minimum wage

[mistermack]

Having the highest minimum wage isn't hurting Oz very much at all. We've still got a higher rate of employment than many countries with lower minimum wages.

I know I'd much rather live in a country which doesn't treat the lowest rung of its population as expendable serfs...

Me too.
In a way, it's not surprising that employment is high.
Australia restricts immigration pretty well, and selects for skilled workers who are in shorter supply, so they aren't generally taking jobs off Australians.
And if you have a high minimum wage, people will make more effort to get themselves into work and stay in a job.

[Tyrannical]

This is how the left wing liberals and progressive "elites" sold themselves out to rich corporation.

The left pushes for more poor immigrants. This pushes wages down and make the poor poorer and rich corporations richer through cheap labor.
The left then provides welfare to compensate for low wages, and in doing so buys a dependent voting block. The extra taxes the companies pay to fund benefits is a much smaller amount then if they paid a living wage.

That is the true evil of liberals progressives. A political party designed to hurt it's voter base so that it may control them through state handouts.

[SnowLeopard]

Productivity is the key word, Drewish, not wages. Productivity is what matters to businesses and apparently the economy. Once automation becomes more productive per unit cost, then automation will replace workers. Whether that is now in higher minimum wage countries, or later in lower minimum wage countries, it's going to happen. Capitalism is focussed solely on profits (therefore the obsession with productivity). Social effects are not part of the equation. Someone, was it Buckminster-Fuller(?), said that rising automation should by now have allowed us all to work less hours a week for the same standard of living. What's really happened is that as a society we've become obsessed with standard of living increases, and so everyone is working as hard if not harder than ever before in recent history (i.e. last 60 years or so). Those who don't do this, get left behind, both materially and socially.

Automation should allow us all to work less but still achieve increases in the standard of living. The trick is how to politically achieve that. The interesting thing is that those most affected by automation are those in the lower classes. I don't think the rich like the idea that the lower classes should work less than themselves yet be happy and contented. Neoliberal capitalism, after all, really relies on an exploited underclass for it to function correctly. Strange times ahead. Revolution would be appropriate, if you ask me.

Indeed. Just because something can be automated doesn't mean it should be allowed to. It's more important to employ people than robots.

[Hermit]

Productivity is the key word, Drewish, not wages. Productivity is what matters to businesses and apparently the economy. Once automation becomes more productive per unit cost, then automation will replace workers. Whether that is now in higher minimum wage countries, or later in lower minimum wage countries, it's going to happen. Capitalism is focussed solely on profits (therefore the obsession with productivity). Social effects are not part of the equation. Someone, was it Buckminster-Fuller(?), said that rising automation should by now have allowed us all to work less hours a week for the same standard of living. What's really happened is that as a society we've become obsessed with standard of living increases, and so everyone is working as hard if not harder than ever before in recent history (i.e. last 60 years or so). Those who don't do this, get left behind, both materially and socially.

Automation should allow us all to work less but still achieve increases in the standard of living. The trick is how to politically achieve that. The interesting thing is that those most affected by automation are those in the lower classes. I don't think the rich like the idea that the lower classes should work less than themselves yet be happy and contented. Neoliberal capitalism, after all, really relies on an exploited underclass for it to function correctly. Strange times ahead. Revolution would be appropriate, if you ask me.

Indeed. Just because something can be automated doesn't mean it should be allowed to. It's more important to employ people than robots.

Important to whom? There is a big difference between "should" and "is". We happen to live in a capitalist world. While the owners of the means of production might pay lip service to the welfare of their employees, they ultimately only really care about the bottom line. In so far as the welfare of the employees contributes toward the maximisation of profit, they will of course support it. As soon as it does not, the care factor turns to zero. That's the society we live in. The share holders are baying for their dividends and the sole owners will not do without ever increasing returns on investment. Too much of either is never enough. Suck it up, people. Or start a revolution.

[PsychoSerenity]

Productivity is the key word, Drewish, not wages. Productivity is what matters to businesses and apparently the economy. Once automation becomes more productive per unit cost, then automation will replace workers. Whether that is now in higher minimum wage countries, or later in lower minimum wage countries, it's going to happen. Capitalism is focussed solely on profits (therefore the obsession with productivity). Social effects are not part of the equation. Someone, was it Buckminster-Fuller(?), said that rising automation should by now have allowed us all to work less hours a week for the same standard of living. What's really happened is that as a society we've become obsessed with standard of living increases, and so everyone is working as hard if not harder than ever before in recent history (i.e. last 60 years or so). Those who don't do this, get left behind, both materially and socially.

Automation should allow us all to work less but still achieve increases in the standard of living. The trick is how to politically achieve that. The interesting thing is that those most affected by automation are those in the lower classes. I don't think the rich like the idea that the lower classes should work less than themselves yet be happy and contented. Neoliberal capitalism, after all, really relies on an exploited underclass for it to function correctly. Strange times ahead. Revolution would be appropriate, if you ask me.

Indeed. Just because something can be automated doesn't mean it should be allowed to. It's more important to employ people than robots.

Why? Humans don't need to be employed in drudgery to lead fulfilling lives. Let the robots do the work but make sure the workers they replace get a fair share of the benefits.

[Tero]

It's just that we have not reached the Star Trek world yet. Where work is optional.

[Drewish]

Until you can convince the poor to stop having so many damned kids, your pleas for a free ride for everyone will fall on deaf ears.

[SnowLeopard]

Productivity is the key word, Drewish, not wages. Productivity is what matters to businesses and apparently the economy. Once automation becomes more productive per unit cost, then automation will replace workers. Whether that is now in higher minimum wage countries, or later in lower minimum wage countries, it's going to happen. Capitalism is focussed solely on profits (therefore the obsession with productivity). Social effects are not part of the equation. Someone, was it Buckminster-Fuller(?), said that rising automation should by now have allowed us all to work less hours a week for the same standard of living. What's really happened is that as a society we've become obsessed with standard of living increases, and so everyone is working as hard if not harder than ever before in recent history (i.e. last 60 years or so). Those who don't do this, get left behind, both materially and socially.

Automation should allow us all to work less but still achieve increases in the standard of living. The trick is how to politically achieve that. The interesting thing is that those most affected by automation are those in the lower classes. I don't think the rich like the idea that the lower classes should work less than themselves yet be happy and contented. Neoliberal capitalism, after all, really relies on an exploited underclass for it to function correctly. Strange times ahead. Revolution would be appropriate, if you ask me.

Indeed. Just because something can be automated doesn't mean it should be allowed to. It's more important to employ people than robots.

Why? Humans don't need to be employed in drudgery to lead fulfilling lives. Let the robots do the work but make sure the workers they replace get a fair share of the benefits.

I agree that would be good. That's what its meant to be like in the future that was 'promised'. I just don't see Sainsburys replacing all their checkout workers with self checkout machines and still paying for the workers too

As it is corporations just replace workers with robots and absorb anything made in to their profits and give it to the shareholders rather than the workers.

[PsychoSerenity]

Until you can convince the poor to stop having so many damned kids, your pleas for a free ride for everyone will fall on deaf ears.

Your facts are out of date. Global fertility is now only just above replacement levels and is still falling as the replacement rate also drops due to better health.

[SteveB]

Until you can convince the poor to stop having so many damned kids, your pleas for a free ride for everyone will fall on deaf ears.

Your facts are out of date. Global fertility is now only just above replacement levels and is still falling as the replacement rate also drops due to better health.

I know. There' s hope left! I'm reasonably confident now we won't reach our carrying capacity by 2050 like a lot of ecologists/scientists predicted and everything goes to shit.

[PsychoSerenity]

The thing about carrying capacity is it depends as much on technology and consumption levels as population. Now obviously we can't guarantee improvements in technology (though investment in basic research does help), but there is still a lot of room for efficiency improvements by simply implementing technology that we already have, - mostly technologies that the market won't naturally select, - but it can be done with political will.

The second thing, consumption, can also be drastically reduced in many areas. For one thing it's primarily the extremely wealthy that do consume far beyond sustainable levels, private jets, massive yachts etc. Then there is our current economic system that needs consumption to function to the point that it requires a multi-billion dollar advertising industry and a banking industry giving us cheap credit, so we'll keep buy things we don't need, just to stop the whole pack of cards falling down. Again this can be changed with political will.

And people are waking up to it. There is better education, through rapidly improving access to information, than there has ever been. There is a lot of room for improvement, and very much hope left. But we do need to start sooner rather than later.

[SnowLeopard]

Sooo basically I think we're all in agreement here. Kill rich people and buy boats.

[PsychoSerenity]

Yeah, close enough.

[Drewish]

Until you can convince the poor to stop having so many damned kids, your pleas for a free ride for everyone will fall on deaf ears.

Your facts are out of date. Global fertility is now only just above replacement levels and is still falling as the replacement rate also drops due to better health.

Your asserting a recent change in acceleration as if it were a change in position. My facts aren't out of date, I don't buy that the world can sustain 10 billion people (which is the most positive estimate regarding where the population will cap out at) at anything near the standard of living that I currently have.

[PsychoSerenity]

Why, what standard of living do you have? And how are you defining standard of living anyway? As I mentioned before, by any sensible measure, high levels of consumption do not equal a high standard of living.

And even if it is true, why do you think it's acceptable to make other people suffer more just so you can be better off? In a more equal world, where we were able to cooperate rather than compete, we would all be better off in the long run.