I agree. It's about exploitation and a graph comparing incomes to productivity demonstrates it.
The reason I would receive three beers rather than four is because my non-capitalist share of income is growing at a much slower rate than the capitalist share of income.
The gap between the two series on the graph is essentially the difference between the value of total output and the wage share of income unable to purchase that output.
Again, great news for banks bad news for household balance sheets.
The microeconomics of the workplace is unsolvable and it is pointless even going there. The macroeconomics of the workplace though can easily be solved to benefit all parties.
Last edited by The Dunster; 31-08-2013 at 04:50 PM.
You will never achieve 100% of owner occupiers. Not every one wants to own a home eg if you move away to another town to work for a few years, you may be happy to rent whilst away. You must have a short memory, negative gearing was abolished in the mid/late eighties, it worked such a treat that it was re-installed. (for want of a better word)
This thread has gone to shit. Labor can produce a graph that points down and Lib will use the same figures and it will point up. The only thing that matters is that Kev can speak Mandarin
It was abolished or brought back around 1987. And rents increased in Sydney and Perth and decreased everywhere else.
Pressure from the elites is what brought it back. Much like the current nazi like workplace relations reforms [Labour and Liberal] or the fiscal consolidation propoganda the financial services / banking industry as a whole are selling to the masses.
Edit: Estimates of the cost of negative gearing upon the public purse range from around 30 to 35 billion dollars a year. That's a lot of money for health care, education ... you name it.
Last edited by The Dunster; 31-08-2013 at 10:14 PM.
I understood what you were talking about.
Given that productivty is growing faster than real wages it would appear conclusive that workers need more power not less in the bargaining process, or indeed in being retained in employment.
Obviously, there are cases where the employers gets screwed. But in aggregate the data suggests that the employers are winning by a considerable margin.
Maybe this will make more sense:
A CEO of a large corporation, a union representative, and a small business owner are sitting at a table.
A waitress places a plate containing 12 donuts on the table.
The CEO eats 11 of the donuts then turns to the small business owner and say's " keep an eye on that union guy he's about to eat you donut".
I hope this makes more sense than my previous posts.
Last edited by The Dunster; 31-08-2013 at 10:10 PM.
ahhhhhhh yes, the old "All CEO bad, all small business owners are wannabe CEOs, all Union men here for the good of the worker" schtick.
I think its a tired old cliched and you are obviously too intelligent to even believe it.
Anyway, keep fighting the good fight comrade.
I'm with my2bobsworth though, any chance you can put together a graph on the correlation between Mardarin speaking Prime Ministers and relative wage growth in the last century?
ta
Good luck to both Rudd and Abbott with respect to threading a camel through the eye of a needle.
Last edited by The Dunster; 31-08-2013 at 10:57 PM.
Anyone keen for a riot next Sunday if anyone bar Clive palmer ends up prime minister?
This would require multi coloured chalk I suspect
Clive Palmer looking likeily to win a seat.
FFS.
Middleby Gone
Lawrie Out
Team Labor after their All Age Grand Final today:
"well, you know, we got beat 12-5 today, but geez how awesome were those 5 goals".
Subscribe to The Jetstream Podcast http://www.newcastlefootball.net/podcast
Don't blame me, I voted for GVE
Found this on an SBS link:-
What Abbott has promised
Scroll down to
In First Term
*Locate a Commonwealth agency in Gosford CBD
Liberal voter fail right there!