One thing about our system is that we are all presented with an equal opportunity to fail.

We are all provided with affordable or free education, yet through the 70's 80's and 90's it has been possible to go through your entire schooling life without gaining a decent education.

Furthermore, throughout this period, one could leave school and go on to the dole and exist vertually at will without real fear of harrasement from the authorities, as they have been mostly 'toothless tigers'.

More recent times have seen laws introduced that children can leave home, claiming they were being treated unfairly and receive special benefits in doing so.

On the flip side there was also the introduction of many tafe courses aimed at providing a 'second chance' to some of these who failed their first attempt.

So my point is, that with all the talk about how poor the minimum wage is and, given the fact that we were all provided with an equal opportunity to fail, why should the minimum wage be any more than a meer existance.

Why should one be able to waste every opportunity in life, then drink, smoke and gamble at the expense of the achievers and be given free rein to do so.

Now there are always the genuine ones, but seriously, why should we worry that much about these people. After all, we tax payers have already paid for the opportunities that have been wasted.

In its 2009 general Wage-Setting Decision the Commission has decided to:
maintain the standard Federal Minimum Wage (FMW) at $14.31 per hour ($543.78 per week).

If on a benefit, single no children you get approx 225.00 a week.
Single with children you would get about 245.00 for yourself a week plus for your kids you’d get another 85.00 a week per child.
Err more money if you drive you little ones to school. More if you have a few more kids.

So for anyone with children they are better off in Aussie to be on a benefit than on minimum wage?

rehctub,

People should be required to do more for themselves. I agree with what you say in general. I don't have much sympathy for adults who find themselves homeless, jobless etc through their own uselessness and sloth, but I do sympathise with any children these people have. We still have to look after them - one way or the other - because it's not their fault that they are born to no-hopers.

One obvious reason to maintain a reasonable minimum wage is to provide an incentive for people to work for a living, rather than rely on welfare benefits.

Also, I note that an evident lack of education hasn't prevented rehctub from becoming a successful businessman. However, it probably accounts for his very simplistic and often ignorant attitude towards others who are less fortunate than him.

The Minimum wage at $543.78 a week, still attracts a tax bill, and on that the tax is: $61. What that means is that in reality a person on the minimum wage must pay, without option, $61 in tax, and it rises rapidly if he or she works harder. In another thread I am criticizing the High Court rather severely because they were charged with upholding the Constitution, but on application to them by the Federal Government went to a long lunch at the end of 1952, and are still an exclusive dining club for superannuated lawyers.

The rot did not get really bad until 1970, and accelerated in 1972, when not only were there almost no homeless people begging on the streets of Sydney/Calcutta but only 100,000 unemployed in the whole of Australia. What happened then was that wages were doubled in twelve months as Whitlam decided to force Australians to pay a fair wage, producing a consumer led boom, that caused massive inflation, but also raised the tax take as the tax free threshold remained the same.

In taking home $481.00 workers on the minimum wage, are given a real disincentive to work, because for every extra dollar they earn, they pay more and more taxes. I am a Christian, and I can read my mother language, which says in Section 51 Placitum xxxi Constitution that the Commonwealth can acquire your property on just terms but not otherwise. Your wages is your property.

Before 1972 just terms for that acquisition was provided by setting the tax free threshold at a level that allowed average weekly earnings to be almost completely tax free. Relying on an increasingly hoary memory, I recall that the Tax free threshold was set at about $1300 in 1972. I know a dollar an hour was a good casual wage, and people were only too willing to work for that.

It is time for the High Court to come out of retirement and disallow all the plethora of quasi judicial organizations created to replace it, while it was sleeping. The Industrial Relations Commission is one

Rehctub’s repeated statements regarding equal opportunity for failure are a common theme. He presents as a self-made person - and justly proud of it.

But his personal success now seems to be the bench mark against which all other non-privileged Australians are measured.

Perhaps he came from a background of violence, sexual abuse, drug dependency, continuous moves from rental shack to rental shack? Perhaps his mother took drugs while pregnant and he was born drug dependent? Maybe he came from a single parent family where the head of household was not a fit parent? It’s possible both his parents were second generation Dole recipients and possessed neither moral, ethical nor intellectual frameworks with which to inculcate their children. It’s also possible that his parents were engaged in petty crime, and one or the other (or both) of them spent his formative years in and out of jail. While he may have had adequate schooling perhaps he is not the sharpest tool in the shed, or suffers from some kind of mental illness? Perhaps one or both of his parents did?

Then again, we know nothing about his actual personality and characteristics. It could be he was shy and lacked self-confidence throughout his life; or his life experiences as a child and teenager showed him a world of corruption and despair from which a limited imagination could supply no escape? Tragically, perhaps, both his parents resented him and, while not physically maltreating him, made him unmistakably aware that he was unwanted, thus providing him with a sense of his own uselessness and unworthiness? He could have been brought up as the butt of bullies or suffer from some minor deformity or physical anomaly that marked him down as an outcast.

If any or all of the above apply then kudos indeed to Rehctub. Good on yer, yer little Aussie battler.

But then surely judging everyone else as coming from a level playing field would surely be the mark of someone whose narcissism outweighed all consideration of humanity, fairness, or intelligent understanding?

I knew, before I looked who had posted this thread.
Even said why bother reading or contributing to it.
But I must, the very reason I am a proud trade unionist, activist, ALP member activist is in my history.
As a kid around Bowral my fathers father and mother worked as servants, to people thou Australians spoke lived and acted as English upper classes.
Calling that cold country home.
Even I and for sure my dad, was expected to tip my hat or even hold it over our hearts if talking to these pretentious fools, we never did.
I earned a mans wage for a mans work from age 15, never left a job the boss did not ask me to stay at, but some work for very little.
Small country timber mills even now see homes owned by the boss extra hours even days worked without pay by workers owned by the boss, in debt to him so badly they must stay.
minimum wage is still the oil that feeds rural Australia's shops, buys the sausages in butchers shop or shops.
Workers need to eat, do not dare tell me low wages equates to laziness or low IQ remoteness lack of education or opportunity can make this the only choice.
Bosses thrive while some stagnate, a fair days pay for a fair days work is not a crime.
Some workers suffer more than others.
But to hold wages low to keep such as butcher happy or to help the economy?
fair go bloke I still ask why I bothered but I will till death demand that, fairness equity nothing less.

Romany
Now there are always the genuine ones, You must have missed this line in my post. Hey!

