How Much is a fair wage
For many Year we have all been told to work hard get ahead look after our families All noble sentiments,
But how much money is really required to do this
Apparently The average wage is 75k per year (i know just 3 people on this sort of money).
Most People are on closer to 40k a year, Some can push to 50k with a lot of overtime.
Now after paying for the basic's (food/rent etc) WE are no longer really a CONSUMERS. So no Coffee shops/vacations/Movies/No outing's ,But I feel everything is based on "75K" idea.
How much do you Feel should be the basic's to once again to encourage a work ethic that many of our younger generation or the people that are called Dole Bludgers Fail to hold anymore.

People earning the minimum wage get approximately $18/hr.

People earning $75K per annum are getting about $38/hr.

Then you have the ridiculous earners such as professional athletes on $200,000/yr minimum for having fun playing the games they love. Television news readers probably get about the same for doing something that takes no special skill at all. Some CEO's receive million dollar salaries for running their companies into the ground.

All those working in retail and hospitality are earning closer to the minimum wage and if they are lucky enough to be working a 5 day week they might be taking home $400 weekly.

On the other side of the coin small businesses such as a local convenience store, café, or small hotel cannot afford to employ people for more than the minimum wage without severely eating into their already slim profit margin.

Its a Catch 22, as soon as the minimum wage goes up, those at the top feel they also deserve the same percentage increase to stay in alignment with the bottom and then price increases rapidly follow. There is never an opportunity to bring some balance into the equation.

I don't believe its much different anywhere else in the world. The rich have always called the shots and there isn't much we can do about it. The only answer I have is for people to learn to live within their means, budget wisely and try to stay happy.

Don't envy those with more, they still have the same personal crap and garbage in their lives that everyone else has to deal with, they just do it in more expensive clothes.

Aussieboy, we have a very unbalanced system. It would be easy to blame the unions. After all it is they who got process workers in a car factory paid well over $100,000 a year, while they did nothing for check out chicks, on about a third of that. Surely the check out chicks job is equal to a process worker, but with the extra requirement of satisfying & being nice to customers.

A reasonable wage is one where the employee can produce his cost, including all overheads, & return some profit to the employer. I was in the position once where I employed 26 people, in a low margin exchange components industry, & found increasingly the cost of employing most of them was greater than they could actually earn. I was taking home less than my adult employees.

The cost of employing people, & other overheads were increasing faster than I could increase my prices. I had to down size to just the best, most productive 8 employees to make a reasonable return.

Luck can have a big bearing on income. A friends daughter, with no real qualifications, was a clerk for a not highly profitable large company, earning about award wages. She lucked into a similar job with a defence contractor, on a little more.

A couple of years later she is recognised as a highly efficient, productive lady, & is earning well over $60,000, & is often the target of head hunters.

I was lucky enough to be head hunted from a not too successful attempt to raise beef, to my last position. I was already over 50, & unlikely to get an interview if I applied for a job. I was fortunate that someone I had done business with in the past needed a manager he could trust, & he thought of me. That gave me another 12 productive well paid years I would not have had without a little luck.

Labor's Rudd and Galah'd (with thanks to Obama who got her name right) devastated the nation's economy and Rudd in particular, scrapped the effective Pacific Solution thereby creating the perfect storm for a deluge of economic migrants who cost the taxpayer $billions.

Yet Rudd and Galah'd walked into their youthful retirements with $180,000 pa for life fully indexed and gold entitlements such as First Class air travel and taxpayer paid offices and staff.

How much is a fair wage? Maybe it is Rudd and Galah'd who should be asked the question. -Especially since both of them refused to accept the recommendation of a parliamentary committee to correct the very unfair CPI indexation of the superannuation of military and public servants that rapidly diminishes the value of the pensions they employees paid for.

onthebeach,

It seems you have an obsession with the previous government but are yet to acknowledge the hypocrisy and inconsistency of the current one.

When it comes to superannuation, it was Rudd/Gillard who removed the (Howard instituted) overly-generous tax concessions for "mega-rich" but one of the very first things Abbott did did after the election was to reinstate them.

He now has to back-track and remove them again while typically placing the blame on somebody else.

There are also lots more ex-politicians feeding off the public purse than Gillard and Rudd but it was Latham that stopped that Defined Benefit rort for all the ones that followed.

wobbles,

Thank you for that, but pointing out what others did or didn't do does not dispel my argument.

My concern is as always, that the taxpayer get value for money. Where the subject is fairness I chose two politicians who put themselves on a pedestal for claimed fairness to workers, but whose behaviour was the exact opposite.

As an example of blatant hypocrisy it would be very difficult to go past PMs Rudd and Gillard who were very quick to base their own claims for vastly higher pay on the earnings of the very few, the elite who make their way to the top of public agencies. Politicians were very insistent that their pay as the 'masters' and 'employers' should be no lower than their 'employees'. Impossible to shame, PM Gillard was to take pay higher than Barack Obama, the President of the US and higher too than the PM, UK.

Yet the same 'worker sensitive', ex-union lawyer Gillard (and Rudd) ignored the criticisms and recommendations of a parliamentary committee to change the unfair CPI-linked indexation of her employees, the military and public servants. It was and remains, a very clear example where sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander. Hypocrisy.

It is true that Abbott has done no better and he recently played politics with military superannuation, which is cynical politics.

The only honest brokers have been the Greens. The Greens deserve full credit for looking independently and compassionately at the plight of retired public servants and military, and developing a policy,

http://greens.org.au/fair-super

Well done, Greens.

To achieve and maintain a harmonious democracy, and to some extent an egalitarian society, it is necessary to employ the maximum possible number. Then ensure the remuneration of the many is sufficient, to firstly adequately provide for their basic needs, and then cater to some extent to that populaces economic wants. In a complex democratic society like Australia this mix of needs and wants is obscure and forever changing. What our parents required to see them maintaining this social equilibrium is different to what is required in today's society.
In a purely market driven capitalistic society like Australia it is impossible to have social and economic equality for all, and maintain the democracy without government intervention. Australia shortly after its foundation as a nation seen the necessity in setting up the mechanism to ensure a basic minimum livable wage was achieved. This body was formed in 1904 as The Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration and it has existed to this day. One of the basic functions of the court is to determine what the minimum wage should be. This interventionist body has severed Australia well, but there are those who would wish for its destruction, replaced with a dog eat dog system when wages are determined purely by the market. John Howard was a proponent of this, and Abbott given the chance would also introduce a "free" market industrial system to Australia's long term detriment.

Aussie boy and CH, there is a reason why people are on a minimum wage, its because in most cases that's what they are worth. in fact, some are not even worth that.

People forget the most important link in the chain when it comes to wages, that being affordability to the employer because while anyone can dream up a wage, the reality is they are paid from gross profits and, if GP declines, jobs must go. If GP declines enough, employers go broke.

We are fast becoming the highest paid, under worked in our region and if we don't place more focus on affordability to employers, there will be no wages, it truly is that simple.

Large employers are all introducing wage minimization practices, self service check outs, automated ordering systems, the list goes on. They are doing this because they realize where we are headed yet its small business that is expected to pick up the slack. well, SB is buckling under the strain and to impose ridiculous IR laws, simply because its a Sunday is a cancer that will kill off many small businesses. People are the ones who pushed for a 7 day society, so the people must accept that they cant be granted their wish on one hand, yet be paid higher wages for the privilege.

I have a casual girl which I cant employ this Saturday because its a public holiday and I cant afford the wages. I want her to work, and she wants to work but IR laws see it otherwise.

Big brother needs to stay out of peoples business.

What is needed is the abolition of the weekend and thus penalty rates.
The only penalty rates that would need to exist should be for afternoon and night work with loading for particularly dirty or dangerous work perhaps.
India has shown the way, in most Indian cities the working week varies, different suburbs having different days off.
This has the advantage that shoppers need only go to the next suburb to get things if they really need them on the local break.

Hi rehab
Thxs for post but still no one has put a figure on whats a fair basic wage
Also it wasn't the people that wanted expanded trading it was retail
Gerry Harvey was a big push for it. I marched against it at the time.
Last time you brought up your situation I gave you a few suggestions to try to help did you try these? Think 1 was a surcharge 2nd was advertising ahead even if was just a sign in the window or A frame.
As an employer do you think the wage you pay your young lady is enough for her to get ahead i.e. buy a house have a family and such or is it just a survival wage.

AB.......As an employer do you think the wage you pay your young lady is enough for her to get ahead i.e. buy a house have a family and such or is it just a survival wage.

My young ladies wage is not set by me, its set by the consumer and how much they are willing to pay for good meat, good service and convenience. Of cause the more they are willing to pay, the more profits are made, which should lead to better wages.

As for a surcharge, here is an example that relates to hospitality, most likely the hardest hit.

For every $10 spent at your average restaurant, $3 is cost of goods, $3.50 is wages, $1 is GST, which leaves $2.50 gross profit. 83% of wages paid.

So, during double time pay rates, with say a 15% surcharge , that $10 now becomes $11.50.

So the food cost remains $3, the wages are now $7 and the GST is now $1.05, which leaves just 45 cents to pay the bills/loans and make a profit. Of cause that's a ridiculous scenario as no employer wants to work a Sunday for less than 1/5th of their normal gross income and, as many leases now charge additional rental costs for trading on a Sunday, much of that reduced GP is eroded in any case. Nobody wins!

Of cause more and more of these establishments are now closing on Sundays simply because the employer deems it as not worth it. Either that or the usual family time is disrupted because most of the family works in the business now to save increased wages.

Of cause the standard reply is usually "why are you in that business", to which I reply, why work in hospitality if you don't like the hours.
Continued

A fair wage is whatever is agreed between two people, where one is happy to perform certain work for the other who in turn agrees to give them some money for that. Obviously, failing to give what was agreed on is unfair.

That people don't have enough to live on is a separate issue, which may well be discussed, here or elsewhere, but it should have nothing to do with those arrangements between individuals.

Continued by rehctub
So back to my shop, my girl wanted to work this Saturday and I pay her well above the award, that being $22.40 per hour, plus a 25% loading. So she misses out and I start at 4am and work until 6 pm. Doesn't bother me because you don't become wealthy working 38hours a week. Which brings me to your question of what is a fair wage.

If you are a doctor, engineer, lawyer etc, having done all the training/study and you are good, then yes you can afford a house on a 38 hour week, however, if you are unskilled, then expect to work at least 70-80 hours per week to afford your house. That's how it used to work and should be no different today. Its what I call brawn verses brains.

In fact, most people have so many other bills these days, mobiles, internet etc, so even a 70 hour week would make it hard to get ahead. Unfortunately ive always been a brawn person, but I also happen to love my industry and love working with six or seven 14 hour days a week being the norm for me .Not too many can hack it.

At the end of the day, a fair wage is what an industry can afford to pay, because if the business cant pay the wages (this Saturday being my example) then the worker goes home with $200 odd less in their pay packet, all thanks to big brother, who by the way rarely work on weekends/P holidays. They make the rules for industries they don't work in.

One more comment Aussie boy, the big companies have multi thousand dollar workplace agreements which see many working for normal wages with time in lieu. Something most small employers cant afford to do as they cant afford the agreements.

'morning Aussieboy,

A fair wage to be paid exactly what you are worth, no more no less.

Hi Spin
Thxs for replying
If only you where right it might go alot better then it is atm
example is a TV presenter worth more then a front line soldier NO
is a football player worth more then a Fireman NO
is clerk worth more then a security Guard NO
is a Pollie worth more that anyone Definitely not
These are Just a few examples could list 100 more
We have a serious Problem with behind the scenes deals
Until this corruption of the present system is wiped out I can't see your Idea working
AB

'morning Aussieboy,

Just to assist you with your list of 100 examples, let me finish the sentence for you. A fair wage is paid by those who employ for the value you offer. It serves little purpose to make wages relative to what others can earn rather than what you can earn .

If you offer little value you earn little pay, get it?

Not really
Is it why coles and woolie pay same money
or why all security company's Australia wide pay same money
You get the idea
Its not about how much your worth its about the industry your in and how many back door deals being done
Is this what you ment ?

'morning Aussieboy,

Yes, you are partly right. It is what the industry can make out of you. That is why Mark Scott of the ABC gets paid twice the wages of the PM, why Gilian Triggs gets paid more than a fireman and why an EU Soccer League star gets paid $1.25m a week.

Their employers pay on both "perceived" value and the actual revenue boost they can achieve. The rest is down to "they get paid what they get because they can".

Why, as a spender of our national wealth, does our Human Rights Commissioner, get paid more than a fireman? That answer is up to you to work out and when you can answer that, can you let me know?

Lol thxs spindoc
one thing is clearer thanks to your explanations is why an unregulated free labour market wont work with the current setup
To many deals being done by the big boys.I think if they where selling a product the consumer competition commission would be busy

cya later
AB

Aussieboy, a fair days pay for a fair days work should also mean a fair days work for a fair days pay, but in reality that doesn't apply in many cases and once the unions step in to protect the poor class worker, these poor class workers lower the bar.
t the end of the day a fair wage is one that provides a fair return for the employer.

I note you have not responded to my example of how ridiculous IR laws can cripple an industry. But that's exactly what can happen when people with no idea get to call the shots.

Politicians should stay out of peoples arrangements.

Sorry rehctub
But i really didn't think it relevant I already know your union views
but i'll ask you where would we be without union's
Seriously
We would still be no more then slaves
So yes you can Point at one or ten wrongs but they are heavily outweighed be the good unions have done. Not only in this country but around the world.
Yes and guess what they have problems and make mistakes , They are run by Humans.
This was Just to answer your question and express my views I don't mean it as any sort personal attack I do understand your views.
But I would base the problem broader then You are, All our Officers of Power of any Sort Seem to have same Rotten core.
This is the problem I see.
AB

There is nothing wrong with unions: let those who want to use their services do so, but don't compel those who are not interested.

Who is there anyway to label one person an "employer", the other "employee"? Two people make a deal between them and that should be the end of the story. Whether this deal involves work of a kind and whether one or both used another organisation, such as a union or a company, to arrange and secure that deal, is their private matter.

As for the fact that "We would still be no more then slaves", isn't this the case nowadays for most, with or without unions?

We tend to be slaves because of our desires. So many for example are slaves due to mortgages: had they not desired to live in big houses close to central city-facilities, had they been willing to live in a tent or a caravan instead, or with their parents or extended family, then they wouldn't have had to slave away for some boss, then they could negotiate better conditions because they wouldn't be afraid to "lose" their bad job - and obtain far better deals than any union could provide.

Once one has kids, then truly they are likely to remain slaves for the rest of their lives - but that's too a result of their sexual desires.

Dear Aussieboy: how can we say "All our Officers of Power of any Sort Seem to have same Rotten core" when the rotten people in question are anything but "our"? I didn't appoint them, nor (I assume) did you or Rehctub - they appoint themselves to leech on us and frustrate our lives. Now would you support the ability of those leeches to dictate to you and me what contracts we may or may not make between us?

<<at the end of the day a fair wage is one that provides a fair return for the employer>>

Butch for you, that is the crux of the matter, and who should determine what is fair for the employer. The employer of course! You must lament the good old days of the 19th century, before those dark days of organised labour with their union representation, collective bargaining and industrial courts with their ridiculous impartial determinations, awarding a living wage etc, shocking is it not!

A fair days work for a fair days pay, as determined by the employer no less and those wonderful forces of the free market. The employee naturally would be reduced to a 'begging bowl' mentality.

If you were to believe some, poor old small business is on its knees, the poor buggers are struggling to make ends meet, existing on bread and dripping, no less. I've been hearing this clap trap for the past 50 years, yet they are still in business, still doing very well and on average doing substantially better than the average worker.

So tell me Paul, does the average worker risk their house each da they go to work, no, they don't and this is why business people deserve to be financially rewarded. Besides, whomin their righ mind would take a punt then place a bet with odd that are like 3 to 1 against because that's pretty much what small business people do when they pay the likes of weekend rates in businesses that rely on weekend trade, like restaurants.

My girl has missed out on Friday, Saturday and Monday work simply because my customers refuse to pay the additional wages associated with public holiday rates. Of cause I could have gone without my wages, but why should I because I'm the one taking the risks. So She wanted to work, but the numbers just don't add up, what a pity. She had a great Easter, unfortunately though without any money.

Aussie boy, I don't hate unions and I do think they have their place but, when they have thugs like that Sheldon grub that had a vendetta against Qantas, you know they are bias and have little regard fir the workers they say they the protecting the rights of.

In fact Qantas is a classic case whereby they struggle to compete in a global industry, due to our IR laws, yet the union wants to come down on them for trying to find a cheaper option.

At the end of the day if you don't consider the needs of the employer when setting wages and conditions, the likes of Holden, Toyota and Ford may well have passengers when they leave.

Genesis 29:

16) Now Laban had two daughters; the name of the older was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel.
17) Leah had weak eyes, but Rachel had a lovely figure and was beautiful.
18) Jacob was in love with Rachel and said, “I’ll work for you seven years in return for your younger daughter Rachel.”
19) Laban said, “It’s better that I give her to you than to some other man. Stay here with me.”
20) So Jacob served seven years to get Rachel, but they seemed like only a few days to him because of his love for her.
21) Then Jacob said to Laban, “Give me my wife. My time is completed, and I want to make love to her.”

But then things turned sour: Jacob woke up in the morning and found that he received Leah instead - that's a clear example of unfair wages!

He then laboured for another 7 years for Rachel and this time he got her.

But suppose Jacob did receive Rachel as agreed, how dare anyone claim that their agreement is illegal because "Jacob did not receive a minimum wage"? he was more than happy with the deal, he was not even interested in money - and as the bible says, for him those 7 years seemed like only a few days...

Butch, I am in fact a supporter of small business, I did at one time in life run an engineering consulting business, employing a couple of people, so I do have some experience at such.
I make the point that many small businesses do well in Australia, you tend to over state the risk by saying <<risk their house each day they go to work>>. If your businesses financial state is to the point of such a daily risk, then most likely the viability of the business is questionable. On the whole the returns to the operator of a small business are well above the average pay rate, risk equals return, and so it should. A worker in employment may be risking his or her house every day, the loss of employment for many has seen a mortgagee sale and they are not all small business people.
I can understand your bias in favor of the employer, being one yourself, but it is an unrealistic attitude to believe all should be determined by the employer and the employee should have no say in the matter. Australia recognised very early on the necessity of an independent umpire in determining fair outcomes between employers and employees, and in general it has worker well. You simply want to destroy much of what has been independently determined to be fair and reasonable. Howard thought he could some how do what you advocate through his 'work choices' and the Australian people would not have a bar of it, they could see the lack of fairness in what Howard wanted, and no doubt you were an enthusiastic supporter of Howard's way, and still are.

Paul, I support achievement at the work p,ace, not how long it takes to achieve a result. The problem is in this country we pay for how longnit takes to do a job, not how many jobs can be done in the time frame.

I was casual butchering a couple years back and would typically get sent home at 1 pm instead of 4 pm bacause I was good at my job and got my work done. Of cause I got paid for the hours I worked, not the work I did which is why so many today drag the chain, simply because there islittle flexibility in ou system to reward had workers, so the bar has been set by average IR poor workers, sadly much lower.

Butch, the award rate is the minimum, not the average or maximum. So when an employer says he pays award rates he is saying he pays the minimum for the particular job.
There is provision in some awards for piece rates

http://www.fairwork.gov.au/pay/minimum-wages/piece-rates-and-commission-payments

I think the minimum wage should be $100,000. Anything less than that is not fair.