Australia minimim wage rises to $13.61

[Doctor Cynic]

Source: Sydney Morning Herald

The Fair Pay Commission raised the federal minimum wage by $21.66 a week, providing some relief for 1.3 million lower-paid workers who are struggling under higher fuel and food prices.

The standard federal minimum wage moved up to $14.31 per hour from $13.74 last year, bringing the weekly rate to $543.78 from $522.12, starting from October.

The 4.14% increase is less than the 4.3% sought by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, but well above the more modest increase sought by the business community fearful of a wage price-setting spiral being set off by rising wages.

AFPC chairman Ian Harper announced the pay rise in Melbourne today, saying the wage rise, when combined with relevant tax and social security changes, would provide low-income households with real increases in disposable income.

Read more: http://business.smh.com.au/wage-boost-for-lowpaid-workers-20080708-39kq.html

---

$14.31 AUD = $13.61 USD

Wow...

[no limit]

1. America #1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[sakabatou]

2. Yeah.... we're fucking poor.

[AllHereTruth]

7. Yes we are.

I just got a job making $11 per hour.

I am paid more now than at my last job.

I don't know how i am going to pay my bills.

For every "Blue Dog" Dem out there, Go fuck yourself. For every Conservative Democrat out there, Go fuck yourself. - For every Republican Politician out there...Let me fuck you hardcore with a tire iron, then go fuck yourself.

[gateley]

3. Where we and Australia differ:

"...provide low-income households with real increases in disposable income."

And, where those who 'have' agree:

"...but well above the more modest increase sought by the business community fearful of a wage price-setting spiral being set off by rising wages."

[enid602]

61. earned income credit

But remember, we offer the earned income tax credit to low-wage earners at tax time, which (in the case of taxpayers with children) pays $5-$10K in the form of a refund. Plus recipients get back whatever tax they paid into the system during the year.

[TheFarseer]

71. only if you have kids

I'm f*cked. Although to be honest, I don't want any money from the government. Just concetrate on keeping my job from going to India - OK?

[slampoet]

76. And as a side-effect of the Earned Income Credit we treat the poor like animals and say they don't

pay their fair share.

[texshelters]

136. Ditto: we need adoption credits

We think the fault are the poor themselves. That is how the rich justify their millions in tax cuts. Tax credits for having more people?! Do we need more damn people on this planet in a rich country.

Adopt!

Tex Shelters

[enid602]

194. adoption credit

There is an adoption credit that corresponds with legal and other expenses incurred in a successful adoption, and can be taken over several years.

[enid602]

191. earned income

I don´t think the public in general even knows what the earned income credit is, so I don´t feel people are showing any animosity toward earned income beneficiaries. I did not know what it was until I became a tax preparer. I can´t tell you how many upper- and middle- wage earners have told me how much this benefit helped them (and their kids) when they were making less money.

[slampoet]

195. Weare not talking about the general public. We are talking about elected officials ignoring the poor

Sorry for being vague but in a way isn't it proper to refer to elected officials as "WE"?

[Josh]

166. Well we Australians don't get taxed on our first $6k

- I thought the US would have a tax free threshold as well, but I was surprised to learn they don't.

[enid602]

192. earned income

Lower-wage taxpayers (with children) in the US get the child tax credit, additional child tax credit and childcare credit, which in most cases wipes out any tax liability they may have. In addition, they are paid an earned income credit, which is about $5K to $10K, and is refunded to them. The net effect is that someone making $20K with 2 kids will not pay any taxes, but will be refunded $10K. The earned income credit is significantly less for low wage earners with no kids, so they will conceivably pay a small amount of tax.

[AllHereTruth]

4. Priorities

I. Hate. Our. Fucking. Politicians.

Our elected leaders (republican and democratic) (conservative and liberal) care more about business, Care more about the corporate/wall street economy, Care more about winning the next election, Then Me. Then You.

[closeupready]

116. that's absolutely correct. I fully realized this only with

the widespread support for the FISA bill that became evident recently. I mean, I always knew that "money talks" as they say, but I think the FISA bill's support among Dems should make it crystal clear that too many members of both parties don't give diddly squat about Americans.

[texshelters]

134. But flag burning amendment are important

At least Congress has their COLA

Fricken a-holes!

Tex Shelters

[WriteDown]

5. This will be a disaster in Australia....

They're already fighting rampant inflation and volatile fuel prices. They need to fix that first, otherwise this will only have a negative effect on small business in Australia. Maybe a few aussie posters can give some added insight.

[bullimiami]

8. there is no place in an economy that does more good

than putting cash in the hands of those who must spend it.

this money will pay for goods and services and multiply its benefits on its way up the food chain.

In other words. I think you are wrong.

[Thor_MN]

97. I dislike the pyramid or mountain analogies, it's more like a funnel or toilet.

Money tends to work it's way to the rich, so let's let gravity represent that. When you buy something, that money is usually going to someone who has more than you. "Trickle down" is pure bullshit. You work for your wages, so that work is pumping money up out of the narrower confines of the toilet up to where you and I reside, near the rim. The "have mores" are the people way down at the bottom, where gravity brings them money for their investments without them doing any work.

[bullimiami]

159. well analogized. i like it a funnel with the rich at the bottom.

[BulletproofLandshark]

10. Yeah, I mean, they should let it "trickle down" like they do here.

Because that works out so well for us. :sarcasm:

[WriteDown]

11. No, these actions have specific consequences

Why not just raise it to 100$ an hour if that wasn't the case? There can be some real negative economic consequences. Chalk it up to my Econ degree from UNC Chapel-Hill to be very skeptical of this.

[depakid]

18. Australians don't use American quack economic "logic"

Not in this area, at least (though there have been recent inroads by right wingers over the past 10 years that have recently been repudiated).

This is one reason why the Australian economy has been booming and ordinary people enjoy a much higher standard of living than their American counterparts.

The cultural philosophy is known as "a fair go for all," and it's been legally embodied in Australian industrial relations since the Harvester case of 1907.

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

Far from hurting small businesses- the multiplier effect of disposable income (along with basic universal healthcare) has helped them thrive to an extent that you'd NEVER see in the states, where big box stores and other low paying corporate entities have largely driven them out of local communities.

If you've ever been there, you'd know this- because it's evident at every trip one takes to the markets. Indeed, sometimes I wonder (having been brought up American) how some of these specialty businesses survive. But survive they do!

Prices are sometimes a bit higher, depending on the item. Restaurants for example- but then again, you're not expected to tip the waiters in Australia (because unlike in America, they already make a decent wage).

Seems to me, American economists could learn a LOT from the Australian example....

[WriteDown]

31. We could...

But when we have essentially closed borders with a working population of 10 million, then maybe we'll be able to do the same. I've always been reticent to praise any country that doesn't allow open borders, but claims to be progressive.

[depakid]

33. Australia is an island nation

and has (unfortunately) embraced far too many aspects of so called "free" trade, so I'm not sure what you're talking about with respect to open borders.

[WriteDown]

35. Like I said down thread....

I was referring to the fact that Australia has some of the strictest immigration policies I have encountered. I tried to move their years ago and it was like moving to the moon. It has a very controlled population level.

[depakid]

39. How is it different than other nations?

[WriteDown]

60. You can research it,,,,,

But not everywhere is like Germany(which I love) and Australia.

[BulletproofLandshark]

27. Who's talking about raising it to $100/hr?

That's just hyperbole. Many other nations in the industrialized world make sure their workers are paid a decent living wage, and somehow they are in much better shape than we are. Our minimum wage has nothing to do with economic consequences. Just good ol' American corporate greed.

[Zynx]

135. A small increase in the minimum wage will have virtually no negative ramifications.

It's true if you raised it to, say, $50 an hour there would be ruinous inflation, but this is not being proposed.

[high density]

12. If there's inflation then it's nice to have some wage inflation to go with it

In America we've got rampant inflation and the only "people" benefiting are the corporations who end up paying us less and less each year in real dollar terms. Then they're surprised that we're spending less money and our consumer driven economy is crashing down.

[WriteDown]

14. Uh....

An increase in minimum wage will lead to price increases on goods which will only compound the current problem with inflation. That is unless you institute price controls which is a whole 'nother can of worms.

[Yavin4]

20. US Mininum Wage Adjusted for Inflation Is Well Below

What it was in the 70s, and yet, we still have rampant, runaway inflation. Using your argument, how is it possible that we have high inflation yet wages are well below the rate of inflation?

[WriteDown]

25. Two different arguments....

I'm talking about an increase in price of goods due to increased cost of production/sale. Inflation is tied to money supply. They are two separate things.

[mbperrin]

38. Gosh, my 33 year old economics degree from Texas A&M just

has to ask: so if low wages are great, why not cap them? In fact, let's make everyone, including CEOs, work for free!

Now have you lowered the cost of production? If so, production should rise significantly. Will it? And stay there? If low wages are good, then Wickett, Texas, would certainly be a better place to live than Boca Raton. Is it?

Hey, a definition: inflation means prices are generally rising. Period.

[WriteDown]

40. That degree must be rusty.

No it doesn't.

http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Articles/Definitions.asp

Never trust an aggie. Haha, j/k. I used to date one.

[mbperrin]

44. So how about a flip answer to my wage questions?

Hmmmm?

[mbperrin]

45. While I'm waiting, here's my academic advisor from then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_B._Ekelund


Professional information

In 1967, after the completion of his Ph.D., Ekelund was hired by Texas A&M University economics department. He remained on the faculty of the College Station, Texas school until 1979, when he moved to Auburn, Alabama to become a professor at Auburn University. Ekelund was a visiting scholar at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and in 2003 he served as the Vernon Taylor Distinguished Visiting Professor at Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas. Ekelund is now Lowder Eminent Scholar Emeritus at Auburn University and is a policy advisor to the Heartland Institute.<1> He is also an Independent Institute research fellow<2> and an adjunct faculty member of the Mises Institute.

Significance in economics

Economic topics notably discussed by Ekelund include the history of economic thought, the economics of regulation, the economics of religion, public choice theory, mercantilism, and the economics of the American Civil War blockades.

Textbooks by Ekelund have sold successfully, with his and Robert Tollison's Economics now in a seventh edition. He also earned a place in the Who's Who in Economics and has been actively involved with the Southern Economic Association since serving as its vice-president in 1984.

Ekelund's 1981 book with Tollison, Mercantilism as a Rent-Seeking Society, is cited as an exemplar of the school of thought that argues that mercantilism, rather than being the result of miscalculation, was a system designed by rent-seekers to enforce public policy favorable towards themselves.


Who's yours?

[mbperrin]

47. Any other ad hominem attacks while I' m waiting for answer to my low wage proposals?

"crickets"

[WriteDown]

50. Sorry, left my office....

When did I ever say low wages are good? I don't think you'll find one word I wrote promoting that position. I simply made the point that that you can't arbitrarily raise them without consequences. Here's a better way to understand it.

You sell widgets and are in fierce competition with a widget shop across the street. Based on your widget sales you can afford to spend 120K on new employees. Minimum wage is currently 30K a year so you hire 4 employees. A year later, minimum wage is set to 40K a year. Do you fire one employee? Do you raise the price of your widgets to offset it knowing that the shop across the street will then have cheaper widgets than you?

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. But this isn't 'arbitrary'; it comes from the Fair Pay Commission

who have looked at the cost of living, as it affects the low paid (and they get hit more by rises in fuel and food costs than the higher paid).

Minimum wage is typically paid in the service sector; the jobs it directly effects aren't those that can easily go abroad. So the 'shop across the street' in your example is raising its wages at the same rate as you are. Maybe the price of your widget will have to go up - but not by as much as the wage did, since that's not your whole production cost. And everyone's minimum wage employees manage to stay out of poverty. It's not a disaster at all. It stops the determining factor for what the lowest wage is from being "how desperate can someone get?"

As that well-known radical socialist Winston Churchill said

"decent conditions make for industrial efficiency and increase, rather than decrease competitive power."

He was also concerned that, without minimum wage regulation, "the good employer is undercut by the bad, and the bad employer is undercut by the worst."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEFDC173CF936A3575AC0A965958260

[WriteDown]

62. Cost of living...

cannot be the driving force in these decisions. If you are sitting on a mountain of resources like Australia, and keep your population low, then you can pull it off. Other places aren't so lucky. The U.S. could export a ton of people and probably achieve the same results.

[muriel_volestrangler]

83. The cost of living is *vital* to these decisions

What they're trying to do is enable people to keep out of poverty. This rise is actually less than the yearly inflation rate.

"If you are sitting on a mountain of resources like Australia, and keep your population low, then you can pull it off."

But earlier, you said "This will be a disaster in Australia". I think you need to make your mind up. Australia does indeed have many mineral resources - and the prices obtainable for those have gone up a lot. It seems a very fair thing to say the wages paid to the poorest in the country should make a vague attempt to keep up with general inflation, if there's so much extra money in the country from the resources.

[WriteDown]

93. True.....

But resources eventually run out. I am sure that every U.S. citizen could live very well if we stopped all immigration today and let the population dwindle down to about 100 million, maybe a little less. Is this something you would be for?

[muriel_volestrangler]

113. Worldwide, it would definitely be good to let the populatin dwindle

The US still has a relatively large amount of natural resources for its population, compared to the world overall - mineral, agricultural - so I don't see that it needs to raise the drawbridge just yet.

[WriteDown]

115. I disagree..

but its very hard to assess how much is needed or can be sustained.

[mbperrin]

65. Certainly, if high wages are bad, low must be good.

In your example, you promote unemployment, even though the guy across the street has to meet the same minimum wage law you named.

And how about my examples of Boca Raton and Wickett, Texas? Where do you think wages are higher, and where would you rather live?

Sounds like you may have been reading a bit too much Ayn Rand.....

[WriteDown]

92. I've been to both...

Been to both the mouth of the rat and Wickett. Wickett is waaay too hot, much like my current homebase, Dallas. I grew up in NYC. Spent some later years in NC and have lived in VA, TN as well. As far as where I would like to live, it would be NC or TN hands down. Nice people, beautiful landscapes and cheap COL. Y

ou seem to love making up things that I haven't said. I never said high wages were bad, all I said was that you can't arbitrarily set minimum wage. Why doesn't Australia just raise their minimum wage another 20$, why doesn't the U.S. as well?

[mbperrin]

99. So why won't you answer where is the better place to live,

and where are the wages higher?

Just admit that prosperity and high wages are linked.

[WriteDown]

I thought I did...

Lived in NYC for many years. Lived in NC for many as well. Would much rather live in NC and trust me, NC wages don't even scrape at the bottom of NYC wages. NC felt closer to nature, had nicer people, less stress. Didn't spend enough time in Boca Raton or Wickett to answer with certainty.

[mbperrin]

106. You DO realize that Wickett is a town of 450 people or so,

with an abandoned school and an Allsup's convenience store as the ONLY non-residential properties in town, don't you? Most of the residences there are trailer houses 20 or more years old, and the Census bureau shows this as one of the poorest cities in the United States. Per capita income is $14,000 or so.

Now WHAT is hard to say about whether that's better or whether Boca is better?

I do highly suspect you have not been to Wickett.

[WriteDown]

108. Ha!

I was thinking of Whitney. More in my area. Never been to Wickett. Must be in West Texas. If it is I can understand why though. That is a desert with nothing around it. Always makes me think of Tremors. Comparing a city with beautiful waterways to a small isolated landlocked town with not so much as a highway is a little deceptive though, don't you think?

[mbperrin]

124. Can't read either? Wickett does not in the slightest resemble

Whitney in spelling or sound. Tried to slide one by there, didn't ya?

You're the person worried about resources, and Wickett sits right in the smack middle of the largest producing oil field in the United States - the Permian Basin. 100,000 producing wells, with oil at all time highs.

Yet those people are poor. Wages are low - about $14k per year. Now what was your analysis again on small populations and large resources? Yeah, that it would make wages high. Well, wrong.


And I can assure you that Boca Raton has the feared high wages you worry so about, AND that it is a far nicer place to live.

Don't be too snooty about the desert there in Dallas, though. Your boy T. Boone Pickens is trying to buy our large underground supply for cheap and sell it to Dallas, which has insufficient water resources of its own.

So your fear of high wages is unfounded, and your reading abilities are impaired. What else did they teach ya there in NC, since you brought it up as such a strength?

[WriteDown]

129. You are too funny....

I live close to several towns that start with "W". I imagine you've never been to West Texas. Why would anyone want to live there? Ever see the movie Tremors? That will give you a good idea on what to expect. Comparing a port city to a desert is a little disingenuous though. Seems like that is your specialty though. Once again, I never mentioned anything about fear of high wages. I guess your slovakian history degree didn't cover much econ :).

[mbperrin]

172. Imagine what you want, dunce. I LIVE in west Texas about 30 miles

from Wickett, in a town called Odessa. Born and raised here, lived other places about 10 years, going to die here.

Why don't you come on out and talk about Tremors to me and the other dumb locals who live here for no reason at all.

How about we compare Palm Springs to Wickett, dumbass? I believe you'll still prefer the higher wage desert to the lower wage.

Since YOU know nothing about Texas, especially west Texas, next time you're driving around the Dallas area, look for the buildings housing ExxonMobil, Halliburton, and just about any other large oil-related industry there, and realize that production from the Permian Basin paid for all those scalawags and carpetbaggers to live in comfort.

Your assignment: but you won't do it, cause you think Whitney and Wickett are the same: Google Santa Rita #1, Eddie Chiles, Permian Basin, Permian Panthers, and Parker Industries.

Since you are either deliberately obtuse or just naturally stupid, I'll just put you on ignore. Congratulations! You're the first person I've had to ignore in 4 years.

But jackassery could be contagious.

[Yupster]

175. West Texas here too

No such thing as a minimum wage here nowadays.

Burger King and MCDonalds are advertising $ 8.50 and up to start.

There is no labor out here. Restaurants are closing because they can't get the labor. Every business is crying for workers. Employers are hiring workers they would have thrown out of their shops two years ago.

The problem is the oilfields have soaked up all the workers from everywhere else. The city, the police, the school district are all screaming for workers. Oil companies, especially independants are trying to drill as many wells as fast as they can to get the oil out while it's selling for $ 140 a barrell.

If anyone needs a job, head for West Texas. We're dying for workers.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

178. What towns/cities are you speaking about? I need employment.

Thanks in advance for any reply.

[Yupster]

202. Look at the Permian Basin

Midland, Odessa, Big Spring.

Check out www.mywesttexas.com for job ideas and also house prices, etc. We're dying for workers out here. If you're unemployed, head this way.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

179. Dupe.

[WriteDown]

181. Interesting....

It was the same way in New Orleans after Katrina and even to some degree now. There were signs everywhere offering a mimimum of 10$ an hour to work at McDonald's.

[WriteDown]

182. Sounds like you have some anger issues...

Must be that dry West Texas air. You're comparisons are greatly lacking. It would be better to compare Naples to Boca Raton or Wilmington(NC) to Morehead City. Thanks for the congratulations, I feel honored. :)

[insleeforprez]

161. FALSE

Let me rephrase your statement using a different example.

"Certainly, if weighing 400 pounds is unhealthy, weighing 85 pounds is healthy." Clearly, this is false. Deviating in either direction from a healthy weight of, say, 160 lbs, is unhealthy.

In every market, there is an equilibrium between the labor demand and the labor supply, which the market will naturally find. This equilibrium, IN A COMPETITIVE MARKET, is the most efficient solution (notice I said efficient, not equitable. The theory of economics does not deal with equity, that's for philosophers and moralists). Therefore, in a competitive market, a minimum wage above the equilibrium point will lead to inefficiency. That said, when you have monopolists and monopsonists (i.e. market power), the social equilibrium becomes more complicated, and in this case, a minimum wage can make sense.

[EstimatedProphet]

88. You don't really think that's what's going on, do you?

This argument looks like it was taken from the Warner Bros. cartoon where Sylvester the cat inherited a million dollars.

Corporate business is underpaying employees on purpose, not because it is streamlining costs, but because CEOs are taking the difference. If they really want us to believe that they are cutting/suppressing wages in order to stay competitive, then they should do something about so many CEOs with golden parachutes that run into millions of dollars.

[WriteDown]

91. So if GM eliminated Rick Wagoner...

And cut all there executive salaries to 0$, then all wages of their UAW workers would increase, right? And they'd not be facing bankruptcy, right? Puuuulease. CEO's make entirely too much money, especially those like Bob Nardelli, but I'm under no illusion that any cuts to their salaries will increase the low-level employees wages.

Also we're talking about minimum wage here. I doubt it is affecting any large corporation.

***edited to add thought.

[EstimatedProphet]

100. No, that's the opposite

The wages for workers from corporate pigs are cut to make huge salaries for CEOs, not the other way around. Pay for workers wouldn't rise if CEO salaries are cut, but CEO salaries rise from worker's salaries being suppressed. That's where the profits are going.

And you don't think minimum wage is used by Wal-Mart?

[WriteDown]

102. So it works one way, but not the other?

You tell me? Do Walmart employees make minimum wage. Also, I have to say that Walmart employees aren't the most impressive bunch.

[EstimatedProphet]

110. Yes, it does work one way and not the other

Are you actually trying to say that you think outsourcing and suppressing wages isn't being used by CEOs to pad their own salaries? You'll have a hard time getting people to believe that. Especially since you're clearly an elitist who thinks that Wal-Mart employees are stupid.

[WriteDown]

112. No.....

The type of CEO's you are talking about have there contracts negotiated ahead of time. Outsourcing is occurring because U.S. companies cannot compete in a market with the current level of globalization. If your furniture is built in China for 15 cents an hour, you'll find it hard to compete when you are paying your union labor 15$ an hour for the same piece of furniture. This is very hard to combat.

And I stand by my statement that a lot of Wal-Mart employees are not the brightest bulbs in the box.

[EstimatedProphet]

114. Bullshit

They could pay that $15 an hour if they weren't making $300 million a year! And you know it too! Corporations aren't just squeaking by if they're paying huge salaries like that to executives! The difference is going directly into their pockets, not reinvested in the business!

You're not fooling anyone.

[WriteDown]

118. Ha! How many CEO's are making 300 mil a year?

Please tell me. Rick Wagoner's annual salary last year was $1,558,333. His other compensation was based on stock options which are a gamble and are related to company performance.

http://investing.businessweek.com/businessweek/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=177132&symbol=GM

[EstimatedProphet]

119. And each of the Walton family makes $20 BILLION

Are you really trying to argue that Wal-Mart would go under if they paid people a living wage? They make obscene amounts of money just because they don't pay wages for shit.

[WriteDown]

122. Link? n/t

[EstimatedProphet]

125. Given in Wal-Mart: the High Cost of Low Prices

[WriteDown]

130. I think you are talking about net worth....

and not actual salaries. These are very different things. I'd be curious to know what their liquid assets were.

[EstimatedProphet]

141. No, they clear that in profits yearly.

[WriteDown]

145. No they don't.

Walmart in its entirety made 12B last year. What you are saying is not possible.

[EstimatedProphet]

149. Actually, you are right. It is total holdings.

My mistake.

Nevertheless, a company which pays employees barely above minimum wage on average while foisting them on public welfare, then at the same time generates profits for the main owners equivalent to the GDP of Singapore, is not keeping wages low to stay in business.

[WriteDown]

151. Okay...

That's an easy mistake to make. My net worth is significantly above what I make due to my house, but it is not weatlh I have access to. I would be curious to see how much Walmart pays an average cashier. The owners make their money in stock options. There really is not much you can do to reduce that. They hold onto the stock and as long as it increases, their net worth will rise. On the other hand, if the company tanks, that net worth will disappear as many dot com entrepreneurs found out the hard way.

[EstimatedProphet]

152. No, sorry, I'm not buying that

They can always put money back into the company instead of taking the stock options. It would be no effort to transfer that money back to the company.

[WriteDown]

153. How do you transfer stock back to the company?

You could sell a significant share of your stock, but you are basically selling your ownership in the company. Besides that, all you are doing is transferring that wealth to another person since the stock would be traded on the exhange and not bought back by the company.

[EstimatedProphet]

156. By selling a slice of your stock, and giving the proceeds to the company

It's a simplification, but then again, the Walton family's current behavior is to use their profits to campaign for lower taxes for themselves. Perhaps instead they could take, say, maybe $20 billion of their stock options and set up a trust for their employees with the dividends. I think that might be a better alternative than paying their employees so little that they have to get AFDC...

Or maybe they could just pay their employees more. They might not make as much money in stock options, but the company isn't going to fold for a long time. The profits that led to them developing a $90 billion fortune came directly from the way they do business - underpaying employees, pressuring other businesses to sell at lower prices, outsourcing to China, and running competitors out of business.

[WriteDown]

158. So you want them to sell ownership in their own company?

What if the stock tanks next year? Should they sell then? I think Walmart has 2 Million employees total. If they sold 20 billion in stock options (which would weaken their ownership) minus capital gains (about a third), everyone would get 6600$ gross which would be taxed as a bonus. They would be lucky to get 5K.

Edited for my lazy math.

[EstimatedProphet]

170. No, I want them to give their employees decent pay

It would mean that they would make less profit, but frankly my sympathies are with the workers of the company, who have such substandard wages that they often have to take welfare. No matter how you slice it, it is wrong for a company to do that.

[WriteDown]

184. I do too...

I just think that cutting CEO pay, no matter how satifying, would be ineffective in doing that. I'm looking for viable and continuous solutions.

[EstimatedProphet]

200. But my point was never that cutting executive salaries is a solution

As a matter of fact, I said specifically that things did not work that way. My point is that the opposite is true. Wages have been suppressed in order to benefit executives and shareholders with the difference.

[WriteDown]

121. Now lets do a little math...

Rick Wagoners total salary including stock options is around 15M. Lets say there are 100K GM factory workers. Probably pretty close. If each worker works 40 hour weeks and they work 52 weeks a year, that is 208M hours total. If we reduce Rick's salary to 0$, how much does each worker get?

[EstimatedProphet]

123. Yeah, let's do a little math

Each of the 4 surviving Wal-Mart family members gets $20 BILLION in profits, each year. That's $80 BILLION. Wal-Mart claims that average employee pay is $9.88 per hour. Wal-Mart puts their healthcare expenses off on local communities, and even gives instruction to new employees on how to get living assistance. And you argue that they have to pay low wages to stay competitive, as if the principal owners would go bankrupt if they doubled salaries. If they had 20 BILLION EMPLOYEES - 3 times the population of the earth - they could give them all a substantial raise with 1 year's profits.

Screw Rick Wagoner. I don't give a flying fuck about Rick Wagoner. The idea that businesses all have to hold pay down to keep competitive, and still can give executives salaries that are hundreds, sometimes thousands of times the average employee salary, give stockholders windafll profits, and still claim that it is to stay competitive is ridiculous.

[WriteDown]

126. You seemed to be obsessed with one company

That is fine. But you still haven't provided any link showing that the surviving Walton's are getting 20B each a year. Interesting that you also note that the average employee makes significantly more than minimum wage.

[muriel_volestrangler]

131. Well, an average employee would have to, wouldn't they?

Because the average is pulled up by the amounts the managers and executives make.

Note the average Walmart employee makes less, in purchasing power parity terms (or real terms, for that matter), than the proposed Australian minimum wage, though.

[WriteDown]

133. I would be curious to see who that average includes.

We'd have to look at who they included in the sample. Also good to note that the U.S. minimum wage is going up 11.1% to $6.55/hr this month.

[EstimatedProphet]

144. Yeah, I'm sure that 11% is going to make a big difference

Are you that out of touch? Do you think there's anyone in the country that can survive on $6.55 an hour?

[WriteDown]

154. Do you think it would be better if it stayed where its at?

Its also higher than that in a lot of places. What do you think it should be at?

[EstimatedProphet]

140. You only talk about one CEO, and I'm obsessed with one company?

Wal-Mart is half the economy!

[WriteDown]

142. walmart made 12B last year

That is half the economy? I just used Wagoner as an example since he is CEO of a large company.

[EstimatedProphet]

147. You used Wagoner because your argument is disingenuous.

You used Wagoner as if he alone was where all the money in GM was going from the suppressed wages of employees. Since his salary isn't much of an impact, then you tried to argue that all CEOs together don't have the impact. Not buying it.

Let's go back to the beginning. Your argument is that businesses have to keep wages low, to be competitive. But if that's the case, then why do megacorporations pay out multimillion dollar packages? Want another corporation? How about Exxon, who gave Lee Raymond $400 million as a retirement package? How is that paying less to stay competitive?

Your arguing small business principles and ideals, and claiming all business operates the same way. It doesn't.

[EstimatedProphet]

143. That's because it's a video, and not a link

Watch the video.

And in an economy where the poverty line is $21,000 for a family of 4, $9.88 isn't significantly more than minimum wage.

[WriteDown]

146. If you are a family of four and you have one wage earner

making minimum wage or even two wage earners, then you have many other problems. I myself have had to make the difficult decision to delay having a family while I got my finances in order.

[EstimatedProphet]

148. Guess what? It didn't used to be.

When the minimum wage law was enacted, the minimum wage was a liveable salary. It hasn't been one in years.

[WriteDown]

150. I'd like to know how you determined that

Liveable in what sense? For a single person with a small apt with a roommate? Probably still is today in most places. For a family of 4, I don't think that has ever been the case. You can't expect to have a house with 2 kids and a picket fence if you are making minimum wage. These days most people expect a couple of flat-screen TV's after watching MTV cribs as well because they "need" those.

[EstimatedProphet]

155. Here's how I determined that:

When I was young in the late 60's, my dad had a part-time job selling encyclopedias door-to-door. My mother was a cashier. They bought a 3 bedroom house. That's not even close to possible now. I defy you to try that on $10 per hour today - almost twice the current minimum wage - anywhere in the country. But it was possible in the 60's, in a commuting suburb of St. Louis. They raised 2 kids in a house with a picket fence, and it wasn't that uncommon either. It was common enough that people did expect to be able to do it.

BTW if you think that people can't get by just because they're buying bling, you're wrong. That's a different argument though.

[WriteDown]

157. I don't disagree....

But a lot of that has nothing to do with inflation or anthing that would be indexed to minimum wage. As available property has decreased, prices have skyrocketed and nothing is going to change that, especially with an increasing population. The price of oil has skyrocketed which is also affecting the prices of things like cars, etc, not to mention that emmissions or safety systems(all added costs) in cars at that time were nearly non-existent. Encyclopedias are not even used much anymore thanks to the free info on the web. And your father made significantly above minimum wage at that time.

[EstimatedProphet]

171. Actually, no he didn't

Also, I realize the situation is more complicated than that, and there are other factors involved. But has the population of the country increased so much in 40 years that an average house has increased in price 20 times? That's doubtful. The price of oil has quadrupled only in the last 7 years, so that's not it either.

By the way, I'm a statistician. Words like 'significantly' make my hackles rise when used out of context.

[WriteDown]

183. I am just going by what you said...

10$ an hour would have been significantly more than minimum wage. You may doubt the increase in housing prices, but its there. Check out the price of a house on Long Island 30 years ago and one now. No one can afford to live there due to extremely high demand.

[EstimatedProphet]

199. That's the point

You don't know his income was significantly higher (which BTW I will guarantee you was nowhere near $10 per hour - that's Wal-Mart average wages today). You don't know that $10 per hour is significantly higher than today's minimum wage, not without testing it to be sure. My gut feeling is that it really isn't, given that the national poverty level is higher than that. The point that I was trying to make was that, with income at approximately minimum wage, 2 working people could buy a house in the late 60's. It would take 10 today. Housing prices ahve increased tremendously, which is what I was saying. It's minimum wage whic hasn't.

[Dreamer Tatum]

189. Who on earth told you they get $20B a year each?

That's ridiculous. The profit belongs to the shareholders, not only people named Walton, and in any case Walmart doesn't make $80B in profits in ANY year.

Try studying up before you write nonsense.

[EstimatedProphet]

201. I already corrected that, Mr. Wizard.

Try studying up before you jump inot a thread.

[closeupready]

120. Are you suggesting a return to slavery?

??

Oh, wait never mind - I see what you were trying to say. :hi:

[Yavin4]

22. Don't Small Businesses Benefit More If They Have Customers with Money To Spend?

When people don't have money, they don't spend money.

[endarkenment]

6. Where is our relief? When do we get a republic for the people?

[pinto]

9. Though I don't know their Cost of Living, Kudos to them. Here's ours and % increases:

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal minimum wage for covered nonexempt employees is $5.85 per hour effective July 24, 2007;
$6.55 per hour effective July 24, 2008; (a 1.1% increase - pinto)
and $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009. (a 1.1% increase)

Many states also have minimum wage laws. Where an employee is subject to both the state and federal minimum wage laws, the employee is entitled to the higher minimum wage rate.

http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/q-a.htm

(Ugh! A *livable minimum wage* would alleviate a lot of the corollary problems tied to poverty in this country. - pinto)

[jpcrecom]

13. indexed to inflation

I find it a sign of incompetence that they aren't already. Set a minimum wage (whatever that may be) and then index it to inflation. Having it grow 1.1% is ridiculous. Index it to inflation and then you can worry about setting a fair wage.

[pinto]

49. Agree. Index it to inflation. It's been presented and shot down. I'd

like to see the next Congress revisit this. It has good support.

[depakid]

51. The experience in Oregon, where indexing has been the law for several years

has pretty much disproven the tired old arguments that we still see drug out every time the issue comes up in other states on in Congress.

[pinto]

57. And here in CA, where some locales have set a higher minimum than our State,

which is higher than the Fed, the end of the world as we know it did not occur.

Go figure.

[Number23]

78. It ain't cheap here

Australia has some of the highest home prices of any country in the world. Recently, it was declared that most homes in Australia were classified as "unaffordable" to "severely unaffordable." Read here: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=84608

Add to that the fact that food prices are fairly high and it's gets kind of crunchy sometimes. And don't even get me started on "extras." A $4 dollar Revlon lipstick at CVS costs $23 freaking dollars here. If it weren't for the (mostly) government subsidized healthcare and secondary education, I think alot of Aussies would be up sh*t creek without a paddle.

[KillCapitalism]

15. $13.61/hr. nice!

That would limit poverty in America to places with insanely high costs of living and those with large families. I think MW should be a bit more than that however.

[Lazlo301]

16. Increase wages = increase costs

The only thing that minimum wage increases do is increase the cost of goods/services to everyone (including those who just received the minimum wage increase).

If I am an employer (which I am, local pizza chain franchisee) and I am required to increase wages to the workers making minimum wage, the costs of those inputs increase. In order for me (the business owner) to make what I need to survive, I need to pass those increased costs on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Or I need to find a way to lower my costs in other areas. With gas prices already at all time highs (which is seen in shipping costs of the raw materials to my business in the form of increased costs of those raw materials), I have already lowered costs in other areas (different supplier, etc). If my minimum wages go up, where do I cut back? My own profits? I don't think the wife would be happy with that.

Maybe I should just sell the assets of the business and retire. But then I would screw all those minimum wage workers as they wouldn't have a job any more. Decisions, decisions....

Let the free market decide the wage. If you artificially increase (or restrict) prices, you screw up the whole process for everyone (including small business owners). I value my employees and I reward those who work hard and are loyal. The market here is such that most hourly jobs are not minimum wage and in some instances are quite high for the skills required.

[WriteDown]

23. I do agree with your post for the most part...

but you "could" lower your profits to help the others in need. Sadly, I know there is a limit to how low you can go.

[AllHereTruth]

29. "I agree with you post...."

Who are you WriteDown?

Do you consider yourself a Liberal? A Democrat? Which way do you vote? What are you values?

How can you agree with that "Free Market" trash. Really? how can you.

[WriteDown]

30. On Social Issues...

I'm a liberal. On economic issues, less so. My backgroud is in economics and I won't abandon its tenets just because it doesn't seem progressive to some who have never studied the subject.

[AllHereTruth]

36. I will give you the edge in your "economic studies" BUT

Cant you see that economic stability for the masses has a DIRECT correlation to social issues.

If "Bob" loses his union manufacturing job and is forced to get a low paying retail job, He suffers Socially. His family suffers. His kid suffers.

Three months down the road "Bob's" healthcare runs out from his last job. He makes just over the amount to get free healthcare from the state, and his current job does not offer it. Not to mention it only pays $7.50 per hour. - This forces Bobs wife "Suzy" to get a job. This then forces their kid "Stanly" into Daycare over summer break (Which by the way costs money)

Because Stanly is in childcare, Bob making little money, and Suzy not able to take care of their kid as much as he needs, Stanly suffers once the school year starts.

One day at recess Stanly falls of the jungle gym and breaks his arm. Both parents rush to the hospital only to find out the cost of "fixing" their kids arm. This sends them into a panic. They decide to take out a Loan, a loan which is not government backed. A loan with will soon break their family apart.

Two years down the line, with the family's economic situation in turmoil, Bob and Suzy get a divorce. Leaving Stanly in a broken household...

DOES this not sound familiar to you? - Economic issues ARE social issues. Please rethink where your coming from. Please...for all those not making enough to fix a fuckin broken arm.

[rfranklin]

24. Letting the market decide is turning us into a third world country...

Good jobs have been outsourced to India and the Philippines. Manufacturing has been sent to China were workers labor until conditions just one step removed from slavery. Walmart has efficiently replaced local merchants with depressin megastores loaded with that Chinese crap. Yes, the market is just dandy at deciding wages and benefits and working conditions!

[Yupster]

177. I blame the internet

Because of the internet you can now outsource millions of jobs that you couldn't do before.

A person in the Philippines can call you and see your account in real time right in front of them. That couldn't happe before that.

The internet brought the world closer together. Unfortunately with the world came the economy.

[AllHereTruth]

28. Serious...Really?

Are you serious Mr. Lazlo301

For your first post on DU i am not impressed. Let me start off my saying i worked for a "pizza chain" for almost 3 years. i got paid shit. - I ran the store, virtually by my self, 5 nights a week and never broke $10.35 per hour.

How can you say "Let the free market decide wage." Should we let the "Free Maket" mandate health care. Let the free market control oversight. Let the free market protect the people?

Where does this "Free Market" bullshit start, where does it stop?
What stops the local McDonald's/KFC/Walmart/Sams/Pizza Hut/Bobs Manufacturing, from paying their employees $5.00 per hour? if jobs are not prevalent in a society the people will take whatever is offered. That includes jobs that do not pay the bills.

Mandating a "living wage" for all Americans works. Distributing wealth to ensure prosperity for all works. "Free Market" voodoo only works for business owners, investors, and corporate folk. For the rest of us...you get the picture.

[Lazlo301]

46. Really.... Are U Serious?

What is a "living" wage to one person may not be a "living" wage to another.
How about $25/hr, $50/hr, or $100/hr for making pizza? Can you "live" off of that?

If I paid that, or even close, it is not worth my time and expense to run the business (which is really the point of my post). I am better off putting my assets in some mutual fund and getting an 8 - 12% return on it (if I am lucky in this economy. At least by having the business open I provide jobs not only to my workers but the employees of other businesses who sell me their raw materials.

If I pay someone $5.00 per hour and someone else is willing to pay them $5.50 for those same skills, who am I to stop them from going to that higher paying job? In addition, if I lose workers because there are other higher paying jobs that tells me that my wages are too low and must increase them.

Here is an economics lesson for you and it is the only one you need to know: supply = demand. Its that simple. If that equation is anything else, one or the other must change to make the equation true.

What about you? Did you gain valuable management experience during your three year tenure? Did you eventually transfer those skills to a higher paying job somewhere else? I hope you did.

Everyone of us is a business owner, a "sole-proprietor". However, everyone works for someone in some way or another no matter who they are (your boss, the government, my wife).

[mbperrin]

68. Supply=demand?

Then why have I been demanding a politician to actually represent me for 30 years and haven't gotten one yet?

Perhaps you meant to say, that supply will equal demand where relatively elastic movements are permitted in both supply and demand, all businesses and consumers have access to perfectly accurate information, and no other changes in the macro economy are taking place.

Is that what you meant to say? Cause what you did say was an old fallacy, Say's Law, which basically means that if all the business people will make shitty products, that people will buy them anyway.

Quick look at Big Lots or any of the other liquidation chains will put the kibosh on that, as well as an examination of the scrap piles of businesses through the years.

There really shouldn't be a stated minimum wage, because oligopolistic businesses use that as a public way to peg a maximum wage. Employees talking openly about what they actually make to new applicants would also help to bring wages to an actual equilibrium. Every boss I ever worked for warned me not to talk about my new salary to anyone else "because it was so high." In reality, he didn't want the new sucker to quit just because he's working twice as hard for half as much as everyone else.

With no public and uniform guide for wages, businesses will experience the short end of their own chaos business model, which is where confusion is introduced and for a price, confusion can be resolved. Unions could find their voice again, and organizing would make really good sense.

Ah, just an idea. People making a decent living for working is probably a communistic idea, anyway. It's certainly Kryptonite to lots of folks.

[fudge stripe cookays]

86. I can't take him seriously.

Anyone who uses Prince/text speech in his posts is an idiot playing professional on a message board.

[mbperrin]

103. I give up. What's Prince/text speech? I live in Texas,

and if you think Rick Perry, Kay Bailey Hutchison, or John Cornyn, or John Tower before that, or Phil Gramm are politicians that actually represent me, think more.

I would LOVE to have a politician who represents MY views here. What's not to take seriously about that?

As far as Say's Law, standard economic concept, now taught as a classic fallacy in thinking in economics classes everywhere.

[fudge stripe cookays]

117. I M from TX 2

And anyone who types in civilzed discourse like that (look at the titles on a Prince album or have a kid show you what they're texting), cannot be taken seriously.

And don't point to my title as an example. I was illustrating what I was talking about.

[mbperrin]

128. Ok, thanks. Now I feel even older than I am. ;)

But I do appreciate the explanation! :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:

[TheFarseer]

72. here's where that doesn't work

When you can get desperate illegal immigrants to work for just about anything or if you can just move the plant to China where you don't have to pay anyone anything. So I think a minimum wage is appropriate (not $13/hr or anything, that's too high) and some regulation to see that those two things I mentioned don't happen.

[EstimatedProphet]

89. Your version of economics leads directly and irrevocably to monopolies

That's why we don't do it anymore.

[WilyWondr]

37. In your argument

you seem to assume that all business owners need the same amount to "survive". This is a giant incorrect assumption. I know some business owners that drive a Mercedes and live in million dollar mcmansions while another business owner drives a Honda and lives in a $100,000 home.

How do you account for this difference in your theory?

[MrBlueSky]

42. Kudos to your idea... but...

I agree with you 100%... but...

I don't think the small business owner should suffer... there should be safeguards built in to the minimum wage laws to shield small businesses like yours.

The ones who really need to be hit are the corporate giants (Wal-Mart comes readily to mind.)

All in all, my philosohpy... raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour... then protect the small businesses.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

74. Yeah, one can see it's horribly hurting Australia.

Not.

Now go away.

[EstimatedProphet]

87. If the free market truly decided wage, everyone would be indentured servants

In case you've forgotten, that's what we used to do. That's why we have a minimum wage now.

[kineneb]

196. never mind servants, slaves

"I owe my soul to the company store..."

[Yupster]

176. You wouldn't have to retire

First you could look at lowering your labor costs by outsourcing some of your labor to the Philippines and save money that way. Maybe orders can be taken in Manila and e-mailed to your local store?

It would be tough for a local pizza place though where labor is the largest chunk of your costs and competition is so tight there's not much room to maneuver on prices.

Maybe just retire. You can retire cheaply in Mexico.

[IronLionZion]

17. Does anyone know what is the unemployment level in Australia?

I'm not making a statement, I'm just curious as to how it correlates with their minimum wage.

[WriteDown]

19. Another thing you should check is the....

requirements for emigration to Australia are. Take it from someone who's looked into it. Nearly impossible.

[Number23]

79. Wasn't impossible for me....

:)

[WriteDown]

160. Nifty

How did you manage it? I knew one girl who went there in college to bartend. Didn't figure out that one instead.

[Number23]

174. I applied for residency

... and was accepted. Simple as that.

[WriteDown]

185. I tried to get in under a work visa

and was denied do to working in IT in the 90's. It was a skill set they didn't need.

[depakid]

21. Australians have been enjoying record low unemployment

though it's been edging up slightly due to worldwide econimic conditions.

May unemployment figures rose to 4.2%

[WriteDown]

26. True....

But I think there are only 10 million people total employed, and a mammoth portion of Australia's economy is based on tourism. People forget how few people actually live there considering the size of the land mass.

[depakid]

32. Australia is a resource based economy!

Tourism is an important sector, but the balance of trade (current account) is kept in line by exports.

Unfortunately, Australians made the mistake of buying into globalization, too- so the country produces fewer goods than it did in the past, though as petrol prices rise, that will start to change.

[WriteDown]

34. Agreed...

Its a beauatiful country, but they have extremely strict limits on who can come there to work which limits any opportunity for those that wish to move there.

[Bear down under]

70. You've mentioned immigration controls more than once.

But Oz is not the only country to have them; the US has pretty stringent immigration controls also.

May I ask, why did (do?) you want to move here?

[WriteDown]

94. Honestly....

Just thought it would be an exciting place to live. The U.S. does not have much immigration control at all. Take it from a person living in Texas. There are a lot of stores I go to that I can't even get an English speaking worker. And I'm talking about major chains.

[Violet_Crumble]

165. The US has similar categories of working visas as us...

Here's ours - http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/index.htm

And here's the US one - http://www.unitedstatesvisas.gov/business.html

From what I could work out from the US info, Canadians and Mexican professionals don't need working visas. I guess that has to do with both countries being neighbours of the US. New Zealanders, being our neighbours, don't need visas to live or work here and we don't need one to live or work there. That's for everyone, not just professionals.

[mbperrin]

41. How's 4.3% grab ya?

http://www.actionforex.com/latest-news/australian-economy/australian-unemployment-rate-steady-at-4.3%25-in-may-2008-(cep-news)-2008061149312/


Australian unemployment rate steady at 4.3% in May 2008 (CEP News)
Australian Economy | Written by CEP News | Jun 12 08 02:06 GMT |
Seasonally adjusted Labour Force figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) indicate that employment in Australia decreased by 19,700 to 10,691,200 in May 2008. Full time employment decreased by 10,400 to 7,645,200 with part-time employment decreasing by 9,300 to 3,046,000.

Seasonally adjusted Labour Force figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) indicate that employment in Australia decreased by 19,700 to 10,691,200 in May 2008. Full time employment decreased by 10,400 to 7,645,200 with part-time employment decreasing by 9,300 to 3,046,000.

[dipsydoodle]

43. Difficult to relate

because the country is so vast with huge gaps between the major cities in the different states. I'm in the UK and my sister is over here from Perth as I write. I believe that Western Australia has had the largest growth due to its mineral resources which created a huge labour shortage. I was gobsmacked to find the the kitchen staff at the mines had been earning AU$ 100,000 because it was the only way they could attract staff.

Some input here from some home based Aussies might help.

[anakie]

162. unemployment in Oz

is currently around or just under 4%; the best rate in 30 years or so. Inflation here is no worse than anywhere else and the new govt is doing it's best to get it under control. Currently running at about 3 to 4 per cent. A bit high but with the oil prices as they are at the moment not surprising.

Peace

[eppur_se_muova]

48. That US$12.97, assuming that's A$13.61. Not bad. nt

[WilyWondr]

64. Directly from the OP

"The standard federal minimum wage moved up to $14.31 per hour from $13.74 last year, bringing the weekly rate to $543.78 from $522.12, starting from October."

"$14.31 AUD = $13.61 USD"

The OP had already done the conversion for you.

[eppur_se_muova]

67. Even better!

(Gotta learn to read below the separator ... :blush: )

[Josh]

167. Also four weeks paid vacation a year instead of 2

:)

[GOPBasher]

52. Wow, that's a pretty sane country. They actually care about people. n/t

[THale2]

53. Currently I am living in Australia

I am over here with my husband on a four year work visa...the cost of living over here is high and they pay around 6 dollars for a gallon of gas..Food, particularly produce is extremely pricey here...daycare alone over here is about 2300 per month, the government subsidizes it for there citizens, if you are not an Aussie then you are on your own with footing the bill. About 45 percent of there income is taxed, so the majority of that is going back to the government to cover health care and retirement.

[daggahead]

58. Funny ...

Because here in the USA, if you're a citizen, you're on your own, too.

[Number23]

80. Preach it, sister

daycare alone over here is about 2300 per month

I've gained a new perspective after reading your post. We pay about $60 a day for daycare and I am constantly bitching about how expensive day care, groceries, gas etc are here. But I now realize it could be a helluva lot worse.

I'm lucky that my husband (and daughter) are Australian citizens otherwise, I'd be in tears every time I opened my purse.

[Violet_Crumble]

81. 45 cents in the dollar is the top tax rate for incomes over 180K...

It's on a sliding scale, and seeing I'm too lazy and clumsy to work out how to do a table here, I'll do it in one glob and hope it makes sense. Say I'm on an income of $78,000 a year. I'd be taxed $4,200 as well as 30 cents in every dollar I earn over $34,000.

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/12333.htm&mnu=5053&mfp=001

The cost of living and stuff like housing affordability depends on where you live. The cost of living and housing in Sydney is so much higher than here in Canberra that I couldn't move back there even if I wanted to...

I don't know where you are, and I'm crap at doing math, but yr childcare costs are something approaching $600 a week. That's absolutely astronomical! I guess you may have already looked around and there might be long waiting lists, but Family Day Care would be a lot cheaper than that. While I can understand that Australia doesn't have reciprocal agreements with the US that gives US citizens living here access to Medicare (other countries with similar healthcare systems do have reciprocal agreements), when it comes to child-care I don't think anyone working in Australia should be excluded from having subsidised childcare, otherwise in some cases it'd end up that childcare costs more than the income the working parent is earning...

[marshall]

54. 38 hour work week, too

If you divide the weekly wage by the hourly rate it equals 38 hours a week.

[Violet_Crumble]

82. 36 and 3/4 hr week for me :) n/t

[daggahead]

56. Yet another country that isn't the USA

That respects their workers.

USA! USA! USA! Screw the workers!

Kapitalism uber alles!

[WriteDown]

59. When you have a CONTINENT like Australia...

with rich natural resources and new deposits that are constantly discovered and you limit the population to 20 million with over 90% as lily white then your homogenous population can live quite well. If you are a country such as the U.S.A, and you have a population close to 400 million with more coming in every day, that luxury is not available.

[mbperrin]

66. Let's see, then. Our problems are too many non-white people

and too few natural resources.

Okay, then, tell you what! Let's invade a country with loads of resources and too many non-white people, kill the people, take the resources, and then we'll be rich!! Whooppeeeeee!!!

Except that whole Iraq war thing ain't going so good with the biggest deficits in the world, the largest debt in the world, and people getting a bit itchy about it, so the value of our currency falls, making things even more expensive that are imported for us, further driving down our purchasing power, since we exported so many factories overseas to apparently, countries with lily-white populations and loads of natural resources.

Right?

[WriteDown]

95. Hahaha....

You are arguing with a non-white person. You're rambling a bit with your arguments. I never promoted any invasion of any sorts. I just made a comparison as far as homogenous populations go, white, brown, red(personal favorite). Most countries with strong social safety nets have relatively homogenous pops. I think Australia is 90% white and the aborigines aren't exactly loved by everyone. Germany and France are other good examples.

[mbperrin]

101. Why did you list a homogenous lily white population as one of the

reasons for prosperity in Australia if you didn't think it was a factor?

Seems to me you're the one doing a bit of rambling.

[WriteDown]

104. You misunderstand....

I just noted the correlation between homogenous populations and tight immigration contral and social safety nets. Japan is another excellent example.

[mbperrin]

105. I don't misunderstand. YOU keep saying that homogeneous

populations correlate to prosperity. So, non-homogeneous populations must trend non-prosperous. Therefore, if we become more homogeneous, problem solved.

Only way I see to get rid of those pesky non-lily-white people YOU bring up is kill 'em. You indicate in Dallas that they won't just pack up and leave.

So ARE YOU or AREN'T you positing lily-white homogeneous populations as a correlate to prosperity?

This is your issue, you brought it up, defend it or disavow it.

[WriteDown]

107. Tsk Tsk Tsk

You are making things up again. I never said anything about prosperity. I said strong social safety nets. There is a correlation. That is undeniable. I cited Japan and they are anything but white, but are the very definition of homogenous.

And as far as the pack up and leave comment, I think you are projecting quite a bit. I am mistaken for hispanic on a daily basis. If they packed up and left, what would happen to all my cute dates?

[mbperrin]

127. Here's your post 59 again.

When you have a CONTINENT like Australia...

with rich natural resources and new deposits that are constantly discovered and you limit the population to 20 million with over 90% as lily white then your homogenous population can live quite well.

"Live quite well" does not indicate prosperity to you? Wow. And YOU quit projecting - you're the one who claimed you can't find English speaking help in stores there in Dallas, not me.

[WriteDown]

132. you should be a translator

"live quite well" refers to general standard of living including social safety nets. prosperity refers to economic well-being which I do not belived alone equates to "live quite well."

And your other miraculous translation was that by me saying that I could not find English speaking help in some store = they should pack up and leave.

You are the king of inference.

[mbperrin]

173. And you're the king of wobble.

Since you like snakes, change your screen name to anguisinherba.

[Yavin4]

180. Australia IS NOT Lilly White

They have mass influx of new immigrants from other parts of Asia, in particular the Chinese. Their last elections turned on new immigrants. So your argument is false.

[WriteDown]

186. Australia is 90% white still, you can look it up n/t

[Yavin4]

187. You Look It Up

Provide a link to your claim. Australia has multiple ethnic groups from Asia. It's not Lilly White.

[Yavin4]

188. Okay, I did Look It Up

Australia is about 70% "Lilly White", much like the U.S., and also like the U.S., the non-White immigrant population is growing the fastest. So, your argument is pure trash.

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

[WriteDown]

190. Where do you get 70%?

"Ethnic groups:

Most of the estimated 21 million Australians are descended from colonial-era settlers and post-Federation immigrants from Europe, with around 85% of Australia's population being of European descent. For generations, the vast majority of both colonial-era settlers and post-Federation immigrants came almost exclusively from Britain and Ireland, and the people of Australia are still predominantly of British or Irish ethnic origin. Significant non-European ethnic minorities include Asians (predominately Chinese, Vietnamese and Indian) at about 9% and indigenous Australians, who make up almost 3% of the current population.

Since the end of World War II, Australia's population has more than doubled, spurred by large-scale European immigration during the immediate post-war decades. Non-European immigration, mostly from Asia and the Middle East, has increased significantly since the 1970s; due in large part to the abolition of the White Australia Policy.

In the 2006 Australian Census<5> residents could nominate up to two ethnic groups to define their ancestry. A large proportion of those nominating the 'Australian' ancestry group are likely to be descended from immigrants, but they were either unwilling or unable to accurately trace their ancestry and thus selected the 'Australian' group."

[TCJ70]

193. "and the aborigines aren't exactly loved by everyone."

...seriously. Australia is one of the most racist places I've ever been.

*disclaimer* The above statements does not mean that everyone in Australia is a racist. Just to cover that base.

[WriteDown]

197. Try Japan....

Will probably top Australia. :evilgrin:

[TCJ70]

198. Heh, can't speak to Japan...

...as I've never been there!

[Zynx]

137. Their economic statistics generally are not all that different from ours.

There's no reason we could not support a $10 minimum wage.

[WriteDown]

138. A reasoned argument...

but i disagree on one part. Our economies are too disimilar. Our manufacturing bases are not even comparable. Worth noting that we are going to 6.55/hr this month.

[Zynx]

139. The percent of our economy that is reliant on industry is smaller.

Australia's is about 26% while ours is 20%. Their per capita income is about $36,000, ours is $45,000. There really is not a substantial difference between the two economies.

[Violet_Crumble]

168. Our population hasn't been limited to 20 million...

Where did you get the idea there's some sort of cap imposed on the population? Right now our population is sitting at just over 21 million

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/1647509ef7e25faaca2568a900154b63?OpenDocument

And I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'lily white'. Are you referring to Australians of European descent? Around 85% of the population is of European descent, and that's logical considering the history of the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Australia#Ethnic_groups

Where people's families came from or the colour of their skin doesn't have anything to do with how well the population lives, btw...

[Igel]

63. What's that in terms of purchasing power?

Converting costs and wages in other countries to US dollars is a silly idea, it tells you very little.

I was in the Czech Republic when the exchange rate was 33 koruny ("crowns") to US$1. The average income was maybe $2k a year, maybe a bit more. You'd think they were starving.

Except that 50 koruny could buy you a nice dinner with a couple of beers. Rents were low. Food prices low. The average wage wasn't horrible, even though it looks like starvation wages when converted to $.

When I was in Russia, the exchange rate was hilariously bizarre: over 600 rubles per US dollar. It meant that the average annual wage was well under $400. It had been over $5k a couple of years before. You'd think people were starving, their standard of living being reduced by over 90%, but the standard of living hadn't changed much (it had been declining for the previous 20 years, even though the annual income was slowly increasing, in dollar terms): Few people had bought imports before, and suddenly nobody could afford them. There were repercussions as the economy failed, but for the first year or so all that happened is that the currency became nearly worthless on the international market, not domestically (that happened soon thereafter).

Purchasing power parity, that's what's important. The absolute numbers tell us very little.

[muriel_volestrangler]

84. Purchasing power parity rate for 2007: US $1 = AUS $1.43

according to the OECD. (I keep the OECD statistics page for this as a bookmark, because it's so useful for discussions like this - it's at http://www.oecd.org/topicstatsportal/0,2647,en_2825_495691_1_1_1_1_1,00.html ).

So, using that, it's a nice round US $10.00 per hour (or for me, £6.56 - compared to the UK minimum wage of £5.73 from October this year).

And for your Czech Republic example, the PPP rate for the past 4 years has been about 14.4 koruny to the US dollar (I don't know when you were there, of course - the market exchange rate is now 15 to the dollar, so I guess it may have been some time ago - before they joined the EU, I'd think, because with free movement of goods with the rest of the EU, it wouldn't be easy to sustain a big imbalance like that).

[nwliberalkiwi]

69. What America Is

We moved from America. You're a dead nation, some of you just don't relize it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Glad to be out of that shithole country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Was born in USA but glad to be gone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Psephos]

73. Ok, a hypothetical: why not raise it to $50?

Or $100?

At what point does it stop being an economic good?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

75. This thread = barrel. -nt

[JI7]

77. i think we will be seeing more Aussie tourists because of this

they already seem to travel a lot. but there may be more because of this.

[muriel_volestrangler]

85. Not many people on minimum wage travel intercontinentally

It's not that generous. As shown above, in purchasing terms this is about US $10 an hour.

[anakie]

163. you may

but then again you would probably get more if your government didn't treat incoming tourists as criminals - photographing and finger printing on arrival. I have been to the US twice, had a great time but wont go back if I am to be finger printed like a common criminal.

Peace

[Violet_Crumble]

169. True, as well as the fact no-one on the minimum wage could afford to travel anywhere...

They'd be hard pressed to afford to get to and from work with the price of petrol soaring....

I travel (heading off to Europe again next April), but I won't travel to the US or any of its territories while they carry on with the photo and fingerprint rubbish....

[mdmc]

90. I make less then that now in the USA

I make about 13 buck per hour in the NYC area :scared:

[joeglow3]

96. Large increases in minimum wage = inflation and unemployment

Too many people from both parties like to create their little wedge issues. Economics shows that if you raise minimum wage above the rate of inflation, it will only lead to increased unemployment and inflation. The simple answer to this is to set the minimum wage and then index it to inflation. That way, you will avoid almost all of the negative effects seen when we wait 5-10 years at a time to increase it. Frankly, I have not got the foggiest clue why this has not been done. Hopefully, when Obama is in office, he will get this done.

[WriteDown]

98. Good point joeglow3

Couldn't agree more. It would be a simple solution.

[muriel_volestrangler]

109. Recent Australian minimum wage levels

pre Oct 06: $12.75
Oct 06-07: $13.47 +5.6%
Oct 07-08: $13.74 +2.0%
post Oct 08: $14.31 +4.1%
source: http://www.fairpay.gov.au/fairpay/WageSettingDecisions/General/2006/

Australian consumer price index in June (roughly when the increase is decided each year):
Jun 06: +4.0%
Jun 07: +2.1%
Jun 08: +4.2%
source: http://www.rba.gov.au/Statistics/measures_of_cpi.html

So the increases are roughly in line with inflation (and any price index is an estimate designed for use by the whole population - it's possible that those on lower wages have had slightly different cost of living increases). And note the detailed reasoning for the increase, done by the Fair Pay Commission, rather than just the politicians currently in power, is given here: http://www.fairpay.gov.au/fairpay/WageSettingDecisions/General/2008/Documents/Decisiondocuments.htm

[WriteDown]

111. Very interesting stuff muriel_volestrangler

Indexing to inflation is definitely a viable idea.

[Yavin4]

164. Free Market Theorists vs. Reality

It never ceases to amaze me how people defend no minimum wages or no national health care system based on their college economic text books, but when we actually see industrialized nations paying a living wage and offering national health care, and we see that their economies are OUT-PERFORMING OURS!!

We have the lowest min. wage for any industrialized nation. Our educational and health care systems resemble some of the poorest nations on earth, yet we still have economic libertarians who still preach the "Fuck you, I got mine." meme over and over.

You fucking Libertarians are the ones ruining this nation for everyone else. When the revolution comes, I hope your heads get chopped off first.