Belly, I thought you'd died. Welcom back!

Now there is a lot to cover here, so lets go.

Kids. Yes they are the victims, however, as long as welfare is paid in dollars and is free to be wasted, they will always suffer. Simple solution. Stop paying cash! A limmited debit card would be a starting point.

If a person on a minimum wage drinks in excess, gambles or smokes, while depriving their kids, then perhaps a tafe course, leading to a better paid job is one answer. I don't recall any courses being offered at the pub though.

History shows that many unskilled migrants, facing a language barrier as well, went on the become self made millionares, simply because they chose to better themselves and their kids.

As I said. We are all offered an opportunity to fail.

Well the 14.31 an hour is a bit misleading, the way I understand it.

That applies if its a permanent job, with all the bells and whistles,
which add another 20%, or the casual rate.

That would take it to around 17$ per hour worked, plus another
9% Super, which takes it up to $18.50 an hour worked, actually paid.

Depending on the employer, they then face payroll tax of 6%
and workers comp, depending on the industry, but commonly 6%.

So that minimum wage can cost the employer around $ 20.70 an hour,
which he has to screw back out of consumers, or go broke.

Put the family assistance payments in the schools, get rid of the private schools. Schools provide all meals if needed from before school care to after school care from pre-school through to high school.

Stop food, clothing and education for children being about what any parent has in their bank account. Farmer’s kids and home schooling the exception. Boarding schools made a good option. Holiday camps, weekend care.

Socialism for childhood, capitalism for everyone over 18.

Anyone who aspires to achieve merely the minimum wage is lacking in the necessary self respect and self reliance which produces the wealth upon which the Australian government and welfare system relies for funding.

Should the minimum wage keep people in anything approaching a state of luxury?...

Definitely not!

If you want luxuries, expect to work for them –

like the rest of us.

Rehctub wrote, " We are all provided with affordable or free education".

Master replies: Affordable, yes. Free - - - NO. There's NO SUCH THING as a free education. EVERY taxpayer has a lower take home pay because some of that tax goes to EDUCATION. When a kid starts work their taxes often go towards paying off past govt. education debt.

Rehctub wrote, " Throught the 70s, 80s and 90s it has been possible to go through your entire schooling life without gaining a decent education".

Master replies: True! It's also true that throughout the 10s, 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s and 2000s it has been possible to go through your entire schooling life without gaining a decent education. I've met, worked with, and been boss of thousands of them. The number of people who can't read, write or add up who got their education pre 60s has not been tiny.

Rehctub wrote, " Throughout this period one could leave school and go onto the dole and exist virtually at will without real fear of harrasement (sic)"

Master replies: THAT'S the stereotype "you" believe in, obviously because it suits your philosophy. Reality was VERY different for many. My 2 unemployed nephews in the 80s were PUSHED and HOUNDED by the authorities to gain qualifications and jobs or NO MONEY FOR THEM. It worked, and two quite lazy and well fed teenagers turned out to be self sufficient teenagers.

Rehctub wrote, " Children can leave home, claiming they were treated unfairly and receive special benefits in doing so".

Master replies: Gee imagine that. A girl gets raped by her father, leaves home and gets help to survive. Gee, what an ungrateful wretch that girl must be - - - her father worked his guts out down at the foundry just so he could feed her, and this is how she repays him.

Rehctub wrote, "Why should the minimum wage be any more than a mere existance (sic)?".

Master replies: The after tax minimum wage is around $482 for a full working week. Anything even NEAR that low IS a "mere existence".

Better luck next time Rehctub.

One thing that is not often understood by the unions is that the cost to a company of an employee's wages is about 2/3 of the total cost of employment.

The other costs include:
1 Super,
2 Payroll tax.
3 Other compulsory costs,
4 And last but not least the costs in dealing with the new IR laws.

Labor states brought in 2 and federal labor brought back 4.

If labor really cared about creating jobs they could work on items 2 and 4 and the lowest paid workers could take home more without the employer having to find it.

Family Assistance is given to foster parents but means tested on the foster parent’s income.

Some foster kids don’t get the same monies coming their way as the ones who have been placed with foster parents on a benefit.

The NGO foster parents get up to twice as much in allowances funded by DoCS plus if on a benefit as well they get the full FA handed to them by Centrelink.

Some Charity Homes get funded for having kids whether kids are in the beds or not plus they charge the teenagers rent and make them pay for their own food and clothing because the kids are on benefits while also being in foster care and pretty much have money to burn at a young age.

To place some kids DoCS will pay a “care +1” allowance (which is extra monies designated for “difficult” children or children with a disability) in order to convince a foster parent to take on another child.

The amounts of money going in several directions are huge and unjustified as far as I can see. Some departments could save this country millions if they decided to.

I’m guessing if they were more sensible with their budgets this would then reduce the tax required and minimum wage may not be as painful compared with the Centrelink benefits?

Master replies: Affordable, yes. Free - - - NO. There's NO SUCH THING

Given the fact that very few students pay for their education, as it is funded by someone else, then I would consider it as free!

Master replies: Gee imagine that. A girl gets raped by her father

Now you're being a complete dill if you think this is your typical case. Simply a devirsion- Nice try. It has more to do with the 'do-gooders' telling kids they have rights than anything else.

Master replies: The after tax minimum wage is around $482 for a full working week. Anything even NEAR that low IS a "mere existence".

Have I mentioned anywhere that the minimum wage should be reduced.
You are a dead set 'toss' mate!

Now I agree the minimum wage is very low In fact, I spend more than this on a weekend at times. But, the fact is that the majority of people on a minimum wage have been provided with many opportunities to better themselves, right from their schooling days, but they have chosen to remain where they are.

Life is full of choices and opportunities. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Now given that someone has paid for the wasted education, as master has stated, why then should we continue to pay when we get little or no return on our investment.

Almost anyone can enrol in a course to better themselves as there are many options available. Better skills often lead to better jobs and better pay.

These skills can't be learned at the pub, nor from the pokie machine and most certinly not in front of the telly. It requires ones commitment.

Remember, tomorrow is the first day of the rest of your life. It is never to late to start.

Let's examine rehctub's reply to my post:

Point 1: Rehctub thinks that because the children themselves don't pay for their education, therefore EDUCATION IS FREE. His quote is, "I would consider it as free". Gee rehctub, have you thought of offering a course on "logic"? I think there may be an opening for your course at the Jerry Springer University at Micky Mouse Town, Disneyland.

Point 2: Look at rehctub's spelling. He's obviously one of the people our education system neglected.

Point 3: Regarding children leaving home. Rehctub's original statement infers that kid's leave home with no history of mistreatment. True. However the "language" encased in his statement shows ZERO recognition that MANY children who leave home are victims of often incredible mistreatment and abuse from their parents and guardians and relatives. My reply restored the "balance", in recognising that not ALL children who leave home are manipulative little liars. Better luck next time rehctub with your twisted logic and one sided "implications".

Point 4: Rehctub wrote, " Have I mentioned anywhere that the minimum wage should be reduced (sic, no question mark), you are a dead set loss mate".
Master replies: Nowhere did I say, that you said the minimum wage should be reduced. Now rehctub is "INVENTING" things that he then says other folks are saying. He doesn't actually read what is "really" said. Again, I put this down to our education system letting rehctub through the education net. Obviously his English comprehension skills are in need of remedial attention.

Point 5: Rehctub's "IMPLICATION" is that the "MAJORITY" of people on the minimum wage choose the pub, polkies and telly; similar to his twisted allegation which implies that children who leave home are NOT mistreated (with ZERO qualification from him). Rehctub if you don't know what "zero qualification" means, please look it up. And no, it does not refer to educational qualifications. I thought I'd better help you out with that one, as I can see you are struggling. Rehctub's "implications" only mention ONE SIDE OF THE COIN.

Rehctub, you're dismissed from class: Score, FAILED.

Messy thread, find myself agreeing with master, still not answering questions shadow minister?
Minimum wage is not living in luxury how Col can you expect anyone to take you as other than a cranky unfocused old man?
In my world, my youth my daily life now, I lived on a mans minimum wage, my dads he as white with salt on his sweat stained shirt every day on coming home.
Winter or summer he worked himself to death at age 54, he was a valuable worker ,proudly every boss I ever had said/says I am too.
Now yes do you know how may are on that wage?
How many must live on less than very many houses get on social security.
How dare anyone put low income earners in that bucket.
Watch with me a 3 man family walk out the door at 4am and come home after dark, a bosses owned home, on minimum ages.
Know they had to work every anzac day, for single time, or leave the home that week.
BOSSES are not angels, not all of them, how I would hate to work for rehtub or Col then I never ever would starvation is better than slavery.
Unions? together we bargain divided we beg.

Master

Very few students pay for their education, so in essence, it is free to them. If I buy a drink and give it to you, then it's free,to you. This is what I mean.

Look at rehctub's spelling. I will save this one till last. *

Regarding children leaving home.
I don't dispute genuine cases.

On the other hand, we can all find some type of truma in our past and use this as an excuse. Let's face it, most of us decended from convicts, but we're not all criminals now are we!

Rehctub wrote, " Have I mentioned anywhere that the minimum wage should be reduced
Yes, I will conceed that one.

Rehctub, you're dismissed from class: Score, FAILED
I have never claimed to be well educated and in fact, I was told by one of my teachers that I would be a 'failure in life'. Now, I just wish you could have seen the look on his face when I arrived at the school reunion in my porsce 911. It was priceless!

By the way I achieved a junior pass, just!

During my 20 years in business I have created over 300 jobs, remained married for 24 years, raised two great kids (better educated than me), donated in excess of $100,000 to local comunities (including free breakfasts for less fortunate kids) and free food for homeless street kids and set my family up quite well.

My kids have a start in life and are well educated. The rest is up to them as an education is only the begining, it's lifes choices that determine your faith in many cases.

Now if this constitutes failure, then so be it.

The fact remains that if I can do it with my obviously limmited education, then anyone can.

I didn't work a 9 to 5 mon to fri job by the way!

p.s. * Now if you can raed tihs it poorvs taht sellpnig is oervaetd.

Manners and respect on the other hand are free. Notice I have not insulted you one bit. Rather makes you look a tad silly,hey!

Every person on the minimum wage has two monkeys on his back. Those monkeys are the Commonwealth and whatever State he or she lives in, and those monkeys are there, because seven people, three women and four men, getting close to the highest government salaries in Australia live in a state of fear. They live in a rightly perceived State of Fear, because the only reason they get their pay packet every week, is the good will of Robert McClelland. He is the Labor Attorney General. He could at any time use the provisions of legislation passed by Paul Keating’s government to get rid of what Paul called scumbags.

I talk of S 268:10 and 268:12 Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth . These abolish slavery, and make it a twenty five years in prison offence, and the failure to apply the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights carries a seventeen year sentence. Instead of enforcing this legitimately enacted and published law, McClelland has had one of his mates, Father Frank Brennan roaming the country at government expense telling us the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is not a law.

Monkeys are an exotic animal and should be only seen in zoos. However this thread shows that there are both kinds of monkeys, on the shoulders of every working man and woman in Australia. That the minimum wage imposes a burden on employers of at least $20 an hour, is accepted as true. That twenty dollars an hour should be going straight into the pocket of the person who earned it, not stolen by the State and Federal Governments.

You are being robbed blind, because the highest paid public servants, for all their education cannot or will not read. You are being robbed blind because the highest paid public servants are not Christians. You are being robbed blind because there are none so blind as those who will not see, and because all Judges are pagans, they cannot see that the ultimate unforgivable sin is to be a Judge. A Judge commits blasphemy sitting without a jury

“Very few students pay for their education, so in essence, it is free to them.” If that is what you meant then I don’t quite see your point. Very few pay for their clothes or their food either…so are these too “in essence” free?

Or are you talking about Tertiary education? In which case every student (unless they have a wealthy, Porsche-driving daddy) starts off their working life with a huge debt hanging over their head and compulsory repayments taken from their earnings.

Although you have said a number of times that you “don’t dispute genuine cases” you seem to think that there are very few genuine cases.

I’m guessing that you merely skimmed over my post in which I listed the many ways in which someone can be robbed of the opportunity to advance themselves. All of those represent not just ONE kid but thousands, taken all together.

I said earlier that you were “justly proud” of your accomplishments. You have taken many opportunities in this forum to list your accomplishments and how far you have come. But there comes a point when an understandable pride can become intolerant smugness.

O.k., you’ve encountered, or heard about, people who rort the system But to then assume that they represent the majority of poor people is unfair. Or do you think you are the only one who has managed to rise above things?

Its simply the case that you, and other people like you, are not the subject of as many newspaper articles or tv docos as the other kind.

In some ways your posts read as if you have never stopped being poor despite your expensive car and your business and your property holdings and all the trappings. You seem to want to shake the dust of your more humble beginnings from your feet and to put as much distance as possible between the underprivileged and you, by stressing, in so many posts, how different you are from them

<<<...and to put as much distance as possible between the underprivileged and you, by stressing, in so many posts, how different you are from them...>>>

Romany I do believe you have found the source for rechtub's zealotry; like a reformed smoker or born-again Christian he expounds relentlessly on the failures of those who do not behave or believe as he does.

Claiming that he does not endorse a reduction in minimum wage, one has to ask why start this thread at all? Blaming a worker for earning nothing more than the minimum wage appears to be a sport which he shares with the anachronistic Col Rouge.

Should the minimum wage be any higher? Well if it is not keeping pace with the CPI then yes, indeed, it should. There is no gain for the economy when people cannot pay their rent, mortgage or buy food or clothing if their wages are held in stasis while prices escalate. Nor is there any chance for change if a low-skilled worker wishes improve their prospects through further education if it remains beyond their means.

The pattern emerging from rechtub's many discussion threads is one of justifying his desire to hold low standards, rights and wages to his employees by using straw-man arguments to bolster his belief that impoverished people deserve their circumstances.

PS

The car you claim to drive, rechtub, is spelled 'PORSCHE' 911 and guzzles fossil fuel BTW. So if you thought to impress, you failed.

Rehctub wrote, "The fact remains that if I can do it with my obviously limited education, then anyone can".

Master replies: NOT SO!
Everyone has "different" abilities. Some of the best educated people are the least self sufficient. . . AND . . . some of the worst educated people are the least self sufficient as well: And amongst BOTH these classes of people we have those who are extremely self sufficient. There's a thousand and one different reasons why people succeed, and a thousand and one reasons why people fail: And there's many different definitions of success, and many different definitions of failure: One person's "success" can very easily be another person's "failure". Just because YOU can do a certain thing DOES NOT mean "anyone" can do it. Your "belief" that "anyone" can (just because "you" can), displays a serious lack of insight.

Here's some easy examples:

One person may play the guitar quite nicely after just one month's practice, whereas another person might practice diligently for life and never reach the same standard.

One person might study hard for an exam and fail, whereas another person might do little study and pass that exam.

One person might have established wonderful steps for a successful life, but then be struck down by bi polar disorder, and end up on the streets. Whereas, another person might be utterly irresponsible regarding the future, and not get a neurological disoder, and go on to succeed (it happens).

In other words rechtub, you can believe in all the stereotypes you wish - - - BUT,

"REAL" life is different.

Fractelle “Blaming a worker for earning nothing more than the minimum wage appears to be a sport which he shares with the anachronistic Col Rouge.”

I blame no worker for anything but you are entitled to corrupt what I say in whatever way you want and I will repeatedly correct your morally bankrupt views.

Actually, “anachronistic” is a compliment when vomited up from an obviously under-achieving malignant.

The older, well tried values, which tend to be labeled “anachronistic” by some, reminds me of something else I have often heard....

Why do socialists change the name of their policies and beliefs so frequently (whilst claiming the long held and commonly described values of their opponents are “anachronistic”)?”

It is because the socialist experiments in engineering always fail so rapidly and frequently, that they are abandoned and another dead-duck policy (ETS) is then hailed as the new universal panacea, designed to make everything “perfect” for everyone, in this, a most “imperfect” world.

Master “One person might study hard for an exam and fail, whereas another person might do little study and pass that exam.….

I have commented often, I have an ability to develop software products but cannot play the piano. but mine is a fair analogy and underscores the value of diversity which individualism strives to encourage, versus the “enforced equality” of socialism. I take full credit and derive great personal value (in esteem as well as materially) from my skill and assume the pianist does the same, ensuring his reward is commensurate with his musical skill and the market demand for that skill.

Imho, I believe rechtub’s attitude is the reason he succeeds.

Attitude, is not taught in school, it is acquired by observation and relies on the values of determination, endurance, persistence and self-reliance to succeed, rather than adopting the “poor-me”, “gimme a safety net” demands of the indolent and self-apologists who commonly rank among the socialists of this world.

I would also like to think I have a similar attitude

Romany,

'starts off their working life with a huge debt hanging over their head and compulsory repayments taken from their earnings.'
Actually you have to be earning a lot more than the minimum wage to start paying any of it off. Ever.

Ah Col,

A voice of reason you are. Such anger you generate from the socialists. I used to be pretty left wing, (in fact I still even think that private schools should get no government assistance and I much prefer government run utilities rather than government gifted monopolies in the private sector), but I grew up.

From my observations in life, left wing people think all the worlds problems would be solved, and everyone would behave if they were just given a hug. The flaw in this is that when a homicidal drugged up axe wielding maniac goes on a rampage, the lefties think he just had a bad childhood, and needs help. But when a rich businessman defrauds, pollutes, abuses his power, he is just the scum of the earth and needs to be locked up. The sympathy for human frailties from the left is reverse means tested. Not very 'inclusive' when it comes to people's backgrounds at all it seems are these lefties.

That and the fact that everyone who I meet who identifies with the left are lazy layabouts at work. Myself included.

On the topic, I agree with CJ though, 'One obvious reason to maintain a reasonable minimum wage is to provide an incentive for people to work for a living, rather than rely on welfare benefits.'

I also agree with, and are happy to pay for unemployment benefits and single parent benefits to those who don't think they have the strength to search for a better life through education, therapy, anti-depressants, or life philosophy. They can have their free ride, on me, because I am happy with my lot, and have money to spare. I'd rather prop them up so a few less will be banging on my door to steal my stuff.

Houellebecq “That and the fact that everyone who I meet who identifies with the left are lazy layabouts at work.”

We all make our choices, from my observation, such individuals exist more in the pampered environs of government (be it federal state or local) and less so in the commercial / private sector, where “performance accountability” actually matters.

No wonder government needs an ever increasing proportions of the national income, when it continues to support the bludgers instead of making performance appraisal a real test (school teachers are particularly good at avoiding such disciplines and hospitals just fudge the figures anyway, in Victoria).

So when the rotten bunch of rorters eventually take over the madhouse, the public re-elect a liberal government to push the parasites snouts out the public purse.

'One obvious reason to maintain a reasonable minimum wage is to provide an incentive for people to work for a living, rather than rely on welfare benefits.'

Then maybe the value of welfare benefits needs to be reviewed too….

Being selfemployed, I have gone through periods of “unemployment” sometimes extending across months. During these periods I am, generally, disqualified from receiving the “benefits” the left would seek to provide for the “unemployed” despite being an industrious taxpayer for most of the time.

“I also agree with, and are happy to pay for unemployment benefits and single parent benefits to those who don't think they have the strength to search for a better life through education, therapy, anti-depressants, or life philosophy.”

Your acceptance requires a massive “subjective judgment” to be made by those you would consider possible beneficiaries of your largesse.

For instance, we all get depressed from time to time, the difference is some choose to wallow in it whilst others resolve to fix it. So who is more “deserving” ?

Why has this debate come down to either the minimum wage must be set to 'mere existence' or set close to a life of luxury.

Not much commonsense in either. The minimum wage should be a living wage - to enable a hard working cleaner, waitress, retail assistant etal to live without fear of poverty, to be able to pay their bills and still put food on the table or pay a doctor's bill. Obviously luxury itmes will take a bit more time with careful saving.

Reason dictates the MW should provide an incentive to work and as such should increase in line with increases in the cost of living and in that scenario should sit reasonably above the dole.

It is all very well for those who aspire to more than the MW to sit in judgement of those other professions for which the MW is paid. But consider who will serve at tables, clean your offices or serve your loaf of bread down at the bakery?

The mistake with our eonomic thinking at times is we tend to talk only in terms of job creation when really our economy is based on provision of goods and services - some essential, some less so.

Then we create a value for those jobs based on some arbitrary and not-so-arbitary rules sometimes based on level of skill, education or hard physical work. Sometimes the rules appear disporportionate to 'value' depending on which benchmark we use which is why a player for the Sydney Swans or the Raiders might get more salary than a brick layer despite both being physically demanding.

The market is often used as an indicator of what value is placed on jobs - there are many indicators of value and they change over time depending on demand, popularity, niche and numbers.

To pretend that some jobs are more 'important' or should be looked on with disdain because they are not seen as aspirational is to use your own standards and value judgements to dictate how other people should live.

Col
One point - I am not sure you can argue that someone who is depressed make a choice to wallow in it. Surely the condition of being depressed means they may not have the means at their disposal to get out of it. Luckily I have never been in that position but it must be very difficult for those who lose this control over their lives.

Houlley
I am pretty much in agreement with your residual left thinking and have no time for rorters or shirkers but believe the safety net of welfare protects us all in various ways - mainly as insurance should we be subject to foul times (temporarily out of our control) and as important to national wellbeing - which from a selfish viewpoint benefits us all via reduced crime rates and offers a step up for the more disadvantaged to have a go.

I am not sure on which you base your belief that laziness is the domain of the left wing and that socialism is all about hugging. As someone who is slightly left of centre I have never been on the dole and have always been self-sufficient.

Touching on something Col said, I don't think it is the condition of being unemployed that serves in itself as a right to the dole if you have a stash of cash put aside as I have done throughout my life and have been lucky to earn more than the average wage.

Col man,

'For instance, we all get depressed from time to time, the difference is some choose to wallow in it whilst others resolve to fix it.'

Agreed. But it's your “subjective judgement” in measuring the tools people have been given to deal with such things. Even if you think everyone has the same capacity for courage, or self-confidence, or self awareness, or whatever, luck and health can come in to play.

So who is more “deserving” ?'

That's my point. I don't care who is more 'deserving'. If someone cant bring themselves (for WHATEVER reason, including life philosophy like I said) to bother trying to excel in something, or build retirement security or want a nice environment to live in, or to provide for a family, or just to want to be a good little consumer because they like the gadgets, I am infinitely happier than them in my book. I don't care about their morality, or whether they 'deserve' my tax dollars, that's on their head. I'll live a happy life regardless.

There's enough people who will always want to live a more fulfilling life with all the trappings, so no worries about who will pick up the tab.

What makes me wonder about people who are so worried about the people they see as layabouts, is whether they are secretly jealous of the Big Lebowski's of this world.

pelican,

Really, all my right wing friends are managers with a strong work ethic and are interested in their career. All my left wing friends are very fond of having sickies to watch the cricket and don't want any responsibility, surf the net all day at work, and hate wearing a tie and avoid it at all costs, and think career is a dirty word. Col, you'll be happy to know many of them work for the public service too!

I think right wing people have a strong inner parent, and left wing people have a strong inner child.

See Col has the parent in his head saying, pick yourself up, go out and get a job. Lots of people get depressed, get some medication or therapy and get on out there.

Now you say, oh, poor dear, depression's a terrible thing, I don't quite understand it but you just stay in bed today, it's probably all you're able to do. I wont judge you, come now, I'll give you a hug.

I still always wonder whether lefties ever think rich people get depressed, or that rich people deserve hugs too. And what if Dubya or The Rodent was really depressed or insecure and just needed a hug?

I think right leaning people assume all the pikeys deserve their lot and shouldn't get any help.

But lefties are just as bad with anyone who has happened to make something of themselves, or made a really successful company, made a mistake BECAUSE they have the responsibility and HAVE to make a decision that affects people. Something many left wingers have avoided their whole life.

Houlley
I will have to bow to your superior knowledge of depression, I genuinely thought there were some cases that were untreatable even with medication. Perhaps there are some on OLO who can shed some light on dealing with this illness.

As for the rest my experience mirrors yours but in the opposite direction. My most successful friends (if we are measuring success purely by income) are left wingers both in the private and public sector. Maybe Canberra is not the right place to make a general assessment about the relationship of occupation to political leaning and perhaps it is not indicative of the 'real world'.

For most of my colleagues leaning more to the Left just means providing a safety net for those who genuinely need it, not a free-for-all for the truly lazy. I don't see many socialists out there arguing for all the lazy people who can't be bothered working to please go and help yourself to the dole.

Left thinking does not equate with disincentives for success or for working - keeping in mind that success for some does not always mean more money but more challenging, interesting or worthwhile work.

I have much respect for any person who has worked hard and built a successful business but would easily lose that respect if he paid exploitative wages and treated his workers little better than slaves or used offshore bank accounts to avoid paying taxes.

My right wing friends are not bad people but they rely too much on the belief that the market will fix everything as though the market is a free thinking entity in and of itself not subject to the whims of human imperfections. However even they believe in a welfare system to prop up the most vulnerable or to give a hand up to allow people to better themselves so I am not sure what field of work your RW friends hail from.

Romany,
…so are these too “in essence” free?
Well, yes, to them. Someone has paid, not the students.

Or are you talking about Tertiary education? I…. (unless they have a wealthy, Porsche-driving daddy)
Ah, the tall poppies!

Personally ,I think hex debts stink, especially when we give millions/billions to overseas projects in the form of aid. Charity starts at home I say.

At no time have I ever considered myself better than anyone else. Please don’t brand me as a snob as I am far from it. But seriously, life is what you make it and that’s it.

Fractelle
Should the minimum wage be any higher?
So tell me. Can one live on the minimum wage if they live in basic housing and buy only the basic needs?

My mother is a widow pensioner, owns here own home and lives quite well. Even manages to save a little. The only expense she does not have is meat, which she does not each much of anyway.

As for my employees, now you're talking crap and trying to defame me. Read my posts, you will see that my staff are well paid.

'PORSCHE' 911 (used to drive, I have out grown this)
Proof however that my theory about spelling is correct. Thank you.

Master
One person may play the guitar quite nicely after just one month's practice, whereas another person might practice diligently for life and never reach the same standard.
Yes, poor career choice perhaps. It happens.

"REAL" life is different.
Yes, there are the ‘genuine cases’ but seriously, I doubt these account for more than 1 % of minimum wage earners..

The fact remains that people on minimum wages, for whatever reason, can’t expect someone else to continually top up their incomes so they can enjoy luxuries they can’t really afford and this is the problem.

A person on a minimum wage, with a family, can’t expect the tax payer to pay for their plasma, or their smokes, gambling or their nights at the pub.

Now if you really think that this doesn’t happen, then open your eyes.

Kevin Rudd has a chance to prove he is really a very good democrat. His logic chip which seems to work pretty well on most things should address the plight of those on the minimum wage. Turnbull, a silvertail lawyer would never think of it, but what KR should do immediately to stimulate the economy further, is immediately abolish taxes on anyone who earns less than $800 a week. These taxes are probably counter productive in any case, and amount to little more than a compulsory loan by the low paid and disadvantaged to the Commonwealth, enriching thousands of accountants who charge sixty dollars to put in a tax return for these low paid workers.

At the minimum wage, the Commonwealth wants $60.00 straight up in tax a week. Abolishing tax on pays less than $20 an hour, would pump hundreds of millions of dollars a week into the economy. I am reliably informed that there are many who get cash in the hand, but this would mean a real boost to the local economy.

It is almost axiomatic that accountants make lousy managers. Lawyers are some of the worst managers around, according to some people I know, and have to employ an office manager to make sure they pay their bills. Come on Kevin, how about a wages led recovery, led by letting the little people, the clerks and salespeople in the supermarkets, the small time process workers, the retail salespeople who work for Big Mac and Whopper get a break.

It’s a Christian thing. Give them their daily bread, and welcome them into the Commonwealth. After they have been given their daily bread, they should have the burden of State taxes lifted off their employers necks, and the taxes on employment lifted. S 114 Constitution, prohibits States from taxing property of any description belonging to the Commonwealth, and since the Commonwealth comprises all of us, as a body politic, payroll tax is a tax of any kind. Make it worth while to be a member of the Commonwealth. Let the Liberals find a way to criticize this

I knew I was wrong, never should have contributed to the thread but some how I just had to defend people on low incomes.
How did they get branded Lefty's? or slothful, or how did the raise in pay they did not get this time be seen as for purchasing luxury items?
Reality screams look deeper at the issue, just who said low income earners are not much different than social security people.
Or that all on that pittance are bludgers.
Education ability opportunity all are not measures of the worth of low income earners or any humans.
Do not look just at our city's for them, look at most country workers.
And among them you ill find good parents well fed kids getting a good education.
People who never have problems with police and other officials surely branding us by income is just stupid.
rechtub you may well not be a snob, I have told you before you seem to be a good bloke, but you are blind to others needs and concerns.
In fact you need to walk a few miles in the shoes of some you constantly insult.

Belly: "rechtub you may well not be a snob, I have told you before you seem to be a good bloke, but you are blind to others needs and concerns.
In fact you need to walk a few miles in the shoes of some you constantly insult."

I have suggested that Rechtub become a waged employee on a number of occasions - he has yet to respond. Clearly imagination is not lacking in Rechtub, as he states that I have claimed he underpays his employees - I have never commented on how he treats his employees. Although now that he has brought my attention to this topic, I have to wonder at someone who constantly whinges about the cost of employing people, now claims to be a generous employer.

Why should a minimum wage be higher? A minimum wage needs to keep pace with the cost of basic necessities such as accommodation, food, clothing, school expenses - I am not even daring to suggest that low income people might like to see a movie occasionally or go to restaurant, lest I be howled down with shouts that low-income people should just be grateful to have a job. Apparently well-being and contentment are luxuries reserved for those on higher incomes.

Fractelle
You wrote

I have suggested that Rechtub become a waged employee on a number of occasions - he has yet to respond.

My response
I have already told you that I worked for coles. Given the fact that I did the work of two or three staff, for the same money, I decided to buy another shop. Yep, UFD at it's best, protecting the lowest achievers in the workplace, ultimately setting the benchmark.

You wrote
The pattern emerging from rechtub's many discussion threads is one of justifying his desire to hold low standards, rights and wages to his employees

To his employees
So what is this then if it's not accusing me of paying low wages?

Now as for zero tax for low paid workers, I have no problem with that. The saving on paperwork would be one less burdon on small business owners.

But the true fact remains that unless one wishes to better themselves, nothing will change as there are opportunities for people to better themselves, even if it does mean the odd hour or two for nothing, just to gain some skills.

When I was a kid I worked for several hours each week, in the first few years, just to learn to break beef. Nowdays this is seen as the boss using people.

Sure one can use something from their past as an excuse, but hey, most of us have skelitons in the closet, dont we!

By the way. Most people who can't work due to an illness or handicap are subsidiesed anyway. So what's the big problem.

By the way, my shops burn fosil fuel as well. Should I shut them down and sack everyone.

By the way, do you own a car that burns fosil fuel?

Over to you, 'tall poppies'!

Now we are supposed to believe that all those on low incomes are smokers, gamblers and expect us all to pay for their plasmas.

Maybe they all beat their wives too.

It never ceases to amaze me how someone's income can immediately be used to make generalisations about morality and decency.

Are you psychic rehctub, where are the low income earners that are asking for us to pay for their plasmas? Asking for a measley increase in the minimum wage is not a plasma aspiration.

This is more likely to be the aspirations of politicians who recently enjoyed a >$3,000 increase in pay despite telling the rest of Australia to tighten their belts.

Why is it always the lower incomes that are supposed to bear the brunt of any enconomic crisis? We are asking the least able to do the most while large corporates are expected to maintain obscene profits and pay overindulgent CEO salaries.

Where is the outrage?

I think Belly is right, it is like talking to a brick wall.

Well I have a confession to make. After reading my own posts I can see how some of you think I am unfair in my treatment of low paid workers, as some of my views can be taken either way. For this, I am sorry as I meant no harm.

I have never been one to consider myself better than anyone else and at no time do I label all low paid workers as drunks, gamblers or layabouts.

Now in having said this, in my view there are two ways to make a good income.

1. Be well skilled and get paid well for your skills. e.g. $90K + p/a

2. Earn a lower rate of pay and work longer hours.

Unfortunately, a recent inclusion has been to have several kids as the support on offer is huge, so much so that many are better off not working when in that situation, it's just a shame the way this support is handled as often it's the kids that miss out.

Now there are stats that link excessive gambling, drinking etc to low incomes and that's a fact.

So in essence, if I offended anyone, please accept my applogy as it was never my intention to do so.

rechtub

<< 1. Be well skilled and get paid well for your skills. e.g. $90K + p/a

2. Earn a lower rate of pay and work longer hours. >>

Do you have any other brilliant solutions to the human condition? Can't wait to see how you'd achieve world peace.

rehctub: << 1. Be well skilled and get paid well for your skills. e.g. $90K + p/a >>

Gee, I know several butchers and lots of meatworkers. They're all well skilled and none of them earns anything like $90K - in fact, the meatworkers tend to earn far closer to the minimum wage.

What do you pay your workers, rehctub?

Can't wait to see how you'd achieve world peace.

Are you kidding. One would have to beleive in fairy tails if you think world peace is achievable!

My workers don't work long hours, about 50 hr per week, take home $900 and butchers and meatworkers are not regarded as 'highly skilled' I am sorry to say. They have to work longer hours for the big bucks. I am assuming we are one of the lowest paid trades.

As col said; in fact, the meatworkers tend to earn far closer to the minimum wage.

However, it is common within my industry for workers to take home about $1000 per week for 5 days and managers, good ones, up to $2,000 per week. Very long hours for the top jobs though, often in excess of 85 hours per week.

As I said earlier, many butchers earn more than lawyers and boy don't they hate that.

On the subject of meatworkers, well quite simply they have 'cooker their own goose' in many cases.

Due to union interferences in years gone by, many of them work harder today, for less than they received many years ago. But, they just kept on pushing hey!

Now this does prove one point. Low paid workers can earn 'real money' but they have to commit to long hours in most cases.

Rechtub

Clearly irony is lost on you.

Therefore I will try to keep it simple.

If low income workers have to work excessive hours, by 'excessive' I mean beyond 45 hours per week, when do they get time to spend with their families, exercise, socialise with friends or even keep up with domestic chores? In fact, have any kind of life? This type of existence is the 21st century version of slavery.

As for earning above $90K because you have a degree - I wish - I certainly don't earn this kind of money. Also not everyone is in a position to devote the time, or have the money to study full-time - many are working long hours in low-paid work or busy caring for families.

In other words, rechtub, your "solutions" are a fantasy, the result of simplistic thinking and are, I suspect, a way of excusing yourself from offering fair reparation and conditions for your own employees.

Ah... what is that noise.... Oh, it's those violins again!

Slavery? Pft. That's an insult to the actual slaves in times past!

Nobody hides the relative salaries for different occupations. If I wanted to be a boring accountant, get an MBA, CPA etc, I could earn a lot of money. But I choose not to. And I suspect many people make the same choice as I have for a more interesting occupation, and less time wasted being pseudo-educated in the crap universities these days.

Oh no, I'm a teacher and I only get 50k a year! Diddums! Everyone knows how much teachers get paid. Why did you become a teacher if you wanted more money than that? Do you enjoy those 12 weeks holiday a year? I bet you do!

Oh no I cant speak English and I can only get a minimum wage job! Does it beat the country you came from? I bet it does! Can you learn English? I bet you can if you put your mind to it!

Education is available to most, and nobody hides which occupations pay a good Salary. And then there is the option of... shock horror.... taking a risk and starting a business. You might even get a government grant to get started.

Nope, I really am seeing what all these right wingers I've hated for so long were on about.

If low income workers have to work excessive hours, by 'excessive' I mean beyond 45 hours per week, when do they get time to spend with their families, exercise, socialise with friends or even keep up with domestic chores? In fact, have any kind of life? This type of existence is the 21st century version of slavery.

Well, here is your answer. Nobody on a low wage can expect to work a 38hr week and live the way you expect them to. Boy, if they did we would all go broke cause no one could afford to buy anything.

In other words, rechtub, your "solutions" are a fantasy, the result of simplistic thinking and are, I suspect, a way of excusing yourself from offering fair reparation and conditions for your own employees.

Here we go again, My employees!

What makes you think my employees are under paid?

The fact of the matter remains that if you are in a low paid job you must work longer hours to expect a fat pay cheque at the end of the week. That's life!

Col: “Imho, I believe rechtub’s attitude is the reason he succeeds.”

Do you mean that you believe Rechtub has decided he is successful?
Surely if he is a success he is of a different class from the minimum wage peoples then that would be a definition based on income?

Rechtub:”Unfortunately, a recent inclusion has been to have several kids as the support on offer is huge, so much so that many are better off not working when in that situation, it's just a shame the way this support is handled as often it's the kids that miss out.”

Fill me in, I have heaps right now. The down side of course is having a husband earning too much but not enough if you get what I mean.

“… you must work longer hours to expect a fat pay cheque at the end of the week. That's life!”

Nah, the world doesn’t work like that at all. Cruise over to Mr Knox’s thread about the “haves and have nots”.

Fractelle:” As for earning above $90K because you have a degree - I wish - I certainly don't earn this kind of money. Also not everyone is in a position to devote the time, or have the money to study full-time - many are working long hours in low-paid work or busy caring for families.”

Or non-paid work. I don’t want to imply I'd prefer to work because really I wouldn’t but fostering, even though you get reimbursed, does leave you out of pocket in many ways. Hubby would have retired young if not indulging my passion for children.

And on the caring for family issue; I don’t think society has benefitted from both parents needing to work on minimum wages.

Studies keep saying stupid things recently like not breastfeeding is better for your baby and children in pre-school every day do better. I don’t think our society is reflecting this at all.

I think I do agree with Houel though, we are quite spoilt in attitude. Did agreeing to that just negate eveything else I said?

Fill me in, I have heaps right now. The down side of course is having a husband earning too much but not enough if you get what I mean.

The family assistance benefits sometimes outway the benefits of working hard when there are multiple children involved. And remember, the benefits come TAX FREE and don't involve the usual costs associated with going and comming from work.

Then there is the health care card. Every time I buy a script from the chemist they ask "do you have a health care card".

As I have said before, it's a wierd world when one can make a choice between working hard or staying home just because they have kids. THEIR KIDS, BY CHOICE!

So if you miss out due to hubbies wages, take a bow, you are what I consider a 'model couple'.

I would hate the tought of relying on someone else to provide the needs for my children, esspecially if I was capable, but not willing, to do it myself. But hey, some people make a living from it and it is then passed down through generations.

I would also point out that I have succeeded in what is considered a 'low paid industry', simply by working hard and taking risks.

You see we now have a world full of people who 'want the gain' but won't 'take the pain'.

Imagine our cost of living if one could work 38hr in a low paid industry, like retail and take home say $700+ a week.

It simply can't happen as wages is the single largest expense in running most businesses and a blow out in the min wage would have dire consequences for all concerned.

I say again. If you want higher wages, either work longer or work smarter. Of cause you can also take a lot of risks, but this is not for the faint hearted!

“The family assistance benefits sometimes out way the benefits of working hard when there are multiple children involved. And remember, the benefits come TAX FREE and don't involve the usual costs associated with going and coming from work.“

Foster kids are means tested on my husband’s income.

I got told today that some kids DoCS placed with me last week have been exposed to the swine flu and I can guarantee no one from that department is going to pay for anything or offer me a health card.

Top it off the carer didn’t send all the kids clothing and now their home is quarantined – yep I have to go buy clothes just as a cherry on top.

And today I learnt from a Queenslander that an NGO (LWB) up there pays its caregivers 800.00 more a fortnight than the government pays its carers.

So there ya go, I save DoCS and Centrelink money while hubby pays a stupid amount of tax so the government can send it off to other foster parents doing exactly what we do. There better be a special place in heaven for fools that awaits us model couples.

I don’t mind taxes going to a single parent at home with young kids or pensioners or sick and disabled people. I’ve probably forgotten a few.

So you reckon if the minimum wage went up it would kill a lot of businesses? Isn’t there some index or something that calculates that? I know it was mentioned a few pages ago. Doesn't this fix it?

Well The Pied Piper, the whole problem with raising the minimum wage is that you must also raise all wages in turn, otherwise, where are the incentives to become a doctor, lawyer etc etc.

We already suffer somewhat from this with people holding road signs on $24 per hour. Butchers, chefs, both with trades, get paid less, so why bother.

In a food business, we have whats called 'margins'. This is essensially the difference between what we pay for goods and what we then sell them for.

Now out of this margin comes your working expenses, rent, power, advertising etc and, wages, compo, super, holiday loading etc.

Now if you increase wages by say 5%, then that increase either comes off your bottom line, or it must be tacked on to the selling price otherwise you're out of pocket yourself.

Now to allow a 5% increase, actually becomes more like 6% with add ins. Super, compo, holiday loading etc.

Now to achieve 6% to the bottom line, prices have to be increased by around 8 to 10% because not every minute is spent taking money.

So the end result will be a further increase in food prices and ultimately inflation.

I think this may be the reason behind the recent decision not to increase the minimum wage. Essecially with regards to inflation.

You see, wages can't just be increased because life is tough. Someone, somewhere has to pay for it.

Now if small retailers are expected to fund the increases out of their pockets, where is the incentive. Remember, small business is the largest employer in the country. Loose them and we all suffer.

Furthermore, many small business operators are actually paid far less than the minimum wage when you take into account the hours spent either working and or planning for work.

Quoting is a classic example. The business owner is working for free when doing quotes, and while pricing the job. Often missing out by the way. Would you like to put in 10 to 15 hours per week not knowing if you will be paid?

Hey Rehctub, my very first job after leaving home (mum and dad had a corner shop I worked all non school hours in it from 10 years old) was in the produce section of a local supermarket. As most things there was a class system and below management were the butchers, the highest paid employees in the shop.

So I’m guessing if you have your own business you already pay them quite well or they would be with the supermarket chains…?

But I thought that wages did in fact increase exactly because “life is tough” or got tougher, I thought that was what that index thing was all about.

You are explaining that if wages go up then product or service prices have to go up so it doesn’t help anyone anyway? What is the answer? How do businesses grow now?

10 – 15 hours a week without being paid? I’m not the right one to ask that question.[smile]

The Pied Piper
But I thought that wages did in fact increase exactly because “life is tough” or got tougher, I thought that was what that index thing was all about.

Well in essence, yes that would be right, but, who pays for the wage increase if not the very consumer who received the increase in the first place. The business owner can’t just pay additional wages out of thin air or it will in effect drop their wage, or, as often happens, they cut staff numbers and work harder themselves so that they are not out of pocket .

It is vicious circle I am afraid. As I say, you can’t just hand the low paid an increase and forget everyone else. So increases are usually across the board.

What is the answer? How do businesses grow now?

Businesses try to grow though population expansion and customer retention through good products and service.

Now days, once the population expands, someone opens a new centre and all of a sudden your customer base is spread between more retailers, often occurring before the expansion happens and all in the name of providing competitive market places.

All this usually achieves is the advancement of one centre at the demise of others. How many small hardware stores are left after Bunnings was allowed in and how many families have lost their homes because of it? Remember, most of these were ‘locals’ serving locals.

It’s become a ‘dog eat dog’ world, all in the name of competition. So I can’t answer your question.

10 – 15 hours a week without being paid?
Now that’s not what I said at all, I said ---“not knowing if you will be paid”, there is a difference.

In any business the owner has to make a profit or it simply does not work.

Increases, in any form, must be passed on, or, in some cases, staff numbers are cut.

By the way, butchers are the only trades people in the store.