Successive Govts have been the culprits of the financial woe that now betides Australian families trying to make ends meet.
Not the least being the Howard Gov't.

When Tony Abbott makes rounded remarks about Aussie battlers, in his obvious attempts in his budget reply speech to include himself in that category, he singles out miners for example, of whom 60% are employed these days on a casual basis in less safe and secure workplaces. Health care/nurses etc, who now work in under-staffed overworked conditions and shifts etc in a public health system downgraded, with less job security and income certainty. In exchange for an increasing cost of private health assurance, in a pay or die model of a health system for the end user (the sick person).

Privatised essential services delivering stunningly brazen increases in cost to the consumer, miles over the inflation index, with no wage rises funded by business to compensate. Instead, compensation is delivered by the consumer to themselves, in the the form of personal tax cuts or tax breaks for business, supplied by Gov't, from (the consumers) own coffers. Meanwhile the regulatory environment is a continuing and persistent free for all for Big business, and equally a dead end street for the consumer/worker, and ultimately whichever Govt they decide to elect.

Living standards will only continue to decline for most people because they can ; legally, despite Tony Abbotts decry that dis-incentive/aspiration, is recently gone.

Superannuation, in exchange for a fair dinkum pension when you retire, is perhaps an even bigger mythical benefit of the free market ideology. Beginning before Howard.

It, (aspiration), has been gone for a long time now, and the effects are starting to bite.

sadly poli-tricks is cyclical
the howard affect..will/has corrupted politics for years

juliar is trying to..out right wing the libs
and the libs can fein/fain..caring for the people
till he gets it

till the liars
run their course..
no change can be expected

to wit...even if tony got in
he is only pretending..just like juliar is pretending
truth is they only are doing as the public service..[inbred elites].. wants..[tells]..them to do...

the boys club adgenda

banko

[the bank allways wins]
own the two main/parties
media/education/law/war

you win

http://www.famguardian.org/Publications/GlobalSovHbk/GSHWorkbook.pdf

Apologies for the typo in my opening post, that should read:

"Living standards will only continue to decline for most people because they can ; legally, despite Tony Abbotts decry that incentive/aspiration, is recently gone".

...The increasing irrelevance of outcomes to people in the market economy of Capitalism, is likewise becoming increasingly obvious and painful to those same people.

divers diverse quote...""The increasing irrelevance
of outcomes..to people in the market economy of Capitalism,
is likewise..becoming increasingly obvious//

..and painful
to those same people...""

there comes the time when growth...via inflating the base
desroyes the capitalisation..ability..of the base...

then govt mantras of tickle down
just re-capitalises..the elite''s..[or those
at the top of the capitalist food chain]...

as the value of capital
of the poor dwindles..into less and less
and the middle classes slide into the lower classes

and the one [percent] lording it over
96 percent of the wealth..diminish even further into the less/er

under capitalism
capital wins every time
its time we put our capital into skill
but that would take a govt to not listen to the capitalists
but for govt to become the capitalist..with its fruits going to its people..

no commie-isms
no social-isms
no capitalism/con-sumerism to capitalists

its time to get govt doing
what the capitalists need to do..
but refuse to do

without claiming..all the spoils[cream]..
as well as govt's gifts...to themselves

lest we forget it was henry ford who said
a worker who cant buy ...what he is building/creating
wont by his own product...

[so he increased wages..
capitalised consumers]

capitalists have been buying up
the stuff...we need to consume to live

[its not enough they..despoiled our airs waters lands..
education/science/financial/baking/supply/services industries/systems]

Thinker2
What can I say, we are on the same wavelength and I totally agree with your summation.

Ah clearly some people want a Nappy State. The Govt ready to
change your nappies, at a moment's call. If life is not working
out, we need somebody to blame, so lets blame the Govt!

Time to take those nappies off, people. Its up to you to change
your lives. Its tough in the real world, outside of Australia.

This is another article of a nappy state:

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/economy-interest-rates-big-banks-GFC-pd20110512-GS6V9?OpenDocument&emcontent_spectators&src=rot

Mark Bouris, complaining how tough families on 150k a year have
it, because they can't afford the 750k mortgage. The poor dears.

Except when it comes to farming and business subsidies Yabby hey....
:)

Not so Pelican. Where have I ever suggested or encouraged farming
or business subidies?

Remember Govt subsidises businesses, cause they want jobs. Or else
business is free to pick up the bat and ball and go elsewhere.

Fair enough Yabby.

My utopia involves governments supporting the framework that allows people to best utilise their skills and goals, and one that allows a variety of life choices not all skewed to some warped economic growth principles. That usually means not aspiring to the same economic standards of the Third World and selling out one's own country due to a misinformed allegiance to globalisation.

The world is not ready for globalisation until it has rid itself of despots, dicators and corruption and we are all working within the same level playing field. Free trade and globalisation work to enable a small elite grow richer while allowing other industries and agricultural products to degrade on the back of cheap labour.

95 percent of the worlds wealth is held by five percent of the population. For me Yabby, that scenario is something that democratic systems should not encourage or foster.

The difference of quality of life between the First and Third Worlds is a social safety net. It is possible without creating the ersion of a 'nanny state' in the sense you paint it.

We all pay taxes to this nanny state and we should expect some services and infrastructure in return to create greater wellbeing that works for us not against us. That might mean greater democratic participation by citizens so we can make some of these decisions for ourselves.

That we are Pelican, although I think you explain it better than I.

*Free trade and globalisation work to enable a small elite grow richer*

Nonsense, trade and globalisation have dragged hundreds of millions
out of poverty, globally. Australians today are better off today
then they ever were, under high tariff barriers. You go and tell
the poor that they should be paying 40 bucks for their t shirts,
rather then 10 bucks. See what they think.

*95 percent of the worlds wealth is held by five percent of the population*

A flawed and meaningless statistic, no doubt with a political
agenda attached to it and meant to impress those who can't use
a calculator. Like Pelican for instance :)

Who owns the Congo or Ethiopia for instance? Govts, who have a large
share of the wealth, as they refuse to give title to their citizens.

The wealth that you are seemingly so concerned about, is created as
a consequence of the capitalist system and people's trust in it. Take
it away and that wealth is gone. Facebook founded by a young college
drop out, now has 500 million subscribers and is valued by the market
at 50 billion. Without that market, its not worth anything.

Remove the system that you hate so much and we'll simply all be poor.

*We all pay taxes to this nanny state*

Yes we do and we know where most of it goes. 120 billion in social
welfare, 60 billion in health, 30 billion in education, 20 billion
defence. Social welfare is by far the biggest expense.

12 billion in interest on Govt debt, which we pay becuse Govt has
overspent since Costello left.

I understand that Costello himself was not in favour of middle class welfare Yabby, which no doubt constitutes a large part of the numeric propositions you make about today.

This is in fact, the very same the self funded pay rises, that would have otherwise been funded by business in the pre Howard Australia that I referred too in my opening post.

"My utopia involves governments supporting the framework that allows people to best utilise their skills and goals, and one that allows a variety of life choices not all skewed to some warped economic growth principles", says Pelican.

Yep, my own as well, and I clearly don't see the need, nor see it prudent to acquiesce to needs or views of business, as a lone criteria for human progress.

I think the balance today is out of whack Yabby and as I said successive Govt's have been responsible for this.

To the Govt's current credit it has taken some small steps to reverse this, as was the case in the repealing of Workchoices, and in todays news, accepting (in principal), a substantial pay rise for low paid (mostly female) workers, in aged and disability in the NON Govt sector, (these are the very people that have been getting a raw deal from their employers).

I think this is good for working families to know that their elected representatives will stick up for what is appropriate in terms of rights, pay etc

"The difference of quality of life between the First and Third Worlds is a social safety net".

Couldn't agree more Pelican, it is a given, or synonymous with civilisation or being civilised itself. Somebody must provide a commonly understood set of principles in a civilisation, (and that somebody) in our civilisation, is Govt.

The mark of a good Govt, is how well it performs the very task of providing an SSN.

*nor see it prudent to acquiesce to needs or views of business*

Its not business, Thinker 2, its the customer you should be concerned
about. You are both a worker and a customer. For business to pay
you, they need to extract the money from a willing customer.

*I think the balance today is out of whack Yabby and as I said successive Govt's have been responsible for this.*

Govts reflect peoples aspirations, Thinker 2. With people like you
screaming for more of the pie, Govts try to increase its size.

I did not move to the backblocks of WA for the money, Thinker 2.
I did it for other reasons. I had the option of working for a Swiss
Bank and could now be a banking fatcat. I chose not to, for many
reasons.

* The mark of a good Govt, is how well it performs the very task of providing an SSN.*

Indeed, Govt should be there to help those who cannot help themselves.
But is should not freely dish out money which it extracts by
compulsion from hard working taxpayers, to those quite able to
provide for themselves, but who are too lazey, could not be
bothered or who demand that the Govt change their nappy.

Well I am not going down our well worn path about globalisation Yabby, the benefits of globalisation for some ignore the darker downside for many others. That statistic I quoted might not concern you yabby but it says a lot about a system that sets up such an inequitable distribution of wealth. And no I am not talking about Communism in case you start looking under the bed but fair and reasonable conditions for the majority not at the behest of the minority.

My calculator is working fine, you need to get rid of your old abacus though. ;) Or maybe that should be a :p.

Good news tonight Thinker2 about the increase in the lowly wages of community workers.

yabby [rebutting..not refuting..the 95 %..owned by 5%]

""Nonsense, trade and globalisation
have dragged hundreds of millions
out of poverty, globally.""

the trade is obvious
but your meaning...'FREEtrade''
and that scam demands proof..

""Australians today are better off today
then they ever were, under high tariff barriers.""

i have never bought $40 tshirts
but again overly simplistic...
ignoring that MANY things have chasnged
[death duties..increased taxes..handouts to the wealthy middle class[free insulation..free solar]...if you got a spare grand]
[or a such a huge user that 1000 is only two one one bill]

but those like me
[using only 50 bucks a quater]
paying for your free solar cells
[with special buyback-pricing deals]

You go and tell
the poor that they should be paying
double to those getting the solar cells for [near]/free

but this takes the cake

""Who owns the Congo or Ethiopia""'

its people..and the beasts god put upon its boundry

""for instance? Govts,
who have a large
share of the wealth,"""

bull-durH-dash
thats the wealth of a few minesters
puting the spoil/kickback..payback
into their swiss accounts

RAPING THE PEOPLE
stealing their resources

FOR some multinational..corperation's
...despoiling the peoples lands
destroying habitat..poluting waters..
sickening the people and the environment

fopr greed

if only THOSE govts would serve their trust
[its people]

its the scum that you defend
[but as an admitted EX banker]
i realise you bought into the lie

even after your concience rebelled
you still swallow the spin

as they refuse to give title to their citizens

Pelican, your sense of social justice is all very sweet, but you
are up against the reality of human nature.

We've seen before what happens with lotto winners. Some invest
their money, others blow the lot and land up back on welfare some
time later.

This is a problem with our system. It provides those who want it,
with huge opportunities, but it also lumbers them with responsibility.
You cannot stop people making foolish decisions about their own
lives and you cannot provide them with impunity, when they do so.

Some people are poor because they gamble. People like OUG insist
on spending their money on smokes. Some simply could not be
bothered with putting in an effort. The list goes on.

So the best that we can do really, is to provide equality of
opportunity. Give those who want to study, the chance to do so.
Give those who want to work, the chance to do so. Give those
who want to start their own business, the chance to do so.

But if people screw up their lives, its really their choice, even
if many prefer to blame everyone but themselves, when they do so.

That is human nature too.

If Govt is too generous, it invites anyone who wants to screw the
system, to do so. Why bother trying, when no matter what you do,
the outome will be the same.

Life is relative. A young kid told me the other day, that he was
doing it tough. Getting out of bed every morning to go to school,
was not easy to do. Clearly that is his perception of the world,
because he's never been hungry

I don't disagree with much of that Yabby. People do make unwise choices at times and I am all for people taking personal responsibility.

It is difficult to explain to someone who has never been in a position where they have lost control over their bodily health and where they now find they are confined and limited by that loss of function. But people adapt and they find creative ways to work around and within those limitiations as needed.

I reckon some social supports to assist that process have long term benefits for all of society. Not only in the assurance of a social safety net should any of us be in that situation, but helping people back to work or to provide transport say for the disabled has spin off benefits for everyone. However there will always be some people who will never work and who will need 24/7 care. Compassionate societies acknowledge this and ensure people are treated with as much dignity and respect as possible.

Why do people complain so much about these sorts of supports when there is so much other government waste and middle class welfare to those who don't need it. Compared to the amount of real government waste I have seen in my lifetime social benefits pale by comparison.

In saying that there are people who do take advantage of the system but they are not the norm. The statistics Rachel outlines in the article are relevant and indicate the hullabaloo around social welfare payments. Much of it bluster and overdone outrage about the minority of bludgers while ignoring legitimate cases - almost the reverse of the tall poppy syndrome.

Some form of 'work for the dole' arrangements or skills training or even literacy/numeracy programs are appropriate in reducing dependency on welfare. If someone is not truly disadvantaged or disabled there is no reason why they cannot undertake a 'crappy' job until something better comes along. I certainly have done my share as a young woman while studying and on re-entering the workforce. You do what you have to do.

*In saying that there are people who do take advantage of the system but they are not the norm*

But there are a hell of a lot of them, Pelican. People in the
community know that. I know it. If I want casual labour, I can find
a whole lot on a disability pension, who will work for cash. They
can mix concrete, you name it.

To claim that no tough love is needed is rubbish.

The problem remains that whilst you have that fog and those people
sucking on the Govt teat because they can, there is less money
for those who really are deserving.

I also agree with you, there is much Govt waste and Govt bungling.
But that goes right back to the good intentions of some, of
protecting public servants. Even if a public servant has no aptitude
at all for the job, it is incredibly difficult to get rid of them.

No wonder there is so much waste and so many poor judgements, which
cost us all.

Personally I was a terrible employee, as I questioned everything.
When I saw huge waste at a job, I'd point it out and ask why it
was done in that manner. The answer was usually "because that is
how we have always done it" But that is the kind of attitude that
Govt Depts thrive on, for year upon year. Nobody has a stake in
the game, so nobody cares and nothing gets changed.

So are you saying that welfare is to much or that work conditions other than cash are not good enough to attract the disabled whom you say can mix concrete etc.

Or is because the business people themselves like to pay cash in order to avoid having to afford an employee the rights that might come with a real job. I suspect the latter.

It's true business, doesnt want to provide the disabled and long term unemployed with real jobs. It's not that these people would not want them. Business people would prefer to pay them cash on one hand in order that they avoid paying appropriate taxes and obligations.

Business is only interested in employing these people if they can do so cheaply, even better if they can exchange them for employee,s with real jobs. This was the whole thrust of Workchoices.

And frankly Yabby you preach from a charlatans pedestal, if you think that people don't now understand that the only way to get business/corporations to do the right thing, is make them.

Howard thought he would give his mates at the big end of town unbridled power. Australian families now are beginning too suffer the consequences of this.It is starting to bite in the first post.

*Business people would prefer to pay them cash on one hand in order that they avoid paying appropriate taxes and obligations*

Not so, Thinker 2. It is far more expensive to pay cash, for then
there are no wages to deduct from tax, so I pay tax at my highest
marginal rate on that money.

Those on a disabled pension want cash, because they could lose their
pensions if it was known that they had income from mixing concrete.

Fact is, in WA, where I live, anyone who wants a job, has a job.
Those floating around, who have free time to do a bit of casual
work here and there, which is all that I hire these days, are
either workers prepared to come and work on weekends and then it
goes through the books, which I prefer. The other option is
no labour at all and if you have ever mixed a concrete slab of any
size, its a hard task on your own.

So it is far more expensive for me to hire these people, but its
either that or the work does not get done. Luckily I hire less
and less people these days, where I can, I do it myself.

"Not so, Thinker 2. It is far more expensive to pay cash, for then
there are no wages to deduct from tax, so I pay tax at my highest
marginal rate on that money".

Does Yabby, this imply, that you pay itinerant workers (for want of a better term), higher hourly rates of pay than you would have otherwise payed a normal employee ?. This is the point Yabby. But not all of the point. Is this labor employed "off the books", because it is the preferred choice of the employee, or because it is the only choice for many such employee's ?. I think the latter.

If so , then this employment model serves the purposes of businesses seeking to maximise exploitation of employees. I think there is strong evidence that would show that this is the case. If we were to compare the percentage of people employed this way the then, and the now in Australia.

This lowest common denominator effect is affecting our economy in ways not anticipated by the insipid ideological architects of our modern economy. Nervousness is an underlying factor for consumers, uncertainty in the workplace, still a concern for many.

Many jobs depend upon whether you are "in the clique or not in the clique", and this alone is your sole job security. An imbalance, or power shift has occurred Yabby, and it is too far in one direction in my view.

Employers/business leaders who enjoy the privilege of pillar-ship in our society, should aspire (in my utopia), to lead by example and for all. Not just aspiring, to be the best at exploitation, as a formulae for success. I know I'm dreaming Yabby.

Thinker 2, when I employ people I pay them around 30 $ an hour.
I think that's fair money and I would be quite happy to work for
that.

I can't make head or tail of much of the rest of your post, You seem
to insist that as an employee, you are being exploited. If
you feel so exploited, so go and start your own business.

A bucket, broom and vacuum, hey presto "Thinker 2's Cleaning
Services" are just about ready to go.

Thanks for answering that Yabby but it is not as simplistic as the hourly rate of pay, is it ?.

My question entails hourly rates, but I am asking is it as good as a real job ?, or is it in fact your priorities that are the determining factor here, not the best interests of or deal for employee's. It seems from the tenure of your posts that it is your preference to employ people in an uncommitted way, than in a committed way ?.

Do people feel exploited when their only job opportunity, is when someone throws some cash their way under the table ?. I think they do.
And will they ever get to feel and touch the fruits of being employed as one would if one had a real job ?. No they wont.

Could they ever aspire to borrow money from the bank to start this cleaning business of which you speak ?, (not for me incidentally), no they couldn't Yabby. Can anyone really have equal opportunity to shape a future for themselves in this situation, no they can't.

The reason Australian families can expect a continuation of woe is because, that is the outcome/future that is mapped out through legislation, by the culprits; and without someone changing or reversing this , it will continue to do so.

*or is it in fact your priorities that are the determining factor here, not the best interests of or deal for employee's.*

Er Thinker 2, nobody in private enterprise is compelled to hire
anyone. Its quite simple really. If there is work to do, the
opportunity exists to hire somebody. If there is not, then it does
not exist. Some people are in fact quite happy to work casually,
sometimes a day, sometimes two days a week, whatever. When you are
seeking employment, take what you can get. Do part time jobs until
a full time job comes along, if that is what you want. You will
learn something new at every job.

A broom, bucket, mop and vacuum would already be available in your
cupboard at home. No need to borrow at all. Just a will and attitude
to have a go.

Your problem Thinker 2, seems to be that you think that the world owes
you a living. It does not. It is for you to get off your arse, stop
complaining and change your life. If that means starting with a cleaning business, so be it. There is plenty of work around.

Plenty of Australians are doing really well. Electricians, plumbers,
welders, accountants, painters, the list goes on. All bothered to
learn a skill.

If your problem in life is that you never bothered to learn a skill,
then don't blame the system, start to look in the mirror and be
honest for a change

Yabby I think your missing the point and the personal debasement contained in your attempts to stereotype me as malingering and unskilled is just plain inaccurate.

Just because I believe that society should provide a safety net for those without capacity to defend themselves against exploitation.

You insult me even without the slightest information on my skills and capacities. This is not a point, just a position taken in the absence of a valid point and probably displays better, the limits and prejudices in your own thinking.

In fact your one of those people whom I would describe as not worth working for.And likely to be the closest thing accuracy in this discussion at this point.

And finally, I'm not afraid of getting my hands dirty Yabby, but I wouldn't put with your unhelpful anti-social attitudes for a minute if I was working for you. Or any other meglomaniac I met in my life that deserves to be told.

Excuse me Yabby for going crook ,but I was talking about practices in the workplace that are all illegal, even today.

Are you suggesting that business should be able to employ people outside of the law and that the priorities of business are more important than even the qualty of life, because if this was accurate we would still have 5yr olds down ther coal mines, as it was at the start of the industrial revolution. Until popular uprising and representative democratic Govt's forced business to adopt a less sociopathic approach.

If rights in the workplace were not fought for and won in earlier days our planet today would be an autocratic hell hole, with a very small number living as supreme rulers and the rest in poverty.

It was not unskilled bludgers, that had the energy to fight for rights, but the energetic,hard working,committed leaders among us,
that forced business to do the right thing. At least recognize that it is proper that business understands its obligations to do so.

My father whom fought for this country and it's rights and beliefs and concepts of fairness, would expect me to be in your face when dispelling the myth you purport, that everyone who believes in rights equal opportunity as an economic/social principal,is a bludger or sponger.

A sociopathic view is all you represent Yabby, and you should not even be allowed to have the privilege of operating a business, if your not prepared to at least provide real jobs.

A level playing field can and does exist for competing businesses even when laws protecting worker's rights in the workplace are in place.

Having lawless environments that allow people like yourself to make value judgements about what is reasonable or not reasonable in terms of pay and conditions, provides an advantage for sharks at the bottom of the pool, or helps exploitation to flourish.

In simple terms someone need to keep bastards honest, because history shows that the biggest charlatans in our society and/or collections of people prone to take advantage wherever possible are found in crime and business.

Thinker 2, feel free to continue your "woe is me" campaign. Feel
free to spew your venom against business, the very people you
want to give you a job. Its showing that you don't have the
foggiest about basic business principles to start with.

The world will simply pass you by.

Just like people, there are great and not so great business people.
There are honest and dishonest business people, just like honest
and dishonest workers. Your black and white worldview is a furphy.

Interestingly, some of the most profitable businesses pay the
highest wages by far. Its how they obtain the best people and
a business is only as good as its employees. Smart employers know
that.

As to my own record as an employer, I'm quite proud of that. Still
today some of those people tell me that it was the best job that
they ever had.

But continue to complain, all round you there are people who
are doing well and who are thriving. It all comes down to
attitude.

Your glass is just about empty, that is your choice, there is
nobody to blame but yourself.

Firstly Yab , I must protest about your comments about my glass. My bottle is still there somewhere as well ?. (lol)

I concede and agree with your points about smarter businesses paying more to get better people etc.

I'm sure that given the right circumstances in earlier times Yabby, you would have been an admirable employer.

My original post was about the culprits (legislators) and how times have changed, as a result of their changes.

The consumer has to be more savvy, more wary in fact. And the employee is effectively dis-empowered. Compared to the Australia of the past.
I'm not anti business. I just think this lowest common denominator effect, has an overall negative effect on our economy. I am actually pro business Yabby, as long as ethics plays a part in the formulae.

All I'm really saying is; admirable business people should encouraged, and less than admirable business should not be encouraged.

I think this is representative of "what it is" that most people would want.

It is true that crime makes it's way to legitimacy, via business Yabby. But I'm not saying that this is true of business as a whole. This is only a small percentage , you would hope.

And finally the Wa Premier Barnett is a either a amateur saboteur with the Australian economy in his sights, or the the agent/provocateur in a planned and co-ordinated attack involving the Federal Opposition and Wa Mining interests, in a last ditch attempt to force an election.

How's that for a conspiracy theory Yabby. (hah)