# Minimum Wage vs. Sydney Cost of Living



## sinner (4 June 2015)

I was curious about this so I ran the (approximate) numbers. 

Thought someone else may be interested in this information as well.

So you can survive, and even save a little. I picked the "most expensive" option for these, so I reckon it'd be possible to even save 10% of net on minimum wage if you were frugal.


----------



## luutzu (4 June 2015)

sinner said:


> I was curious about this so I ran the (approximate) numbers.
> 
> Thought someone else may be interested in this information as well.
> 
> ...




Come on. 

Assume all those figures are true, a person on minimum wage have $5 a day to save. A tiny can of coke now costs $2 each.

What if they need to drive to work because Opal and public transport just can't take them there?

But at $5 a day saving, it'll be another generation or two before they could afford a house.


----------



## sinner (4 June 2015)

luutzu said:


> Come on.
> 
> Assume all those figures are true, a person on minimum wage have $5 a day to save. A tiny can of coke now costs $2 each.




If you buy your can of coke from the 7-11 or vending machine then it costs $2. If you buy a 6 or 12 pack of cans of coke it doesn't. Coke is crap anyway and will cost you a lot in the long run for healthcare. 



> What if they need to drive to work because Opal and public transport just can't take them there?




Do you understand the concepts of approximation and assumption?



> But at $5 a day saving, it'll be another generation or two before they could afford a house.




The purpose of this exercise was not to prove that you can afford a house on minimum wage. Just that it is possible to survive and live a relatively normal life in Sydney on minimum wage. I didn't even post this to start a discussion, just in case someone cared about the same data.

Imagine you were homeless and I just offered you a job paying minimum wage right next to a train station.


----------



## Bill M (4 June 2015)

Your opal card fees are way out of whack. The total daily maximum spend can only be $15. Sunday is only $2.50 all day. So if you used it to the max it should only cost you $92.50 p/w. That's another $3,000 near enough in bank a year.

https://www.opal.com.au/en/about-opal/benefits-of-travelling-with-opal-card/

Plus I would chop my food bill too. I buy everything from the supermarket and we cook for ourselves. No $4 cups of coffees or $10 lunches, none at all. I could easily bring that food bill down to $100 p/w. That's another $2,000 a year in savings.

I don't have private health insurance either but I won't put that in this exercise, it could save you even more. 

Now I got $7,000 total savings for a year.


----------



## sinner (4 June 2015)

Bill M said:


> Your opal card fees are way out of whack. The total daily maximum spend can only be $15. Sunday is only $2.50 all day. So if you used it to the max it should only cost you $92.50 p/w. That's another $3,000 near enough in bank a year.
> 
> https://www.opal.com.au/en/about-opal/benefits-of-travelling-with-opal-card/
> 
> ...




Absolutely Bill!

Like I mentioned, I tried to select the "most expensive" option for things. A couple of items are over-provisioned on purpose (bills, transport) to provide a conservative estimate (i.e. one that could provide a margin of safety in the event of unexpected costs).

My personal food budget is $310 a month or $10 a day (even though I'm on a 6 figure salary), so for example that simple change would render an extra ~$3600 in savings per year, but I didn't want my personal stuff to influence the numbers, I wanted to try and build a "worst case" conservative estimate for a single person who would have to pay for everything themselves.


----------



## luutzu (4 June 2015)

sinner said:


> If you buy your can of coke from the 7-11 or vending machine then it costs $2. If you buy a 6 or 12 pack of cans of coke it doesn't. Coke is crap anyway and will cost you a lot in the long run for healthcare.
> 
> 
> Do you understand the concepts of approximation and assumption?
> ...




Or they could walk to work and drink water instead of coke - that'll cut out the need for health insurance and medical bills - though might need a good walking shoe or two. Nike is out of the question, maybe a Beta. haha

Minimum wage in Aus might be OK if you're young, single, have no other responsibility to anyone - and stay at home with your parents - that's the only way they could save a little.

Just from the people I know that are on minimum wage, they tend to not be able to move out and rent a place. They want to, saving for it, just can't because they might like a coke or two on some day.

That and the agent probably look at your pay summary and try not to laugh out loud.


----------



## skc (4 June 2015)

Bill M said:


> Your opal card fees are way out of whack. The total daily maximum spend can only be $15. Sunday is only $2.50 all day. So if you used it to the max it should only cost you $92.50 p/w. That's another $3,000 near enough in bank a year.




I thought Sinner's figures were $150 per month. So not sure there's much more in there.

You can survive, but you need everything to go right and no bad luck. 

This interactive game is from a few years back and US centric... but the idea is the same.

http://playspent.org/html/


----------



## pinkboy (4 June 2015)

Why anyone would settle for minimum wage is beyond me.

Saving is finite; Earning income is infinite. 

You can only save so much. Earning more income by more efficient use of one's time is much more productive.

pinkboy


----------



## sydboy007 (4 June 2015)

Food could easily be dropped to $320-400 a month

Internet easily down to $50 / month for a ADSL 100/100 plan

rent - you're choosign to rent a 1BR for $400 a week.  Share a larger place and rent would be cheaper.  If you're out that far from teh city 2 BR apartments could be had for $400/w, even less.


----------



## So_Cynical (4 June 2015)

sinner said:


> I was curious about this so I ran the (approximate) numbers.
> 
> Thought someone else may be interested in this information as well.
> 
> ...




i earn the average wage (first time in my life) and rent in Sydney, internet $59 and i only spend $10 per month on my mobile, also rort the opal card so only pay $85 per month for unlimited travel....i share and save quite a bit.



Bill M said:


> Your opal card fees are way out of whack. The total daily maximum spend can only be $15. Sunday is only $2.50 all day. So if you used it to the max it should only cost you $92.50 p/w. That's another $3,000 near enough in bank a year.




Weekly travel cap is $60.


----------



## pixel (4 June 2015)

sinner said:


> I was curious about this so I ran the (approximate) numbers.
> 
> Thought someone else may be interested in this information as well.
> 
> ...




Interesting to see that Sydneysiders apparently walk around naked, playing the equivalent of Air-Guitar with their Vodafone SIM cards, and sleep on the floor of the rented flat.
Apparently, they also use neither soap and deodorant nor toothbrush and paste.
OK, not having any furniture, clothing, computer gear, and other worldly possessions would make home contents insurance obsolete. 
How long would a Sales Assistant or Waitress on Minimum Wage remain employed if she were to show up for work in the same gear she could pick up from those saved $5 - maybe in Op Shop bargain bins?


----------



## luutzu (4 June 2015)

pixel said:


> Interesting to see that Sydneysiders apparently walk around naked, playing the equivalent of Air-Guitar with their Vodafone SIM cards, and sleep on the floor of the rented flat.
> Apparently, they also use neither soap and deodorant nor toothbrush and paste.
> OK, not having any furniture, clothing, computer gear, and other worldly possessions would make home contents insurance obsolete.
> How long would a Sales Assistant or Waitress on Minimum Wage remain employed if she were to show up for work in the same gear she could pick up from those saved $5 - maybe in Op Shop bargain bins?




Wonder what would happen to that $5 if they miss a bus, got laid off during the year or their job is shifted overseas; or the landlord decided it's time to raise the rent but the boss decided there's plenty of desperate people out there.

Maybe it's a good motivation to get their act together and can't go to TAFE or Uni because the funding's been cut and the buildings aren't there anymore.


----------



## Bill M (5 June 2015)

skc said:


> I thought Sinner's figures were $150 per month. So not sure there's much more in there.






So_Cynical said:


> Weekly travel cap is $60.




Yeah, I read that wrong guys, you are right. I was thinking weekly where as sinner did say Monthly. 33K a year is a low minimum wage, I could manage on it but it would cut out 90% of my travel plans. Not much of a life on that sort of money.


----------



## qldfrog (5 June 2015)

pixel said:


> Interesting to see that Sydneysiders apparently walk around naked, playing the equivalent of Air-Guitar with their Vodafone SIM cards, and sleep on the floor of the rented flat.
> Apparently, they also use neither soap and deodorant nor toothbrush and paste.
> OK, not having any furniture, clothing, computer gear, and other worldly possessions would make home contents insurance obsolete.
> How long would a Sales Assistant or Waitress on Minimum Wage remain employed if she were to show up for work in the same gear she could pick up from those saved $5 - maybe in Op Shop bargain bins?



I would agree probably another 30$ a month in clothing/shoes and $20 a month min for incidental soap toothbrush, 
if you need a fridge, new cooking plate etc another 25$ a month to have saved..all second hands handout;
and this assumes you can actually go to work using public transport so for some jobs in industrial area you may have to add either a bike: 100$ upfront with a kmart light, second hand bike and a mandatory helmet 
or some taxi during that month
honestly do not think of saving
as for sharing a house/unit-> that would probably not help much as you will have to share the expenses of far less careful people.
do not know but i really believe you need to live with family or be a couple to survive on that
as for saving.....


----------



## pinkboy (5 June 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> rent - you're choosign to rent a 1BR for $400 a week.  Share a larger place and rent would be cheaper.  If you're out that far from teh city 2 BR apartments could be had for $400/w, even less.




$1,200/month = $300/week.  

pinkboy


----------



## pixel (5 June 2015)

pinkboy said:


> $1,200/month = $300/week.
> 
> pinkboy




even less: closer to $275/week
There are 4.33 weeks in a month (52/12=4.333), that turns $400/week into $1,733/month

Add the concerns that luutzu, Bill, and qldfrog raised, and it's definitely not making for a dignified existence. Shame on our various governments for killing-off education and industry in the name of competition with low-cost countries.


----------



## sydboy007 (5 June 2015)

pixel said:


> even less: closer to $275/week
> There are 4.33 weeks in a month (52/12=4.333), that turns $400/week into $1,733/month
> 
> Add the concerns that luutzu, Bill, and qldfrog raised, and it's definitely not making for a dignified existence. Shame on our various governments for killing-off education and industry in the name of competition with low-cost countries.




These kinds of analaysis never occurr when you hear about how over paid we are.

Just never seems to be a problem when it's overpaid CEOs.


----------



## pixel (5 June 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> These kinds of analaysis never occurr when you hear about how over paid we are.
> 
> Just never seems to be a problem when it's overpaid CEOs.




That's because the overpaid CEO compares himself to even greedier and more overpaid CEOs in Overseas countries. Same global competition, only to the other end of the scale.
As a result, the gap between upper and lower income quartile widens around the Capitalist World.


----------



## luutzu (5 June 2015)

pixel said:


> That's because the overpaid CEO compares himself to even greedier and more overpaid CEOs in Overseas countries. Same global competition, only to the other end of the scale.
> As a result, the gap between upper and lower income quartile widens around the Capitalist World.




Dimon, CEO of JPMorganChase, is now a billionaire.
The top ten Fund managers in the US took home something like $170 million each last year - and that's a year where their fund actually lose money for investors.

Latest report (Newsweek a couple weeks back) show that if there's 100 people in the US, 1 guy owns about 40% of all its wealth, the next 5 or 10 guys own another 15%. And most will be under. So it's not just about income inequality, it's also wealth inequality.

With growing competition from developing countries for higher skilled and more advanced manufacturing jobs - no longer just cheap labour or cheap manufacturing... and our work force not being trained for higher skilled or new and innovative industry, it's not going to be easy for a lot of people.

Then CEOs don't just compare their booty to the guy over the pond, they compare workers too... so they either ship them in or set up shop overseas, or both.

So if managers or skilled engineers and project managers are cheaper in the UK - they'll be brought over; and cheaper manufacturing could be done in China then it'll be done there.

Free trade and these things are not evil or bad, just they do have a lot of consequences for "unskilled" or not highly trained specialists people here. And if we allow corporations to do their free trade, but then let them get away with not paying their fair share of taxes, and not reinvesting it towards education and further training or encouraging new industries... there's only so many bankers and financial planners a country need.


----------



## McLovin (5 June 2015)

I'd suggest the actual number of single income/single person households earning the minimum wage or close to it is a very small segment of the workforce. Finger in the air, I'd guestimate it's about 5%. It's an interesting discussion, but it should probably be framed around the demographics of those who are being discussed. The minimum wage tends to be a transient wage level that most people move out of.

Maybe a more interesting question is what lifestyle should the minimum wage afford?


----------



## luutzu (5 June 2015)

McLovin said:


> I'd suggest the actual number of single income/single person households earning the minimum wage or close to it is a very small segment of the workforce. Finger in the air, I'd guestimate it's about 5%. It's an interesting discussion, but it should probably be framed around the demographics of those who are being discussed. The minimum wage tends to be a transient wage level that most people move out of.
> 
> Maybe a more interesting question is what lifestyle should the minimum wage afford?




1.5Million in Australia

http://www.smh.com.au/national/minimum-wage-up-3-per-cent-rise-of-1870-a-week-20140604-39is5.html

Workforce would be 12million?

So around 10% or 15%.


Heard that in the US it's around 20% of their workforce. And those arne't single or students either. I remember hearing the average American on min. wage was mid-30s, supporting a young family too. So most work two jobs.


----------



## McLovin (5 June 2015)

luutzu said:


> 1.5Million in Australia
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/national/minimum-wage-up-3-per-cent-rise-of-1870-a-week-20140604-39is5.html
> 
> ...




Not how many are on the minimum wage how many live in single income/sole individual households.


----------



## kid hustlr (5 June 2015)

310 dollars a month for food seems obscenely low for anyone. Let alone someone on 6 figures


----------



## So_Cynical (5 June 2015)

I have lived in Sydney for 15 years, first 6 married and thus sharing expenses, then 5 years on my own and the last 4 years sharing with a non partner flatmate, the first 12 of those years on close to minimum wage 30 -  40K

First point is that you need to share rental expenses in order to save anything of significance, the 5 years i had renting a 1 bedroom on my own i was able to save maybe 100 bucks per week, as soon as i started sharing that jumped to 300 per week simply because rent & utilities were halved.

In Sydney with a low income = you have to share to save.

And of course there is a kind of compounding effect because some of those savings can be invested to create additional revenue, which can then be invested to create additional revenue etc...minimum wage is not a lot of fun, and renting is worse.


----------



## qldfrog (5 June 2015)

So_Cynical said:


> I have lived in Sydney for 15 years, first 6 married and thus sharing expenses, then 5 years on my own and the last 4 years sharing with a non partner flatmate, the first 12 of those years on close to minimum wage 30 -  40K
> 
> First point is that you need to share rental expenses in order to save anything of significance, the 5 years i had renting a 1 bedroom on my own i was able to save maybe 100 bucks per week, as soon as i started sharing that jumped to 300 per week simply because rent & utilities were halved.
> 
> ...



Thanks So Cynical for a real life feedback: luckily for me, I was just trying to figure it;
Good to see you are past this stage: all the best


----------



## Mrmagoo (6 June 2015)

You can't live in Sydney on minimum wage. You survive. Keep deluding yourselves if it makes you feel any better. Maybe you can collectively employ some consultant to produce a report saying Australia is more egalitarian now than in the 1980s and that we're all better off in every single way thanks to rich people getting richer ? Just a thought. Then you can publish it so everyone knows how good we have it and how rich people speculating on property caused it.


----------



## Mrmagoo (6 June 2015)

pixel said:


> Interesting to see that Sydneysiders apparently walk around naked, playing the equivalent of Air-Guitar with their Vodafone SIM cards, and sleep on the floor of the rented flat.
> Apparently, they also use neither soap and deodorant nor toothbrush and paste.
> OK, not having any furniture, clothing, computer gear, and other worldly possessions would make home contents insurance obsolete.
> How long would a Sales Assistant or Waitress on Minimum Wage remain employed if she were to show up for work in the same gear she could pick up from those saved $5 - maybe in Op Shop bargain bins?




It is hilarious. These things. You CAN survive, as people don't die, but you won't LIVE.

I say this to people. You think say you live on X per week ? Well you earn Y now which means you should be saving Z ? So you should have K many hundreds of thousands in the bank ? No ? Well you're full of **** then. 

If you haven't done it, you don't know if you can happily live on X dollars per week. If you had done it you'd have the savings to prove it.


----------



## Spongle007 (22 July 2015)

I live on a disability pension, live in the inner west and while I have few possessions I survive just fine although I'd like to start making some money... I can do that easily enough working jobs I hate or I could use my loaf and figure out a better way.


----------



## Value Collector (22 July 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> You can't live in Sydney on minimum wage. You survive. Keep deluding yourselves if it makes you feel any better. Maybe you can collectively employ some consultant to produce a report saying Australia is more egalitarian now than in the 1980s and that we're all better off in every single way thanks to rich people getting richer ? Just a thought. Then you can publish it so everyone knows how good we have it and how rich people speculating on property caused it.




Instead of complaining about the minimum wage, why not stop putting in minimum effort and then start earning more.

If you are a good worker, you might start out on minimum wage, but you are not going to stay on it.


----------



## Value Collector (22 July 2015)

kid hustlr said:


> Let alone someone on 6 figures




people on 6 figures still only need one breakfast a day. I think my food budget would be about that figure, of course that is not counting alcohol or meals out / takeaway (which I probably have to many of)


----------



## sinner (22 July 2015)

hahahahaha this has got to be the craziest thread I ever started.

All I wanted to do was share a quick spreadsheet I made to satisfy an even quicker curiosity I had and it's led to all sorts of peoples insecurities and opinions floating to the surface.



> It is hilarious. These things. You CAN survive, as people don't die, but you won't LIVE.
> 
> I say this to people. You think say you live on X per week ? Well you earn Y now which means you should be saving Z ? So you should have K many hundreds of thousands in the bank ? No ? Well you're full of **** then.
> 
> If you haven't done it, you don't know if you can happily live on X dollars per week. If you had done it you'd have the savings to prove it.




I am not sure where you get "many hundreds of thousands" from, but yeah, the difference between production and consumption is where >80% of my monthly cashflow comes from and months where I save >50% of my total net income are common.

You can *live*. If life is about the cinema and pub and whatever to you, maybe not. But if life is about fresh air, sunshine, good friends, music, etc...I think you will find you can live pretty happily with not much money at all mate! My advice is to take a leaf out of the page of backpackers, who *live* very rewarding travel based existences on a shoestring or less.



> 310 dollars a month for food seems obscenely low for anyone. Let alone someone on 6 figures




Depends on what you eat! I mostly make my own food from vegetables and stuff from the butcher. For breakfast, yoghurt with nuts and a banana. Lunch and dinner are usually some form of healthy stew, or something quick like tuna+noodles+frozen vegetables. Sometimes I will visit the local Vietnamese shops and get a pork roll for $4.50 or a lemongrass chicken noodle salad for $5.

Doesn't cost much, especially if you make friends with the farmers at your local markets, shop on Sunday afternoons, buy staples on special, etc.

Also, given my salary, it's not a hard and fast number (I have an addiction to blueberries, those are pretty expensive) but personally I am much more interested in living below my means than at or above them. 



> I live on a disability pension, live in the inner west and while I have few possessions I survive just fine although I'd like to start making some money... I can do that easily enough working jobs I hate or I could use my loaf and figure out a better way.




Please excuse me in advance if I am being forward or rude (as it is not my intention), but what kind of disability do you have that allows you to claim the disability pension while still being capable of "working jobs you hate"? Some of my friends have completely debilitating mental issues like anxiety while still appearing very physically fit and healthy, so I can understand if it is something like that.



> In Sydney with a low income = you have to share to save.




A good rule of thumb! When I first moved out of my parents home many years ago now, myself and 2 mates rented a townhouse near uni and our workplaces for $300 all up a week, i.e. $100/wk each. From what I remember, I was grossing about 45k while working ~36h a week (3x12h shifts in operations) and attending uni full time. So cheap rent at the time is what allowed me to save my first capital base!
I still live in a sharehouse with close friends, which means I get to live only 2 stops from Central station and 15 mins walk from Newtown for $170/wk. I know not everyone likes sharehouse living, but we all get along and I am proud of my ability to control inflation in my largest expense over those years.


----------



## Mrmagoo (26 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Instead of complaining about the minimum wage, why not stop putting in minimum effort and then start earning more.
> 
> If you are a good worker, you might start out on minimum wage, but you are not going to stay on it.




What a ridiculous statement. I earn way more than the minimum wage. Just because I care about people on the minimum wage, does not mean that is what I earn ! Some people have the capacity to care about others. I know this might seem like a strange and weird concept.


----------



## Mrmagoo (26 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> people on 6 figures still only need one breakfast a day. I think my food budget would be about that figure, of course that is not counting alcohol or meals out / takeaway (which I probably have to many of)




So your food budget is about $310 a month, apart from the food that you eat.


----------



## Vixs (26 July 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> So your food budget is about $310 a month, apart from the food that you eat.




Many people class that as 'Entertainment'. You can certainly live without alcohol.


----------



## Value Collector (27 July 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> So your food budget is about $310 a month, apart from the food that you eat.




Pretty much that would easily cover regular meals, if you excluded my indulgences. I mean $5 of breakfast cereal and $2 of milk has breakfast covered for more than a week, lunches are not much more and you can do dinners quite cheaply, it all depends what you like to eat I guess.


----------



## Value Collector (27 July 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> What a ridiculous statement. I earn way more than the minimum wage. Just because I care about people on the minimum wage, does not mean that is what I earn ! Some people have the capacity to care about others. I know this might seem like a strange and weird concept.




I can't think of anyone I know who has earned minimum wage on a permanent basis, as I said minimum wage equals minimum effort, if you put in more effort you will earn more, simple as that.

but over on the property thread I remember you complaining about the money tradies earned, and that only "professionals" should earn good money, you will never see me trying to cap people's earnings, but But by the same token I don't want to install artificial floors either.


----------



## Mrmagoo (27 July 2015)

I never said that. Anyone can see tradesman are overpaid in Australia. 

I don't think any pragmatic person, no matter how left leaning, would say that trade unions have not gone too far with their wage demands.

Most of those guys are pulling 100k+ and that is just those who work for wages. 

It takes a professionals many years to build up to that wage. Often they don't get close until they're in or nearing their 30s. But by that stage it is too late. A decade of the tradesman being on 100k a year means you'll never  catch up.


----------



## So_Cynical (27 July 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> I never said that. Anyone can see tradesman are overpaid in Australia.
> 
> I don't think any pragmatic person, no matter how left leaning, would say that trade unions have not gone too far with their wage demands.
> 
> ...




A lot of those tradies got paid peanuts for many years as apprentices, then spent their first few years as **** kicker tradies with bosses pocketing the big money...not to mention the sweat and crap that has to be put up with.


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 July 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> I never said that. Anyone can see tradesman are overpaid in Australia.
> 
> I don't think any pragmatic person, no matter how left leaning, would say that trade unions have not gone too far with their wage demands.
> 
> ...



I am a tradesman and I agree. When I was doing my 4 year apprenticeship I rode to work on a ten speed racing bike. A lad at work drives a Maloo ute at about 50k worth. .  As for over 100k I do but with 24/7 shift rates on top of base rate. The Monday to Friday day workers about 80k. The highest earning 6 to 7 day week contractors in town 120k to 150k. Obviously the over time hours are the reason.


----------



## poverty (31 July 2015)

Wages are definitely borked in Australia.  Checkout chicks are on $21/hour.  Same job in America pays $7.50.  Just did my taxes and made 74K managing a bottleshop.  Graduate accountant probably starts on what 45K?  Around the same as the checkout chick.


----------



## Value Collector (31 July 2015)

poverty said:


> Wages are definitely borked in Australia.  Checkout chicks are on $21/hour.  Same job in America pays $7.50.  Just did my taxes and made 74K managing a bottleshop.  Graduate accountant probably starts on what 45K?  Around the same as the checkout chick.




If the Aussie dollar keeps falling we may end up about the same as the usa


----------



## Trembling Hand (31 July 2015)

poverty said:


> Wages are definitely borked in Australia.  Checkout chicks are on $21/hour.  Same job in America pays $7.50.  Just did my taxes and made 74K managing a bottleshop.  Graduate accountant probably starts on what 45K?  Around the same as the checkout chick.




Have a look at this chart today from Bloomy,




http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-minimum-wage-only-enough-for-a-bowl-of-ramen


----------



## qldfrog (31 July 2015)

scary!!!


----------



## luutzu (31 July 2015)

poverty said:


> Wages are definitely borked in Australia.  Checkout chicks are on $21/hour.  Same job in America pays $7.50.  Just did my taxes and made 74K managing a bottleshop.  Graduate accountant probably starts on what 45K?  Around the same as the checkout chick.




Have you check how much you'd make in the US? 


My brother in law's ex work for Woolworths. It's shift work and they move you around anytime... when you first started you get a couple hours here and there to equivalent of part-time... then move to full time equivalent after a couple years and have more stable days but still shifitng a couple days a week. 

They have to buy their own uniform... I didnt ask about super or leave but yea. Not as great as it works out to be.

Don't think we ought to race to the bottom, it's not good for people in general and not good for consumer demand and economic growth either.


----------



## Bill M (1 August 2015)

luutzu said:


> They have to buy their own uniform... I didnt ask about super or leave but yea. Not as great as it works out to be.
> 
> Don't think we ought to race to the bottom, it's not good for people in general and not good for consumer demand and economic growth either.




Yep that's about right. Most people don't even know that Coles staff have to pay for their own uniform. 

Super is the minimum by law that they have to pay, nothing more.

Lets hold up our standing in the world, keep our standard of living up, the last thing I would want for our country is the backward step towards a system like the USA.


----------



## Vixs (1 August 2015)

Uniform would be subsidised surely? Still likely to be cheaper than equivalent non branded clothes.it is also tax deductible and laundry costs you can claim in part for uniforms. Surprising but not that big a deal.

The reality is if staff cost less then managers may not send them home asap and we may get more reliable hours for them.

Job security, the casualisation of the workforce and underemployment are massive factors that need to be addressed if we want to maintain our standard of living. A modest salary is better than a generous casual rate but no hours.


----------



## So_Cynical (1 August 2015)

Vixs said:


> The reality is if staff cost less then managers may not send them home asap and we may get more reliable hours for them.




Really? - so if staff cost less then coles and woolies wouldn't need self service checkouts? banks would stop moving call centers off shore and employ locals, all these businesses would stop making billion dollar profits and employ locals.?

Horse ****!


----------



## sydboy007 (2 August 2015)

Vixs said:


> The reality is if staff cost less then managers may not send them home asap and we may get more reliable hours for them.




I still remember the story of American Airlines back in the late 80s where they estimate that cutting just 1 olive from each first class salad would save them roughly $40K a year.  The former Northwest Airlines saved $500,000 per year by cutting its limes into 16 pieces instead of 10, and found that the cleaning crews could save 10 minutes per flight by not having to clean ashtrays onboard the aircraft. 

So no, I don't think lower minimum pay will do much to stop staff being sent home quick smart.  The bottom line is the bottom line.


----------



## Value Collector (2 August 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> So no, I don't think lower minimum pay will do much to stop staff being sent home quick smart.  The bottom line is the bottom line.




At the last Woolworths investor day, the topic of the number of staff hours invested in each store came up regularly, and was being weighed against the customer satisfaction levels, I think there is a balance between costs and levels of service that is needed, stores with not enough staff hours invested started to under perform, so there is a balance, if staff were cheaper, they would invest more hours to lift customer satisfaction, when staff is expensive trade offs need to be made, that wouldn't be made if the staff were cheaper.


----------



## Vixs (2 August 2015)

So_Cynical said:


> Really? - so if staff cost less then coles and woolies wouldn't need self service checkouts? banks would stop moving call centers off shore and employ locals, all these businesses would stop making billion dollar profits and employ locals.?
> 
> Horse ****!




The problem with self service checkouts is that they get the job done just fine. There is often no need for a human being to be involved in that transaction and that's unfortunate if your only skill is bagging items. I'd rather people have work but we can't dodge the fact that technology is disrupting many industries, and my own is no exception.

What you're talking about is structural change to job roles. The outsourcing of a whole team or the redundancy of a whole role are different to having employees that want to work full time for you but can only get 14 hours a week, maybe pick up another shift or two if someone is on holidays. One leads to job loss, the other leads to underutilisation that is perhaps even more damaging because those workers are vulnerable as they are rarely in a position of financial strength, and there is always the carrot on a stick permanency just around the corner..maybe. At least when your whole job is gone you know in no uncertain terms that you ned to reskill and move on.

A salary of 1200 net a fortnight would be more conducive to an individuals financial wellbeing and sucess than 900 one week and 300 or even 500 the next. For many people to have the confidence to borrow, spend, live and save they need to have stability of income. We're talking about not much more than the poverty line in income, but financial decisions can be made with some certainty of future cash flows.

Job security and utilisation of the underemployed are important to our future success, but i fear we are headed the wrong way.


----------



## sptrawler (28 August 2015)

Vixs said:


> The problem with self service checkouts is that they get the job done just fine. There is often no need for a human being to be involved in that transaction and that's unfortunate if your only skill is bagging items. I'd rather people have work but we can't dodge the fact that technology is disrupting many industries, and my own is no exception.
> 
> What you're talking about is structural change to job roles. The outsourcing of a whole team or the redundancy of a whole role are different to having employees that want to work full time for you but can only get 14 hours a week, maybe pick up another shift or two if someone is on holidays. One leads to job loss, the other leads to underutilisation that is perhaps even more damaging because those workers are vulnerable as they are rarely in a position of financial strength, and there is always the carrot on a stick permanency just around the corner..maybe. At least when your whole job is gone you know in no uncertain terms that you ned to reskill and move on.
> 
> ...




Welcome to globalisation, why should someone in China packing shelves get any different salary, to someone in Italy, Spain, Greece, U.K, USA or Australia? Other than the exchange rate.

If they are getting less money, in buying power, isn't it exploitation?

Aren't we embarrassed by wage inequality, or is that just confined to our own society?


----------



## luutzu (28 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> At the last Woolworths investor day, the topic of the number of staff hours invested in each store came up regularly, and was being weighed against the customer satisfaction levels, I think there is a balance between costs and levels of service that is needed, stores with not enough staff hours invested started to under perform, so there is a balance, if staff were cheaper, they would invest more hours to lift customer satisfaction, when staff is expensive trade offs need to be made, that wouldn't be made if the staff were cheaper.




Maybe it's not the staff and their wages that's the problem. I heard WOW's head office is a marvel to look at.

Maybe WOW and WES will go the way of WalMart and start handing out food stamps to its underpaid employees. Maybe start a new income stream by charging them for help to fill in under-employment forms. 

Fair enough businesses want to make more profit, is not a charitable or job assistant enterprise... but when your profits mean pushing your employees towards the poverty line, you're either in the wrong business or not thinking hard enough.


----------

