From the man who once said that housing 2,000 people on flood-prone land was OK because what was a flood here or there, comes another breathtaking opinion uttered during his debate with Labor's Janelle Saffin last week.
When defending WorkChoices Chris Gulaptis said: "Northern Rivers residents moved to the region accepting they would be paid lower wages as part of the trade-off for living in one of the most desirable parts of Australia".
Firstly, not everyone moved to the North Coast - a great many were born here.
Secondly, why should we be expected to accept lower wages along with reduced access to major social infrastructure and higher across-the-board costs? Scenery doesn't pay the bills.
What makes this Nationals candidate's opinion doubly offensive is the fact that he has previously boasted about his own comfortable income.
The Northern Star article on local debate:
http://www.northernstar.com.au/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3753993&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection=
http://www.northernstar.com.au/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3753993&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection=
6 comments:
I am not sure what is going on with this particular instance but the minimum wage might be nice for employees receiving it but it is not nice for those unemployed who can't get a job. Minimum wage and union influence generally prices the unemployed out of a job and this hits the poor far worse than any lowering of wages would.
Not sure what is going on with this particular instance? It's quite simple, the candidate is an intellectual lightweight who has no grasp of local or national issues. As many who have watched his performance in local government can attest.
As to the level of unemployment on the North Coast, lower wages are not going to see more people employed by local business. Recently a spokesperson for the Dept.of Employment and Workplace Relations stated that local employers have unrealistic expectations when interviewing for job vacancies, given the limited skills base in the region.
Raising skill levels rather than lowering wages is what will reduce higher than average unemployment on the North Coast.
The bulk of the unemployed in the region are desperate for employment. One young girl I know spends most of her low wage in travel costs just so that she can keep the only job she could find.
I can't believe anyone thinks minimum wages are a bad idea! I take it that damien isn't trying to live off the minimum wage, or if he is he's still living at home with Mum and Dad paying the bills...
"Minimum wage and union influence generally prices the unemployed out of a job and this hits the poor far worse than any lowering of wages would."
rubbish. if you want to generate and maintain a skilled base of workers as opposed to a nation of janitors a minimum wage is essential. no minimum wage equals no incentive to learn valuable skills. why should a person spend years in an apprenticeship to earn slightly more than they would digging ditches?
also a drop in wages would kill the service economy. if wages go down significantly then a greater proportion of income goes to service debt and essential needs like food. there's less left over for video rentals and other things.
it is possible to do well without a minimum wage but then you need strong labor organisations to balance organised capital and reach a fair wage. the problem is people like this just want to get rid of it and unions at the same time and return us to the era of workhouses.
Actually Sarah most people thare on minimum wage are living at home with mum and dad, or, at least in a high income household. So dropping this isn't going to greatly harm as many people as you think.
"rubbish. if you want to generate and maintain a skilled base of workers as opposed to a nation of janitors a minimum wage is essential. no minimum wage equals no incentive to learn valuable skills. why should a person spend years in an apprenticeship to earn slightly more than they would digging ditches?
also a drop in wages would kill the service economy. if wages go down significantly then a greater proportion of income goes to service debt and essential needs like food. there's less left over for video rentals and other things.
it is possible to do well without a minimum wage but then you need strong labor organisations to balance organised capital and reach a fair wage. the problem is people like this just want to get rid of it and unions at the same time and return us to the era of workhouses."
This just totally ignores the countless studies that establsh a negative minimum wage to employment relation. Even the ACTU admites that 70% of studies show this negative correlation. Given how elastic Australia's labour situation is and how high our minimum amongst other OECD countries, we could afford to drop it and give a lot moe people a chance at work and some experience.
Most of the poor in Austalia are the un or underemployed and so they should be first priority. Breaking down barriers for them to find work would be the best option.
The drop in service industry would also be positively influenced by the now people who are able to get work and get off social security (and now do something with their lives). Australia's labour is mobile enough that people can climb the income scales relatively quickly which is what happens in the US.
"Actually Sarah most people thare on minimum wage are living at home with mum and dad, or, at least in a high income household. So dropping this isn't going to greatly harm as many people as you think."
Last time I looked there were around 6,229 workers in the Clarence Valley earning under $499 a week and only about 1,871 workers under 25 years of age.
The total number of Clarence Valley workers was in the vicinity of 14,214 people.
Somehow I don't think that equates with most minimum wage earners living with mum and dad or in high income households, at least not in this region.
Post a Comment