quote:

Originally posted by inconspicuous thanks, kelly tilghman.

i had to google that...

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated You're hardly "in need", dickhead. As I recall you were in the process of buying a second property. When the shit really hits the fan, that's when people will actually need the money. To buy food and clothing, not new computers, GPS units and slabs of beer. The worst is yet to come I think.

But what about my third or fourth property? I'll need all the help I can in order to buy those! I'm pretty skint as it is from my first 2 mortgages. Think of the under-achieving middle class beatblog! We're in a very serious situation!

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Who I am to tell people what they should spend their money on? I'm a sensible person who will be able to own a house by the time they're forty because they have saved hard, worked hard and spent wisely. People are fucking idiots and shouldn't be handed cash in lump sums because they will never use it wisely. Why do you think superannuation payouts are about to be regulated so that the payee can only withdraw a monthly stipend? It's because morons go and buy holiday houses or boats, forgetting that they have to support themselves for another fifty years. You can never trust money in the hands of the general population, even their own. I'm sick of paying the price for other people's mistakes. I'm all for supporting those in need, but when they're "in need" because they racked up a credit card bill buying a plasma television and designer sunglasses they couldn't afford, then they can fuck right off.

Who is to decide what is "wise" though? For instance, I've been having serious problems with my back and sleeping, so I spent the money on a new bed. I didn't invest in shares or pay off any debt, but the decision is certainly wise by where I am in life at the minute. Other people might find it wise to gamble the money because they're about to win big soon. Do you think people should be prevented from spending their wages on 'un-wise' things? I agree that people are stupid etc, but it IS their own money taken from them via taxation, I can't find myself complaining about it being returned. The upcoming tax cuts are a completely different kettle of fish however and account for a much more substantial portion of the deficit than this one off payment.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Back to your original point: I'm sure the alcohol industry is doing fine, but again it's not a "proper" way to stimulate the economy. I'm aware of the funding that's gone to schools and other places, but that doesn't in any way negate the fact that a shit-load of money has been wasted on these $900 pay outs. Money that could have been used constructively.

Well, clearly I was taking the piss about the handouts helping the alcohol industry and you make a fair point, the $900 payment could have probably been better spent, but when we're in a period of consumer crisis and economic contraction, spending by the public on whatever they deem fit isn't the worst thing in the world either. I know that the government couldn't have spent that $900 of mine in a better fashion than I did.

...

But really, this is the part of the argument that has me bemused and not a little animated:

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated You don't know fuck all about work choices.

Is that because my mummy and daddy don't own a corner store and fill my head with petty bourgeosie nonsense? (that's for you lilith )

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Work choices was as beneficial to workers as it was to employees (sic).

Really? Hmmmm. If that's the case could you please answer a few quick questions?

1) If work choices was so awesome and fair and a better thing for everybody, why was the Howard government forced into making amending legislation a year or so after the fact, and called it 'the fairness test'? Why would you need to introduce a 'fairness test' if work choices was already fair and beneficial to employees?

2) if the workers were so well off under work choices, why did they whole-heartedly reject it at the next election? Are you claiming to know the situation better than all the workers that voted against it? IR was the single biggest election issue after all...

3) why did the Liberal party likewise reject workchoices following the election defeat? Joe Hockey went out of his way to say "workchoices went too far…it's now dead and buried", im sure you remember or can google it if you don't believe me. Why dump such a winning component of the liberal platform that was good for everyone and the country?

4) can you explain why THIS study, commissioned by the university of sydney's faculty of economics and business for the QLD, NSW and VIC state governments concludes

quote:

The findings of this study can be simply stated: In the first round of bargaining, under the best macro-economic conditions in a generation, agreements rarely raised employee’s work standards and usually lowered them. As such this study reveals that the shift from award to statutory based enforceable rights has profound implications in sectors where workers have limited choices. p.45

And on page 39-43 it has some wonderful data sets showing double-digit percentage drops in wages across 60%+ (most around 80%) of the workplaces included in the study?

I look forward to your answers.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Under that scheme, my parents were forced to raise wages at three of their businesses, totalling 100+ employees who got a rise.

Well, I'm sorry that your (biased) anecdotal evidence isn't quite as compelling as what ive just tabled. There is also another study that comes to the same conclusions but I believe it was funded by the ACTU and I wouldn't want any claims of impropriety in the research.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated As for my idea that "employers live to employ", I'm under no illusion that all employers are nice people out to help others. Many are complete cunts, and yes, workers need to be protected from people like that.

Then why do you support the abolition of unfair dismissal laws as it stood under workchoices?

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated However, the fact of the matter is, companies want and need workers to function. Above all, they want good workers. Bullshit legislation, over-regulation and red-tape force up the costs of employing people, cutting jobs, and often give employees an opportunity to be lazy, deceitful or otherwise take advantage of the employer where they would otherwise not. Again, this is a two way street and it's very hard to strike the correct balance between rights of employer vs employee, but work choice was one of the best pieces of legislation ever in this respect.

I have never denied that IR reform was necessary, you can find such opinions in the "IR Reform" thread in auTA if you give a shit. However, your notion of "balance" is horrible as workchoices was anything but balanced. I hope you aren't going to make me google, cut and paste all the examples of workplaces using workchoices to be complete cunts to their employees, but I will if you make me.

And now we get to the really fun part:

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated I think you should read Ayn Rand's masterpiece, Atlas Shrugged in order to understand why unions and overly controlling governments would ruin the world if not kept in check.

Do I have to point out the hilarity of you being pretend offended when I called you a conservative, only to quote ayn rand in your very next post? Seriously awesome I would also like to query why you think a work of fiction by a rabid free-market lunatic is really that compelling in the real world? Indeed, why don't we talk a little bit about the atlas shrugged-inspired computer game, bioshock? I personally found it a compelling indictment of ayn rand and everything she stands for. Do you think that bioshock is an acceptable or relevant source of conversation when discussing free markets? No? why not? I mean, if we're gonna push so far past the boundaries of reality that ayn rand becomes an acceptable source I may as well bust out star wars or buffy in retaliation.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Irrespective of all this, we can always agree on one thing: Sushipunk is a cock badger.

But he's a cock badger that knows you don’t bring up ayn rand in polite conversation

___________________

lol, that was exactly like i imagined the "controversal topic" thread was going to turn out

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i dont have latent socialist tendencies. ffs, you sound like a yank

That'll learn you to call me nasty names like 'conservative' you pinko bastard

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith That'll learn you to call me nasty names like 'conservative' you pinko bastard

i hope you didnt miss this:

quote:

Is that because my mummy and daddy don't own a corner store and fill my head with petty bourgeosie nonsense? (that's for you lilith )

___________________

While I no longer 'work' hiring people to fill roles and haven't done so for quite some time, work choices was something of a mixed blessing because Johnny Howard left out the bit about letting us gas useless employees like unwanted puppies.

Aside from that it just created a lot of bureaucracy because every rancid little ill mannered piece of rubbish that turned up wanted their own contract drafted up or their employment agency had about fifty of the things.

Because they're special.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Secondly, the money has done nothing to stimulate the economy or actually "help" those in need (hardly anyone as of yet).

quote:

CONSUMERS spent a record $19.3 billion in March, as the Federal Government started rolling out billions of dollars in cash handouts. Retail trade at current prices rose by 2.2 per cent in March to a seasonally adjusted $19.3 billion, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) said. That was well above market expectations of an 0.5 per cent increase. Department stores did especially well, with retail sales up 13.2 per cent in March after two months of declines in a row. Sales of clothing and soft goods climbed 6.4 per cent. The better-than-expected retail spending data feeds into the national accounts figures due on June 3, which will show if Australia's economy is growing or is in recession. UBS economist Scott Haslem said the data "continues the theme of 'resilience' for Australia". Mr Haslem said it was possible national accounts figures showing growth for the first quarter of the year was "not out of the question." Retail spending makes up 60 per cent of domestic demand in the gross domestic product equation. Although "surprised'' by the March result, CommSec economist Savanth Sebastian said the start of cash payments from the federal government's second stimulus package was behind the jump in retail sales. "The anecdotal evidence here at CBA suggests that we've started to see the second stimulus package start to hit clients' accounts,'' Mr Sebastian said. "Consumers are looking at the current environment, realising that things aren't as bad as what they were six months ago and sentiment around the globe has also picked up.'' While eligible taxpayers have only recently started to receive their cash handouts, farmers, single-income families and those with children were among the first to receive their bonus payments in February and March. Mr Sebastian said he expected retail sales to remain strong in the months ahead, given delivery of the government's handouts from the second stimulus package were spread out over a period of months. "I don't think you're going to get the big bang for your buck that you got in the December stimulus package, when all those payments went out in one hit,'' Mr Sebastian said. "It's going to be a more consistent rise in retail sales.'' He said consumers' willingness to spend would "help retailers to keep staff on.'' Over the March quarter, retail sales increased by 1 per cent to $54 billion, in adjusted terms, which was above economists' forecast of an 0.8 per cent rise. Consumers in the Northern Territory were the big spenders in the month, growing 4.2 per cent, followed by Queenslanders (3.2 per cent) and Victorians (2.7 per cent). ACT dwellers were the misers in March, with sales falling 0.1 per cent.

http://www.news.com.au/business/sto...504-462,00.html

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN But what about my third or fourth property? I'll need all the help I can in order to buy those! I'm pretty skint as it is from my first 2 mortgages. Think of the under-achieving middle class beatblog! We're in a very serious situation!

Idiot.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Who is to decide what is "wise" though? For instance, I've been having serious problems with my back and sleeping, so I spent the money on a new bed. I didn't invest in shares or pay off any debt, but the decision is certainly wise by where I am in life at the minute. Other people might find it wise to gamble the money because they're about to win big soon. Do you think people should be prevented from spending their wages on 'un-wise' things? I agree that people are stupid etc, but it IS their own money taken from them via taxation, I can't find myself complaining about it being returned. The upcoming tax cuts are a completely different kettle of fish however and account for a much more substantial portion of the deficit than this one off payment.

The smart people decide what is wise. A new bed is certainly a good idea - a slab of beer, a plasma television or a supply of cigarettes is not, which is what plenty of morons have been spending the money on. Yes, I do think people should be prevented from spending their money on "un-wise" things. Why are so many people declaring bankruptcy every year? Why are (admittedly sensationalist) news programs running stories about people losing their houses? Why is it that many Australians are struggling to keep their head above water when in "real" terms (accounting for inflation etc), they are earning twice as much as their counterparts in the '50s? Why are so many credit cards and home loans defaulted on, regardless of economic situation?

The answer: POOR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT. There's too much "I want this" and not enough "I want this but I can't afford it".

As for this money being "people's own", that's disingenuous. This "stimulus package" is going to put the government between 100 and 200 billion in debt - debt which accumulates interest and which will have to be paid back. Which would you prefer? To have $900 now, or to pay the government an extra $5000 in five years?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN But really, this is the part of the argument that has me bemused and not a little animated: Is that because my mummy and daddy don't own a corner store and fill my head with petty bourgeosie nonsense? (that's for you lilith )

Firstly, I'd hardly call a business that employs 60+ people "a corner store". Secondly, I'm hardly bourgeoisie, and neither are my parents. Thirdly, my parents never "filled my head with nonsense" (more on that later). Fourthly, the reason you don't know fuck all about work choices and I do is because, as I said, my parents employ a large number of people across three different industries, and I speak often with them about the implications of new legislation. They deal directly with all the associated employment issues. My sister does HR for the largest building company in Australia and has to stay up to date with all new laws. I am also in frequent contact with her.

Unless you are in recruitment or specific IR/HR law, which I know you're not, then I am far more qualified to comment on this issue than you are.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Really? Hmmmm. If that's the case could you please answer a few quick questions? 1) If work choices was so awesome and fair and a better thing for everybody, why was the Howard government forced into making amending legislation a year or so after the fact, and called it 'the fairness test'? Why would you need to introduce a 'fairness test' if work choices was already fair and beneficial to employees?

You just answered your own question: they identified that the legislation wasn't working and fixed it so it did.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN 2) if the workers were so well off under work choices, why did they whole-heartedly reject it at the next election? Are you claiming to know the situation better than all the workers that voted against it? IR was the single biggest election issue after all...

The ill-informed media beat the shit out of work choices. People follow the media.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN 3) why did the Liberal party likewise reject workchoices following the election defeat? Joe Hockey went out of his way to say "workchoices went too far…it's now dead and buried", im sure you remember or can google it if you don't believe me. Why dump such a winning component of the liberal platform that was good for everyone and the country?

I don't remember that. I don't follow politics. I'll take your word for it. There are always rogues in every party. The reason they dumped work choices after the election defeat was because of the negative image it had, again, induced by the media.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN 4) can you explain why THIS study, commissioned by the university of sydney's faculty of economics and business for the QLD, NSW and VIC state governments concludes And on page 39-43 it has some wonderful data sets showing double-digit percentage drops in wages across 60%+ (most around 80%) of the workplaces included in the study? I look forward to your answers.

Compelling evidence. Well researched. Glad to argue with someone who knows how to do it.

a) That's just one report; though granted, well researched.

b) It only covers a very limited number of occupations.

c) It's incredibly biased in the occupations it does cover, which makes me think the report was biased in the first place.

d) Several wage drops were recorded; why do you automatically assume this is a bad thing? Although I did say that work choices was probably as beneficial for workers as it was for employers, I'm sure there are also cases where people were being overpaid.

As for this: "The findings of this study can be simply stated:

In the first round of bargaining, under the best macro-economic conditions in a generation, agreements rarely raised employee’s work standards and usually lowered them. As such this study reveals that the shift from award to statutory based enforceable rights has profound implications in sectors where workers have limited choices. p.45"

Note the actual wording: "employee's work standards". It only states that the employee's quality of work did not improve; which would conclude that work choices was negative for employers.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Well, I'm sorry that your (biased) anecdotal evidence isn't quite as compelling as what ive just tabled. There is also another study that comes to the same conclusions but I believe it was funded by the ACTU and I wouldn't want any claims of impropriety in the research.

As for my "biased" opinion, that's where you're wrong. I'm a mere drone in the building industry. I have no management/upper tree position of any kind. Is there any industry with more rabid unionism and abuse of employers than mine? No, there is not.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Then why do you support the abolition of unfair dismissal laws as it stood under workchoices?

...because the way they were, it meant that an employee could be caught STEALING from their employer and still not be sacked. Please, please explain to me how that is fair.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Do I have to point out the hilarity of you being pretend offended when I called you a conservative, only to quote ayn rand in your very next post? Seriously awesome I would also like to query why you think a work of fiction by a rabid free-market lunatic is really that compelling in the real world?

I never pretended to be offended, and nor was I actually offended. I just don't think you should be calling me a conservative, because that implies certain things about my opinions which are untrue. Don't label me with a label that doesn't fit.

Atlas Shrugged may be fiction, but it's fiction rooted in clear, truthful thought and sound principles. While I do not wholly agree with the idea of Laissez-Faire, I think it certainly has more merits than constantly trying to cut the knees out from under good employees and good workers.

well argued domesticated, looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. i would point out though that owning a business that employs ~60 people MAKES one petty bourgeosie, just like owning a million dollars makes one a millionaire

oh, and also that the projected deficit is in the realm of 50-80 billion, not 100-200.

___________________

In other news today, beer is going to be taxed an extra 15c per pot, while cigarettes an extra $2.50 per pack.

So much for handing people $900!

great time to be quitting (again) by the sound of things!

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Atlas Shrugged may be fiction, but it's fiction rooted in clear, truthful thought and sound principles.