Australian Politics Forum - Message To Productivity Commission

stunspore

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5097
Gender: male

Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Reply #135 - Sep 27^th, 2015 at 3:59pm

Everything is hypothetical. As I see it there are good arguments for and against penalty rates. At best, inform people of the consequences (good or bad) then we democratically decide it.

At least I am open minded about this topic and acknowledge both sides of view. Too bad there are ideologically tied narrowly minded individuals.

As I said it before, more research needs to be done in this area as there is lack of quality data other than weak comments that are not backed up by numbers.

Now this forum is going into name-calling mode and requests for evidence (which is easily discredited).

Back to top

IP Logged

Johnsmith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4716
Gender: male

Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Reply #136 - Sep 27^th, 2015 at 6:17pm

stunspore wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 3:59pm:

At best, inform people of the consequences (good or bad) then we democratically decide it.

so a lot of people who aren't affected by penalty rates will decide if others should get them?

If the benefits are real, and the arguments sound, those receiving penalty rates will themselves vote to remove them. So far all I've seen is people like Swag say there are benefits and then when asked for evidence they quote their own previous comments.I've seen no real evidence that there are any benefits so I find it hard to believe that it's anything other than about increasing profits, rather than increasing employment. If it increased employment surely it would be hard for them to prove.

Back to top

When politicians offer you something for nothing, or something that sounds too good to be true, it's always worth taking a careful second look.
(Malcolm Turncoat)

IP Logged

Swagman

Gold Member

Offline

Beware of cheap imitations......

Posts: 15095
Illawarra NSW
Gender: male

Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Reply #137 - Sep 27^th, 2015 at 6:37pm

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 6:17pm:

stunspore wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 3:59pm:

At best, inform people of the consequences (good or bad) then we democratically decide it.

so a lot of people who aren't affected by penalty rates will decide if others should get them?

Same thing happens with tax Smithy. The majority votes to steal taxation from a minority.

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 6:17pm:

If the benefits are real, and the arguments sound, those receiving penalty rates will themselves vote to remove them. So far all I've seen is people like Swag say there are benefits and then when asked for evidence they quote their own previous comments.

That's because it is evidence. It's maths. The evidence is mathematical.

Read the post. 5 people employed on a Sunday on double time penalty rate adds up to 40 hrs of work on single time that an unemployed person could be doing.

Paying someone extra for no increased production whilst someone unemployed and wants a job sits around on their bum on the dole?

Hearing it from someone else doesn't make it any more correct?

Back to top

IP Logged

stunspore

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5097
Gender: male

Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Reply #138 - Sep 27^th, 2015 at 7:29pm

Swag please show some actual research that demonstrates that supports your hypothesis. This is a complex mechanism in society which has multitude of effects.

For instance, if more shops opened on the weekend that doesn't necessarily lead to more consumption - just more competition between shops or spread out spending throughout the week. Overall GDP might still be about the same - except workers with less wages can no longer afford to spend as much while those who can afford to go out pay less? Unless of course businesses choose to take the savings as profit.

Not that Swag's hypothesis is wrong - but it isn't the only thing that can happen. And that is why some people are opposing you, Swag. Because their hypothesis can also be valid.

We probably should observe those states/industries that are happy to try lower penalty rates and see what happens.

Back to top

IP Logged

stunspore

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5097
Gender: male

Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Reply #139 - Sep 27^th, 2015 at 7:31pm

I should also note: Swag focuses a lot on the unemployed. Exactly how many of the unemployed will be able to take a job if penalty rates go? Is there any estimates? If it amounts to very little, say, a 100 or so, that doesn't sound like a good plan to me - if it also causes a more negative impact overall to the economy.

I remain rational rather than keep sprouting ideological comments all the time.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Sep 27^th, 2015 at 7:58pm by stunspore »

IP Logged

Sir Crook Ex Member	Re: Message To Productivity Commission Reply #140 - Sep 27^th, 2015 at 7:40pm We didn't know the unemployed wanted to work weekends, without the penalty rates.
Back to top	IP Logged

Johnsmith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4716
Gender: male

Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Reply #141 - Sep 27^th, 2015 at 9:09pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 6:37pm:

Same thing happens with tax Smithy.

everyone pays taxes Swag, not everyone receives penalty rates

Swagman wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 6:37pm:

That's because it is evidence. It's maths. The evidence is mathematical.

yes Swag, simple maths. If I need 5 people to do a job on Sunday, I'm not suddenly going to hire extra people to do the same work just because I don't have to pay penalty rates. ... I'll just add my savings to my profits.

Back to top

When politicians offer you something for nothing, or something that sounds too good to be true, it's always worth taking a careful second look.
(Malcolm Turncoat)

IP Logged

Johnsmith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4716 Gender:	Re: Message To Productivity Commission Reply #142 - Sep 27^th, 2015 at 9:12pm stunspore wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 7:29pm: Not that Swag's hypothesis is wrong - yes it is ... most cafe's don't work to meet production levels, they work to meet demand. Cut disposable income and demand for their products will most likely FALL. Leading to some cafe staff being SACKED altogether.
Back to top	When politicians offer you something for nothing, or something that sounds too good to be true, it's always worth taking a careful second look. (Malcolm Turncoat) IP Logged

stunspore Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 5097 Gender:	Re: Message To Productivity Commission Reply #143 - Sep 27^th, 2015 at 9:24pm I would defend Swag's hypothesis. Perhaps more accurately to say partially support - there are cases where more people will be employed and times when the reverse could occur. Or no change at all. Not like we can use Sim2000 and model all this.
Back to top	IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 59990
Here
Gender: male

Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Reply #144 - Sep 27^th, 2015 at 9:26pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 3:36pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 2:54pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 11:51am:

If 5 people are employed on Sunday at double time then that is 40 hours being paid for doing nothing. 40 hours is one full time job.

If there is an unemployed person available to fill that 40 hours, then they should fill it.

The hospitality industry is where we see most complaints being generated.

The general hospitality award does not pay double time for Sunday and only pays a miserable 125% for Saturdays.

Consider it refuted as you are clearly wrong.

Again you have refuted effall.

Any penalty rate amount > 100% is subject to the same concept, it just has a lesser impact than x2. At 125% every 32 people paid Sat penalty rates = 1 potential full time job foregone* @ normal time. Huh

*Assuming 1 Full Time job = 40 hrs & an 8 hr Sat worked.

My example is theoretical. Refute the theory, or is that too difficult?

There was a trial, it was called workchoices it removed virtually all penalty rates from the hospitality industry between 2004 and 2008. It had virtually zero impact on employment both when it was introduced and when it was removed.

The fact is that your theory has been disproven in practice, removing penalty rates does not impact employment.

More businesses do not open those that do, don't employ more people etc. The fact is that business that has an economic case to operate after normal hours do so and they employ the number of people required. They are not going to employ additional people that they do not need.

For a business that can not make a successful business model to support out of normal hours trading today then penalty rates is insufficient to make a difference - they still remain shut. The margin needs to be much greater than would be achieved by a measure like this.

Back to top

IP Logged

Johnsmith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4716
Gender: male

Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Reply #145 - Sep 27^th, 2015 at 9:28pm

stunspore wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 9:24pm:

there are cases where more people will be employed and times when the reverse could occur.

few and far between. And I'd hazard a guess that for every additional job that was created, and equal number would be lost due the decline in demand from the loss of disposable income. In the end, when you round it off, It won't make a bit of difference to overall employment numbers

Back to top

When politicians offer you something for nothing, or something that sounds too good to be true, it's always worth taking a careful second look.
(Malcolm Turncoat)

IP Logged

Johnsmith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4716
Gender: male

Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Reply #146 - Sep 27^th, 2015 at 9:29pm

Dnarever wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 9:26pm:

There was a trial, it was called workchoices it removed virtually all penalty rates from the hospitality industry between 2004 and 2008. It had virtually zero impact on employment both when it was introduced and when it was removed.

The fact is that your theory has been disproven in practice, removing penalty rates does not impact employment.

Back to top

When politicians offer you something for nothing, or something that sounds too good to be true, it's always worth taking a careful second look.
(Malcolm Turncoat)

IP Logged

Swagman

Gold Member

Offline

Beware of cheap imitations......

Posts: 15095
Illawarra NSW
Gender: male

Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Reply #147 - Sep 27^th, 2015 at 10:24pm

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 9:29pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 9:26pm:

There was a trial, it was called workchoices it removed virtually all penalty rates from the hospitality industry between 2004 and 2008. It had virtually zero impact on employment both when it was introduced and when it was removed.

The fact is that your theory has been disproven in practice, removing penalty rates does not impact employment.

Unemployment declined during Workchoices between 2004 & 2008 and then as soon as Labor removed Workchoices it spiked upwards where it remains.....

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 59990
Here
Gender: male

Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Reply #148 - Sep 27^th, 2015 at 10:30pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 10:24pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 9:29pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 9:26pm:

There was a trial, it was called workchoices it removed virtually all penalty rates from the hospitality industry between 2004 and 2008. It had virtually zero impact on employment both when it was introduced and when it was removed.

The fact is that your theory has been disproven in practice, removing penalty rates does not impact employment.

Unemployment declined during Workchoices between 2004 & 2008 and then as soon as Labor removed Workchoices it spiked upwards where it remains.....

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/unemployment.jpg

Your graph as you well know is bogus Swag or you would have posted the other one, as you are aware the downward trend you show from 2004 started in 1993 and the upward trend you assert shows the removal of workchoices corresponds to the impact of the GFC.

The downward trend from 1993 to 2008 was consistent i.e this shows the opposite of what you claim: it shows that removing penalty rates had no impact on the long term trend at all.

Interesting that the graph has been modified in order to additionally mask the truth.

The first graph was a failure and the modified version that takes the long term trend out of the graph is a dishonest failure.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Sep 27^th, 2015 at 10:48pm by Dnarever »

IP Logged

stunspore

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5097
Gender: male

Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Reply #149 - Sep 27^th, 2015 at 10:54pm

I went online to check for any research on penalty rate vs unemployment. Here was one link. http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2015/7/20/australian-news/employers-shifting-case-against-penalty-rates
It shows that no matter what evidence (rise in spending on weekend or drop in spending) businesses still ask for lessening of penalty rates.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/unions-business-put-the-case-for-and-against-penalty-rates/story-fnihsrf2-1227469205036

Here is a link that shows arguments for both. It simply isn't a cut and dry case.

Back to top

IP Logged