Beggars a sign of the times, or a sign of the welfare state?

luutzu · 12 June 2016

sptrawler said:
Haven't people realised that welfare States can't afford to keep taking in people, who pays for them?

http://www.theage.com.au/world/sri-...at-stranded-in-indonesia-20160612-gphcfe.html

Everyone is spewing about Britain wanting to get out of the EU, but no one is asking, "why do all the refugees line up at the chunnel?

There is going to be a huge people backlash, on the issue. IMO

Can't afford to help refugees and poor Australians, but corporate tax cuts and other goodies to the rich are easy to come by though.

Big Blue doing it tough? Let's put more money into their pockets shall we.

Struggling Australians having two or more properties but the rental income aren't profitable? Let us pay your share of the tax then when you do sell the properties at a profit, all we'd ask is you'd only have half of the profit be taxable income.

Maybe if corporate welfare stops, Australia can afford a to do a thing or two.

sptrawler · 12 June 2016

luutzu said:
Can't afford to help refugees and poor Australians, but corporate tax cuts and other goodies to the rich are easy to come by though.

Big Blue doing it tough? Let's put more money into their pockets shall we.

Struggling Australians having two or more properties but the rental income aren't profitable? Let us pay your share of the tax then when you do sell the properties at a profit, all we'd ask is you'd only have half of the profit be taxable income.

Maybe if corporate welfare stops, Australia can afford a to do a thing or two.

You're probably right, we need to go down to the lowest common denominator, when we have have most with a cardboard billboard, we have reached equilibrium.

Then we can work out how to make everything equitable, we can give everyone the same whether they do anything or not, but those who work will no doubt complain.

We just have to convince them it is for the better good.

Corporate welfare is no different to social welfare, one gives money to create jobs, the other gives money for no job.
Neither is affordable in a contracting economy.

Tisme · 12 June 2016

sptrawler said:
You're probably right, we need to go down to the lowest common denominator, when we have have most with a cardboard billboard, we have reached equilibrium.

Then we can work out how to make everything equitable, we can give everyone the same whether they do anything or not, but those who work will no doubt complain.

We just have to convince them it is for the better good.

Corporate welfare is no different to social welfare, one gives money to create jobs, the other gives money for no job.
Neither is affordable in a contracting economy.

What ? Is there a codec that comes with that?

luutzu · 12 June 2016

sptrawler said:
You're probably right, we need to go down to the lowest common denominator, when we have have most with a cardboard billboard, we have reached equilibrium.

Then we can work out how to make everything equitable, we can give everyone the same whether they do anything or not, but those who work will no doubt complain.

We just have to convince them it is for the better good.

Corporate welfare is no different to social welfare, one gives money to create jobs, the other gives money for no job.
Neither is affordable in a contracting economy.

How's the job-creation thing working out?

Last I remember, Labor got overthrown for trying to tax carbon and the mining boom super profit. We're told that's irresponsible because, well, because jobs will be lost. Tax was repealed, jobs still goes

If I were to tell people who work for me that they'll be richer if I pay them less, you reckon they'll buy that? Would you buy that yourself?

But yes, hand over our cash and let them make us rich.

Works out so well for every economies it's been implemened that the gov't then have to cut and cut and sell of assets after assets.

sptrawler · 13 June 2016

luutzu said:
How's the job-creation thing working out?

Last I remember, Labor got overthrown for trying to tax carbon and the mining boom super profit. We're told that's irresponsible because, well, because jobs will be lost. Tax was repealed, jobs still goes

If I were to tell people who work for me that they'll be richer if I pay them less, you reckon they'll buy that? Would you buy that yourself?

But yes, hand over our cash and let them make us rich.

Works out so well for every economies it's been implemened that the gov't then have to cut and cut and sell of assets after assets.

!. Well the job creation thing isn't working out well because, labour is expensive.

2. Labor were thrown out for taxing carbon which made industries that used electricity expensive, and taxing mining super profits was a fizzog because mining has gone bust, if you hadn't noticed.

3. If you tell the people who work for you they will be richer if you pay them more, but can't sell your product, because it costs too much. do you think they will buy that?

How dumb do you think workers are, I know people are taking pay cuts to keep their jobs, you obviously think upward ever upward is the norm?

