Effects of an Entirely Labor Australia? (1 Viewer)

[Nebuchanezzar]

Ah, St.Kevin is yet again trying to appeal to every person, every cause, yet does so at his peril. The ALP made a dangerous mistake believing that prioritising environmental causes over economic imperatives in 2004, it seems it is heading down an even more radical path in 2007.

Heaven fucking forbid that a politician actually shows some initiative, and some direction instead of meandering worthlessly in the world of "Duh I'm a good economist!" *cue seven succesive interest rate rises*! Heaven forbid that a politician actually lean towards the greater good, even if it means that some people might suffer in regards to the fatness of their wallets! Oh me oh my! Oh the humanity.

But yes, it does seem as if Australians are willing to embrace climate change as a problem, but if it puts their jobs in jeapordy, or puts some of their cash in jeapordy then they're willing to put any environmental concerns outside in favour of sheltering their beloved hip pockets. Yep, Australians suck.

Might I also add that the um, what do you call it, document called the um, Stern Report seems to have made a pretty convincing case that doing nothing is going to be far more outrageously uneconomic than doing something right now. Looks as if Kevin really is a saint.

anyone who has done yr 10 history will know that John Curtin, a labor PM, took one of the biggest steps towards the Australian/US alliance, when he withdrew troops from the middle east and announced the shaping of a new plan "with the us as its keystone" in 1941.

Yeah, but the context of WWII was vastly different to that of the "Operation Iraqi Freedom" so strongly supported by Howard and co.

 

[watatank]

Bring back free uni!

 

[menelaus]

speaking of interest rate rises... at the last election, howard's main point was there would be interest rate rises under labor- essentially a scare campaign. so why r they bagging out labor for running a scare campaign on global warming?

also, the howard govt's answer to curbing inflation has been to introduce AWAs and prevent wage spiral inflation. yet they have contributed to the problem by giving tax cuts. seems a little conveneint to offer people more of their income and be popular, then say that the RBA raised interest rates when ppl realise theyre not that much better off and start complaining.

 

[HotShot]

speaking of interest rate rises... at the last election, howard's main point was there would be interest rate rises under labor- essentially a scare campaign. so why r they bagging out labor for running a scare campaign on global warming?

also, the howard govt's answer to curbing inflation has been to introduce AWAs and prevent wage spiral inflation. yet they have contributed to the problem by giving tax cuts. seems a little conveneint to offer people more of their income and be popular, then say that the RBA raised interest rates when ppl realise theyre not that much better off and start complaining.

people dont care about economics - they only care about what comes out Jonnie mouth.

Labor has the image of poor handling of the economy.- its evident from their policies and they way they run NSW.

If Labour is going to win -get rid Off Rudd and bring in Gillaird and hit howard hard on Hicks.

Both governments to be franks dont give a shit about the environment.

 

[townie]

normally i'd be in favour of the whole checks and balances, but in this case, considering it's howard we're talking about, i'm willing to accept all ALP governments

edit: when Howard goes, my whole family is opening the magnum of Moet we have kept for such a joyous occasion

 

[Josie]

We're doing something similar.

 

[circusmind]

If Labour is going to win -get rid Off Rudd and bring in Gillaird and hit howard hard on Hicks.

Elections are not won or lost on the fate of a single man, detested by the wider community.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I'll be drinking heavily on the night of the federal election either way. I guess it depends on whether it will be celebratory drinking, or drown-away-my-sorrows drinking. Oh how I grow nervous as to the results of this coming election.

 

[circusmind]

I'll be drinking heavily on the night of the federal election either way. I guess it depends on whether it will be celebratory drinking, or drown-away-my-sorrows drinking. Oh how I grow nervous as to the results of this coming election.

Damn straight. Election night parties FTW. So much potential for drinking games.

 

[kokodamonkey]

speaking of interest rate rises... at the last election, howard's main point was there would be interest rate rises under labor- essentially a scare campaign. so why r they bagging out labor for running a scare campaign on global warming?

also, the howard govt's answer to curbing inflation has been to introduce AWAs and prevent wage spiral inflation. yet they have contributed to the problem by giving tax cuts. seems a little conveneint to offer people more of their income and be popular, then say that the RBA raised interest rates when ppl realise theyre not that much better off and start complaining.

