By Jackie Woods      
Working Life
Tuesday, 03 February 2015

TONY Abbott fudged a question about the minimum wage at his National Press Club address yesterday. 

Asked by news.com.au political editor Malcolm Farr if he was aware of any credible evidence that removing the minimum wage would create more jobs, he insisted it was not on his agenda.

But the fact remains a Productivity Commission review set up by his government has put the minimum wage front and centre of its review of Australia’s workplace laws and protections.

And business groups are urging the government to act on a recommendation by the Commission of Audit last year to scrap the role of the independent umpire in setting the minimum wage, and allow it to fall over the next decade.

As the Productivity Commission review gathers steam, business groups will push their well-rehearsed agenda. The minimum wage costs jobs, they say.

Just think, if employers could pay workers less there could be so many more jobs. Minimum wage workers could have two or three or four jobs to pay the bills – lucky them!

This week’s Essential Report shows voters agree there’s a problem with the minimum wage: IT’S TOO LOW.   :(

A strong majority – 61% of voters across Australia – think the minimum wage is too low. A quarter of voters think our $16.37 per hour minimum wage is much too low.



Even Liberal voters are significantly more inclined to believe the minimum wage is too low rather than too high and support for a higher minimum wage was consistent across all income groups.

Twenty-seven per cent think the minimum wage is about right, while only 6% of voters believe the minimum wage is too high (despite the best efforts of The Australian).

The Abbott Government has set up the Productivity Commission review to give cover to its plans to attack work rights and protections at the next election.   :(

These figures suggest any attempt to undermine the minimum wage will be rejected by the public as firmly out of step with Australian values.

NZ has a lower minimum wage than us. It doesnt make things cheaper, it has higher unemployment, and creates a working poor with poor quality of life.

I think it is ok - defiantly not too high.

The minimum wage should be a theoretical number - nobody with a full time job should be paid anywhere near the minimum wage.

Any employer should be ashamed of doing it.

The problem with the minimum wage at the moment is the taxes are too high. Within five years, the minimum wage is going to reach the $37,000 threshold for the 32.5% tax scale. When that happens, any increases to the minimum wage would only have 2/3 of its purchasing power.

The tax-free threshold has not increased in real terms over the last 30 years. Tax cuts at the bottom are strongly indicated.

The easiest way to increase the minimum wage is to cut taxes at the bottom end of the tax scale.

unfortunately , you cannot globalise the worlds economy without globalising the worlds labor market because , the labor market is a large part of the worlds economy.

so, given that we are globalised and the average punter wants to enjoy the cheap clothes , shoes and handbags made in asia by people on $1 an hour, the other side of the equation is that only the equivalent wage is available to be paid here.

you CANT buy shoes cheap from china and then bitch and moan that shoe manufacturers in OZ have to pay an hourly wage that is 18 x as high.

it is grade 1 maths/economics.

so either the minimum wage drops or trade barriers go up.

please tell me if you can come up with another rational solution??

I'll go with the PC analysis rather than some socialist propaganda website journo any day of the week and twice on Sunday (penalty rate)  :D

Setting a minimum wage prevents unemployed people getting work much like a penalty rate, full stop.

Why?  Because it's an artificfial price mechanism for labour (just like collective agreements) and therefore potentially inflates production / operating costs without increasing profit margins.

It's a disincentive to individuals to invest risk capital and thereby create more jobs.

You go into business to make money not shovel it down a hole.  Anything that is a retardent on profits is a job stiffler.


wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 6:50am:

A strong majority – 61% of voters across Australia – think the minimum wage is too low. A quarter of voters think our $16.37 per hour minimum wage is much too low.

So 61% of voters are economically illiterate. What's new? I would have put that much higher.


wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 6:50am:

The Abbott Government has set up the Productivity Commission review to give cover to its plans to attack work rights and protections at the next election

That is a big massive porky pie.  Productivity Commission reports are regularlly undertaken by Govts.


wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 6:50am:

These figures suggest any attempt to undermine the minimum wage will be rejected by the public as firmly out of step with Australian values.

OK, that I agree with, not because it's sensible but because we are an ochlocracy.  Just like little kidlets that don't like eating their veggies and chain smokers that don't want to stop smoking, the economic illiterate just don't know what's good for them.   :-?

The minimum wage is a social cost on the economy.  The price we (well a small minority that pay the majority) pay is higher taxes, increased Govt debt, higher unemployment and reduced productivity (which are all defacto tax increases).

The massive levels of Govt debt in the US across Europe and now in Australia is the burgeoning social cost of obsolete socialist IR policies.

An infected puss bloated abscess that's giving Australia economic septicaemia.

IR reform and Coalition governments are its antibiotic... :D ;D 

What crap! The answer to poverty wages elsewhere is to be clever and do high end manufacturing, clean green agriculture. Not become an Asian shithole ourselves.

If australian workers got paid $1 a day, well, you wouldn’t need much agriculture would you? Bowl of rice with a teaspoon of veges or meat would be the daily diet.

We need to bring our tariff walls back to the height of our trading partners and rescind all 4 FTAs, none benefit the country!

aquascoot wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 9:59am:

unfortunately , you cannot globalise the worlds economy without globalising the worlds labor market because , the labor market is a large part of the worlds economy. so, given that we are globalised and the average punter wants to enjoy the cheap clothes , shoes and handbags made in asia by people on $1 an hour, the other side of the equation is that only the equivalent wage is available to be paid here. you CANT buy shoes cheap from china and then bitch and moan that shoe manufacturers in OZ have to pay an hourly wage that is 18 x as high. it is grade 1 maths/economics. so either the minimum wage drops or trade barriers go up. please tell me if you can come up with another rational solution??

You're forgetting about relative productivity between economies. This is a far greater determinant of wage levels than labour input costs are.

crocodile wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 10:28am:

This is a far greater determinant of wage levels than labour input costs are.

What would doubling (for example) labour input costs do to productivity?

aquascoot wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 9:59am:

unfortunately , you cannot globalise the worlds economy without globalising the worlds labor market because , the labor market is a large part of the worlds economy. so, given that we are globalised and the average punter wants to enjoy the cheap clothes , shoes and handbags made in asia by people on $1 an hour, the other side of the equation is that only the equivalent wage is available to be paid here. you CANT buy shoes cheap from china and then bitch and moan that shoe manufacturers in OZ have to pay an hourly wage that is 18 x as high. it is grade 1 maths/economics. so either the minimum wage drops or trade barriers go up. please tell me if you can come up with another rational solution??

Cut the pay of the wealthy by 95%.

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 10:25am:

What crap!

Quality comeback Georgie.  When Abbott said that about global warming theory you had a case of apoplexy.   ;D

Bam wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 10:36am:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 9:59am: unfortunately , you cannot globalise the worlds economy without globalising the worlds labor market because , the labor market is a large part of the worlds economy. so, given that we are globalised and the average punter wants to enjoy the cheap clothes , shoes and handbags made in asia by people on $1 an hour, the other side of the equation is that only the equivalent wage is available to be paid here. you CANT buy shoes cheap from china and then bitch and moan that shoe manufacturers in OZ have to pay an hourly wage that is 18 x as high. it is grade 1 maths/economics. so either the minimum wage drops or trade barriers go up. please tell me if you can come up with another rational solution?? Cut the pay of the wealthy by 95%.

...and there'd be justabout zero productivity and everyone would be equally poor

AKA - socialist Utopia... :D

Bam wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 10:36am:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 9:59am: unfortunately , you cannot globalise the worlds economy without globalising the worlds labor market because , the labor market is a large part of the worlds economy. so, given that we are globalised and the average punter wants to enjoy the cheap clothes , shoes and handbags made in asia by people on $1 an hour, the other side of the equation is that only the equivalent wage is available to be paid here. you CANT buy shoes cheap from china and then bitch and moan that shoe manufacturers in OZ have to pay an hourly wage that is 18 x as high. it is grade 1 maths/economics. so either the minimum wage drops or trade barriers go up. please tell me if you can come up with another rational solution?? Cut the pay of the wealthy by 95%.

Unfortunately for that idea, the wealthy tend to be the cream, they tend to be smart and they tend to be mobile,
cut their pay by 95 % and they'll be hopping on a plane to the UK or Singapore by 6 pm  and you'll be left with a bunch of yobs from broadmeadows who cant read a bus timetable to try and grow the economy.

The cream must be nurtured, in the same way a brilliant young footballer is nurtured and pampered. because one day, he will bring you riches  :D :D

Quote:

TONY Abbott fudged a question about the minimum wage at his National Press Club address yesterday

An ambush question by a smart arse journo.

The trouble with party politics is that Abbott can't answer this question without being castigated by his political opponents both inside and outside his party.

Still nothing new, relevant or interest posted by Swag.

Swagman wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 10:41am:

Bam wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 10:36am: aquascoot wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 9:59am: unfortunately , you cannot globalise the worlds economy without globalising the worlds labor market because , the labor market is a large part of the worlds economy. so, given that we are globalised and the average punter wants to enjoy the cheap clothes , shoes and handbags made in asia by people on $1 an hour, the other side of the equation is that only the equivalent wage is available to be paid here. you CANT buy shoes cheap from china and then bitch and moan that shoe manufacturers in OZ have to pay an hourly wage that is 18 x as high. it is grade 1 maths/economics. so either the minimum wage drops or trade barriers go up. please tell me if you can come up with another rational solution?? Cut the pay of the wealthy by 95%. ...and there'd be justabout zero productivity and everyone would be equally poor AKA - socialist Utopia... :D

Which is of course what the result would be if minimum wage was $1/hour.

The wealthy would have to take heavy cuts too. It wouldn't even be mandated - it would just happen.

Think about rents for a start ... when someone's who's on $640/week and paying $300/week rent is now getting $80/week (by working two jobs), those $300/week rents will no longer be affordable. People would leave the private rental market by the tens of thousands. Rents would have to be cut back severely just to get people to rent at all.

Then there's the other goods and services ... all prices would have to be cut because demand would plunge. It would produce deflation, the economy would enter a recession, people would default on debts by the billions.

The simple truth is that businesses make money because people have money to spend. Take away people's spending power, business profits drop.

Face it .. cutting the minimum wage is not realistic. It would be too catastrophic to the economy.

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 10:50am:

Still nothing new, relevant or interest posted by Swag.

http://thumbs.gograph.com/gg61026897.jpg

George's answer to political debate.... :D

Bam wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 10:59am:

Which is of course what the result would be if minimum wage was $1/hour.

Myth

Swagman wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 10:34am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 10:28am: This is a far greater determinant of wage levels than labour input costs are. What would doubling (for example) labour input costs do to productivity?

Nothing Swaggie. Wages are determined by productivity, not the other way around. Productivity is defined as Output divided by man-hours worked.

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 10:25am:

What crap! The answer to poverty wages elsewhere is to be clever and do high end manufacturing, clean green agriculture. Not become an Asian shithole ourselves. If australian workers got paid $1 a day, well, you wouldn’t need much agriculture would you? Bowl of rice with a teaspoon of veges or meat would be the daily diet. We need to bring our tariff walls back to the height of our trading partners and rescind all 4 FTAs, none benefit the country!

No George, tariff walls are not the answer to poor performance in productivity growth. Selective tariffs only benefit the targeted industry at the expense of those that aren't targeted. Tariffs on everything simply means higher costs of goods with the same disposable income and mutual impoverishment.

Bam wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 9:54am:

The problem with the minimum wage at the moment is the taxes are too high. Within five years, the minimum wage is going to reach the $37,000 threshold for the 32.5% tax scale. When that happens, any increases to the minimum wage would only have 2/3 of its purchasing power. The tax-free threshold has not increased in real terms over the last 30 years. Tax cuts at the bottom are strongly indicated. The easiest way to increase the minimum wage is to cut taxes at the bottom end of the tax scale.

Quote:

Within five years, the minimum wage is going to reach the $37,000 threshold for the 32.5% tax scale.

Just as well that Bracket creep is right at the top of Smoked Hog's to do list.

Swagman wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 11:02am:

Bam wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 10:59am: Which is of course what the result would be if minimum wage was $1/hour. Myth

Link?

Swagman wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 10:40am:

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 10:25am: What crap! Quality comeback Georgie.  When Abbott said that about global warming theory you had a case of apoplexy.   ;D

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Tick-green.png

That was funny.

Swagman wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 11:02am:

Bam wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 10:59am: Which is of course what the result would be if minimum wage was $1/hour. Myth

And your explanation is ...

Quote:
This handwaving nonsense of yours isn't convincing. Try harder!

aquascoot wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 10:49am:

Bam wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 10:36am: aquascoot wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 9:59am: unfortunately , you cannot globalise the worlds economy without globalising the worlds labor market because , the labor market is a large part of the worlds economy. so, given that we are globalised and the average punter wants to enjoy the cheap clothes , shoes and handbags made in asia by people on $1 an hour, the other side of the equation is that only the equivalent wage is available to be paid here. you CANT buy shoes cheap from china and then bitch and moan that shoe manufacturers in OZ have to pay an hourly wage that is 18 x as high. it is grade 1 maths/economics. so either the minimum wage drops or trade barriers go up. please tell me if you can come up with another rational solution?? Cut the pay of the wealthy by 95%. Unfortunately for that idea, the wealthy tend to be the cream, they tend to be smart and they tend to be mobile, cut their pay by 95 % and they'll be hopping on a plane to the UK or Singapore by 6 pm  and you'll be left with a bunch of yobs from broadmeadows who cant read a bus timetable to try and grow the economy. The cream must be nurtured, in the same way a brilliant young footballer is nurtured and pampered. because one day, he will bring you riches  :D :D

If the economy is "globalised", it is globalised everywhere. That's what globalised means. Do you honestly think Singapore's going to be untouched? Singapore owns more Australian infrastructure than the government of Australia. If those assets have to be written off because they are now worth bupkis, what then?

And if there are a few small, defenceless islands with wealth, it won't last long!

You don't get to decide if the "wealthy" take pay cuts.

We live in a globalised capitalist market.
The market is always right. Sometimes I may not like it, sometimes you may not but the market has the answer.

When you go for 5 different jobs how come the salary is always within a 5% range of each other?
Because the market rate is your worth to the system.

I know exactly how much I can offer say a Financial Accountant but yet I know for a decent a Finance Manager I need 150k plus.
The market rate has decided that, not me.

You don't have some all seeing omnipotent being saying raise or cut the wealthy.
There is no such thing.

CEOs are answerable to the market and to it's shareholders.
But if the market decides he is worth $3m per year. Then that's what he's worth!

crocodile wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 11:19am:

Swagman wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 10:34am: crocodile wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 10:28am: This is a far greater determinant of wage levels than labour input costs are. What would doubling (for example) labour input costs do to productivity? Nothing Swaggie. Wages are determined by productivity, not the other way around. Productivity is defined as Output divided by man-hours worked.

If that is so, Croc old bean, why do we have a minimum wage, penalty rates and collective agreements?  :-?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 12:07pm:

You don't get to decide if the "wealthy" take pay cuts. We live in a globalised capitalist market. The market is always right. Sometimes I may not like it, sometimes you may not but the market has the answer. When you go for 5 different jobs how come the salary is always within a 5% range of each other? Because the market rate is your worth to the system. I know exactly how much I can offer say a Financial Accountant but yet I know for a decent a Finance Manager I need 150k plus. The market rate has decided that, not me. You don't have some all seeing omnipotent being saying raise or cut the wealthy. There is no such thing. CEOs are answerable to the market and to it's shareholders. But if the market decides he is worth $3m per year. Then that's what he's worth!

Rubbish - if the "capitalist market" was really global, you would be out of a job, or forced to compete for pay with someone from Poland who could do your job just as well for 20% of the pay.

Swagman wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 1:07pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 11:19am: Swagman wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 10:34am: crocodile wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 10:28am: This is a far greater determinant of wage levels than labour input costs are. What would doubling (for example) labour input costs do to productivity? Nothing Swaggie. Wages are determined by productivity, not the other way around. Productivity is defined as Output divided by man-hours worked. If that is so, Croc old bean, why do we have a minimum wage, penalty rates and collective agreements?  :-?

For the reasons you've outlined yourself. These are market distortions which seek to alter the productivity / output dynamic. Collective agreements usually have productivity clauses in them otherwise they too are market distortions. don't fret too much about them though. There are plenty of other distortionary aspects in our supposedly free markets.

What I've said about wages and productivity is largely true. If it were not for productivity growth, the same real wages of 100 years ago would apply today. Whether the distortions are acceptable or not is only a matter of public policy and the acceptance of their consequences.

Bam wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 1:25pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 12:07pm: You don't get to decide if the "wealthy" take pay cuts. We live in a globalised capitalist market. The market is always right. Sometimes I may not like it, sometimes you may not but the market has the answer. When you go for 5 different jobs how come the salary is always within a 5% range of each other? Because the market rate is your worth to the system. I know exactly how much I can offer say a Financial Accountant but yet I know for a decent a Finance Manager I need 150k plus. The market rate has decided that, not me. You don't have some all seeing omnipotent being saying raise or cut the wealthy. There is no such thing. CEOs are answerable to the market and to it's shareholders. But if the market decides he is worth $3m per year. Then that's what he's worth! Rubbish - if the "capitalist market" was really global, you would be out of a job, or forced to compete for pay with someone from Poland who could do your job just as well for 20% of the pay.

You're also forgetting about relative productivity between economies. The more productive ones pay a higher cost of labour input for increased output. When productivity stops growing, jobs are shed to lower wage jurisdictions. That's what is happening now. Total factor productivity has been on the slippery slope here for over one and a half decades. It catches up and bites you on the arse some day.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 12:07pm:

You don't get to decide if the "wealthy" take pay cuts. We live in a globalised capitalist market. The market is always right. Sometimes I may not like it, sometimes you may not but the market has the answer. When you go for 5 different jobs how come the salary is always within a 5% range of each other? Because the market rate is your worth to the system. I know exactly how much I can offer say a Financial Accountant but yet I know for a decent a Finance Manager I need 150k plus. The market rate has decided that, not me. You don't have some all seeing omnipotent being saying raise or cut the wealthy. There is no such thing. CEOs are answerable to the market and to it's shareholders. But if the market decides he is worth $3m per year. Then that's what he's worth!

rubbish ... companies chase the cheapest market for their labour, whilst mgmt chases the most expensive markets for their services. Why don't you hire upper mgmt. from China, please don't pretend you have some special gift that no one in China can do. That's not the market that determines that, it's mgmt. protecting it's own arse. Mgmt doesn't want free global trading across all sectors, only those sectors that don't affect their pay packets.

John Smith wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 4:18pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 12:07pm: You don't get to decide if the "wealthy" take pay cuts. We live in a globalised capitalist market. The market is always right. Sometimes I may not like it, sometimes you may not but the market has the answer. When you go for 5 different jobs how come the salary is always within a 5% range of each other? Because the market rate is your worth to the system. I know exactly how much I can offer say a Financial Accountant but yet I know for a decent a Finance Manager I need 150k plus. The market rate has decided that, not me. You don't have some all seeing omnipotent being saying raise or cut the wealthy. There is no such thing. CEOs are answerable to the market and to it's shareholders. But if the market decides he is worth $3m per year. Then that's what he's worth! rubbish ... companies chase the cheapest market for their labour, whilst mgmt chases the most expensive markets for their services. Why don't you hire upper mgmt. from China, please don't pretend you have some special gift that no one in China can do. That's not the market that determines that, it's mgmt. protecting it's own arse. Mgmt doesn't want free global trading across all sectors, only those sectors that don't affect their pay packets.

What type of business are you the CEO of, John Smith? Just a hint will do.

Swagman wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 10:41am:

Bam wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 10:36am: aquascoot wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 9:59am: unfortunately , you cannot globalise the worlds economy without globalising the worlds labor market because , the labor market is a large part of the worlds economy. so, given that we are globalised and the average punter wants to enjoy the cheap clothes , shoes and handbags made in asia by people on $1 an hour, the other side of the equation is that only the equivalent wage is available to be paid here. you CANT buy shoes cheap from china and then bitch and moan that shoe manufacturers in OZ have to pay an hourly wage that is 18 x as high. it is grade 1 maths/economics. so either the minimum wage drops or trade barriers go up. please tell me if you can come up with another rational solution?? Cut the pay of the wealthy by 95%. ...and there'd be justabout zero productivity and everyone would be equally poor AKA - socialist Utopia... :D

Proving once again that you have no idea about socialism.

Neferti wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 4:23pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 4:18pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 12:07pm: You don't get to decide if the "wealthy" take pay cuts. We live in a globalised capitalist market. The market is always right. Sometimes I may not like it, sometimes you may not but the market has the answer. When you go for 5 different jobs how come the salary is always within a 5% range of each other? Because the market rate is your worth to the system. I know exactly how much I can offer say a Financial Accountant but yet I know for a decent a Finance Manager I need 150k plus. The market rate has decided that, not me. You don't have some all seeing omnipotent being saying raise or cut the wealthy. There is no such thing. CEOs are answerable to the market and to it's shareholders. But if the market decides he is worth $3m per year. Then that's what he's worth! rubbish ... companies chase the cheapest market for their labour, whilst mgmt chases the most expensive markets for their services. Why don't you hire upper mgmt. from China, please don't pretend you have some special gift that no one in China can do. That's not the market that determines that, it's mgmt. protecting it's own arse. Mgmt doesn't want free global trading across all sectors, only those sectors that don't affect their pay packets. What type of business are you the CEO of, John Smith? Just a hint will do.

I don't work for shareholders so it's irrelevant.

Quote:

CEOs are answerable to the market and to it's shareholders. But if the market decides he is worth $3m per year. Then that's what he's worth!

CEO and Board remuneration has nothing to do with any market. It is a scratch each others back deal to see how much they can get away with. Everyone on the train knows that they need to approve increases for everyone else so that they will approve their increases approved.

OIC.  Not a CEO then?  Managing Director? General Manager?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 7:22am:

NZ has a lower minimum wage than us.

Isn't the cost of living there about 10% less though?

Neferti wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 4:32pm:

OIC.  Not a CEO then?  Managing Director? General Manager?

Like a good "progressive", Smithyboy acts the exact opposite of what he preaches. He works in real estate, ripping off people by charging extortionist rents and prices. This is progress.

Bam wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 10:36am:

Cut the pay of the wealthy by 95%.

Does that also apply to our "progressive" university vice-chancellors and chancellors' pay packets which are currently around the $1 million mark per annum?

Neferti wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 4:32pm:

OIC.  Not a CEO then?  Managing Director? General Manager?

I have my own businesses . What part of irrelevant to the point didn't you get?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 10:28pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 10:36am: Cut the pay of the wealthy by 95%. Does that also apply to our "progressive" university vice-chancellors and chancellors' pay packets which are currently around the $1 million mark per annum?

And which on results are worthless.....

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 10:23pm:

Neferti wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 4:32pm: OIC.  Not a CEO then?  Managing Director? General Manager? Like a good "progressive", Smithyboy acts the exact opposite of what he preaches. He works in real estate, ripping off people by charging extortionist rents and prices. This is progress.

I don't charge rent idiot ... nor do I set any prices.

You missed a spot.

Neferti wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 4:32pm:

OIC.  Not a CEO then?  Managing Director? General Manager?

Officer Commanding the Rorke's Drift of current Australian politics....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWuaSww3JnA

John Smith wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 10:34pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 10:23pm: Neferti wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 4:32pm: OIC.  Not a CEO then?  Managing Director? General Manager? Like a good "progressive", Smithyboy acts the exact opposite of what he preaches. He works in real estate, ripping off people by charging extortionist rents and prices. This is progress. I don't charge rent idiot ... nor do I set any prices. You missed a spot.

I see. So your income is generated ... how? Do you print your own money? That would be progress.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 10:40pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 10:34pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 10:23pm: Neferti wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 4:32pm: OIC.  Not a CEO then?  Managing Director? General Manager? Like a good "progressive", Smithyboy acts the exact opposite of what he preaches. He works in real estate, ripping off people by charging extortionist rents and prices. This is progress. I don't charge rent idiot ... nor do I set any prices. You missed a spot. I see. So your income is generated ... how? Do you print your own money? That would be progress.

perhaps you should find out how agents work prior to commenting. Owners set the rent or sales price, agents advise. I charge a commission.

Not to hard for you to follow is it misty?

John Smith wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 10:46pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 10:40pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 10:34pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 10:23pm: Neferti wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 4:32pm: OIC.  Not a CEO then?  Managing Director? General Manager? Like a good "progressive", Smithyboy acts the exact opposite of what he preaches. He works in real estate, ripping off people by charging extortionist rents and prices. This is progress. I don't charge rent idiot ... nor do I set any prices. You missed a spot. I see. So your income is generated ... how? Do you print your own money? That would be progress. perhaps you should find out how agents work prior to commenting. Owners set the rent or sales price, agents advise. I charge a commission. Not to hard for you to follow is it misty?

Good propaganda, Comrade. It was gold to avoid that you profit from extortionist rents and prices.

For the "progressive" cause will you turn over your business to be a public asset?

you really think my handing my business over as a public asset is the same as preventing a public asset from being sold?

;D ;D ;D ;D
I'm starting to believe you really are a cleaner. :D :D :D

don't run away now Misty ... I was enjoying laughing at you