wrote twice on this thread for the need to put limits on the maximum expenses for golden boys, CEO or celebrities, one time I asked you personaly but until now you did not answer to me.
President Obama put for CEO as maximum yearly income from salaries $500.000 and Democratic senator Christopher Dodd limits on the bonus "any company taking government money would be barred from paying top earners bonuses equal to more than one-third of their total annual compensation"
You know what realy happened with the bonus until now.
Bank of America chief Kenneth Lewis was paid $16.4m in 2007, of which just $1.5m was in salary. Jamie Dimon, JP Morgan Chase chief executive, was paid $1m in salary in 2007 from a total package of more than $30m.
With the new law the CEO of Bank of America Kenneth Lewis will not earn $16.4m for 2009 but 500.000+166.666=$666.666 or 24 times less yearly income and Jamie Dimon, JP Morgan Chase chief executive 45 times less income.
Even republicans, even newconservatives was against the extremely high income from CEO BUT NOT YOU!
I think you stand on the extreme right side of the new-conservatives.
I can not find any other explanation for your silence about the high cost of CEO, CELEBRITIES OR GOLDEN BOYS.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Pericles,

"screw-the-rich" is an interesting choice of term you use, particularly when we're talking in relation to Rupert Murdoch. This is the guy who adheres to a "come from a position of strength, drive a hard bargain and make myself rich at everyone else's expense, and when they remonstrate to glibly blame them for the situation they're in" school of doing things.

Instead of blaming me for doing the screwing, which I've never done in my life BTW, I suggest you do a 180 degree spin in your chair to see who are the real masters of the screwing.

Pericles, whether you know it or not, you're acting as a front man for all the self-serving, elitist masters of the universe.

*I think you stand on the extreme right side of the new-conservatives.*

Antonios, you are free to think whatever you like, but you could
also be very wrong. That is your problem, not my problem.

I have not responded to the question of CEO salaries as I was
debating other points and I don't see the issue in simplistic
black and white terms as you do. It is more complex then that.

I am on record in the OLO archives for having pointed out that
CEOs of Japanese and Korean companies earn far less then those
of Western CEOs, yet in global terms, Toyota for instance has
run rings around GM, Ford and others.

That said, Asians in general are more loyal to the companies
for which they work, so salary is only one point. Westerners
are commonly far more mercenary and will change employers
relatively commonly, if more money is offered by somebody else.

Your first mistake is to assume that CEO salaries are a big
cost. Not so, as there are so few of them. Even if the CEO
of Pacific Brands was paid only 1$, the savings would not even
pay the payroll tax of the 1850 workers that she plans to fire
or sell.

I personally think that company shareholders should vote on
the salary packages offered to CEOs. Those risking their
capital would then be responsible for their actions, if they appoint a dud as CEO and he/she
bankrupts the company.

Are there times when a large salary is justified? I think
there are. Back in the early 90s, the management
of Westpac nearly bankrupted the bank and an American, Bob
Joss, was brought in to turn things around. He did a great
job, but he was not about to pack up in America, move his
family and friends and come here, if the salary did not
make it worth his while.

Similarly Chip Goodyear did a great job at BHP, for
around 3 million a year. That was cheap compared to somebody
being hired for 500k, who might have stuffed the company and
lost-billions.

Pericles,
I value you intelligence please don’t insult mine.
Executive greed is rampant the whole credit crash was based on it.
Class, equality is not at issue basic humanity and equity is.

Although the child labour or sweat shop attitude is rife in these countries.
Local rates come on P there’s a world of difference between fair pay and exploitism. You ignored conditions including pollution issues oh yes that local conditions….shall we talk about uneven bargaining. “ Mr 3rd world pres. I’m thinking of setting up a factory in your country with 400 workers…I want tax breaks…special labour rates …no unions…6 days per week and 12 hr days.” You know as well as I do the business could pay more and still make a profit.
Yes I know locals screw locals there but where is it written that the escapee from 1st world restrictions must join in.

Oh yes lets manufacture products in the third world that for either product health or hazardous manufacturing practices are banned in the 1st world. Talk about Dickensian attitudes.

Have you deliberately(?) Missed the point. No body is suggesting screwing anyone.
Neither Rob nor I are getting in anyone’s way merely saying that the priorities are wrong that this disparity is available. (full stop)

Where some one comes from in fact the whole point was irrelevant. Why was it included if not to start violins?
>The general public identifies with these people < Bollocks! The public are manipulated into strive to emulate these people through constant clever advertising. Selling the notion that “If I buy these clothes perfume et al I too can be hot or what ever the term is this week. It’s manipulation of people insecurities need for belonging. ( Psych 101)”.

A moderation of the excesses that are rife will not result in a bureaucrat levying what ever.
I thought such black or white reasoning was beneath you. Apart from this aberration I still prefer to think it is .

Yabby,
If Asian CEOs with less money do the same job with Western CEOs and if Asian CEOs who receive less money for the same job are more loyal than Western CEOs who are ready to leave the company for more money then Western CEOs have a huge problem which is releated with their ethos, their culture, their moral code, their maturity.
Do you think persons with these characteristics are ready to manage a big company? Do you expect from this kind of CEOs to unterstand the meaning of their role, to have developed human or social sensitivities?
Do you think this kind of CEO who have no connection with the company they work, no connection with the people who are working under themDO YOU THINK THIS KIND OF CEOs could create something important? NO! They are useless!
Yabby
You did not write anything for Obama's policy about CEOs income. I think in the past you was Obama's supporter and not an extreme neo-conservative!
Yabby, I understand your worries but do not forget that it is not for first time that presidents, parliaments or senates which involved in the businesses and made some changes in business practises. Always there was some persons who was against these changes but often we have had changes and most of them was very helpful for the buseness , for the employees, the society, for the country.
You have plenty knowledges, you know many things about economy but from your texts it is missed your seoul, you write as a beaurocrat, as a competitor, as a writer BUT not as a creator, not as an artist. I know from the past that you have a sensitivy seoul but you afraid to express your self, you afraid to write what you want realy!
NOW IT IS TIME FOR SOME LIMITS TO CEOs INCOME.
Your support not only in this forum but in your channels, is very important.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaid

I know that it all makes perfect sense from where you stand, RobP, I just happen to disagree with you, that's all.

>>Pericles, whether you know it or not, you're acting as a front man for all the self-serving, elitist masters of the universe<<

Sloganism. Not particularly illuminating, but it does save your having to think through the realities of what you are asking.

>>"screw-the-rich" is an interesting choice of term you use, particularly when we're talking in relation to Rupert Murdoch<<

Who was talking about Rupert Murdoch? I thought that Sarah was your target, who is merely an in-law. Are you suggesting that she is not allowed to make a career for herself, simply because she married the son of a media mogul?

But you know, the remedy to this is in your own hands.

According to the rumour mill, the celebrities involved are on a retainer of around $200,000. Big bikkies, agreed. But for that, they have to give their full support to everything that Pacific Brands ask them to. I would imagine that their contracts are so watertight, that they would be sued from here to eternity if they broke a single clause. Which would prohibit them, in any event, from paying back the dollars. Shows disloyalty, you see.

Where the big money normally comes in with celebrity agreements such as this, is through a share of the increased profits that are attributed to the campaign - so for the duration of the contract, they'd share, say, around 5-10%% of the additional value they created for the company.

So if you really feel strongly about this, the simplest remedy is to boycott the product. Get all your friends to do the same, and you will have a significant impact upon their earnings.

Of course, you might at the same time put the jobs of the remaining workers here in jeopardy - but hey, it's all in the name of fairness and equality, isn't it?

And if they have to close some factories in China too, so what? They'll probably be glad to be out of the sweatshop.

Antonios, I am indeed a supporter of Barack Obama, but what you
are suggesting and he is suggesting, are quite different.

His point is that companies being bankrolled by the Govt, should
have restrictions put on the salaries of their CEOs. Fair enough.

If you are suggesting that all Australian CEOs should be limited
to earning 500'000$, then I would have to disagree with you.

If Govts want CEOs to justify their salaries, then they should
mandate that shareholders vote on those salaries, for it is
shareholder money that is at stake here. At the moment it is
so called "salary experts" who make suggestions to boards, who
then normally agree.

There are times when a company is up the creek and needs some
real talent, perhaps from overseas, to come and turn the whole
thing around. Take the case of Coles for instance. They turn
over huge amounts, but hardly make any money. Its all costs,
overheads etc. Wesfarmers have now hired a top man from
Britain, where supermarkets are far better organised and far
more competitive then in Australia, to come and add his
expertise and try and turn the place around. The man would
not have left his whole life behind, if you offered him peanuts.

If he succeeds, not only will staff be better off, but
customers will be better off, so will shareholders, ie a win win
all round. Why should I complain about his salary?

Business is not about poetry or emotion, it is dog eat dog,
it is about survival of the fittest. This is not driven by
CEOs or staff, it is driven by customers, who want value
for their money. Fair enough.

Pericles,

"Sloganism. Not particularly illuminating, but it does save your having to think through the realities of what you are asking."

Being a wise type, you'd, I'd have thought, have understood that for society to operate best, the wealth should be spread around amongst those that make the valuable and substantial contributions in life. These people exist at all levels in society from those that earn $30k pa to millions.

"Are you suggesting that she is not allowed to make a career for herself, simply because she married the son of a media mogul?"

Of course she's allowed to make a career for herself. It's a good thing. Your comment still doesn't answer why she should make the dosh she does though. $200k is pretty damn good for merely adhering to her contract for a few seasons of IN-BETWEEN WORK ONLY. Fairness? Ha. The argument is over right there.

"So if you really feel strongly about this, the simplest remedy is to boycott the product."

Sure. That's like Peter Costello and Wayne Swan saying that if you don't like bank fees, change banks. It simply doesn't work for the ordinary person. A. How far out on a limb do you have to go to make a difference? Getting other people to help is like Mother Hen asking the other animals in the farmyard to bake bread and B. As soon as the banks work out what people are up to, they'll just dream up another clever way to con people into the net. A pathetically shallow, throwaway suggestion given the amount of apathy in society generally.

"Of course, you might at the same time put the jobs of the remaining workers here in jeopardy - but hey, it's all in the name of fairness and equality, isn't it?

And if they have to close some factories in China too, so what? They'll probably be glad to be out of the sweatshop."

Que? They're a couple of throwaway lines if ever there were any.

RobP
Clearly I agree with the thrust of your argument. Can I suggest you consider the word equity in stead of equality.
equity can mean fairness as well as an interest in either definition works.
equality means every one is the same and as I understand it neither you or I are advocating that.
Pericles' spirited defense sadly seems based on sloganism as you say and distractions (another topic all together).
I think it's wishful thinking on your part to suggest the rich part with their money (given they have benefited so well from the inequity of capitalism as it is practiced)but what the hell it's a noble idea anyway. It hasn't occured to the likes of Bill Gates and other that if their corps was less power hungry and voracious people MIGHT be better off but that is my wishful thinking.

>>>It hasn't occured to the likes of Bill Gates and other that if their corps was less power hungry and voracious people MIGHT be better off but that is my wishful thinking.<<<

Just think if the mega-monopolies paid a reasonable living wage to third world workers, they wouldn't have to trundle about dispensing "charity" AND there would be no need to take businesses "offshore" because the world economy would be an equitable playing field.

Aaaah stuff of fantasy.

PS

Examinator I swear I am not stalking you.

Fractelle.
Bugger! For a moment I thought I must be important or a star!

:-) :-(

examinator,

I agree with the gist of what you're saying about equity vs equality. Equality is important in the basic human things we do like treating others with respect, fairness and gratitude etc. The idea of equity, on the other hand, is important when finding the best (ie most holistic) balance in a fundamentally unbalanced relationship. So, you're right about that.

However, the problem, as you point out, is that it's a pipe-dream given the way the world actually works. It's too easy for people to wave away the idea of equity in their minds as just another feelgood sentiment. That's why I raised the concrete idea about celebrities giving back money to those at the other extreme end of capitalism, as it's an idea that can actually be quickly implemented. It's not like it's unheard of - Bill Gates does it with his philanthropic work.

-- -- --

I agree society would be better off if the mega-monoploies provided a living wage to people in developing countries. But, I'd start first with those countries that had the most potential and see how things work out fom there. The key to these types of humungus changes is to start small and see what catches. If it develops promisingly continue with it, if it's bad and unsalvageable terminate it, and if it's bad but salvageable mould it into a new form. That's broadly the way to go.

Ok, I give in, you win.

>>The idea of equity, on the other hand, is important when finding the best (ie most holistic) balance in a fundamentally unbalanced relationship. So, you're right about that. However, the problem, as you point out, is that it's a pipe-dream given the way the world actually works.<<

On this, we agree entirely.

Maybe that was all I needed to do in the first place - point out that the whole idea was just a pipe dream. Could have saved a lot of time.

>>It's not like it's unheard of - Bill Gates does it with his philanthropic work.<<

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation does some worthy work. But I suspect that you underestimate the massive amount of effort involved in giving money away in the most effective, and least controversial, way. As you probably know, the B&MGF currently employs 600 people.

>>I agree society would be better off if the mega-monoploies provided a living wage to people in developing countries<<

Sadly, it is never as straightforward as you might think....

http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2371

But at least we agree on the pipe-dream bit.

http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/PIPEDREAM

In really the only thing we could do is to increase in high degree the high income and use these money partly for local poor people and partly for a world organization which help people in needs worldwide.
I prefer a law which does not leave any hole to avoid to pay the high tax for the high incomes.
How high? 50-60-70-80-90% of the annual personal income! Our goal should be to encourage the investements for products, services productivity, research,etc BUT NOT FOR PERSONAL USE, NOT WEAST ON LUXUR THINGS.
We need to put special high taxes on luxur products and services and to block the high income persons to weast their wealth.
We need the business-men, we respect and love them but WE WANT WHAT THEY OFFER, WHAT THEY CREATE TO BENEFIT NOT ONLY THEM BUT THE WHOLE SOCIETY.

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

There are still a lot of people who really believe that the consumer benefits when factories go offshore or we allow any old product to enter our shores without any protection for local industry, both economically and biologically (risks of introducing new diseases and pests and toxic chemical treatments).

The profits go up for the shareholders and the salary packages for CEOs and board members increase but the price of the goods ostensibly remain the same.

I remember buying tin homebrand tomato paste in the days when it was Australian made using Aussie tomatoes. Suddenly the label changed to show it was now made in China with Chinese tomatoes. Yes you guessed it...the price was the same as before.

This has happened to many products and the notion that by somehow introducing tariffs threatens competition to the detriment of consumers is seriously flawed.

It also means that if you destroy a local industry and the imported products are the only choice, competition has all but been destroyed and unemployment is higher - nothing gained. I cannot believe that we are handing over our food, water and energy security to overseas interests in many cases.

*This has happened to many products and the notion that by somehow introducing tariffs threatens competition to the detriment of consumers is seriously flawed.*

Nonsense Pelican. Tariffs will simply increase the cost of imports,
which means that locals can screw the consumer by a similar amount.

There is ample evidence that consumers are the largest beneficiaries
of low tariffs.

*I remember buying tin homebrand tomato paste in the days when it was Australian made using Aussie tomatoes.*

Today you simply have more choice. You have Australian canned
tomatoes, Italian canned tomatoes, etc. You choose, you pay
accordingly.

*It also means that if you destroy a local industry and the imported products are the only choice, competition has all but been destroyed and unemployment is higher - nothing gained. *

Once again nonsense. As there are so many more manufacturers,
in so many countries.

I buy tinned grapefruit segments from Swaziland, guavas from
South Africa, asparagus from Peru, berries from the USA. I do
not buy food from China lol.

Now where are all these unemployed? Today the unemployment rate
is 5%, back in the days of high tariffs it was often double that.

Fact is that business and industry are always changing. New ones
open, some old one close.

Ok, so some people don't like change, especially as they get older.

Your age is showing Pelican :)

.

I think from past comments you have made Yabby I am younger than you by quite a bit. ;)

Trouble is this is not really change for me although there was some cross over period when in my most formative years saw a rise in free markets and a reduction in protectionism.

How can we fix these problems yabby and protect our own industry in terms of employment and biosecurity issues? For jobs we gain through exports we also lose locally and if other nations become more protectionist we may end up the poor cousin.

I am not being smart but would like to weigh up the arguments on both sides. Would you concede that some limited protectionism may at times be necessary even if you don't condone it overall?

Ah Pelican, in years I am in my mid 50s. You might well be
younger in years, but perhaps not in mindset :)

I have spent my life involved with thinking laterally, innovation
and change. Everything I've just about ever done, some people
have stood back and claimed "this guy is nuts". When things worked
out, they then said "this guy is lucky". Now alot of them stand
back and say " based on his record of things working out, we
take notice of his judgement, but he still confuses us". So be it :)

Today there was a great story on Landline, about a women in
Queensland, who looked at sugar in a different way. Her kind of
entrepreneurship is where Australia's future lies, not in competing
to make toasters with the Chinese.

There are two sides to this debate, that of the consumer and that
of the worker.

If the laws that you want to introduce, mean that consumers are
worse off, so be it. Accept that what you are promoting, will lead
to a lower standard of living for all Australians.

If you want, what can in international terms, only be described
as a mollycoddled, archaic and inflexible labour market, so be it,
Australians will pay a heavy price, in terms of lower standard of
living.

Consumers vote every day on these things. They can choose to buy
Australian products and pay a higher price for them, to cover all
those extra costs. Fact is that most vote with their wallets.

Given our inflexible industrial laws, fewer entrepreneurs will want
to create jobs in Australia. Fair enough, why should they bother?

We are left doing the things where we have a comparative advantage,
where we are innovative and can automate, such as farming and mining.

Once again, in secondary processing we will have to do things where
we have a comparative advantage, such as cheap primary products,
cheap energy, cheap land, intellectual property etc.

Fact is that our trade deficit is not bad at all, our current account
is the problem, due to lack of savings.

Yabby,
I have some concerns with your idea of choice. In truth the choice stops with the corporations.

The supermarkets (we have the most concentrated market in the world) make their choices that dictate *our* options. They choose the products on the basis of *their* profitability.
The decision to stock Asian tomatoes or Aussie has more to do with and how much more profit *the super market* can make by importing cheaper tomatoes sauces. Pricing it at the same or a few cents less than the local product is simply marketing manipulation (positioning) to smooth the transition to a more profitable source (marketing 101). Then watch the price climb.

Then there is size corruption of the market what pressure other manufacturers can exert i.e. One brand of rechargeable battery turned up in a major it was more powerful, lasted longer and involved newer technology (better) even cheaper. Yet it was dropped because the big 3 offered the chain a deal bought the floor space. Where's the positive market value in that? Our choice was sacrificed to the big boys regardless of value, better technology more green etc. or the customer.

Aldi & no name are proving choice is not always the prime motivator, it’s price. If you wanted true market choice put both on sale at the same price and compete on quality alone.

Go to shopping centres they have chains who use the Prado effect and the above tactics small (choice and lesser margin) retailers come and go because they don’t have the clout and the rents, till take by the centre owners squeezes them out.

As for the equating a lesser life style to losing the choice for overseas products, think again life style for the majority of Ausies will inevitably take a battering. Among the reasons are World Climate Change (anthropomorphic or natural), world population, and that the world’s resources are finite. For those reason among many I would like Aust to be self sufficient in all its *needs*. And exporting surpluses.

Some of the answers to your confusion lie within the post itself, examinator.

You observe that...

>>The decision to stock Asian tomatoes or Aussie has more to do with and how much more profit *the super market* can make<<

If this is the case, wouldn't you expect the net margin from supermarket operations to increase more significantly than it does? Woolworths'- who have been spectacularly successful of late - EBIT is still less than seven cents in the dollar. Healthy, but hardly a rip-off, I would suggest.

But here's the kicker:

>>Aldi & no name are proving choice is not always the prime motivator, it’s price.<<

The point is that Woolworths are in competition with (amongst others) Aldi. If they don't stay keen on their pricing, more business will walk out of the door and go shopping at Aldi. Which is, as you know, a German company. Whose founders, Karl and Theo Albrecht, are Germany's richest men. Do you really want to make them richer still?

As Yabby succinctly points out, protectionism has only ever made people lazier, and poorer.

But this seems to be your goal anyway.

>>As for the equating a lesser life style to losing the choice for overseas products, think again life style for the majority of Ausies will inevitably take a battering.<<

I'm sure Australia will thank you for your concern. And continue to buy the products that fit within their budgets.

*think again life style for the majority of Ausies will inevitably take a battering.*

So what you are implying Examinator, is that its ok to take a much
bigger battering then might have been the case. I will agree to
disagree with you on that one. Given that there are finite resources
and we have more then our share of them, as long as we own them
and don't flog em off before they are even dug up, our lifestyle
should be improving.

*In truth the choice stops with the corporations.*

Not so, power rests with consumers. If enough people vote for
a product with their wallets, companies will stock it. Once again,
supermarkets are very sensitive to complaints, if enough people
complain.

One of the high costs that Coles and Woolies have, is stocking
such a huge range of choice, from so many places. If you want
Australian tomatoes, they are available, its your choice.

Aldi has a different business model. Price and limited choice
is their game, so they attract a different kind of consumer.

Woolies and Coles are largely owned by Australian workers and mums
and dads. Aldi is owned by two of the world's wealthiest Germans.

Costco, who are on their way, have a different model yet again,
ie bulk is cheap.

IGA play on the locally owned angle and benchmark themselves against
Coles and Woolies.

We know from their annual reports, that profit margins for Coles
and Woolies are in fact quite low. 2-3c in the Dollar for Coles,
4-5c for Woolies, because of their superior logistics.

*Yet it was dropped because the big 3 offered the chain a deal bought the floor space*

I hope that they rushed to JB Hifi and did a deal. Consumer word
of mouth is still the best advertising that money can buy.

*For those reason among many I would like Aust to be self sufficient in all its *needs*.*

We don't have the population to do that, neither the economies of
scale. So best to just let consumers vote with their wallets.

There is an other thread with the title "Commonsense fairness - CEO pay"
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8670
The good thing is that even Prime Minister Kevin Rudd condemned the excessive salary packages, even at the G20 summit.
For me it is a logical, fair and useful to put a cup on CEOs income!
But we must be careful, do not leave any hole to cup on CEOs income!
No more than $300.000 per year, combined!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Pericles
You said “If this is the case, wouldn't you expect the net margin from supermarket operations to increase more significantly than it does?”
Why? This model relies on cash flow and has little to do with the corps discriminatory marketing practices and the overall profitability (7% of $1 million V of $5billion). They are in “cash cow market stage” of the market cycle. You need to examine their accounts more closely.

The Aldi model is different and proves the point that choice is illusionary particularly if you don’t have the money to exercise it. Aldi has more growth potential. (Watch that space) they’re still in their early growth stages here.

You said “The Albrechts are Germany's richest men. Do you really want to make them richer still?”
Aren’t you mixing two standards here? On one hand saying we want choice of overseas products (making other countries manufactures rich at the expense of ours) then on the other implying patriotic interests.

You said “As Yabby succinctly points out, protectionism has only ever made people lazier and poorer”. (Assumptive, rhetoric& as an absolute… bollocks). It isn’t my goal at all (again this conclusion is myopic thinking on valium)

I said >>As for the equating a lesser life style to losing the choice for overseas products, think again life style for the majority of Ausies will inevitably take a battering.<<
You are quoting me out of context I actually meant that GCC et al will inflict a battering especially if we don’t at least make our selves more self-sufficient/independent. Think of it like this what are we going to do if overseas food prices start increasing exponentially because of GCC and given ours have been left to die?
And I haven’t touched on the disease/contamination risk factors.

BTW the absence of one extreme doesn’t imply the other extreme. I’m not talking protectionism. That is limited thinking stop thinking in extremes it is more productive.

Yabby,
I’ve read your response several times and there is no way I can respond meaningfully in the space and your interest limitations. So just a few notes.

Your first paragraph misses the point it is entirely your spin.
Second Para is based on theoretical assumptions. Which in practice isn’t a real factor?
• The public are conditioned and essentially compliant to the products conveniently available. (shopping centres)
Aldi have a different model true…different clientele? Consider Bi Low/ Franklins it is their cheap end of the market less choice and shrinking.

IGA have chosen the wrong model to compete 3 have closed in my suburb they can’t compete and are squeezed out in competitive areas.

Your final comment is true only on some manufactured goods if we want multiple choices of the same product.
If you want to see choice for it’s own sake look at active ingredients in cleaning products. They are functionally the same.
Washing powders vary in fillers and colour of colouring agents and the box.
By that I mean a Lever and Kitchen make most of the brands in washing powders they all have the same compliances and base formula.
Difference between brands made for Aust markets are often in the amount filler and fluorescence chemical giving the impression of being cleaner (cultural preference) Hence the ads push ‘brighter than bright’. Cleanliness is virtually identical.

If you go to a chemical manufacturer you can buy a more “pure” version minus the fillers that make the packet larger (value perception) seem more and the BS fluorescence.
In truth Lever and Kitchen could reduce their range to perhaps two products. Brands are often designed to illusionary choices.
Most sterilizers are based on 1% chlorine regardless of brand… the difference the bottle which is designed to appeal.

BTW Batteries aren’t at JB I checked.

Except for people like me branding, impulse, convenience and price are the major factors in most retailing. (Marketing 101). Business models simply move these around.

Spin Examinator? I put it to you that my point was a logical and
rational deducation in response to your claim. Now just stop and
think for a minute. Just take one single product, computers.

We need them, so you think we should make them here. Do you know
the cost of building a factory to make microprocessors? Then
another factory to make memory chips? Now double it, so that
you have at least some competition. All for a small market
like Australia? Do you know how much your Aussie computer will
cost you? I put it to you that if you were forced to buy an
Australian made computer, it would cost you so much, that your
standard of living would in fact go down, or you simply could
not afford one. All this to achieve what?

My second paragraph is based on fact that even you might have noticed.
Right now supermarkets are bending over backwards to advertise
that they stock local products, made in Australia, especially
fresh produce. For good reasons, ie public pressure.

*Except for people like me branding, impulse, convenience and price are the major factors in most retailing. *

Nonsense, there is a whole layer of consumers who you seem to have
not even thought of, who want value for money. Washing powder
might be generic, ideal for home brands etc, but take things like
vinegar, mayonnaise, jams, chocolate, coffee, tea, etc. There is
a huge difference in taste and quality.

