Gina Rinehart: "spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising"

Tyler Durden · 30 August 2012

Treasurer Wayne Swan has slammed mining magnate Gina Rinehart for insulting Australian workers after she accused people of being jealous of the wealthy.

Mrs Rinehart, Australia's richest person, says those who are jealous of the wealthy should start working harder and cut down on drinking, smoking and socialising.

In her regular column in Australian Resources and Investment magazine, she wrote it was billionaires like herself who were doing more than anyone to help the poor by investing their money and creating jobs.

"There is no monopoly on becoming a millionaire," Mrs Rinehart wrote.

"If you're jealous of those with more money, don't just sit there and complain. Do something to make more money yourself - spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising, and more time working.

"Become one of those people who work hard, invest and build, and at the same time create employment and opportunities for others."

She also suggested the government should lower the minimum wage of $606.40 a week and cut taxes to stimulate employment.

But Mr Swan said the comments were "an insult to the millions of Australian workers who go to work and slog it out to feed the kids and pay the bills".

...

"A lot of people work very hard and work a lot harder than Gina Rinehart does and take home less each week than her."

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...ult-to-millions-treasurer-20120830-251u5.html

Apparently this has drawn a lot of criticism against Gina Rinehart. Any thoughts?

I don't agree with lowering minimum wage, however, I do agree with her that if people want to get wealthy, they should stop complaining, stop spending, and start learning to invest or of other ways to make money.

The government says what they say to keep everyone sheltered from how money and the world really works (could you imagine if everyone stopped spending??), and the comment about working harder than Gina Rinehart...well, people need to know that working hard does not equal wealth.

JTLP · 30 August 2012

Not sure about lowering the minimum wage. People don't really want to work for peanuts (although somebody will do it).

She's right about the rest though - people need to stop holding out their hands for a feed and learn to cook themselves. Nobody ever got rich collecting Newstart payments and buying Winnie Golds 24/7.

Sure; hard work may not equal millions...at least it will teach people the value of a $.

Tannin · 30 August 2012

The woman who inherited an unimaginably vast fortune by pure accident of birth is complaining about the people who were not born with her wealth and privelege.

Go figure.

Tannin · 30 August 2012

PS: lowering the minimum wage will reduce wealth, not create it. It won't hurt Rhinehart, but most Australians will go backwards. Not just the poor workers either, businesses across the board should fear a drop in real wages, because it is only be selling things that any of our companies make a quid. If you own shares in supermarkets, take-away foiod chains, TV stations, advertising agencies, building materials suppliers, energy companies, telcos, movie houses, retailers, transport companies, theme parks, hairderssers - in fact just about anything that relies on people buying goods or services - and Rinehart gets her way, your company goes backwards and you lose. Think it through.

doctorj · 30 August 2012

Tannin said:
PS: lowering the minimum wage will reduce wealth, not create it. Think it through.

It’s not that simple… economics 101 says that a minimum wage above equilibrium reduces the number of people employed. Now, in the boom times, demand for employees was fairly price inelastic so min wage was less of an issue, but as times get tougher, a higher minimum wage will reduce employment.

waimate01 · 31 August 2012

What she's saying is right, but she's the wrong person to be saying it.

(Frank Lowy, the self-made refguee, would be a better one to say it)

DB008 · 31 August 2012

Tannin said:
The woman who inherited an unimaginably vast fortune by pure accident of birth is complaining about the people who were not born with her wealth and privelege.

Go figure.

$75 million?
Unimaginable vast fortune?
No. Someone has won that playing Oz Lotto.

The ~$20 Billion she now has is unimaginable.

You should read some of the comments on Reddit /r/Australia. The lefties are going bonkers. LOLOLOLOL

Knobby22 · 31 August 2012

doctorj said:
It’s not that simple… economics 101 says that a minimum wage above equilibrium reduces the number of people employed. Now, in the boom times, demand for employees was fairly price inelastic so min wage was less of an issue, but as times get tougher, a higher minimum wage will reduce employment.
View attachment 48780

THe US has a very low minimum wage and high unemployment. Australia has a high minimum wage and low unemployment. So much for "classical economics".

What amazes me is that Gina wants to lower our wages so she can make more money. She could never spend what she has now! What is wrong with the workers getting good money working for her? They will spend it within the economy which in turn helps others survive in their businesses. I know she is upset because she is bringing in foreign workers but being forced to pay them an Australian wage.

prawn_86 · 31 August 2012

DB008 said:
$75 million?
Unimaginable vast fortune?
No. Someone has won that playing Oz Lotto.

The ~$20 Billion she now has is unimaginable.

I dont doubt she has worked hard, but 75m (even more inflation adjusted) is a huge leg up. Money breeds money

Working harder doesnt make the average person wealthly, it might make them slightly richer, but not wealthy. Working smarter is what is needed. Why should i put in an 80 hour week when i can get the same money for a 35 hour week and put those extra hours to use trying to develop somehting else...?

drsmith · 31 August 2012

I don't know that Gina's the one to be handing out advice on socialising given her own family situation.

She would do better to restrict her comments to about how government regulation and taxation can be improved in relation to economic efficiency.

She did apparently employ a media manager at one point, but that only lasted 2 months because she didn't take his advice.

Happy · 31 August 2012

Truth hurts, that's why some did not take it too well.

I wander how would it go with her, if somebody said that she should eat less?

But on the other hand by spending money on food, her consumption keeps our food industry going.

Calliope · 31 August 2012

Another Wayne Swan supportive hate Gina Rinehart thread.

Julia · 31 August 2012

waimate01 said:
What she's saying is right, but she's the wrong person to be saying it.

(Frank Lowy, the self-made refguee, would be a better one to say it)

+1. Just as well Ms Rinehart isn't seeking employment in the diplomatic service.

white_goodman · 31 August 2012

Tannin said:
PS: lowering the minimum wage will reduce wealth, not create it. It won't hurt Rhinehart, but most Australians will go backwards. Not just the poor workers either, businesses across the board should fear a drop in real wages, because it is only be selling things that any of our companies make a quid. If you own shares in supermarkets, take-away foiod chains, TV stations, advertising agencies, building materials suppliers, energy companies, telcos, movie houses, retailers, transport companies, theme parks, hairderssers - in fact just about anything that relies on people buying goods or services - and Rinehart gets her way, your company goes backwards and you lose. Think it through.

you have obviously never done economics, if minimum wage was increased to $100/hr would this increase employment and wealth for all?

There is no debate whatsoever in economics on whether abolishing minimum wage reduces unemployment, its only a political problem due to the bulk of people such as yourself not understanding.

Being for the minimum wage in effect makes you anti-poor and a racist.. despite whatever noble objectives it has

prawn_86 · 31 August 2012

white_goodman said:
There is no debate whatsoever in economics on whether abolishing minimum wage reduces unemployment, its only a political problem due to the bulk of people such as yourself not understanding.

In theory, with no other external (ie political) factors yes, but as others have said, the US has a low minimum wage and higher unemployment than here.

Economics works on a graph, but not always in reality due to the myriad of factors affecting everything, it's not as simple as a 2 axis graph

white_goodman · 31 August 2012

Knobby22 said:
THe US has a very low minimum wage and high unemployment. Australia has a high minimum wage and low unemployment. So much for "classical economics".

What amazes me is that Gina wants to lower our wages so she can make more money. She could never spend what she has now! What is wrong with the workers getting good money working for her? They will spend it within the economy which in turn helps others survive in their businesses. I know she is upset because she is bringing in foreign workers but being forced to pay them an Australian wage.

elephants walking south in June whilst the stock market rallies does not meant elephants are the cause of stock market rallies..

show me how making the minimum wage $100/hr causes more employment...
you dont have sufficient intellectual ability to be commenting on these topics i suggest you stop

white_goodman · 31 August 2012

prawn_86 said:
In theory, with no other external (ie political) factors yes, but as others have said, the US has a low minimum wage and higher unemployment than here.

Economics works on a graph, but not always in reality due to the myriad of factors affecting everything, it's not as simple as a 2 axis graph

that doesnt mean anything, is employment lower here because of a high minimum wage or despite it? what would you imagine would happen if we doubled the minimum wage? what happens to unemployment if we halved the minimum wage? what happens to the prices in the economy in both scenarios?

there is no debate on this in economic circles, price floors and ceilings and its imapcts are not up for debate, unlike all the macro issues that are hotly contested

tech/a · 31 August 2012

prawn_86 said:
I dont doubt she has worked hard, but 75m (even more inflation adjusted) is a huge leg up. Money breeds money

Working harder doesnt make the average person wealthly, it might make them slightly richer, but not wealthy. Working smarter is what is needed. Why should i put in an 80 hour week when i can get the same money for a 35 hour week and put those extra hours to use trying to develop somehting else...?

In this passage your showing just the thing Rinehart wants to see--me too.
I see on TV kids who do nothing but play games and dole bludge.
I see the same in every shopping center---its their day out!

Rarely I see someone knock on our door for a job who actually wants one and not the business card on the desk to fill in their Centerlink Commitments.

A lot of these people have wasted so many opportunities.
Schooling
Apprenticeships
Further education
Work experience
That they are now too old and un employable.

Not only that but they expect top dollar for NO input.

Generally Im with Gina! and would be wether she had a well paid job or is the richest woman in Aust!

prawn_86 · 31 August 2012

tech/a said:
In this passage your showing just the thing Rinehart wants to see--me too.

It all depends what you are doing with the spare time. Personally i would rather work a 40 hour week (as i do now), earn great money, and then use that money and excess time to try and build up another form of income stream for myself. If i was working "harder" (ie more hours for an employer) i wouldn't have that chance

I assume that is what you and Gina are talking about? Doing somehting with your life?

white_goodman · 31 August 2012

prawn_86 said:
It all depends what you are doing with the spare time. Personally i would rather work a 40 hour week (as i do now), earn great money, and then use that money and excess time to try and build up another form of income stream for myself. If i was working "harder" (ie more hours for an employer) i wouldn't have that chance

I assume that is what you and Gina are talking about? Doing somehting with your life?

i think your both right, as imo your still technically working, just 40hrs in formal work

Gina Rinehart: "spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising"

Tyler Durden

JTLP

Tannin

Tannin

doctorj

Hatchet Moderator

waimate01

DB008

Knobby22

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

prawn_86

Mod: Call me Dendrobranchiata

drsmith

Happy

Calliope

Julia

In Memoriam

white_goodman

BOC

prawn_86

Mod: Call me Dendrobranchiata

white_goodman

BOC

white_goodman

BOC

tech/a

No Ordinary Duck

prawn_86

Mod: Call me Dendrobranchiata

white_goodman

BOC

Similar threads

Gina Rinehart: "spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising"

Hatchet Moderator

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

Mod: Call me Dendrobranchiata

In Memoriam

BOC

Mod: Call me Dendrobranchiata

BOC

BOC

No Ordinary Duck

Mod: Call me Dendrobranchiata

BOC

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency