thanks for that howard!!!!!! (yes, im aware that hes not directly responsible)

looks like theres more to come too

lucky im locked into my current rate for a few years

6.50% is still not a bad interest rate.

6.50% is still not a bad interest rate.

actually he is the worst of them all

my bank is now paying me to borrow money from them. suck s***.

yay, I just get a homeloan for this ><

When will they understand that the people spending money and pushing up inflation aren't the ones with the mortgages. So upping the rate to curb spending isn't going to happen by targeting home loan rates.

Morons

interest rates do not just affect home loan rates. They also affect credit card rates, in which people will *hopefully* spend less if their debt is harder to pay back because of the higher rate.

Interest rates are also much wider than that, they affect the growth of the economy for business and enterprise etc.

actually he is the worst of them all

Wasn't the interest rate in the late 80s in the double digits approaching 20%?

When will they understand that the people spending money and pushing up inflation aren't the ones with the mortgages. So upping the rate to curb spending isn't going to happen by targeting home loan rates.

Morons

ZOMG! It's so simple! Kat for head of the Reserve Bank!

They also affect credit card rates, in which people will *hopefully* spend less if their debt is harder to pay back because of the higher rate.

But people with disposable income don't give a s*** about credit card debt. They have enough money coming in to pay it off without any drama, or pay for the items up front.

I reckon more parents need to kick their kids out of home when they get to 21.

Nice idea kat, but there is already too much pressure on rental properties (if they all entered rentals prices would go up ... = inflation), and no way a 21 year old can buy a house these days.

*edit* as I understand it the major factors in inflation are price of petrol and staples ie. milk, bread, fruit.

Which Johny blames on the drought and other external factors.

Certainly isn't wages growth...

last edited by Obes at 12:36:06 08/Aug/07

Sweet. Keep them coming. Higher Interest Rate + yay for my iSaver/HSBC/ING Direct accounts. Bonus = people defaulting on home loans = more houses available to purchase with noone able to afford = drop in property prices across the board = my nicely appreciated bank accounts now have sufficient for a housing deposit.

Nice idea kat, but there is already too much pressure on rental properties (if they all entered rentals prices would go up ... = inflation), and no way a 21 year old can buy a house these days.

Even at 24 having worked for a few years I don't have the deposit with the current prices. And borrowing power wouldn't be too high either.

last edited by Raven at 12:46:55 08/Aug/07

Wasn't the interest rate in the late 80s in the double digits approaching 20%?

It's not just about the rate, but the rate relative to cost of living and income, so 6.5% is not as peachy as it sounds relative to the 18% days.

it's only 'not wages growth' if you look at it the traditional way. the $s paid for a person for a particular role isn't increasing but the requirements (skills, experience) are being lowered, because the person that use to take on a $20/hour job has picked up a $30/hour job because they were the best (albeit deficient) applicant.

so the employer is still only paying $20 an hour, the quality of the work/service provided has been lowered (assuming quality of work is higher based on experience/qualification and not factoring in slacker-factor that increases in times of high employment).

i can not think of anyone i know that hasn't had a significant pay increase in the last 18 months either through churn or their employers fear if churn.

I'm with raven. House and rental prices are completely over inflated yet people continued to purchase when they couldn't afford it, or not leaving enough margin for interest rate increases.

While i do apreciate that most people couldn't wait for the property boom to be over, alot of people did push them selves to the utter limit on their loan repayments, which is just silly.

as someone who will be looking at buying next year this isn't great news for me either, but hopefully by then the property crash is in effect and waiting will have been worth it.

Yipee,

Another reason for me not to vote for howard. 6th rate rise this term.

Not that i ever would vote for him.

glad he is doing all he can to keep houses affordable.

When will they understand that the people spending money and pushing up inflation aren't the ones with the mortgages. So upping the rate to curb spending isn't going to happen by targeting home loan rates.

lol. that's a pretty broad and stupid generalisation.

put very very simply the general price level in the economy goes up when aggregate demand (i.e. the aggregate of all demand made by all consumers in the economy) goes up holding aggregate supply constant (which is a reasonable assumption over the short term). basic suply & demand.

increasing interest rates curbs aggregate demand, hence reducing the price level. it is nowhere near that simple in reality but thats the general gist of it.

they dont give a s*** about any individuals because they have the economy as a whole to worry about. its not like they can pick and choose interest rates for people depending on their circumstances. and believe me if inflation goes up you'll have a whole lot more problems than if interest rates go up 25 basis points.

last edited by taggs at 13:11:23 08/Aug/07

this article says house prices rose 9% this year, ~2% this quarter. if your savings aren't making at least that after tax you aren't getting anywhere. the housing downturn over the last while in sydney saw prices continue to rise everywhere you would want to live (not incl. very top of market).

Another reason for me not to vote for howard. 6th rate rise this term.

But don't you know, it's not the federal government (which happens to be liberal) fault that rates have risen, it's the state governments (which happen to be labour) borrowing.


If Australians would only get into line and acceptthat the federal government is only responsible for positive impacts on the economy and any negative impacts are beyond their control then this country would start getting better immediately.

I mean, it's not like it could be the federal governments fault. They've showed a history of being thoughtful and intelligent when it comes to managing the economy. Obviously, Australia's position on the global market is one of the driving elements towards the surging world wide growth and profitability of global economy. It's mean to suggest that the 25% extra spending in this years election budget could have anything to do with additional inflation.

all the tards who whinge about interest rates deserve everything coming to their trashy little trailers and fibro s***-boxes.

get off the f***en credit cards and fix your home loans - noobs. l2borrow

lol oh you jealous guys

It's mean to suggest that the 25% extra spending in this years election budget could have anything to do with additional inflation.

uh it generally takes quite a bit longer than that sort of timeframe for increased spending to trickle into inflation figures. inflation is a lagging indicator. so what you're suggesting is pretty much incorrect.

ps. not interested in the politics

also cpi is a very inaccurate way to guage the "heat" in an economy. the fastest rising cost to consumers over the past 5 years has been real estate which isn't even included in the CPI measurements.

real estate prices are inflated purely due to the loose lending attitudes of the banks and the acute shortage of new housing construction which is lagging behind population growth.

anyone who seriously wants to blame federal government spending out of their surplus budget is yanking themselves. (what should the feds do with the surplus instead because apparently they aren't allowed to cut taxes as that is inflationary, they can't initiate any social programs because that is inflationary and they can't build any new infrastructure because that is inflationary - seriously wtf.)

it would be better to look at the net borrowers (state governments) who are competing for lending dollars. the fed government is a net creditor.

f***ing impossible to buy a house these days anyway, unless you're willing to live in woodridge

so don't buy one

the homebuying thing only makes sense... as long as it does make sense
if it's too expensive, invest in something else

unless you're willing to live in woodridge

Key part of sentence quoted, from what I can see people are living beyond their means these days, and it's not just the poorbies either - plenty of people who earn a decent wicket are always striving for the newest, best and bigger.

I say if you can only afford in Woodridge then go live in Woodridge, at least it's better than paying off someone elses mortgage.

i've got less than a year to finish paying off my house loan... orrrr fukn jeh. i'll finally have some spare coin for the first time in farkn years! /,,/

lol infi, I was about to page you to this thread!

anyone who seriously wants to blame federal government spending out of their surplus budget is yanking themselves.

I blame the Federal Government because they campaigned heavily on rates at the last election. I know that the rise isn't really their fault, but they are the ones who made the stupid claim in the first place.

Reap what you sow.

it would be better to look at the net borrowers (state governments) who are competing for lending dollars. the fed government is a net creditor.

So the economists in pretty much every single media outlet in the country who are calling the Government's blame game on the States pure propaganda are all flat out wrong? Infi is the only one to see the light? :D

ive got a hot tip for anyone who wants to live closer to the city

"asbestos"

what should the feds do with the surplus instead because apparently they aren't allowed to cut taxes as that is inflationary

I’m not saying that they can’t or shouldn’t. I’m just saying that increased spending, any increase in spending, puts pressure upwards on the economy.

I don’t really care about inflation, as long as it doesn’t get to the Paul Keeting “The recession we had to have because we ran the economy into the ground with social welfare and infrastructure projects”. I budgeted that I could easily afford my s***, even if rates went up by 10%.

I don’t even think it’s entirely the federal governments fault. I just really hate how the federal government blames everybody else but themselves for negative things, and accepts all of the credit for anything positive and expects the people of Australia to be dumb enough to accept it as truth.

I blame the Federal Government because they campaigned heavily on rates at the last election. I know that the rise isn't really their fault, but they are the ones who made the stupid claim in the first place.

That’s pretty much how I feel too.

So do you think Labor will be able to keep interest rates lower than the Government?

yes

how

magic
labor can do magic

i heard you can make dicks disappear.

all the tards who whinge about interest rates deserve everything coming to their trashy little trailers and fibro s***-boxes.

get off the f***en credit cards and fix your home loans - noobs. l2borrow

what a retarded comment. I can afford to pay my home off and dont' have any other debts but at the end of the day the extra $60 a month each rate rises cost me ticks me off.

I would much prefer to have that money in my pocket rather than the bank's.


As for how labour will keep interest rates lower. They will use hpfm.

If Keating had not taken the hard hits and hard yards, then Howard or whoever was going to have to take them. It had to happen, we had a false economy with an un-floated currency and lots of regulations and controls on things that had to be market driven. Super is a good thing, and something had to happen with retirement/pension funding. If he did it the least painful way possible is another question and not one anyone here can argue.

One might say with the lack of dams and power issues down south etc. That perhaps there should be more infrastructure spending.

The purpose of government is to create a society we want, not to make a profit.
We want clean water, we want education, we want power, we want security, we want a house to live in, we want a way to pay for it all, and a way to get to that job. And yes that stuff costs money, We all recently got $14 a week as a tax cut which does f*** all for us individually with the cost of everything going north its gone before we even noticed it, now just say there is 1,000,000 workers.. $14,000,000 a week ? ... rekon you might be able to run a hospital on that. Or maybe a uni or maybe employed a bunch of people to work on improving "federally funded road projects"

Honestly in all of our wants for a society, the average person seems to be worse off now then we were 12 years ago, but apparently the economy is going gang busters. Lucky that budget is looking good tho.

And instead of addressing any of those concerns, the libs who have no excuse on any issue after being in complete power, don't get it. They are instead playing stupid politics "lets waste money on a plebicite on local government". All because the same people who are worried about their curtains fading with daylight saving want to keep our currently stupid number of over paid under worked politicians...

Lucky they spend all that money selling the IR stuff ...
"Can an employer force you to sign an AWA that removes *whatever*" ... no ... but if they have less then 300 employees they can fire you with no reason at all.

So do you think Labor will be able to keep interest rates lower than the Government?

Actually, I’m almost sure they won’t be able to.

Historically, Labour governments f*** the economy by spending big Big BIG!. Then we vote in Liberals to come and fix the s*** storm that Labour left us. I don’t see why Labour would have changed that dramatically.

Obes said a lot of stuff

Strangely enough, I agree with almost everything Obes said.

Labor.

I for one am just goddamn sick of hearing about 'Aussie Battlers' and 'Working Families'.

I'm actually looking foward to seeing Labor in power... then they can f*** this country up (like they have done in the past)... then the retarded public comes to their senses and then Labor can f*** off back to the opposition for another few decades.

Meh, Labour is in power all the families and labourers are taken care of. The schooling and health care is fixed up. But we just happen to be broke.

Then Liberal get back in, everything turns to s***... but we have lots of money.

Labour is in power all the families and labourers are taken care of. The schooling and health care is fixed up. But we just happen to be broke.

Is this some sick joke?

Labor. LABOR.

Everything is inflationary... and since private and government spending isn't going to stop anytime soon I'll see you all at 12%.

Meh, Labour is in power all the families and labourers are taken care of. The schooling and health care is fixed up. But we just happen to be broke.

i'm glad labour will look after their union buddies (where labourers aren't doing too bad ATM btw), but what about the rest of us?

and as for the health care and schooling, have you seen the QLD system lately? ><

Obes is just a labour supporter through and through and wouldn't actually look at a political argument, he'd just yell through his tent flaps from the labour camp.

I'll make 2 points.

the big borrowers competing for your borrowed dollar ARE the state goverments (mentioned above)

Labour federally, will compete even more for your borrowed dollar.

Of course thats wild speculation and stereotyping, but so is 99% of political rhetoric.

LABOR

r_mazing that won't happen. the interest rates of the 80's were the result of some serious economic shocks that noone had seen before and hence had no idea how to manage. the shocks combined with some very seriously misguided policy responses caused the 20% interest rates everyone keeps bringing up. it's very unlikely that this will ever happen again any time soon.

also obes, keating did push through some important economic reforms but that whole process was started a long time before he got into office. it started under the lib gov that was in power til 83 (fraser maybe?) with the campbell report. whoever was in office when keating was had to push that stuff through or australia would've been left behind by the rest of the western world in economic terms.

but keating also had his share of economic f*** ups, remember his calls to rein in the current account deficit otherwise we'd become a "banana republic"? that turned out to be down right wrong, and that recession was far from necessary.

there is generally higher unemployment and inflation under labor g'ments, there was a paper written statistically documenting the difference i had to review it for a political economy essay i'll see if i can dig it up. but you're exactly right when you say government is about achieving social goals, and it's just the matter of choosing between the costs each political party would likely impose and the benefits they would give. they both impose costs and give benefits in different ways and it's fair to say that a lot of these aren't or can't be measured.

LABOR

Thank you Chakas.

You lose all credibility in your argument when you can't spell the party right.

The schooling and health care is fixed up.

Labor broke health and education to begin with. They've just kept going downhill under Howard.

and that recession was far from necessary

I think it was the recession we had to have... we just had it a lot worse than we should have thanks to some misjudgments and over reactions to the fact that it was coming.

nah, the keating government told everyone it was the recession "we had to have". that was the exact phrase they used for it. there was a global economic downturn in the same period but it could've been managed without a full recession. they told everyone it was necessary to try and rein the the current account deficit. so they made it worse without doing a thing to the CAD which is still in deficit today. it was basically a giant cock-up.

edit: spellinglol

last edited by taggs at 18:25:17 08/Aug/07

haha clinty

i hear ya buddy!

The way it was handled was a giant cock up. But Australia avoiding 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth was extremely unlikely given the global economy at the time. So I think recession was inevitable (and yes I'm well aware of the rhetoric used at the time) the government (and reserve bank) just handled it very badly at the time.

did we have a recession during the asian economic crisis?

No.

did we have a recession during the asian economic crisis?

You really are a git infi. Why would we have any prospect of recession during the East Asian economic crisis. Do you know what it was? Obviously not. The crisis was a currency crisis and a crisis of faith in the banking systems in those countries. Nothing to do with terms of trade or anything that would cause an international repercussion outside of these very same countries or anything that would have a meltdown effect on Australia.

More misinformation from a Liberal hack. Looks like you'll have to try and find something else to fudge to try and conn people. Talk about a mindless, non-thinking jello.

The only reason South Korea was hit hardest was the collapse of Kia.

The only international repercussion was countries outside these were reluctant to continue investment. Nothing to do or have an effect on Australia one bit.

What a goose.

last edited by Some Fat Bastard at 20:11:17 08/Aug/07

It was a troll, there's no point in responding like that Some Fat Bastard.

during the asian tigers' rapid economic expansion they were consuming vast amounts of australian imports. australia could have quite easily gone into recession without its floating currency and balanced budget.

i don't know why keynesians persist with thinking, a country can spend all it likes and still weather these type of storms.

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/5672/aussiedebtkeatingdh4.jpg

It was a troll

Implications of the point he was attemtping to make were clear. Yes he is a troll, only problem is he doesn't stay under his bridge.

there's no point in responding like that Some Fat Bastard.

When needed I call a spade a shovel.

during the asian tigers' rapid economic expansion they were consuming vast amounts of australian imports. australia could have quite easily gone into recession without its floating currency and balanced budget.

In effect there was no way we would have fallen into a recession. Plus thanks to Keating floating the dollar 50% of the reason we didn't we can owe him. Thanks again for coming.

BTW, read up a bit more on the East Asian Economic crisis and it will inform you a little more thanks mr. brightspark.

BTW Our biggest tarding partners at the time were not Indonesia, Malaysia, Korea or Thailand. They were the US, Japan, China and the European Union, even Iraq was buying a heck of a lot of our wheat, probably moreso in value than these countries put together as far as any goods. So in effect the trade loss would not have significantly caused a recession. If anything we were probably importing from them more than exporting to them so if anything their currency meltdown would have helped our balance of trade with these countries. Nothing to do with Grandpa Howard and Jello Costello.

Your arguements however valid are just offset by the name calling which makes them immature..

Just like a typical Labor supporter! LAWLZ

Personally, I'd vote for Spider Pig.

Obes is just a labour supporter through and through and wouldn't actually look at a political argument, he'd just yell through his tent flaps from the labour camp.

Giri ... you don't know who I vote for ...

It is you who is saying my arguement is invalid due to an infered political stance without bothering to argue the points. Maybe thats because you are ill equiped for such a discussion ? or maybe its because you realise that there is substance there you can't argue with. Either way it says more about you then it does me.

Where there is smoke there is fire.
There is a lot of unhappy people, despite having on paper this fantastic economy.


Infi ... seriously you are taking a single figure and using it as the one reason why all future labour governments will be bad. Some times you have to go in to debt to build stuff. Governments are not businesses, their goal is not to make money.
Are you saying floating the dollar was a bad thing ?
Are you saying super was a bad thing ?
Are you saying the banking sector reforms are a bad thing ?

Admit it... you fear paying your employees a fair wage or them having any job security.

"Sign this AWA ... or I'll fire you for having a freckle on your nose"

your gay obes

Admit it... you fear paying your employees a fair wage or them having any job security.

what a blind ill-informed statement. all my employees earn far over the award. many of them are happily on AWAs too! that's not the issue at all.

fyi i am under 100 employees (just) and haven't fired a single one. you labor fearmongers have nfi.

last edited by infi at 23:16:03 08/Aug/07

Just like a typical Labor supporter!