Yes, your pensioners and unmarried mothers might buy what is cheapest.
But your accountants, bank managers, etc, will buy what they want,
what they like and what is value for money.

That is exactly why companies like Lindt, Thomy, Hero, can produce
their products in high wage countries and still sell them at Coles!
Consumer demand and that includes me and most of my friends.

Why do you think that Miele, and other European companies can sell
their appliances in Australia? Some people prefer to buy quality
that lasts, rather then the lowest sticker price, to be thrown away
in a year.

"Ah Pelican, in years I am in my mid 50s. You might well be
younger in years, but perhaps not in mindset :)"

Definitely younger than you Yabs, you old baby boomer. My friends tell me I possess the impulsiveness of youth but you have scolded me. My heart is wounded.

Yabby, the trouble is that you cannot buy Australian tomatoes anymore. Well you certainly cannot in my supermarket anyway and tomato paste is all imported. The consumer cannot make any impact on the "Buy Australian" campaign if there are no Australian choices.

You missed my point about the fact that the homebrand product now made in China was not cheaper than the original product made in Australia. One assumes the costs of production are cheaper so where is the extra profit going? Not to the benefit of the consumer. Can you see where this argument is going Yabby in relation to protectionism. If the results are the same what are the benefits of no tariffs for ordinary people? I know the theory but what about the reality!

More and more of our icons are being bought out by foreign owned companies and even if some still opt to buy the Australian produce many others are not.

I went to the fruit/veg shop the other day to buy garlic - only Argentinian or Eastern European to choose from. There are many more examples I could bore you with.

Aldi is good, while they stock the imports, they also provide products that directly benefit Australian growers or are Australian owned.

There has to be a way we can protect our industry and ensure competition is healthy for the sake of the consumer.

Yabby,

Please! Do some research into marketing techniques they're all about perceptions. Having owned a current model RR once albeit by odd circumstances I can tell you They are marketed on IMAGE they still break down etc. Quality is still in the eye of the beholder.
my family had a locally owned fridge and freezer after 30year I retired them because they weren't green enough. The local brew shop prop uses both. the issue is different it's called planned obsolesence another marketing tool to sell more.
You insist on extremes for comparisons. Think out of the box.

Much of my executive career was in Computers so I know the pricing shenanigans that goes on.I see no problem with having an overseas manufacturer set up here even if they repatriate some profits o/s.

Take our subs (please) the torpedoes are from o/s and on an 18 month delay. Tell me that would help us in a crisis?
Being just a market simply sendall of our $ o/s and makes us vulnerable. I am advocating only discressionary goods from o/s.
We need a strategic industry minister.

*Yabby, the trouble is that you cannot buy Australian tomatoes anymore. Well you certainly cannot in my supermarket anyway and tomato paste is all imported. *

Pelican, well if you shop at Aldi, your product range will be
very limited. I only shop at Australian owned stores.

I will check out the tomatoe paste next time I go shopping,
but I just had a look in my pantry. Canned tomatoes, tomatoe
sauce, spagetti sauce, all made in Australia, bought at Coles.

*You missed my point about the fact that the homebrand product now made in China was not cheaper*

I never missed your point, its just that the explanation is a bit
long winded and there are post limits. Supermarkets see the big
picture, not the little picture. They spend lots of time checking
out one anothers prices and trying to be 5c cheaper. So they make
good profits on some lines, break even on others and lose on some.
Main thing is their profit on total turnover is ok. Fact is
that in real terms, food prices have dropped considerably over the
last 30 years, to the benefit of consumers.

*More and more of our icons are being bought out by foreign owned companies*

Blame your super funds for forcing CEOs to flog em off cheap.
When Pacific Dunlop owned a whole string of brands, like Birds Eye,
a long list actually, they were virtually forced to sell off to
multi nationals.

Which comes back to the point that I raise so often. Super fund
managers should be held accountable for their actions, for they
hold huge power and are seemingly hardly accountable to their
owners, the people with super fund investments.

CEOs dance to their tune, as they have the huge money behind them,
to make or break a company and to have any CEO fired.

There is a farm in Esperance that grows garlic. They get around
25 bucks a kg for it and can't grow enough, so clearly there
is a market there, for anyone who wants to grow it.

*Think out of the box.*

ROFL Examinator ! For the last 30 years or so, just about any serious
money that I have made, has been through innovation and lateral
thinking. Now you want to preach to me. What would you like to know? :)

*Having owned a current model RR once*

We could argue about RR quality, I normally judge RR drivers as
pretentious snobs. Fact is that many people will pay for status,
its a huge money spinner. Think Rolex watches, Hermes handbags,
the fashion industry etc. The largest market today for status
goods, is in fact in China. Of course RRs break down. Anyone who
thinks that they don't, is a fool.

That does not divert from the fact that there is a huge difference
in the quality of goods produced. Some want cheap, some want value
for money, some want status. This is all marketing 101 stuff, you
should know it.

*the issue is different it's called planned obsolesence another marketing tool to sell more.*

Often its also cutting costs, in order to be the cheapest. The
Japanese learnt the hard way. 30 years ago, anything Japanese
was called "Jap crap". Today they lead in innovation, its
"Chinese crap" that is the problem.

*I see no problem with having an overseas manufacturer set up here even if they repatriate some profits o/s.*

I see no problem either, as long as they don't want to hide behind
some Aussie tariff wall and force consumers to pay through the nose
for their computers. Put simply, there is no good reason why any
computer manufacturer would want to set up in Australia, so they
won't. Fair enough, its best that we import them, export what we are
good at doing. Consumers are the winners.

*Take our subs (please) the torpedoes are from o/s and on an 18 month delay.*

All that shows, is how useless our military are at organising their
supply chain. These days, nothing on earth is more then 24 hours
away by aircraft

Yabby

Just a quick observation regarding cheap(er) products whether made here or overseas.

Built-in Obsolescence is a major factor preventing a move towards a sustainable and equitable economy. It is wasteful and reliant on the producemore-buy more treadmill. I do not have a very high income, but will buy quality where I can because it lasts longer. For example, I have recycled my old PC by installing a free OS. I maintain the physical components by keeping them clear of dust.

You a still in favour of 'business-as-usual' - obtaining the maximum profit for the least effort - this is not thinking laterally at all. In fact all you have offered are excuses thinly disguised as change which will still prop up the status quo. As Examinator has opined what is needed is a complete paradigm shift - a bottom up economy, where farmers, small business can compete in an even playing field. At present the economy is run by and for the extremely wealthy few.

In the case of Pacific Dunlop if a large business wishes to move its operation to another country, then compensation to the retrenched employees needs to be paid in the form of retraining and income support till they regain alternative jobs. That is equitable.

There is no easy single solution, however, continuing as we have been is wasteful and ultimately unsupportable. There will come a time when third world workers will be demanding first world conditions - what will the global monopolies do for cheap labour then?

Better to start to change now, set-up infrastructure that is sustainable, till now business has worked on short term profit. We simply cannot support that any more.

There is no SINGLE easy answer, but we have a slim opportunity right now to start to change.

"There will come a time when third world workers will be demanding first world conditions - what will the global monopolies do for cheap labour then?"

Fractelle,

At the risk of stealing Yabby's thunder, the very fact third world workers would start demanding more means that the power balance will have already begun to shift. Once such an event happens, the global monopolies, at least as we've known them, will begin to die.

To paraphrase Yabby, the ordinary population has a lot of power by weight of its numbers. Once it starts acting and acting independently, it becomes a force all of its own. The boot will then be on the other foot.

We have a problem, a big problem with the poor, undeveloped countries and I UNDERSTAND THEM! They will punish us with their way or we will pay for what we did or did not do to them!
It is wrong to believe that undeveloped countries make ONLY cheap products, many high technology products as CPU, produced in poor, countries.
1. We must help them to create a democratic system, a system which respect the unions and human rights. But we can not speak for democracy and human rights to people with more essencial needs, as the hungry, the health, the education from their children etc. BUT If they have stronge unions they can increase the working costs and make their place less atractive for foreign business.
2. The governments from developed countries can put some basic condision to their companies when they open fabrics,brunches, offices in poor countries, as respect to environment,human rights etc and the courts from developed countries to trial (judge)the companies for their acts in poor countries. The poor countries is not the paradise with NO LIMITS for the businesses.
3. We can put some conditions for imported products from poor countries and sent the mesage that
4. The industries from developed world must reduce their no neccessary expences. It is unaceptable to weast so much money on CEOs, 10,20,30,50 or 100 times more that the avarage wages. This is paranoic provocation. It is even worst when we now that these imature, irresponsible CEOs caused the worst financial crisis since 1930, and even worst when we know that more that $18 billion dollars, taxpayers money, instead to used for new jobs American CEOs used them to increase their bonus! They have extremely low moral code or nothing at all!
For me it is time to put limits, a cup to CEOs mixed income. $300.000 dollars are plenty about 6 times more than the average wages. I feel sory for the poor CEOs and I agree to allow them to have a goat in their unit or a cow in their house for fresh milk.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

*Built-in Obsolescence is a major factor preventing a move towards a sustainable and equitable economy*

Yet some companies know that there is a market for quality and service
that market, so it is up to consumers. When I bought a new Mig
welder a couple of years ago, I wanted quality. I probably paid
three times the price of an el cheapo version from China and I bought
Australian made. Reason being that every engineering shop I walk into,
uses the same brand and for good reasons, they last.

Its the same with power tools. You can buy the el cheapo handyman
version, or the industrial version. The latter might cost 3-4 times
more, but will usually last a lifetime. Not so for the el-cheapo,
where the handyman might use it once a month.

*At present the economy is run by and for the extremely wealthy few.*

Ah, then along comes the internet and changes everything! Those
newspaper tycoons are going broke, online shopping is changing
how people shop, no need to pay huge rents to Westfield anymore.
Opportunity is everywhere, for those who open their eyes.

*then compensation to the retrenched employees needs to be paid in the form of retraining and income support till they regain alternative jobs*

Hang on, nobody owes you a job. If you tried to introduce such
silly legislation as law, any prospective entrepreneur would run
for miles. Net result, unemployed people everywhere.

Sorry Yabby, RobP,
All your reasoning still relies on a non esoteric notion that Capitalism is self righting (market forces) but needs a level playing field to do so.

Yabby That fridge/freezer I mentioned were a bog standard cheapie then. The same went for w/c the last W/c was a top end beast (cost mega) and lasted 2.5 years. The current front loader cost the same yet is damn near bullet proof.

(Aside) the Roller, it was sold to me as a minder to stop a wealthy family being fleeced by an avaricious ex-wife. In the end she was arrested for fraud and the son a lawyer bought their Roller back. He gave me a bonus a deposit on a home unit…but its fate is another tale. But boy did I get up to mischief with that Roller.

My point is /was that neither brand or price is a guarantee of quality and that in reality we the consumer is at the mercy of those with the capital.

There is a LONG list of Aussie good inventions bought and then buried because they offered a threat to the big boys. *Real* market choice is an illusion we can only chose from what we are presented and the choice of what is presented is the sole discretion/ benefit of the capitalist again the diseases left un touched because it’s not profitable. On the Murdoch post I talked about sterilzers and washing powders (brands) most being made by the same manufacturer and without real difference.

Finally strip shops are dying Qld where business it taking me has more shopping centres all offering the same chains per head per capita than anywhere in the world including Sweden which is under feet of snow for 6 months of the year.

Fractelle
me opined what? (Groan) another silly pun.
It never ceases to confirm that so many people have so much difficulty latching onto dis-linear and or lateral thinking. Then again we share a sometime unwanted quirk ;-) ;-) know what I mean?

*My point is /was that neither brand or price is a guarantee of quality and that in reality we the consumer is at the mercy of those with the capital. *

Nonsense, today the consumer is king, unlike the bad old days of
high tariffs and limited monopoly production, where you bought
what was available or went without.

What cannot be legislated for is for consumers to have any common
sense, many don't. They are free to work on it :)

Most of the things that I buy are not based on advertising, but
by asking other people who own the same product. Today with the
internet its even easier, just about any product can be checked out,
for those who bother to do their homework.

Not only that, but because of the internet, we consumers can cut
out some greedy importers. My 300$ dog training collar landed up
costing 46$ on Ebay, straight from Hong Kong. The infrared
thermometer to check bearing temps cost about the same, rather then
the 380$ I was quoted locally. Then you come along and tell me
that globalisation is a bad thing and that I am the mercy of those
with capital. Think again lol.

Its a shame that I don't have the link anymore, but some time ago
I read the story of an appliance manufacturer in Australia, who
inherited the business, but actually wanted to be a cattle farmer.
This was back in the days of high tariffs. He felt no need to
test any of his new models. Consumers would do that for him,
based on complaints. Sorry, but with that kind of attitude,
those companies should simply not be in business and to try and
force people to buy their rubbish by legislation, is a frigging joke.

"All your reasoning still relies on a non esoteric notion that Capitalism is self righting (market forces) but needs a level playing field to do so."

examinator,

My reasoning is this. Monopolists thrive when ordinary people are down, in the dark and disempowered. It's a see-saw - when one end's up, the other's down. This phenomenon happens because the physical world is finite, not infinite and the people in it are farflung in terms of their abilities and starting points in life. It stands to reason that if you have superior abilities and get in first, you dominate. This is why the developed West is so dominant.

But, once the ordinary person gets educated, has access to technology and other opportunities etc, the world will flatten out. Because it is finite, the yin-yang principle will start working the other way: the ordinary people, through weight of numbers, will start getting control back. Might be a hundred years away, but it will eventually happen.

Your reasoning goes back to past history (which was right then, but then people were in the dark and without real opportunities). The world is changing.

Yabby
I do not know how many times you bought from ebuy but I bought more than 670 times (I can prove it) your examples do not say the whole truth , about 15% of the products I paid I never received them, or they was totaly diferent from the products I paid.
We have changes but if we want to protect ourself from the crouck business we need new laws, as we need new laws to control CEOs acts who destroyed our financial system, etc.
Yabby it is seemed that you prefer businesses to act withouht limits to do what they want, take the risk and make money,not diferent from the drug dealers.
This happened 200, 300 years before, these was Bush's dreams but he destroyed the international system. We need laws and more laws to control the croucks, the thiefts and there are MANY OF THEM!
If they are dogs their problem but we (people, workers, women, etc)must have enouph power to brake dog's teeth if they try to bite us, and they bite us very often because we are unprotected
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

*Yabby it is seemed that you prefer businesses to act withouht limits to do what they want,*

Antonios, I have never made that claim, so the problem is your
perception, not what I believe.

We just see the world very differently, you and I. I see the glass
half full, you see it half empty.

You want Govt to solve everything for you, I prefer to make my
own decisions and paddle my own canoe. For I believe that alot
of the time Govt is not the solution, but actually the problem.

You want an easy life, provided to you by others, I prefer to
make my own life, my way.

You seem to imply that you are hard done by. I would suggest that
in Australia, you are extremely fortunate, for this place is full of
opportunities, for those who want to take them.

You hate business, I see the many benefits of win-win situations
between workers and business, if they so choose.

You seem to be envious of those who are wealthier then you. I
frankly could not care if they are, for I have what I need to
be happy and content and I earnt it myself, honestly.

So we will have to agree to disagree Antonios. Perhaps for once
you should stop and appreciate just how lucky you are, rather then
non stop complaining.

But that is just IMHO

Yabby
"You want an easy life, provided to you by others"
Are you joking? Do you know me? I am from the persons who could not live withouht to work, 6, 7 days per week, I do not know what is easy life and I do not care, I feel nice when I am busy, working, creating and you say me that I want an easy life provided by others?"
I do not accept a glass of waters from the others!
You have nice fantasy but I am exactly the opposite from what you think about me. I can give you names and phones if you have any doupt that you are not wrong about about me.
I am a fighter with developed human and social sensitivity , a very proud person.
Simple we are from two opposites sites, and always we will be!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide