melanieeeee. said:
no but you claimed that she did spend $10billion dollars without any evidence except from what you considered an educated guess
No I didn't claim she HAD spent $10bn; I had claimed shes got $10bn worth of wishlist items. The whole original point was to speculate what happens when the rest of the Labor party demands their pound of flesh. Rudd is just a centre right catylst who was similar enough to Howard such that he would be elected. This doesn't mean that the wishes of the rest of the party are ignored.
the fact that it isn't an academic piece of writing is besides the point. its the reasons behind the fact that you aren't allowed to reference wiki.
And first of all you were the one that mentioned the third party thing. why the hell would you mention it if it doesn't exist. yes i see the critique is that but what has that got to do with the third party failing which is what you quoted me for. and just because it is a critique doesn't mean that it is necessarily true. it is just one perspective
Maybe when you go to university you will understand a little more about why it is that referencing is important. Referencing is important to allow people who read your articles to source the information you have used (to come to whatever point that is) so that they can do further reading as required. Universities do not encourage referencing wikipedia, because no original information is contained on wikipedia - it is merely a synthesis of existing work. Many people claim that wikipedia is a bad source of information. This is incorrect. It is probably more reliable than other sources like Encarta because it is peer reviewed. The only reason why this is ever brought up as an issue is because it can contain errors. This is not to say that it does contain errors. But as I said all of this doesn't matter because I wasn't writing an academic piece of work. I was simply looking for a nice description of some of the major critiques - and the wikipedia entry was a reasonable one that referred to some of the main people, and arguements that as I originally suggested; you could follow up if you cared to.
As for your comments on the third way. I dont think you understand what it is. I am not going to explain it to you, so do some more research before you comment on something you dont know about.
firstly you can't see into the future even though you would like to think so. you are basically assuming that it will happen when this may not necessarily be true
secondly, you just said all governments waste money, so why should it be particularly bad if Rudd does it?
Well I hope you are right and they dont become a big spending government. But when you try to decide who you are going to vote for you form an opinion on the likelihood of a desired outcome happening. In this case the likelihood of Rudd championing small government principles is virtually impossible. Well a dollar wasted by rudd is no worse than a dollar wasted by howard or whoever else, but a hundred dollars wasted by rudd is worse than 50 dollars wasted by howard.
and what you have studies labour markets? that is the current system. don't you know that collective enterprise bargaining agreements are more of a deregulated system than regulated?also with the AWA's the majority of people are aware that it does not produce positive outcomes for employees but rather the opposite.
Yes I have. Collective certified agreements were a step in the right direction when we only had awards; and was a form of deregulation. in 1996 we went one step further and had a new type of agreement known as an AWA again, this was deregulation and was a step in the right direction. Now, in 2008 we are re-regulating by removing AWA's which is a step in the wrong direction. Even if you accept that workchoices was bad (which I do not) then this provides no arguement for the abolishment of individual agreements. How can you say that being forced to bargain with other employees rather than being able to do it yourself is anything other than a centralised and highly regulated form of bargaining? People might have been fooled with blatent lies that AWA's were bad (remembering the factually incorrect ad's run by the unions), but not many people understand what an AWA really is, or why an AWA is apparantly bad. Productivity based bargaining is the only way forward for both employees and employers. It lowers unemployment, increases wages, and reduces the effect of inflationary expectations (something the RBA has been concerned about). Here is an interesting site if you would like something other than union brainwashing:
http://www.hrnicholls.com.au/
AHAHAHAHAHAH. dont crack me up!
[FONT="][/FONT]At the time the OEA revealed that 100 per cent of AWAs cut at least one so called ‘protected award condition’ and:
• 64 per cent cut annual leave loading;
• 63 per cent cut penalty rates;
• 52 per cent cut shift work loadings;
• 51 per cent cut overtime loadings;
why do you think employees rally to have the AWA's stopped? oh yeah it must be because they are protected more
Are you totally oblivious to the alternative to an AWA? employers can issue individual employment contracts through common law contracts that don't have any of those protections. And if you have a problem - you have to pay a lawyer thousands of dollars. As for the statistics you posted - you are conviniently neglecting to also mention that all of those benefits are given to the employee via higher overall wages. How is it better to be paid time and a half on sunday as opposed to a higher rate throughout the week that equates to the same wages??? This is the whole problem with this arguement. The AWA still had to meet all minimum wage criteria which makes your arguement flawed. The only thing that the abolishment of workchoices did, was prevent the negotiations of a mutually exclusive contract.
so in your opinion its better that employers exploit workers? yeah that will really be a better option to improve distribute of income.
do you understand what a collective enterprise barganing agreement is? i assume you do. so you would understand that there is still a bargaining process involve.
I was recently surprised when I went into my Woolworths supermarket. You know what I found? I found these wonderfully expensive looking machines that would allow me to process my groceries without the help of a checkout assistant. Now Woolworths isn't stupid. They are pretty rational in fact as they would fully cost any decision they make. Woolworths has worked out that it is cheaper to let a machine do the job of a checkout assistant. What does this say about our minimum wage? lets say we didn't have a minimum wage and the market could work itself out. Woolworths would offer those jobs but at a lower wage so that it was better than the alternative (expensive machines). If that wage was not sufficient (pathetically low and undesireble) no employees would want to do the job and they would buy the machines anyway. But if someone put their hand up and was willing to do the job, what right do we have to deny that person from getting that job? This is effectively what the minimum wage does. It hurts low skilled individuals more than anyone else. Most australians earn well beyond the minimum wage in any case so lowering it will not impact on these people. But if you lower the minimum wage, you create jobs that otherwise cannot exist as the marginal product generated by that employee is less than the minimum wage. Australia has skills shortages and all these things yet we still have 4% of the labour force unemployed. How can this be??? well the majority of these people are low skilled and people who cant get jobs, simply because they arent out there. So yes. Loweing wages will help those most in need. You are effectively allowing unemployed people to find work by marginally reducing the artificially inflated incomes of others. Low skilled unemployed people earn the lowest income out of any other category so why do you suggest that these people should remain unemployed?
Also, why do you assume that employers will exploit workers? this isn't 1907. Most employers recognise the need for efficiency pay. The type of jobs that you assume result in workers being exploited dont even exist anymore because we have priced ourselves out of the market (for example in manufacturing...) How is that losing a job altogether is a better outcome?
As for collective bargaining... The key flaw is in the word collective. How can a one size fits all approach work? Are you the same as me? No. Is a single mother going to have the same needs as a male without children? No. This is the problem with Awards and collective agreements. They take a one size fits all approach which is never the best outcome, so it encourages employers to offer common law contracts which is a far worse option than AWA's (for both the employees and employers). This is why the majority of employment contracts made in australia are common law contracts. Individual contracts are the west way to create incentive contracts which allows for a mutually beneficial outcome without creating wage price spiral tendencies.
if a company needs to hire people they will if they don't they wont. we arn't a third world country. people shouldn't have to choose from being exploited to being unemployed. do you know how low a minimum wage is? especially for low skilled staff? my friends mum that lives of minimum wage and i can tell you that she is having difficulty paying the rent, let alone providing for her family. the fact that we have a standard minimum wage is because the living standards in Australia is relavely high compared to other counties and this is because of these minimum wages. also the cost of living in Australia is relatively high compared to those third world countries which have low minimum wages or no minimum wages at all.
also i will say this again we currently have COLLECTIVE ENTERPRISE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS. i hope you do know what that means.
You are a perfect candidate to watch or read free to choose by milton friedman. If a company needs to do a task, they will usually do it at the least cost. If this means phasing out checkout operators they will do this. Do you think this is good considering that there would be many low skilled (and often young) workers wanting these jobs? Again this word exploited. You assume this too readily. How is it that you are being exploited if you accept the job? if you dont like the job you can go somewhere else (oh wait, maybe you cant because the minimum wage is too high!). Australia's minimum wage is very generous. Employers arent charities there to help people like your friends mum. They have their own stakeholders that they need to look after. Small businesses in particular raises another curious point. Why is it that we are more concerned about the ethical implication of low wages on employees, yet we wont consider the rights of a small business person who may be just getting by? Australia's living standards are high, but not if you are one of those 4% of people who dont have a job. This is the problem. If we had full employment then it would be a different issue, but we dont and we havent since the 1960's.
Yes, I am not stupid. I know what certified agreements are but so what?
