freediver wrote on Nov 1
st, 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 17
th, 2020 at 6:47pm:
freediver wrote on Oct 17
th, 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 17
th, 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 31
st, 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.
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.
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.
Forum
Pages: 
