It looks as if the IR legislation will be passed through the Parliament while we are all changing the channel to get away from the barrage of ads supporting it, so I suppose I’d better comment now, before taking the time to wade through the 600 pages of simplification the government is giving us. I’m mainly concerned with the likely impact on inequality
Taking the central elements of the legislation separately, it’s possible to make a case in regard to any one of them that the effect on inequality will be modest, or even favourable. It can be pointed out, for example, that many minimum wage earners are in high-income households, so a lower minimum wage won’t be so bad. And making it easier to sack people ought to promote more hiring as well as more firing, which should be good for those who are now unemployed.
These arguments are plausible, but not clear-cut. On the other hand, when we look at the macro evidence, we get very clear evidence pointing the other way. Wherever reforms like this have been introduced, notably the UK and NZ, inequality has increased drastically on almost all dimensions (capital vs labour, variance in wages, wage premiums of all kind, unequal allocation of work). In the US, where these institutions have been entrenched for a long time, inequality is higher than in any other developed country and getting rapidly worse.
It may not be clear which piece of the reform package is doing the work, but the aggregate outcome can be predicted with safety.
John Quiggin 
Have I missed something, but usually/typically the Goverment commissions Treasury (or external consultants through Treasury) to conduct modelling to test effects and outcomes.
I know there was a lot of activity on this front during ANTS/GST. However, the Government must have undertaken some even limited modelling, and why hasn’t that been released, even if it supports the Gov’t’s contention – at least then it could be scrutinised and tested!
Greg Combet reduced the new SerfChoices to a very understandable level on the 7.30 Report today. His graphic representation of the lowering of wages was compelling.
His analysis of the effects of the legislation was clear and logical. We have a revolutionary change with “simplification” which looks like a picnic for lawyers. 600 pages plus another 500 of explanation is hardly simple. It is impossible for the average punter to understand what it means and the short time for the Senate to review it means that even the professional legislators will not understand the full ramifications of the legislation until interpretation begins.
It looks like legalised theft especially when the country is going to import workers from overseas to weaken the position of working people. It is not democracy to remove rights in such a manner.
All Combet did was deliberately cloud the issue. A sensible political tactic, but not very helpful.
Given that the EM and Draft bill (aprox 1200 pages in length) were tabled only today – and the Opposition (quiet rightly deplored the lack of time to scrutinise) – how did Combet get such an indepth understanding – is he a speed reader?
I guess it could have been much worse with Sharon Burrows ranting on and on and on
Which version of inequality are we talking about? Inequality of income, inequality of wealth, inequality of opportunity, inequality of contribution?
And why is an increase in inequality necessarily a bad thing? If Bill Gates gave all his wealth to Australias poorest family then there would be an increase in Australian inequality. Whilst if Sydney was hit by a nuclear bomb there would be an decrease in Australian inequality. Yet surely the former would be far more preferable than the later.
QUOTE: …especially when the country is going to import workers from overseas to weaken the position of working people. It is not democracy to remove rights in such a manner.
RESPONSE: Like I have said several times it is our fetish for the welfare state that makes tough border protection laws necessary. Tampa and the like were popular due in part to this popular fear of foreign labour.
QUOTE: It looks like legalised theft …
RESPONSE: What like taxation?
John,
First of all I’d like to thank you for running this blog.
Almost 10 years ago I wrote a paper drawing a parallel between the gold exchange standard and work place agreements. The disaster of the gold exchange standard, known as ‘beggar-thy-neighbour policy’, can be understood quite readily in terms of the problem of ‘non-binding agreements’ as in the ‘Prisoners’ dilemma’ game in non-cooperative game theory. The history of the gold exchange standard is so well known that I won’t repeat it here. The point I was making is that while ‘national governments’ are no longer trying to gain a ‘competitive advantage’ by means of ‘competitive devaluations’ the work place agreements provide a mechanism for ‘competitive cost cutting’.
Greg Combet made a related point on the 7:30 Report tonight regarding wages in China and India. The point is related in the sense that Combet did not take it to the next step. In order to remain ‘cost competitive’ the currently low wage counties have an incentive to cut their wages. The process converges to 0, assuming it is being left to run unchecked. I do understand that minimum wages (‘safety net’) is supposed to act like a minimum wealth constraint.
The ‘promise’ that the minimum (money) wage will not be lowered does not change the argument.
It seems to me the proposed IR legislation allows for speeding up the process.
Incidentally, if I try to understand what has been happening during the past 10 to 20 years within the context of theoretical models of non-dictatorial resource allocation systems then the governments (not only Australia) have reliable information that workers have altruistic preferences.
Combet was quite correct in saying – as I said when the PM’s thing was first released in May – that the central and key thing was the abolition of the no disadvantage tests for AWAs – thus all this guff about legislated minima is just that – they can be unilaterally done away with by making an AWA.
And Stephen Smith points to the specific wording where duress cannot be inferred if it’s made a condition of (continuing) employment that an employee sign an AWA.
Put those two things together and what do you get? The aim of the legislation – increasing the profit share of GDP at the expense of wages. That will lead to increased inequality.
It’s not so hard to understand, 1252 pages of legislation and explanatory memoranda notwithstanding.
I might be more inclined to listen to those who rail against inequality if they put their money where there mouth is. There’s little credibility lamenting the plight of those at the bottom when you’re a union leader/academic/ABC employee/public servant/labour party MP happily stashing $100,000 – $300,000 per year.
Well, doh, what did you expect John? If altering IR law wasn’t going to result in a transfer of wealth from the many to the few, why would the Coalition bother?
The wonderful convergence of God’s will, as interpreted by the Fair Pay Commission, and the interests of business owners, as interpreted by Kevin Andrew, is further evidence that the workings of market forces are the workings of an Intelligent Designer.
Dogz,
Get real!! How many public servants/ABC employees do you really know who are able to “stash” $100,000 to $300,000 pa. I presume that you are implying that they earn far more that this so that that they can “stash” the rest. I would strongly suggest that most such employees would earn less than $50,000 and spend most of that in paying off mortgages, buying food etc so they’d have very little to “stash”. As one of the above, I have very little left over each fortnight yet still manage to support a Foster child overseas as my contribution to the plight of those at the bottom.
Generalisation sucks.
Dogz
And yet I bet you’re happy to believe the Business Council of Australia running support ads for lower taxation and IR changes . Not to mention demanding the govt spend money on infrastructure (which we pay for) so they can make more profits (which they will keep more of).
As you say, it’s a strains the credulity a bit to believe people who want lowered tax on amounts earned over $125K(!) pa (while demanding the govt spend more on supporting their businesses) reallydo care what poor people end up with.
In “Relative Advantages: Casual Employment and Casualisation in Australia and New Zealand� the authors Iain Campbell and Peter Brosnan have a look at and put forward, as they say, some tentative arguments as to why casual employment is less significant in New Zealand and not growing across the economy as a whole.
They offer the following
“But also crucial is compression from the top. Permanent workers in New Zealand have fewer benefits than permanent workers in Australia, and their situation was markedly worsened as a result of the radical program of labour market deregulation in the 1990s. As a result of this narrowing of the shortfall in rights and benefits, employers have less incentive to replace permanent workers with casual workers�
Points they make
Award regulation has been crucial in shaping the practice of casual employment. The overall effect was to establish a sharp divide in the employment structure (and the workforce).
Casual clauses signalled a type of “officially sanctioned’ gap in the regulatory system.
The conferring of casual status on a worker gives the employer a psychological advantage.
The final point particularly interest me as I have been employed as a casual for all of my paid working life since early adulthood. The psychological advantage (they consider that of lesser importance as a factor of difference between Australia and New Zealand) is not just one that motivates employers. It is also a matter of importance to employees. Certainly where the bulk of the workforce is permanent they view casuals as disposable also, and not one of them.
Two points I would make, it may be that inequality has increased drastically on almost all dimensions, but this article by Iain Campbell and Peter Brosnan suggests an aspect of employment where this will not be the outcome. It may be that the changes, while essentially not applying to casuals will change their status, by changing the “work rights� of permanents, and therefore resulting in more individuals being employed as permanents. It could serve therefore to drive a more equitable distribution of “work rights�
Secondly the changes have to change the dynamics in the workforce. There will be less of the them and us available to permanent workers (and maybe less of them to go first and more of then to get the promotion or pay increase), the “casuals� will become more than co-workers, they will become competitors, possibly. Because of the restricted nature of the changes (Professor Stewart, also on 7.30 Report) it will take time to have an impact, but it will be interesting to see.