The Government will no doubt have to borrow money, to build infrastructure, to improve produductivity and reduce bottlenecks.

If they then have to sell that infrastructure to pay for further infrastructure, so be it, it isn't all about remaining static.

There will be an ever increasing demand on Government to supply infrastructure to support economic growth, as the population and economy grows.

If they don't supply it, bottlenecks and loss of productivity is the result.

It isn't all about warm feel good education, health and social spending.

sptrawler · 13 June 2016

Tisme said:
What ? Is there a codec that comes with that?

No, work it out for yourself.

luutzu · 13 June 2016

sptrawler said:
!. Well the job creation thing isn't working out well because, labour is expensive.

2. Labor were thrown out for taxing carbon which made industries that used electricity expensive, and taxing mining super profits was a fizzog because mining has gone bust, if you hadn't noticed.

3. If you tell the people who work for you they will be richer if you pay them more, but can't sell your product, because it costs too much. do you think they will buy that?

How dumb do you think workers are, I know people are taking pay cuts to keep their jobs, you obviously think upward ever upward is the norm?

The Government will no doubt have to borrow money, to build infrastructure, to improve produductivity and reduce bottlenecks.

If they then have to sell that infrastructure to pay for further infrastructure, so be it, it isn't all about remaining static.

There will be an ever increasing demand on Government to supply infrastructure to support economic growth, as the population and economy grows.

If they don't supply it, bottlenecks and loss of productivity is the result.

It isn't all about warm feel good education, health and social spending.

My brother often said that if a company doesn't need you, they won't pay you even if it's for $1 an hour, won't even let you work for free either.

So what make a business needing workers? When there is demand for what the business is serving up.

There won't be much demand if the local plebs don't have much to buy with. So it's a bs argument being served up by business that they can't afford to pay more but must always pay less.

"Expensive" is relative.

If a person don't have money, something that costs $5 is way out of reach; If they earn a decent, stable income... what costs $10 could be very affordable and cheap.

So again, the argument that workers must earn less so we could all benefit is a total lie. In cases where it is not an outright lie, does the business owner/corporations also make the sacrifices too? Do they also opt to make less profit or maintain their margin at workers' expense?

take WOW or Westfarmers/Coles... They're profitable, but their workers still earn less and less. Or WalMart - the biggest retailer in the world with billions in profit a year... can't afford to pay their workers a living wage. Right.

-----

Why must national assets and utilities be sold to "afford" new infrastructures?
Do we all sell the family car, catches taxis so we could afford a new bathroom? Save up, work hard, tax properly - pay for both and still save money.

We sell the stuff that's been paid for and established as a national necessity. Once sold, we consumers keep paying higher and higher rates... and with those pay, we hope and pray those private investors keep some of the cash in the business to adequately keep maintenance up to scratch - if they wer eto do what National Pacific (as Smurf was saying a while back), or as Virgin rail did in the UK and pay themselves big dividends from reduced maintenance and safety, from emptying workers' pensions and cutting their pay and cutting their jobs.... then when the machines and the overworked and underpaid people failed, the gov't have to step in and bail them out or buy back to assets to fix again.

---

In downturn or when business are doing it tough... owners and workers should make sacrifices. That's rarely what happen though. The way it is with "Free Trade", with removal of union or much workers' protection from anyone... it is the workers that's doing all the sacrifices.

It's what Alan Greenspan gleefully call "workers insecurity" - something he and big business are very proud of because it keeps costs down and productivity up and profit high.

Keep unemployment at 5 to 6% is ideal, according to them... it keeps the workers on their feet.

And we're too happy to oblige.

----

Study is not about wishy washy "arts" degree. Study is about training your people, your future electorates, future employees and employers... teach them technical skills, advanced skills to produce quality work from farsighted thinking. Not just about reading and writing poetry or literature, though that too does help a great deal.

To put moral obligation and valuing a fair go and social justice.... that's an investment worth making for a civilised society, for lack of better word.

That or we just dump the kids down, don't teach them much, make them scare for their jobs and afraid of immigrants and refugees taking their jobs or their benefits... so remove the "benefits" so we alll are screwed too. Then we could all be happy earning less, paying more, make the rich richer so we'd all be rich - eventually.

Race to the bottom they call it. But then one must go to the bottom to get up again... so maybe it'll work.

sptrawler · 13 June 2016

luutzu said:
My brother often said that if a company doesn't need you, they won't pay you even if it's for $1 an hour, won't even let you work for free either.

So what make a business needing workers? When there is demand for what the business is serving up.

There won't be much demand if the local plebs don't have much to buy with. So it's a bs argument being served up by business that they can't afford to pay more but must always pay less.

"Expensive" is relative.

If a person don't have money, something that costs $5 is way out of reach; If they earn a decent, stable income... what costs $10 could be very affordable and cheap.

So again, the argument that workers must earn less so we could all benefit is a total lie. In cases where it is not an outright lie, does the business owner/corporations also make the sacrifices too? Do they also opt to make less profit or maintain their margin at workers' expense?

take WOW or Westfarmers/Coles... They're profitable, but their workers still earn less and less. Or WalMart - the biggest retailer in the world with billions in profit a year... can't afford to pay their workers a living wage. Right.

-----

Why must national assets and utilities be sold to "afford" new infrastructures?
Do we all sell the family car, catches taxis so we could afford a new bathroom? Save up, work hard, tax properly - pay for both and still save money.

We sell the stuff that's been paid for and established as a national necessity. Once sold, we consumers keep paying higher and higher rates... and with those pay, we hope and pray those private investors keep some of the cash in the business to adequately keep maintenance up to scratch - if they wer eto do what National Pacific (as Smurf was saying a while back), or as Virgin rail did in the UK and pay themselves big dividends from reduced maintenance and safety, from emptying workers' pensions and cutting their pay and cutting their jobs.... then when the machines and the overworked and underpaid people failed, the gov't have to step in and bail them out or buy back to assets to fix again.

---

In downturn or when business are doing it tough... owners and workers should make sacrifices. That's rarely what happen though. The way it is with "Free Trade", with removal of union or much workers' protection from anyone... it is the workers that's doing all the sacrifices.

It's what Alan Greenspan gleefully call "workers insecurity" - something he and big business are very proud of because it keeps costs down and productivity up and profit high.

Keep unemployment at 5 to 6% is ideal, according to them... it keeps the workers on their feet.

And we're too happy to oblige.

----

Study is not about wishy washy "arts" degree. Study is about training your people, your future electorates, future employees and employers... teach them technical skills, advanced skills to produce quality work from farsighted thinking. Not just about reading and writing poetry or literature, though that too does help a great deal.

To put moral obligation and valuing a fair go and social justice.... that's an investment worth making for a civilised society, for lack of better word.

That or we just dump the kids down, don't teach them much, make them scare for their jobs and afraid of immigrants and refugees taking their jobs or their benefits... so remove the "benefits" so we alll are screwed too. Then we could all be happy earning less, paying more, make the rich richer so we'd all be rich - eventually.

Race to the bottom they call it. But then one must go to the bottom to get up again... so maybe it'll work.

I agree withy your sentiments, but the reality is a business has to sell its product at a sensible price, or consumers will buy an alternative.

As Aldi is showing, if they can source their product from a cheaper overseas source, they can then sell it here at a lower cost than Woolies and Coles.
The local consumer will buy the cheaper product, rather than support Local business and buy the local product. This in turn makes the local product dearer, as the business has to put the price up to cover the loss of sales, a bit of a vicious circle.

With regard wages, they are dropping, due to the renegotiation of EBA's.
Also they are dropping in relative terms, due to the devaluation of the $Aus, this in turn makes our product more competitive.

With regard selling infrastructure, it depends what it is IMO, they shouldn't sell essential services.
However, if selling a road or bank or airline to fund required infrastructure, saves them having to increase taxes then it needs to be weighed up.
Your example of selling the family car to use taxis, IMO isn't the way I see it. I see it more like selling the family car, to buy a new one.

Just another circle really.

sptrawler · 13 June 2016

luutzu said:
My brother often said that if a company doesn't need you, they won't pay you even if it's for $1 an hour, won't even let you work for free either.

So what make a business needing workers? When there is demand for what the business is serving up.

There won't be much demand if the local plebs don't have much to buy with. So it's a bs argument being served up by business that they can't afford to pay more but must always pay less.

"Expensive" is relative.

If a person don't have money, something that costs $5 is way out of reach; If they earn a decent, stable income... what costs $10 could be very affordable and cheap.

So again, the argument that workers must earn less so we could all benefit is a total lie. In cases where it is not an outright lie, does the business owner/corporations also make the sacrifices too? Do they also opt to make less profit or maintain their margin at workers' expense?

take WOW or Westfarmers/Coles... They're profitable, but their workers still earn less and less. Or WalMart - the biggest retailer in the world with billions in profit a year... can't afford to pay their workers a living wage. Right.

-----

Why must national assets and utilities be sold to "afford" new infrastructures?
Do we all sell the family car, catches taxis so we could afford a new bathroom? Save up, work hard, tax properly - pay for both and still save money.

We sell the stuff that's been paid for and established as a national necessity. Once sold, we consumers keep paying higher and higher rates... and with those pay, we hope and pray those private investors keep some of the cash in the business to adequately keep maintenance up to scratch - if they wer eto do what National Pacific (as Smurf was saying a while back), or as Virgin rail did in the UK and pay themselves big dividends from reduced maintenance and safety, from emptying workers' pensions and cutting their pay and cutting their jobs.... then when the machines and the overworked and underpaid people failed, the gov't have to step in and bail them out or buy back to assets to fix again.

---

In downturn or when business are doing it tough... owners and workers should make sacrifices. That's rarely what happen though. The way it is with "Free Trade", with removal of union or much workers' protection from anyone... it is the workers that's doing all the sacrifices.

It's what Alan Greenspan gleefully call "workers insecurity" - something he and big business are very proud of because it keeps costs down and productivity up and profit high.

Keep unemployment at 5 to 6% is ideal, according to them... it keeps the workers on their feet.

And we're too happy to oblige.

----

Study is not about wishy washy "arts" degree. Study is about training your people, your future electorates, future employees and employers... teach them technical skills, advanced skills to produce quality work from farsighted thinking. Not just about reading and writing poetry or literature, though that too does help a great deal.

To put moral obligation and valuing a fair go and social justice.... that's an investment worth making for a civilised society, for lack of better word.

That or we just dump the kids down, don't teach them much, make them scare for their jobs and afraid of immigrants and refugees taking their jobs or their benefits... so remove the "benefits" so we alll are screwed too. Then we could all be happy earning less, paying more, make the rich richer so we'd all be rich - eventually.

Race to the bottom they call it. But then one must go to the bottom to get up again... so maybe it'll work.

Just read this article, it is a sign of the times, I'm not saying it is good or bad, just a sign of the times.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/31821439/umpire-slashes-coal-workers-wages-by-43-per-cent/

luutzu · 13 June 2016

sptrawler said:
I agree withy your sentiments, but the reality is a business has to sell its product at a sensible price, or consumers will buy an alternative.

As Aldi is showing, if they can source their product from a cheaper overseas source, they can then sell it here at a lower cost than Woolies and Coles.
The local consumer will buy the cheaper product, rather than support Local business and buy the local product. This in turn makes the local product dearer, as the business has to put the price up to cover the loss of sales, a bit of a vicious circle.

With regard wages, they are dropping, due to the renegotiation of EBA's.
Also they are dropping in relative terms, due to the devaluation of the $Aus, this in turn makes our product more competitive.

With regard selling infrastructure, it depends what it is IMO, they shouldn't sell essential services.
However, if selling a road or bank or airline to fund required infrastructure, saves them having to increase taxes then it needs to be weighed up.
Your example of selling the family car to use taxis, IMO isn't the way I see it. I see it more like selling the family car, to buy a new one.

Just another circle really.

One way is buy cheap stuff for cheap, the other is buy good quality stuff for cheap-still.

Whether something is cheap or not depends a lot on our wallet.

Your analogy is too generous Homer. We're not selling the car to buy another car, we're selling it to rent it back, then use that money to build a bathroom. Then once the bathroom is done, we'd sell it too - just to rent it back again.

Look how much money CBA would have return to us the public if we'd held on to it. A few hundred billions... instead of going towards the public treasury they now go to "mom and pop" battling Australians who own stocks and living off the dividends.

I'm not saying socialise and public own everything... there's a place for private enterprise, there's a place for public ownership. Politicians have to really represents the national interests and make decisions as they would for their own family.

