It’s time again for weekend reflections, which makes space for longer than usual comments on any topic. Civilised discussion and no coarse language please.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
John Quiggin 
@Chris Warren
Its not just in the land of Windsor where it stinks Chris. You know these nice cute little small businesses that were supposed to be the wonder of free markets and competition (as the neo cons and liberalists would have us believe) have morphed into big ugly bloodsucking leeches.
On another topic. What does anyone think the Coalition will do if they win and are told that the Debt and Deficit isn’t as bad as they’ve been saying? Will they shut up about and continue cutting things so as to have something in the bank in case we do have a double-dip. Or, will they spend it and just take all the credit?
No, Johng, they are ideologically, even miltantly neolib. Even if the Australian economy was perfect, rather than merely one of the few examples of a functioning nation and economy in our troubled world, they would still come down on spending, for philosophical reasons.
Some at this site, quite frankly will tell you they are against taxation, seeing it as a form of theft, which is the diametric opposite of the leftist critique, as to theft, which has it that the rich and powerful are the thieves, rather than the un-self reliant fritterers of the lower classes and undeserving welfare recipients.
Make no mistake, they are elitist in the real sense, consolingthemselves with the idea that only they, could possibly know what’s “best”.
@paul walter
Paul – the Coalition doesnt cut expenditure on miisterial travel, ministerial perks, limousines, electoral allowances, their own personal salaries and superannuation entitlements, hairdressers, make up artists, and goodness knows what else. They only cut public expenditure on benefits for the Australian people. They prefer cutting spending on the poor especially if that means desperation makes people wages cheaper.
Yes they are elitist. Obnoxiously so but is Labor really any better?
Labor, or at least its right, are more opportunist scroungers than born to rule. Its precisly their bucolic clumsiness as to venality that brings them down, again and again.
That’s why they have been so slow to dismantle the Howard apparatus, they’d actually like to inherit it and turn the country into a sort of giant NSW, Tassie or QLD.
and that s why the People are considering even some thing as arid and harsh as Abbott neoliberalism, because they anticipate full-well from the example of people like Iemma and Bligh, what to expect in the way of eco rationalist stabs in the back, post election.
@Alice
with all these flaws, it makes you wonder why the libs are neck and neck in the polls with the ALP.
8 months ago, when abbott became opposition leader by 1 vote, the libs prospects were hopeless.
obviously, he is doing something that chimes with the voters.
rather than deploring what the libs say, explore counters that work for people that do not already agree with you, and might vote for the Libs, but could swing back.
listen here dummy, listen here red-neck dummy, is no way to win votes. who votes for a party who just insulted them?
I suggested that you may be stupid. On reflection things are clearer. You’re just plain ignorant. Hong Kong society and Swedish society are according to you just fairy tales.
@Jim Rose
We will see Jim Rose soon. I notice Abbott is on the front page of the SMH peddling a flat tax rate for everyone who earns between 25K and 180K a year.
Now I wonder how someone on 30K is going to feel about that?
Any redistribution in that? Oh no – none at all. Except of course if you earn under 25K you get to keep it all. Imagine the people who will be doing anything they can to lower their incomes from 30K to 25K? Imagine all the top income earners laughing all the way to the investment firms. Oh and the fiscal austerity and lack of public spending promises no vision for the future or our infrastructure to me.
Just a miserly regime who wont build the snowy mountains scheme who wont build roads and who wont invest in this country. Abbott will prove to be meaner than John Howard.
Alice, that is actually one of the ideas from the Henry Tax Review see Peter Martin’s Blog and the latest is that Abbott seems to have pulled back from it a bit. For whatever reason Abbott seems to be more inclined to take on some of the Henry stuff than Labor. Maybe, having got into so much trouble trying to a little reform just before an election they’ll wait till early next time, if they win.
@Alice
who wins from specific policies matters less because most voting is expressive. I am going to first preference the greens as a protest is an example.
Expressive voting is the desire most have to express themselves in support of things they approve of, and in opposition of what they disapprove of and make statements about ourselves and what we belong to. Voting is much like sending a get-well card, or cheering for the home team, or booing the visiting team. We send the card and cheer primarily because of the expressive satisfaction it provides to us.
Howard stayed in office for 11 years so you should hope Abbott is different from Howard, rather than Howard true blue and with the benefit of hindsight.
@Johng
I am sure if Abbott gets in there will be a lot of “reforms” he isnt discussing right here and now in this election campaign. In fact the Coalition specialises in “reforms”. Im just wondering when, if ever, we actually get to the place where we are all fully reformed (or does that only happen in prison?).
Im really hoping the senate will hung even if he does get in so that at least he cant push through more of the same odious neo lib legislation Howard did while he had the senate numbers. Id like to see some real debate happening.
@Jim Rose
Im just going to plain out vote Green JR except its no protest vote.
The Greens happen to have policies I think this country needs (investment in public transport for one). I dont hear much that interests me from either of the two majors and they look and act like B1 and B2. I cant tell the difference. They both waffle on about surpluses now when we have a downturn. Neither is addressing unemployment. Both are playing the boatpeople lie (when far far more come through the airport), both subscribe to neoliberalism, both get too scared to get a share back from the miners, neither is talking closing high earner tax loopholes, neither is talking toughening up competition laws to stop the creeping monopolisation of some big industries in this country, and neither is talking investment in public infrastructures (thats p…u…b…l…i…c. Its not a dirty word).
@Alice
you say that “They both waffle on about surpluses now when we have a downturn”
The australian greens say “government finances must be sustainable over the long run; budget deficits and surpluses must balance each other over the business cycle.”
Robert Lucas advocates the same optimal fiscal policy as does Robert Barro.
I was watching Michael Clayton (the movie) on Channel 9 the other night and it struck me that the evil corporate lawyer played by Tilda Swinton looked a lot like Julia Gillard.
Coincidence? Almost certainly, but spooky all the same. Check out the film clip at the link above.
@TerjeP
This makes no sense. I have never mentioned Hong Kong or Sweden. Generally those who attach tags such as “fairy tales” are usually the guilty ones.
They rant against the world trying to relieve their own misunderstood angst.
Hong Kong was a capitalist hell-hole with minimum wages less than $A5 an hour.
However, the situation is improving slowly. See:
| Anarco-capos gone |
Like Australia Hong Kong faces bankruptcy with external debt over 220% of GDP.
See | Capo bankruptcy |
Australia is almost bankrupt with over 120% of GDP as debt. See: |Australian capo bankruptcy |
So the facts speak for themselves.
But the real problem is not the level of debt so much, as the underlying trend to continuously increase it over time. This is needed to cover-up the root contradiction of capitalism.
Maybe this link will work?
Aust. Capo Bankruptcy
@Chris Warren
Hong Kong was a capitalist hell-hole?
At the end of World War II, Hong Kong was a dirt-poor island with a per-capita income about one-quarter that of Britain’s.
By 1997, when sovereignty was transferred to China, its per-capita income was roughly equal to that of the departing colonial power. do you have any explantion for that?
the population was 600,000 in 1947 and is now 7 million.
@Jim Rose
I am not sure why you think 1997 is particularly relevant, but anyway, what was the minimum wage and standard working week in Hong Kong in 1997?
The minimum wage in Hong Kong prior to 2010 was zero dollars. Which is also the current minimum wage in Sweden.
Dear me, Chris. I hope you are treating your comment about bankruptcy potential as a joke. Just in case you actually believe it, here are the two main problems with the analysis:
1. The measure used there is gross external debt to GDP, not net. This means that (for example) if you (personally) borrow a million dollars on an income of $1m, but have $200m in assets, then that would be counted as having a debt to GDP ratio of 100% – worse than the US’s. That does not make you even close to bankrupt.
2. The CNBC numbers involve no discrimination between government and private sector debt. In Australia, for example, the level of government debt is very low. There may be a danger that some Australians will go bankrupt, but this does not mean that the Australian government faces any problems in paying off its debt.
This analysis seems to have been intended to make the people of the US a little more sanguine about their economic problems. I am glad (if you intended it as a joke) that you have not been sucked into that one.
@TerjeP
excellent post.
a small group of old EU countries that do not have a statutory minimum wage comprises Austria, Germany, Italy and the Scandinavian countries. capitalist hell-holes all.
A common feature of this group of countries is the high coverage rate of collectively agreed minimum wages, generally laid down in sectoral agreements.
The percentage of employees covered by collectively agreed minimum wages ranges from approximately 70% in Germany and Norway to almost 100% in Austria and Italy (though excluding irregular workers, who make up a relatively large share of the Italian labour market). Italy has a huge underground economy.
In Denmark, the percentage of employees covered by collectively agreed wages is estimated at between 81% and 90%, while in Finland and Sweden, this figure is 90%.
Sweden is a capitalist hell-hole that every true blue social democrat must denounce without reservation. Their so called left-wing parties as traitors to the working class and to the least powerful of all workers – the low-paid and unskilled.
the EU poor should not have to rely on scraps from the tables of middle-class unions. they have been deserted by their so called social democratic governments.
Whether the low-paid and low-skilled get a fair consideration from unions in collective bargaining given these unions, if democratic, will be driven by majority rule – by the median voter/union member who is older, senior and of high job tenure – is a question worth exploring.
the evidence is not good in the finnish depression in the early 1990s where unions refused nominal wage cuts despite 20% unemployment – the worst since the 1930s.
most European labour markets are dual labour markets. unions and so called employment protection ensure that they are made up of two-tier systems with ultra-secure permanent workers and vulnerable temporary workers – increasing unemployment in the downturn.
@Andrew Reynolds
You missed the point. As I specifically said:
This general increase in all forms of debt (public, private, consumer whatever) has been occurring since 1900 (where data exists).
This is unlikely. It is not possible to live on “zero dollars”.
@Jim Rose
Why are you being so critical of European economies?
Why do you think Sweden is a “capitalist hell hole”?
While it is possible that HK per capita incomes may be same as the UK in a trading and financial services economy, this does not mean that Hong Kong workers received incomes anywhere near the UK levels.
In fact hourly compensation (including supplements) for manufacturing workers in Hong Kong was LESS then half that of UK workers.
It was closer to a THIRD from 1995 to 2000.
So presumably business executives took most of the wealth and created crowded overpopulated hell-hole conditions for the rest.
@Chris Warren
Sweden has no statutory minimum wage.
that was your ground from denouncing Hong Kong at #16 as a capitalist hell for less than that – “Hong Kong was a capitalist hell-hole with minimum wages less than $A5 an hour” .
I notice that your link shows that Hong Kong government accounts for about 20% of GDP and Hong Kong is much richer that the UK and almost as rich as the USA on a PPP GDP per capita basis.
Chris – of course you can’t live on zero dollars but you can have a minimum wage of zero dollars, which is to say the government leaves the setting of prices to the market. There are lots of societies both contemporary and historical that have no minimum wage. Also if you were paying attention earlier I suggested Australia should replace the minimum wage with a social wage. However given that you probably don’t understand what that means either you must be a troll.
Jim – another example is Britian prior Tony Blair.
@TerjeP
yes, the minimum wage was not a priority for even the Attlee govenment. those so-called socialists were too busy blowing the marshall plan money on nationalisations of industries that were losing money to introduce the most basic employment protections for the low-paid.
Only Red Tony had the guts to protect the ordinary worker from monopsony power of the bosses.
The UK minimum wage law dates from 1999. It was a flagship policy of the Labour Party in the UK during its 1997 election campaign.
Your comprehension skills are lacking.
Where did I suggest that “no statutory minimum wage” [Rose fabrication] was a ground for denouncing Hong Kong as a capitalist hell-hole?
Hong Kong was a capitalist hell hole because of the level of workers wages (and working hours).
If Rose’s comparison between UK and HK GDP is correct, then manufacturing workers wages (including supplements) in Hong Kong are less than half that of UK workers and in fact closer to a third.
This makes Hong Kong a capitalist hell hole for workers.
Whether or not a statutory minimum wage exists is a separate matter.
Chris, when you said what I have quoted above were you aware that prior to 2010 there was no minimum wage in Hong Kong, that in Sweden and Denmark there is still no minimum wage and that Britian only got a minimum wage in the late 1990s?
If yes why the fibs about the dark ages and the end of society merely because I advocated a taxpayer funded social wage instead of a statutory minimum wage. If no then is there anything you retract in what you said.
@Chris Warren
You introduced HK, its miniumum wages of $5 and its moral status at #16.
how large is the manufacturing sector in Hong kong? 7% of employment.
Hong Kong’s manufacturing sector has mostly relocated to mainland China which provides cheaper labour, land and buildings etc.
An increasing proportion of Hong Kong’s workforce (85 percent by October 2006) is employed in the service sector.
Hong Kong enjoys the highest living standards in the Asia-Pacific region
@Jim Rose
The question was:
The ground for denouncing Hong Kong is the oppressed level of wages (compared to the UK) not what Jim Rose is trying to substitute.
Chris,
And by just about every method of measuring welfare it has also been increasing since before 1900.
Surely, then, an increase in debt is closely associated with an increase in welfare.
Welfare has certainly increased, but in countries with little debt as well. This is a normal gain from economic development.
You do not need ratcheting debt to get improved welfare. In fact mounting debt threatens to undo the gains in welfare.
@TerjeP
I am not sure what you are trying to say.
But if you kill the minimum wage you take society back to the dark ages of exploited bonded labour and impoverishment for many families, particularly tennants.
That is the lesson of history.
Even if you’re in Sweden? Even if you replace it with a taxpayer funded social wage as I suggested?
@TerjeP
Even in Sweden Terje?? – you talk about Sweden having no minimum wage but its also where pubic childcare is provided for all children aged one to 12 years.? They probably save much more than they lose in any minimum wage loss……
Here? Where childcare alone costs more than the minimum wage?
You arent looking at the big picture.
@TerjeP
Terje – medical and dental care is free in Sweden to all children and youth aged under twenty. When a child is borm all parents are entitled to 450 days of paid parental leave funded at the sickness benefit rate by the social insurance office. The leave can be taken at any time until the child turns 8.
Being an LDP Terje, no doubt you would not like to see the heavy arm of government providing these medical, dental, childcare and leave benefits here in Australia. Yet these benefits are much more female and family friendly arent they? Next time you want to make an example of Sweden as a country that has no minimum wage you need to think of the other “public” benefits the Swedish government provides to its people. They are worth real money Terje, to the families and to their productivity and to income. Its not all about “how can we punish people more to make them work harder – what else can we take away” which seems to be the generally hamfisted and condemnatory attitude of conservative parties in Australia.
You say you would like to replace the minimum wage with something you call a social wage yet you dont specify who will pay this social wage?
What the difference Terje? Is your social wage less than the minimum wage?
Alice
TerjeP is teasing. Of course Sweden has minimum wages – they are derived from union negotiated collective agreements. If Australia had the same union density as Sweden and the same right to have employee representatives on company managements, then collective bargaining could produce even fairer shares than a legal minimum wage and better conditions too (eg 5 weeks leave).
However those proposing to kill the minimum wage are not proposing this to increase wages. They are proposing it to cut wages and their songsheet usually has verses about unemployment and economic modelling and so on.
Of course the industrial climate in Australia is vastly different than in Sweden, so killing the minimum wage here, is a Tory cost cutting exercise.
So by all means, give unions the legal right to be represented on Boards of Management, then the legal minimum wage will be redundant.
So we can get rid of minimum wages in some conditions but not in others.
Alice – no it is you that isn’t looking at the big picture. There was a context to my suggestion that the minimum wage should be abolished. I proposed a replacement. That replacement was a taxpayer funded social wage (or in LDP talk a negative income tax).
Chris – so you’ve looked at Sweden and decided a society can exist without a statutory minimum wage. In that case perhaps we can expect a slightly less ignorant approach from you in discussion of the minimum wage.
Alice – no it is you that isn’t looking at the big picture. There was a context to my suggestion that the minimum wage should be abolished. I proposed a replacement. That replacement was a taxpayer funded social wage (or in LDP talk a negative income tax).
Chris – so you’ve looked at Sweden and decided a society can exist without a statutory minimum wage. In that case perhaps we can expect a slightly less ignorant approach from you in discussion of the minimum wage. Perhaps with your dogma goggles off you might be able to look at things in context and understand that there is more than one way to skin a cat and the old way may not be the only way or even the best way.
@TerjeP
Just as I suspected Terje – you want to fund your social wage by giving the unemployed a tax cut they dont earn and cant get because they are unemployed and cant claim it, yet those who are on a claimable wage can claim. So your plan is just another meanspirited kick at those who are genuinely unemployed. It is condemnatory. It is pretty pthetic when youth unemployment rates are so high that you would condemn them to no assistance at all.
You suggestion does not accept that unemployment is an economic problem within the responsibilities of the government (even though the RBAs responsibility is still to maintain full employment in this country as cited on their website).
Yet another tax cut for those fortunate enough to be in work – is that what you suggest Terje (but none of the other benefits worth real money that the Swedish government can afford to give its citizens?).
Im giving Australian conservatives my vote as being amongst the meanest narrowest most bigoted people in the world.
@Chris Warren
do you have any evidence that average wage levels in hong kong are below the UK’s?
@Alice
I see that you have written another of your anthems to middle class welfare.
no word on the effectiveness of social safety nets including minimum wages.
the role of the middle class is to pay taxes to fund social expenditure on the working class.
Instead, you want the middle class to push passed the working class to put their snouts in the trough, taking money from the hands of the poor.
Nothing you have said contradicts director’s law that public expenditures are made for the primary benefit of the middle classes, and financed with taxes which are borne in considerable part by the poor and the rich
Alice – no a social wage and/or a negative income tax does not exclude those with no private income, such as the unemployed. God you are thick.
Okay, I regret that last sentence. But it is frustrating when you say X and people say “oh but we know you really mean Y”. I mean what I say and I get fed up when certain people try and verbal me because they wish to paint me as some sinister individual trying to pull a swifty.
Huh? I have never claimed that “average” wages are anything.
Hong Kong manufacturing wages including supplements were around a third of UK wages at the time of handover.
Try reading what people write.
Giving workers a statutory right to participate in management is superior to having a paltry minimum wage.
But lets not let this TerjeP twist this into abolishing minimum wages in general or replacing it with taxpayers funds.
So in Auastralia it may be best to ensure unions are resourced and have all the statutory rights and powers to participate fully in the management of corporations including remuneration schemes and bonus payments assignments.
So this is what TerjeP needs to sign onto, before killing what little protection workers currently have.
@Chris Warren
what is your source for Hong Kong manufacturing wages including supplements were around a third of UK wages at the time of handover?