Bring back the draft, cries Young ALP (1 Viewer)

[frog12986]

Not touching my other response eh? you = :burn: ??

Not exactly sure what you mean here though. Theft of people's earnings can quite clearly come under the core policy of the Liberal party who actively and continuingly keeping the minimum wage as low as possible. Sure a 13% increase in real wages is great. But what is not outlined is that the minimum wage certainly doesnt not follow this upward trend.

Regarding unemployment, forcing disableds and aged people back into work through decreasing assistance is sure to bring down the unemployment rate. As is decreasing family and unemployment assistance rates. But it sure will put in a dent into that large mass of current account deficit which has increased substantially since 1996. So well done. And dont even get me started on super-annuation... :rofl:

Actively keep the minimum wage as low as possible.. I have to say, and I'm sure most would agree, that having a wage is better than not having one at all, which of course has been a fairly consistent achievement of previous Federal Labor governments. Now lets compare the 13% real wage increases since 1996 to the 3% rise that took place under the tenure of Hawke/Keating. Any person who attempts to criticise this point is being vastly misleading. Can you assuredly say that the minimum wage increases of the 1980's were consistently tied to inflationary increases. I think not. The comparative increases of real wages tends to justify that point..
Moreover, the proportion of workers who are paid the minimum wage has also decreased fairly consistenly over the past 10 or so years.

What family benefits were also provided under the previous Labor governements that remotely rival those that exist under current provisions? Oh thats right, the vast Public sector debt and general resource wastage resulted in next to nothing for the average family and a consumer confidence that was barely existent...The main difference lies in incentive. This government has provided extensive financial assistance to many in an attempt to assist their entrance or re-entrance into the workforce. IT has not merely placed a burden upon those who work hard and reap the rewards to 'support' the lives of many who are quite capable of participating...

..and lets not get into an argument about comparative unemployment levels. Frankly because there is none..5.25%..how much lower can it go? Enticing those on welfare into the workforce is a definite necessity to ensure that the economy does not reach full employment and can continue to grow. If we continue to support those who are quite capable of holding down some form of employment it will only contribute to the detriment of the economy..

 

[leetom]

I just got my young labour membership pack *burns it*, young liberals here i come.

Clearly you didn't, because if you had surely your short-term memory is capable of recalling that it is spelt Young Labor.

Watch of withoutaface, abo-solution* will run out rubbish to pull out of their arse and will revert to name calling!

You, along with Schoolies 2004, have become probably the most annoying contributer to NCAP of late. And for Christ's sake the word you were looking for was resort.

Indeed, any return to national service must be voluntary and the Federal ALP has confirmed as much should any policy in regards to national service be canvassed for 2007. Young Labor probably expected as much and the initial compulsory component was included only for an instant response from the media.

I'm dissapointed the SHM keeps banging on over the shift from Whitlam's ALP position back in the 60's. Surely they recognise the clear contexual differences between the national service of the 1960's and any similar such measure today. Chiefly that of the former's deployment of recruits in what is regarded by many as an illegality.

If this return to national servie is to be persued, I beleive the establishment of an entirely new national institution is required in order to project onto possible candidates the serious and highly legitimate status of said institution. As has already been mentioned, enrollment will be voluntary, in fact let there be a screening process to make certain of a condidate's eligibility. The core aim of this institution will be to cultivate students into a military elite of sorts, training them in all fields in which they exhibit a specialty, be they scientific or administrative. Also, the institution will instill in the students a sense of nation, or at least service to the nation. By the conclusion of training, the students will knowledgeable in national politics and Australian demography and will be fit to assume command of Governmental departments replacing public servie drones with intelligent, capable personnel. The military aspects would be designed not so much to ready the students for battle but to encourage them to work with their countrymen/women as a collective.

And sure, if the Salvos need personnel they can apply for manpower and apply wherever necessary, be it ladling soup for tramps or whatever.

Anybody with the nation at heart would be glad to serve.

 

[gerhard]

Liberals, what is your actual policy

frog is saying that the Liberals have given greater wage increases than labour, and waf is saying that Liberals dont believe they should be given wage increases.

 

[withoutaface]

I didn't say that. I said that I don't believe in regulating wage increases. For example if employers decide that steel mill workers are worth 20% more this year than last, then that's fine, but if the government decides steel mill workers should be worth more and increases the minimum wage this creates a price floor which creates widespread unemployment among steel workers.

 

[gerhard]

my apologies

 

[Wooz]

Clearly you didn't, because if you had surely your short-term memory is capable of recalling that it is spelt Young Labor.

You, along with Schoolies 2004, have become probably the most annoying contributer to NCAP of late. And for Christ's sake the word you were looking for was resort.

Indeed, any return to national service must be voluntary and the Federal ALP has confirmed as much should any policy in regards to national service be canvassed for 2007. Young Labor probably expected as much and the initial compulsory component was included only for an instant response from the media.

I'm dissapointed the SHM keeps banging on over the shift from Whitlam's ALP position back in the 60's. Surely they recognise the clear contexual differences between the national service of the 1960's and any similar such measure today. Chiefly that of the former's deployment of recruits in what is regarded by many as an illegality.

If this return to national servie is to be persued, I beleive the establishment of an entirely new national institution is required in order to project onto possible candidates the serious and highly legitimate status of said institution. As has already been mentioned, enrollment will be voluntary, in fact let there be a screening process to make certain of a condidate's eligibility. The core aim of this institution will be to cultivate students into a military elite of sorts, training them in all fields in which they exhibit a specialty, be they scientific or administrative. Also, the institution will instill in the students a sense of nation, or at least service to the nation. By the conclusion of training, the students will knowledgeable in national politics and Australian demography and will be fit to assume command of Governmental departments replacing public servie drones with intelligent, capable personnel. The military aspects would be designed not so much to ready the students for battle but to encourage them to work with their countrymen/women as a collective.

And sure, if the Salvos need personnel they can apply for manpower and apply wherever necessary, be it ladling soup for tramps or whatever.

Anybody with the nation at heart would be glad to serve.

I did, i got the "radical" magazine, 2 pamphlets and a red labor membership booklet. Well i havent burnt it yet and who cares about the spelling.

 

[absolution*]

I didn't say that. I said that I don't believe in regulating wage increases. For example if employers decide that steel mill workers are worth 20% more this year than last, then that's fine, but if the government decides steel mill workers should be worth more and increases the minimum wage this creates a price floor which creates widespread unemployment among steel workers.

Right, so who should decide upon wage increases? Or should they just stagnate?

 

[Ice man]

i think it sounds good, with military numbers down and all. Australians should be made to put back into their country.

 

[absolution*]

i think it sounds good, with military numbers down and all. Australians should be made to put back into their country.

If people like yourself are up for it I tend to agree.

 

[erawamai]

Right, so who should decide upon wage increases? Or should they just stagnate?

Waf is advocating that the market should be the only thing that sets wages, not government or any other articifical measured imposed by government or any other kind of body.

However such an idea needs something special to get off the ground. Governments around the world insulate people against the harshness of the market, which at it's core has no time for emotion. Essentially feelings of love and compassion and especially trust - all the nice warm and cuddly things which everyperson takes for granted.

Governments make sure that wealth disparity created by the market doesn't become so much of a problem that society ceases to function cooperatively. In many ways the invisable hand is an exaggeration. Sustainable capitalism should always show that cooperation and other things that cannot be measured or accounted by in the market are essentially to the working of the market.

-Does society supports the market.

- Is society defined by the market?

 

[absolution*]

Waf is advocating that the market should be the only thing that sets wages, not government or any other articifical measured imposed by government or any other kind of body.

Well waf is a big retard. I mean seriously, such an idea will only cause greater inequality in wealth and further social dislocation. I mean, first its not allowing workers the right to enterprise bargaining through unions. Now, he proposes no minimum wage. And for what purpose? To lower unemployment.

Being a science gimp-a-tron, I'm quite sure waf doesnt understand the idea of the economy needing a reserve army of labour. Furthermore, he has fallen into the trap of once again forgetting about the fact that the government's responsiblity is to act on behalf of the people. Not to serve the interests of big business and the exploitation of the workers with the weakest bargaining positions. Such workers will irrefutably consitute the vast majoity of the workers who's pay is cut if market forces decide wage rates.

What waf needs to understand is that labour is not a tradable commodity like gold or iron. It is based on skills training, geographics and has a major impact on people's standard of living. As such, it cannot be argued that leaving wage decisions to market forces is even a remotely sensible or economically viable position.

 

[leetom]

I didn't say that. I said that I don't believe in regulating wage increases. For example if employers decide that steel mill workers are worth 20% more this year than last, then that's fine, but if the government decides steel mill workers should be worth more and increases the minimum wage this creates a price floor which creates widespread unemployment among steel workers.

Employers as a bloc are hardly incorruptible and vesting in them total responsibility for fair rates of pay will not ensure a fair distribution of wealth, whichis why Government regulation is necessary.

 

[Phanatical]

Exactly. As a business owner I would not want to pay more than I could get away with to my employees - the first concern of the employer is the employer. Regulation provides a guarantee that the rights of the employee are also respected, ensuring that the employer-employee relationship doesn't deteriorate into what would effectively be slavery.

 

[withoutaface]

Employers as a bloc are hardly incorruptible and vesting in them total responsibility for fair rates of pay will not ensure a fair distribution of wealth, whichis why Government regulation is necessary.

Government bodies are even less incorruptible.

Exactly. As a business owner I would not want to pay more than I could get away with to my employees - the first concern of the employer is the employer. Regulation provides a guarantee that the rights of the employee are also respected, ensuring that the employer-employee relationship doesn't deteriorate into what would effectively be slavery.

But what if everyone has slavery, then Bill down the road decides to start paying his employees whatever small amount he desires? Then all the best employees will go to Bill and he will ultimately win in the long run. Then Ben decides to pay even more than Bill, and this continues until people are paid what their skills are worth.

Being a science gimp-a-tron, I'm quite sure waf doesnt understand the idea of the economy needing a reserve army of labour. Furthermore, he has fallen into the trap of once again forgetting about the fact that the government's responsiblity is to act on behalf of the people.

The government's role is to act to ensure that our liberties are not intruded upon.

Not to serve the interests of big business and the exploitation of the workers with the weakest bargaining positions. Such workers will irrefutably consitute the vast majoity of the workers who's pay is cut if market forces decide wage rates.

On what basis do you assume that workers are worth what you say they are? And more to the point, what's to stop them forming collectives (not unions as we think of them today because they have special priveleges under law which serve to distort things).

- Is society defined by the market?

No, society defines the market.

 

[Comrade nathan]

But what if everyone has slavery, then Bill down the road decides to start paying his employees whatever small amount he desires? Then all the best employees will go to Bill and he will ultimately win in the long run. Then Ben decides to pay even more than Bill, and this continues until people are paid what their skills are worth.

Like in slavery when that didn't happen?

 

[absolution*]

Like in slavery when that didn't happen?

Bwhahahaaa!!!

WAF = :burn:

Furthermore, he has fallen into the trap of once again forgetting about the fact that the government's responsiblity is to act on behalf of the people.

The government's role is to act to ensure that our liberties are not intruded upon.

Democracy (from Greek δημοκρατία (demokratia), δημος (demos) the people + κρατειν (kratein) to rule + the suffix ία (ia), literally "the people rule") is a system where the population of a society controls the government ruling over them. It may be narrowly defined as a that of nation-state government specifically, or more broadly to describe a society as a whole, which can also exert political power and social power.

Democratic government aspires to serve under "the people" rather than ruling over them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

On what basis do you assume that workers are worth what you say they are? And more to the point, what's to stop them forming collectives (not unions as we think of them today because they have special priveleges under law which serve to distort things).

Would you mind outlining what "things" youre referring to, due to the fact that that sentence has absolutely no value unless you do.

 

[walrusbear]

Like in slavery when that didn't happen?

hahahahahahahaha

 

[walrusbear]

The government's role is to act to ensure that our liberties are not intruded upon.
On what basis do you assume that workers are worth what you say they are? And more to the point, what's to stop them forming collectives (not unions as we think of them today because they have special priveleges under law which serve to distort things).

you really do have contempt for workers, ay?

 

[withoutaface]

Like in slavery when that didn't happen?

Because the workers were coerced in such a way that they couldn't leave their existing job. That's just a stupid link to make.

Democracy (from Greek δημοκρατία (demokratia), δημος (demos) the people + κρατειν (kratein) to rule + the suffix ία (ia), literally "the people rule") is a system where the population of a society controls the government ruling over them. It may be narrowly defined as a that of nation-state government specifically, or more broadly to describe a society as a whole, which can also exert political power and social power.

Democratic government aspires to serve under "the people" rather than ruling over them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

Democracy is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

Would you mind outlining what "things" youre referring to, due to the fact that that sentence has absolutely no value unless you do.

Examples are how there are restrictions on companies firing striking workers and hiring perfectly willing 'scabs' to do their jobs. This means that no matter what workers ask for in terms of pay the employer has to match it, go without labour for a long time or hope that they can hold out longer than the workers can, which is entirely unfair.

 

[frog12986]

Democracy (from Greek δημοκρατία (demokratia), δημος (demos) the people + κρατειν (kratein) to rule + the suffix ία (ia), literally "the people rule") is a system where the population of a society controls the government ruling over them. It may be narrowly defined as a that of nation-state government specifically, or more broadly to describe a society as a whole, which can also exert political power and social power.

Democratic government aspires to serve under "the people" rather than ruling over them.

You should join John Lennons band of idealistic dreamers. Any person who believes that democracy (or any ideological theory) in its most literal and purest sense can function in this manner is living in a complete and utter dream world. People are not pure, and hence cannot exist under a 'pure' ideological system. Corruption, personal motive and ill-will are always going to exist within human action, and consequently will always affect the workings of society..

The fact remains that the current form of democratic government, regardless as to the purity of it, has provided the majority of people with the greatest wellbeing and prosperity. Holding true to the old concept of utilitarianism; the greatest good for the greatest number. As we have seen throughout much of history, any country that has had a government that is over-active in the market place, has increased equality amongst the population by reducing the wealth and overall prosperity of society in generally; equality through minimisation rather than maximisation.

Of course in many situations government must influence wage determination, however in many instances, such as situations where there is a shortage of labour, market forces will yield the greatest result for the worker. Presently, we have a situation which is very close to this scenario and hence why a progression towards greater market based wage determination in certain areas will produce greater beneifts for workers in these fields.

Moreover we are currently seeing welfare incentives to increase the overall number people participating in the workforce; obviously in attempt to entice those of the 'labour surplus' into the market and partake in hard work like the majority of other people within society. I am quite sure that employment is the best form of welfare and most people will agree...

Blurting out marxist theories does nothing more than make one look like they are merely attemtping to sound intellectual by using words which can be simplified a thousand times over. Marx obviously had some form of inferiority complex as he needed to reassure himself that his turgid writings were by a man of vast intellecutal 'superiority' as most people need some form of dictionary or deciphering tool next to them when reading his work..