Though there are a number of workers in Australia who seek this type of employment there are also large numbers who want to join the permanents and their extra rights and returns, Considering that August 2004 casual employment rate in Australia was 27.7% it is also of interest whether that part of the workforce sees the same picture of doom and gloom as the strong union and permanent workforce does. If they perceive that there may be an improvement in their “work rights� because the employers view the employment relationship differently they may be right on side with the changes, These workers might conclude that it is the award structure that has put them in their vicarious employment position, and that a levelling of the playing field means that they are no longer as a matter of course at the bottom of everybody’s lineup.
Three cheers for inequality!!!! I can’t believe you are so worried about economic inequality. What merit do you see in equality?
Terje further up brushes against the perceptual problems that arise when “inequality” is mentioned.
In the short term at least, inequality of outcome will arise from this legislation because some groups and interests will be able to protect/promote their economic interests. Employers, skilled workers, skilled service providers, workers whose jobs do no face competition from importers (e.g., the construction industry) are likely to benefit. either relatively or absolutely.
Of more relevance is inequality of process. This IR legislation gives employers the whip hand. Employees will suffer a severe depletion in their ability to organise themselves to agitate for collective outcomes.
But, in the not so short term, and the not so long term, this legislation is likely to reawaken the moribund union movement. Howard, the pint-sized Thor, will go to his Walhalla, Costello’s/Abbott’s Gotterdammerung can’t be far off.
Bill Shorten points out the legislation allows employers to cancel negotiations after three months, and just apply the five basic conditions. Effectively, employers will be rewarded for not negotiating with their staff, which makes a mockery of the claims that this is about people and management negotiating as equals.
The Bill also gives the Minister power to strip from federal awards or agreements any condition he chooses, without consulting Parliament.
Read more.
Ros, even if more people are hired as permanents under these reforms, it won’t mean anything, because the value of a permanent role has been diminished to close to that of a casual role. Which was the whole point.
neophyte,
Your generalizations (eg the first one above) or just anyone’s? Mutually contradictory statements aside, by “stash” I meant “pay”. I am talking about the leaders at the ABC/Unions/Academia/Public Service/Labour Party – not the rank-and-file. IE, the ones most vocal in their criticism of “inequality”. If any of them are earning less than $100,000 I’ll eat my hat.
JQ is on $250,000 (academic), I bet Kerry OBrien/Maxine Mckew/the usual ABC suspects are in that ballpark if not more. (According to the Latham diaries McKew avoided running for parliament for Labor for the very noble reason that she couldn’t stand the thought of living amongst those at the bottom of the equality ladder). I’d be really surprised if Sharon Burrows or Greg Combet earn less than $100K.
You see, it seems inequality within the current system is ok for those people, because they benefit from the inequality.
Andrew – the BCA are not bleating about inequality. And as far as I am aware they are funding their own ads. And they are not running a scare/disinformation campaign like the ACTU. So yeah, seems fine to me (if a little boring – but then I don’t have much time to watch TV so I have never really understood what all the complaints are about in the first place. If you don’t like the ads don’t watch tv – go do something healthy like kick the footy with your kids or start a business and create some wealth).
And why should unionists have automatic right of entry to my workplace? I founded this company, invested my own money, own the damn thing, took all the risk and make all the tough decisions, including who to hire and fire. If an employee has an issue my door is always open. If I can’t make them happy then they’re better off at another company – not hanging around and pissing in the well the rest of us drink from. Why would I let some pissant unionist in here to stir up trouble?
If you think it’s ok to give someone who’s stated purpose is causing industrial unrest carte-blanche access to your workplace, then you should have no problem if I break into your house this Friday night, drink your beer and watch footy on your TV with my smelly stocking feet up on the coffee table. I’ll invite some of my mates over while I’m at it.
Patrick asks what’s wrong with inequality. good question – one of the “meaning of life” ones. the answer is that inequality closely correlates with unhappiness. if we assume that being happy is better than being unhappy (and that has to be an a priori assumption, I don’t think it can be demonstrated logically), then more equality is better than less. the evidence suggests that the thing that most matters in relation to incomes is not the total level, but how individuals perceive their relative level (relative to neighbours, work colleagues etc.). social cohesion is helped by equality – which is, incidentally, why progressive income taxes were introduced in the first place, it was not an altruistic impulse on the part of people with money to part with it. equality is a slippery concept, but if we also relate it to fairness, there is a strong economic argument for fairness: it reduces transactions costs, a high trust society operates far better than a low trust society. there’s in short a wealth of reasons why equality is better for society as a whole, and improves overall levels of happiness.
Let me guess, Dogz. You manufacture Princess Di commemorative tea-towels.
Three cheers to you for holding the line against this predicted upsurge in dangerous Bellamyism.
I admire your passion for 19th-century values and employment practices. But I regretfully predict that, even if you avoid “trooble at Mill”, Howard’s attempt to return to the era of the Masters and Servants Act will end in some blood, much sweat, and many, many tears.
The easiest way to solve the whole IR debate, is to survey/poll the staff at employer groups at ACCI and AIG etc.
My gut feel is that the staff at these and other similar bodies wouldn’t be as enamoured with the claims that their bosses like the whinging Ridout and sourpuss Hendy espouse.
If the staff are against it, then that suggests ‘we have a problem’.
Dogz, the provision that used to let unions inspect workplaces weren’t designed for honourable people like yourself. They were designed for greedy pricks that cram 20 migrant women into a house to sew garments at $2 per hour, and where the doors are locked and the windows barred to prevent theft, trapping the workers if there’s a fire.
Occasionally we read about tragedies like this overseas. The reason they don’t occur in Australia is that unions police and enforce Australian standards.
There are many, many examples of dangers on construction sites and in factories that are prevented by unions. Or were. Past tense.
Katz, if running an efficient business – including keeping your employees happy – is 19th century then I guess I am a 19th century man and proud of it.
“the evidence suggests that the thing that most matters in relation to incomes is not the total level, but how individuals perceive their relative level (relative to neighbours, work colleagues etc.). social cohesion is helped by equality”
So why doesn’t this apply to other aspects of life as well? Why isn’t the government required to increase equality in partners? I don’t give a stuff how much more money Tom Cruise earns than me, but the fact that he’s banging Katie Holmes and the last chick I shagged wasn’t anywhere near that standard really gets my goat.
There oughta be a law that dictates hot sheilas have to share it around more – you know, in the interests of social cohesion.
Inequality is unavoidable and greater inequality usually means a higher rate of economic growth. Somebody is always going to the poorest, but the fact is that it is absolute poverty that should be eradicated – and in Australia it already has.
If that was all unions did I wouldn’t have an issue with them. But they do an awful lot more than that. They need members and they need workplace control to survive, and they’ve never much cared if they drive businesses to the wall in order to maintain both.
I would have thought that policing and enforcing Australian standards was a job for the government (the body that sets the standards), not private organizations with a much broader agenda.
“if running an efficient business – including keeping your employees happy – is 19th century then I guess I am a 19th century man and proud of it.”
But clearly, Dogz, the history of Industrial Relations in the 19th century ended very badly, even for kindly masters such as your good self.
That’s because your dear old paternalists went to the wall or were forced to adapt to the severe discipline of competition.
Workers didn’t take kindly to governments’ teaming up with the masters and not the servants. These workers even demonstrated they were willing to break the law and to go to gaol in defence of what they called “workers’ rights”. Caused no end of trouble.
Of course, the arrival of manhood suffrage and the decision of governments to set up collective bargaining systems were closely related to each other.
Here’s the generalisation: the earlier the achievement of manhood suffrage, the earlier the adoption of collective bargaining procedures. Coincidence or not?
Katz, your views represent precisely what is wrong with unions/Labor today: you’re still fighting the 19th century battles.
Maybe treating your workers like sh*t was competitive practice in the 19th century, but in many industries today it is not. It is certainly not competitive practice in my industry (which, incidentally, is slightly higher up the foodchain than commemorative Princess Di paraphernalia). And for those industries in which such practice may still be competitive, we have Australian standards as Tony Healy points out.
Hence why the 19th/20th century “one size fits all” IR policy that we’re presently saddled with is no longer appropriate. Rather the point of the current reforms methinks.
Trackback.
“Katz, your views represent precisely what is wrong with unions/Labor today: you’re still fighting the 19th century battles.”
My comments about the past have nothing to do with my hopes for the future. I’m modest enough to recognise that the past doesn’t exist to reify my hopes, fantasies and dreams.
But to the substance of the matter: if those views about employer/employee relations were so anachronistic, then why bother to crush them with such powerful legal penalties? This just doesn’t seem logical to me.
If you will allow me a piquant parallel, consider the following: Every right-thinking social-darwinist in the last decades of the nineteenth century assumed that Aborigines were destined for extinction. Thy believed that automatic and natural processes would achieve this interesting anthropological phenomenon. Yet, these very same social-darwinists supported the denial of a wide range of political rights and social amenities to Aborigines. One can only imagine that this was done to speed what was asserted to be a “natural” process.
In the same way, Howard’s IR fanatics just don’t believe in “natural” processes. They intend to turn up with a sword and a firebrand.
History shows that the Aborigines stubbornly refused to become extinct.
And unions? Well let’s just wait and see.
Devil, Detail, Democracy
With the introduction of the WorkChoices legislation into Federal Parliament, (however “overshadowed” by terrorist potential threats), the claim made a while back that it was a disadvantage to the Government not to have the detail revealed must be v…
I’m glad to see Prof. Quiggin raising the profile of inequality as the fundamental evil outcome of the Govt’s. IR proposals.
Abolition of Australia’s remarkably progressive and successful IR system is of course done at the behest of foreign investors who don’t understand it and don’t like what they don’t understand. Besides, it has Unions in it, so it must be bad.
Consistently throughout his chequered political career, the Rodent has recovered from seemingly irrecoverable defeats by moving further to the Right. Over time, this strategy has brought him completely under the control of the foreigners who largely furnish the support for the far Right in this country. The Rodent has a lot of debts to pay, and payment can no longer be deferred. It is a matter of academic interest whether he himself understands what has happened, but those who have to live with the consequences will not care much about that.
Dogz wrote:
But aren’t you (according to yesterday’s comments) the government’s employer? So that means you should set the standards – as a business owner! Wow, but isn’t that a private body? And as for agendas, you’ve painted the union movement with a pretty broad tarbrush already. I can’t pretend to know the breadth of your own agenda. But we’ll all be safe if you set the rules. I feel better now.
Also, Yobbo, your continuted references to Katie Holmes and “hot sheilas” are offensive – no matter what your ironic point may be. Get over yourself.
Oh yeah, gordon, and the CIA is spying on me from the office across the road.
You forgot to take your Trilafon this morning.
No, I am a voter, and via that I get to indirectly set the standards. And I expect the govt to enforce the standards themselves – not to outsource enforcement to the unions. I get to vote on that too (albeit indirectly again).
Gordon – so are you saying that the Ilumminati and the Bilderbergers are behind WorkChoices?
Yes or No?
Er, I only referred to Katie Holmes once, not “continutedly” and I don’t actually understand why you think I’d care what you find offensive.
If it helps, I’ve not yet found a “hot sheila” offensive – at least not before the morning after.
The various critques of Gordon’s conspiracy theories above are on the mark.
The Rodent doesn’t need the advice or help of any shady right-wing international conspiracy to promote his IR dream.
In fact his IR Dream has the same effect on the Rodent as Katie Holmes has on Yobbo and Dogz.
IR is Rodent Viagra.
Whoops! I bet I know which word tripped the Moderation Police.
Katz Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
November 3rd, 2005 at 12:41 pm
The various critques of Gordon’s conspiracy theories above are on the mark.
The Rodent doesn’t need the advice or help of any shady right-wing international conspiracy to promote his IR dream.
In fact his IR Dream has the same effect on the Rodent as Katie Holmes has on Yobbo and Dogz.
IR is Rodent [tumescence facilitating medicine beginning with the the 22nd letter of the alphabet].
I see a Tele front page story on how the new unfair dismissal laws have created jobs. I see a photo of smiling boss and smiling worker with their arms around each others shoulders. I see a story about their profound gratitude to Mr Howard. I can’t see the date but I’d say within a week of the laws taking effect. Any advance?
My mistake, but once was enough. Curious as to why you cared enough to respond. Defensive? Oh yes, and a petty shot at spelling – how surprising, Yobbo.
There’s little credibility lamenting the plight of those at the bottom when you’re a union leader/academic/ABC employee/public servant/labour party MP happily stashing $100,000 – $300,000 per year.
yes, when it comes to credibly “lamenting the plight of those at the bottom”, always turn to the prime minister, other liberal MPs, the business council of australia, and the directors and managers of its constituent corporations.
QUOTE: The point I was making is that while ‘national governments’ are no longer trying to gain a ‘competitive advantage’ by means of ‘competitive devaluations’
RESPONSE: So why is there so much US interest in the monetary policy of China. The US accusses China of deliberately undervaluing its currency to gain a trade advantage. Personally I would accuse the USA of trying to get the Yuan overvalued to gain a trade advantage. Either way the notion of competitive devaluations have not gone away even though floating currencies are disruptive to commerce and server nobody except those focused on short term political cycles (or those focused on making profit from currency speculation).
QUOTE: In order to remain ‘cost competitive’ the currently low wage counties have an incentive to cut their wages. The process converges to 0, assuming it is being left to run unchecked.
RESPONSE: This assumes that the world has a massive oversupply of labour relative to consumers or capital. China and India joining the world markets does change the ratios however wages will not converge to zero. In fact the quicker that India and China can build capital (ie Infastructure) the faster their wages will grow and the quicker the supply shock will pass for the rest of the world. Any attempt to slow down the natural dynamics of this process is to the disadvantage of the worlds poorest people.
Does a Liberal Party MP lamenting the plight of those at the top while happily stashing $100,000 – $300,000 per year have any credibility?
Stephen says inequality is closely correllated with unhappiness; I say bollocks.
I think a) that is rubbish and b) it misses the point.
Not a lot to develop on with a, except that the saying that the grass is always greener etc has a bit of vintage: I think some, perhaps a majority of, people are always going to perceive themselves as less well off than another and resent it/feel inferior/feel hard done by/want to kill the other, whatever. I don’t think the degree of inequality is actually that material.
As for b, you have to start with the observation that in fact, people are more equal now, than just about ever before. What does a poor person not have these days? I’m being serious. They have considerably more than rudimentary health care, DVD players and TVs and educations, they vote, they live in houses. Obviously there are poorer people who don’t have all this or any of it, and obviously there are too many people who have all this and yet don’t have enough to eat healthily every day. But that doesn’t change the fact that they are better off than ever before.
Secondly, and relatedly, on b, inequality correllates strongly with what else? Growth!! Lots of it!! Which feeds into my first point on b.
Inequality is generally caused by economic growth which is to the benefit of everyone: its not about the meaning of life, it is about common sense.
A lot of whacky stuff here, but let me upset the Howardian claque by reminding them that, according to the law of diminishing marginal utility, every dollar you take off a rich citizen and give to a poor citizen improves Australia’s social wellbeing.
Not quite. Poor people are more likely to smoke. Take a dollar from a non-smoking rich person and give it to a poor smoker and all you do is further shorten the poor smoker’s life expectancy.
Besides, I prefer the law of natural justice, which says that if you take something of mine, I have the right to blow your head off.
And if you take someone’s life, the criminal justice system has the right to put you away, so that you can write your pathetic memoirs, entitled: “Dogz Gone: Some Smoking Commie Stole My Dollar, and All I Got Was This Tiny Cell”. Kind of catchy, don’t you think?
good point – I won’t blow your head off. Steal from me and I’ll seduce your wife instead. Legal and just as satisfying.
Ha ha, so old-fashioned. Anyway, it’s not legal for dogs to procreate with people.
Stephen says –
“equality is a slippery concept, but if we also relate it to fairness, there is a strong economic argument for fairness: it reduces transactions costs, a high trust society operates far better than a low trust society. there’s in short a wealth of reasons why equality is better for society as a whole, and improves overall levels of happiness”
There is a big difference between equality and fairness. I’m very happy to live in a ‘fair’ society with everyone given an equal chance to succeed…. but that doesn’t mean that the results for everyone will be equal.
In an example that all unionists hate – what if I’m a very productive factory worker who produces 2 widgets per hour compare to the bloke next to me who only produces 1. I think it would be ‘fair’ if I got paid more than him – we are not of equal value.
Since we are in the middle of the Spring Carnival – let’s use horse-racing as an example – In a handicap race, each horse is given a different weight depending on age and ability. That’s hardly fair (why penalise a horse for having ability) – but it should produce a relatively equal outcome.
perfectly legal for dogs. They don’t go to jail.
But re happiness and equality. Patrick can say rubbish as much as he likes, but there is a statistically significant correlation. Have a read.