At the last election Howard said that if you vote for labour then interest rates will go up... so its obvious that somebody voted for labour.

And those interest rate rises under labour, lets see, they happened in like 1% incriments! atleast with these its only 0.25 at a time adjustment to the cash rate.. ANd those under labour were for poor economic management. if you didnt realise the ones last year were because of cyclone larry + petrol prices. All other ones was because the economy has been going tooo strong and this had leg to wage inflation..

 

[menelaus]

the technicality on whether or not somebody voted labor means shit.
my point was that it was the principle of scaring ppl into something when really, there were still interest rate rises under the coalition. inflation by the way is a sustained increase in the general price level. dont blame it on bananas and petrol prices. let me break something down...
tax cuts = more disposable income = more spending

what were the others caused by- wage inflation? but i thought that WorkChoices was meant to minimise that? iflation is also caused on the supply side of things. so what is being done to increase efficiency (other than workchoices) and solve or minimise the damage of the skills shortage?

 

[Josie]

It's ok, everything Howard's said since about 1998 has been a non-core promise.

 

[kaviii]

At the last election Howard said that if you vote for labour then interest rates will go up... so its obvious that somebody voted for labour.

Its Labor not Labour get it right

ANd those under labour were for poor economic management.

The Labor government actually brought the reforms desprately needed at the time, the high interest rates was to stop a boom that was going out of control and also at that time Australia along with the world is facing a recession too.

The economic reforms introduce by labor are the reason why we are experiencing the economic prosperity at the moment which howards takes credit for

*floating the Australian dollar
*substantial cuts in tariffs
*the deregulation of the banking system
*taxation reforms
*privatisation

Interesting read;

Keating revels in his $1 trillion legacy
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20989767-601,00.html

 

[Sparcod]

also, wouldnt rudd's experience in chinese culture, language, etc. be seen as a benefit when trying to develop stronger ties with one of our largest trading partners?

There's only one person who feels that China is starting to become the biggest economy.

what were the others caused by- wage inflation? but i thought that WorkChoices was meant to minimise that? iflation is also caused on the supply side of things. so what is being done to increase efficiency (other than workchoices) and solve or minimise the damage of the skills shortage?

I once read about a guy who argued that minimum wages and other government-controlled workplace settings actually IMPROVES efficiency, productivity and employment rates.

Not sure if these are right but the reasons are:

-employers are more willing to choose the right people because labour would seem costly and they want to limit or reduce their spending on training people.

-workers are happier and will work better if they're in a better environment. They are less likely to quit. (employers save money and time by not having to look for and train new workers)

-more incentive for people to work and thus increasing the supply of labour.

-more wages=more demand= more consumption= economic growth.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

How is it possible to be "more willing to choose the right people"? That doesn't even make sense.

 

[Sparcod]

Well, if you were an employer, you would choose people who are as skilled and as experienced as possible so not to spend time and money training new employees. Employers will just be more conscious. That's all.

If wages were really low, you wouldn't care as much who you would employ.

Though I always thought that the higher the wages, the more likely you're going to use machinery and other technology and the less preferable labour is.

 

[kokodamonkey]

the technicality on whether or not somebody voted labor means shit.
my point was that it was the principle of scaring ppl into something when really, there were still interest rate rises under the coalition. inflation by the way is a sustained increase in the general price level. dont blame it on bananas and petrol prices. let me break something down...
tax cuts = more disposable income = more spending

what were the others caused by- wage inflation? but i thought that WorkChoices was meant to minimise that? iflation is also caused on the supply side of things. so what is being done to increase efficiency (other than workchoices) and solve or minimise the damage of the skills shortage?

I know that. the target inflation range is between 2 and 3%. However IT was pushed up to 4% due to the offsets caused by petrol prices and Cyclone Larry. Obviouslly when it gets too far towards the 3% mark (and obviouslly when it went over it and got up to just under 4%) Then the RBA had to raise the cash rate. This is done to curb consumer spending in the idea that hopefully people will pay off their debt instead of spending more money, which is likely to happen as they then owe more interest/money on that debt.

Yes those tax cuts did play a small part, because people went and spent the money instead of paying off debt.

Yes with WOrkchoices they do have the new entity setup (i cant remember the name of it maye someone can help me?) which determines the minimum wage increases. Yes these still occur TO keep wage growth in line with inflation.
The only issue we have with wage inflation is with our relatively low unemployment, IF unemployment falls a bit lower, then that is when we will experience wage inflation which will put general inflation up aswell. But that is irrelivent to this topic at hand. Obviously its on the supply side of things. Supply And Demand. People still need petrol and bananas and as a result in the drastic fall in domestic supply for bananas this lead to a price increase.

 

[volition]

I once read about a guy who argued that minimum wages and other government-controlled workplace settings actually IMPROVES efficiency, productivity and employment rates.

Not sure if these are right but the reasons are:

-employers are more willing to choose the right people because labour would seem costly and they want to limit or reduce their spending on training people.

-workers are happier and will work better if they're in a better environment. They are less likely to quit. (employers save money and time by not having to look for and train new workers)

-more incentive for people to work and thus increasing the supply of labour.

-more wages=more demand= more consumption= economic growth.

I disagree:

Employers would rather have the choice of what to pay somebody, making them pay more is not a good thing. Not only that, it goes against the idea of private property to be told what something is 'worth' and to be made to pay this rate. The value of labour is not determined by what other people think, it is determined by what people are willing to exchange for it.

Workers are not necessarily happier if they don't have a job in the first place, which minimum wages can price people out of. The benefits of a minimum wage to some, come at the expense of the lower skilled workers who are now left without a job. Not only this, but in a workplace that is regulated, higher skilled workers might also not be being paid more to reflect their labour's increased worth (look at teachers and merit pay here, you may very well be a better teacher but without the culture of actually being paid based on how good you are, rather than other factors, you might not actually be paid more to reflect your higher teaching skills).

More incentive to work, yeah ok, but less incentive for employers to employ, so not really.

As for "more wages=more demand= more consumption= economic growth", you're forgetting the employer side here. The employer could be spending that money elsewhere too, so I feel your point isn't really relevant.

Yes with WOrkchoices they do have the new entity setup (i cant remember the name of it maye someone can help me?) which determines the minimum wage increases.

Fair Pay Commission

 

[Sparcod]

Yeh, this argument is in one of my economics textbooks. The guys are called David Card and Alan Krueger and they're from California.

They've been quite criticised for supporting the living wage because it causes inflation (due to increased demand).

 

[kokodamonkey]

I disagree:

Employers would rather have the choice of what to pay somebody, making them pay more is not a good thing. Not only that, it goes against the idea of private property to be told what something is 'worth' and to be made to pay this rate. The value of labour is not determined by what other people think, it is determined by what people are willing to exchange for it.

But thats what minimum wages do..

Workers are not necessarily happier if they don't have a job in the first place, which minimum wages can price people out of.

Thats because welfare benefits outdo what they would earn being paid minimum wages, which is a problem.

The benefits of a minimum wage to some, come at the expense of the lower skilled workers who are now left without a job.

<-- erm what?

Not only this, but in a workplace that is regulated, higher skilled workers might also not be being paid more to reflect their labour's increased worth (look at teachers and merit pay here, you may very well be a better teacher but without the culture of actually being paid based on how good you are, rather than other factors, you might not actually be paid more to reflect your higher teaching skills).

Merit pay wouldnt work with teaching and thats common sense, i can go into more details if you want.

As for "more wages=more demand= more consumption= economic growth", you're forgetting the employer side here. The employer could be spending that money elsewhere too, so I feel your point isn't really relevant.

more wages in terms of wage growth? -> Wages Increase -> Business Costs go up -> Cost passed onto end consumer with rise in prices -> General Inflation increase -> Offsets the original wage increase -> Wage Increase Demanded.. Economics is a circle btw.

Fair Pay Commission

thanks