Page 103 of 242 FirstFirst ... 35393101102103104105113153203 ... LastLast
Results 2,041 to 2,060 of 4838

Thread: The Politics/Religion/Conspiracies Deathmatch Thread

  1. #2041
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,030
    Quote Originally Posted by plague View Post
    well look the decision on penalty rates will be made by the independent umpire and both sides have declared they will accept the decision so your vote won't matter there.

    i believe there should be a strong union movement because the powerless should always be represented when negotiating with the powerful.

    but.

    if you think there is one iota of difference between the union bosses and the bosses of big business then you are sadly mistaken.
    the same levels of corruption, greed and self interest spread across all levels of power.

    we need unions, we need business.

    we don't need shitcunce.

    they aren't all sitting on one side of the fence.
    Five Star Post.

  2. #2042
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,030
    Quote Originally Posted by GazFish35 View Post
    Bit like blaming doctors for Cancer.
    4-methylimidazole (4-MEI) is Known to cause cancer.
    Dr Pepper contains 4-methylimidazole (4-MEI).

    /thread.

  3. #2043
    in awe of baz GazFish35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,421
    Anyone who drinks that dr pepper shit deserves anything that comes their way.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmac79 View Post
    I tend to agree with Gav.

  4. #2044
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,351
    Quote Originally Posted by plague View Post
    well look the decision on penalty rates will be made by the independent umpire and both sides have declared they will accept the decision so your vote won't matter there.

    i believe there should be a strong union movement because the powerless should always be represented when negotiating with the powerful.

    but.

    if you think there is one iota of difference between the union bosses and the bosses of big business then you are sadly mistaken.
    the same levels of corruption, greed and self interest spread across all levels of power.

    we need unions, we need business.

    we don't need shitcunce.

    they aren't all sitting on one side of the fence.
    So we are in agreeance here?
    You need a balance in all walks of life, once it goes to far to one side problems start to arise.
    I know from some stories my father tells me how particularly in the 70's and 80's the Unions could call a strike from the drop of a hat.
    Now things have gone too far the other way where employers have the upper hand in many cases.
    The neo-Conservative movement which started with the Thatcher government in the late 70's has spread to many countries in the western world, destroying the power of Unions, privatising and selling off everything state owned. If this is the pinnacle of Capitalism, then it certainly is not good.

  5. #2045
    infant member plague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    13,908
    Quote Originally Posted by stopper2 View Post
    So we are in agreeance here?
    oh look man, id be shocked if a great percentage of our population aren't in agreement that union representation is essential for a significant portion of the workforce.

    but

    the downfall of the argument is some of these unions don't want to be governed under the same rules as corporations despite having access to, and being responsible for massive amounts of money and power. its a dangerous situation when the people in power go unchecked. whether thats a CEO or a union boss its all the same.

    also, a huge majority of the union bosses are in the top 1% of income earners in this country. (yes, the top 1%)

    but here they are doing a good job at convincing the 'workforce' they are rallying agains the 1%ers despite being front and centre of that group.

    id love to see one set of rules for everyone.at the moment there isn't.
    Last edited by plague; 20-05-2016 at 11:19 PM.

  6. #2046
    infant member plague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    13,908
    id actually love to see one freaking tax rate no matter what you earn, be it from business, wage, investments or super.
    find the average, tax them all and there can be no grounds for complaint.

    having tax rates range from 30%-48% only invites people to try and bend the rules.

    and as someone who bends them as far as I can its quite sad what you can get away with in this country (legally) with a half decent accountant.
    Quote Originally Posted by MFKS View Post
    And I don't argue with FR. The bloke is a legend and deserves great praise for his contributions to football in the Hunter.
    He is also the second best poster on the entire Foz behind you
    Quote Originally Posted by parksey View Post
    sometimes there's more to life than just winning
    Quote Originally Posted by ForeverRed View Post
    What a deadset ****ing coward **** you are
    Quote Originally Posted by MFKS View Post
    Seems like I am WRONG

  7. #2047
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,030
    Quote Originally Posted by stopper2 View Post
    So we are in agreeance here?
    You need a balance in all walks of life, once it goes to far to one side problems start to arise.
    I know from some stories my father tells me how particularly in the 70's and 80's the Unions could call a strike from the drop of a hat.
    Now things have gone too far the other way where employers have the upper hand in many cases.
    The neo-Conservative movement which started with the Thatcher government in the late 70's has spread to many countries in the western world, destroying the power of Unions, privatising and selling off everything state owned. If this is the pinnacle of Capitalism, then it certainly is not good.
    It's not Capitalism it is a Plutocracy.
    Capitalism is a system whereby those that own the means of production seek profits and those that work with the means of production resist wage cuts.
    When Neo-Liberalism took away the power of Unions to resist wage cuts the system was broken.
    If you look at time series data for wages and productivity you can see that up until the early 1970's wages increase pretty much perfectly tracked productivity gains.
    This was good because Capitalists could make more by increasing output, workers made incremental gains in income so they could purchase the output - and overall, both parties had an incentive to work.
    From the 1970's gains in productivity have not been matched by increases in wages. Therefore, those working with the means of production have not had incomes sufficient enough to purchase the goods and services produced. The Capitalists, even though they have more money, they also have a much lower propensity to spend and therefore spending is at a lower level than it would have been if those working with the means of production gained their fair share.
    By the late 1980's the Neo-Liberals came up with a solution called Financial Engineering which saw credit at levels we had never before seen available to pretty much anyone capable of signing on the dotted line.
    Now the Capitalists could have their cake and eat it to and those taking up the credit on offer could pretend they could actually afford the lifestyle they had now become accustomed to.

    The big winners in all this - BANKS. Even the capitalists in the traditional sense of the word are an endangered species because once households realise they need to reduce their credit holdings [and this has been happening for a while now consumption spending on anything but essentials has plummeted.
    Last edited by The Dunster; 21-05-2016 at 11:17 AM.

  8. #2048
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,351
    Quote Originally Posted by The Dunster View Post
    It's not Capitalism it is a Plutocracy.
    Capitalism is a system whereby those that own the means of production seek profits and those that work with the means of production resist wage cuts.
    When Neo-Liberalism took away the power of Unions to resist wage cuts the system was broken.
    If you look at time series data for wages and productivity you can see that up until the early 1970's wages increase pretty much perfectly tracked productivity gains.
    This was good because Capitalists could make more by increasing output, workers made incremental gains in income so they could purchase the output - and overall, both parties had an incentive to work.
    From the 1970's gains in productivity have not been matched by increases in wages. Therefore, those working with the means of production have not had incomes sufficient enough to purchase the goods and services produced. The Capitalists, even though they have more money, they also have a much lower propensity to spend and therefore spending is at a lower level than it would have been if those working with the means of production gained their fair share.
    By the late 1980's the Neo-Liberals came up with a solution called Financial Engineering which saw credit at levels we had never before seen available to pretty much anyone capable of signing on the dotted line.
    Now the Capitalists could have their cake and eat it to and those taking up the credit on offer could pretend they could actually afford the lifestyle they had now become accustomed to.

    The big winners in all this - BANKS. Even the capitalists in the traditional sense of the word are an endangered species because once households realise they need to reduce their credit holdings [and this has been happening for a while now consumption spending on anything but essentials has plummeted.
    Good post, what you have stated makes a lot of sense Dunster. Yes Banks, expecially the big Banks have been the big winners in this new world order.

  9. #2049
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    17,380
    Quote Originally Posted by The Dunster View Post
    The big winners in all this - BANKS.
    Dunsts, lets discuss national debt, where the money went (wasnt all on trade), who do we owe and can we write it off if we hand over some uranium, ala Brazil and forests?

    or not you egotistical wankerers
    Last edited by hawk; 23-05-2016 at 09:31 PM.

  10. #2050
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Couscous View Post
    Not disputing this idea, but I couldn't find good data to test it. The ABS times series don't go back that far.

    You need to use the labour Productivity index and wages index data. To complile this data you also need to understand the difference between a stock and a flow, and the difference between a real and a nominal value.

    Did your graph come from the ABS or did you create it using data you found on the ABS website ?

    This is what you need:

    http://www.rba.gov.au/statistics/tables/xls/h04hist.xls
    http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@....res1Dec%202014

    Below is this data put together by Billy Mitchell at COffee.



    Below is the international story

    Last edited by The Dunster; 23-05-2016 at 01:09 PM.

  11. #2051
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Couscous View Post
    No, I don't need to understand that (even though I do)!

    Whether the data is real/nominal is irrelevant because I'm using ABS indices. We're comparing Australian wages and Australian labour productivity. So inflation doesn't matter because, if I adjusted the data to put it into real terms, both datasets would be adjusted equally. It would matter if I was doing an international comparison, as in your graph, but I'm not. And nor do the stock/flow differences matter because, again, I'm using ABS time-series indices that are designed for longitudinal comparisons.

    I used the ABS's wage price index data and industry multifactor productivity estimates (for labour productivity, I used gross value added per hour worked).



    My graph.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing your historical point. Australia had a relatively high level of income equality until the late 1970s, but it's worsened since then. But the reasons behind that are pretty complex. Don't ask me to explain why the Australian example in more recent times differs from the international example (as seen in your graph), because I can't. But it is different.
    It's not different at all.

    Use these: http://www.rba.gov.au/statistics/tables/xls/h04hist.xls
    http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@....res1Dec%202014



    The gap explains changes in income distribution away from labour to Capital. Pretty ****ing simple even for someone like yourself.

    Solved. Next!!!
    Last edited by The Dunster; 23-05-2016 at 01:34 PM.

  12. #2052
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Couscous View Post
    On reflection, my graph might be improved by looking solely at labour productivity in non-mining industries. A lot of economists say the mining industry's unusual cycle over the past two decades distorted wage/productivity data.
    That's been the case forever . As far as a lot of economists go when you agree with the majority of them more often than not you will be wrong.

  13. #2053
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Couscous View Post
    Geez, mate, I don't even disagree with you but you're a goose.

    Make your own table using the very data you provided to back up your argument and, voila!, you'll see how f***ing simple it is even for someone like yourself.
    To understand the significance of the gap between real wages growth and labour productivity growth the following points should be noted:

    Employment is measured in persons (averaged over the period).
    Labour productivity is the units of output per person employment per period (in this case per hour).
    The wage and price level are in nominal units; the real wage is the wage level divided by the price level and tells us the real purchasing power of that nominal wage level.
    The total economy-wide wage bill is employment times the wage level and is the total labour costs in production for each period.
    Real GDP is thus employment times labour productivity and represents a flow of actual output per period; Nominal GDP is Real GDP at market value – that is, multiplied by the price level. So real GDP can grow while nominal GDP can fall if the price level is deflating and productivity growth and/or employment growth is positive.
    The wage share in national income (GDP) is the share of total wages in nominal GDP and is thus a guide to the distribution of national income between wages and profits.
    Unit labour costs are in nominal terms and are calculated as total labour costs divided by nominal GDP. So they tell you what each unit of output is costing in labour outlays.
    Real unit labour costs [RULC] are calculated by dividing Unit labour costs by the price level to give a real measure of what each unit of output is costing. RULC is also the ratio of the real wage to labour productivity and is equivalent to the Wage share measure.
    From the last point, if real wages growth is above productivity growth then RULC are rising, which is the same thing as saying that national income is being redistributed to wages (workers).

    However, if real wages growth is below productivity growth then RULC are falling, which is the same thing as saying that national income is being redistributed away from wages (workers) to profits (capital).

    It can get a little more complicated if the share that government claims changes but that is normally stable, which means the dynamics of national income distribution are between wages and profits.
    http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=33031



    I honestly don't know what more I can do to help you here.
    Last edited by The Dunster; 23-05-2016 at 03:56 PM.

  14. #2054
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,030
    It would appear I'm not the only one that is getting it all wrong.



    Couscous needs to get down to AUSTRADE Headquarters and sort them out as well it would seem.

  15. #2055
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,030
    Then we go to the ABC who use some very well known Economic mongs for all their information and low and behold we get this:



    Lmfao at Chris Richardson and the other usual suspects the ABC use for their information.

    To say this graph is misleading is an understatement to say the least.

    The ABC is an absolute disgrace when it comes to the economy and finance.
    Last edited by The Dunster; 23-05-2016 at 05:51 PM.

  16. #2056
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Couscous View Post
    Dunster, go back to your own RBA data. Tell me: in the period for which you have data, how much did wages rise, and how much did labour productivity rise?

    Again, I ain't your adversary, so lay off with the purge, comrade.
    Holy crap you don't know how the graphic was compiled from the data do you ? Man this is too funny. Unless I posted the wrong link - then it's understandable.

  17. #2057
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,030
    http://www.rba.gov.au/statistics/tables/xls/h04hist.xls

    The link is correct. Think really hard - there is something you are missing.

    Are you looking at hourly real wages and labour productivity per hour ?
    Last edited by The Dunster; 23-05-2016 at 09:58 PM.

  18. #2058
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Couscous View Post
    Sigh. Here you go. Your data, from your spreadsheet. As you can see, trend wage growth is above trend labour productivity.



    I'll leave it here. Like I said, I don't necessarily disagree with some of what you said. I was just interested in what the data showed, because I'd heard the opposite about wages and productivity in recent years.

    But have a read back at what you've written, comrade. You're a coin-operated ad-hominem machine. I can post your response for you if you like:

    "ZOMG he still doesn't get it! I've never suffered such ignorance!"
    Nice graph. Not taking the piss here but why didn't you use the index data ? Serious question.

    The Real wages index over this period has not increased anywhere near as much as LFP index has.

    From the graph I posted above the real wage index and labour productivity indexes have a base year of 1978.

    EDIT:I just opened the spreadsheet I linked and note that it doesn't go back to 1978 and is in fact indexed to a base year of 2013/14 rather than 1978 as I had assumed.

    My apologies. I'll be burning all degrees and qualifications before sunset.
    Last edited by The Dunster; 24-05-2016 at 09:13 AM.

  19. #2059
    aka WLG pv4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    7,412
    Quote Originally Posted by The Dunster View Post
    It's not Capitalism it is a Plutocracy.
    I'm sure this post had some great insights etc but seeing it was a novel, and only read this first sentence, I couldn't help but just instantly think of this

    OK

  20. #2060
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,030
    Quote Originally Posted by pv4 View Post
    I'm sure this post had some great insights etc but seeing it was a novel, and only read this first sentence, I couldn't help but just instantly think of this

    I like your style PV4. Great movie

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •