NationStates Jolt Archive

The only thing that people can't be fired for is their race or gender. Besides that, they can fired for anything.

Go Capitalism.

BTW, try posting a link to them for us "dumb" foreigners.

The changes are over 2,000 pages long, but basically what people are getting upset about (and rightly so) is that fir buisnesses with less than 100 employees, unfair dismissal laws do not apply (except for race or gender, as stated earlier) and that they are setting up a new government run committee to set minumum wages, rather than it being part of the old thingy. This leaves it blatantly open for abuse, the mimimum wage is going to go down in almost all areas of work, my dad is having his pay more than cut in half, from $32 an hour to $14. And these laws also limit Union powers... Im thinking of making a school rebellion, for the little good it'll do.

I wish the greens were in power...

The only thing that people can't be fired for is their race or gender. Besides that, they can fired for anything.

I'm impressed, I never thought I would agree with you about anything. Proved me wrong.

Good. Australia, keep it up.

Why should the employer not have control over who fills a position that they provide? It is their money that the employer is paying the employee with.

I wish the greens were in power...
You seriously want some cabbage hivemind ruling over your life?

Good. Australia, keep it up.

Why should the employer not have control over who fills a position that they provide? It is their money that the employer is paying the employee with.It's the employees work that the employer makes money off of.

It's the employees work that the employer makes money off of.
Yeah, but if another employee can provide more money, then the employer should have the right to switch. You need a malleable job market to foster competition which, in turn, slows/prevents the rise of monopolies and regulates prices.
Kudos to Australia, maybe there is hope for them yet.

It's the employees work that the employer makes money off of.
AGH.

The fucking Marxist dogma strikes again. Pay a visit to an econ prof and they'll explain why that's wrong. I'm not patient enough tonight to explain.

AGH.

The fucking Marxist dogma strikes again. Pay a visit to an econ prof and they'll explain why that's wrong. I'm not patient enough tonight to explain.Marxist dogma my ass. Find a better argument than "I'm too lazy to argue; go chat with Professor Ourmazd you fucking commie."

Yeah, but if another employee can provide more money, then the employer should have the right to switch.So you have no problem with child labor then, right Fiddles? ;)

People should get a fair wage, and not be exploited. We shouldn't let things slip back to 19th century standards.
It'd be nice if more governments would use their people's well being, rather than economic growth, as their measure of success.

Economically, this is a masterpiece. Johnny knows what he's doing when it comes to the economy (and not much else). Remember the last incredibly unpopular policy John Howard pushed despite widespead public dispute? The GST. Who's upset about it now?
The IR reforms will definitely boost our economy. However, as a nation we have to decide on a point where the focus is shifted from the economy, and back to the people. If we do not, we'll just end up like America; with an incredible economy and a poverty gap to match. The richest nation in the world, yet simultaneously holding the highest rate of poverty in the third world.
The question is when is that point? Maybe this is it. Personally, I think we should go through with the IR reforms, and maybe slow down there (i.e. reinvest the accrued wealth back into the people).

Fuck yes they are.

I've been forced into a contract, thanks to this - accept a 30% paycut or lose my job. Yay for $12 an hour employment! Mr Howard, I will remember, and you will burn - try me for sedition if you want, bitch.

Economic masterpiece indeed! Let's forget about the workers, and help out the wealthy!! Yay!!!

The new laws allow employers to actually pay wages under the minimum wage by seasonally averaging them, ie paying workers less in low months, in anticipation of them earning more in peak months. Theoretically this works if you work a full year, but what if you only work a few months?

They severely restrict the rights of unions.

They also make it illegal to negotiate certain items into your contract, such as unfair dismissal clauses, the right to union representation, training, access to the workplace, etc on pain of a $33,000 fine.

The only thing that people can't be fired for is their race or gender. Besides that, they can fired for anything.

can i come over..i need a nap!

Marxist dogma my ass. Find a better argument than "I'm too lazy to argue; go chat with Professor Ourmazd you fucking commie."
It's three o'clock AM, I've been up since eight o'clock AM. In that time I've spent eight hours at work, and walked quite a long distance. It's not lazy, it's tired.

The employee is compensated for his labor by his wages. He makes a contract with his employer at the beginning of his employment, in which he sets the value of his labor in conjunction with the employer.

But, here's how it works.

Investor invests his money in the firm. His money is used to purchase capital. This capital comes in the form of various machines and tools. Once the investor has purchased these basic requirements, the investor then goes and purchases the raw materials for the product, something he must do continuously if the invester wishes for their firm to stay in business. If, for any reason, the firm should fail, the investor will lose not only the money that was invested in the machines and tools, but also the money that was spent in purchasing the raw materials. After doing all of that, the investor needs labor to run the machines. As such, the investor goes out and hires labor. The investor negotiates a pay rate with the labor. This rate is determined by supply and demand. (Practically anyone can crank a socket wrench all day, but not many people have intimate knowledge of machine repair, espescially for the machines we're dealing with in this scenario, as they are partially computerized. As such, the more knowledge you have of something technical or little understood, the higher the wage you can demand.) The laborer goes to work. He is compensated for his work in the form of his agreed upon wage.

If it becomes evident that the investor has hired too many employees, or that demand in the market sector is decreasing, then the investor stands to lose. And so long as there are no legal outstanding debts to the employee, the investor owes the employee nothing.


Now, class tomorrow morning will require me to be awake for it, so I shall shortly be attending to that little duty. Goodnight.

So you have no problem with child labor then, right Fiddles? ;)
With leaps of logic like that, you should be seeking entry into an Olympic team. Child Labor has nothing to do with allowing employees and employers the right to move about their markets freely.
Look at it this way: In a free market, exchanges are only agreed upon because they benefit both people. In an employer/employee relationship, the employee gains money (which he needs to buy food and luxury goods) in return for his skills (which are of no use on their own); the employer gains access to skills he doesn't have in return for money he doesn't need. If both sides of the equation are free, then both sides profit.
However, if you bind the workers to their job (make them slaves/serfs) then you eliminate their ability to seek profitable arrangements. It is obvious how this hurts the slave, but it also attacks the employer, as a slave has no impetus to succeed and thrive. All the slave must do is find the minimum amount of labor required to avoid getting beaten and killed, and he'll hover there, never innovating or putting forth extra effort.
If you bind the employer, you similarly enslave them to the worker. Without the freedom of hiring/firing, the employer doesn't always profit from employing a person, and so they will be wary of employment. While the slave-master suffers from his slaves lack of innovations, the populace suffer ffrom the lack of innovation on the part of the bound employer. With out fluidity in the job market, the ability to alter one's business is declined. The lack of alterations causes stagnation, and stagnation isn't good for anyone. Further, you discourage people from entering new businesses (small start-ups, for instance, now have greater flexibility and an edge over their bigger competitors) and that creates Monopolies (And anyone whose ever had the misfortune to be involved in it knows that no one wins at Monopoly, you just watch the dog chase a top hat in circles until the cat steals your dice).

Why should the employer not have control over who fills a position that they provide? It is their money that the employer is paying the employee with.

Did you not read my post? Besides race or gender, they can be fired for anything. ANYTHING. I can fire one of my workers if I think he looks shifty, or if I don't like the colour of his shirt.

Fuck yes they are.

I've been forced into a contract, thanks to this - accept a 30% paycut or lose my job. Yay for $12 an hour employment! Mr Howard, I will remember, and you will burn - try me for sedition if you want, bitch.

Economic masterpiece indeed! Let's forget about the workers, and help out the wealthy!! Yay!!!
Get another job then.

When I didn't like my previous job, I found another one and got paid more to work in a better work environment.

It's three o'clock AM, I've been up since eight o'clock AM. In that time I've spent eight hours at work, and walked quite a long distance. It's not lazy, it's tired.

The employee is compensated for his labor by his wages. He makes a contract with his employer at the beginning of his employment, in which he sets the value of his labor in conjunction with the employer.

But, here's how it works.

Investor invests his money in the firm. His money is used to purchase capital. This capital comes in the form of various machines and tools. Once the investor has purchased these basic requirements, the investor then goes and purchases the raw materials for the product, something he must do continuously if the invester wishes for their firm to stay in business. If, for any reason, the firm should fail, the investor will lose not only the money that was invested in the machines and tools, but also the money that was spent in purchasing the raw materials. After doing all of that, the investor needs labor to run the machines. As such, the investor goes out and hires labor. The investor negotiates a pay rate with the labor. This rate is determined by supply and demand. (Practically anyone can crank a socket wrench all day, but not many people have intimate knowledge of machine repair, espescially for the machines we're dealing with in this scenario, as they are partially computerized. As such, the more knowledge you have of something technical or little understood, the higher the wage you can demand.) The laborer goes to work. He is compensated for his work in the form of his agreed upon wage.

If it becomes evident that the investor has hired too many employees, or that demand in the market sector is decreasing, then the investor stands to lose. And so long as there are no legal outstanding debts to the employee, the investor owes the employee nothing.


Now, class tomorrow morning will require me to be awake for it, so I shall shortly be attending to that little duty. Goodnight.
And you still managed to miss the point. As has been pointed out, people have to accept massive wage cuts or face being fired. An employer should have control over whom fills the position, but not to the extent that they can threaten such measures without impunity.

Did you not read my post? Besides race or gender, they can be fired for anything. ANYTHING. I can fire one of my workers if I think he looks shifty, or if I don't like the colour of his shirt.
And that makes no economic sense whatsoever. Typically, if you have an employee, you train them, and until they are trained they aren't as productive as if they were trained. Not only that, but training costs money. It's an investment. If you randomly fire employees, you're probably going to suffer loss.

Now it's official. Goodnight.

If it becomes evident that the investor has hired too many employees, or that demand in the market sector is decreasing, then the investor stands to lose. And so long as there are no legal outstanding debts to the employee, the investor owes the employee nothing.No social responsibility? No loyalty towards your employees? Only the moneys counts for anything?

With leaps of logic like that, you should be seeking entry into an Olympic team. Child Labor has nothing to do with allowing employees and employers the right to move about their markets freely.
Look at it this way: In a free market, exchanges are only agreed upon because they benefit both people. In an employer/employee relationship, the employee gains money (which he needs to buy food and luxury goods) in return for his skills (which are of no use on their own); the employer gains access to skills he doesn't have in return for money he doesn't need. If both sides of the equation are free, then both sides profit.
However, if you bind the workers to their job (make them slaves/serfs) then you eliminate their ability to seek profitable arrangements. It is obvious how this hurts the slave, but it also attacks the employer, as a slave has no impetus to succeed and thrive. All the slave must do is find the minimum amount of labor required to avoid getting beaten and killed, and he'll hover there, never innovating or putting forth extra effort.
If you bind the employer, you similarly enslave them to the worker. Without the freedom of hiring/firing, the employer doesn't always profit from employing a person, and so they will be wary of employment. While the slave-master suffers from his slaves lack of innovations, the populace suffer ffrom the lack of innovation on the part of the bound employer. With out fluidity in the job market, the ability to alter one's business is declined. The lack of alterations causes stagnation, and stagnation isn't good for anyone. Further, you discourage people from entering new businesses (small start-ups, for instance, now have greater flexibility and an edge over their bigger competitors) and that creates Monopolies (And anyone whose ever had the misfortune to be involved in it knows that no one wins at Monopoly, you just watch the dog chase a top hat in circles until the cat steals your dice).The inherent flaw in this reasoning is that people, especially employers, think rationally with society in mind. This is not the case; people like to rationalize with only their own interests in mind.

Did you not read my post? Besides race or gender, they can be fired for anything. ANYTHING. I can fire one of my workers if I think he looks shifty, or if I don't like the colour of his shirt.
In which case, you are insane and are doing your workers a favor by kicking them out of the business before you fully collapse the company and start waving your penis at employee's families.

In which case, you are insane and are doing your workers a favor by kicking them out of the business before you fully collapse the company and start waving your penis at employee's families.

That may be. It doesn't change the fact that you're giving the employer undue power over the worker. You're letting the boss become a tyrant.

Not all people act with the aim of maximizing profit, and unaccountable power is always dangerous.

And that makes no economic sense whatsoever. Typically, if you have an employee, you train them, and until they are trained they aren't as productive as if they were trained. Not only that, but training costs money. It's an investment. If you randomly fire employees, you're probably going to suffer loss.

Now it's official. Goodnight.

Well, let's do a little roleplaying. I'm an employer, you're my employee.

Andaluciae, you look shifty, you're fired. I'm replacing you with somebody from the Philippines who I can pay $2 an hour.

This opinion piece, from The Age in Melbourne, is (I believe) a good summation of the new legislation.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/kenneth-davidson/no-place-for-unions-in-the-new-ir-club/2006/03/22/1142703438261.html

Get another job then.That may be easier said than done, I think.
People don't generally have dozens of jobs to pick from. Unlike employers that often have hundreds or thousands of potential employees to choose from.

The inherent flaw in this reasoning is that people, especially employers, think rationally with society in mind. This is not the case; people like to rationalize with only their own interests in mind.
It assumes nothing of the sort. Lets look at what I assume:
Employee and employer are rational people out to make a profit
The market that everyone is in has several corporations in competition (once again, seeking profits)
There is profit to be made
The consumer is rational and will buy the cheaper/better made product
There is minimal government interference
Notice, a complete lack of morality and social conscience. I believe in neither concept, as both were invented by men who saw them as easy ways to gain power and encourage the status quo.

And that makes no economic sense whatsoever. Typically, if you have an employee, you train them, and until they are trained they aren't as productive as if they were trained. Not only that, but training costs money. It's an investment. If you randomly fire employees, you're probably going to suffer loss.

Now it's official. Goodnight.

Really? My training was 4 hours worth - i sat down and watched a video about the company and got handed a photocopied booklet on how to use a register. I can be replaced at the drop of a hat, and because I know this, I have to please my employer at all times. Pleasing my employer required a 30% paycut, because I can be fired for rejecting their contract.

It's the lower tier workers that suffer the most from this.


Get another job then.

When I didn't like my previous job, I found another one and got paid more to work in a better work environment.

Ah, yes, the easily predicted response.

Jobs for 19 year old high school graduates, and university students like myself happen to grow on trees, and are in fact so plentiful that there is no need to drop our wages, because it's a complete buyer's market out there (duh, i'm sure you can figure that out). They're so common that i've actually been offered jobs by random people! I could have become a security guard putting my life at risk working nightshifts in a cigarrette warehouse for $18 an hour! Imagine that! [/sarcasm]

For the record, the above is true. I've been looking for another job for well over a year and that's all that i've come up with. I am not qualified for anything until I graduate university, and even then i'm looking at probably just above minimum wage.

It's an employers market.

Why should the employer not have control over who fills a position that they provide?

because power relations matter. because moves like this amount to an extension of the privilege of the elite and a massive loss of things that were barely keeping the corpratist system tolerable for everyone else.

Not all people act with the aim of maximizing profit, and unaccountable power is always dangerous.
But the power is held accountable. Can't Aussies make a bit of noise when they need to? I know, their sports culture has trained them to be demure and accepting, but surely they could at least write a letter to their local newspaper about how some company is being run by a madman. How many investors and clients are going to want him then?
More importantly, however, if he uses the color of a person's shirt as a way to judge their abilities, his company won't last that long. Business is like nature, filled with competition and struggle. Unlike a government *cough*socialism*cough*, which can gain and hold a monopoly on power, a tyrannical business manager will find his employees departing for slightly less crazy pastures.

<whinage>
It's an employers market.
What, you mean that the world isn't filled with thousands of employers who love you because your special? Who would have thought that the principle of equivalent exchange would apply somewhere outside of sketchy Japanese television?
Maybe your problem is that, as an unskilled worker who brings (essentially) nothing to the table, employers don't really feel the need to bring anything on their part? To get into a position where you can start making demands, you have to have something to offer that isn't dirt common. Until then, you just have to survive as you can.

More importantly, however, if he uses the color of a person's shirt as a way to judge their abilities, his company won't last that long. Business is like nature, filled with competition and struggle. Unlike a government *cough*socialism*cough*, which can gain and hold a monopoly on power, a tyrannical business manager will find his employees departing for slightly less crazy pastures.

You're assuming that finding another job is a simple matter, which in most cases is not the case.

It assumes nothing of the sort. Lets look at what I assume:
Employee and employer are rational people out to make a profit
The market that everyone is in has several corporations in competition (once again, seeking profits)
There is profit to be made
The consumer is rational and will buy the cheaper/better made product
There is minimal government interference
Notice, a complete lack of morality and social conscience. I believe in neither concept, as both were invented by men who saw them as easy ways to gain power and encourage the status quo.There's no need for social conscience. This has a bit to do with game theory.
Your employer is out to seek a profit. According to you, he will never seek to do anything that would endanger this profit. This is false. Plenty of people would seek profit and ignore "the greater good", in this case having people around earning enough money to consume, if given the chance.
Short-term profit and long-term profit can be quite different things, and too many rational beings will ignore that some short-term strategies are harmful in the long run.

While I do have a problem with paying people slave wages, or paying below minimum wage, I don't have any problem at all with an employer having the right to fire or lay off anyone they feel like, as long as it isn't because of their race, religion, etc.

If someone is a slacker, stupid, or is not as good as someone else at doing a job, I fail to see why an employer cannot replace them at will.

<self gratifying rant>

Yeah, yeah, i'm useless, etc.

I'm well aware of being nothing more than an ant with no rights.

You're assuming that finding another job is a simple matter, which in most cases is not the case.
1. I assume nothing of the sort. Finding a job is hard, I work for crappy wages too, but if you want to move to somewhere that'll give you more respect you ahve to try.
2. If employers could fire inefficient employees, there would be greater competition. Hence, talented people will have more opportunities to move, and so can make bigger demands of their bosses.

1. I assume nothing of the sort. Finding a job is hard,

In which case it is not a simple matter of employer tyranny being held accountable by the labor market.

2. If employers could fire inefficient employees, there would be greater competition. Hence, talented people will have more opportunities to move, and so can make bigger demands of their bosses.

Especially people with the talent of working more for less, which, of course, is the point. "Inefficient employees", that is to say, employees who believe in obsolete absurdities like fair wages and benefits, can be replaced by "talented people" compelled by the miracle of the market to "compete" by enslaving themselves.

Yeah, yeah, i'm useless, etc.
I merely restated what you, yourself, said. The difference is that my statement removed the illusions you attached to it. No one is entitled to anything, you have to be willing to provide something of equal value.
And if you've got nothing, then you're jsut fucked.
I'm well aware of being nothing more than an ant with no rights.
More of a caterpillar. I was pointing out, not how useless you are now, but rather how your situation isn't indicative of the situation at large. When you graduate or develop some other set of recognizable credentials, you get to start making demands, until then you have nothing to offer your employer other than that you are already present.
And you do have rights, you just don't have the right to your employer's property unless he is willing to hand it over freely.

In which case it is not a simple matter of employer tyranny being held accountable by the labor market.
You fail, again. Lets play a game of plural vs singular, shall we? Todd is an employee. Todd, Beth, Jan, Will, and Frank are employees.
Todd gets fired because he wears pink on Teusday, and there is no other explanation given. The next week, Jan is fired for looking shifty.
At this point, Beth, Will and Frank all have a choice. They can either stay, waiting for the axe to fall (or for the company to crumble, since the Boss is plainly starting to lose it), or they can find a way out.
In the mean time, the Boss is short two perfectly good employees, and will have a hard time finding new people to fill their position.
You, however, are trying to apply the rules that regulate the individual to mass movements, which doesn't work. Remember, streams follow crevices, rivers make them.
Especially people with the talent of working more for less, which, of course, is the point. "Inefficient employees", that is to say, employees who believe in obsolete absurdities like fair wages and benefits, can be replaced by "talented people" compelled by the miracle of the market to "compete" by enslaving themselves.
Yeah, because all the jobs in Australia are unskille positions on the assembly line. Please, that Marxist crap was relevant during the Industrial Revolution, when the all labor was unskilled machining, modern economies are moving back to specialization, in which one's ability to produce depends on tangible skills, and in which niche markets develop.
And if there is someone who works just as well as you, but doesn't want as much money, then he'll get the job becuase he is more efficient. Maligning his reasoned desicion to not have as big a stick up his ass as you do by calling him a "slave" is poor sportsmanship.

There's no need for social conscience. This has a bit to do with game theory.
Your employer is out to seek a profit. According to you, he will never seek to do anything that would endanger this profit. This is false. Plenty of people would seek profit and ignore "the greater good", in this case having people around earning enough money to consume, if given the chance.
Short-term profit and long-term profit can be quite different things, and too many rational beings will ignore that some short-term strategies are harmful in the long run.
So you support the mining towns that paid people in "Company Dollars" that were only redeemable at the Company Store? They were, after all, looking out for the greater good by insuring that the workers could consume their products.

So you support the mining towns that paid people in "Company Dollars" that were only redeemable at the Company Store? They were, after all, looking out for the greater good by insuring that the workers could consume their products.Silly Fiddles. Way to twist my argument around.
What I'm saying is that it is foolish to expect employers to act completely rationally, since human beings tend to be short sighted when it comes to the rational end. By rationally maximizing one's own profit, one can well jeopardize everyone's, including one's own profit, in the long run.
Your arguments seem to shine with the optimism that employers will act against human nature and not reduce wages to a degree that people will no longer be able to buy their products, if given the chance.

Silly Fiddles. Way to twist my argument around.
It was a cheap-shot, but I knew using it would force you to restate your opining in a way that I could follow (its late here, and I'm splitting my time between this and editting a story-thing)
What I'm saying is that it is foolish to expect employers to act completely rationally, since human beings tend to be short sighted when it comes to the rational end. By rationally maximizing one's own profit, one can well jeopardize everyone's, including one's own profit, in the long run.
Your arguments seem to shine with the optimism that employers will act against human nature and not reduce wages to a degree that people will no longer be able to buy their products, if given the chance.
I've got no optomism, employers will try and pay their employees as little as possible and still get good work out of them. However, the employee will counter by trying to soak his boss for every last penny he can get (and leaving if greener pastures open up). Finally, and most importantly, there is a certain wage at which no one will work. Even Mexicans have standards, being the phrase for it in my hometown before I moved. Other places are probably less grating in their terminology, but the point still stands that, eventually, it is just better to live on welfare then to go to work. As a result, there will always be a "minimum wage", even if the government didn't enforce it (and the Australian government still is, so, yeah).
It should also be noted that, during the Industrial Revolution, when this business was at its worst and employers were the monolithic gods of industry everyone makes them out to be, people still got wealthier. The Middle Class exploded and even the factory workers had the resources to live it up a bit more than the farms provided.

I've got no optomism, employers will try and pay their employees as little as possible and still get good work out of them. However, the employee will counter by trying to soak his boss for every last penny he can get (and leaving if greener pastures open up). Finally, and most importantly, there is a certain wage at which no one will work. Even Mexicans have standards, being the phrase for it in my hometown before I moved. Other places are probably less grating in their terminology, but the point still stands that, eventually, it is just better to live on welfare then to go to work. As a result, there will always be a "minimum wage", even if the government didn't enforce it (and the Australian government still is, so, yeah).
It should also be noted that, during the Industrial Revolution, when this business was at its worst and employers were the monolithic gods of industry everyone makes them out to be, people still got wealthier. The Middle Class exploded and even the factory workers had the resources to live it up a bit more than the farms provided.Perhaps, but the employer tends to have the bigger leverage, considering that they are the ones doing the paying. Normally there's unions to prevent the workers from being completely outdone, but as we see, that's getting curtailed too.

Perhaps, but the employer tends to have the bigger leverage, considering that they are the ones doing the paying. Normally there's unions to prevent the workers from being completely outdone, but as we see, that's getting curtailed too.
The central premise behind the free exchange is that all the money in the world is worthless if you don't have anyone to pay with it. It requires a bit of willingness to fight (and the wisdom to know when to fight) but it is possible to regulate industry from the bottom up, without governmental interference.
A union doesn't need special powers. All you need is a few likeminded individuals willing to enter contract negotiations together (and walk out together, if refused) and who will spread the word of managers who are crossing lines that the Unions want left alone.

The central premise behind the free exchange is that all the money in the world is worthless if you don't have anyone to pay with it. Therein lies the catch: Not everyone that runs a business is aware of this. That's what I'm trying to point out.

This would have to be the worst thing happing to Oz, The workers r going to get fucked over. I have just moved from Australia to norway and having powerful unions and a socialist gov has done nothing wrong to its eccomeny, and they have one of the highest wages in euorpe I am earning double what i was earning back home.

That slimy bastard Howard trying to please the rich again, I see.

By what twisted logic has the strength of the economy become a priority over the well-being of the people, to the point that the latter is sacrificed to the former? What kind of sense is that supposed to make?

God, I'm glad I live in France. Here anything like that gets hundreds of thousands of people taking to the streets and putting an end to it. We just don't take these things lying down.

That slimy bastard Howard trying to please the rich again, I see.

By what twisted logic has the strength of the economy become a priority over the well-being of the people, to the point that the latter is sacrificed to the former? What kind of sense is that supposed to make?

God, I'm glad I live in France. Here anything like that gets hundreds of thousands of people taking to the streets and putting an end to it. We just don't take these things lying down.

We wouldn't normally take this crap lying down, but this time there are a few main reasons for not: 1) It's 1392 pages for Pete's sake 2) We havn't had much if anything as damaging to our civil rights in our entire history and 3) The crricket's on.

We wouldn't normally take this crap lying down, but this time there are a few main reasons for not: 1) It's 1392 pages for Pete's sake 2) We havn't had much if anything as damaging to our civil rights in our entire history and 3) The crricket's on.

I've been to the two protests that were held in Melbourne & I'll go next time too.

While I do have a problem with paying people slave wages, or paying below minimum wage, I don't have any problem at all with an employer having the right to fire or lay off anyone they feel like, as long as it isn't because of their race, religion, etc.

If someone is a slacker, stupid, or is not as good as someone else at doing a job, I fail to see why an employer cannot replace them at will.

That's not what most employment laws are about. They allow the employer to fire somebody for not being good enough at the job, or for slacking, or for being stupid.

They don't allow the employer to fire somebody because they don't like the way their hair is styled on a particular day.

These new Australian laws would make that perfectly legal. Your employer could decide he doesn't like your accent, or a birthmark you have, or your shoes, or the colour of your hair, or he met your son and didn't like him...and you're fired. With no comeback.

That's not what most employment laws are about. They allow the employer to fire somebody for not being good enough at the job, or for slacking, or for being stupid.

They don't allow the employer to fire somebody because they don't like the way their hair is styled on a particular day.

These new Australian laws would make that perfectly legal. Your employer could decide he doesn't like your accent, or a birthmark you have, or your shoes, or the colour of your hair, or he met your son and didn't like him...and you're fired. With no comeback.

The laws came into effect yesterday & they have made that scenario perfectly legal. The Workplace Relations Minister, Kevin Andrews, was forced to admit exactly that on the ABC last night.

There was an instance in Melbourne yesterday where three workers were sacked by their building firm, then offered their jobs back on casual contracts with reduced pay rates, no holidays, no sick leave, etc. It's disgusting.

a) The laws might have some value. I haven't seen the figures, and everyone on NS should know that just because something sounds like it might do something good doesn't mean that it will.

b) The laws are not necessary at the moment. The Australian economy is wonderful, thank you very much. It's absolutely unnecessary to make changes that will antagonise millions (which they have) if the need has not been properly demonstrated.

c) The laws are ideologically motivated. They stem from the time when Howard and his fellow Liberals were fighting the unions decades ago. Howard hasn't forgotten, and now he's finally had the chance to push them through.

d) Stories have already come out of the laws being abused by employers. They were meant to make it easier for employers to commit to a new employee. Instead, some have fired employees, and then re-offered them their old jobs with new conditions and fat paycuts. WTF?!

e) That's what you get, Australia, for believing that gnome about interest rates. How an entire nation could fall for that, I still can't comprehend, and I never will.

d) Stories have already come out of the laws being abused by employers. They were meant to make it easier for employers to commit to a new employee. Instead, some have fired employees, and then re-offered them their old jobs with new conditions and fat paycuts. WTF?!
Yeah, but really - how hard was it to have seen that one coming?
I mean if, in my job, I came up with some new plan and managed to overlook such a completely obvious flaw/loophole, I would probably be fired, and rightfully so.

*snip*
d) Stories have already come out of the laws being abused by employers. They were meant to make it easier for employers to commit to a new employee. Instead, some have fired employees, and then re-offered them their old jobs with new conditions and fat paycuts. WTF?!
*snip*

Link to story about workers being fired then re-offered their jobs with pay cuts. (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/melbourne-firm-defends-worker-layoffs/2006/03/28/1143441129469.html)

Heh, I like how KP, in his blog, is critical of the way the French have reacted to the labour laws that Villepin is trying to implement. And yet is complaining about Australian labour laws.

Someone mentioned game theory and the absolute pursuit of short term profit. I think this is a problem that is compounded by the stock market where most investors are out to make as much profit in the shortest time possible. So these investors will buy into any company that is making a short term profit only to sell again once it reaches its potential and buy into another company. This, I believe causes gross imbalances in the market which have nothing to do with tangible supply and demand. It is in this short term profit motive that Capitalism 'contains the seeds of its own destruction'. Thus, it is necessary to regulate the market and prevent it from destroying the base from which it operates.

To Fiddlebottoms: You say morality and social conscience are concepts that were born to encourage the status quo. But what is economics other than a concept to encourage the status quo. You may point out that we haven't always lived under capitalist system we now live under, but neither have we lived within the same set of morals - we longer have anti-sodomy laws, but we now have laws that forbid sexual relations with those under the age of 16. People and concepts are fluid, they change - the status quo is not permanent. Mercantilism has suceeded and failed. Keynesian has succeeded and failed. Friedmanite economics has succeeded, has had failings along the way and it will fail in totality in the near future as resource scarity becomes an increasing problem.

Heh, I like how KP, in his blog, is critical of the way the French have reacted to the labour laws that Villepin is trying to implement. And yet is complaining about Australian labour laws.
That's the beauty of lower-class nationalism for ya. ;)

But what is economics other than a concept to encourage the status quo.
It's a set of scientific methods, theories and procedures developed in order to understand why people make the choices they make, and what effect these choices have on each other.

I hear that sort of thing quite often, that 'economics' is somehow a force in itself, or a tool of the powerful or something like that. Yet if it wasn't for the fact that economics is indeed not ideological in itself, Commies, Greenies and Anarchists wouldn't have half the understanding and theories they do.

Case in point: http://www.hetecon.com/

Heh, I like how KP, in his blog, is critical of the way the French have reacted to the labour laws that Villepin is trying to implement. And yet is complaining about Australian labour laws. Oh. Somebody didn't think this through, it seems.

It is in this short term profit motive that Capitalism 'contains the seeds of its own destruction'. And since this short term profit is pursued ever more aggressively and ruthlessly, the flowering of those seeds at least for our "current form" of capitalism seems ever more likely and immanent. Maybe not immanent enough for us to still witness, but then again, things are changing pretty fast, so who knows.

Johnny Howard and his mob aren't affected by these laws. They'll get cushy jobs with their corporate mates as a reward.

I noticed the French make sure the government are on notice for similar kind of changes - they riot and trash things while Australia just cops it.

It's a set of scientific methods, theories and procedures developed in order to understand why people make the choices they make, and what effect these choices have on each other.

I hear that sort of thing quite often, that 'economics' is somehow a force in itself, or a tool of the powerful or something like that. Yet if it wasn't for the fact that economics is indeed not ideological in itself, Commies, Greenies and Anarchists wouldn't have half the understanding and theories they do.

Case in point: http://www.hetecon.com/I'm not sure if you're backing up my statement, arguing against it or adding your view as well.

Economics is a crude science at best. It uses far too many assumptions to be precise. Friedman even admitted that his economics was not in fact a true representation of society, but of what it should be. It doesn't get more ideologically charged than that. If an economic theory has an ideology attached to it then I fail to see how it can held on a pedastal above the other social 'sciences'. I believe it to be the ultimate propaganda triumph that an the current ideology that dominate economics has been able to lift economics up to the status of a science and thus claim its ideas have more legitimacy.

I've lost track of where I'm going with this, other than to discredit the superioty of economics, so I'll stop.

I'm not sure if you're backing up my statement, arguing against it or adding your view as well.

Economics is a crude science at best. It uses far too many assumptions to be precise. Friedman even admitted that his economics was not in fact a true representation of society, but of what it should be. It doesn't get more ideologically charged than that. If an economic theory has an ideology attached to it then I fail to see how it can held on a pedastal above the other social 'sciences'. I believe it to be the ultimate propaganda triumph that an the current ideology that dominate economics has been able to lift economics up to the status of a science and thus claim its ideas have more legitimacy.

I've lost track of where I'm going with this, other than to discredit the superioty of economics, so I'll stop.

You wonder why Economics is called the Dismal science. :D

You wonder why Economics is called the Dismal science. :DNot really, mainly because I'd never heard to it refered to as the dismal science.

I found googled it and found that it was used in relation to a guy who didn't like the laws of supply and demand and thought black men should be 'compelled' to work if they were refusing to work for the wages offered after emancipation. Nice bloke.

Good. Australia, keep it up.

Why should the employer not have control over who fills a position that they provide? It is their money that the employer is paying the employee with.

yep

The new laws allow employers to actually pay wages under the minimum wage by seasonally averaging them, ie paying workers less in low months, in anticipation of them earning more in peak months. Theoretically this works if you work a full year, but what if you only work a few months?

They severely restrict the rights of unions.

They also make it illegal to negotiate certain items into your contract, such as unfair dismissal clauses, the right to union representation, training, access to the workplace, etc on pain of a $33,000 fine.

restricting the rights of unions to:

a) Gum up the business/production process with strikes

b) Try telling a company's owners how to run their own company

c) Monopolize entire job sectors, meaning: If you don't pay union dues, you can't work here or work this job!


is a very, very good thing. If workers are being treated fairly well, there is no need for unions, at all. There are other job options, so if a company uisn't paying enough, find another job. If enough workers walk out, the company will have no choice but to "hire" robots or increase wages/benefits.

now if I owned a company, i'd treat my employees like kings... because turnover sucks -- all the sunk costs that go into training and the pain of finding people who can work well together. I'd offer good pay, good benefits, etc.

And I'd do that because that's the way i'd want to run my company.

I don't agree with employers who are assholes to their employees, but in the end should they not, in the main, have a right to run the business as they see fit?

IF they're bad people, workers may leave. As stated above, if enough workers leave, the business will have a very hard time coping.

And if it's apublicly-held company, well, the shareholders won't much like their stock falling, so those who don't sell it (further harming the company) will likely vote out the a-holes who run it. So in the end, bad managers should get theirs anyway, without union involvement.

Really? My training was 4 hours worth - i sat down and watched a video about the company and got handed a photocopied booklet on how to use a register. I can be replaced at the drop of a hat, and because I know this, I have to please my employer at all times. Pleasing my employer required a 30% paycut, because I can be fired for rejecting their contract.

It's the lower tier workers that suffer the most from this.

Even at that, as time wears on expertise is gained no matter how mind-numbingly simple the job is, and an experienced employee is almost always more efficient than one who has no experience.

Ah, yes, the easily predicted response.

Jobs for 19 year old high school graduates, and university students like myself happen to grow on trees, and are in fact so plentiful that there is no need to drop our wages, because it's a complete buyer's market out there (duh, i'm sure you can figure that out). They're so common that i've actually been offered jobs by random people! I could have become a security guard putting my life at risk working nightshifts in a cigarrette warehouse for $18 an hour! Imagine that! [/sarcasm]

For the record, the above is true. I've been looking for another job for well over a year and that's all that i've come up with. I am not qualified for anything until I graduate university, and even then i'm looking at probably just above minimum wage.

It's an employers market.
Really? As a twenty year old university student I've been able to get a great job as an office monkey doing basic office tasks (and pretending to be a system administrator every so often) at a great rate. Must be my charisma They only need me about fifteen hours a week. Must be a different job market down there than it is up here.

now if I owned a company, i'd treat my employees like kings... because turnover sucks -- all the sunk costs that go into training and the pain of finding people who can work well together. I'd offer good pay, good benefits, etc.

And I'd do that because that's the way i'd want to run my company.

I don't agree with employers who are assholes to their employees, but in the end should they not, in the main, have a right to run the business as they see fit?

IF they're bad people, workers may leave. As stated above, if enough workers leave, the business will have a very hard time coping.

And if it's apublicly-held company, well, the shareholders won't much like their stock falling, so those who don't sell it (further harming the company) will likely vote out the a-holes who run it. So in the end, bad managers should get theirs anyway, without union involvement.
Of course, we all know that the most effective type of employer is one who is firm, yet understanding. He's not a dick to his employees, but he doesn't let them walk all over him. In return, his employees will do their jobs to the best of their ability, and work together to accomplish more than what they would have otherwise.

Even at that, as time wears on expertise is gained no matter how mind-numbingly simple the job is, and an experienced employee is almost always more efficient than one who has no experience.


Really? As a twenty year old university student I've been able to get a great job as an office monkey doing basic office tasks (and pretending to be a system administrator every so often) at a great rate. Must be my charisma They only need me about fifteen hours a week. Must be a different job market down there than it is up here.

1: Yeah, that's true. It still doesn't warrant the firing of any employee for how they look, what color their eyes are, the music they listen to, and so forth.

2: He's in Australia. I talk with him on MSN frequently (as well as Preebles/Preebs/Pri, though not recently), and the Australian job market for his age and experience is appalling.

Please, don't make yourself look like a bigger ass than you already have.

It assumes nothing of the sort. Lets look at what I assume:
Employee and employer are rational people out to make a profit
The market that everyone is in has several corporations in competition (once again, seeking profits)
There is profit to be made
The consumer is rational and will buy the cheaper/better made product
There is minimal government interference
Notice, a complete lack of morality and social conscience. I believe in neither concept, as both were invented by men who saw them as easy ways to gain power and encourage the status quo.
Rationalism was invented by men around three hundred years ago, as a part of the enlightenment. Social conscience has existed probably longer than any government.

Social responsibility is not a matter of morality. It is a matter of maximising the benefits of the economy to the society to which it belongs. Societies where the wealth is concentrated with a tiny minority of people tend to offer a low quality of life to most of its inhabitants. If most of the inhabitants are suffering, they tend to vote the government out of power or force it out violently.

Your argument also assumed a right to private property, which is based on morality.

Of course, we all know that the most effective type of employer is one who is firm, yet understanding. He's not a dick to his employees, but he doesn't let them walk all over him. In return, his employees will do their jobs to the best of their ability, and work together to accomplish more than what they would have otherwise.

That's right, but that's not how it's going over in Australia. People are being fired for fuck-all and rehired by the same employer, thanks to the lousy job market, and are forced into ridiculous contracts with no benefits.

Do you even take the time to click on those links?

IF they're bad people, workers may leave. As stated above, if enough workers leave, the business will have a very hard time coping.
Riiiiight. Because people totally don't need their job. They're obviously free to say "Ah well, screw this!" and leave and just pick up the next job at a nicer place that has just been waiting to hire them.[/QUOTE]

And if it's apublicly-held company, well, the shareholders won't much like their stock falling, so those who don't sell it (further harming the company) will likely vote out the a-holes who run it. So in the end, bad managers should get theirs anyway, without union involvement.
You gotta be kiddding me!

"Bad" in a moral "do you treat your workers nice and stuff?" way does not equal "bad" in a managerial "do you do all you can to maximize profits?" way therse days (I like to think it once did, but I couldn't be sure).

Morally "bad" managers are the liveblood of the vast majority of publicly held companies, and they have become so precisely because the stockholders love them because they know those managers will do anything to rack up profits.

Why do you think these guys get millions and millions of dollars of compensation? Because they make sure their employees are treated just lovely? Gah.

That's right, but that's not how it's going over in Australia. People are being fired for fuck-all and rehired by the same employer, thanks to the lousy job market, and are forced into ridiculous contracts with no benefits.

Do you even take the time to click on those links?
Yes, I do, and I fully support the employers right to do whatever the fuck they want with their own money.

surely they could at least write a letter to their local newspaper about how some company is being run by a madman. How many investors and clients are going to want him then?
Investors and clients generally will not care about some letter written by a "disgruntled former employee" (as the letter-writer will be called).

More importantly, however, if he uses the color of a person's shirt as a way to judge their abilities, his company won't last that long. Business is like nature, filled with competition and struggle.
His company will be fine if he has a steady stream of willing applicants.

Unlike a government *cough*socialism*cough*, which can gain and hold a monopoly on power, a tyrannical business manager will find his employees departing for slightly less crazy pastures.
In theory. Except that more often it's either work for the lunatic, or be unemployed.

1: Yeah, that's true. It still doesn't warrant the firing of any employee for how they look, what color their eyes are, the music they listen to, and so forth.
Of course it doesn't warrant firing people over random shit. What I'm trying to say is that it is not beneficial to randomly fire long term employees. Basic economic sense here.

2: He's in Australia. I talk with him on MSN frequently (as well as Preebles/Preebs/Pri, though not recently), and the Australian job market for his age and experience is appalling.
Maybe the excessive government regulation of wages and uncertainty about employee reliability play a role in the appaling job market. I'd like to see a reason why the market is so appaling.

Please, don't make yourself look like a bigger ass than you already have.
I guess I'm just an ass then, aren't I?

Yes, I do, and I fully support the employers right to do whatever the fuck they want with their own money.

I support anyone's right to do what they wish with their own money. However, I don't support employers treating their employees as machinery. It's the employees that make money for the managerial class, not vice versa.

Of course it doesn't warrant firing people over random shit. What I'm trying to say is that it is not beneficial to randomly fire long term employees. Basic economic sense here.


Maybe the excessive government regulation of wages and uncertainty about employee reliability play a role in the appaling job market. I'd like to see a reason why the market is so appaling.


I guess I'm just an ass then, aren't I?

1: Oh, really? Looks to me like you were fine with all of this up until this super-exclusive post.

2: You want a reason? It's because there's not enough regulation.

1: Oh, really? Looks to me like you were fine with all of this up until this super-exclusive post.
I am not drawing a normative conclusion as to whether or not it is right to fire someone for random reasons. I'm saying that doing so makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and most business people are rational actors, not random fools.


2: You want a reason? It's because there's not enough regulation.
I wholeheartedly disagree. If the minimum wage was lower and the risks that are naturally incurred by hiring a younger person were minimized, firms would have far more incentive hire a younger employee.

I am not drawing a normative conclusion as to whether or not it is right to fire someone for random reasons. I'm saying that doing so makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and most business people are rational actors, not random fools.



I wholeheartedly disagree. If the minimum wage was lower and the risks that are naturally incurred by hiring a younger person were minimized, firms would have far more incentive hire a younger employee.

1: Most of them being rationaly doesn't prevent others from doing such horrible things.

2: Lower minimum wage, eh? Yeah, as if Wal-Mart and friends want to lower their prices to suit the needs of the new, sub-working class.

1: Most of them being rationaly doesn't prevent others from doing such horrible things.
Then they will suffer from their own mistakes, the government does not need to punish them.

2: Lower minimum wage, eh? Yeah, as if Wal-Mart and friends want to lower their prices to suit the needs of the new, sub-working class.
I'm certainly not arguing for lowering the minimum wage here in the US, but from what I've seen the Australian minimum wage it's rather high in comparison. Perhaps it would be more feasable for employers in Australia to hire younger workers more readily.

Then they will suffer from their own mistakes, the government does not need to punish them.


I'm certainly not arguing for lowering the minimum wage here in the US, but from what I've seen the Australian minimum wage it's rather high in comparison. Perhaps it would be more feasable for employers in Australia to hire younger workers more readily.

1: Allowing employers to treat their workers as if they're not even people is bad enough as it is. So, what is it? Is the mathematical "importance" of a powerful economy more important than the lives such a thing manages to destroy?

2: Perhaps so. But not this way. Trashing human rights for paper isn't good in any way, shape, or form.

Hey man, I'd love to keep going, but class has struck again, and I must attend to this matter. Keep on rockin'.

How about turn this upside-down?

What about all those employees who are just free to walk away from their jobs? I mean really, an employer invests time and money into an employee and they can just quit and get another job if they can find one that pays better!

We need to get some regulation that states an employee cannot leave a job just because he found a better one! This is not fair to business! And while were at it, we have to make sure that their performance doesn’t fall so as to force the company to fire them. It should be illegal for a worker to walk away from a job or to slack off to get let out.

And since workers can have unions – why not the same with business? Collective bargaining in an industry I say! All companies that employ carpenters should be able to band together and collectively set a maximum on what a carpenter will be paid and what benefits should be given to them. Oh, and we need restrictions on employment so carpenters can only work for a company in the business group – we cant have employees working for unaligned businesses. And if the carpenters wont accept a reduction in their wages – then we have a payroll stoppage! Nobody gets paid until the rabble rousers cave in!

Think of the poor business that has workers quit just because someone else will pay more for their work. Is this fair? Those workers make their money because a business pays them – how dare they hold their own personal income above the company profits?

Marxist dogma my ass. Find a better argument than "I'm too lazy to argue; go chat with Professor Ourmazd you fucking commie."


:D :D :D :D

Nope! that's good enough for me!!!

:D :D :D :D

You fail, again. Lets play a game of plural vs singular, shall we? Todd is an employee. Todd, Beth, Jan, Will, and Frank are employees.
Todd gets fired because he wears pink on Teusday, and there is no other explanation given. The next week, Jan is fired for looking shifty.
At this point, Beth, Will and Frank all have a choice. They can either stay, waiting for the axe to fall (or for the company to crumble, since the Boss is plainly starting to lose it), or they can find a way out.
In the mean time, the Boss is short two perfectly good employees, and will have a hard time finding new people to fill their position.

The Boss does not need to fire an employee regularly in order to be a tyrant. Mere threats can be sufficient. The point is that arbitrary and prejudiced decisions cannot somehow be avoided by the labor market.

You, however, are trying to apply the rules that regulate the individual to mass movements, which doesn't work. Remember, streams follow crevices, rivers make them.

The general tendency is that human beings, as human beings, are arbitrary and biased in their decision-making, and the restriction of the capability to resist such bias is absurd and unfair.

Yeah, because all the jobs in Australia are unskille positions on the assembly line.

That's not what I said.

And if there is someone who works just as well as you, but doesn't want as much money, then he'll get the job becuase he is more efficient.

There is nothing "efficient" about accepting a job for less pay.

Maligning his reasoned desicion to not have as big a stick up his ass as you do by calling him a "slave" is poor sportsmanship.

It's a "reasoned decision" most people would probably make in the same position. Competing for labor is perfectly rational for the individual laborer, but ultimately it has a negative effect on the wages and conditions of the laborers as a whole.

The Boss does not need to fire an employee regularly in order to be a tyrant. Mere threats can be sufficient. The point is that arbitrary and prejudiced decisions cannot somehow be avoided by the labor market.
The point is that you're basing your conclusions on completely unreasonable assumptions. As long as the employee is there, then it is worth his time to show up and conditions aren't too.
However, you're trying to change the topic at hand. We aren't discussing "threats", we're discussing "firings." If you can't see the difference between a demented boss and one who is a bit aggressive, then their really is no hope for your survival in the real world.
The general tendency is that human beings, as human beings, are arbitrary and biased in their decision-making, and the restriction of the capability to resist such bias is absurd and unfair.
And binding people to dogmatic rules that force them to keep their companies inefficient is absurd and unfair.
That's not what I said.
Yes, yes it is. You claimed that workers in Australia are all identical and easily swappable, mindless drones as it were, and that, as such, the only difference between worker A and Worker B is the wage they want.
There is nothing "efficient" about accepting a job for less pay.
Do you even know what the definition of "efficient" is? It is a state of doing more with less, in this case, providing the services of Worker A for half his rate makes Worker B more efficient.
It's a "reasoned decision" most people would probably make in the same position. Competing for labor is perfectly rational for the individual laborer, but ultimately it has a negative effect on the wages and conditions of the laborers as a whole.
No, ultimately holding a monopoly allows you to boost profits. Instating legistlation that strangles competition boosts profits. The system you are advocating is no different from the Trusts, Cartels and monopolies that leftists railed against last century.

The point is that you're basing your conclusions on completely unreasonable assumptions. As long as the employee is there, then it is worth his time to show up and conditions aren't too.
However, you're trying to change the topic at hand. We aren't discussing "threats", we're discussing "firings." If you can't see the difference between a demented boss and one who is a bit aggressive, then their really is no hope for your survival in the real world.

Threats are meaningless without the capability to fire. What you are advocating is a system where bias against employees, except on a basis of race or gender, cannot be addressed effectively. I think such a system is absurd.

And binding people to dogmatic rules that force them to keep their companies inefficient is absurd and unfair.

Except that's not what anyone has advocated.

Yes, yes it is. You claimed that workers in Australia are all identical and easily swappable, mindless drones as it were, and that, as such, the only difference between worker A and Worker B is the wage they want.

No, that's not what I claimed. I pointed out that that will be the likely effect in many cases, because competition for jobs will be significantly increased under this policy.

Do you even know what the definition of "efficient" is? It is a state of doing more with less, in this case, providing the services of Worker A for half his rate makes Worker B more efficient.

His labor is not necessarily any more efficient. The productivity of the economy does not increase simply because workers are paid less.

No, ultimately holding a monopoly allows you to boost profits. Instating legistlation that strangles competition boosts profits. The system you are advocating is no different from the Trusts, Cartels and monopolies that leftists railed against last century.

Only from the standpoint that the labor market is equivalent to the market for any other commodity. The balance of power dictates otherwise.

Rationalism was invented by men around three hundred years ago, as a part of the enlightenment.
Rationalism, as a philosophical concept, was invented. The process of looking at a situation and determining the best move you can make, the act of being rational, is as old as complex thinking.
Social conscience has existed probably longer than any government.
No, social conscience started evolving when people were stuffed together. It serves as a way to swing political power, and harrangue the middle class with enough guilt to render them ineffective.
Social responsibility is not a matter of morality. It is a matter of maximising the benefits of the economy to the society to which it belongs.
No, that is Centralized Planning, which is Totalitarian and Off Topic.
Societies where the wealth is concentrated with a tiny minority of people tend to offer a low quality of life to most of its inhabitants. If most of the inhabitants are suffering, they tend to vote the government out of power or force it out violently.
Unless you convince them that you are doing it for their own good, or that God wants it to be this way, or that it must be that way for the sake of the nation, or that . . .
You follow my point? Revolution is a fairly modern concept and fills the role that was, up until the last few hundred years, performed by coups on the part of the military or elites (ala Roman Empire).
Your argument also assumed a right to private property, which is based on morality.
No, my argument assumed a right to keep the products of your labors, which is based on practicality. No one works as hard for the village store as they work for their own, and if people pour out their hours and receive nothing for it (even when spent without a hint of corruptions, the effects of shared funds are, by their nature not immediatly observable), they might start waxing revolutionary. At the least they'll be less effective then they would be if they see direct benefits from their actions.

People should get a fair wage, and not be exploited. We shouldn't let things slip back to 19th century standards.
It'd be nice if more governments would use their people's well being, rather than economic growth, as their measure of success.
*blinks* wonders if the poster has never taken a basic psych class *blinks again* Life is exploitation. Reduced to it's simplest terms, that is the end all be all of living.

I'm certainly not arguing for lowering the minimum wage here in the US, but from what I've seen the Australian minimum wage it's rather high in comparison. Perhaps it would be more feasable for employers in Australia to hire younger workers more readily.
So Australia can have its very own Working Poor? Sure, why should the US have all the fun.

God, I hate you people sometimes...;)

Why are you arguing about how evil/good market regulation is? What does that have to do with any of this?

We know that it is neither. It has been established over centuries and centuries of trying - and the only thing we have been able to pinpoint is that we can only decide the value of regulations on a case-by-case basis.

Everything else is empty propaganda, fuelled by some ideology centre in your brain.

So unless you're going to argue specifically in the context of this law, of an economy that is healthy and does not require any of these changes, of a set of politicians who have been on a crusade for a decade or more, of a reform that the economist's community in Australia considers unnecessary - then why do you argue in the first place?

I'm not sure if you're backing up my statement, arguing against it or adding your view as well.
I'm challenging the idea that economics by itself is not value-neutral.

Economics is a crude science at best. It uses far too many assumptions to be precise. Friedman even admitted that his economics was not in fact a true representation of society, but of what it should be.
You have to take these things and put them into context though.
a) Friedman is a person. He has an ideology - that does not make the discipline adopt one value or another though. For every Friedman there is a Galbraith, for every Hayek there is a Keynes.
b) Friedman deals in a very particular set of economic ideas, and it has at all times been recognised that while the ideas in themselves are valid, in reality other factors come into it that may or may not enter the equation.
c) Economics as a science is not 'crude'. Just like any other science, it works through observing reality, establishing theories based on what we already know, and then testing those theories. Just like any other social science however, that third part is difficult. Most economists can't run experiments to see what happens.
They have to interpret the real world and try to isolate the relationships. That is where there can be an element of ideology, of personal vision as Schumpeter put it, that enters the picture.
For that reason, economics as a science moves forward more slowly than others. There is always disagreement and controversy, and that is a good thing, because it is the only way that personal ideology can eventually be cancelled out.

It doesn't get more ideologically charged than that. If an economic theory has an ideology attached to it then I fail to see how it can held on a pedastal above the other social 'sciences'. I believe it to be the ultimate propaganda triumph that an the current ideology that dominate economics has been able to lift economics up to the status of a science and thus claim its ideas have more legitimacy.
I don't know whether you have had a look at that link I posted before, but the idea that any single ideology dominates economics is absurd. If there was such an ideology, you would have to call it 'pragmatism' - because most economists do one thing, and that is run complicated maths to estimate stuff.
As for political economics - you might have your Friedmans, Posners and Beckers in mind, but do you know who Jo Stiglitz is? Or Armatya Sen? Hell, what about Paul Krugman?

I've lost track of where I'm going with this, other than to discredit the superioty of economics, so I'll stop.
You are attacking a single branch of political economy, and use that to condemn an entire discipline. Which is ultimately unwarranted, because whether it be Marxists or Anarcho-Primitivists - they all base their reasoning on some form of economics.
http://www.zmag.org/parecon/indexnew.htm

I can't believe I made a topic that didn't descend into "K-P's a NAZI!"

I can't believe I made a topic that didn't descend into "K-P's a NAZI!"

Probably because you didn't make any race based statements.

bump?

What do people feel to be the role of the labour party in all this? They are supposed to be the opposition, and not only that, they are supposed to be the representatives of the lower-class workers.

Did they do a good job? Somehow I can't help but think that the Labour Party has outlived its usefulness.

bump?

What do people feel to be the role of the labour party in all this? They are supposed to be the opposition, and not only that, they are supposed to be the representatives of the lower-class workers.

Did they do a good job? Somehow I can't help but think that the Labour Party has outlived its usefulness.

The problem with the Labour Party is they've moved away from their traditional working class base, in the attempt to attract the more affluent, "aspirational" voters, but who are put off by the perception of Labour's poor economic management. In short, they've alienated their traditional voters & failed to attract the new voters they were hoping for.

It's interesting, because I can't see Labour winning a federal election for at least another term, but they seem to getting stronger & stronger at a state level.

You have to take these things and put them into context though.
a) Friedman is a person. He has an ideology - that does not make the discipline adopt one value or another though. For every Friedman there is a Galbraith, for every Hayek there is a Keynes.
b) Friedman deals in a very particular set of economic ideas, and it has at all times been recognised that while the ideas in themselves are valid, in reality other factors come into it that may or may not enter the equation.Hmm, yeah, I was ranting there, sorry. But from what I know of economics all the branches completely support free market economics and have taken political economy debate for granted.


c) Economics as a science is not 'crude'. Just like any other science, it works through observing reality, establishing theories based on what we already know, and then testing those theories. Just like any other social science however, that third part is difficult. Most economists can't run experiments to see what happens.
They have to interpret the real world and try to isolate the relationships. That is where there can be an element of ideology, of personal vision as Schumpeter put it, that enters the picture.
For that reason, economics as a science moves forward more slowly than others. There is always disagreement and controversy, and that is a good thing, because it is the only way that personal ideology can eventually be cancelled out.I don't disagree that the social sciences attempt to use a scientific methology, but I see the usefulness of the methology being limited by problems of testing. The social sciences have difficulty isolating variables, repeating experiments in the exact same conditions, and with inherent ideological bias. Their findings aren't completely falsifiable. I think the social sciences compete with each other, disregarding certain variables that they think unimportant to their discipline, when I feel that there are actually is a complex interplay between these variables.

I don't know whether you have had a look at that link I posted before, but the idea that any single ideology dominates economics is absurd. If there was such an ideology, you would have to call it 'pragmatism' - because most economists do one thing, and that is run complicated maths to estimate stuff.
As for political economics - you might have your Friedmans, Posners and Beckers in mind, but do you know who Jo Stiglitz is? Or Armatya Sen? Hell, what about Paul Krugman?I'm going to have to admit by ignorance here. I've just been looking at the historical basis of political economy. Hopefully after my exams I'll have some free time to spend reading up the current situtation.

I do think that economics dependence of mathematics is what gives it its bias, because some factors are harder to quantify than others. Such as how do you quantify a culture's impact on the work ethic, entrepreneurialism, or consumer confidence.

I did look at the link, but because it was a portal and I wasn't sure what I was meant to be looking for I didn't really find much. Some of the journals I couldn't access, and the ones that I could I had no idea which of the articles to read. Are they along the same vein as the link you posted about participatory economics?You are attacking a single branch of political economy, and use that to condemn an entire discipline. Which is ultimately unwarranted, because whether it be Marxists or Anarcho-Primitivists - they all base their reasoning on some form of economics.
http://www.zmag.org/parecon/indexnew.htmYou're quite right there. Economics is just the target of my frustration for much of the neo-liberal economics that is paraded around toady. Which is when I think about it much like blaming chemistry for global warming or the like.

I did I quick google for Jo Stiglitz and 'scathing attack on IMF for action during asian crisis' came up. It said that Stiglitz said that the IMF employed third-rate economists who employed the wrong actions in that scenario.

Again, I've lost track of what I'm trying to say, so I'll stop here. But thanks for replying to my post so constructively.

I can't believe I made a topic that didn't descend into "K-P's a NAZI!"There was a post about how you're being hypocritical towards the French for doing the same thing you're doing now though...

There was a post about how you're being hypocritical towards the French for doing the same thing you're doing now though...

But theres nothing wrong with that, it was the French.

Well, we have our own working poor, but they get a rore deal like the rest of the young people who work, they're bloody lucky to keep there jobs once they finish school. this is because they don't get the same benifits as older workers do, they can't join unions or anything. and now the government wants to take more rights away from them? what a jokeOh, and in answer to an earlier comment, the US has a food stamp program in place, we don't, that's why we give out more money to our lower income workers and our unemployed people. it saves the person from the supposed shame of being poor, and, i think they're right.

Fuck yes they are.

I've been forced into a contract, thanks to this - accept a 30% paycut or lose my job. Yay for $12 an hour employment! Mr Howard, I will remember, and you will burn - try me for sedition if you want, bitch.

Economic masterpiece indeed! Let's forget about the workers, and help out the wealthy!! Yay!!!

And funny, Australian's give New Zealand a hard time - 3.5% unemployment, reasonable protection, $9.50 minimum wage, unions who realise their limitations, employers who are fairly reasonable in negotiating individual contracts.

Did you not read my post? Besides race or gender, they can be fired for anything. ANYTHING. I can fire one of my workers if I think he looks shifty, or if I don't like the colour of his shirt.

Sounds like Florida....

John I wish I had you in my sight!!!!:sniper:

Oh well, if your employer can fire you because your dog was sick, then it's time to vote out the government because the leader spends too much time kissing a US flag.

Oh well, if your employer can fire you because your dog was sick, then it's time to vote out the government because the leader spends too much time kissing a US flag.

It was time to vote him out two elections ago, but it seems the majority of us still haven't got the message.

I can't believe I made a topic that didn't descend into "K-P's a NAZI!"

If it makes you happy i'll call you a NAZI!

Yup, the laws are terrible.

They're too restrictive.

It is a logical consequence of one's sacred freedom of association and private property rights that, if he owns a business, he has the right to fire any employee of his for any reason he wants--or no reason at all.

Any law that restricts that is illegitimate and immoral and need not be obeyed.

Yup, the laws are terrible.

They're too restrictive.

It is a logical consequence of one's sacred freedom of association and private property rights that, if he owns a business, he has the right to fire any employee of his for any reason he wants--or no reason at all.

Any law that restricts that is illegitimate and immoral and need not be obeyed.

How old are you?
Have you fought in any wars?
Just curious...

Yup, the laws are terrible.

They're too restrictive.

It is a logical consequence of one's sacred freedom of association and private property rights that, if he owns a business, he has the right to fire any employee of his for any reason he wants--or no reason at all.

Any law that restricts that is illegitimate and immoral and need not be obeyed.

But these laws restrict the rights of workers to take industrial action. How can these contradictions exist?

sacred...private property rights

give me that old time religion

well I don't know about you lot but these new laws suck! I am going to run up a massive HECS debt and then go on the dole to get back at that
f@!#$*& weasel Howard:mad:

Yeah, but if another employee can provide more money, then the employer should have the right to switch. You need a malleable job market to foster competition which, in turn, slows/prevents the rise of monopolies and regulates prices.
Kudos to Australia, maybe there is hope for them yet.
it works fine for overpayed consultants, not quite the same for manifacturing or agricultural jobs. for the latter this kind of regulation will only trigger a downward spiraling towards lower wages and poorer working conditions (longer hours, bad safety) as more and more desperate people will take on the jobs for a couple of cents less per hour.


and, by the way, there is no free malleable job market (or any market indeed) outside economy books. another dogma to oppose to the marxist one.

it works fine for overpayed consultants, not quite the same for manifacturing or agricultural jobs. for the latter this kind of regulation will only trigger a downward spiraling towards lower wages and poorer working conditions (longer hours, bad safety) as more and more desperate people will take on the jobs for a couple of cents less per hour.


and, by the way, there is no free malleable job market (or any market indeed) outside economy books. another dogma to oppose to the marxist one.

Yes, that's what I'm afraid will happen. A race to the bottom where the workers will be the losers.

Man. Had to work 10 to 5PM this Saturday ...

I do get paid by the hour but I hate working weekends.
No 1.5x or 2.0x penalties as I used to get at a previous employer though

But these laws restrict the rights of workers to take industrial action. How can these contradictions exist?

No, they don't.

A right is not a guarantee of practical ability.

No, they don't.

A right is not a guarantee of practical ability.
When there is no guarantee to practical ability, its not a right. Then it's just a load of theoretical bollocks.

Yup, the laws are terrible.

They're too restrictive.

It is a logical consequence of one's sacred freedom of association and private property rights that, if he owns a business, he has the right to fire any employee of his for any reason he wants--or no reason at all.

Any law that restricts that is illegitimate and immoral and need not be obeyed.
This inaliable right do run your business however you want without a thought for the implications for wider society is a right I could happily do without. And I don't really care if they have these laws and the businessmen refuse to follow them - it doesn't alter the fact that the laws will still be enforced. And why do I get the impression that I'm talking to a middle class teenager who's lived his entire life in a middle class suburb with a father who has a job in middle management?

When there is no guarantee to practical ability, its not a right. Then it's just a load of theoretical bollocks.

Wrongo.

Please, get some philosophy.

Specifically, familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

This inaliable right do run your business however you want without a thought for the implications for wider society is a right I could happily do without.
Then you're wrong; furthermore, you also misunderstand the nature of rights. A right is not something that is granted by fiat; a right is an inherent part of a human being's existence. All human beings--now, throughout history, and in the future--possess the exact same set of rights, and that rights has never changed and will never change. The only variable is the degree to which governments respect those rights--and the legitimacy of government increases with the degree to which it respects those rights.

And why do I get the impression that I'm talking to a middle class teenager who's lived his entire life in a middle class suburb with a father who has a job in middle management?
Dunno, but it's blatantly false.

Specifically, familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

you misspelled 'hack' up there

Good. Australia, keep it up.

Why should the employer not have control over who fills a position that they provide? It is their money that the employer is paying the employee with.

Not is the money they have managed to separate their customers from. Not always willingly.

Not is the money they have managed to separate their customers from. Not always willingly.

Always willingly. Businessmen don't hold guns to their customers' heads.

And since the customers forked it over voluntarily, it is indeed now the businessman's money. It was previously the customer's money, but he exchanged it--thus giving up his ownership of it--for something he wanted as much or more.

you misspelled 'hack' up there

I defy you to refute a single word she ever said or wrote.

Always willingly. Businessmen don't hold guns to their customers' heads.

Just starvation.

Just starvation.
He's a Ranyian in my experiance thy never concider things like the deprival of the ability to procure "food" or "shelter" as threats since you can supposedly move to some magicland were things like land are not already owned by other people who frown on people squating and farming their property. Oh, and it is never a problem finding funds to move, or to up root ones entire life, or to find a these things you lack in one place in another.

He's a Ranyian in my experiance thy never concider things like the deprival of the ability to procure "food" or "shelter" as threats since you can supposedly move to some magicland were things like land are not already owned by other people who frown on people squating and farming their property.

They're just like most other advocates of absolute property rights in that respect. Human beings have an absolute right to life, therefore they have no right to secure that right by violating other people's property, because clearly humans can survive fine without any property, and all labor and property exchange is totally free and uncoerced.

Well, as long as it means I can keep my money from those stupid lazy poor people who want to eat, who cares how twisted the logic is?

They're just like most other advocates of absolute property rights in that respect. Human beings have an absolute right to life, therefore they have no right to secure that right by violating other people's property, because clearly humans can survive fine without any property, and all labor and property exchange is totally free and uncoerced.

Well, as long as it means I can keep my money from those stupid lazy poor people who want to eat, who cares how twisted the logic is?
See, I new you could see the wisdom in Rayn's writings.

They're just like most other advocates of absolute property rights in that respect. Human beings have an absolute right to life,

Precisely.

And since a right is not a guarantee of practical ability, your right to your life does not justify you violating my right to my life by attempting to prevent me from enjoying the fruits of my life's productive effort.

If that means you have to starve to death, well, tough shit for you. Your need is not a valid claim on my life; I am not your slave. Ultimately, you have a choice as to whether you want to live or die. If you decide you want to live, that's great; however, since I don't have a say in that choice then it is not incumbent upon me to enable you to fulfill that choice.

Wrongo.

Please, get some philosophy.

Specifically, familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.
That's pathetic. Do you seriously think that the people on this forum don't know what exactly you're talking about?
Do you seriously think that talking about Ayn Rand is new to this forum?
Do you seriously think that you are actually worthy of existence in Rand's world? Because I can tell you one thing: Randian heroes don't exist in real life. All there is is looters. Deal with it.

Precisely.

And since a right is not a guarantee of practical ability, your right to your life does not justify you violating my right to my life by attempting to prevent me from enjoying the fruits of my life's productive effort.

If that means you have to starve to death, well, tough shit for you. Your need is not a valid claim on my life; I am not your slave. Ultimately, you have a choice as to whether you want to live or die. If you decide you want to live, that's great; however, since I don't have a say in that choice then it is not incumbent upon me to enable you to fulfill that choice.

The problem is, I can say exactly the same thing.

Your right to life, expressed in your right to property, does not justify you violating my right to life by denying me that life.

Just in the same way a murderer is not entitled to kill his victim simply because his "right to life," and thus his right to "the fruits of [his] life's productive effort," let him acquire the gun.

Our rights conflict, which is why there is no "absolute right to property." Your right to property interferes with my right to property, and your property ends up being coercive.

Our rights conflict, which is why there is no "absolute right to property."

No, they don't.

Rights, properly understood, do not conflict nor can they conflict. If two courses of actions, both claiming to be rights, are in conflict, then in actuality one (or both) of them is not truly a right.

Now, I have every right to use my property as I see fit. However, I have no right to cause physical harm to the person or property of another individual without his consent. There is no conflict here. If I can shoot at you with a gun and ammo I own without causing physical harm to your person or property, I have every right to do so. That I cannot actually do this does not mean I do not have a right to do it.

No, they don't.

Rights, properly understood, do not conflict nor can they conflict. If two courses of actions, both claiming to be rights, are in conflict, then in actuality one (or both) of them is not truly a right.

Precisely. Thus there is no absolute right to property.

Now, I have every right to use my property as I see fit. However, I have no right to cause physical harm to the person or property of another individual without his consent. There is no conflict here. If I can shoot at you with a gun and ammo I own without causing physical harm to your person or property, I have every right to do so. That I cannot actually do this does not mean I do not have a right to do it.

I see. So you are entitled to use your property to starve someone to death, but not to cause direct physical harm to someone. Yeah, okay, that makes a whole lot of sense.

Because I can tell you one thing: Randian heroes don't exist in real life. All there is is looters. Deal with it.
And the Buddha wasn't nearly as wonderful as he was cracked up to be, nor is there ever going to be the "Socialist Utopia" Marx promised. Jesus (if he was real) was also not nearly as magickal as the Bible lays out. Oh, and the Nietzschien Übermenschen still exist only as an idea, years after his death.
The point of Rand's Heros wasn't to show how anyone really was, but how they should be. She wrote her heroes from a Romantic perspective, visualizing the best possible person, and then put them in a realistic world. Her fiction was Mythical, designed to show its readers the ideal that they should be imitating and give them hope that there was some higher level of existence to reach, and no one ever claimed it to be biographical fact.

Her fiction was Mythical, designed to show its readers the ideal that they should be imitating and give them hope that there was some higher level of existence to reach, and no one ever claimed it to be biographical fact.
Of course. Nonetheless, it still bugs me that most people who follow her philosophy for some reason believe that they somehow stand out and are better than all the others who don't believe (or even know) Rand's writings.

The one thing that comes out of objectivism for me is that you have to earn that sort of arrogance, that you have to achieve first, and think about it later.

Of course. Nonetheless, it still bugs me that most people who follow her philosophy for some reason believe that they somehow stand out and are better than all the others who don't believe (or even know) Rand's writings.

The one thing that comes out of objectivism for me is that you have to earn that sort of arrogance, that you have to achieve first, and think about it later.

Yep.

To me, Objectivism is no more ridiculous than Scientology.

Always willingly. Businessmen don't hold guns to their customers' heads.

And since the customers forked it over voluntarily, it is indeed now the businessman's money. It was previously the customer's money, but he exchanged it--thus giving up his ownership of it--for something he wanted as much or more.

Assuming always that person had a choice about where to do business. I.e. that it was not the kind of monopoly or oligopoly that is common in so many of our industries.

I defy you to refute a single word she ever said or wrote.

is, ought, and the gap between. she well and truly fucked that up, and in a comically inept way.