So if I were to sell my car, believe me, the guy who buy it ain't gonna make hundreds of billions off of us in return for it.

luutzu · 13 June 2016

sptrawler said:
Just read this article, it is a sign of the times, I'm not saying it is good or bad, just a sign of the times.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/31821439/umpire-slashes-coal-workers-wages-by-43-per-cent/

Sign of the time alright.

Where businesses are doing it so tough the workers have to have their wages cut in half.

If the business can't operate protably, shut it down.

sptrawler · 13 June 2016

luutzu said:
I'm not saying socialise and public own everything... there's a place for private enterprise, there's a place for public ownership. Politicians have to really represents the national interests and make decisions as they would for their own family.
.

That sums it up perfectly.

trainspotter · 13 June 2016

luutzu said:
One way is buy cheap stuff for cheap, the other is buy good quality stuff for cheap-still.

Whether something is cheap or not depends a lot on our wallet.

Your analogy is too generous Homer. We're not selling the car to buy another car, we're selling it to rent it back, then use that money to build a bathroom. Then once the bathroom is done, we'd sell it too - just to rent it back again.

Look how much money CBA would have return to us the public if we'd held on to it. A few hundred billions... instead of going towards the public treasury they now go to "mom and pop" battling Australians who own stocks and living off the dividends.

I'm not saying socialise and public own everything... there's a place for private enterprise, there's a place for public ownership. Politicians have to really represents the national interests and make decisions as they would for their own family.

So if I were to sell my car, believe me, the guy who buy it ain't gonna make hundreds of billions off of us in return for it.

So if the succeeding governments did not sell the following government owned utilities you are saying we all would be better off??

sptrawler · 13 June 2016

luutzu said:
Your analogy is too generous Homer. We're not selling the car to buy another car, we're selling it to rent it back, then use that money to build a bathroom. Then once the bathroom is done, we'd sell it too - just to rent it back again..

Well that is subjective, if you don't need a car and need a bathroom, hanging onto the car and not washing may be an option, or borrow money to build the bathroom.

But what happens when you need a toilet and don't want to sell the car or the bathroom?

It is a bit like what is happening with coal fired power stations, ten years ago you would have got a zillion dollars for them, now you couldn't give them away.
But Governments own plenty of them.

luutzu said:
Look how much money CBA would have return to us the public if we'd held on to it. A few hundred billions... instead of going towards the public treasury they now go to "mom and pop" battling Australians who own stocks and living off the dividends..

A bit like Telstra, the government sold the last tranche at $7.40, when was the last time you saw that price.
No doubt you would say they are paying a dividend, and so they are, those who receive them probably require less welfare. The Government also gets its share of the profits through company and wages tax and GST.

Also keeping it under Government ownership, would have caused huge conflict with private providers, as the taxpayer subsidy chesnut, would be rolled out endlessly.

If it hadn't been sold, the taxpayer would still have to cough up for the NBN, Telstra would still have to give overseas companies free access and value plus revenue would be crashing.

The same with CBA, if it was Government owned, they wouldn't be allowed to charge the same interest as private banks, because it would be percieved as being taxpayer funded.
Also pressure would be applied by Government to offer better interest on savings for pensioners, which again would be percieved as being taxpayer funded a no win situation.

sptrawler · 5 July 2016

luutzu said:
Sign of the time alright.

Where businesses are doing it so tough the workers have to have their wages cut in half.

If the business can't operate protably, shut it down.

A further update on the Griffin Coal situation in Collie W.A

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-...rs-fight-fair-work-commission-pay-cut/7569476

One section of the article I thought was badly reported was this.

Griffin Coal has also asked employees to work 14 days in every three weeks, up from 10.5 days.

It may have sounded better if they had said, 14 days in 21, up from 10.5 days in 21.

Maybe not.:1zhelp:

Smurf1976 · 5 July 2016

sptrawler said:
A further update on the Griffin Coal situation in Collie W.A

Long term I think the coal mines at Collie are stuffed. No other way to put it really.

The coal is OK but it's not great (sub-bituminous). Trouble is, with the global industry downturn there's an abundance of better quality bituminous coal available to anyone who wants to buy it. So the potential for exports isn't great although it's not zero.

Muja power station is getting old and with the rise of solar generation in WA its days are likely numbered at least in terms of running at full output. Bluewaters power station (both of them) are far newer but also will have to compete with solar etc and technically aren't well suited to that.

Reserves are substantial but not massive. It seems as though there's 750 million tonnes or thereabouts but how much of that is economically able to be mined? Ask that question and the answer seems to be in the 25 - 50% range.

My guess is the whole thing will limp on for quite a long time yet but it won't be still running, at all, 30 years from now. One of those things that undergoes a slow but inevitable decline until at some point the plug is pulled (almost literally in this case) and most likely that will be whenever the Bluewaters stations become due for a major refurb and the owners decide it's not profitable. Much like what's happened with Leigh Creek and the Port Augusta power stations in SA but slower in WA's case due to being an isolated system with greater reliance on local coal to start with.

sptrawler · 5 July 2016

Smurf1976 said:
Long term I think the coal mines at Collie are stuffed. No other way to put it really.

The coal is OK but it's not great (sub-bituminous). Trouble is, with the global industry downturn there's an abundance of better quality bituminous coal available to anyone who wants to buy it. So the potential for exports isn't great although it's not zero.

Muja power station is getting old and with the rise of solar generation in WA its days are likely numbered at least in terms of running at full output. Bluewaters power station (both of them) are far newer but also will have to compete with solar etc and technically aren't well suited to that.

Reserves are substantial but not massive. It seems as though there's 750 million tonnes or thereabouts but how much of that is economically able to be mined? Ask that question and the answer seems to be in the 25 - 50% range.

My guess is the whole thing will limp on for quite a long time yet but it won't be still running, at all, 30 years from now. One of those things that undergoes a slow but inevitable decline until at some point the plug is pulled (almost literally in this case) and most likely that will be whenever the Bluewaters stations become due for a major refurb and the owners decide it's not profitable. Much like what's happened with Leigh Creek and the Port Augusta power stations in SA but slower in WA's case due to being an isolated system with greater reliance on local coal to start with.

Absolutely on the mark smurph, perfect summation of the issue, all the ranting and marching on Parliament won't change it.
Also as you point out Collie coal isn't high quality, so is only viable for power generation.

The changing of the workers back to a 9 day fortnight, isn't an isolated case, the line crews are going through the same process, from what I've heard.

Tisme · 6 July 2016

luutzu said:
Can't afford to help refugees and poor Australians, but corporate tax cuts and other goodies to the rich are easy to come by though.

Big Blue doing it tough? Let's put more money into their pockets shall we.

Struggling Australians having two or more properties but the rental income aren't profitable? Let us pay your share of the tax then when you do sell the properties at a profit, all we'd ask is you'd only have half of the profit be taxable income.

Maybe if corporate welfare stops, Australia can afford a to do a thing or two.

Now the election activity is almost over, will be be seeing you back on the forum luutzu

luutzu · 6 July 2016

Tisme said:
Now the election activity is almost over, will be be seeing you back on the forum luutzu

Oh I wasn't off for electioneering stuff. I knew politics isn't for me during uni when I was outraged when our student body representatives decided to use all the Assc. savings towards each of their trip to Paris "to study and learn from other student representatives" from all over the world.

And that was small time student body politics. Imagine the real world with serious money at play. :frown:

luutzu · 6 July 2016

trainspotter said:
View attachment 67096

So if the succeeding governments did not sell the following government owned utilities you are saying we all would be better off??

View attachment 67097

CBA was sold for... $8B in total? Its latest half year NPAT was $4.5B.

Good investment decision to flock that loser off ey.

I also like how Sydney Airport now put the Express Pick Up ten minutes away from Arrival gates and "give" people 15 minutes free pickup time.

Beggars a sign of the times, or a sign of the welfare state?

luutzu

sptrawler

Tisme

Apathetic at Best

luutzu

sptrawler

sptrawler

luutzu

sptrawler

sptrawler

luutzu

luutzu

sptrawler

trainspotter

sptrawler

sptrawler

Smurf1976

sptrawler

Tisme

Apathetic at Best

luutzu

luutzu

Beggars a sign of the times, or a sign of the welfare state?

Apathetic at Best

Apathetic at Best

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency