Firstly, I'd suggest that you need to articulate your questions and indeed your opinions with a far greater degree of maturity. You say that you "h8" (sic) Howard and then say that it provides "betta" (sic) flexibility makes me sneer at you already. I ask "how can someone with such disorganised thoughts and offensive grammar possibly be allowed to have an opinion?" Of course, i'm being facetious but I thought I should let you know.
Secondly, draw a diagram. Using your knowledge of microeconomic reforms it is entirely possible that real wages
may fall, at least in the short term. What will definitely happen is that the labour market will undergo massive shifts in every way possible. Currently output is hindered by minimum wages. How? I think its time I showed you a diagram
I know it's small, but that's the best I can do.
Okay. I am assuming that real wages are set at 'w' which is above the full employment wage (Wf) and consequently pushes the amount of labour units utilised by industries down below full employment (Lf) to L0 while there are L1 units willing to be utilised. (NB: labour units does not equal employment, it refers to amount of human effort required by business could refer to hours of human labour, for example.) I wont go into much detail... any worthwhile economists could fill in the blanks intuitively after this point.
Basically, at this point (L0) the total output ends up being the area 0ac(L0) and leaves us with a deadweight loss (for you micro people) of cbe (where e is is the point just below c). Deadweight losses are inefficiencies in any market. It is effort wasted and productivity missed out on.
Recapturing this area (i.e. instituting a fully-flexible, neo-classical labour market) now not only gives us the DWL back in output, it increases total output to the area 0ab(Lf); which i think we can all say is a significant increase.
Idealy, this will lower costs (sinces wages have theoretically fallen to Wf and hence labour usage will increase to Lf which would mean, in theory, there is no involuntary unemployment) but since more people have money (due to a higher amount of labour units being utilised) aggregate demand will rise, causing businesses to need to produce more. HOWEVER, they are already employing at Lf and they cannot concievably entice people out of voluntary unemployment without raising wage rates which will happen due to increased demand.
Mind you, costs will remain low because it will be necessary for firms to invest in capital in an attempt to cope with the postive demand shocks which will follow in a sort of chain reaction.
So, in summation: It will actually create a far simpler industrial relations system and will, in the long run, result in possibly slightly lower wages but concievably a stronger dollar (i.e. cheaper imports), higher government tax revenue (i.e. more funding for public goods) and ultimately a far stronger, more stable economy which will mean a better standard of living for Australians.
Of course, this is the theory. The practical effects are greatly complicated by the human element. Despite all this in the end I think that wages won't fall significantly and we won't feel much of a change apart from an increasing standard of living.
However, i wouldnt be surprised if it went the other way.
hell... maybe if the govt took an approach like this we could have a far more reasonable debate without reducing to petty name-calling.