Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
General Discussion >> General Board >> Unions create unemployment
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1604117827

Message started by freediver on Oct 31st, 2020 at 2:17pm

Title: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Oct 31st, 2020 at 2:17pm
Perhaps the clearest example of the self defeating nature of unions and the bloody minded self delusion that unionism is built on is the fact that unions increase unemployment, and the vapid arguments which unionists will use in an attempt to counter this.

Unfortunately for the unionists, the job market is not magically exempt from the effects of supply and demand. If you artificially increase wages, either through government or union action, the inevitable result is fewer jobs than there would have been if market forces had been left to run their course. This is why neither the government nor the unions are able to wave a magic wand and double everyone's salary, either in real terms or on paper - it would put people out of a job. Yet unions devote their existence to doing exactly this on a smaller scale - colluding to increase wages by a smaller amount, and inevitably destroying some people's jobs in the process. Then congratulating themselves for being knights in shining armour while attacking honest job seekers as being scabs.

In the scab thread, the resident unionists were happy enough to argue that their fellow Australians should voluntarily choose unemployment in order to maintain whatever modest salary increase the unions could achieve through collusion, and happily attacked those Australians who had the nerve to believe they should be free to choose to work for whoever would freely choose to employ them.

Yet in the same thread they managed to delude themselves into thinking that their actions do not put people out of work. This was not just coming from one or two rusted on supporters, but a significant minority.

For example, a blatant lie by John Smith and Dna:


Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 6:47pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 6:39pm:

Quote:
That's funny, I recall hearing the same argument FOR cutting penalty rates. But when rates were cut, it was found that they didn't create a single job ... instead there were more unemployed.


Do you think there were more unemployed than there would have been without the rate cuts?


Yes definitely the loss of jobs was industry specific. People walked and it hurt the industry.

The data shows that employees voted with their feet.


This next lie is particularly stupid. Who but a unionist would believe that  a company only ever needs a fixed amount of employees, regardless of the cost of them or how profitable they are?


Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 8:35pm:
There is a mountain of evidence that shows wage increases do not impact employment numbers, the employer side make the claim with every wage increase and when it happens the outcome fails to support this claim.

The reason is that business will employ the number of people that they need. They do not employ people they don't need when wages are low and they do not sack people that they do need when wages increase.


Jest accusing Friedman of lying and backing it up by agreeing with him:


Jest wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 6:17am:
It was Friedman's biggest lie; that tax cuts and business profitability leads to more jobs and higher wages. Business profitability can lead to more jobs but the effect is very minimal.


The quintessential unionist - being confused is no barrier to the absolute conviction that you are right:


Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 10:28pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 8:03pm:
You are confused.



Yes confused but I am still right.


When John Smith finally produced the evidence everyone had been talking about, it was immediately apparent why they had been reluctant to do so for so long. From the article John presented:

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/penalty-rate-cuts-did-not-create-jobs-labor-20200522-p54vn7.html

Ms Birch cautioned against assuming causality between the penalty rate changes and the jobs data.

Ms Mousina said the retail sector had seen disappointing jobs growth in both part-time and full-time roles but this was shaped in part by the broader struggles of the retail sector and the structural decline in department stores.

“Before COVID the consumer backdrop was already weak in Australia – low wages growth, high household debt and poor confidence, which doesn’t bode well for the retail sector,” she said.


There was nothing in the evidence to back up Dna's claim that job numbers went down because people were voluntarily resigning, or his even more absurd claim that businesses do not grow or shrink, or John's claim that the rate cuts did not create a single job, or that there were fewer jobs than their would have been without the rate cuts.

All it demonstrates is the misleading, transparent and simple minded propaganda that unions are built on - in this case trying to attribute a retail sector shrinking as a result of competition with online sellers and a struggling economy to a single cause that does not even make sense - cheaper labour.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Oct 31st, 2020 at 2:36pm
so after all that cherry picking by fd, the facts remained that the evidence shows that  cutting penalty rates failed to provide a single solitary job

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by JaSin. on Oct 31st, 2020 at 2:43pm
Penalty Rates were good when most of the country was British White.
But Britain doesn't want to pay for Moslems and Chinese.
They'll remove all titles and connections to Australia - like removing the Union Jack from the flag.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Jest on Oct 31st, 2020 at 3:30pm
...

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Jest on Oct 31st, 2020 at 3:31pm

John Smith wrote on Oct 31st, 2020 at 2:36pm:
so after all that cherry picking by fd, the facts remained that the evidence shows that  cutting penalty rates failed to provide a single solitary job


Oh dear how many times has FD tried to repackage this BS; 4 or 5 times now? 

I suppose he figures that when all else fails this is how he can force everyone to agree with him. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T2R8pTpcoo

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by JaSin. on Oct 31st, 2020 at 3:33pm

Jest wrote on Oct 31st, 2020 at 3:31pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 31st, 2020 at 2:36pm:
so after all that cherry picking by fd, the facts remained that the evidence shows that  cutting penalty rates failed to provide a single solitary job


Oh dear how many times has FD tried to repackage this BS; 4 or 5 times now? 

I suppose he figures that when all else fails this is how he can force everyone to agree with him. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T2R8pTpcoo


No that's Monk when he gets cornered on another lie. ;D

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Baronvonrort on Oct 31st, 2020 at 4:06pm

John Smith wrote on Oct 31st, 2020 at 2:36pm:
so after all that cherry picking by fd, the facts remained that the evidence shows that  cutting penalty rates failed to provide a single solitary job


Evidence for this? How can you say it didn't provide a single job did every business owner get surveyed?

Cutting penalty rates  saved a lot of these people from becoming unemployed.

Nobel prize winning economist on minimum wages creating higher unemployment perhaps you lefties should listen and learn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldUmZJAgRIk



Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Oct 31st, 2020 at 4:18pm

John Smith wrote on Oct 31st, 2020 at 2:36pm:
so after all that cherry picking by fd, the facts remained that the evidence shows that  cutting penalty rates failed to provide a single solitary job


That only demonstrates your lack of comprehension of what the facts actually are John.


Quote:
Nobel prize winning economist on minimum wages creating higher unemployment perhaps you lefties should listen and learn.


Pretty much every economist in existence. I have said from the outset that not a single economist disagrees with this. Gandalf is the only one to even attempt to find an economist who disagrees. He failed.

The unions should get a nobel prize in self defeating delusions.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Ye Grappler on Oct 31st, 2020 at 11:13pm

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Oct 31st, 2020 at 11:25pm
You should pay more attention to your own signature grapps:

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Dnarever on Oct 31st, 2020 at 11:44pm
Till now I have ignored this topic based on the topic creators clear unreasonable anti union obsession.

I just clicked on the topic first time to see my words misrepresented. Clearly correct statements labelled as lies.

Penalty rates were reduced in several industries - employment levels in those specific industries dropped. Other industries employment levels continued with the trend prior to the penalty rate drop. This is fact.
Irrespective of the authors dogmatic theories and opinions what actually happened was the opposite to the right wing theory as believed by some.

I say this because the theory in this case is poorly implemented as there is no way to create a business case to justify the claims, the numbers do not work.


Quote:
Who but a unionist would believe that  a company only ever needs a fixed amount of employees


Nobody ever said or inferred this. Obviously the numbers vary. The statement that employers do not employ people they don't need or sack people that they do need has nothing to do with a fixed amount of employees but applies to a snapshot situation. Obviously numbers change as the business changes.

Two of my statements were labelled as lies but they were both 100% correct. Both were spun into something different from what I had said in order to make that argument.

The lead argument on the topic is built on a faulty foundation.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Dnarever on Oct 31st, 2020 at 11:52pm

freediver wrote on Oct 31st, 2020 at 4:18pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 31st, 2020 at 2:36pm:
so after all that cherry picking by fd, the facts remained that the evidence shows that  cutting penalty rates failed to provide a single solitary job


That only demonstrates your lack of comprehension of what the facts actually are John.


Quote:
Nobel prize winning economist on minimum wages creating higher unemployment perhaps you lefties should listen and learn.


Pretty much every economist in existence. I have said from the outset that not a single economist disagrees with this. Gandalf is the only one to even attempt to find an economist who disagrees. He failed.

The unions should get a nobel prize in self defeating delusions.



Comment 1: No he is correct. Jobs in these industries went down in this period. That is fact.

Comment 2: An increase to the Australian minimum wage has never seen unemployment increase.

You hear these economist statements trotted out by the righties year after year, Oh if you increase the minimum wage unemployment will increase is the argument in the industrial courts. The minimum wage goes up in some years. The expected theoretical increase to unemployment has never followed. Decade after decade - never. I get the theory I really do But !!!

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 1st, 2020 at 7:57am
You lied Dna. Being more careful with your union-inspired deception now doesn't change this. Here are two lies you told - that there were more unemployed than there would have been without the rate cuts, and that the job losses were a result of people "voting with their feet".


Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 6:47pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 6:39pm:

Quote:
That's funny, I recall hearing the same argument FOR cutting penalty rates. But when rates were cut, it was found that they didn't create a single job ... instead there were more unemployed.


Do you think there were more unemployed than there would have been without the rate cuts?


Yes definitely the loss of jobs was industry specific. People walked and it hurt the industry.

The data shows that employees voted with their feet.


Here is another lie. I am not sure what idiotic logic you use to justify it, but it is still a lie.


Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 8:35pm:
There is a mountain of evidence that shows wage increases do not impact employment numbers, the employer side make the claim with every wage increase and when it happens the outcome fails to support this claim.

The reason is that business will employ the number of people that they need. They do not employ people they don't need when wages are low and they do not sack people that they do need when wages increase.



Dnarever wrote on Oct 31st, 2020 at 11:44pm:

Quote:
Who but a unionist would believe that  a company only ever needs a fixed amount of employees


Nobody ever said or inferred this. Obviously the numbers vary. The statement that employers do not employ people they don't need or sack people that they do need has nothing to do with a fixed amount of employees but applies to a snapshot situation. Obviously numbers change as the business changes.


Yes, they will change as the business becomes more or less profitable, for example due to changes in award rates.


Quote:
Two of my statements were labelled as lies but they were both 100% correct.


You lied. Now you are pretending you said something else. Let's make it three of your statements, and you are now following it up with more lies.


Quote:
The lead argument on the topic is built on a faulty foundation.


It is built on the most fundamental and universally accepted principle in economics. You should not even need any formal education in economics to understand it. Yet the unions promote ignorance and self delusion in order to reject this principle.


Quote:
Comment 1: No he is correct. Jobs in these industries went down in this period. That is fact.


You are lying on behalf of the unions. Again. You are changing what was said. Why are you so fond of the unions if they need you to lie constantly on their behalf?


Quote:
Comment 2: An increase to the Australian minimum wage has never seen unemployment increase.


Another lie.


Quote:
You hear these economist statements trotted out by the righties year after year


Having half a brain does not make you right wing. Understanding economics does not make you right wing. You delude yourself again if you think half the population rejects these economic principles with you because they are on the left.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 1st, 2020 at 8:11am

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 31st, 2020 at 4:06pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 31st, 2020 at 2:36pm:
so after all that cherry picking by fd, the facts remained that the evidence shows that  cutting penalty rates failed to provide a single solitary job


Evidence for this? How can you say it didn't provide a single job did every business owner get surveyed?

Cutting penalty rates  saved a lot of these people from becoming unemployed


One doesn't need to interview every single business owner. What you need to do is prove the cuts helped create jobs. None of the evidence shows this.


Quote:
So did those jobs ever materialise? Nope.

"There was no significant increase in jobs outcomes before the penalty rate cuts compared to after the penalty rates cut," Dr Martin O'Brien from the University of Wollongong told Hack.

Dr O'Brien and a colleague from Macquarie University decided to test the claim by employers that penalty rate cuts would create jobs.

They looked at jobs figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) one year after the cuts came into place, and then again the following year. They found no noticeable difference in either case.

They also decided to test if there existing employees were getting more Sunday shifts.

There had been no increase to the proportion of people working Sundays or public holidays.

"For those already working Sundays or public holidays, [there was] no increase in their hours on those particular days. There were no increase in average hours worked [altogether]," Dr O'Brien said.

But jobs figures alone don't tell the whole story, so Dr O'Brien decided to just ask employers if they were hiring more workers.

"We found consistent results from owner-managers from within the retail and hospitality that there was no discernible increase in outcomes," he said.


https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/sunday-public-holiday-penalty-rate-cut-jobs/11487612

The University of Wollongong looked at the number of employees, they looked at the number of hours existing employees worked and they even asked employers if they were hiring more workers.. In EVERY instance, the facts show cutting penalty rates did not create extra jobs, or even extra hours for those already in the jobs.


FD is being conned.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 1st, 2020 at 8:12am
FD is like the village idiot who stamps his feet and cries that every one else is lying

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 1st, 2020 at 8:22am

Quote:
One doesn't need to interview every single business owner. What you need to do is prove the cuts helped create jobs. None of the evidence shows this.


The fact that you have to resort to such an idiotic analysis of one example in order to claim merely that it might not happen is enough to suggest that you are wrong.

The clincher is that you lie and cannot back up your claims, and you produce evidence that does not actually support your claims.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 1st, 2020 at 8:29am

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 8:22am:
The fact that you have to resort to such an idiotic analysis of one example in order to claim merely that it might not happen is enough to suggest that you are wrong.



go on idiot, show me the evidence of all these jobs that cuts to penalty rates created. :D :D

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 1st, 2020 at 8:39am
You first:


Quote:
But when rates were cut, it was found that they didn't create a single job


Or you could just admit this was a blatant, transparent, stupid lie.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 1st, 2020 at 8:41am

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 8:39am:
You first:



it's your thread .


freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 8:39am:
Or you could just admit this was a blatant, stupid lie.


no it's not. There isn't any evidence whatsoever that cutting penalty rates created a single job. If you have any evidence of it go on and put it up

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 1st, 2020 at 8:44am

Quote:
There isn't any evidence whatsoever that cutting penalty rates created a single job.


Lying seems to come naturally for you. How do you know this evidence does not exist?

Or do you think being ignorant means you are not lying when you make it up as you go along?

Do you realise that you yourself have posted articles conceding that the rate cuts lead to some new jobs?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 1st, 2020 at 8:46am

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 8:44am:
How do you know this evidence does not exist?


i don't 'know' you have a brain either ... i can only go by what I see.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 1st, 2020 at 8:48am
Do you realise that you yourself have posted articles conceding that the rate cuts lead to some new jobs? Why do I need to produce evidence to back up what I say when you have done it for me?

And why do you defend unions when doing so requires you to lie out of habit?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 1st, 2020 at 8:51am

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 8:48am:
Do you realise that you yourself have posted articles conceding that the rate cuts lead to some new jobs? Why do I need to produce evidence to back up what I say when you have done it for me?

And why do you defend unions when doing so requires you to lie out of habit?



you're full of poo fd. You want to cherry pick one line, out of a whole statement about the failure to penalty rate cuts to provide work, whilst ignoring the rest of the statement. The only liar is YOU.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Dnarever on Nov 1st, 2020 at 8:56am

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 7:57am:
You lied Dna. Being more careful with your union-inspired deception now doesn't change this. Here are two lies you told - that there were more unemployed than there would have been without the rate cuts, and that the job losses were a result of people "voting with their feet".


Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 6:47pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 6:39pm:

Quote:
That's funny, I recall hearing the same argument FOR cutting penalty rates. But when rates were cut, it was found that they didn't create a single job ... instead there were more unemployed.


Do you think there were more unemployed than there would have been without the rate cuts?


Yes definitely the loss of jobs was industry specific. People walked and it hurt the industry.

The data shows that employees voted with their feet.


Here is another lie. I am not sure what idiotic logic you use to justify it, but it is still a lie.


Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 8:35pm:
There is a mountain of evidence that shows wage increases do not impact employment numbers, the employer side make the claim with every wage increase and when it happens the outcome fails to support this claim.

The reason is that business will employ the number of people that they need. They do not employ people they don't need when wages are low and they do not sack people that they do need when wages increase.



Dnarever wrote on Oct 31st, 2020 at 11:44pm:
[quote]Who but a unionist would believe that  a company only ever needs a fixed amount of employees


Nobody ever said or inferred this. Obviously the numbers vary. The statement that employers do not employ people they don't need or sack people that they do need has nothing to do with a fixed amount of employees but applies to a snapshot situation. Obviously numbers change as the business changes.


Yes, they will change as the business becomes more or less profitable, for example due to changes in award rates.


Quote:
Two of my statements were labelled as lies but they were both 100% correct.


You lied. Now you are pretending you said something else. Let's make it three of your statements, and you are now following it up with more lies.


Quote:
The lead argument on the topic is built on a faulty foundation.


It is built on the most fundamental and universally accepted principle in economics. You should not even need any formal education in economics to understand it. Yet the unions promote ignorance and self delusion in order to reject this principle.


Quote:
Comment 1: No he is correct. Jobs in these industries went down in this period. That is fact.


You are lying on behalf of the unions. Again. You are changing what was said. Why are you so fond of the unions if they need you to lie constantly on their behalf?


Quote:
Comment 2: An increase to the Australian minimum wage has never seen unemployment increase.


Another lie.


Quote:
You hear these economist statements trotted out by the righties year after year


Having half a brain does not make you right wing. Understanding economics does not make you right wing. You delude yourself again if you think half the population rejects these economic principles with you because they are on the left.[/quote]


The definition of a lie isn't saying something that you disagree with.

Your Economic theory is just that theory, there are real world examples showing that it does not always work and in some areas it has never worked. Miss-applied theory spread with a wide brush  in areas where it wont apply is dangerous.

The example here is penalty rate reductions.

Here it was not possible to build a business model where employing additional staff or opening for additional hours would be viable based on the dynamics of the change.

Opening hours is more dependant on demand, selling nothing for more hours makes no sense and as stated before employing additional people when you have a full roster operating to an optimal level employing people you do not need makes no sense  (increasing overhead for no gain) unless you can drive up demand or properly justify additional hours.

However reducing peoples take home wage does have an impact at the other end where it will have an adverse impact on productivity and make industry employment less desirable to both current and new employees. More difficult to keep current employees and more difficult to onboard quality new employees with the associated costs and adverse performance dynamics and associated business damage and increased overhead costs.

The basis of your economic theory is not incorrect but the issue is that real life is much more complex. There are always other factors and they are often much more dominant.

In this instance the actual outcome lines up with my belief and not the theoretic result based on a single dynamic.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 1st, 2020 at 8:57am
Your own evidence supports what I say John. It's not cherry picking. It is reality.

You lied. On behalf of unions, you lie, you promote ignorance and self delusion, and you try to dismantle the most fundamental and universally accepted economic principles.


Quote:
There isn't any evidence whatsoever that cutting penalty rates created a single job.



Quote:
There isn't any evidence whatsoever that cutting penalty rates created a single job.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:04am

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 8:57am:
Your own evidence supports what I say John. It's not cherry picking. It is reality.


no, you're cherry picking. If you have evidence it created work, knock yourself out. Until then, I'll just continue to laugh at your desperation.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Dnarever on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:04am

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 8:57am:
Your own evidence supports what I say John. It's not cherry picking. It is reality.

You lied. On behalf of unions, you lie, you promote ignorance and self delusion, and you try to dismantle the most fundamental and universally accepted economic principles.


Quote:
There isn't any evidence whatsoever that cutting penalty rates created a single job.


[quote]There isn't any evidence whatsoever that cutting penalty rates created a single job.
[/quote]

In the period following the cutting of penalty rates the employment numbers in the industry dropped - This is fact. This is the reality, it is what happened in the real life example.

The theory argues that employment should go up - the measured fact is that employment went down.

This is because the theory does not operate in isolation there are a lot more factors at work than one simplistic fits all cases theory.

It is not a lie to show that you are wrong. You are allowed to not always be correct - we all are.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:06am

Quote:
Your Ecanomic theory is just that theory, there are real world examples showing that it does not always work and in some areas it has never worked. Miss-applied theory spread with a wide brush  in areas where it wont apply is dangerous.


It is a universally accepted principle in economics precisely because it universally reflects reality. Your failure to comprehend the theory and your simple minded misrepresentation of it does not change this.

What is dangerous is the lies and ignorance you promote on behalf of unions. It destroys jobs. It destroys livelihoods.


Quote:
Here it was not possible to build a business model where employing additional staff or opening for additional hours would be viable based on the dynamics of the change.


You are dribbling.


Quote:
However reducing peoples take home wage does have an impact at the other end where it will have an adverse impact on productivity and make industry employment less desirable to both current and new employees.


You pushed this lie before, attributing the jobs decline to people "voting with their feet". It is a lie. You cannot back it up. They lost their jobs because the companies could not afford to continue employing them.


Quote:
The basis of your economic theory is not incorrect but the issue is that real life is much more complex.


It is you, John, Jest and Grapps who make it simple minded to the point of idiocy. You take an example of an industry contracting for reasons other than penalty rates, and try to attribute that contraction to penalty rates. I wholly expect that the reduction in penalty rates was only possible politically because people were staring job losses in the face, and this stark reality forced them to drop the idiotic BS that the unions had been feeding them.

Here is an example of the simple minded idiocy:


Quote:
More difficult to keep current employees and more difficult to onboard quality new employees


Nothing is stopping a company paying above the award to get quality employees.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:07am

John Smith wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:04am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 8:57am:
Your own evidence supports what I say John. It's not cherry picking. It is reality.


no, you're cherry picking. If you have evidence it created work, knock yourself out. Until then, I'll just continue to laugh at your desperation.


Like I said, I have evidence. Your article.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:08am

Dnarever wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:04am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 8:57am:
Your own evidence supports what I say John. It's not cherry picking. It is reality.

You lied. On behalf of unions, you lie, you promote ignorance and self delusion, and you try to dismantle the most fundamental and universally accepted economic principles.


Quote:
There isn't any evidence whatsoever that cutting penalty rates created a single job.


[quote]There isn't any evidence whatsoever that cutting penalty rates created a single job.


In the period following the cutting of penalty rates the employment numbers in the industry dropped - This is fact. This is the reality, it is what happened in the real life example.
[/quote]

But the lies you tell about it are not fact. They are lies.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Jest on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:08am

Dnarever wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 8:56am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 7:57am:
You lied Dna. Being more careful with your union-inspired deception now doesn't change this. Here are two lies you told - that there were more unemployed than there would have been without the rate cuts, and that the job losses were a result of people "voting with their feet".


Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 6:47pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 6:39pm:

Quote:
That's funny, I recall hearing the same argument FOR cutting penalty rates. But when rates were cut, it was found that they didn't create a single job ... instead there were more unemployed.


Do you think there were more unemployed than there would have been without the rate cuts?


Yes definitely the loss of jobs was industry specific. People walked and it hurt the industry.

The data shows that employees voted with their feet.


Here is another lie. I am not sure what idiotic logic you use to justify it, but it is still a lie.


Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 8:35pm:
There is a mountain of evidence that shows wage increases do not impact employment numbers, the employer side make the claim with every wage increase and when it happens the outcome fails to support this claim.

The reason is that business will employ the number of people that they need. They do not employ people they don't need when wages are low and they do not sack people that they do need when wages increase.



Dnarever wrote on Oct 31st, 2020 at 11:44pm:
[quote]Who but a unionist would believe that  a company only ever needs a fixed amount of employees


Nobody ever said or inferred this. Obviously the numbers vary. The statement that employers do not employ people they don't need or sack people that they do need has nothing to do with a fixed amount of employees but applies to a snapshot situation. Obviously numbers change as the business changes.


Yes, they will change as the business becomes more or less profitable, for example due to changes in award rates.

[quote]Two of my statements were labelled as lies but they were both 100% correct.


You lied. Now you are pretending you said something else. Let's make it three of your statements, and you are now following it up with more lies.


Quote:
The lead argument on the topic is built on a faulty foundation.


It is built on the most fundamental and universally accepted principle in economics. You should not even need any formal education in economics to understand it. Yet the unions promote ignorance and self delusion in order to reject this principle.


Quote:
Comment 1: No he is correct. Jobs in these industries went down in this period. That is fact.


You are lying on behalf of the unions. Again. You are changing what was said. Why are you so fond of the unions if they need you to lie constantly on their behalf?


Quote:
Comment 2: An increase to the Australian minimum wage has never seen unemployment increase.


Another lie.


Quote:
You hear these economist statements trotted out by the righties year after year


Having half a brain does not make you right wing. Understanding economics does not make you right wing. You delude yourself again if you think half the population rejects these economic principles with you because they are on the left.[/quote]


The definition of a lie isn't saying something that you disagree with.

Your Economic theory is just that theory, there are real world examples showing that it does not always work and in some areas it has never worked. Miss-applied theory spread with a wide brush  in areas where it wont apply is dangerous.

The example here is penalty rate reductions.

Here it was not possible to build a business model where employing additional staff or opening for additional hours would be viable based on the dynamics of the change.

Opening hours is more dependant on demand, selling nothing for more hours makes no sense and as stated before employing additional people when you have a full roster operating to an optimal level employing people you do not need makes no sense  (increasing overhead for no gain) unless you can drive up demand or properly justify additional hours.

However reducing peoples take home wage does have an impact at the other end where it will have an adverse impact on productivity and make industry employment less desirable to both current and new employees. More difficult to keep current employees and more difficult to onboard quality new employees with the associated costs and adverse performance dynamics and associated business damage and increased overhead costs.

The basis of your economic theory is not incorrect but the issue is that real life is much more complex. There are always other factors and they are often much more dominant.

In this instance the actual outcome lines up with my belief and not the theoretic result based on a single dynamic.[/quote]
I really dont understand why anyone bothers with this fool freediver. The guy's a shameless charlatan. Truth doesn't mean anything to him. All he's interested in is spreading his cheap propaganda against the common man. A really hateful character. 

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Dnarever on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:13am

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:06am:

Quote:
Here it was not possible to build a business model where employing additional staff or opening for additional hours would be viable based on the dynamics of the change.


You are dribbling.


Show me a model where the penalty rate drop could justify additional employment or Hours ?

The business community Cleary stated that it would not do this after the Fair work decision had been made even though they argued the opposite to the hearing.

Your insistence that one single theory is a one size fits all guaranteed result is where we see the dribbling.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:16am

Quote:
Show me a model where the penalty rate drop could justify additional employment or Hours ?


You are asking me to explain the bleeding obvious. You do realise that, right?


Quote:
The business community Cleary stated that it would not do this after the Fair work decision had been made even though they argued the opposite to the hearing.


Do you know how I can tell you are lying without even looking into it? It's when you attribute specific statements to an amorphous group of people.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:17am

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:07am:

John Smith wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:04am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 8:57am:
Your own evidence supports what I say John. It's not cherry picking. It is reality.


no, you're cherry picking. If you have evidence it created work, knock yourself out. Until then, I'll just continue to laugh at your desperation.


Like I said, I have evidence. Your article.


Just as I said, you HAVE NOTHING

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:18am

John Smith wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:17am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:07am:

John Smith wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:04am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 8:57am:
Your own evidence supports what I say John. It's not cherry picking. It is reality.


no, you're cherry picking. If you have evidence it created work, knock yourself out. Until then, I'll just continue to laugh at your desperation.


Like I said, I have evidence. Your article.


Just as I said, you HAVE NOTHING


You asked for evidence. You got exactly what you asked for, so you whined about cherry picking.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:20am

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:18am:

John Smith wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:17am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:07am:

John Smith wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:04am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 8:57am:
Your own evidence supports what I say John. It's not cherry picking. It is reality.


no, you're cherry picking. If you have evidence it created work, knock yourself out. Until then, I'll just continue to laugh at your desperation.


Like I said, I have evidence. Your article.


Just as I said, you HAVE NOTHING


You asked for evidence. You got exactly what you asked for, so you whined about cherry picking.



Your evidence is what you provided ... a bit fat nothing.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by greggerypeccary on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:22am

Penalty rate cuts have not created one single job

The Commission, in addition to business groups, argued the cuts will lead to economic growth and an increase in jobs and work hours.

However, this week the small business lobby admitted none of that has happened.

Council of Small Business Australia chief executive Peter Strong said the reduction in workers’ pay has been a “waste of time” and had not created one single job.

“There’s no extra jobs on a Sunday.

“There’s been no extra hours. Certainly, I don’t know anyone (who gave workers extra hours).

“It’s been just a waste of time.”



Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:23am

John Smith wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:20am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:18am:

John Smith wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:17am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:07am:

John Smith wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:04am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 8:57am:
Your own evidence supports what I say John. It's not cherry picking. It is reality.


no, you're cherry picking. If you have evidence it created work, knock yourself out. Until then, I'll just continue to laugh at your desperation.


Like I said, I have evidence. Your article.


Just as I said, you HAVE NOTHING


You asked for evidence. You got exactly what you asked for, so you whined about cherry picking.



Your evidence is what you provided ... a bit fat nothing.


Wait, are you actually complaining because I used the article you posted to back up what I say?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Dnarever on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:24am

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:06am:

Quote:
However reducing peoples take home wage does have an impact at the other end where it will have an adverse impact on productivity and make industry employment less desirable to both current and new employees.


You pushed this lie before, attributing the jobs decline to people "voting with their feet". It is a lie. You cannot back it up. They lost their jobs because the companies could not afford to continue employing them.


Yet we see at this time every other industry basically kept employment rates increasing at the same rate as before while the impacted industries seen job losses and at best stagnation across the board.

Again the facts are not your friend.

You argue that these industries that had just got a wages drop windfall in their pockets became less profitable and had to sack people across the board, isn't this the opposite to what your theory is saying would happen ?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:25am

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:22am:
Penalty rate cuts have not created one single job

The Commission, in addition to business groups, argued the cuts will lead to economic growth and an increase in jobs and work hours.

However, this week the small business lobby admitted none of that has happened.

Council of Small Business Australia chief executive Peter Strong said the reduction in workers’ pay has been a “waste of time” and had not created one single job.

“There’s no extra jobs on a Sunday.

“There’s been no extra hours. Certainly, I don’t know anyone (who gave workers extra hours).

“It’s been just a waste of time.”


Greg didn't want to miss out on the opportunity to tell lies on behalf of the union.

And speaking on behalf of unions, he felt no shame in using ignorance as evidence. I expect the irony will be lost.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:26am

Dnarever wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:24am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:06am:

Quote:
However reducing peoples take home wage does have an impact at the other end where it will have an adverse impact on productivity and make industry employment less desirable to both current and new employees.


You pushed this lie before, attributing the jobs decline to people "voting with their feet". It is a lie. You cannot back it up. They lost their jobs because the companies could not afford to continue employing them.


Yet we see at this time every other industry basically kept employment rates increasing at the same rate as before while the impacted industries seen job losses and at best stagnation across the board.

Again the facts are not your friend.

You argue that these industries that had just got a wages drop windfall in their pockets became less profitable and had to sack people across the board, isn't this the opposite to what your theory is saying would happen ?


No. You merely misunderstand the theory. Perhaps it is too subtle for you.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Dnarever on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:34am

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:16am:

Quote:
Show me a model where the penalty rate drop could justify additional employment or Hours ?


You are asking me to explain the bleeding obvious. You do realise that, right?

[quote]The business community Cleary stated that it would not do this after the Fair work decision had been made even though they argued the opposite to the hearing.


Do you know how I can tell you are lying without even looking into it? It's when you attribute specific statements to an amorphous group of people. [/quote]

The articles from business groups were posted at the time - it is real. 

I asked you to explain nothing just to show me a workable business model. That is black and white. I can save you the time and tell you it cannot be done using a realistic scenario. There is only one exception and it only works at the very top end and not in small to medium businesses.

That is if you can use economy of scale to generate enough saving from penalty rate cuts to finance additional overhead in either hours or wages.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:40am

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:25am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:22am:
Penalty rate cuts have not created one single job

The Commission, in addition to business groups, argued the cuts will lead to economic growth and an increase in jobs and work hours.

However, this week the small business lobby admitted none of that has happened.

Council of Small Business Australia chief executive Peter Strong said the reduction in workers’ pay has been a “waste of time” and had not created one single job.

“There’s no extra jobs on a Sunday.

“There’s been no extra hours. Certainly, I don’t know anyone (who gave workers extra hours).

“It’s been just a waste of time.”


Greg didn't want to miss out on the opportunity to tell lies on behalf of the union.

And speaking on behalf of unions, he felt no shame in using ignorance as evidence. I expect the irony will be lost.



That was an extract from the chief executive of the council of small business. .. an employer group, not a union, that lobbied for penalty rate cuts in the first place :D :D :D

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:42am

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:23am:

John Smith wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:20am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:18am:

John Smith wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:17am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:07am:

John Smith wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:04am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 8:57am:
Your own evidence supports what I say John. It's not cherry picking. It is reality.


no, you're cherry picking. If you have evidence it created work, knock yourself out. Until then, I'll just continue to laugh at your desperation.


Like I said, I have evidence. Your article.


Just as I said, you HAVE NOTHING


You asked for evidence. You got exactly what you asked for, so you whined about cherry picking.



Your evidence is what you provided ... a bit fat nothing.


Wait, are you actually complaining because I used the article you posted to back up what I say?


you haven't used anything. .. all you've done is flap your gums. Post the evidence FD, otherwise stop pretending.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:45am
From your article:


Quote:
A new analysis finds the lower rates did not lead to significant new jobs


Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:46am

John Smith wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:40am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:25am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:22am:
Penalty rate cuts have not created one single job

The Commission, in addition to business groups, argued the cuts will lead to economic growth and an increase in jobs and work hours.

However, this week the small business lobby admitted none of that has happened.

Council of Small Business Australia chief executive Peter Strong said the reduction in workers’ pay has been a “waste of time” and had not created one single job.

“There’s no extra jobs on a Sunday.

“There’s been no extra hours. Certainly, I don’t know anyone (who gave workers extra hours).

“It’s been just a waste of time.”


Greg didn't want to miss out on the opportunity to tell lies on behalf of the union.

And speaking on behalf of unions, he felt no shame in using ignorance as evidence. I expect the irony will be lost.



That was an extract from the chief executive of the council of small business. .. an employer group, not a union, that lobbied for penalty rate cuts in the first place :D :D :D


Who made this claim?


Quote:
Penalty rate cuts have not created one single job


I'll give you a hint: it was a liar.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:47am

Dnarever wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:34am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:16am:

Quote:
Show me a model where the penalty rate drop could justify additional employment or Hours ?


You are asking me to explain the bleeding obvious. You do realise that, right?

[quote]The business community Cleary stated that it would not do this after the Fair work decision had been made even though they argued the opposite to the hearing.


Do you know how I can tell you are lying without even looking into it? It's when you attribute specific statements to an amorphous group of people.


The articles from business groups were posted at the time - it is real. 

I asked you to explain nothing just to show me a workable business model. That is black and white. I can save you the time and tell you it cannot be done using a realistic scenario. There is only one exception and it only works at the very top end and not in small to medium businesses.

That is if you can use economy of scale to generate enough saving from penalty rate cuts to finance additional overhead in either hours or wages.
[/quote]

So you want me to show you a workable business model without explaining anything? And you consider this to be "black and white"?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:55am

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:46am:
I'll give you a hint: it was a liar.



prove it dopey. Sticking your head up your arse and crying 'liar, liar' just doesn't cut it

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:56am

John Smith wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:55am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:46am:
I'll give you a hint: it was a liar.



prove it dopey. Sticking your head up your arse and crying 'liar, liar' just doesn't cut it


It is a claim that as far as I know, only you and Greg have made. I don't have to prove anything. You made it up. You lied. You cannot back it up. What else is there to do?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:58am

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:56am:

John Smith wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:55am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:46am:
I'll give you a hint: it was a liar.



prove it dopey. Sticking your head up your arse and crying 'liar, liar' just doesn't cut it


It is a claim that as far as I know, only you and Greg have made. I don't have to prove anything. You made it up. You lied. You cannot back it up. What else is there to do?



I've provided ample evidence. If you think I'm wrong, either show your evidence or stop pretending you have a clue.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:00am
You did not provide evidence. You lied. Here it is again:


John Smith wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 6:36pm:
But when rates were cut, it was found that they didn't create a single job


Your ignorance does not count as evidence John.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:04am

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:00am:
You did not provide evidence. You lied. Here it is again:


John Smith wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 6:36pm:
But when rates were cut, it was found that they didn't create a single job


Your ignorance does not count as evidence John.


From the Chief executive of an employer group that lobbied for the penalty rate cuts in the first place:


Council of Small Business Australia chief executive Peter Strong said the reduction in workers’ pay has been a “waste of time” and had not created one single job.


you're turn FD. .. either provide evidence for your stupidity or run away and hide

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:18am

John Smith wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:04am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:00am:
You did not provide evidence. You lied. Here it is again:


John Smith wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 6:36pm:
But when rates were cut, it was found that they didn't create a single job


Your ignorance does not count as evidence John.


From the Chief executive of an employer group that lobbied for the penalty rate cuts in the first place:


Council of Small Business Australia chief executive Peter Strong said the reduction in workers’ pay has been a “waste of time” and had not created one single job.


you're turn FD. .. either provide evidence for your stupidity or run away and hide


No he didn't. You are full of poo John. Lying comes so naturally to you that you do not even realise you are doing it.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by greggerypeccary on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:43am

Council of Small Business Australia chief executive Peter Strong said the reduction in workers’ pay has been a “waste of time” and had not created one single job.





Peter Strong – Council of Small Business, says penalty rate cuts have not created a single job.



Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:44am

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:43am:
Council of Small Business Australia chief executive Peter Strong said the reduction in workers’ pay has been a “waste of time” and had not created one single job.





Peter Strong – Council of Small Business, says penalty rate cuts have not created a single job.


You are lying Greg. Even when I point it out to you, you cannot figure it out. This is the sort of self delusion that unions are built on.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by greggerypeccary on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:57am

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:44am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:43am:
Council of Small Business Australia chief executive Peter Strong said the reduction in workers’ pay has been a “waste of time” and had not created one single job.





Peter Strong – Council of Small Business, says penalty rate cuts have not created a single job.


You are lying Greg. Even when I point it out to you, you cannot figure it out. This is the sort of self delusion that unions are built on.


I'm not Peter Strong.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:59am

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:57am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:44am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:43am:
Council of Small Business Australia chief executive Peter Strong said the reduction in workers’ pay has been a “waste of time” and had not created one single job.





Peter Strong – Council of Small Business, says penalty rate cuts have not created a single job.


You are lying Greg. Even when I point it out to you, you cannot figure it out. This is the sort of self delusion that unions are built on.


I'm not Peter Strong.


And you do not appear to know what the difference between a quote and a lie is. Which makes you very useful to the unions.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by greggerypeccary on Nov 1st, 2020 at 11:08am

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:59am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:57am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:44am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:43am:
Council of Small Business Australia chief executive Peter Strong said the reduction in workers’ pay has been a “waste of time” and had not created one single job.





Peter Strong – Council of Small Business, says penalty rate cuts have not created a single job.


You are lying Greg. Even when I point it out to you, you cannot figure it out. This is the sort of self delusion that unions are built on.


I'm not Peter Strong.


And you do not appear to know what the difference between a quote and a lie is. Which makes you very useful to the unions.


A quote can be both a quote and a lie.

I can't be Peter Strong though.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 1st, 2020 at 11:09am

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 11:08am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:59am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:57am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:44am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:43am:
Council of Small Business Australia chief executive Peter Strong said the reduction in workers’ pay has been a “waste of time” and had not created one single job.





Peter Strong – Council of Small Business, says penalty rate cuts have not created a single job.


You are lying Greg. Even when I point it out to you, you cannot figure it out. This is the sort of self delusion that unions are built on.


I'm not Peter Strong.


And you do not appear to know what the difference between a quote and a lie is. Which makes you very useful to the unions.


A quote can be both a quote and a lie.

I can't be Peter Strong though.


Yes Greg. You are lying. On behalf of the unions. Without even realising it apparently. People like you are special resources for organisations like unions.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Ye Grappler on Nov 1st, 2020 at 12:10pm
Things that create unemployment:-

Poor management that results in massive overheads and poor performance in the market.
Inability to stick to the rules that causes company collapse.
Globalising industries so as to ensure incomes for corporations via use of virtual slave and child labour.
Government weakness in standing up to businesses that will not play by the rules.
The mad government concept that by spreading the 'wealth' around, all in the world will one day be 'equal'.
Reduction of genuine employment opportunity through offshoring profits and concentrating profits into 'deadstock' items for tax concession purposes.

Add as you see fit.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 1st, 2020 at 12:26pm

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 12:10pm:
Things that create unemployment:-

Poor management that results in massive overheads and poor performance in the market.
Inability to stick to the rules that causes company collapse.
Globalising industries so as to ensure incomes for corporations via use of virtual slave and child labour.
Government weakness in standing up to businesses that will not play by the rules.
The mad government concept that by spreading the 'wealth' around, all in the world will one day be 'equal'.
Reduction of genuine employment opportunity through offshoring profits and concentrating profits into 'deadstock' items for tax concession purposes.

Add as you see fit.


Thanks Grapps. Let's add unions to the list. Just is case people think you are trying to change the subject.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 1st, 2020 at 1:06pm

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:18am:

John Smith wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:04am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:00am:
You did not provide evidence. You lied. Here it is again:


John Smith wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 6:36pm:
But when rates were cut, it was found that they didn't create a single job


Your ignorance does not count as evidence John.


From the Chief executive of an employer group that lobbied for the penalty rate cuts in the first place:


Council of Small Business Australia chief executive Peter Strong said the reduction in workers’ pay has been a “waste of time” and had not created one single job.


you're turn FD. .. either provide evidence for your stupidity or run away and hide


No he didn't. You are full of poo John. Lying comes so naturally to you that you do not even realise you are doing it.


He didn't? Thats funny, the article attributes the quote to him. You have a link with evidence to suggest otherwise FD? Or is this where you pretend again?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 1st, 2020 at 1:57pm

John Smith wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 1:06pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:18am:

John Smith wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:04am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:00am:
You did not provide evidence. You lied. Here it is again:


John Smith wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 6:36pm:
But when rates were cut, it was found that they didn't create a single job


Your ignorance does not count as evidence John.


From the Chief executive of an employer group that lobbied for the penalty rate cuts in the first place:


Council of Small Business Australia chief executive Peter Strong said the reduction in workers’ pay has been a “waste of time” and had not created one single job.


you're turn FD. .. either provide evidence for your stupidity or run away and hide


No he didn't. You are full of poo John. Lying comes so naturally to you that you do not even realise you are doing it.


He didn't? Thats funny, the article attributes the quote to him. You have a link with evidence to suggest otherwise FD? Or is this where you pretend again?


The article quotes what he actually said. Surely you don't need me to explain the difference between a quote and a lie to you.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 1st, 2020 at 2:01pm

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 1:57pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 1:06pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:18am:

John Smith wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:04am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 10:00am:
You did not provide evidence. You lied. Here it is again:


John Smith wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 6:36pm:
But when rates were cut, it was found that they didn't create a single job


Your ignorance does not count as evidence John.


From the Chief executive of an employer group that lobbied for the penalty rate cuts in the first place:


Council of Small Business Australia chief executive Peter Strong said the reduction in workers’ pay has been a “waste of time” and had not created one single job.


you're turn FD. .. either provide evidence for your stupidity or run away and hide


No he didn't. You are full of poo John. Lying comes so naturally to you that you do not even realise you are doing it.


He didn't? Thats funny, the article attributes the quote to him. You have a link with evidence to suggest otherwise FD? Or is this where you pretend again?


The article quotes what he actually said. Surely you don't need me to explain the difference between a quote and a lie to you.


No need, we all know that a lie is what comes out of your mouth.

Keep pretending FD.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 1st, 2020 at 2:02pm

Quote:
and had not created one single job.


Can you point out where the article quotes him actually saying this?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 1st, 2020 at 2:04pm

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 2:02pm:

Quote:
and had not created one single job.


Can you point out where the article quotes him actually saying this?





Quote:
   “There’s no extra jobs on a Sunday.

    “There’s been no extra hours. Certainly, I don’t know anyone (who gave workers extra hours).

    “It’s been just a waste of time.”



lets see what straws you'll grasp now FD

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 1st, 2020 at 2:10pm
So, do I really need to point out the difference between what he actually said and what was falsely attributed to him?

Or are you clever enough to figure it out for yourself?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 1st, 2020 at 2:22pm

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 2:10pm:
So, do I really need to point out the difference between what he actually said and what was falsely attributed to him?

Or are you clever enough to figure it out for yourself?



is this where you run away again?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Dnarever on Nov 1st, 2020 at 2:35pm

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:46am:

John Smith wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:40am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:25am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:22am:
Penalty rate cuts have not created one single job

The Commission, in addition to business groups, argued the cuts will lead to economic growth and an increase in jobs and work hours.

However, this week the small business lobby admitted none of that has happened.

Council of Small Business Australia chief executive Peter Strong said the reduction in workers’ pay has been a “waste of time” and had not created one single job.

“There’s no extra jobs on a Sunday.

“There’s been no extra hours. Certainly, I don’t know anyone (who gave workers extra hours).

“It’s been just a waste of time.”


Greg didn't want to miss out on the opportunity to tell lies on behalf of the union.

And speaking on behalf of unions, he felt no shame in using ignorance as evidence. I expect the irony will be lost.



That was an extract from the chief executive of the council of small business. .. an employer group, not a union, that lobbied for penalty rate cuts in the first place :D :D :D


Who made this claim?


Quote:
Penalty rate cuts have not created one single job


I'll give you a hint: it was a liar.


The RBA, the Australian bureau of statistics, about 5 or 6 studies and a business group or two..

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 1st, 2020 at 2:42pm
Can you quote them? Or are you telling more lies?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Nov 2nd, 2020 at 6:30am

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:45am:
From your article:


Quote:
A new analysis finds the lower rates did not lead to significant new jobs


That quote actually supports the argument that penalty rates didn't create one job.....

And the Small Business Council has admitted it.

You are the liar.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Nov 2nd, 2020 at 6:36am

Jest wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:08am:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 8:56am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 7:57am:
You lied Dna. Being more careful with your union-inspired deception now doesn't change this. Here are two lies you told - that there were more unemployed than there would have been without the rate cuts, and that the job losses were a result of people "voting with their feet".


Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 6:47pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 6:39pm:

Quote:
That's funny, I recall hearing the same argument FOR cutting penalty rates. But when rates were cut, it was found that they didn't create a single job ... instead there were more unemployed.


Do you think there were more unemployed than there would have been without the rate cuts?


Yes definitely the loss of jobs was industry specific. People walked and it hurt the industry.

The data shows that employees voted with their feet.


Here is another lie. I am not sure what idiotic logic you use to justify it, but it is still a lie.


Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 8:35pm:
There is a mountain of evidence that shows wage increases do not impact employment numbers, the employer side make the claim with every wage increase and when it happens the outcome fails to support this claim.

The reason is that business will employ the number of people that they need. They do not employ people they don't need when wages are low and they do not sack people that they do need when wages increase.



Dnarever wrote on Oct 31st, 2020 at 11:44pm:
[quote]Who but a unionist would believe that  a company only ever needs a fixed amount of employees


Nobody ever said or inferred this. Obviously the numbers vary. The statement that employers do not employ people they don't need or sack people that they do need has nothing to do with a fixed amount of employees but applies to a snapshot situation. Obviously numbers change as the business changes.


Yes, they will change as the business becomes more or less profitable, for example due to changes in award rates.

[quote]Two of my statements were labelled as lies but they were both 100% correct.


You lied. Now you are pretending you said something else. Let's make it three of your statements, and you are now following it up with more lies.

[quote]The lead argument on the topic is built on a faulty foundation.


It is built on the most fundamental and universally accepted principle in economics. You should not even need any formal education in economics to understand it. Yet the unions promote ignorance and self delusion in order to reject this principle.


Quote:
Comment 1: No he is correct. Jobs in these industries went down in this period. That is fact.


You are lying on behalf of the unions. Again. You are changing what was said. Why are you so fond of the unions if they need you to lie constantly on their behalf?


Quote:
Comment 2: An increase to the Australian minimum wage has never seen unemployment increase.


Another lie.


Quote:
You hear these economist statements trotted out by the righties year after year


Having half a brain does not make you right wing. Understanding economics does not make you right wing. You delude yourself again if you think half the population rejects these economic principles with you because they are on the left.[/quote]


The definition of a lie isn't saying something that you disagree with.

Your Economic theory is just that theory, there are real world examples showing that it does not always work and in some areas it has never worked. Miss-applied theory spread with a wide brush  in areas where it wont apply is dangerous.

The example here is penalty rate reductions.

Here it was not possible to build a business model where employing additional staff or opening for additional hours would be viable based on the dynamics of the change.

Opening hours is more dependant on demand, selling nothing for more hours makes no sense and as stated before employing additional people when you have a full roster operating to an optimal level employing people you do not need makes no sense  (increasing overhead for no gain) unless you can drive up demand or properly justify additional hours.

However reducing peoples take home wage does have an impact at the other end where it will have an adverse impact on productivity and make industry employment less desirable to both current and new employees. More difficult to keep current employees and more difficult to onboard quality new employees with the associated costs and adverse performance dynamics and associated business damage and increased overhead costs.

The basis of your economic theory is not incorrect but the issue is that real life is much more complex. There are always other factors and they are often much more dominant.

In this instance the actual outcome lines up with my belief and not the theoretic result based on a single dynamic.[/quote]
I really dont understand why anyone bothers with this fool freediver. The guy's a shameless charlatan. Truth doesn't mean anything to him. All he's interested in is spreading his cheap propaganda against the common man. A really hateful character.  [/quote]

::) If only you were even half the fool ey?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Nov 2nd, 2020 at 6:46am

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 12:26pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 12:10pm:
Things that create unemployment:-

Poor management that results in massive overheads and poor performance in the market.
Inability to stick to the rules that causes company collapse.
Globalising industries so as to ensure incomes for corporations via use of virtual slave and child labour.
Government weakness in standing up to businesses that will not play by the rules.
The mad government concept that by spreading the 'wealth' around, all in the world will one day be 'equal'.
Reduction of genuine employment opportunity through offshoring profits and concentrating profits into 'deadstock' items for tax concession purposes.

Add as you see fit.


Thanks Grapps. Let's add unions to the list. Just is case people think you are trying to change the subject.


Of course ... and don't forget Unions of Employers...

Especially the one that lobbied and succeeded in attaining a cut to employees wages (penalty rates) and then admitted it didn't help create a single job...

It just lined the pockets of the members of that Union of Employers.. aka the Small Business Council of Australia.

You couldn't lie straight in bed FD you hypocrite.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Ye Grappler on Nov 2nd, 2020 at 8:32am
Sadly, freediver has gone off the rails and is swallowing whole the BS put about by the employers and their exploitationist minded politician mates - I'm beginning to think he may be a schill for Labor stirring the pot so as to ensure that ScottCo do not get another shot at ruining the place.

schill - zomeone who is taking dirty schilling vor dirty vork

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 2nd, 2020 at 6:31pm

Gnads wrote on Nov 2nd, 2020 at 6:30am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:45am:
From your article:


Quote:
A new analysis finds the lower rates did not lead to significant new jobs


That quote actually supports the argument that penalty rates didn't create one job.....

And the Small Business Council has admitted it.

You are the liar.


No it doesn't.


Quote:
Especially the one that lobbied and succeeded in attaining a cut to employees wages (penalty rates) and then admitted it didn't help create a single job...


Liar.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Dnarever on Nov 2nd, 2020 at 7:29pm
https://theconversation.com/cutting-penalty-rates-was-supposed-to-create-jobs-it-hasnt-and-heres-why-not-117178


Quote:
After three years of submissions, hearings and deliberations, Australia’s workplace relations umpire, the Fair Work Commission, decided in 2017 to decrease the penalty rates paid to retail and hospitality workers on the safety-net award for working on Sundays and public holidays.

For years employer groups had argued that high penalty rates (up to double standard pay) were an unaffordable anachronism in the modern economy, and the commission essentially agreed.

In particular, it concluded the evidence was that cutting penalty rates (by between a quarter and a half) would lead to more trading hours and services on offer on Sundays and public holidays,

n other words, reducing penalty rates would create more jobs.



Quote:
Two years on, with cuts to public holiday penalty rates fully implemented and Sundays partially implemented (being introduced over three to four years) how many extra jobs have been created?

Our research suggests basically none.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Dnarever on Nov 2nd, 2020 at 7:30pm
https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/work/2019/07/01/penalty-rate-cuts-jobs-growth/


Quote:
Jobs growth in the retail and hospitality sectors has more than halved since the introduction of Sunday penalty rates, a new study has revealed.

Research by the Centre for Future Work (CFW) confirms that despite being premised on the expectation of increased hours and more jobs, the cuts to Sunday penalties, phased in since July 2017, have coincided with a worsening in jobs growth.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Dnarever on Nov 2nd, 2020 at 7:45pm
https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/work/2019/07/01/penalty-rate-cuts-jobs-growth/


Quote:
Using Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data, CFW chief economist Dr Jim Stanford found that total employment in the retail sector – Australia’s second-largest employer with 1.3 million people – grew by 0.9 per cent a year in the two years from May 2017 to May 2019.

In the hospitality sector, jobs growth was 1.7 per cent a year for the two-year period.

Dr Stanford said both rates contrasted with the average annual labour market growth of 2.7 per cent over the same period.

The anaemic growth rates were also well down on the growth rates for the two years prior (May 2015 to May 2017) of 2.2 per cent a year and 3.5 per cent a year for the retail and hospitality sectors, respectively.

“Therefore, both compared with other industries, and compared with previous periods of time, job creation in retail and hospitality under lower penalty rates has deteriorated,” Dr Stanford said.


They are all the same nobody has argued that the expected employment increases ever occurred.

ABS data clearly shows that the industry employment was weak compared to both other industries and the previous performance of the hospitality industry.

Nobody has attempted to make any argument that reducing penalty rates didn't damage the hospitality industry - It very clearly did.

The decision was either corrupt or incompetent and almost certainly born from the belief you have quoted as a truism. "Reducing wages will increase employment" - it must someone put it in the year 11 text books.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 2nd, 2020 at 9:44pm

Dnarever wrote on Nov 2nd, 2020 at 7:29pm:
https://theconversation.com/cutting-penalty-rates-was-supposed-to-create-jobs-it-hasnt-and-heres-why-not-117178


Quote:
After three years of submissions, hearings and deliberations, Australia’s workplace relations umpire, the Fair Work Commission, decided in 2017 to decrease the penalty rates paid to retail and hospitality workers on the safety-net award for working on Sundays and public holidays.

For years employer groups had argued that high penalty rates (up to double standard pay) were an unaffordable anachronism in the modern economy, and the commission essentially agreed.

In particular, it concluded the evidence was that cutting penalty rates (by between a quarter and a half) would lead to more trading hours and services on offer on Sundays and public holidays,

n other words, reducing penalty rates would create more jobs.


[quote]Two years on, with cuts to public holiday penalty rates fully implemented and Sundays partially implemented (being introduced over three to four years) how many extra jobs have been created?

Our research suggests basically none.
[/quote]

Does that mean "not none"?

Whose research?


Quote:
Jobs growth in the retail and hospitality sectors has more than halved


Half as much jobs growth eh? How do you get from there to zero?


Quote:
They are all the same nobody has argued that the expected employment increases ever occurred.


They have told lots of lies though, haven't you?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Nov 3rd, 2020 at 1:12pm

freediver wrote on Nov 2nd, 2020 at 6:31pm:

Gnads wrote on Nov 2nd, 2020 at 6:30am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 9:45am:
From your article:


Quote:
A new analysis finds the lower rates did not lead to significant new jobs


That quote actually supports the argument that penalty rates didn't create one job.....

And the Small Business Council has admitted it.

You are the liar.


No it doesn't.

[quote]Especially the one that lobbied and succeeded in attaining a cut to employees wages (penalty rates) and then admitted it didn't help create a single job...


Liar.[/quote]

You said - I said - you said ::)

Riveting bullshyte on your behalf.

And the lying bs is squarely in your court of delusion.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 3rd, 2020 at 8:56pm
Would you say that this is what passes for honesty from union supporters?


Quote:
Especially the one that lobbied and succeeded in attaining a cut to employees wages (penalty rates) and then admitted it didn't help create a single job...


If you are not lying, show us what he actually said.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Dnarever on Nov 3rd, 2020 at 9:10pm

freediver wrote on Nov 2nd, 2020 at 9:44pm:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 2nd, 2020 at 7:29pm:
https://theconversation.com/cutting-penalty-rates-was-supposed-to-create-jobs-it-hasnt-and-heres-why-not-117178


Quote:
After three years of submissions, hearings and deliberations, Australia’s workplace relations umpire, the Fair Work Commission, decided in 2017 to decrease the penalty rates paid to retail and hospitality workers on the safety-net award for working on Sundays and public holidays.

For years employer groups had argued that high penalty rates (up to double standard pay) were an unaffordable anachronism in the modern economy, and the commission essentially agreed.

In particular, it concluded the evidence was that cutting penalty rates (by between a quarter and a half) would lead to more trading hours and services on offer on Sundays and public holidays,

n other words, reducing penalty rates would create more jobs.


[quote]Two years on, with cuts to public holiday penalty rates fully implemented and Sundays partially implemented (being introduced over three to four years) how many extra jobs have been created?

Our research suggests basically none.


Does that mean "not none"?

Whose research?


Quote:
Jobs growth in the retail and hospitality sectors has more than halved


Half as much jobs growth eh? How do you get from there to zero?


Quote:
They are all the same nobody has argued that the expected employment increases ever occurred.


They have told lots of lies though, haven't you?[/quote]

Half as much is a negative net outcome. You are just being pedantic about nothing. Job numbers were meant to increase for the current levels of the day including the naturally increasing trend. Instead they went backwards.

Job increases historically running at about 1.9% dropped to 0.9%. i.e there would have been jobs created without the penalty rate change and instead there were less than expected because of the change. Be as pedantic as you like the facts keep on saying you are wrong.


Quote:
[quote]They are all the same nobody has argued that the expected employment increases ever occurred.


They have told lots of lies though, haven't you?[/quote]

Not 1. Nit picking and pedantry are not useful at pointing out lies they say more about the claimant.

Can you show an article saying that I am wrong here ? You keep saying nothing and backing it up with less.


Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 3rd, 2020 at 9:25pm

Quote:
Job numbers were meant to increase for the current levels of the day including the naturally increasing trend. Instead they went backwards.


This sounds more like your misunderstanding of economic theory than anything anyone actually said.


Quote:
Job increases historically running at about 1.9% dropped to 0.9%. i.e there would have been jobs created without the penalty rate change and instead there were less than expected because of the change. Be as pedantic as you like the facts keep on saying you are wrong.


Based on your lies about what I said. Not what I actually said.


Quote:
Not 1. Nit picking and pedantry are not useful at pointing out lies they say more about the claimant.


There are several of your lies in the OP. Which you followed up with more. Do the unions teach you to equate honesty with pedantry? Never let the truth get in the way of a good story eh?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Dnarever on Nov 3rd, 2020 at 10:08pm

freediver wrote on Nov 3rd, 2020 at 9:25pm:

Quote:
Job numbers were meant to increase for the current levels of the day including the naturally increasing trend. Instead they went backwards.


This sounds more like your misunderstanding of economic theory than anything anyone actually said.



See the difference

You have theory others are talking about fact.

The theory of what should happen V the actual fact of what did happen.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 3rd, 2020 at 10:22pm

Dnarever wrote on Nov 3rd, 2020 at 10:08pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 3rd, 2020 at 9:25pm:

Quote:
Job numbers were meant to increase for the current levels of the day including the naturally increasing trend. Instead they went backwards.


This sounds more like your misunderstanding of economic theory than anything anyone actually said.



See the difference

You have theory others are talking about fact.

The theory of what should happen V the actual fact of what did happen.


You don't have facts. You have words you made up and put into other people's mouths. You have lies from the unions that your parrot unthinkingly.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Dnarever on Nov 3rd, 2020 at 10:27pm

Quote:
[quote]Jobs growth in the retail and hospitality sectors has more than halved


Half as much jobs growth eh? How do you get from there to zero?
[/quote]

There is no need to get to zero. Half the increase without the change means the reducing penalty rates caused around -50% new jobs in the industry.

Reduced penalty rates delivered less jobs than there would have been.

That is the change did not only not deliver a single job but it cost jobs. It is actually worse if correct.


The claim is that penalty rate cuts didn't produce new jobs not that there were none at all. There were about 50% less than projected less that the trend leading into the change and less that other industries by about the same margin in the same period.

All relevant metrics clearly and loudly say that reducing penalty rates damaged the industry.

Sorry but that is a fact.


Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Dnarever on Nov 3rd, 2020 at 10:38pm

freediver wrote on Nov 3rd, 2020 at 10:22pm:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 3rd, 2020 at 10:08pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 3rd, 2020 at 9:25pm:

Quote:
Job numbers were meant to increase for the current levels of the day including the naturally increasing trend. Instead they went backwards.


This sounds more like your misunderstanding of economic theory than anything anyone actually said.



See the difference

You have theory others are talking about fact.

The theory of what should happen V the actual fact of what did happen.


You don't have facts. You have words you made up and put into other people's mouths. You have lies from the unions that your parrot unthinkingly.


I posted 3 articles to support what I said all along. You were invited to produce anything that disagrees. You didn't.

You know your not on a winner when the strong part of your rebuttal consists of insult supported by opinion.

It does not agree with your unsupported ideology so it must be a lie.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 4th, 2020 at 6:32pm

Quote:
There is no need to get to zero. Half the increase without the change means the reducing penalty rates caused around -50% new jobs in the industry.


Yes, this is the sort of simplistic mentality the unions push. What if the number of pirates halved at roughly the same time as some job-related kpi? What would you conclude then?

I'm pretty sure they teach you not to make this mistake in primary school Dna.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Bam on Nov 6th, 2020 at 4:46pm

Quote:
Unions create unemployment

Rubbish.

Unemployment is created and maintained by the Federal Government in collusion with the Reserve Bank. This has been the case for decades, under governments from both sides of politics.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 6th, 2020 at 6:36pm

Bam wrote on Nov 6th, 2020 at 4:46pm:

Quote:
Unions create unemployment

Rubbish.

Unemployment is created and maintained by the Federal Government in collusion with the Reserve Bank. This has been the case for decades, under governments from both sides of politics.


Your suggestion that unemployment only has one cause is consistent with all the other BS union propaganda we get here.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 6th, 2020 at 8:34pm
Fd

Why do you lie?


Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 10th, 2020 at 7:59am
quote me

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 10th, 2020 at 3:47pm

freediver wrote on Nov 10th, 2020 at 7:59am:
quote me



Unions create unemployment

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by JaSin. on Nov 10th, 2020 at 3:50pm

John Smith wrote on Nov 6th, 2020 at 8:34pm:
Fd

Why do you lie?


Why do you lie often on here then try to accuse the Boss that he's a liar? Are you trying to be this Forum's mafioso Union rep?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Nov 10th, 2020 at 4:10pm

Jasin wrote on Nov 10th, 2020 at 3:50pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 6th, 2020 at 8:34pm:
Fd

Why do you lie?


Why do you lie often on here then try to accuse the Boss that he's a liar? Are you trying to be this Forum's mafioso Union rep?


Are you the forums resident Scab?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 10th, 2020 at 9:40pm

John Smith wrote on Nov 10th, 2020 at 3:47pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 10th, 2020 at 7:59am:
quote me



Unions create unemployment


Can you find an economist who disagrees with this statement?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 11th, 2020 at 5:28pm

freediver wrote on Nov 10th, 2020 at 9:40pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 10th, 2020 at 3:47pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 10th, 2020 at 7:59am:
quote me



Unions create unemployment


Can you find an economist who disagrees with this statement?


I'm not here to do your homework. It's economic 101.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Dnarever on Nov 11th, 2020 at 7:16pm

freediver wrote on Nov 10th, 2020 at 9:40pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 10th, 2020 at 3:47pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 10th, 2020 at 7:59am:
quote me



Unions create unemployment


Can you find an economist who disagrees with this statement?


Yes 1

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9914.00189

Abstract

Quote:
This paper addresses the question under which circumstances unemployment can be lower if unions bargain over wages and employment in a general equilibrium framework. Thereby, it turns out that the unemployment rate may negatively depend on the wage rate, if the unemployment compensation scheme contains a constant real term in addition to the replacement ratio component. This is, compared with a pure replacement ratio scheme, the more plausible formalization of the real world’s compensation systems, at least for European countries. Besides the theoretical analysis, the paper also derives political implications by identifying the relevant parameters for the decision on whether weakening unions will be a good strategy for an economy to overcome its unemployment problem.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 11th, 2020 at 8:02pm
see, told you FD was a liar

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 21st, 2020 at 8:33am

Dnarever wrote on Nov 11th, 2020 at 7:16pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 10th, 2020 at 9:40pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 10th, 2020 at 3:47pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 10th, 2020 at 7:59am:
quote me



Unions create unemployment


Can you find an economist who disagrees with this statement?


Yes 1

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9914.00189

Abstract

Quote:
This paper addresses the question under which circumstances unemployment can be lower if unions bargain over wages and employment in a general equilibrium framework. Thereby, it turns out that the unemployment rate may negatively depend on the wage rate, if the unemployment compensation scheme contains a constant real term in addition to the replacement ratio component. This is, compared with a pure replacement ratio scheme, the more plausible formalization of the real world’s compensation systems, at least for European countries. Besides the theoretical analysis, the paper also derives political implications by identifying the relevant parameters for the decision on whether weakening unions will be a good strategy for an economy to overcome its unemployment problem.


Not this one either. Keep trying.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by polite_gandalf on Nov 24th, 2020 at 2:17pm
FD uses the exact same template across about 5 separate threads here:

1. Parrot a simplistic and baseless right wing propaganda claim and declares it as etched in stone gospel truth.

2. Ridicule any requests for actual evidence for the claim as a waste of time because it is unnecessary to substantiate the most basic economics 101 which no economist in existence has ever disagreed with.

3. twist all the evidence presented to him that refutes the BS claim into a useless hair splitting exercise about semantics - that have no bearing whatsoever on the actual meaning of the evidence - which so obviously refutes his BS claim

4. scream "liar" like a raving fool at anyone who points out that his claim is BS, and has been proven so

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Dec 3rd, 2020 at 7:17pm

Quote:
twist all the evidence presented to him that refutes the BS claim into a useless hair splitting exercise about semantics


If the evidence does not refute my claim, it is not hair splitting Gandalf. i did not ask for evidence that merely "feels" like it refutes my claim. This is a basic union trick, to get people to ignore facts and shout lies loudly enough to delude themselves.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by polite_gandalf on Dec 4th, 2020 at 12:34pm

freediver wrote on Dec 3rd, 2020 at 7:17pm:

Quote:
twist all the evidence presented to him that refutes the BS claim into a useless hair splitting exercise about semantics


If the evidence does not refute my claim, it is not hair splitting Gandalf. i did not ask for evidence that merely "feels" like it refutes my claim. This is a basic union trick, to get people to ignore facts and shout lies loudly enough to delude themselves.


Your claim is simplistic and stupid.

It totally ignores the demonstrated ability of unions to successfully negotiate agreements that counteract such negative impacts as unemployment - like how Australia's unions did when they negotiated the Accord. An agreement that actually reduced unemployment:


Quote:
The first Accord secured for all workers a 4.3% pay rise (September 1983), a 4.1% pay rise (April 1984), and a deferred 2.6% pay rise over the initial 3-year period, improvements in family payments and child care, and the introduction of Medicare. Unemployment also fell from over 10% (in the 2nd quarter of 1983) to just under 8%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prices_and_Incomes_Accord

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Dec 4th, 2020 at 1:28pm

freediver wrote on Dec 3rd, 2020 at 7:17pm:

Quote:
twist all the evidence presented to him that refutes the BS claim into a useless hair splitting exercise about semantics


If the evidence does not refute my claim, it is not hair splitting Gandalf. i did not ask for evidence that merely "feels" like it refutes my claim. This is a basic union trick, [highlight]to get people to ignore facts and shout lies loudly enough to delude themselves.[/highlight]


Sounds more like a conservative strategy.

Just like you do.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by polite_gandalf on Dec 4th, 2020 at 2:16pm
bugger me gnads, I almost missed that quote.

FD literally couldn't describe his behaviour here across about 4 separate threads more perfectly.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by JaSin. on Dec 4th, 2020 at 2:25pm

Gnads wrote on Nov 10th, 2020 at 4:10pm:

Jasin wrote on Nov 10th, 2020 at 3:50pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 6th, 2020 at 8:34pm:
Fd

Why do you lie?


Why do you lie often on here then try to accuse the Boss that he's a liar? Are you trying to be this Forum's mafioso Union rep?


Are you the forums resident Scab?

I and many more others don't need your 'Command' to feed our Families. You can take your Unionised Yankee crap back to the USA and kiss my Confederate of the Federation Star of Australian arse!  >:( F*uck you and your middle-maning of our wages to be compromised so you can float your boat of getting a step up on us all. Even tried to cut into the Mining Sector as their own Business - went ballsup!  ::) You want the 'Money' $$$ - go for it Union Yankee. That Gold Dollar is nailed on the mast of the ship to whoever sees Moby Dick the White Whale first!! Go on - take it. But remember though - you Grubs who call us Scabs are left with another course of action. Something lost is something gained. So take the money. I'm just not agreeing with you.  :P

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by JaSin. on Dec 4th, 2020 at 2:28pm
What's worse for a people who serve like Slaves for a Ruler?
Those who seek to be 2nd in charge to enforce some more.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Dec 5th, 2020 at 8:37am

Jasin wrote on Dec 4th, 2020 at 2:25pm:

Gnads wrote on Nov 10th, 2020 at 4:10pm:

Jasin wrote on Nov 10th, 2020 at 3:50pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 6th, 2020 at 8:34pm:
Fd

Why do you lie?


Why do you lie often on here then try to accuse the Boss that he's a liar? Are you trying to be this Forum's mafioso Union rep?


Are you the forums resident Scab?

I and many more others don't need your 'Command' to feed our Families. You can take your Unionised Yankee crap back to the USA and kiss my Confederate of the Federation Star of Australian arse!  >:( F*uck you and your middle-maning of our wages to be compromised so you can float your boat of getting a step up on us all. Even tried to cut into the Mining Sector as their own Business - went ballsup!  ::) You want the 'Money' $$$ - go for it Union Yankee. That Gold Dollar is nailed on the mast of the ship to whoever sees Moby Dick the White Whale first!! Go on - take it. But remember though - you Grubs who call us Scabs are left with another course of action. Something lost is something gained. So take the money. I'm just not agreeing with you.  :P


The Brits first


Quote:
The origins of trade unions can be traced back to 18th century Britain, where the rapid expansion of industrial society then taking place drew women, children, rural workers and immigrants into the work force in large numbers and in new roles.


Then the YANKS


Quote:
A labor union is an association of workers formed to negotiate collectively with an employer to protect and further workers rights and interests. Sustained trade union organizing among American workers began in 1794 with the establishment of the first trade union.


It still does take away the fact that your choice not to be in a Union and accept all the benefits regarding wages & conditions and welfare safety nets without contributing makes you a scab.

You don't get to enjoy the benefits of any Sporting/Social club or organisation without paying membership for those benefits.  ::)

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Dec 12th, 2020 at 6:18am

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 4th, 2020 at 12:34pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 3rd, 2020 at 7:17pm:

Quote:
twist all the evidence presented to him that refutes the BS claim into a useless hair splitting exercise about semantics


If the evidence does not refute my claim, it is not hair splitting Gandalf. i did not ask for evidence that merely "feels" like it refutes my claim. This is a basic union trick, to get people to ignore facts and shout lies loudly enough to delude themselves.


Your claim is simplistic and stupid.

It totally ignores the demonstrated ability of unions to successfully negotiate agreements that counteract such negative impacts as unemployment - like how Australia's unions did when they negotiated the Accord. An agreement that actually reduced unemployment:

[quote]The first Accord secured for all workers a 4.3% pay rise (September 1983), a 4.1% pay rise (April 1984), and a deferred 2.6% pay rise over the initial 3-year period, improvements in family payments and child care, and the introduction of Medicare. Unemployment also fell from over 10% (in the 2nd quarter of 1983) to just under 8%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prices_and_Incomes_Accord[/quote]

You say my claim is simplistic and stupid, then follow up by trying to credit unions with that decrease in unemployment? Do you realise how hypocritical that is Gandalf?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Ye Grappler on Dec 12th, 2020 at 10:20am
Bad governments create unemployment as a policy base for their personal ideologies....

This may be a proper time to address the Planet Of The Apes, since components of ape behaviour clearly constitute part of the calculated oppression of men in society(ies):-

Have you ever noticed that, give the opportunity, a 'business' person, cult leader, etc, will surround himself with a group of principally females, rather than males. Same applies to politicians and the like, and not just for the obvious reason that it provides a pool of females for them to preen to and even shag,but also for an instinctual public demonstration of his 'power'.

The principal reason behind this is a thing called 'display' - i.e. in this example this 'male' displays personal power by establishing and holding a 'harem' in exactly the same way as the apes do - a clear demonstration that the one who holds the females holds the power, and the others are as nought.

Whether those females are held for purposes of breeding/improving the overall genetic pool has, in the context of 'civilised' society, become irrelevant - so clearly that is not the purpose of retaining a 'harem', particularly since the vast majority of females are already in or are seeking a 'civilised' established and monogamous relationship.  Their actual marital status is irrelevant to the posturing involved in retaining a harem.

Thus it becomes clear that harem-gathering is not the proper way for a civilised man governed by reason and social mores, but is a reversion to the primal instincts of the ape in establishing a harem so as to flaunt his power/prowess in the faces of other men.

This is, of course, the behaviour of the type of man who is distinctly not leadership material in the modern social sense - what aquascoot titles the 'beta men'.   You need only look at the likes of HowardCo with their relentless pursuit of affirmative action for women primarily in the commonwealth public service..... hidden deep within the psyche of the Howard and the unknowing public is the feeling that this is a 'powerful' man since he holds sway over literally thousands of women....and simultaneously over thousands of men who are excluded by this approach to employeeship.... making this the truest definition of Ape behaviour.

Who could argue that a Howard is not, in reality, a 'beta' man who sought to strike out at other men at every opportunity?  This is, after all, the little pr1ck who decided that men struggling on pensions after divorce and loss of home etc should pay $12 a fortnight to their ex-missus so she could travel the world...



We, as a nation and a species, need to seriously consider if this is the kind of 'man' we should be permitting to hold the reins of government and to control such things... because clearly this approach is that of the Ape and not of Man and is absolutely in total control of our civilised portion of Earth at this time  ... therefore it is becoming more and more clear by the day that we do indeed live on The Planet Of The Apes, and not that of Man.

Your mission - should you choose to accept it - is to work out how to bring down this failed and primitive structure and replace it with one that will truly be of genuine benefit to all equally.  Of course, you may choose to continue to bury your heads in the sand..... they are your sons and grandsons.....

Your secondary mission is to look around and find out for yourself what other aspects of Primitive Ape behaviour are currently ruining our society. culture and civilisation.....



Jeez, Igor - that slowed 'em down somewhat.... might take 'em a while to digest that one...

'Man is the bridge between Ape and Superman.' - Friedrich Nietzche

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Ye Grappler on Dec 14th, 2020 at 12:19pm
Jesus, Igor - that stunned 'em into silence - either that or they are working on their part of this theme.... takes  brain work and effort.... genius is 90% perspiration you know...

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Dec 18th, 2020 at 7:53pm

Quote:
Bad governments create unemployment as a policy base for their personal ideologies....


Particularly if they don't keep the unions under control.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Dec 19th, 2020 at 8:07am

freediver wrote on Dec 18th, 2020 at 7:53pm:

Quote:
Bad governments create unemployment as a policy base for their personal ideologies....


Particularly if they don't keep the unions under control.


;D ;D ;D What tosh.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Dec 26th, 2020 at 9:52am
So what do you think Grapps is trying to say? That unions don't create unemployment because "bad governments" do? Can the unions take credit for all the improvements in our standard of living over the last few centuries, while disowning anything they are actually responsible for?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by JaSin. on Dec 26th, 2020 at 10:36am
Australian Unionism nearly scuttled the production of The Hobbit in NZ by Jackson Inc. Australian Actors using the Unionism to get more money - simple as that.
Australian Actors should be grateful for being considered in the first place. Unionism that stops major Industries operating here and creating a 'wealth' of jobs that the Union itself can't offer. Only 'Scab' Employment Agencies find 'Scabs' work.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Dec 26th, 2020 at 11:53am

freediver wrote on Dec 12th, 2020 at 6:18am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 4th, 2020 at 12:34pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 3rd, 2020 at 7:17pm:

Quote:
twist all the evidence presented to him that refutes the BS claim into a useless hair splitting exercise about semantics


If the evidence does not refute my claim, it is not hair splitting Gandalf. i did not ask for evidence that merely "feels" like it refutes my claim. This is a basic union trick, to get people to ignore facts and shout lies loudly enough to delude themselves.


Your claim is simplistic and stupid.

It totally ignores the demonstrated ability of unions to successfully negotiate agreements that counteract such negative impacts as unemployment - like how Australia's unions did when they negotiated the Accord. An agreement that actually reduced unemployment:

[quote]The first Accord secured for all workers a 4.3% pay rise (September 1983), a 4.1% pay rise (April 1984), and a deferred 2.6% pay rise over the initial 3-year period, improvements in family payments and child care, and the introduction of Medicare. Unemployment also fell from over 10% (in the 2nd quarter of 1983) to just under 8%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prices_and_Incomes_Accord


You say my claim is simplistic and stupid, then follow up by trying to credit unions with that decrease in unemployment? Do you realise how hypocritical that is Gandalf? [/quote]

and yet gandolfs example shows you were wrong whilst your rants merely show that you are senile ...


isn't it that time in the debate you called someone a liar?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Dec 26th, 2020 at 1:59pm

Jasin wrote on Dec 26th, 2020 at 10:36am:
Australian Unionism nearly scuttled the production of The Hobbit in NZ by Jackson Inc. Australian Actors using the Unionism to get more money - simple as that.
Australian Actors should be grateful for being considered in the first place. Unionism that stops major Industries operating here and creating a 'wealth' of jobs that the Union itself can't offer. Only 'Scab' Employment Agencies find 'Scabs' work.

 
;D ;D  NZ the Land of the Long White Scab.

You're shearers set the trend & the rest of you have been scabbing off Union won wages & conditions in Australia ever since.

The NZ govt was so good they let all your coastal shipping go to ships of shame & 100's & more Kiwis lost their jobs.

It sold off your railways system to Genesee Wyoming who ran it into the ground, got people killed in the workplace through poor safety practices & then packed up & left .....

then the Govt. had to take control of the Rail again.

Don't point fingers .... there's always 3 pointing back at you.


Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Dec 26th, 2020 at 2:00pm

John Smith wrote on Dec 26th, 2020 at 11:53am:

freediver wrote on Dec 12th, 2020 at 6:18am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 4th, 2020 at 12:34pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 3rd, 2020 at 7:17pm:

Quote:
twist all the evidence presented to him that refutes the BS claim into a useless hair splitting exercise about semantics


If the evidence does not refute my claim, it is not hair splitting Gandalf. i did not ask for evidence that merely "feels" like it refutes my claim. This is a basic union trick, to get people to ignore facts and shout lies loudly enough to delude themselves.


Your claim is simplistic and stupid.

It totally ignores the demonstrated ability of unions to successfully negotiate agreements that counteract such negative impacts as unemployment - like how Australia's unions did when they negotiated the Accord. An agreement that actually reduced unemployment:

[quote]The first Accord secured for all workers a 4.3% pay rise (September 1983), a 4.1% pay rise (April 1984), and a deferred 2.6% pay rise over the initial 3-year period, improvements in family payments and child care, and the introduction of Medicare. Unemployment also fell from over 10% (in the 2nd quarter of 1983) to just under 8%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prices_and_Incomes_Accord


You say my claim is simplistic and stupid, then follow up by trying to credit unions with that decrease in unemployment? Do you realise how hypocritical that is Gandalf?


and yet gandolfs example shows you were wrong whilst your rants merely show that you are senile ...


isn't it that time in the debate you called someone a lair?
[/quote]


Yeah.... a real mug lair.  ;D

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Dec 26th, 2020 at 3:59pm

Gnads wrote on Dec 26th, 2020 at 2:00pm:
Yeah.... a real mug lair.



:D :D :D

opps.


Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Dnarever on Dec 26th, 2020 at 8:21pm
The argument is that higher wages produce higher unemployment.

The much argued right wing sacred horse. That has failed to prove to be correct at every scare campaign.

The other end of the deal even if arguable true in theory is that lower paid word equals higher employment. So you get to have more jobs that are not worth having ?

For the poor worker it is a lose lose proposition.

We recently seen this argument used to say that reducing penalty rates would increase employment - fact is that the exact opposite happened in the real world.

We have also seen stagnant wages over the past 2 + decades a situation that in theory should lead to full employment yet again when put into practice we get failure.

We have an economic area where the outcome almost never matches expectation.

As in the argument that Unions create unemployment the theory is solid but the outcomes fail to line up.

You may ask why ? The thing is that the Union impact is only one variable and not a major one. We have had decades of government interfering in the market producing contrived outcomes and dominating the space.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Dec 28th, 2020 at 7:59am

Dnarever wrote on Dec 26th, 2020 at 8:21pm:
The argument is that higher wages produce higher unemployment.

The much argued right wing sacred horse. That has failed to prove to be correct at every scare campaign.

The other end of the deal even if arguable true in theory is that lower paid word equals higher employment. So you get to have more jobs that are not worth having ?

For the poor worker it is a lose lose proposition.

We recently seen this argument used to say that reducing penalty rates would increase employment - fact is that the exact opposite happened in the real world.

We have also seen stagnant wages over the past 2 + decades a situation that in theory should lead to full employment yet again when put into practice we get failure.

We have an economic area where the outcome almost never matches expectation.

As in the argument that Unions create unemployment the theory is solid but the outcomes fail to line up.

You may ask why ? The thing is that the Union impact is only one variable and not a major one. We have had decades of government interfering in the market producing contrived outcomes and dominating the space.


Yes .... spot on.

The LNP nongs don't get that the more money the worker has the better it is for the economy.... and therefore the better it is for their businesses ...

that they think aren't doing well because high wages are holding them back.

It's marvelous how even someone who has been a long time worker(sometimes unionists) & decides to open their own business then all of a sudden adopt a Tory attitude toward workers & wages.

Greed & poor business models are usually their downfall.

Think people should be grateful & owe them for giving them a job.

The old Master/Serf mentality.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Jan 4th, 2021 at 11:22am

Quote:
The argument is that higher wages produce higher unemployment.


Artificially high wages do.


Quote:
The much argued right wing sacred horse. That has failed to prove to be correct at every scare campaign.


It is fundamental economics. Some people even learn this in high school.

It appears that in order to be a union clingon, you must throw not just economics out the window, but common sense.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by polite_gandalf on Jan 6th, 2021 at 10:53am

freediver wrote on Dec 12th, 2020 at 6:18am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 4th, 2020 at 12:34pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 3rd, 2020 at 7:17pm:

Quote:
twist all the evidence presented to him that refutes the BS claim into a useless hair splitting exercise about semantics


If the evidence does not refute my claim, it is not hair splitting Gandalf. i did not ask for evidence that merely "feels" like it refutes my claim. This is a basic union trick, to get people to ignore facts and shout lies loudly enough to delude themselves.


Your claim is simplistic and stupid.

It totally ignores the demonstrated ability of unions to successfully negotiate agreements that counteract such negative impacts as unemployment - like how Australia's unions did when they negotiated the Accord. An agreement that actually reduced unemployment:

[quote]The first Accord secured for all workers a 4.3% pay rise (September 1983), a 4.1% pay rise (April 1984), and a deferred 2.6% pay rise over the initial 3-year period, improvements in family payments and child care, and the introduction of Medicare. Unemployment also fell from over 10% (in the 2nd quarter of 1983) to just under 8%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prices_and_Incomes_Accord


You say my claim is simplistic and stupid, then follow up by trying to credit unions with that decrease in unemployment? Do you realise how hypocritical that is Gandalf? [/quote]

You are merely reinforcing how simplistic and stupid your argument is FD.

I don't need to, (nor is it my intention by citing these statistics to), credit unions with decreasing unemployment.

All I need to do (and which I succeeded doing), is to cite one relevant instance of a major union-driven wage increase agreement, applied nationally across the board demonstrably did *NOT* increase unemployment. And suddenly your BS simplistic claim is in tatters.

Of course if your argument had been even a smidgen above the most simplistic and stupid level, and offerend some nuance like "unions create unemployment - *UNLESS* they negotiate wage increases in a responsible and constructive way with a careful eye on potential impacts such as inflation and unemployment *AS THEY DID UNDER THE 1983 AUSTRALIAN LABOUR ACCORD* - then you would have about a million miles more credibility.

But of course you didn't.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by polite_gandalf on Jan 6th, 2021 at 11:05am

freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2021 at 11:22am:
It is fundamental economics. Some people even learn this in high school.

It appears that in order to be a union clingon, you must throw not just economics out the window, but common sense.


Your union clingons are the only ones who have actual evidence to support their argument. In this case slashing penalty rates (no resultant increase in employment) and the 1983 accord (national union-driven wage increase - no resultant increase in unemployment.

What evidence have you brought us FD?

No, seriously... what actual evidence?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Jan 11th, 2021 at 6:40am

Quote:
All I need to do (and which I succeeded doing), is to cite one relevant instance of a major union-driven wage increase agreement, applied nationally across the board demonstrably did *NOT* increase unemployment. And suddenly your BS simplistic claim is in tatters.


This is simplistic and stupid Gandalf.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Jan 25th, 2021 at 9:19am
Gandalf do you understand that this is no less juvenile than blaming the GFC, or a volcanic eruption, on whatever party happened to be in power at the time?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Feb 8th, 2021 at 6:57pm
Bump for Gandalf.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Feb 9th, 2021 at 12:09pm
This already had rigor mortis now putrefaction has set in.....

time to bury your stinker FD.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Feb 22nd, 2021 at 6:25pm

Gnads wrote on Feb 9th, 2021 at 12:09pm:
This already had rigor mortis now putrefaction has set in.....

time to bury your stinker FD.


What exactly do you want me to bury?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Feb 23rd, 2021 at 8:22am

freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2021 at 6:25pm:

Gnads wrote on Feb 9th, 2021 at 12:09pm:
This already had rigor mortis now putrefaction has set in.....

time to bury your stinker FD.


What exactly do you want me to bury?


You have no sense of smell?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Feb 27th, 2021 at 8:59am
Sure. I smell roses. They are perennial.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Dnarever on Feb 27th, 2021 at 12:09pm

freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2021 at 11:22am:

Quote:
The argument is that higher wages produce higher unemployment.


Artificially high wages do.


Can you explain why several decades of artificially low wages have not produced lower unemployment ?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Dnarever on Feb 27th, 2021 at 12:19pm

freediver wrote on Dec 18th, 2020 at 7:53pm:

Quote:
Bad governments create unemployment as a policy base for their personal ideologies....


Particularly if they don't keep the unions under control.


Back in the Frasor day with Howard as treasurer and unions being squashed he applied the theory that high unemployment would control wages and solve inflation. Instead he managed to drive into stagflation. (high inflation, high unemployment and low growth).

It was a masterclass in dogma driven incompetence

Howard had deliberately executed policy meant to drive unemployment higher to this failed dogmatic outcome is

Virtually the same argument you are pushing here.

Not only does this not work in the real world now but it has never worked.

Yes Howard had at least two Liberal governments thrown out of office and prevented at least one from being elected.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Mar 16th, 2021 at 6:40pm

Dnarever wrote on Feb 27th, 2021 at 12:09pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2021 at 11:22am:

Quote:
The argument is that higher wages produce higher unemployment.


Artificially high wages do.


Can you explain why several decades of artificially low wages have not produced lower unemployment ?


Unemployment is lower than it would be if wages were higher, and higher than it would be if wages were lower.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Dnarever on Mar 16th, 2021 at 7:11pm

freediver wrote on Mar 16th, 2021 at 6:40pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 27th, 2021 at 12:09pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2021 at 11:22am:

Quote:
The argument is that higher wages produce higher unemployment.


Artificially high wages do.


Can you explain why several decades of artificially low wages have not produced lower unemployment ?


Unemployment is lower than it would be if wages were higher, and higher than it would be if wages were lower.


Wages have been stagnant for many years. Unemployment should be virtually non existent if your theory held water.

There are employers out there that have sent 3 companies bankrupt since the last time they had to pay a substantial wages increase.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Mar 21st, 2021 at 8:36am

Quote:
Unemployment should be virtually non existent if your theory held water.


Can you elaborate on your theory of what my theory is?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Mar 21st, 2021 at 8:40am

freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2021 at 8:59am:
Sure. I smell roses. They are perennial.


I can guess where you have them cultivated. ;D

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by tickleandrose on Mar 22nd, 2021 at 12:28pm
Slavery is not employment.  :)

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Ye Grappler on Mar 22nd, 2021 at 3:35pm

tickleandrose wrote on Mar 22nd, 2021 at 12:28pm:
Slavery is not employment.  :)


Equally not being enslaved is not unemployment.... and should receive an honourable rate of pay...

I've argued that the Unemployed should be paid well since they are contributing to the opportunity of those employed to actually go to work.... all are active contribntors to the overall productivity etc of the nation... so each should be paid accordingly...

Better still - let's take back the asylum....

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Mar 27th, 2021 at 8:28am

tickleandrose wrote on Mar 22nd, 2021 at 12:28pm:
Slavery is not employment.  :)


Can you tell the difference?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Apr 6th, 2021 at 9:05pm
Some unionists like to equate the reality of having to actually do something in order to put food on the table with slavery. They would turn freedom itself into union propaganda.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Aug 13th, 2021 at 5:57am
bump

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Sep 26th, 2021 at 6:35pm

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 26th, 2021 at 6:18pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 26th, 2021 at 6:16pm:
Can you explain what the difference is?

Well, if there are no laws about how hard you can drive your workforce, then, ultimately they'll be driven to collapse.


Can you explain this theory?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by NorthOfNorth on Sep 26th, 2021 at 6:42pm

freediver wrote on Sep 26th, 2021 at 6:35pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 26th, 2021 at 6:18pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 26th, 2021 at 6:16pm:
Can you explain what the difference is?

Well, if there are no laws about how hard you can drive your workforce, then, ultimately they'll be driven to collapse.


Can you explain this theory?

How hard can you imagine some people driving workers if unshackled from legal, social and moral proscription?

How do you think the Chinese regime can enslave so many of the Chinese to make cheap goods?

Chinese workers who are paid just enough to pay for their next meal... And maybe a few shekels more to buy a pair of slippers.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Sep 26th, 2021 at 6:51pm

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 26th, 2021 at 6:42pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 26th, 2021 at 6:35pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 26th, 2021 at 6:18pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 26th, 2021 at 6:16pm:
Can you explain what the difference is?

Well, if there are no laws about how hard you can drive your workforce, then, ultimately they'll be driven to collapse.


Can you explain this theory?

How hard can you imagine some people driving workers if unshackled from legal, social and moral proscription?

How do you think the Chinese regime can enslave so many of the Chinese to make cheap goods?

Chinese workers who are paid just enough to pay for their next meal... And maybe a few shekels more to buy a pair of slippers.


I was not asking you how wild your imagination is. I was asking you to explain your theory.

What are you trying to say?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by NorthOfNorth on Sep 26th, 2021 at 6:56pm

freediver wrote on Sep 26th, 2021 at 6:51pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 26th, 2021 at 6:42pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 26th, 2021 at 6:35pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 26th, 2021 at 6:18pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 26th, 2021 at 6:16pm:
Can you explain what the difference is?

Well, if there are no laws about how hard you can drive your workforce, then, ultimately they'll be driven to collapse.


Can you explain this theory?

How hard can you imagine some people driving workers if unshackled from legal, social and moral proscription?

How do you think the Chinese regime can enslave so many of the Chinese to make cheap goods?

Chinese workers who are paid just enough to pay for their next meal... And maybe a few shekels more to buy a pair of slippers.


I was not asking you how wild your imagination is. I was asking you to explain your theory.

What are you trying to say?

We generally only act against our economic interests when we are forced by legal, social and moral proscription.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Sep 26th, 2021 at 7:13pm
Forget about your misunderstanding of other people's economic interest. What does this mean?


Quote:
Well, if there are no laws about how hard you can drive your workforce, then, ultimately they'll be driven to collapse.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by NorthOfNorth on Sep 26th, 2021 at 7:14pm

freediver wrote on Sep 26th, 2021 at 7:13pm:
Forget about your misunderstanding of other people's economic interest. What does this mean?


Quote:
Well, if there are no laws about how hard you can drive your workforce, then, ultimately they'll be driven to collapse.

Slavery existed because there were no legal limits on how hard you could work your enslaved workforce... Even to the point of collapse from exhaustion and death.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Sep 26th, 2021 at 9:22pm

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 26th, 2021 at 7:14pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 26th, 2021 at 7:13pm:
Forget about your misunderstanding of other people's economic interest. What does this mean?


Quote:
Well, if there are no laws about how hard you can drive your workforce, then, ultimately they'll be driven to collapse.

Slavery existed because there were no legal limits on how hard you could work your enslaved workforce... Even to the point of collapse from exhaustion and death.


No, that is not why slavery existed. It does not even make sense. Throughout history there have been all sorts of laws governing the treatment of slaves, none of which impacted the existence of slavery.

Would you mind explaining your first absurd theory before inventing another one?


Quote:
Well, if there are no laws about how hard you can drive your workforce, then, ultimately they'll be driven to collapse.


What does this mean?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by NorthOfNorth on Sep 26th, 2021 at 10:48pm

freediver wrote on Sep 26th, 2021 at 9:22pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 26th, 2021 at 7:14pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 26th, 2021 at 7:13pm:
Forget about your misunderstanding of other people's economic interest. What does this mean?


Quote:
Well, if there are no laws about how hard you can drive your workforce, then, ultimately they'll be driven to collapse.

Slavery existed because there were no legal limits on how hard you could work your enslaved workforce... Even to the point of collapse from exhaustion and death.


No, that is not why slavery existed. It does not even make sense. Throughout history there have been all sorts of laws governing the treatment of slaves, none of which impacted the existence of slavery.

Would you mind explaining your first absurd theory before inventing another one?

[quote]Well, if there are no laws about how hard you can drive your workforce, then, ultimately they'll be driven to collapse.


What does this mean?[/quote]
No, there were no laws prohibiting slavery throughout human history in all cultures (up until the end of the 18th century) and only moral reasons for treating slaves well...

Some cultures kept slaves until it was time to eat them.

However, slaveowners did have to be concerned about being attacked by mistreated slaves.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Sep 27th, 2021 at 6:37am

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 26th, 2021 at 10:48pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 26th, 2021 at 9:22pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 26th, 2021 at 7:14pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 26th, 2021 at 7:13pm:
Forget about your misunderstanding of other people's economic interest. What does this mean?


Quote:
Well, if there are no laws about how hard you can drive your workforce, then, ultimately they'll be driven to collapse.

Slavery existed because there were no legal limits on how hard you could work your enslaved workforce... Even to the point of collapse from exhaustion and death.


No, that is not why slavery existed. It does not even make sense. Throughout history there have been all sorts of laws governing the treatment of slaves, none of which impacted the existence of slavery.

Would you mind explaining your first absurd theory before inventing another one?

[quote]Well, if there are no laws about how hard you can drive your workforce, then, ultimately they'll be driven to collapse.


What does this mean?

No, there were no laws prohibiting slavery throughout human history in all cultures (up until the end of the 18th century) and only moral reasons for treating slaves well...

Some cultures kept slaves until it was time to eat them.

However, slaveowners did have to be concerned about being attacked by mistreated slaves.
[/quote]

You shouldn't have responded to FD bumping this thread back into view.

Unions wouldn't exist if it weren't for the attitudes, the greed & arrogance of those employers who choose to exploit the labour of others.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by NorthOfNorth on Sep 27th, 2021 at 7:01am

Gnads wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 6:37am:
Unions wouldn't exist if it weren't for the attitudes, the greed & arrogance of those employers who choose to exploit the labour of others.

Yes.

The propensity towards exploitation of others for economic gain is an unfortunate part of human nature which only legal and economic penalties can constrain and mitigate.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Sep 27th, 2021 at 4:55pm

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 26th, 2021 at 10:48pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 26th, 2021 at 9:22pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 26th, 2021 at 7:14pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 26th, 2021 at 7:13pm:
Forget about your misunderstanding of other people's economic interest. What does this mean?


Quote:
Well, if there are no laws about how hard you can drive your workforce, then, ultimately they'll be driven to collapse.

Slavery existed because there were no legal limits on how hard you could work your enslaved workforce... Even to the point of collapse from exhaustion and death.


No, that is not why slavery existed. It does not even make sense. Throughout history there have been all sorts of laws governing the treatment of slaves, none of which impacted the existence of slavery.

Would you mind explaining your first absurd theory before inventing another one?

[quote]Well, if there are no laws about how hard you can drive your workforce, then, ultimately they'll be driven to collapse.


What does this mean?

No, there were no laws prohibiting slavery throughout human history in all cultures (up until the end of the 18th century) and only moral reasons for treating slaves well...

Some cultures kept slaves until it was time to eat them.

However, slaveowners did have to be concerned about being attacked by mistreated slaves.
[/quote]

Again, your naïve acceptance of socialist propaganda has blinded you to the reality. There is no shortage of examples of slave retaliation from history.


Quote:
Well, if there are no laws about how hard you can drive your workforce, then, ultimately they'll be driven to collapse.


Can you spell out for us what you mean by this?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by NorthOfNorth on Sep 27th, 2021 at 5:17pm

freediver wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 4:55pm:

Quote:
Well, if there are no laws about how hard you can drive your workforce, then, ultimately they'll be driven to collapse.


Can you spell out for us what you mean by this?

It is only the threat of unendurable consequence that protects the exploitable from the exploitative.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Sep 27th, 2021 at 5:22pm

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 5:17pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 4:55pm:

Quote:
Well, if there are no laws about how hard you can drive your workforce, then, ultimately they'll be driven to collapse.


Can you spell out for us what you mean by this?

It is only the threat of unendurable consequence that protects the exploitable from the exploitative.


I meant specifics, not even vaguer generalisations.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by NorthOfNorth on Sep 27th, 2021 at 5:23pm

freediver wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 5:22pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 5:17pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 4:55pm:

Quote:
Well, if there are no laws about how hard you can drive your workforce, then, ultimately they'll be driven to collapse.


Can you spell out for us what you mean by this?

It is only the threat of unendurable consequence that protects the exploitable from the exploitative.


I meant specifics, not even vaguer generalisations.

No you don't.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Sep 27th, 2021 at 5:37pm

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 5:23pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 5:22pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 5:17pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 4:55pm:

Quote:
Well, if there are no laws about how hard you can drive your workforce, then, ultimately they'll be driven to collapse.


Can you spell out for us what you mean by this?

It is only the threat of unendurable consequence that protects the exploitable from the exploitative.


I meant specifics, not even vaguer generalisations.

No you don't.


Are you afraid of how ridiculous you will sound when you actually say what you mean?

Is it the unions or the local socialist club that is responsible for the constant stream of garbage and lies that you post?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by NorthOfNorth on Sep 27th, 2021 at 5:41pm

freediver wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 5:37pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 5:23pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 5:22pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 5:17pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 4:55pm:

Quote:
Well, if there are no laws about how hard you can drive your workforce, then, ultimately they'll be driven to collapse.


Can you spell out for us what you mean by this?

It is only the threat of unendurable consequence that protects the exploitable from the exploitative.


I meant specifics, not even vaguer generalisations.

No you don't.


Are you afraid of how ridiculous you will sound when you actually say what you mean?

Is it the unions or the local socialist club that is responsible for the constant stream of garbage and lies that you post?

Awww.... Bitchy, bitchy...

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Sep 27th, 2021 at 5:45pm
It's a perfectly reasonable question North. Who is feeding you this crap? Or do you just make it up as you go along?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Sep 27th, 2021 at 5:54pm

freediver wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 5:45pm:
It's a perfectly reasonable question North. Who is feeding you this crap? Or do you just make it up as you go along?


The only crap is that which fall s from your finger tips when you type in this thread.

You can not & do not address the issue as to why Labour Unions exist.

They only came about because of the exploitive nature of employers & in some cases extreme exploitive nature to suppress others in servitude for SFA by those that had the control & money to do so.

You're the one generalising ... if you have an alternate theory you should express it here so as it can be pulled apart for the BS that it will be.


Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by NorthOfNorth on Sep 27th, 2021 at 5:59pm

Gnads wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 5:54pm:
They only came about because of the exploitive nature of employers & in some cases extreme exploitive nature to suppress others in servitude for SFA by those that had the control & money to do so.

Yes. Niall Ferguson discussed this in his recent book 'Doom: The Politics of Catastrophe', where he suggested that Marx's bleak outlook for Britain and his proposed extreme measures required to address the gross injustice and exploitation of the worker was that he did not anticipate (nor live to witness) the rise of unionism, which saved Britain from his (wrongly) predicted communist revolution.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by aquascoot on Sep 27th, 2021 at 6:12pm
the worlds richest man, the owner of amazon, the washington times and the huffington post (2 EXTREME left wing , woke publications) will not allow a single member of his workforce to be in a union.

the left have abandoned the working class.

the smug, self satisfied urban intellectual elite (the elite of the left nowadays) have not only abandoned working class people, they actively hate them

they see them as producers of carbon emmisions and uneducated racists.

the leftie elite are truly the enemy of collective labour.

the battlers should form an alliance with the noble capitalist employers.
we have their best interests at heart

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by NorthOfNorth on Sep 27th, 2021 at 6:21pm

aquascoot wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 6:12pm:
the worlds richest man, the owner of amazon, the washington times and the huffington post (2 EXTREME left wing , woke publications) will not allow a single member of his workforce to be in a union.

the left have abandoned the working class.

the smug, self satisfied urban intellectual elite (the elite of the left nowadays) have not only abandoned working class people, they actively hate them

they see them as producers of carbon emmisions and uneducated racists.

the leftie elite are truly the enemy of collective labour.

the battlers should form an alliance with the noble capitalist employers.
we have their best interests at heart

No. It's highly unlikely employers would hold the torch for the underclasses in the way unionists did at the turn of the 20th century.

If 'the left' have indeed turned on the worker, George Orwell (as Eric Blair) would have thought of this as bitterly ironic (yet an attitude he would have understood).

As part of the upper-middle-class, he confessed an innate visceral contempt for the working class about which he felt deeply ashamed.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Sep 27th, 2021 at 8:11pm

Gnads wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 5:54pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 5:45pm:
It's a perfectly reasonable question North. Who is feeding you this crap? Or do you just make it up as you go along?


The only crap is that which fall s from your finger tips when you type in this thread.

You can not & do not address the issue as to why Labour Unions exist.

They only came about because of the exploitive nature of employers & in some cases extreme exploitive nature to suppress others in servitude for SFA by those that had the control & money to do so.

You're the one generalising ... if you have an alternate theory you should express it here so as it can be pulled apart for the BS that it will be.


Do you agree with what North wrote? Do you know what he is trying to say?

Well, if there are no laws about how hard you can drive your workforce, then, ultimately they'll be driven to collapse.


Quote:
If 'the left' have indeed turned on the worker


They have not turned on the worker. Rather, both left and right have turned on the unions, on account of the inescapable fact that they create unemployment.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Bobby. on Sep 27th, 2021 at 8:28pm

freediver wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 8:11pm:
They have not turned on the worker. Rather, both left and right have turned on the unions, on account of the inescapable fact that they create unemployment.



The struggle of the urban proletariat is only
won by joining their forces in strong unions.
Without them people would be working for a bowl of rice per day.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Sep 27th, 2021 at 8:39pm

Bobby. wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 8:28pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 8:11pm:
They have not turned on the worker. Rather, both left and right have turned on the unions, on account of the inescapable fact that they create unemployment.



The struggle of the urban proletariat is only
won by joining their forces in strong unions.
Without them people would be working for a bowl of rice per day.


Thanks comrade Bobby.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Bobby. on Sep 27th, 2021 at 9:00pm

freediver wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 8:39pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 8:28pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 8:11pm:
They have not turned on the worker. Rather, both left and right have turned on the unions, on account of the inescapable fact that they create unemployment.



The struggle of the urban proletariat is only
won by joining their forces in strong unions.
Without them people would be working for a bowl of rice per day.


Thanks comrade Bobby.


Greggy told me about it -
he read it in this book:




Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Dnarever on Sep 27th, 2021 at 9:17pm
Without unions there would be higher employment. But nobody would get paid.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Sep 28th, 2021 at 8:26am

Dnarever wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 9:17pm:
Without unions there would be higher employment. But nobody would get paid.



Yes ... that's called slavery.

Nevermind what they/he(FD) says about the "left elite" .... the left elite have never been left .....

they are merely career politicians who are at heart as "right elite" as any Tory.

Take Anna Bligh as an example.

Unions don't cause unemployment .... they exist to stop exploitation by the unscrupulous of those whose only skill was to provide their labour.

Seems FD fits the unscrupulous tag to a tee.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by NorthOfNorth on Sep 28th, 2021 at 8:56am

Gnads wrote on Sep 28th, 2021 at 8:26am:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 9:17pm:
Without unions there would be higher employment. But nobody would get paid.



Yes ... that's called slavery.

Nevermind what they/he(FD) says about the "left elite" .... the left elite have never been left .....

they are merely career politicians who are at heart as "right elite" as any Tory.

Take Anna Bligh as an example.

Unions don't cause unemployment .... they exist to stop exploitation by the unscrupulous of those whose only skill was to provide their labour.

Seems FD fits the unscrupulous tag to a tee.

Yes. It's unfortunate that workers' legal protections (at least in the west) that clearly came out of unionism, are so taken for granted that, in the 21st century, their origins have been lost on many, who seem to assume that they have always existed and (in some cases) that these protections under law are a cancer on society.

And, yes, I also believe that this 'left' / 'right' divide obfuscates the fact that those who ascend to high affluence generally tend to think alike about those 'beneath' them regardless of their respective family's origin. The likely reason being that we are instinctively and deeply concerned with social status and tend to look for visual and philosophical indicators to distance ourselves from identification with a relative underclass.

I mentioned him above, but George Orwell's life experiences forged a strange and powerful dialectic in him when they had him oscillating from one politico/social pole to the other.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Bobby. on Sep 28th, 2021 at 4:59pm

Dnarever wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 9:17pm:
Without unions there would be higher employment. But nobody would get paid.



Workers of the world unite.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by NorthOfNorth on Sep 28th, 2021 at 5:00pm

Bobby. wrote on Sep 28th, 2021 at 4:59pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 9:17pm:
Without unions there would be higher employment. But nobody would get paid.



Workers of the world unite.

Dyslexics on the world untie.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Sep 28th, 2021 at 6:47pm

Quote:
Yes. It's unfortunate that workers' legal protections (at least in the west) that clearly came out of unionism, are so taken for granted that, in the 21st century, their origins have been lost on many, who seem to assume that they have always existed and (in some cases) that these protections under law are a cancer on society.


Do you agree that they increase unemployment?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Oct 29th, 2021 at 9:17am

Gnads wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 6:37am:

You shouldn't have responded to FD bumping this thread back into view.

Unions wouldn't exist if it weren't for the attitudes, the greed & arrogance of those employers who choose to exploit the labour of others.


If I am wrong about unions increasing unemployment, shouldn't you take the opportunity to prove it, rather than running away?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Oct 29th, 2021 at 9:25am

freediver wrote on Oct 29th, 2021 at 9:17am:

Gnads wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 6:37am:

You shouldn't have responded to FD bumping this thread back into view.

Unions wouldn't exist if it weren't for the attitudes, the greed & arrogance of those employers who choose to exploit the labour of others.


If I am wrong about unions increasing unemployment, shouldn't you take the opportunity to prove it, rather than running away?


No…. You should prove that they do.

You haven’t so far.

Workers deserve a secure living wage.

All you espouse are the reasons employers don’t want to pay those conditions & equate that as causing unemployment.

Do you enjoy any financial & employment security in your life?

Like the majority or Union bashers you’re a hypocrite.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Oct 29th, 2021 at 9:40am

Quote:
All you espouse are the reasons employers don’t want to pay those conditions & equate that as causing unemployment.


Can you quote me?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by greggerypeccary on Oct 29th, 2021 at 9:46am

freediver wrote on Oct 29th, 2021 at 9:17am:

Gnads wrote on Sep 27th, 2021 at 6:37am:

You shouldn't have responded to FD bumping this thread back into view.

Unions wouldn't exist if it weren't for the attitudes, the greed & arrogance of those employers who choose to exploit the labour of others.


If I am wrong about unions increasing unemployment, shouldn't you take the opportunity to prove it, rather than running away?


Actually, the onus is on you to prove your claim that unions increase unemployment.


Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Oct 29th, 2021 at 10:12am
Greg what do you think happens when the price of something gets pushed up by the actions of unions or government intervention?

Would you say that the unions share your wilful ignorance of microeconomics?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by greggerypeccary on Oct 29th, 2021 at 10:14am

freediver wrote on Oct 29th, 2021 at 10:12am:
Greg what do you think happens when the price of something gets pushed up by the actions of unions or government intervention?

Would you say that the unions share your wilful ignorance of microeconomics?


As I said before, the onus is on you to prove your claim.

Thus far, you have not managed to do that.


Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Oct 29th, 2021 at 10:15am

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 29th, 2021 at 10:14am:

freediver wrote on Oct 29th, 2021 at 10:12am:
Greg what do you think happens when the price of something gets pushed up by the actions of unions or government intervention?

Would you say that the unions share your wilful ignorance of microeconomics?


As I said before, the onus is on you to prove your claim.

Thus far, you have not managed to do that.


I don't need to prove anything if you are too scared to disagree with what I say. That was, after all, the point I was making.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Ye Grappler on Oct 29th, 2021 at 10:22am
Many business functions create unemployment - if a business is unwilling to accept the cost of being monitored for doing things the right way, they should simply do things the right way.

No business that was totally honest and above board would be in the least concerned over a Union checking on them to see they comply with the rules, and no business would have its employment level altered by the existence of a union.

Think how much money these get-rich-quick developers who go bust just as the project finishes and skip town owing millions while living the gold-plated lifestyle would save not arguing endlessly with the unions.

Poor management is the most common cause of unemployment, along with poor government policy-making and regulation enforcement, piss poor legal rights for workers, and the simple inability of most managements to handle a corner store..... look how many of them go broke... hardly the fault of Unions or workers.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Oct 29th, 2021 at 10:31am

Quote:
No business that was totally honest and above board would be in the least concerned over a Union checking on them to see they comply with the rules, and no business would have its employment level altered by the existence of a union.


What if the unions somehow increased the cost of hiring people? Could that affect the number of people they hire?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Oct 29th, 2021 at 5:39pm

freediver wrote on Oct 29th, 2021 at 10:31am:
What if the unions somehow increased the cost of hiring people? Could that affect the number of people they hire?



depends on whether you think businesses hire people to do work that needs doing

or whether you think business will hire more people then they need just because they're on a discounted rate

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Bam on Oct 29th, 2021 at 8:10pm

freediver wrote on Oct 29th, 2021 at 10:15am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 29th, 2021 at 10:14am:

freediver wrote on Oct 29th, 2021 at 10:12am:
Greg what do you think happens when the price of something gets pushed up by the actions of unions or government intervention?

Would you say that the unions share your wilful ignorance of microeconomics?


As I said before, the onus is on you to prove your claim.

Thus far, you have not managed to do that.


I don't need to prove anything if you are too scared to disagree with what I say. That was, after all, the point I was making.

Yes, you do. You made the point. You prove it.

It is not the responsibility of others to disprove it. That is the burden of proof fallacy.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Oct 30th, 2021 at 8:44am

John Smith wrote on Oct 29th, 2021 at 5:39pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 29th, 2021 at 10:31am:
What if the unions somehow increased the cost of hiring people? Could that affect the number of people they hire?



depends on whether you think businesses hire people to do work that needs doing

or whether you think business will hire more people then they need just because they're on a discounted rate


Would you like to try answering the question John? Or do you actually think the answer depends on what I think?


Bam wrote on Oct 29th, 2021 at 8:10pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 29th, 2021 at 10:15am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 29th, 2021 at 10:14am:

freediver wrote on Oct 29th, 2021 at 10:12am:
Greg what do you think happens when the price of something gets pushed up by the actions of unions or government intervention?

Would you say that the unions share your wilful ignorance of microeconomics?


As I said before, the onus is on you to prove your claim.

Thus far, you have not managed to do that.


I don't need to prove anything if you are too scared to disagree with what I say. That was, after all, the point I was making.

Yes, you do. You made the point. You prove it.

It is not the responsibility of others to disprove it. That is the burden of proof fallacy.


Let's see if anyone disagrees with me first. John is still working up the courage.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Oct 30th, 2021 at 11:53am

freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 8:44am:
Would you like to try answering the question John?



I did answer the question fd .... and yes, I do think the answer you want depends on what you think


Now, I answered your question, how about you let me know which of the two scenarios I put up do you agree with the most?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Oct 30th, 2021 at 12:08pm

Quote:
and yes, I do think the answer you want depends on what you think


Can you explain how what I think changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Oct 30th, 2021 at 2:04pm

freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 12:08pm:

Quote:
and yes, I do think the answer you want depends on what you think


Can you explain how what I think changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination?



care to answer my question?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Oct 30th, 2021 at 2:16pm

John Smith wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 2:04pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 12:08pm:

Quote:
and yes, I do think the answer you want depends on what you think


Can you explain how what I think changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination?



care to answer my question?


Not if it makes no sense.

Can you explain how what I think changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Oct 30th, 2021 at 2:17pm
then run away like you usually do

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Oct 30th, 2021 at 2:18pm
I encourage you to attempt to make sense.

Can you explain how what I think changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Oct 30th, 2021 at 2:19pm
either answer my question, or piss off. The choice is yours.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Redmond Neck on Oct 30th, 2021 at 3:06pm

John Smith wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 2:19pm:
either answer my question, or piss off. The choice is yours.


Oh dear!

Another insult...how clever!

Or fvuuuucking stupid some might say!

::)

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Oct 30th, 2021 at 3:12pm

John Smith wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 2:19pm:
either answer my question, or piss off. The choice is yours.


I already did. The answer was no. You obviously didn't like it.

Can you explain how what I think changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination?

Title: Competition creates unemployment?
Post by NorthOfNorth on Oct 30th, 2021 at 5:24pm
What's next? Unhygienic working conditions create unemployment?

"Since the new retailer [Aldi] has come to WA, competition has been really fierce and I think the price of bananas have been bastardised and sold below the cost of production," [Tony Galati] told ABC Rural.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2017-04-21/tony-galati-walks-away-from-ord-irrigation-banana-dream/8458578

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Oct 30th, 2021 at 6:05pm
The farmers must be happy with Aldi subsidising their product.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by NorthOfNorth on Oct 30th, 2021 at 6:21pm

freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 6:05pm:
The farmers must be happy with Aldi subsidising their product.

Banana benders in Western Australia... Not so much.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Oct 30th, 2021 at 7:21pm

freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 3:12pm:
The answer was no.



you don't understand English do you? It wasn't a yes or no type of question ::)


Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Frank on Oct 30th, 2021 at 8:32pm

John Smith wrote on Oct 29th, 2021 at 5:39pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 29th, 2021 at 10:31am:
What if the unions somehow increased the cost of hiring people? Could that affect the number of people they hire?



depends on whether you think businesses hire people to do work that needs doing

or whether you think business will hire more people then they need just because they're on a discounted rate



For skilled labour the unions are irrelevant, except in higher education and the public service which are captured sectors. Companies will pay for skills because they have to compete for them.


With unskilled or semi-skilled labour in abundant supply - immigration of thousands of drongos - the union becomes important to the drongos IN JOBs against the drongos being imported because the unskilled drongos have to compete for the limited and (diminishing) number of jobs. yet we are importing third world petrol station attendants on 'skilled visas' (has anyone seen a non-Indian in a petrol station, 7-11, supermarket trolley collection, train station, government office etc job, in the last 15 years???)





Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Oct 30th, 2021 at 9:46pm

John Smith wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 7:21pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 3:12pm:
The answer was no.



you don't understand English do you? It wasn't a yes or no type of question ::)


Perhaps you are right.

Can you explain how what I think changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Oct 31st, 2021 at 5:27pm

freediver wrote on Oct 29th, 2021 at 10:31am:

Quote:
No business that was totally honest and above board would be in the least concerned over a Union checking on them to see they comply with the rules, and no business would have its employment level altered by the existence of a union.


What if the unions somehow increased the cost of hiring people? Could that affect the number of people they hire?


How would they do that somehow?

No matter how you change the clothes you’re still dressing this pig up as the same piece of malicious BS.


Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Oct 31st, 2021 at 5:42pm

Gnads wrote on Oct 31st, 2021 at 5:27pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 29th, 2021 at 10:31am:

Quote:
No business that was totally honest and above board would be in the least concerned over a Union checking on them to see they comply with the rules, and no business would have its employment level altered by the existence of a union.


What if the unions somehow increased the cost of hiring people? Could that affect the number of people they hire?


How would they do that somehow?

No matter how you change the clothes you’re still dressing this pig up as the same piece of malicious BS.


Are you asking me how a union could increase the cost of hiring people?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:18am

freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 2:16pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 2:04pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 12:08pm:

Quote:
and yes, I do think the answer you want depends on what you think


Can you explain how what I think changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination?



care to answer my question?


Not if it makes no sense.

Can you explain how what I think changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination?


So you think it reasonable to deny a worker a living wage so employers can pay less and that will encourage them to put more staff on?

It’s already been proven to be not the case When weekend penalty rates were slashed it did not create any more employment.

The same staff are simply expected to work for less.

You should cease the charade that you have a point to make.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Dnarever on Nov 1st, 2021 at 8:26am
Unions create unemployment

While Business create un paid or more underpaid employment with poor and unsafe conditions.

Between them you get a balance of employment wages with conditions and safety.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Bam on Nov 1st, 2021 at 9:32am

freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 8:44am:

Bam wrote on Oct 29th, 2021 at 8:10pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 29th, 2021 at 10:15am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 29th, 2021 at 10:14am:
As I said before, the onus is on you to prove your claim.

Thus far, you have not managed to do that.

I don't need to prove anything if you are too scared to disagree with what I say. That was, after all, the point I was making.

Yes, you do. You made the point. You prove it.

It is not the responsibility of others to disprove it. That is the burden of proof fallacy.


Let's see if anyone disagrees with me first. John is still working up the courage.

Everyone disagrees with your assertion, and you're using this as an excuse to keep running away. You've made no effort to prove your claim - despite being asked to do so several times - because your claim is a load of rubbish.

Unions do not create unemployment, otherwise the decline in union membership would correlate with a decline in the unemployment rate. This has not happened.

What REALLY creates unemployment: economic downturns, federal government policies, and the Reserve Bank acting on those policies.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:31pm

Gnads wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:18am:

freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 2:16pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 2:04pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 12:08pm:

Quote:
and yes, I do think the answer you want depends on what you think


Can you explain how what I think changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination?



care to answer my question?


Not if it makes no sense.

Can you explain how what I think changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination?


So you think it reasonable to deny a worker a living wage so employers can pay less and that will encourage them to put more staff on?

It’s already been proven to be not the case When weekend penalty rates were slashed it did not create any more employment.

The same staff are simply expected to work for less.

You should cease the charade that you have a point to make.


The unions are the only ones arguing it is reasonable to deny people a job.


Quote:
Everyone disagrees with your assertion


Wow. The unions speak for everyone and no-one at the same time. Do you have your own opinion, or do you go along with what "everyone" thinks?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:34pm

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:31pm:
The unions are the only ones arguing it is reasonable to deny people a job.



telling fibs again fd? ::)


freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:31pm:
Wow. The unions speak for everyone and no-one at the same time. Do you have your own opinion, or do you go along with what "everyone" thinks?



you've made some dumb comments in this thread, but this one takes the cake in my opinion. Have you had a few beers perchance?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:39pm
If Bob is willing to work for $20, and Jo is willing to employ him for up to $20, but the union insists Jo cannot employ him for anything less than $22 and puts a stop to it, who is denying who a job?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Dnarever on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:43pm

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:39pm:
If Bob is willing to work for $20, and Jo is willing to employ him for up to $20, but the union insists Jo cannot employ him for anything less than $22 and puts a stop to it, who is denying who a job?


The union will insist of the minimum award pay rate.

Union or no union it is illegal to pay under the minimum rate.

Minimum award rates are embarrassingly low, the employee would be the one saying no thanks.


Quote:
If Bob is willing to work for $20


No Bob is not willing to work for $20.


Quote:
Jo is willing to employ him for up to $20


No Jo is not going to be offering $20 she knows that the fine may bankrupt her.

This is how theoretical straw men fail in the real world.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:46pm

Dnarever wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:43pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:39pm:
If Bob is willing to work for $20, and Jo is willing to employ him for up to $20, but the union insists Jo cannot employ him for anything less than $22 and puts a stop to it, who is denying who a job?


The union will insist of the minimum award pay rate.

Union or no union it is illegal to pay under the minimum rate.

Minimum award rates are embarrassingly low, the employee would be the one saying no thanks.


So you agree that the unions think it is reasonable to deny people a job?

Do the unions ever destroy jobs that would otherwise pay above the award rate?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Dnarever on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:48pm

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:46pm:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:43pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:39pm:
If Bob is willing to work for $20, and Jo is willing to employ him for up to $20, but the union insists Jo cannot employ him for anything less than $22 and puts a stop to it, who is denying who a job?


The union will insist of the minimum award pay rate.

Union or no union it is illegal to pay under the minimum rate.

Minimum award rates are embarrassingly low, the employee would be the one saying no thanks.


So you agree that the unions think it is reasonable to deny people a job?

Do the unions ever destroy jobs that would otherwise pay above the award rate?


It isn't the Union it is the fair work commissioner enforcing the ACT.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:50pm
Do the unions ever destroy jobs that would otherwise pay above the award rate?

Do you think the unions have any influence at all on the award rate?

It seems convenient that the unions will happily claim credit for people getting paid more than a bowl of rice a day, but then blame the fair work commissioner for minimum wages, as soon as the conversation turns to the inevitable consequences. Hypocrits.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by NorthOfNorth on Nov 1st, 2021 at 10:10pm
Something to think about

US workers feel like they have been taken for granted, working long hours in increasingly worse conditions

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-01/striketober-hits-post-pandemic-america/100579358

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Ye Grappler on Nov 1st, 2021 at 11:51pm

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:50pm:
Do the unions ever destroy jobs that would otherwise pay above the award rate?

Do you think the unions have any influence at all on the award rate?

It seems convenient that the unions will happily claim credit for people getting paid more than a bowl of rice a day, but then blame the fair work commissioner for minimum wages, as soon as the conversation turns to the inevitable consequences. Hypocrits.


Of course - every year they place a submission before the relevant council (whatever that may be at any given time due to ideologies), laying out where costs of living have out-stripped the general mass of the people's ability to earn, and put a case for an increase to suit.

As I've said countless times - wage rates - all supposed to be based on Award rates - always follow behind rises in costs of living.

Therefore it is incumbent on those who affect those costs of living to get on the team and stop those rises if they want to negotiate stagnant or even lower rates of pay.

Control costs of living first and then you can discuss wages desperately trying to keep up.

Therefore - it is not Unions who create unemployment - it is those who continually seek, through their Union, to raise costs of living and thus create greater profit for themselves.

That is why 'privatisation' of public utilities into primarily a few hands has resulted in nothing more than rising costs of living and inflation, and has not only perpetuated the cycle, but actually made it worse.  So whenever the vultures feel the pressure of not having enough income, they push up prices (look at the road tolls), and then the costs of wages inevitably follow, and everything costs more dollars for the same value = inflation, so EVERYBODY is caught in the same trap.*

Capisce?

* This is why St Gladys, or Captain Hooknose following on from The Dread Privateer Blackbaird, had to go.... she and all her mates were promoting and advancing inflation that was ruinous to our ability to compete with anyone - but it will never affect her, or Blackbaird on their fat remuneration for life for stuffing the economy.

If only Labor would stop stuffing about with 'women's issues' and all the other bullshit, to the detriment, and even direct violent harm to, everyone else...

Poor Fellow - My Country!


Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 6:28am

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:31pm:

Gnads wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:18am:

freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 2:16pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 2:04pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 12:08pm:

Quote:
and yes, I do think the answer you want depends on what you think


Can you explain how what I think changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination?



care to answer my question?


Not if it makes no sense.

Can you explain how what I think changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination?


So you think it reasonable to deny a worker a living wage so employers can pay less and that will encourage them to put more staff on?

It’s already been proven to be not the case When weekend penalty rates were slashed it did not create any more employment.

The same staff are simply expected to work for less.

You should cease the charade that you have a point to make.


The unions are the only ones arguing it is reasonable to deny people a job.

[quote]Everyone disagrees with your assertion


Wow. The unions speak for everyone and no-one at the same time. Do you have your own opinion, or do you go along with what "everyone" thinks?[/quote]

That’s a bald faced lie… why do you keep telling such lies?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 6:48am

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:39pm:
If Bob is willing to work for $20, and Jo is willing to employ him for up to $20, but the union insists Jo cannot employ him for anything less than $22 and puts a stop to it, who is denying who a job?


What you’re encouraging is scab labour and employers to pay below the regulated rates.

You give that away by making the statement that “ Bob is willing to work for $20 & Jo is willing to employ him for up to$20”.

So Jo is not willing to pay $20 all the time but “up to” $20 at some point - yeah?

And that is a perfect example of what employers do to cut wages and conditions, create under employment and insecure jobs.

From your own fingers you type that you condone non payment of award/mandated rates of pay.

Your posturing that you have a relevant point in this thread is a wasted effort because you don’t.

Like your pithy examples you’re pathetic.




Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Bam on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 8:15am

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:39pm:
If Bob is willing to work for $20, and Jo is willing to employ him for up to $20, but the union insists Jo cannot employ him for anything less than $22 and puts a stop to it, who is denying who a job?

You're using fiction to support your point. Don't do that.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Bam on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 8:19am

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:31pm:

Quote:
Everyone disagrees with your assertion


Wow. The unions speak for everyone and no-one at the same time. Do you have your own opinion, or do you go along with what "everyone" thinks?

You're using parts of sentences quoted out of context to make a fallacious point (it's irrelevant). Don't do that either.

Here is the FULL text of the post that you have refused to discuss:

Bam wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 9:32am:
Everyone disagrees with your assertion, and you're using this as an excuse to keep running away. You've made no effort to prove your claim - despite being asked to do so several times - because your claim is a load of rubbish.

Unions do not create unemployment, otherwise the decline in union membership would correlate with a decline in the unemployment rate. This has not happened.

What REALLY creates unemployment: economic downturns, federal government policies, and the Reserve Bank acting on those policies.

As you have refused to engage with the points made therein, you have conceded all of them. I accept your surrender.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Ye Grappler on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 8:28am

Bam wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 8:15am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:39pm:
If Bob is willing to work for $20, and Jo is willing to employ him for up to $20, but the union insists Jo cannot employ him for anything less than $22 and puts a stop to it, who is denying who a job?

You're using fiction to support your point. Don't do that.


Jo.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 6:22pm

Gnads wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 6:28am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:31pm:

Gnads wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:18am:

freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 2:16pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 2:04pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 12:08pm:

Quote:
and yes, I do think the answer you want depends on what you think


Can you explain how what I think changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination?



care to answer my question?


Not if it makes no sense.

Can you explain how what I think changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination?


So you think it reasonable to deny a worker a living wage so employers can pay less and that will encourage them to put more staff on?

It’s already been proven to be not the case When weekend penalty rates were slashed it did not create any more employment.

The same staff are simply expected to work for less.

You should cease the charade that you have a point to make.


The unions are the only ones arguing it is reasonable to deny people a job.

[quote]Everyone disagrees with your assertion


Wow. The unions speak for everyone and no-one at the same time. Do you have your own opinion, or do you go along with what "everyone" thinks?


That’s a bald faced lie… why do you keep telling such lies?[/quote]

It's true. For example, you probably don't even realise you are supporting the denial of the right to work with comments like this:


Quote:
What you’re encouraging is scab labour and employers to pay below the regulated rates.


Not only do you want to deny them a job, you want to insult them for trying to get one.


Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Dnarever on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 7:20pm

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:50pm:
Do the unions ever destroy jobs that would otherwise pay above the award rate?

Do you think the unions have any influence at all on the award rate?

It seems convenient that the unions will happily claim credit for people getting paid more than a bowl of rice a day, but then blame the fair work commissioner for minimum wages, as soon as the conversation turns to the inevitable consequences. Hypocrits.



Quote:
Do the unions ever destroy jobs that would otherwise pay above the award rate?


No unions do not destroy any jobs at all. Unions would not even be involved.


Quote:
Do you think the unions have any influence at all on the award rate?


Very very small if any.


Quote:
but then blame the fair work commissioner for minimum wages


The fair work commissioner sets the minimum wage ?

Who would you blame  ? The cook at the local Chinese restaurant ?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 9:11pm

Quote:
No unions do not destroy any jobs at all. Unions would not even be involved.


What about the jobs that get destroyed because of increased wages?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 9:12pm

freediver wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 6:22pm:

Gnads wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 6:28am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:31pm:

Gnads wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:18am:

freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 2:16pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 2:04pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 12:08pm:

Quote:
and yes, I do think the answer you want depends on what you think


Can you explain how what I think changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination?



care to answer my question?


Not if it makes no sense.

Can you explain how what I think changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination?


So you think it reasonable to deny a worker a living wage so employers can pay less and that will encourage them to put more staff on?

It’s already been proven to be not the case When weekend penalty rates were slashed it did not create any more employment.

The same staff are simply expected to work for less.

You should cease the charade that you have a point to make.


The unions are the only ones arguing it is reasonable to deny people a job.

[quote]Everyone disagrees with your assertion


Wow. The unions speak for everyone and no-one at the same time. Do you have your own opinion, or do you go along with what "everyone" thinks?


That’s a bald faced lie… why do you keep telling such lies?


It's true. For example, you probably don't even realise you are supporting the denial of the right to work with comments like this:


Quote:
What you’re encouraging is scab labour and employers to pay below the regulated rates.


Not only do you want to deny them a job, you want to insult them for trying to get one.

[/quote]

Absolute BS

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 9:13pm

freediver wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 9:11pm:

Quote:
No unions do not destroy any jobs at all. Unions would not even be involved.


What about the jobs that get destroyed because of increased wages?


such as?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 9:13pm

Gnads wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 9:12pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 6:22pm:

Gnads wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 6:28am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:31pm:

Gnads wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:18am:

freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 2:16pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 2:04pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 12:08pm:

Quote:
and yes, I do think the answer you want depends on what you think


Can you explain how what I think changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination?



care to answer my question?


Not if it makes no sense.

Can you explain how what I think changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination?


So you think it reasonable to deny a worker a living wage so employers can pay less and that will encourage them to put more staff on?

It’s already been proven to be not the case When weekend penalty rates were slashed it did not create any more employment.

The same staff are simply expected to work for less.

You should cease the charade that you have a point to make.


The unions are the only ones arguing it is reasonable to deny people a job.

[quote]Everyone disagrees with your assertion


Wow. The unions speak for everyone and no-one at the same time. Do you have your own opinion, or do you go along with what "everyone" thinks?


That’s a bald faced lie… why do you keep telling such lies?


It's true. For example, you probably don't even realise you are supporting the denial of the right to work with comments like this:

[quote]What you’re encouraging is scab labour and employers to pay below the regulated rates.


Not only do you want to deny them a job, you want to insult them for trying to get one.

[/quote]

Absolute BS[/quote]

Can you explain why, or is this where you cover your ears and chant union propaganda?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 9:20pm

Quote:
There’s no such thing as permanent casual.

What we have instead is employers refusing to give    Permanent jobs to workers.


Then we have people like FD who think paying a Gina Rinehart inspired wage of $2 an hour creates employment.

He’s lower than snake balls.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 9:23pm

freediver wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 9:13pm:

Gnads wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 9:12pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 6:22pm:

Gnads wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 6:28am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:31pm:

Gnads wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:18am:

freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 2:16pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 2:04pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 12:08pm:

Quote:
and yes, I do think the answer you want depends on what you think


Can you explain how what I think changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination?



care to answer my question?


Not if it makes no sense.

Can you explain how what I think changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination?


So you think it reasonable to deny a worker a living wage so employers can pay less and that will encourage them to put more staff on?

It’s already been proven to be not the case When weekend penalty rates were slashed it did not create any more employment.

The same staff are simply expected to work for less.

You should cease the charade that you have a point to make.


The unions are the only ones arguing it is reasonable to deny people a job.

[quote]Everyone disagrees with your assertion


Wow. The unions speak for everyone and no-one at the same time. Do you have your own opinion, or do you go along with what "everyone" thinks?


That’s a bald faced lie… why do you keep telling such lies?


It's true. For example, you probably don't even realise you are supporting the denial of the right to work with comments like this:

[quote]What you’re encouraging is scab labour and employers to pay below the regulated rates.


Not only do you want to deny them a job, you want to insult them for trying to get one.


Absolute BS[/quote]

Can you explain why, or is this where you cover your ears and chant union propaganda?[/quote]

Speaking o& propaganda you’re oozing it.

And no it’s up to you to irrefutably prove Unions cause unemployment…. Because all you espouse is methods of deception, lies and exploitation.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Pedro Curevo on Nov 3rd, 2021 at 6:36am
Neo liberal free market economics has created the situation where young people today bear the brunt of income taxes coupled with stagnant wages and because of the rich with their property investment, negative gearing and franking credits plus tax write off's has made housing affordability out of reach for most of the young people struggling with low wages..

It was neo liberalism in search of cheap Labour that went looking to China and India, 3rd & 2nd world countries for workers in their industries, resulting in manufacturing being off shore while collapsing the domestic market creating unemployment and poverty in the west. 

Now the Neo Liberal RW Hawks want to have a war on China because it has become too powerful in their eyes and now act frightened by Chinas power economically and militarily.

This wasn't the machinations of Unions....it was Neo Liberalism that is now borderline proto fascism.

Reap what you sow.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 3rd, 2021 at 7:19am

Gnads wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 9:23pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 9:13pm:

Gnads wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 9:12pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 6:22pm:

Gnads wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 6:28am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:31pm:

Gnads wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:18am:

freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 2:16pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 2:04pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 12:08pm:

Quote:
and yes, I do think the answer you want depends on what you think


Can you explain how what I think changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination?



care to answer my question?


Not if it makes no sense.

Can you explain how what I think changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination?


So you think it reasonable to deny a worker a living wage so employers can pay less and that will encourage them to put more staff on?

It’s already been proven to be not the case When weekend penalty rates were slashed it did not create any more employment.

The same staff are simply expected to work for less.

You should cease the charade that you have a point to make.


The unions are the only ones arguing it is reasonable to deny people a job.

[quote]Everyone disagrees with your assertion


Wow. The unions speak for everyone and no-one at the same time. Do you have your own opinion, or do you go along with what "everyone" thinks?


That’s a bald faced lie… why do you keep telling such lies?


It's true. For example, you probably don't even realise you are supporting the denial of the right to work with comments like this:

[quote]What you’re encouraging is scab labour and employers to pay below the regulated rates.


Not only do you want to deny them a job, you want to insult them for trying to get one.


Absolute BS


Can you explain why, or is this where you cover your ears and chant union propaganda?[/quote]

Speaking o& propaganda you’re oozing it.

And no it’s up to you to irrefutably prove Unions cause unemployment…. Because all you espouse is methods of deception, lies and exploitation.[/quote]

I'm not asking you to prove anything. I am asking you to make sense.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Ye Grappler on Nov 3rd, 2021 at 8:10am

Gnads wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 9:20pm:

Quote:
There’s no such thing as permanent casual.

What we have instead is employers refusing to give    Permanent jobs to workers.


Then we have people like FD who think paying a Gina Rinehart inspired wage of $2 an hour creates employment.

He’s lower than snake balls.


Gina is always welcome to move to Darkest Africa and work with the locals and pay $2 a day or whatever.... good riddance.... I'd pay the head-hunters $10 a head.... stupid, stupid woman handed money unearned that came from the Robber Baron leftovers that permitted her father to stake out masses of ALREADY KNOWN DEPOSITS.... hello - the Japanese wanted to build steel making facilities in the Kimberley region in the late 1920s for exactly that reason... got that yet?

The Fix Was In over there in the Wild West between the Usual Suspect Old Mates, and it is clear those resources should properly have become property of the people and state long before Old Lang says he spotted them while flying over them... got that?

On $2 an hour here, utter starvation wages, there would be no flow-on jobs and thus near total unemployment.... swapping produce, criminality, etc would thrive and the inevitable result would be revolution (why do you imagine Howard went after the guns in the community held by honest people?  All proto-Fascists are the same - well aware that they must cover their own arse by rendering the populace powerless - hence the never-ending assaults on men) ...  when people have barely enough to survive, businesses do not thrive and thus do not employ people..... and soon all will live in grass huts ... no trade - no business.....

Silly argument from start to finish...

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Nov 3rd, 2021 at 5:09pm

freediver wrote on Nov 3rd, 2021 at 7:19am:

Gnads wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 9:23pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 9:13pm:

Gnads wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 9:12pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 6:22pm:

Gnads wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 6:28am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:31pm:

Gnads wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:18am:

freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 2:16pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 2:04pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 12:08pm:

Quote:
and yes, I do think the answer you want depends on what you think


Can you explain how what I think changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination?



care to answer my question?


Not if it makes no sense.

Can you explain how what I think changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination?


So you think it reasonable to deny a worker a living wage so employers can pay less and that will encourage them to put more staff on?

It’s already been proven to be not the case When weekend penalty rates were slashed it did not create any more employment.

The same staff are simply expected to work for less.

You should cease the charade that you have a point to make.


The unions are the only ones arguing it is reasonable to deny people a job.

[quote]Everyone disagrees with your assertion


Wow. The unions speak for everyone and no-one at the same time. Do you have your own opinion, or do you go along with what "everyone" thinks?


That’s a bald faced lie… why do you keep telling such lies?


It's true. For example, you probably don't even realise you are supporting the denial of the right to work with comments like this:

[quote]What you’re encouraging is scab labour and employers to pay below the regulated rates.


Not only do you want to deny them a job, you want to insult them for trying to get one.


Absolute BS


Can you explain why, or is this where you cover your ears and chant union propaganda?


Speaking o& propaganda you’re oozing it.

And no it’s up to you to irrefutably prove Unions cause unemployment…. Because all you espouse is methods of deception, lies and exploitation.[/quote]

I'm not asking you to prove anything. I am asking you to make sense.[/quote]

At the end of the day there’s only 2 words for you

KCUF OFF.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Ye Grappler on Nov 3rd, 2021 at 5:19pm
Oh - I see - that's why St Dominic De Droit was just up spouting off that NSW has a shortage of skilled tradespersons etc...

Nothing to do with Covid or a startup or long-running government malfeasance in destroying trade opportunities by killing off TAFE.. that bloody socialist organisation..

The Unions Did It!!!

Stoopid is as stoopid does, sah - things used to work well.... now all around is chaos and madness.... and they want to make that worse by bringing in more and more Outlanders....

WALOBS.....

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 3rd, 2021 at 6:00pm

John Smith wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 9:13pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 9:11pm:

Quote:
No unions do not destroy any jobs at all. Unions would not even be involved.


What about the jobs that get destroyed because of increased wages?


such as?



so after banging your drums over all the jobs unions cost for several years now, you can't name any jobs that unions cost everyone?  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Dnarever on Nov 3rd, 2021 at 6:03pm

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 3rd, 2021 at 5:19pm:
Oh - I see - that's why St Dominic De Droit was just up spouting off that NSW has a shortage of skilled tradespersons etc...

Nothing to do with Covid or a startup or long-running government malfeasance in destroying trade opportunities by killing off TAFE.. that bloody socialist organisation..

The Unions Did It!!!

Stoopid is as stoopid does, sah - things used to work well.... now all around is chaos and madness.... and they want to make that worse by bringing in more and more Outlanders....

WALOBS.....



Quote:
De Droit was just up spouting off that NSW has a shortage of skilled tradespersons etc...


Funny how 4 decades of not training people will produce this result.

Who woulda thunk that ?


Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Ye Grappler on Nov 3rd, 2021 at 6:46pm

Dnarever wrote on Nov 3rd, 2021 at 6:03pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 3rd, 2021 at 5:19pm:
Oh - I see - that's why St Dominic De Droit was just up spouting off that NSW has a shortage of skilled tradespersons etc...

Nothing to do with Covid or a startup or long-running government malfeasance in destroying trade opportunities by killing off TAFE.. that bloody socialist organisation..

The Unions Did It!!!

Stoopid is as stoopid does, sah - things used to work well.... now all around is chaos and madness.... and they want to make that worse by bringing in more and more Outlanders....

WALOBS.....



Quote:
De Droit was just up spouting off that NSW has a shortage of skilled tradespersons etc...


Funny how 4 decades of not training people will produce this result.

Who woulda thunk that ?


When ah were a kid, even the mighty BHP benefited mightily from this socialist TAFE, in training all of its tradesmen - they didn't object... sure .... there were fees, but those were miniscule compared to the 'private educators'.... with their own in-house training and TAFE they turned out pretty good tradesmen.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 3rd, 2021 at 8:28pm

John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2021 at 6:00pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 9:13pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 9:11pm:

Quote:
No unions do not destroy any jobs at all. Unions would not even be involved.


What about the jobs that get destroyed because of increased wages?


such as?



so after banging your drums over all the jobs unions cost for several years now, you can't name any jobs that unions cost everyone?  ;D ;D ;D ;D


Sure. Right after you name all the children that were never conceived.

Can you explain how what I think changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination?


Gnads wrote on Nov 3rd, 2021 at 5:09pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 3rd, 2021 at 7:19am:

Gnads wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 9:23pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 9:13pm:

Gnads wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 9:12pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 6:22pm:

Gnads wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 6:28am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:31pm:

Gnads wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 6:18am:

freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 2:16pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 2:04pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 12:08pm:

Quote:
and yes, I do think the answer you want depends on what you think


Can you explain how what I think changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination?



care to answer my question?


Not if it makes no sense.

Can you explain how what I think changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination?


So you think it reasonable to deny a worker a living wage so employers can pay less and that will encourage them to put more staff on?

It’s already been proven to be not the case When weekend penalty rates were slashed it did not create any more employment.

The same staff are simply expected to work for less.

You should cease the charade that you have a point to make.


The unions are the only ones arguing it is reasonable to deny people a job.

[quote]Everyone disagrees with your assertion


Wow. The unions speak for everyone and no-one at the same time. Do you have your own opinion, or do you go along with what "everyone" thinks?


That’s a bald faced lie… why do you keep telling such lies?


It's true. For example, you probably don't even realise you are supporting the denial of the right to work with comments like this:

[quote]What you’re encouraging is scab labour and employers to pay below the regulated rates.


Not only do you want to deny them a job, you want to insult them for trying to get one.


Absolute BS


Can you explain why, or is this where you cover your ears and chant union propaganda?


Speaking o& propaganda you’re oozing it.

And no it’s up to you to irrefutably prove Unions cause unemployment…. Because all you espouse is methods of deception, lies and exploitation.


I'm not asking you to prove anything. I am asking you to make sense.[/quote]

At the end of the day there’s only 2 words for you

KCUF OFF. [/quote]

Are you getting upset because you are finally starting to realise that the unions have tricked you into destroying jobs and blaming your victims for their unemployment? If the unions are so wonderful, why do they make you dehumanise your fellow man for the 'crime' of wanting to earn a living? You are the real scab, denying someone else a job so you can have a few dollars more.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Nov 3rd, 2021 at 9:36pm
No - not at all. It’s simply because you talk bs in circles with the end result being you’ve proven nothing, made no point albeit to espouse lies without substance.

All your union bashing is just ideological fabrication.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Dnarever on Nov 3rd, 2021 at 10:35pm
Business destroys many more Jobs than unions ever could.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 4th, 2021 at 6:49am

Gnads wrote on Nov 3rd, 2021 at 9:36pm:
No - not at all. It’s simply because you talk bs in circles with the end result being you’ve proven nothing, made no point albeit to espouse lies without substance.

All your union bashing is just ideological fabrication.


Do unions deny jobs to scabs?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Nov 4th, 2021 at 3:56pm

freediver wrote on Nov 4th, 2021 at 6:49am:

Gnads wrote on Nov 3rd, 2021 at 9:36pm:
No - not at all. It’s simply because you talk bs in circles with the end result being you’ve proven nothing, made no point albeit to espouse lies without substance.

All your union bashing is just ideological fabrication.


Do unions deny jobs to scabs?

Unions don’t deny anyone a job. Even scabs.

Are you a scab?… you sound like one.

Anyway stick this up your jacksie…..

https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2021-11-04/fair-work-rules-every-farm-worker-entitled-minimum-rate-of-pay/100592806?utm_campaign=abc_news_web&utm_content=link&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_source=abc_news_web









Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 4th, 2021 at 5:48pm

freediver wrote on Nov 3rd, 2021 at 8:28pm:
Sure. Right after you name all the children that were never conceived.
.



So you've got nothing then? That's what I thought.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 4th, 2021 at 6:03pm

Gnads wrote on Nov 4th, 2021 at 3:56pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 4th, 2021 at 6:49am:

Gnads wrote on Nov 3rd, 2021 at 9:36pm:
No - not at all. It’s simply because you talk bs in circles with the end result being you’ve proven nothing, made no point albeit to espouse lies without substance.

All your union bashing is just ideological fabrication.


Do unions deny jobs to scabs?

Unions don’t deny anyone a job. Even scabs.

Are you a scab?… you sound like one.

Anyway stick this up your jacksie…..

https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2021-11-04/fair-work-rules-every-farm-worker-entitled-minimum-rate-of-pay/100592806?utm_campaign=abc_news_web&utm_content=link&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_source=abc_news_web


So how do the unions stop scabs from getting a job without denying them a job? Isn't the whole point of labelling them a scab to assuage your guilt at denying them what should be a fundamental human right?


Quote:
So you've got nothing then? That's what I thought.


Pointing out your idiocy is enough.

Can you explain how what I think changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 4th, 2021 at 6:57pm

freediver wrote on Nov 4th, 2021 at 6:03pm:
Pointing out your idiocy is enough.



fine, point it out. Show me all these jobs unions cost people.

I suspect the pope will turn Islamic before that happens :D

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 4th, 2021 at 8:52pm

Quote:
fine, point it out


no problem. Here you go:


Quote:
Show me all these jobs unions cost people.



Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Nov 5th, 2021 at 6:17am

freediver wrote on Nov 4th, 2021 at 8:52pm:

Quote:
fine, point it out


no problem. Here you go:

[quote]Show me all these jobs unions cost people.


[/quote]

Pathetic

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by polite_gandalf on Nov 5th, 2021 at 11:54am

freediver wrote on Jan 25th, 2021 at 9:19am:
Gandalf do you understand that this is no less juvenile than blaming the GFC, or a volcanic eruption, on whatever party happened to be in power at the time?


juvenile claim:

"Unions create unemployment" - by FD.

juvenile logic to "support" this juvenile claim:

" If you artificially increase wages, either through government or union action, the inevitable result is fewer jobs than there would have been if market forces had been left to run their course." - by FD.

Evidence? Zilch.

Evidence where "increasing wages, either through government or union action" produces the exact opposite effect of what FD claims: the 1983 union-negotiated accord -  to name just one example.

If you are correct that union/government action to 'artificially' increase wages necessarily results in increased unemployment, then obviously things like a fall in unemployment after the 1983 accord (a clear case of unions and government artificially increasing wages) - should not happen. And yet it did. It is incumbent on you to explain why the exact opposite of what you claim will happen - happened. Simply hand waving it away with the irrelevant "correlation does not equal causation" throwaway line doesn't invalidate my refutation of your claim. Not one bit.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Swagman on Nov 5th, 2021 at 12:03pm

Quote:
Unions create unemployment


Yep by using collusion to artificially inflate the price of labour.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Ye Grappler on Nov 5th, 2021 at 12:11pm

Swagman wrote on Nov 5th, 2021 at 12:03pm:

Quote:
Unions create unemployment


Yep by using collusion to artificially inflate the price of labour.



Oh?  And exactly how do they go about enforcing those higher prices of labour?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by polite_gandalf on Nov 5th, 2021 at 12:21pm
Grap, please don't ask Swag to expand on anything that goes beyond what he copies and pastes from his "cool sounding liberal party memes for dummies" cheat sheet. We don't want to embarrass him.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Dnarever on Nov 5th, 2021 at 2:05pm

Swagman wrote on Nov 5th, 2021 at 12:03pm:

Quote:
Unions create unemployment


Yep by using collusion to artificially inflate the price of labour.


Wages have been falling behind their market value for the last 40 + years, business collusion with government and industrial agencies has led to an artificial deflation of wages. ?

Unions have been largely sidelined by government regulation and restrictions making them mostly impotent and unable to provide badly needed balance to the equation.

The pendulum has been sitting on a shelf to the hard right for decades.


Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 5th, 2021 at 2:12pm

freediver wrote on Nov 4th, 2021 at 8:52pm:

Quote:
fine, point it out


no problem. Here you go:

[quote]Show me all these jobs unions cost people.


[/quote]

You know what, I actually agree. It is idiotic of me to expect you to support your claims. You'd think I would have learnt by now that you never back yourself with facts. Instead you rely on boring people with your stupidity to try and win an argument...  ::)


Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 5th, 2021 at 2:14pm

Swagman wrote on Nov 5th, 2021 at 12:03pm:

Quote:
Unions create unemployment


Yep by using collusion to artificially inflate the price of labour.


yes, I'm sure you read that in a text book somewhere . ::) ::)

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by polite_gandalf on Nov 5th, 2021 at 2:54pm

John Smith wrote on Nov 5th, 2021 at 2:12pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 4th, 2021 at 8:52pm:

Quote:
fine, point it out


no problem. Here you go:

[quote]Show me all these jobs unions cost people.


You know what, I actually agree. It is idiotic of me to expect you to support your claims. You'd think I would have learnt by now that you never back yourself with facts. Instead you rely on boring people with your stupidity to try and win an argument...  ::)

[/quote]

FD's claim substantiation almost always amounts to some variation of "because you can't prove it isn't so". That is if his argument even gets that far. Mostly debates with him don't advance beyond waving his hand and saying "I'm right because its a statement of the bleeding obvious" and calling everyone a liar who disagrees with him.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 5th, 2021 at 6:50pm

Quote:
FD's claim substantiation almost always amounts to some variation of "because you can't prove it isn't so".


On this issue, I am falling back on: you cannot mount a coherent or rational counter-argument. I have not asked anyone for proof of anything. It seems that getting you to make sense is too much to ask.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 5th, 2021 at 8:07pm

freediver wrote on Nov 5th, 2021 at 6:50pm:

Quote:
FD's claim substantiation almost always amounts to some variation of "because you can't prove it isn't so".


On this issue, I am falling back on: you cannot mount a coherent or rational counter-argument. I have not asked anyone for proof of anything. It seems that getting you to make sense is too much to ask.


no one needs to counter anything until you prove your claim is true. Until then, keep pissing in the wind. After all, it's worked wonders for you to date ;D ;D

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Ye Grappler on Nov 5th, 2021 at 10:47pm
Sounds like a great argument to re-install a total Awards system, wherein everyone is on the same page and everyone can make a profit without all this Howardesque bullshit.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 6th, 2021 at 9:29am

John Smith wrote on Nov 5th, 2021 at 8:07pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 5th, 2021 at 6:50pm:

Quote:
FD's claim substantiation almost always amounts to some variation of "because you can't prove it isn't so".


On this issue, I am falling back on: you cannot mount a coherent or rational counter-argument. I have not asked anyone for proof of anything. It seems that getting you to make sense is too much to ask.


no one needs to counter anything until you prove your claim is true. Until then, keep pissing in the wind. After all, it's worked wonders for you to date ;D ;D


You do not need to respond at all John. And yet you feel compelled to. If unions destroying jobs is a simple, logical and obvious consequence of their actions, and all you can come back with is that there is no need for you to make sense until I prove it to you, I am more than happy to leave it at that.

Can you explain how what I think changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination?


Quote:
Sounds like a great argument to re-install a total Awards system, wherein everyone is on the same page and everyone can make a profit without all this Howardesque bullshit
.

How would that be any different? And what about the people who, as a result, cannot get a job, and the businesses who cannot profitably employ them?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Ye Grappler on Nov 6th, 2021 at 9:35am
Just accept it, freed - this one tried to take off without flaps and power....didn't make it off the end of the runway, skidded over a crowded highway and crashed into a petrol storage tank.

It's the most ridiculous argument ever put forward to justify Union-bashing, and a man of your intellect, education and morality should know that full well.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 6th, 2021 at 12:33pm

freediver wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 9:29am:
You do not need to respond at all John. And yet you feel compelled to



I enjoy highlighting your stupidity.


Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 6th, 2021 at 12:37pm

John Smith wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 12:33pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 9:29am:
You do not need to respond at all John. And yet you feel compelled to



I enjoy highlighting your stupidity.


Can you explain how what I think changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 6th, 2021 at 12:42pm

freediver wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 12:37pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 12:33pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 9:29am:
You do not need to respond at all John. And yet you feel compelled to



I enjoy highlighting your stupidity.


Can you explain how what I think changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination?


what you think is irrelevant. This thread proves that. It's what you can prove that matters and so far you've come up well short. ;D ;D ;D


four years you've kept this thread going in the hope that someone will do what you're unable to do ... Four years. Even Bobby isn't that slow. ;D ;D

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 6th, 2021 at 12:55pm

Quote:
four years


Can you even count?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 6th, 2021 at 1:00pm

freediver wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 12:55pm:

Quote:
four years


Can you even count?



it won't help you either way ::)

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by NorthOfNorth on Nov 6th, 2021 at 1:02pm
A Hallmark moment...

Ah, love... Not measured in years, but in the effort it takes to not fall out of it.


Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Frank on Nov 6th, 2021 at 1:37pm
Union membership declined since the 1980s similarly to the reduction of the unemployment rate.


https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-work-hours/trade-union-membership/latest-release


Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 6th, 2021 at 1:41pm

John Smith wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 1:00pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 12:55pm:

Quote:
four years


Can you even count?



it won't help you either way ::)


Can you explain how what I think is relevant changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire? Is this some kind of weird union economics where you replace reality with your imagination? Or are you unsure whether wages and the number of people that businesses hire are relevant to wages and the number of people that businesses hire?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 6th, 2021 at 1:46pm

freediver wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 1:41pm:
Can you explain how what I think is relevant changes the effect that wages have on the number of people businesses hire?




John Smith wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 12:42pm:
what you think is irrelevant. This thread proves that. It's what you can prove that matters and so far you've come up well short.


Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 6th, 2021 at 3:24pm
Is it getting hard to keep track of all the BS you spin John?


freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 8:44am:

John Smith wrote on Oct 29th, 2021 at 5:39pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 29th, 2021 at 10:31am:
What if the unions somehow increased the cost of hiring people? Could that affect the number of people they hire?



depends on whether you think businesses hire people to do work that needs doing

or whether you think business will hire more people then they need just because they're on a discounted rate


Would you like to try answering the question John? Or do you actually think the answer depends on what I think?



John Smith wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 11:53am:

freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 8:44am:
Would you like to try answering the question John?



I did answer the question fd .... and yes, I do think the answer you want depends on what you think


Now, I answered your question, how about you let me know which of the two scenarios I put up do you agree with the most?


Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 6th, 2021 at 5:12pm

freediver wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 3:24pm:
Is it getting hard to keep track of all the BS you spin John?


freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 8:44am:

John Smith wrote on Oct 29th, 2021 at 5:39pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 29th, 2021 at 10:31am:
What if the unions somehow increased the cost of hiring people? Could that affect the number of people they hire?



depends on whether you think businesses hire people to do work that needs doing

or whether you think business will hire more people then they need just because they're on a discounted rate


Would you like to try answering the question John? Or do you actually think the answer depends on what I think?



John Smith wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 11:53am:

freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 8:44am:
Would you like to try answering the question John?



I did answer the question fd .... and yes, I do think the answer you want depends on what you think


Now, I answered your question, how about you let me know which of the two scenarios I put up do you agree with the most?


why are the two answers mutually exclusive FD?

there is no bs ...the answer you want depends on what you think. If I give you an answer that doesn't gel with that, you cry about the answer not being answered or make some dumb comment and then repeat the question waiting for someone to give an answer that gels with what you think. Having said that, what you think is  irrelevant., Want you want means jack sh1t to my answer.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Nov 7th, 2021 at 7:36am

Frank wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 1:37pm:
Union membership declined since the 1980s similarly to the reduction of the unemployment rate.


https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-work-hours/trade-union-membership/latest-release


The increase in the insecure casualisation and part time employment i.e. underemployment and reduced incomes does not amount to a realistic decrease in the unemployment rate.

It’s just smoke and mirrors policy.

What’s needed is secure full time jobs that pay a living wage.

But employers are hell bent on reducing wages and to do so make people more desperate to take the rubbish jobs they offer.

It’s the very reason Unions exist.


Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Pedro Curevo on Nov 7th, 2021 at 9:11am
How about someone explains why all this wage stagnation, increasing poverty with homelessness  and the young unable to afford to purchase a house is the from unions creating unemployment and why it isn't neo liberal trickle down economics.


Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 7th, 2021 at 9:56am

John Smith wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 5:12pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 3:24pm:
Is it getting hard to keep track of all the BS you spin John?


freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 8:44am:

John Smith wrote on Oct 29th, 2021 at 5:39pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 29th, 2021 at 10:31am:
What if the unions somehow increased the cost of hiring people? Could that affect the number of people they hire?



depends on whether you think businesses hire people to do work that needs doing

or whether you think business will hire more people then they need just because they're on a discounted rate


Would you like to try answering the question John? Or do you actually think the answer depends on what I think?



John Smith wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 11:53am:

freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 8:44am:
Would you like to try answering the question John?



I did answer the question fd .... and yes, I do think the answer you want depends on what you think


Now, I answered your question, how about you let me know which of the two scenarios I put up do you agree with the most?


why are the two answers mutually exclusive FD?

there is no bs ...the answer you want depends on what you think. If I give you an answer that doesn't gel with that, you cry about the answer not being answered or make some dumb comment and then repeat the question waiting for someone to give an answer that gels with what you think. Having said that, what you think is  irrelevant., Want you want means jack sh1t to my answer.


I am waiting for an answer that makes sense. So far all you have given me is meaningless gibberish.

Do you think the unions share your level of understanding of economics?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Nov 7th, 2021 at 9:59am

freediver wrote on Nov 7th, 2021 at 9:56am:

John Smith wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 5:12pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 3:24pm:
Is it getting hard to keep track of all the BS you spin John?


freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 8:44am:

John Smith wrote on Oct 29th, 2021 at 5:39pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 29th, 2021 at 10:31am:
What if the unions somehow increased the cost of hiring people? Could that affect the number of people they hire?



depends on whether you think businesses hire people to do work that needs doing

or whether you think business will hire more people then they need just because they're on a discounted rate


Would you like to try answering the question John? Or do you actually think the answer depends on what I think?



John Smith wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 11:53am:

freediver wrote on Oct 30th, 2021 at 8:44am:
Would you like to try answering the question John?



I did answer the question fd .... and yes, I do think the answer you want depends on what you think


Now, I answered your question, how about you let me know which of the two scenarios I put up do you agree with the most?


why are the two answers mutually exclusive FD?

there is no bs ...the answer you want depends on what you think. If I give you an answer that doesn't gel with that, you cry about the answer not being answered or make some dumb comment and then repeat the question waiting for someone to give an answer that gels with what you think. Having said that, what you think is  irrelevant., Want you want means jack sh1t to my answer.


I am waiting for an answer that makes sense. So far all you have given me is meaningless gibberish.

Do you think the unions share your level of understanding of economics?


And your level of understanding of economics is obviously flawed.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 7th, 2021 at 10:00am
OK Gnads, give us an economics lesson. What happens to the number of jobs that businesses offer when you make it more expensive for them to hire people?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Nov 7th, 2021 at 10:14am

freediver wrote on Nov 7th, 2021 at 10:00am:
OK Gnads, give us an economics lesson. What happens to the number of jobs that businesses offer when you make it more expensive for them to hire people?


The offer of jobs should be based on their business model. Increases in wages should be a real consideration due to the increases to the cost of living.

No doubt they expect to be able increase their prices due to rising costs of resources.

Blaming wages and Unions for unemployment is a cop out.

It has been shown to you the reductions in wages has not created any more employment.

You seem to be fixated with a Master/Serf mentality.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 7th, 2021 at 10:29am

Quote:
It has been shown to you the reductions in wages has not created any more employment.


No it hasn't. I have seen the claim made, based on the sort of analysis you might expect from a primary school student.

What is your own opinion Gnads? If unions make it more expensive for businesses to employ people, will those businesses offer more or fewer jobs than if the unions had not intervened? This isn't a trick question.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Dnarever on Nov 7th, 2021 at 10:41am

freediver wrote on Nov 7th, 2021 at 10:29am:

Quote:
It has been shown to you the reductions in wages has not created any more employment.


No it hasn't. I have seen the claim made, based on the sort of analysis you might expect from a primary school student.

What is your own opinion Gnads? If unions make it more expensive for businesses to employ people, will those businesses offer more or fewer jobs than if the unions had not intervened? This isn't a trick question.


No trick - Just irrelevant. Business employ the number of people that they need to maximise their profits, employment is seldom a charity product excluding the rampant nepotism and corruption involved.

As stagnant wages show there is no case for saying that unions are driving wages up as it isn't happening. It is just a strawman argument.



Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Dnarever on Nov 7th, 2021 at 10:45am

freediver wrote on Nov 7th, 2021 at 10:29am:

Quote:
It has been shown to you the reductions in wages has not created any more employment.


No it hasn't. I have seen the claim made, based on the sort of analysis you might expect from a primary school student.

What is your own opinion Gnads? If unions make it more expensive for businesses to employ people, will those businesses offer more or fewer jobs than if the unions had not intervened? This isn't a trick question.


I think you will find that it has indeed been been factually shown that the exercise of forcing down take home pay in the event of penalty rates being reduced in the relevant industries resulted in people walking away from the industries in question and employment rates going down not up as a result.

Employers argued in front of Fair Work Commissioners that reducing penalty rates would increase employment but after the event admitted that this was a lie, there was never a genuine case to say that this was correct. It was all based on the type of theoretical dribble that you are using.

You know the annual employer statements made that have not come true at any time in the last 5 decades maybe double that.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 7th, 2021 at 10:52am

Quote:
It was all based on the type of theoretical dribble that you are using.


Is that what unions thinks about microeconomics?

You still seem reluctant to have an opinion of your own Gnads. If unions make it more expensive for businesses to employ people, will those businesses offer more or fewer jobs than if the unions had not intervened? This isn't a trick question.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 7th, 2021 at 3:16pm

freediver wrote on Nov 7th, 2021 at 9:56am:
I am waiting for an answer that makes sense. So far all you have given me is meaningless gibberish.

Do you think the unions share your level of understanding of economics?



ohh i know FD ... no one can match your genius as far as understanding economics goes. What else can explain your years of being unable to support your claim ;D ;D ;D


Newsflash for you FD .... you need to do a little more than tell us how great your understanding is and how flawed everyone else's is if you wish to be taken seriously.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 7th, 2021 at 7:17pm

John Smith wrote on Nov 7th, 2021 at 3:16pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 7th, 2021 at 9:56am:
I am waiting for an answer that makes sense. So far all you have given me is meaningless gibberish.

Do you think the unions share your level of understanding of economics?



ohh i know FD ... no one can match your genius as far as understanding economics goes. What else can explain your years of being unable to support your claim ;D ;D ;D


Newsflash for you FD .... you need to do a little more than tell us how great your understanding is and how flawed everyone else's is if you wish to be taken seriously.


Do you think the unions share your level of understanding of economics? Would they also deny that the price of employing people influences the number of jobs on offer? Or would they tapdance?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 7th, 2021 at 7:25pm

freediver wrote on Nov 7th, 2021 at 7:17pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 7th, 2021 at 3:16pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 7th, 2021 at 9:56am:
I am waiting for an answer that makes sense. So far all you have given me is meaningless gibberish.

Do you think the unions share your level of understanding of economics?



ohh i know FD ... no one can match your genius as far as understanding economics goes. What else can explain your years of being unable to support your claim ;D ;D ;D


Newsflash for you FD .... you need to do a little more than tell us how great your understanding is and how flawed everyone else's is if you wish to be taken seriously.


Do you think the unions share your level of understanding of economics? Would they also deny that the price of employing people influences the number of jobs on offer? Or would they tapdance?



does what I think about unions determine whether or not you prove your claim? Or do you plan on pretending that you saying it's so makes it so indefinitely?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 7th, 2021 at 7:32pm

John Smith wrote on Nov 7th, 2021 at 7:25pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 7th, 2021 at 7:17pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 7th, 2021 at 3:16pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 7th, 2021 at 9:56am:
I am waiting for an answer that makes sense. So far all you have given me is meaningless gibberish.

Do you think the unions share your level of understanding of economics?



ohh i know FD ... no one can match your genius as far as understanding economics goes. What else can explain your years of being unable to support your claim ;D ;D ;D


Newsflash for you FD .... you need to do a little more than tell us how great your understanding is and how flawed everyone else's is if you wish to be taken seriously.


Do you think the unions share your level of understanding of economics? Would they also deny that the price of employing people influences the number of jobs on offer? Or would they tapdance?



does what I think about unions determine whether or not you prove your claim? Or do you plan on pretending that you saying it's so makes it so indefinitely?


It is possible that if you could manage to make sense, then there would be someone who disagrees with me on this who makes sense. It would be a good start, don't you think?

Do you think the unions share your level of understanding of economics? Would they also deny that the price of employing people influences the number of jobs on offer? Or would they tapdance like you?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 7th, 2021 at 7:33pm

freediver wrote on Nov 7th, 2021 at 7:32pm:
It is possible that if you could manage to make sense,


lets put it this way, you have far more possibility that I make sense then we ever  have of you ever offering up evidence to prove to your claims.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 7th, 2021 at 7:36pm

freediver wrote on Nov 7th, 2021 at 7:32pm:
It would be a good start, don't you think?


good start? this started with you telling us that unions cost jobs. A good start would have been you providing evidence of such a claim but so far you have failed at every turn so it's a bit late for a good start.

The best you can hope for now is a good ending by finally proving your claim. Until then, I'm happy to call you out on our stupidity for as long as you like.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by NorthOfNorth on Nov 7th, 2021 at 7:37pm
The Keystone cops thread...

Is unionism even a significant factor regarding unemployment?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 7th, 2021 at 7:40pm

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 7th, 2021 at 7:37pm:
The Keystone cops thread...

Is unionism even a significant factor regarding unemployment?



unionism has been falling for the last twenty plus years yet the unemployment rate has been fairly steady in all that time .... what jobs does FD think unions cost? :D :D

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Nov 8th, 2021 at 6:26am
I’m convinced FD has bats in his belfry- it’s just him going in circles repeating the same bs ad nauseum.

The prime example of leading a horse to water and trying to force it to drink.

Bottom line is he wants to see a totally deregulated labour market where employers are free to offer pittance wages and employees have no rights.

His microeconomics amount to employers offering micro- wages and wield all power in what they offer and expect for that pittance.

“I’m providing the job you take it or leave it”.

It’s the very reason there are so many employers underpaying staff and failing to pay superannuation co- contributions.

Like him too many have an attitude they’re God because they employ people.

The same attitude that sees them offshore exploiting 3rd world countries labour.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by polite_gandalf on Nov 8th, 2021 at 10:11am

freediver wrote on Nov 5th, 2021 at 6:50pm:

Quote:
FD's claim substantiation almost always amounts to some variation of "because you can't prove it isn't so".


On this issue, I am falling back on: you cannot mount a coherent or rational counter-argument. I have not asked anyone for proof of anything. It seems that getting you to make sense is too much to ask.


My rational counter-argument that you once again ignored:

According to you, the 1983 Accord - a clear case of unions and government colluding to artificially increase wages - should have resulted in increased unemployment. Yet the exact opposite happened:


Quote:
The first Accord secured for all workers a 4.3% pay rise (September 1983), a 4.1% pay rise (April 1984), and a deferred 2.6% pay rise over the initial 3-year period, improvements in family payments and child care, and the introduction of Medicare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prices_and_Incomes_Accord

Unemployment from the time of the accord - until the 1990s recession dropped from over 10% to around 6%

Over to you.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by polite_gandalf on Nov 8th, 2021 at 10:43am

freediver wrote on Nov 7th, 2021 at 10:29am:

Quote:
It has been shown to you the reductions in wages has not created any more employment.


No it hasn't. I have seen the claim made, based on the sort of analysis you might expect from a primary school student.


https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/sunday-public-holiday-penalty-rate-cut-jobs/11487612

conclusion: 2 years after slashing public holiday penalty rates, workers received no noticeable increase in wages or increased work.

This is not the only analysis of this either. All come to the same general conclusion.

eg:
https://theconversation.com/cutting-penalty-rates-was-supposed-to-create-jobs-it-hasnt-and-heres-why-not-117178

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by polite_gandalf on Nov 8th, 2021 at 10:50am
Just out of interest, for all his trolling about no one coming up with a 'counter argument' to his claim that unions create unemployment - has FD, in 20 pages of ranting and raving actually come up with an any sort of actual argument to counter? And by 'argument' I mean something a bit more than a neo-liberal bumper sticker meme, with actual evidence.

Serious question. I concede I may have missed it - in amongst all the inane trolling.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Nov 8th, 2021 at 6:11pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 8th, 2021 at 10:50am:
Just out of interest, for all his trolling about no one coming up with a 'counter argument' to his claim that unions create unemployment - has FD, in 20 pages of ranting and raving actually come up with an any sort of actual argument to counter? And by 'argument' I mean something a bit more than a neo-liberal bumper sticker meme, with actual evidence.

Serious question. I concede I may have missed it - in amongst all the inane trolling.


Short answer - NO

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by John Smith on Nov 8th, 2021 at 6:39pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 8th, 2021 at 10:50am:
Just out of interest, for all his trolling about no one coming up with a 'counter argument' to his claim that unions create unemployment - has FD, in 20 pages of ranting and raving actually come up with an any sort of actual argument to counter? And by 'argument' I mean something a bit more than a neo-liberal bumper sticker meme, with actual evidence.

Serious question. I concede I may have missed it - in amongst all the inane trolling.



NO

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 8th, 2021 at 6:48pm

Quote:
Is unionism even a significant factor regarding unemployment?


Only to the extent they can still make a difference to the cost of employing people.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Nov 17th, 2021 at 6:13pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 8th, 2021 at 10:11am:

freediver wrote on Nov 5th, 2021 at 6:50pm:

Quote:
FD's claim substantiation almost always amounts to some variation of "because you can't prove it isn't so".


On this issue, I am falling back on: you cannot mount a coherent or rational counter-argument. I have not asked anyone for proof of anything. It seems that getting you to make sense is too much to ask.


My rational counter-argument that you once again ignored:

According to you, the 1983 Accord - a clear case of unions and government colluding to artificially increase wages - should have resulted in increased unemployment. Yet the exact opposite happened


How do you know the opposite happened?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Ye Grappler on Nov 18th, 2021 at 8:08am
Sounds like a terrific argument for getting rid of enterprise agreements and returning to a reliable Award system.... so much confusion in the poor widdle manager's heads nowadays - they just can't cope so they substitute bluster for ability...

Imagine giving an idiot straight off the streets the power to affect people's lives and livelihoods... who would do that?  Half of them can't read, the other half can't add - how can they run a business?

Why do manager always work in threes?  One to read, one to write, the other to keep an eye on two socialist radicals who might make a fair deal with the workforce...

Told yez the reality of running a vehicle commercially and what it can actually cost.  Think on it...

Get yourself a new Ford Transit, bottom of the range... $52k... depreciate over four years... keep it running smick, fully insured for all eventualities, registered commercially, and pay for the fuel.

You need more than $25 an hour to keep 'er running......

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Karnal on Nov 18th, 2021 at 9:02pm

freediver wrote on Nov 7th, 2021 at 7:32pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 7th, 2021 at 7:25pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 7th, 2021 at 7:17pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 7th, 2021 at 3:16pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 7th, 2021 at 9:56am:
I am waiting for an answer that makes sense. So far all you have given me is meaningless gibberish.

Do you think the unions share your level of understanding of economics?



ohh i know FD ... no one can match your genius as far as understanding economics goes. What else can explain your years of being unable to support your claim ;D ;D ;D


Newsflash for you FD .... you need to do a little more than tell us how great your understanding is and how flawed everyone else's is if you wish to be taken seriously.


Do you think the unions share your level of understanding of economics? Would they also deny that the price of employing people influences the number of jobs on offer? Or would they tapdance?



does what I think about unions determine whether or not you prove your claim? Or do you plan on pretending that you saying it's so makes it so indefinitely?


It is possible that if you could manage to make sense, then there would be someone who disagrees with me on this who makes sense. It would be a good start, don't you think?

Do you think the unions share your level of understanding of economics? Would they also deny that the price of employing people influences the number of jobs on offer? Or would they tapdance like you?


And a supplementary, JS:

What sound does a jellyfish make?

You never did answer that one. You got a year for that.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Karnal on Nov 18th, 2021 at 9:06pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 8th, 2021 at 10:11am:

freediver wrote on Nov 5th, 2021 at 6:50pm:

Quote:
FD's claim substantiation almost always amounts to some variation of "because you can't prove it isn't so".


On this issue, I am falling back on: you cannot mount a coherent or rational counter-argument. I have not asked anyone for proof of anything. It seems that getting you to make sense is too much to ask.


My rational counter-argument that you once again ignored:

According to you, the 1983 Accord - a clear case of unions and government colluding to artificially increase wages - should have resulted in increased unemployment. Yet the exact opposite happened:

[quote]The first Accord secured for all workers a 4.3% pay rise (September 1983), a 4.1% pay rise (April 1984), and a deferred 2.6% pay rise over the initial 3-year period, improvements in family payments and child care, and the introduction of Medicare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prices_and_Incomes_Accord

Unemployment from the time of the accord - until the 1990s recession dropped from over 10% to around 6%

Over to you.[/quote]

Yes, G, but you evaded the question. Do you support the execution of gays who do it Mardi Gras-style?

Why won't you say?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Karnal on Nov 18th, 2021 at 9:32pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 8th, 2021 at 10:50am:
Just out of interest, for all his trolling about no one coming up with a 'counter argument' to his claim that unions create unemployment - has FD, in 20 pages of ranting and raving actually come up with an any sort of actual argument to counter? And by 'argument' I mean something a bit more than a neo-liberal bumper sticker meme, with actual evidence.

Serious question. I concede I may have missed it - in amongst all the inane trolling.


That's unfair, G. You're deliberately ignoring FD's arguments in other threads.

How about Iraq is the next South Korea? You haven't acknowledged that one yet. Now why is that?

Not wacist, are you?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Frank on Nov 22nd, 2021 at 10:33am
No one unemployed in Australia has any excuse to stay that way, given the current desperation of businesses to hire people: skilled and unskilled jobs.
If Morrison announced ending the dole in February the only ones affected would be the absolute no-hoper bludgers.
Mark Latham

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Karnal on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 3:22pm
That's right, Frank.

The only people affected would be the invalid pensioners, no?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Dec 1st, 2021 at 9:38pm

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 1st, 2021 at 9:07pm:
It is also the ‘fallacy of the single cause.’


Good point.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Karnal on Dec 1st, 2021 at 11:43pm

freediver wrote on Dec 1st, 2021 at 9:38pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 1st, 2021 at 9:07pm:
It is also the ‘fallacy of the single cause.’


Good point.


That's one response. Agree with the 2007 FD.

The alternative is to disagree with everything the old FD said, which is what you've done for the past 14 years.

The cute bit's chasing down those you once adamantly agreed with, feigning outrage and playing no-speaka-da-English.

Cunning, no?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Frank on Dec 2nd, 2021 at 5:31am

Mattyfisk wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 3:22pm:
That's right, Frank.

The only people affected would be the invalid pensioners, no?

They are not unemployed.
Invalid pensioners are not on unemployment benefit.

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by freediver on Dec 19th, 2021 at 9:09am
Because they are not looking for work?

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by JaSin. on Dec 19th, 2021 at 9:21am
In the Entertainment Industry of Namerica: Elite Entertainers are called Celebrities, who hold themselves like 'Holy' people in Religion.
In Australia Union Workers regard themselves like Celebrities, in that all non-Union workers are Scabs and beneath them.
All businesses should bow down to Union Workers.

...mind you, when I tell a Employer that I'm not a Unionist, I'm a Confederate - well, things move smoothly.  ;)

Title: Re: Unions create unemployment
Post by Gnads on Dec 19th, 2021 at 1:04pm

Jasin wrote on Dec 19th, 2021 at 9:21am:
In the Entertainment Industry of Namerica: Elite Entertainers are called Celebrities, who hold themselves like 'Holy' people in Religion.
In Australia Union Workers regard themselves like Celebrities, in that all non-Union workers are Scabs and beneath them.
All businesses should bow down to Union Workers.

...mind you, when I tell a Employer that I'm not a Unionist, I'm a Confederate - well, things move smoothly.  ;)


What complete & utter tripe.

You're not a Confederate - you're a brown nosed scab.

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.