absolution* said:Not touching my other response eh? you = :burn: ??
Not exactly sure what you mean here though. Theft of people's earnings can quite clearly come under the core policy of the Liberal party who actively and continuingly keeping the minimum wage as low as possible. Sure a 13% increase in real wages is great. But what is not outlined is that the minimum wage certainly doesnt not follow this upward trend.
Regarding unemployment, forcing disableds and aged people back into work through decreasing assistance is sure to bring down the unemployment rate. As is decreasing family and unemployment assistance rates. But it sure will put in a dent into that large mass of current account deficit which has increased substantially since 1996. So well done. And dont even get me started on super-annuation... :rofl:
Actively keep the minimum wage as low as possible.. I have to say, and I'm sure most would agree, that having a wage is better than not having one at all, which of course has been a fairly consistent achievement of previous Federal Labor governments. Now lets compare the 13% real wage increases since 1996 to the 3% rise that took place under the tenure of Hawke/Keating. Any person who attempts to criticise this point is being vastly misleading. Can you assuredly say that the minimum wage increases of the 1980's were consistently tied to inflationary increases. I think not. The comparative increases of real wages tends to justify that point..
Moreover, the proportion of workers who are paid the minimum wage has also decreased fairly consistenly over the past 10 or so years.
What family benefits were also provided under the previous Labor governements that remotely rival those that exist under current provisions? Oh thats right, the vast Public sector debt and general resource wastage resulted in next to nothing for the average family and a consumer confidence that was barely existent...The main difference lies in incentive. This government has provided extensive financial assistance to many in an attempt to assist their entrance or re-entrance into the workforce. IT has not merely placed a burden upon those who work hard and reap the rewards to 'support' the lives of many who are quite capable of participating...
..and lets not get into an argument about comparative unemployment levels. Frankly because there is none..5.25%..how much lower can it go? Enticing those on welfare into the workforce is a definite necessity to ensure that the economy does not reach full employment and can continue to grow. If we continue to support those who are quite capable of holding down some form of employment it will only contribute to the detriment of the economy..