More like informed voter not relyng upon ill-informed, misleading propaganda to make an informed decision.

The only immaturity here is that certain exponents of wisdom, are talking through they're arse.

Wasn't the interest rate in the late 80s in the double digits approaching 20%?

20% was a Howard acheivement in the early 80's. When Hawke/Keating first got in they got it down to single digits for the fist time ever. At the time we had 17% under Labor USA had 20%, UK 22%, Keating must get around.

Have a look at the interest rates according to the RBA from when Howard left office as treasurer wll the way through Labor till Howard took over as PM. You can see the trend due to the harsh work of Keating created the trend of low interest rates we enjoy today.


http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/4935/ausa1lb7.jpg

Now loook at inflation when Howard was treasurer and under the Liberals, you can see it was always higher by the Liberals than ever under Labor.

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/9209/ausb1hx3.jpg

Now look at industrial disputes and wages. Another furphy by Liberal hacks.

http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/690/ausc1xj1.jpg

Now look at trade and exports, all exceptional growth under Labor.

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/5168/ausd1gj8.jpg

About borrowing being wrong, here's a word from the RBA.

"If the overseas borrowings are invested wisely, and return at least their servicing costs,this is not a major concern. That has not always been the case in the past but, overall, servicing foreign debt has not been an
unmanageable problem for Australia."

anyone who seriously wants to blame federal government spending out of their surplus budget is yanking themselves. (what should the feds do with the surplus instead because apparently they aren't allowed to cut taxes as that is inflationary, they can't initiate any social programs because that is inflationary and they can't build any new infrastructure because that is inflationary - seriously wtf.)

Investment in infrastructure is not inflationary as it is an investment in future earnings which in turn produces increase in economic capacity thus economic activity. If borrowing money was a waste of time, then three quarters of all businesses in the world would be unproductive and insolvent. Even Rupert Murdoch would be bankrupt. Fortuinately your hypothesis is incorrect and only proves you've been sucked in by Howard' bulls***. Listen to the head economist of Macquarie to get a real idea, which in contrast is completely oppisite to what you have just speeled.

So do you think Labor will be able to keep interest rates lower than the Government?

They did a good job of fixing the s***hole, moribund, archaic economy left to them by a s*** Treasurer called Howard who had for 1 year a $9billion deficit and a double digit inflation rate.

Pain comes with change. Modernising the Australian economy was essential to Australia's future prosperity. The world wide recession, the publics and business glut for credit from a deregulated banking system (don't forget d*******s like Bond, Skase and Holmes le Court during the 80's contributed heavily to the dire credit glut) that required a credit crunch of enormous volume to stop it. The cure sometimes hurts more than the ailment, until it is cured.

The legacy of high interest rates which Howard left for everyone was only tackled by aggressive means and radical change. The high interest rates of 17% were short in duration. Why did we need it? To bring down the huge inflationary nightmare which was a left over by the Fraser/Howard years of fiscal incompetence and stagnation and as I said credit glut at unprecedented levels.

Labor were the first party to introduce a Wages Accord where wage rises were pegged to productivity. About time some of you got off your spoonfed Howard diet and used independant thought for once.

Now with WorstChoices, many 5 years in duration, offer no real pay rises even when productivity is increased. Great work there for a government concerned for the battlers it so often tells us.

Now housing affordability, who produced the FHOG, who reduced CGT on investment property to 50% less what it is after 12 months, 75% less after 24 months, 87.5% less after 36 monrhs. Howard and Costello and yet you wonder why people buy houses for investment.

In answer to your question "So do you think Labor will be able to keep interest rates lower than the Government?". Bloody oath.

Historically, Labour governments f*** the economy by spending big Big BIG!. Then we vote in Liberals to come and fix the s*** storm that Labour left us. I don’t see why Labour would have changed that dramatically.

Tripe. After a Holt government, afetr a failed McMahon government, after a failed whitlam government, after a failed Fraser/Howard government it took a Labor government to fix all the s*** from decades of Liberal inwardness and backwardness. The only Liberal Government prior to The Hawke/Keating years I have any respect for was Gortons.

BTW do you know who introduced a lot of the social welfare programmes in Australia, the Liberals in the late 70's, early 80's. So to be blunt, you're right off the mark with Liberal competency at running an economy. Thank heavens we have a mining boom and the reforms by Hawke and Keating we have been spared all this from Howard. Other than that the only shining light in today's Liberals is Costello. If anybody should take credit for anything in this government it is him. All else are dickwads. Costello should be proud he inherited a modern economy and continued to manage it the way he has, even with the stupidity of the spend thrift/pork barrelling king Howard. With all the surpluses we have had it should have gone on public health, public education, public infrastructure (ports, roads, railways and airports), with this we would have higher capacity, higher balance of trade and higher still employment, but poor Costello has had to use good money to build items like pony clubs for Tamworth.

I'm actually looking foward to seeing Labor in power... then they can f*** this country up (like they have done in the past)... then the retarded public comes to their senses and then Labor can f*** off back to the opposition for another few decades.

You are a prime example stupid is as stupid does.

but keating also had his share of economic f*** ups, remember his calls to rein in the current account deficit otherwise we'd become a "banana republic"? that turned out to be down right wrong, and that recession was far from necessary.

Sorry but he was absolutely correct and you completely wrong. Australia was borrowing more than it could repay, that's the public, business and yes some liberal state governments as well as labor. Added to this the high inflation rate leftover by Howard as Treasurer we were fast becoming a banana republic. Didn't you know that after Keating made that remark, only days before the next budget, Labor went into lockdown and tore to shreds the spending in the budget in 48 hours. It was known by all economists of the time as the most un-Labor budget ever seen to this day. They slashed traditional Labor safe havens, education, health, social welfare and wages all necessary to save the economy and the nation. One day when you start to look past the Liberal pamphletts you may get an idea, until then you're just regurgitating bulls***.

Labor broke health and education to begin with. They've just kept going downhill under Howard.

Where do you get all this s*** from. HECS was introduced to 1. reduce Government fiscal spending during a recession when it needed to reduce spending 2. increase the capacity of Universities to provide more places the government couldn't afford to pay for, i.e. allow more kids to go to uni and get a higher education than previously was available, thus the net effect being a higher educated work force providing a higher value services economy. Do you think that's a silly idea?

nah, the keating government told everyone it was the recession "we had to have". that was the exact phrase they used for it. there was a global economic downturn in the same period but it could've been managed without a full recession. they told everyone it was necessary to try and rein the the current account deficit. so they made it worse without doing a thing to the CAD which is still in deficit today. it was basically a giant cock-up.

Wrong, the world was in a terrible recession, trade growth had stagnated, NOONE was buying resources. At the same time USA was in full recession with 20% interest rates, UK was in full recession with 22% interest rates, European Union was in full recession. Keating didn't cock it up, he did what had to be done and did it with less devestation than his compatriot OECD partners. Why do you think he was awarded Treasurer of the year by the OECD., including the USA?

all the tards who whinge about interest rates deserve everything coming to their trashy little trailers and fibro s***-boxes.

get off the f***en credit cards and fix your home loans - noobs. l2borrow

and you call that mature. Immature bollocks does not deserve a mature rebuttal.

last edited by Some Fat Bastard at 23:23:15 08/Aug/07

this government has cranked out year after year of massive surpluses to repay labor's $96b of public debt. that's not private debt, repeat that was labor government overspending.

now we as a country are secure and finally able to plan forward with the future fund and massive investment in tertiary education.

labor just printed money and that's no solution. and now with the federal government on track we have the state labor governments spending it up again, $70b of debt collectively over the next years. shame!

bring on the crash

when a fibro shack in slum area that even bogans and abo's wouldn't live in goes up by 300%, there is a serious f***ing problem.

Howard was asleep at the wheel in regards to housing.

and how would the housing boom be averted?

what a blind ill-informed statement. all my employees earn far over the award. many of them are happily on AWAs too! that's not the issue at all.

Come on infi, of course their above award cause most of them are in a services industry that has traditionally paid above awards. BTW whats an award wage for an IT professional? Please tell me.

Other than that your cirsumstances are not indicative of unskilled workers who don't have negoiating skills, nor a skillset in high demand or can sustain a high dollar during tough times.

I don't compare skilled, highly educated professionals with blue collar workers in respect to the effect of WostChoices. To do so is sheer deception.

and how would the housing boom be averted?

Firstly remove negative gearing, but that's never going to happen due to the uproar by those that have invested in real estate.

Secondly return CGT to what it was before Howard fiddled with it. Then those about to invest in real estate would think twice before doing so.

Thirdly, upgrade pubic infrastructure in a more decentralised Australia i.e. invest these bloody surpluses in the future of Australia's youth so they can one day afford to one buy a house and two not have to live in a capitol city to obtain gainful employment.

Fourhtly, get rid of this joke of a government.

my workers are in aged care, one of the lowest paid commoditized industries in the country.

they value being with an employer who pays their super every month on time, gives them a payslip, and listens to their gripes.

they are in every sense of the word blue collar. the one thing that doesn't help them is their union. the union shows up each time the certified agreement expires. once the next set of pay rises are locked in they piss off again. (and good riddance!)

those on the AWAs deal direct and are happy to cut the union crap out.

liberal voters just dont get that the government should be investing into public health, schools and work conditions. i think this is because liberals are f*** head selfish c***s that live by the rule "as long as im ok, f*** everyone else" which is fine untill you are not ok, then they whinge like the little liberal pig scum they are.

ps. i used excessive language so liberal voters could understand.

There were plenty of causes for the housing crisis and there are also plenty of solutions.

The fact is that the horse has bolted.

Well then infi, my mistake. I did however believe you scored a $10million dollar IT contract in some thread previously. My mistake if I read it wrong.

But let's get things straight. You are one employer who actually may be a decent employer, do you think everyone is? Don't you think there should be protection for those that are employed by less scrupulous employers.

You can't tell me McDonalds, KFC and the like won't exploit the youth of today as much as they can do you? You don't think that with AWA's they're going to be overly generous do you? You don't think they're going to negotiate with the youth do you? You don't think they're going to care if you don't sign and show you the door do you?

last edited by Some Fat Bastard at 23:44:48 08/Aug/07

HECS wasn't the point I was making earlier about education, I meant public schooling. You know, that thing teachers have been bitching about for the 20 years since Labor f***ed it up?

You don't think everyone is the way you postulate McDonalds, KFC and 'the like' are do you? You won't ever change your tune while your head's conveniently in the preferred sand will you? You can't tell me that you're actually capable of making an objective, unemotional argument can you? You wouldn't steal a handbag would you? You wouldn't steal a car would you? STOP DOWNLOADING TEH DRUGS

HECS wasn't the point I was making earlier about education, I meant public schooling. You know, that thing teachers have been bitching about for the 20 years since Labor f***ed it up?

So the Liberal idea is to invest more of public money into private education at the sake of the public education system.

All so Kings College can buy a new $20million dollar library and the public school down the road buy a secondhand two-roomed demountable, stocked with books from a secondhand bookstore along with computers outdated 5 years ago.

You know Howard popped in this year to my electorate, our local member is "Vasta the do nothing, but rort his allowances". He gave a government donation of $70,000 to Moreton Bay Boys college to upgrade their two year old library. Guess what he gave to the local public schools, NOTHING. Guess which public schools he visisted, NONE.

If that's your idea of the Liberals fixing up public education then god help us all.

the first and overriding right is for people to have a job. all unions do is prevent employment.

young people need a start and that is invariably on inferior conditions. as they gain life and career experience their lot in life changes.

that is the way it has been, and always will be. you can't just walk into a gold-rolled job and no law will protect people from shonks.

If that's your idea of the Liberals fixing up public education then god help us all.

I never said I supported the Liberals at all. Only the Greens have said they'll fix public schooling, but they're a complete joke with regards to almost everything else unfortunately.

last i checked, state schooling was a state responsibility.

they have got plenty of GST, if they don't piss it up against a wall servicing all the debt they are incurring building all the stuff that should have been built 10 years ago.

You don't think everyone is the way you postulate McDonalds, KFC and 'the like' are do you? You won't ever change your tune while your head's conveniently in the preferred sand will you? You can't tell me that you're actually capable of making an objective, unemotional argument can you? You wouldn't steal a handbag would you? You wouldn't steal a car would you? STOP DOWNLOADING TEH DRUGS

Come on Jim, try a little harder with that head on your shoulders. Don't tell me that every employer is a saint. Don't tell me that every employee is in a position of being able to negotiate a better outcome everytime.

You don't seem to get it. Protection is for those that will be exploited. Not for those who won't. Not everyone is lucky like you, me or infi. Are you saying that we should not care about those that can be and in cases will be cause most won't?

What kind of society do you want? One where those that are really weak in employment terms and are potentially exploitable should be forgotten and the act of exploitation is not as difficult as it can be?

BTW when are you going to rigourously debate the topic instead of your typical one liners and one paragraphers. It gets reall tiresome when all you ever do is come up with wisecracks with next to nothing in substance.

jim is the master of the one liner. we all wish we were as good as him.... *daydreams*

last i checked, state schooling was a state responsibility.

Don't you know that the Feds decides what of that GST rebate is to be allocated per dollar amount per student. Then the state governments budget based on that and if possible place additional funds where possible, if they're lucky to have any extra. Remember most of the States taxes were abolished under GST and the state governments are awarded what the Commission decides is required and the feds actually determine their budgets based on that. So in effect the Feds have a big play in where these dollars are spent.

Have you forgotten Julia Bishops little tirades about "you either spend the money where we tell you or you don't get it" and this one to Unis "if you don't use AWA's then say ta ta to funding". So much choice.

if you think reading one line lacking substance is tiring, trying putting yourself in our shoes and reading several lines lacking substance any time we see a post by 'some fat bastard'

and now there's graphs^%$!#^!%$

hehe obes, the reason i don't reply to your posts seriously is because you've already made up your mind. In fact, i don't really reply to any political posts seriously because no one is interested in discussing, they just want to stand up and shout that they won from the rafters.

Some of your points have been corrected previously, but it seems you choose to ignore it, so i take from that, that you don't care about learning anything, you just want to continue slagging people off, and thats what forums are for. so by all means, continue slagging people off.

All the state schools I saw had better resources then my school.

Then again, the private school I went to was lowest of the low ($2.5 - $3k school fee's for senior).

I've found that the biggest impact in how much a student learns at school is how much they want to learn, not so much how much money the school is getting.

i agree with everything obes said in post #37. fkn spot on. government should be much more than just bean counting.

asif you would agree with a crazy drunk obes

I've always had difficulty knowing exactly where the Federal Government's responsibilities end and where the States' start.

Is there somewhere that provides a good summary?

jim: even the craziest drunkest obes makes more sense than the majority of liberal-kissing penny pinchers in dis here thread. ;]

Is there somewhere that provides a good summary?

http://www.kevin07.com/

Is there somewhere that provides a good summary?

s51 of the Constitution.

I've found that the biggest impact in how much a student learns at school is how much they want to learn, not so much how much money the school is getting.

You have to admit though, educating kids is much easier if you have enough high quality resources to go around it really helps, be it infrastructure, systems, assistants and/or staff.

Instead of having to have retarded "special" kids in classes with everybody else, wouldn't it be better for them to go to schools that specialize in servicing them?

Instead of having classes that has 40-50 students per teacher, wouldn't it be better to have 20-25 students per teacher?

Instead of having to choose between upgrading the IT labs Pentium 2s, wouldn't it be better if we had resources to give kids something that's meaningful?

Instead of offering a fixed fee for all teachers at certain levels, wouldn't it be better if schools could pay more for teachers who have talent? In fact, wouldn't it be great if we could reward teachers who attempt to get higher levels of education?

Instead of offering a fixed fee for all teachers at certain levels, wouldn't it be better if schools could pay more for teachers who have talent?

Watch it, the unions will be after you. Don't dare suggest paying better staff more money!!

Watch it, the unions will be after you. Don't dare suggest paying better staff more money!!

That's why I hate unionism.

I've always had difficulty knowing exactly where the Federal Government's responsibilities end and where the States' start.

it all appeared to change recently when the fed won a court case which some suggested makes it clear that when signing up to federation the states became minor/submissive partners to a dominant federal government- until that case state and federal where seen a equals with different responsibilities.

at the time it was said the fed can now intrude in any areas of state controll it like provided it framed it right. 12+ months later it appears to be doing just that.

wouldn't it be better if schools could pay more for teachers who have talent?

The problem is that talent for a teacher is incredibly subjective.

How do you measure a teacher's performance relative to other teachers? To do so fairly you need to somehow take into account the complex backgrounds of their students, or risk making teaching even more unappealing in challenged populations.

the one's that arrive at 8.30 and piss off at 3 get their base salary - the one's that do extra stuff get more.

the one's that get parent complaints get their base salary (or even better the arse), the one's that get parent commendations get more.

this whole "teaching performance is subjective" bulls*** is just a ruse by the unions. everything has to be measurable in the end or the taxpayer is pissing money down the drain for the mediocre teachers.

Sorry but he was absolutely correct and you completely wrong. Australia was borrowing more than it could repay, that's the public, business and yes some liberal state governments as well as labor. Added to this the high inflation rate leftover by Howard as Treasurer we were fast becoming a banana republic. Didn't you know that after Keating made that remark, only days before the next budget, Labor went into lockdown and tore to shreds the spending in the budget in 48 hours. It was known by all economists of the time as the most un-Labor budget ever seen to this day. They slashed traditional Labor safe havens, education, health, social welfare and wages all necessary to save the economy and the nation. One day when you start to look past the Liberal pamphletts you may get an idea, until then you're just regurgitating bulls***.

you have no idea how i vote. also what i said was pretty much word for word what my lecturer for advanced international macroeconomics told us last week in class, we're currently studying current account deficit sustainability. but i'm sure you know more than him so don't mind me.

we're currently studying current account deficit sustainability

CAD is about balance of trade, the difference between imports and exports, not government borrowing.

What I'm talking about is governments going into deficits for items such as infrastructure building and government services and stating an opposite view to the Liberal party propaganda, which says it's irresponsible, is a load of hogwash.

Even the RBA has said (as I posted an extract from the RBA report in one of my posts) it is not irresponsible and that it does not necessarily have an impact on inflation and can if used appropriately stimulate economic growth by providing greater economic capacity and that overall Australia does not have a problem servicing this borrowing.

Take that to your lecturer and see what he has to say on the matter. If he disagrees with the RBA then I'd be surprised.

last edited by Some Fat Bastard at 12:41:37 09/Aug/07

but i'm sure you know more than him so don't mind me

Anyone that claims to KNOW anything about economics is an idiot or a liar. There are so many variables influencing and feeding back into each other (not to mention general human 'sentiment') that the best anyone can do is provide a theory as to how to handle a situation (or how a situation should have been handled). But with no 2 situations being identical, it is impossible to definitively prove and therefore KNOW exactly what will or could have happened.

Anyone that claims to KNOW anything about economics is an idiot or a liar.

I don't know a god damn thing when it comes to economics or how rate hikes work or what effects what.

Does that make me clever?

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

hold up i'll quote what you said.

Sorry but he was absolutely correct and you completely wrong. Australia was borrowing more than it could repay, that's the public, business and yes some liberal state governments as well as labor.

CAD is about balance of trade, the difference between imports and exports, not government borrowing.

borrowing more than they could repay. now i'll assume you know that:

balance of payments = current account + capital account

and as such you would know that any currenct account deficit is accompanied by an equally large capital account surplus. you can't talk about balance of trade without talking about the capital account (net borrowing) because they are fundamentally linked.

Even the RBA has said (as I posted an extract from the RBA report in one of my posts) it is not irresponsible and that it does not necessarily have an impact on inflation and can if used appropriately stimulate economic growth by providing greater economic capacity and that overall Australia does not have a problem servicing this borrowing.

i agree borrowing for infrastructure isn't necessarily irresponsible. but it is inflationary. it will generate aggregate demand (leading to inflation) as well as crowding out private investment. doesn't mean it's not worth it, that's just a cost you have to factor in.

what i was saying is that during Keating's time everyone was freaking about the currenct account deficit or as you put it, the country borrowing more than they could repay.

what people need to understand is that in australia 99% of all debt is private not public. this debt is taken on by forward thinking rational economic units (people, companies etc.) as forward thinking rational entities they have probably considered their ability to repay this debt. so by trying to influence this through government intervention the Keating government made the recession harsher than it had to be. granted this wasn't the only consideration at the time though it was one of the main ones

now in all fairness there was a proportion of mainstream economists at the time advocating this policy response so the government was probably acting on advice they thought was sound. and with the benefit of hindsight it's pretty easy to point out where people went wrong.

these days its pretty much the mainstream consensus that the CAD in Australia is sustainable and even desirable economically due to demographics. australia is a relatively young country demographically and this means it is a net borrower. older countries like japan are net lenders. consumption smoothing (i.e. the flow of money through borrowing and lending such that peoples consumptions are stable over their lifetimes) results in higher utilities for everyone, this is one of the foundations of modern macroeconomics - intertemporal models.

edit: fixed some spelling errors which made what i wrote confusing

edit: yeah uh thanks for that chakas but i think you interpreted what i said wrong. i know what you mean i meant in terms of the models & theories etc.

last edited by taggs at 13:30:33 09/Aug/07

Piss off paying teachers based on student abilities.
Parents and households are the #1 factor on how well a kid will do at school, not the teachers.

They already have to put up with enough s*** from the bogan Kids/parents, let alone getting paid less because they have to deal with them.

the one's that get parent complaints get their base salary (or even better the arse), the one's that get parent commendations get more.

Parents are a******s to teachers, plain and simple. They either care too much and interfere or dont care at all and it reflects in their Kids attitude.

I don't know a god damn thing when it comes to economics or how rate hikes work or what effects what.

Does that make me clever?

No that just means you're uninformed therefore, your opinions on these topics are irrelevant.

last edited by Opec at 13:27:25 09/Aug/07

Awww, is there no humour left in QGL?

Awww, is there no humour left in QGL?

That was meant to be a good-natured jab at you actually. :)

The problem is that talent for a teacher is incredibly subjective.

How do you measure a teacher's performance relative to other teachers? To do so fairly you need to somehow take into account the complex backgrounds of their students, or risk making teaching even more unappealing in challenged populations.

I see you didn’t notice that I didn’t say “teachers should be paid based off of their performance”? With two parents, and a fist full of family friends, who are teachers I know all too well how problematic it is to rate teachers off of their performance.

Not only is defining a metric for qualifying the teachers performance problematic, at best, it doesn’t even consider that the only way you’d ever get teachers to teach at low socio-economic areas is to pay them more as a form of compensation. Because, in all honesty, it doesn’t matter how good the teachers are, students at schools like Inala West are always going to perform poorly. As such, it becomes a pointless task to pay teachers who’s “perform” better, because teachers who work at schools with low performance will have to get paid more anyway.

What I did say however was that schools should be able to pay teachers more based off of their talent. Sure, it’s subjective to talk about talent, yet many other industries have no problems to attempt to pay this way. How can we guestimate at someone’s talent? The same way that Business does, and considering that Teaching is supposed to be a profession, we can look at how other professions handle it. Most professions qualify someone’s potential talent based off of a few areas; education, working experience, knowledge of specific information, and reputation.

Let’s invent two persona to show what I mean.

Linda.
Linda is 35, has 2 kids and a Masters Degree in Education.
She has four published articles that discuss frameworks on building literacy in low socio-economic areas and an additional paper on how facilitate parents in building an education centric home environment.
For the last 6 years Linda has worked at Inala West Primary school and has very positive reputation from both the staff and the parents. In the work that she does.
Linda set up and runs an initiative to encourage kids to study hard throughout their schooling. She does this by showing kids the benefits of a degree. When she can, she likes to get popular members of the South East Queensland’s sporting community involved to point out the benefits of education.

Bob.
Bob’s 42 has 1 kid and a Bachelor Degree in Education.
Bob has worked at Inala West for the last 20 years.
Unless Bob has bus duty, he shows up exactly 5 minutes before going into class, and sometimes beats kids out of the school grounds.
Bob doesn’t really have much of a reputation with the staff or parents, because he spends so little time with any of them.

Linda probably has more talent than Bob, at least at teaching.

Now, where my argument comes in is that for Inala West to secure Linda from changing schools or going into Education Queensland as a researcher, Inala West should be free to increase the amount she gets paid. Inala West offers Bob the award wage for someone who’s been working for Education Queensland for 20 years.

Linda might even, actually probably should be, earning more than Bob, even though he has been working for in education for much longer. Linda should earn more than Bob because Linda is probably better than he is.

oh whatever opec you horrible horrible man

oh whatever opec you horrible horrible man

yes unfortunately it's my inferior genes that makes me insecure, Jim, you know how it is.

ooer, Opec jabbed me

Infi ...
Then you must fear that you may lose your contract. (Which is understandable change of government sees a lot of random culling eg. my old man got fired by Labor, because he was a senior public servant in the Joh administration). But there is some sort of fear going on.

And while you may have not randomly fired anyone, you and I both know that you can. So these adds about employee rights what employers can or can't force a worker to do with an AWA, you and I both know are full of s***. At the end of a day a prick boss can fire someone using some weak excuse, just as long as they don't specifically say sexual preference, gender, religion or failure to agree to an AWA or component of an AWA.

But on to your rambling. The largest part of the state budgets these days is health, it used to be significantly smaller, ie. smaller then education. Why ? because your liberal buddies the AMA (which is really a union, but because they have degrees its a professional association and is free of government interference in fact they have gained more power) sat down with the libs and now has control over the numbers of doctors that are produced. So we have a doctor shortage and doctors wages are spiralling upwards (which is why the AMA capped the number of docs being produced) and we have to import skilled labour (/terror suspect) to keep up ... On top of this we have created a society where we save anyone at any cost (lets throw a hundred thousand dollars at an 85 year old smoker), 85 is well above the Australian average and that $100,000 investment of public funds will not achieve any useful outcome for society.

Health care in Australia is bleeding too much money and it needs to be addressed. People need to accept that if you are over average age of death, you shouldn't get publicly funded multi organ transplants. Private ? sure hey that's your money.

But forgetting that because that's an emotional issue and will never get dealt with...

While spiralling health costs is only 1 issue, its an example of where the problem is a simple "states fault" tag line. All the states are struggling, the federal (which actually doesn't do a lot, roads state, health state, police and prisons state) is turning a huge profit...

maybe the split of taxation funds is not right ?
or maybe the federal government needs to invest in infrastructure ?

But its a state problem ... pigs ass, the fed takes the money the fed is responsible for its usage. The government has shown in the last few months, that if it wants to, it can resolve these problems. It chose not to since getting into power. So at the end of the day the federal government is as responsible as anyone else for infrastructure problems.

Australia is growing. We need infrastructure. We need better roads, we need better rail and ports (get the coal on the boats quicker!), we need water and power. That is all going to cost money. It is going to cause inflation. It is going to force interest rates up (or inflation will go nuts). Or do we just leave everything as it is now ? Doesn't matter who is in power its going to happen. Unless you can explain how to build infrastructure with out spending money.

SFB ...

If every kid in private education went into public. The public system would buckle. Don't kid yourself. Private parents pay more tax, but in real terms receive less government dollars per student for educating their children. Don't be tricked by the lobby groups that waffle about federal funding being higher for private schools. State funding combined with federal funding per student is vastly higher for a public student then a private. I think the fairest solution would be a voucher system. That voucher for student could either be cashed in for x funding at a private or state school. That way only fiscally viable state schools would exist, heck private schools might even be able to operate just on the government voucher!

At the end of the day, Australia needs a Joh, or a Goss ... someone who realizes that the job is about building a society with all the things a society needs not about turning a profit and pandering to lobby groups.

At the end of the day, Australia needs a Joh, or a Goss ... someone who realizes that the job is about building a society with all the things a society needs not about turning a profit and pandering to lobby groups.

Ah, good old Joh. I still remember when he threatened Jana Vendt by being put up to her head in a meat ant pit live on TV one day. I also remember when he fired the strikers from SEQEB who'd put blackouts in the middle of winter* and demand pay rises.

*Back then winter was cold.

i'm with obes on the education part. also obes that voucher system was advocated really strongly in the states by milton friedman and other prominent economists (a fair few from the chicago school of economics) to increase competition in the education market. it has been implemented successfully in a few states (edit: or maybe districts... can't remember how schools are run in the us) and appears to increase the quality of education.


last edited by taggs at 14:08:16 09/Aug/07

what's wrong with being able to fire someone for no reason

Rate rise just went through

goodo.

i just borrowed $330k to buy the palace that i am sitting in.

mad props to reserve bank and govt.

love my haus btw

i hear you DC

i rented for years as i was affraid of the fiscal responsibility of owning your own place.

sure i had s*** loads of fun and stax of available cash, but theres somethign satisfying (real deep down too) about coming home to your own place

even if it starts out as a s*** heap (read asbestos pit)

it does indeed rule

i love my haus also

i think being able to fire someone for no reason would greatly improve efficiency in the economy. if i don't like how my rubbish contractor collects my rubbish i stop using him. wtf should an employee be different?

hell the ASU just did it in Tasmania didn't they? linky

Im wit the obester and SFB on this.

also

how f***ing stupid are those latest workchoices ads. Has it actually occured to the liberal fart-sniffers that 90% of workers couldnt give a rats arse about how 'the workplace ombudsman will punish any employer who does the wrong thing' ??

I find most peasants I speak with would prefer not to have to deal with another s***stain bureaucracy set up by Howard but rather the protection of a fairer base IR system.

but f*** them hey? theyre not buyin real estate or BHP shares so who gives a s*** right?

i think being able to fire someone for no reason would greatly improve efficiency in the economy. if i don't like how my rubbish contractor collects my rubbish i stop using him. wtf should an employee be different?

Because a contractor and an employee are completely different things.

haha so the workers are dealing with f***stain corrupt union bosses who take bribes from employers for sweet deals and shaft their own administrative employees.

what a hypocritical shambles the union movement is.

ps who'd buy BHP atm...

edit:

Because a contractor and an employee are completely different things.

at law they are but in life they are both working to make a living. dependent contractors (those working for one client) are subject to the whims of their client. why don't they deserve protection? what an inconsistent suggestion.

last edited by infi at 14:47:22 09/Aug/07

Spook and decaying corpse:

I know nothing about finance. Why is it a good thing that u just took loans and bought houses and having a rate rise? Doesn't that mean you have to pay more interest back on the loan?

I = finance noob.

my interest rate is locked for a few years anyway, so im not sweating it yet

plus we aint that tight with cash, got plenty to spare, so even if it did affect me, i can cover $15 bux a week extra in repayments

Because, in all honesty, it doesn’t matter how good the teachers are, students at schools like Inala West are always going to perform poorly. As such, it becomes a pointless task to pay teachers who’s “perform” better, because teachers who work at schools with low performance will have to get paid more anyway.

I haven't read a lot of this thread but this caught my eye and just wanted to say I wholeheartedly agree. As long as kids' parents don't place any value on learning, you can have the best teacher in the world and it won't make dick difference. If they don't want to learn and don't see any perceived value in learning, then the teacher is never going to get anywhere.

Unless they pick up the role of the parents and try to teach them the value in getting educated. Maybe that'd make a good year's worth of education first - instead of learning grade 2 maths, maybe grade 2 should be all about "why getting an education is important"

Having worked in the bureaucracy at EQ I can tell you that teaching and school performance are measured in two ways: inputs and outputs.

Under the input method, if a teacher is doing all the right things but their class scores poorly they are still rated high.

Under the output method, it matters little what processes they follow, only what scores they produce.

In reality a hybrid approach is required, but in no circumstance are results solely used to determine the effectiveness of a teacher.

Not every child has the potential to do really well at school and I'm talking about more than just parent input etc... Every teacher should be aiming to get every child to be doing as well as is possible for them, not necessarily to get A's. So according to those descriptions of approaches, IMO the input method is betterer.

IMO the input method is betterer.

I'm guessing your teacher didn't get a performance bonus.

I'm not a Labour zealot.

But I do feel that there is this absurd notion that the current Labour Party is a carbon copy of the Hawke/Keating (a la 17% interest rate) government.

I mean for f***s sake they are calling Kevin Rudd "Howard Lite". I have agree with this description. Rudd is one of the most conservative Labour pollies I can remember.

Dull and conservative Kevin ... yes.

Keating and Latham thuggery .... no.

battle of the nerds?

howard v rudd

I'm not a Labour zealot.

But I do feel that there is this absurd notion that the current Labour Party is a carbon copy of the Hawke/Keating (a la 17% interest rate) government.

But how do you feel about the LABOR party?

doH

cmon man its late

Spelling nazi's suck

PM's bid to buy back office sells out the economy
Peter Hartcher Political Editor
August 9, 2007

COMMENT

THE Prime Minister told us yesterday that "the worst possible thing any government could do at the present time is to embrace a policy that would put upward pressure on inflation and therefore on interest rates".

If it is such an important priority, then surely that means the Howard Government will not be announcing any new spending before election day? Surely that would meet John Howard's definition of the "worst possible thing any government could do".

Any new spending would add to demand in the economy and that would add to inflationary pressures and that, in turn, would press the Reserve Bank to act by raising interest rates yet further. This is irrefutable economic logic, no?

There were three answers to this yesterday - one from John Howard, another from the economists and a third from the Opposition Leader, Kevin Rudd.

Howard's answer was to say, "No, you can't take it from that that we won't be announcing any new Commonwealth outlays". How so? Because not all spending is inflationary, he said, and he offered this Animal Farm categorisation of new spending: "If it's financed out of a surplus, it's good; if it's financed out of borrowings, it's bad."

In other words, if I'm doing the spending it's good, but if it's the state Labor governments it's bad.

Next is the answer from the economists. "The thing that matters," said the interest rate expert at Macquarie Bank, Rory Robertson, "is not how extra spending is financed - it's whether there's extra spending".

The director of Access Economics, Chris Richardson, put it this way: "As the secretary of the Treasury, Ken Henry, reminded us recently, if you throw money around while we have an economy running at full capacity, it's inflationary. We will regret it.

"Look at the big picture. The Government is throwing money into the economy and the Reserve Bank is trying to take it out again. We have one foot on the accelerator and one on the brake. No wonder we're blowing smoke."

In other words, the professional economists give Howard not one jot of credibility on this.

Then there was Rudd's answer: "Our spending commitments for the next election … will be less than those of the Government."

The truth is Howard is preparing to spend billions to get re-elected. This will be inflationary and put upward pressure on interest rates. But Howard won't admit it because he doesn't want to do anything to bind his hands. This is irresponsible. This is a clear-cut assertion of the Government's political interest over the national interest.

And Rudd's position is to promise that, however irresponsible Howard may be, he will be slightly less irresponsible.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...530447683.html

last edited by Some Fat Bastard at 23:33:09 09/Aug/07

THE Federal Government has hailed today's jobless rate - the best in 32 years - as a sign the nation is heading towards full employment.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported a further 21,800 jobs being added to an already tight labour market in July.

This left Australia's unemployment rate unchanged at 4.3 per cent - the lowest figure in 32 years.

The good news for the government came after yesterday's 0.25 per cent rise in interest rates and a barrage of political fallout for the Coalition. The rise, the fifth since the interest rate election of 2004, brought mortgage rates to about 8.3 per cent and added about $50 a month to average mortgage payments.

Prime Minister John Howard said the jobless result was achieved despite almost 250,000 people being forced off welfare and into the job market last month.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,20797,22214984-3102,00.html

God bless WorkChoices.

The other piece of news yesterday infi ...

Gap year army ?

The ready reserve scheme mark 2 ?

Who got rid of the Ready reserve ? oh that's right ... John Howard.

God bless WorkChoices.

for following a trend started years before without it and with the help of our gloroius mining/resources boom and the fact we've been importing visa 457 low paid workers to compensate for the fact we are at capacity. But I guess we can thank WorkChoices for one thing in lowering unemployment, low paid immigrants have nothing to negotiate nor lose conditions as they never had any in the first place.

Yeh because WorkChoices was obviously the prime cause of those figures ...

at law they are but in life they are both working to make a living. dependent contractors (those working for one client) are subject to the whims of their client. why don't they deserve protection? what an inconsistent suggestion.

Contractors are paid more base, and have less security and benefits from their employer - more rightly, their client.

To be honest the fact that you don't see a distinction between an employee and a contractor answers every point I might raise.

Business owners like yourself want to do away with legislated job security for employees - you just said so above. I wouldn't be surprised if you personally would like to see the legal notion of an employee removed altogether, replaced with a totally fluid labour pool that you can hire and fire on a complete whim.

There's a reason we need laws protecting the rights of employees - and it is employers like you!

last edited by Hogfather at 12:10:52 10/Aug/07

Contractors are paid more base, and have less security and benefits from their employer - more rightly, their client.

Try telling that to the dependent contractor with only one client.

hogfather: is 'job security' even a right unless there's a law made saying so?

Jim, yes.

there is no right to job security. in an efficient fluid economy, resources should move around as best-decided by the risk takers and the capital holders. workers should go where the work is.

without risk and innovation an economy just stagnates, and that is why jobs have roared along for the last 12 months.

employers have been hiring (mostly full-time) workers knowing that finally if the employee doesn't work out they can be sacked without consequences, thus giving business more certainty and confidence to take risks.

And the workforce has responded as brutally. Gen Y workers rarely stay in any one job for more than 2 years because they expect rapid career progression being the other edge of this sword.

You old fuddy duddies who think Workplace Relations will go back to pre-1996 are dreaming. Today's employers and youth have moved on, it's just the dinosaurs from the union movement that are left.

Unless they pick up the role of the parents and try to teach them the value in getting educated. Maybe that'd make a good year's worth of education first - instead of learning grade 2 maths, maybe grade 2 should be all about "why getting an education is important"

First of all, can grade 2 kids even conceptualize the real value that an education can provide? I doubt it. I mean, it’s hard enough to convince intelligent adults the value of education. Even in a sample size of QLG.org you’ll find a wealth of people who don’t understand the value of a University education is unless it’s 100% focused on vocational skills, or the value in having academic/intellectual role models.

Even more to the point, during the period of time when kids are at schooling age, they spend 1/7th of their entire life at school. Can we truly expect that a teacher, who’s most likely only going to have them for 1/12th of that time, or less than 2% of their schooling life, can make an impact on how kids value education? Given that knowledge, can anybody expect that a single teacher can compete against the remaining 85% of time the child spends in a non-education centric area?

The only way I can think of getting bogan parents to be involved and caring about their children’s education is to give parents a family bonus if their kid does well at school. You know, for every A the kid gets, the parents get a $1000 dollar bonus. Every percent over the national average the kid gets, the parents get additional $100 dollars. If the kid comes top of his class, give the parents a brand new 60 inch plasma screen, 6 cartons of beer and two free tickets to see the Broncos.

Imagine it, trash parents would suddenly start caring about their kids education because they might get some money, or even a plasma screen. f***, it would take care of the population problem too. Every manner of filth would start f***ing like rabbits on viagra to try and spawn more children who can suck money in on this education hand out thing.

---

Try telling that to the dependent contractor with only one client.

Ah, anybody who is contracting should already understand that.

do you wanna elaborate at all sivinance?

do you wanna elaborate at all sivinance?

tl;dr

Imagine it, trash parents would suddenly start caring about their kids education because they might get some money, or even a plasma screen.

Read: Kids would get bashed for not getting high marks.

That system is bodged typo. Sure with a lot of effort the majority of people can do alright in highschool and get a university degree. Though others can put in 110% and achieve neither of these (and in your system they get nothing).

Contractor's get paid more for a lack of security.
Full-time permanents get paid less then casual's, contractor's etc because they have been "given" job security.

So yeah there is a right to job security OR more pay.

Exactly Obes.

I'm in the process of trading in security for $ at the moment by moving into a contracting role. This is a deliberate decision on my part and in doing so I've weighed up just those pros and cons.

Jim: I don't think that job security is a basic human right, but I do agree with the reasons that it has been legislated in the past and why people are so concerned that it seems to have been dropped.

The only people who benefit from a completely fluid workplace are employers and the top end of the work force - people in high-demand positions with the confidence to assert their workplace conditions with their employer. Combined with their ridiculous record on interest rates, granting carte blanche hire and fire powers to thousands of employers across the country will probably be the end of this Government.

Most people are not employers, and are not comfortable running their own contracting business. The vast bulk of the voting public are Joe Averages who need to know that their paycheck is there next week to meet the mortgage repayment.

The Federal Gov. has left themselves wide open to attack from BOTH these fronts - the mortgage AND job security. They're pretty much f***ed now.

last edited by Hogfather at 14:28:32 10/Aug/07

I don't agree with you obes, on two counts:

1) that contractors necessarily get paid more for a lack of security and 2) that even if this were true, that it'd mean there is a right to job security or more pay

Further, just because a trend occurs (for whatever reason), it doesn't mean it's the way it 'should' be by rights

1) that contractors necessarily get paid more for a lack of security and 2) that even if this were true, that it'd mean there is a right to job security or more pay

OK what about Casual Employment then Jim? Why do Casuals get (or deserve) a higher rate of pay than equivalent full time staff? Why shouldn't the same reasoning apply to contractors' conditions?

casuals' higher pay is a direct compensation for their loss of various leave entitlements: sick, annual, bereavement, parental, public holidays.

casuals get unfair dismissal protection anyways if they are long term.

what a load of crap. casual but they can still seek reinstatement... wtf

casuals' higher pay is a direct compensation for their loss of various leave entitlements: sick, annual, bereavement, parental, public holidays.

casuals get unfair dismissal protection anyways if they are long term.

Casuals should get dismissal protection if they have worked regular hours long term, unless they have chosen not to move onto a full-time basis.

But nobody gets dismissal protection anymore if your employer has < 100 employees, unless they're stupid enough to do something like say they are firing you because you're black.

eg. A nurse working for an agency as a contractor gets paid more then a permanent fulltime.
Same job.
Why ?
No promise of employment other then the stated contract.
No benefits eg. sick or annual leave
No super etc

The difference between the 2 rates of pay is in the order of 100%. Super and leave is only worth what 9% for super ? and 7 - 15% for benefits.

What's the other 75-80% of difference ?
Guess it must be the lack of job security

Read: Kids would get bashed for not getting high marks.

At least then they’d be getting abused for a reason. I mean, it’s not like the parents who are likely to bash their kids for not getting good marks aren’t already the most likely suspects to abuse and neglect their baby bonus babies.
.

That system is bodged typo. Sure with a lot of effort the majority of people can do alright in highschool and get a university degree.

I never inferred that the subjects that parents should get paid for are subjects that are in the universality selection. If kids can’t learn general primary school information, because they are a tardy child, there should be funds available to put them into a special school. Thus, they get to compete in whatever tardy subjects they teach at tard school.

Secondary is even easier, considering kids can choose their own subjects. If you can’t do straight math/science at school, do Manual Arts A/B, Graphics, Physical Education, Math in Space, Multitard science and Basic English.

Again, if kids can’t pass non-academic subjects at high school, there should be funds set aside to support them learning something that’s valuable to the community.

The vast minority of people at high school go on to get a university degree. According to the last census only 13% of Australians have a degree, down from the mid 80’s high of 17-18%%.

s***, most people don’t even value their high school education enough to even do well at the basics considered essential to everyday living. 17% of all Australians are rated “very poor” when it comes to basic literacy skills. In fact, 44% of Australians are rated poor or worse when it comes to basic literacy. Yet, when you go around and talk to people, 4:10 people aren’t morons.

Though others can put in 110% and achieve neither of these (and in your system they get nothing).

In the current system you have kids who’s parents see no value in getting an education. This means, their going to be trapped in whatever s*** hole of a life they’ve been spawned into. And the kind of s*** holes that many of these kids live in isn’t pretty.

We have families built from 5 generations of practically illiterate dole bludgers who can’t even conceptualize why education might even be useful, let alone support their kids. Daily we've got thousands of kids getting bashed, stabbed, molested, raped and used as an ashtray, by their f***head families. Yet you think my s***ty system doesn’t give them anything?

Mate, they’ve got nothing now.




last edited by typo at 16:12:07 10/Aug/07

You're a nutter typo.

I agree with the problem, but not your solution.

I didn't try at all in highschool, yet I surpassed a lot of students that would study everynight, had tutors and genuinely wanted to get the most out of their education.

Your system is just so flawed, back to the drawing board.

guess away obes

plus, you still don't state why you think that just because that may even be the case, why it's the way it _should_ be

it's all about fairness and equity. nothing in life should ever be unfair because that is wrong. everyone must have the same rights and the same access. and everyone should be protected from everything bad that can ever happen.

otherwise you're just throwing the fair go out the back door. lol

from the article you posted sfb:

Next is the answer from the economists. "The thing that matters," said the interest rate expert at Macquarie Bank, Rory Robertson, "is not how extra spending is financed - it's whether there's extra spending".

that's pretty much what i said before in terms of the infrastructure thingy. spending = increasing aggregate demand = inflationary no matter how it's financed or where the economy is in its business cycle. doesn't mean it's a bad thing, that depends on the circumstances. right now i'd agree with that article and say it's definately not the time for big spending.

ps. you didn't respond to anything else i said i feel left out =(

also when you start talking about fairness its important to distinguish between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity.

im all for anything that increases equality of opportunity, but trying to influence equality of outcome is stupid and always conterproductive. incentives matter.

The only way I can think of getting bogan parents to be involved and caring about their children’s education is to give parents a family bonus if their kid does well at school. You know, for every A the kid gets, the parents get a $1000 dollar bonus. Every percent over the national average the kid gets, the parents get additional $100 dollars. If the kid comes top of his class, give the parents a brand new 60 inch plasma screen, 6 cartons of beer and two free tickets to see the Broncos.

hi2u bribing teachers .. "I'll go 50/50 with you if you give my kid good marks"

taggs: because what you said was technically correct although complex, and not in the realm of hyperbole which is more easily related to.

You're a nutter typo.

I agree with the problem, but not your solution.

I didn’t say that my solution was a magical answer to, at least not seriously.

Your system is just so flawed, back to the drawing board.

I guessed you missed the part where I referred to it as “my s***ty system”.I didn’t really think it was the answer to all of our problems, although it would directly address the problem of education culture in the homes of bogans.

The reason why your responses are so homosexual is that they are essentially saying “why won’t someone think of the children” while letting kids stay in abusive relationships.

I didn't try at all in highschool, yet I surpassed a lot of students that would study everynight, had tutors and genuinely wanted to get the most out of their education.

Did you just put that in there to make yourself feel good? Otherwise, it's meaningless.

hi2u bribing teachers .. "I'll go 50/50 with you if you give my kid good marks"

How could I be so blind. It's not like national testing or the ability to open results could make any kind of impact on that.

Did you just put that in there to make yourself feel good? Otherwise, it's meaningless.

Well according to your system, my parents would of got a couple of plasma TV's when all I did in highschool was bum around and play guitar... where as the nerds that would study everynight, get tutors and all the support from their parents would get nothing.

Cool system, rewards good genetics, cull the weak ones out hey typo :D

hogfather: is 'job security' even a right unless there's a law made saying so?

Canada, Britain, EU job security is a legal right i.e. unfair dismissal is protected and collective bargaining has only recently been legalised as a Human Right in these countries.

I don't agree with you obes, on two counts:
1) that contractors necessarily get paid more for a lack of security and 2) that even if this were true, that it'd mean there is a right to job security or more pay

Further, just because a trend occurs (for whatever reason), it doesn't mean it's the way it 'should' be by rights

Sorry but you're wrong Jim.

In answer to point 1) It is a given in the labour regime in Australia and other western nations and even with workchoices that common law contractors are paid a higher rate due to no job security, no holiday pay, no overtime, no sick leave. The only protection a contractor has is their contract's conditions which are negotiated at time of contract and is exercised through legal means i.e. breaking a contract by either parties. All contracts have penalty clauses for failure to meet contracts. A norm today, yesterday, last decade and tomorrow. Therefore in cases of dispute a contract is the legal means of challenge. In unfair dismissal your AWA is not a means to dispute it legally.

2) Yes a right to job security or more pay. An employee is not a contractor therefore forgoes higher pay for better conditions, like holidays pay, sick leave etc and greater job security.

Rights are not something that should be easily traded. If there was no such things as rights then we would have no need for laws to protect private property and your person.

BTW I have worked under common law contract for over 24 years of my 29 year professional career in IT.

casuals' higher pay is a direct compensation for their loss of various leave entitlements: sick, annual, bereavement, parental, public holidays.

casuals get unfair dismissal protection anyways if they are long term.

what a load of crap. casual but they can still seek reinstatement... wtf

As do contractors are given a higher pay rate than permamnent employees for loss of all those conditions you just mentioned. Under WorkChoices higher pay rates for casuals is no longer guaranteed and in fact are completely stripped. There is now anly a minimum wage that employers have to abide by.

Casuals are only protected from unfair dismissal if they are permanent casuals (i.e. permanent employees guranteed job security) and the company has more than 100 employees. They are not protected from unfair dismissal in companies with less than 100 employees. They can only be reinstated to a company with less than 100 if they take legal action on their own behalf and win. Fat chance. In companies over 100 employees they are then offered concilliation by the Workplace Authority, which does not guarantee any reinstatement at all.

it's all about fairness and equity. nothing in life should ever be unfair because that is wrong. everyone must have the same rights and the same access. and everyone should be protected from everything bad that can ever happen.

otherwise you're just throwing the fair go out the back door. lol

You are one d******* inifi. We are a value based society so values and ideals are an important basis for any civilised society. Take heed of the word civilised. I suppose you'd be happy to forgo your human rights and live under a Authoritarian regime as that is exactly what you are driving towards with your silly little arguments about value and fairness being a silly little notion of the past.

Another thing infi, these very same ideals of a fair go, equal rights (ie. equality) and such are exactly what millions across the free world died for in the two world wars. Hundreds of thousands of Australians fought for and lost their lives to give you and this younger generation the liberties, rights and freedoms of association you enjoy today. To consider them silly and outdated is a disgusting show of thanks to those that paid the ultimate sacrifice.

Edit: Fixed Typos, where's the spell checker?


last edited by Some Fat Bastard at 18:00:30 10/Aug/07

what you are in fact suggesting is that people need protecting from themselves. in a free society people should be able to live and learn from their mistakes.

anyone who knows my views on things knows i am extremely distrustful of authority. look how drunk the construction unions get on their (illegitimate) authority over worksites.

another example of the union movement's growing irrelevance and the need for our modern economy to modernise the workplace laws too.

Canada, Britain, EU job security is a legal right i.e. unfair dismissal is protected and collective bargaining has only recently been legalised as a Human Right in these countries.

that doesn't answer my question though, even more so since I'm not even talking about unfair dismissal, let alone even attempting to define 'unfair'

Sorry but you're wrong Jim.

no you are

It is a given in the labour regime in Australia and other western nations and even with workchoices that common law contractors are paid a higher rate due to no job security, no holiday pay, no overtime, no sick leave.

It's not a given at all, and whether you consider something a given or not is beside the point. Additionally, "due to no job security, no holiday pay, no overtime, no sick leave" is considerably different to "Contractor's get paid more for a lack of security". Another thing you're glossing over which is actually the primary reason a contractor typically gets more money is the sheer overhead, responsibility and liability of being a contractor.

The only protection a contractor has is their contract's conditions which are negotiated at time of contract and is exercised through legal means

Oh, 'only' their contract? I'll take that and being a contractor anyday over being some gimp who desperately clings to unrealistic and unpractical laws to keep a job - in fact that's exactly what I did choose back in the late 80's and have continued to do since whether I was an employer or not

In unfair dismissal your AWA is not a means to dispute it legally.

there's that unfair word again!

Jim I think you have damaged something in one of your rolls, and its not mechanical.

I have guessed, and I know I am right. why ? 1> you can't come up with any counter reasons (and I am sure you tried before replying) 2> you couldn't come up with a whitty 1 liner
Its up to you to suggest where the rest of that difference is. You can't. What's your response going to be ? No you are ?

Security is worth something. Take that away there has to be more money. In other words it is a "right" if you aren't going to up the pay to match the lack of security. And why is that a right ? ... Why do I not have the right to shoot you ? ... because our society says so.

Or since you love to invest ... higher risk ... higher reward.
Bank vs All on red.
The ACCC/Securities Commission will go after anyone that flogs off a High risk, no reward scheme. eg. Boiler-rooms

you don't know you're right obes, you're just obstinately sticking to your guns because it suits your mentality and chosen way of life. you whine and complain about your situation and you refuse to change it despite having the power to - instead, you want things to change to suit you instead. it's a completely emotional way of dealing.


you on msn: "no I can't come camping because my boss wants to me to do all this crazy work for him over weekends"

me: "bummer, why don't you say no?"

you: "oh I told him what for rah rah rah, I sure showed him"


yet there you are, still taking it - therefore telling him it's ok to expect that of you, when all along - unless something has changed drastically that you haven't told me about - you're in a more of a position to be getting away from a job in the employ of a d******* than so many other people - you don't have a spouse or any dependants and practically zero, if any, debt



and I loved this one

Its up to you to suggest where the rest of that difference is. You can't. What's your response going to be ? No you are ?

you pluck arbitrary numbers out of your ass and then round it off by saying that you 'guess it must be something that supports your position'. it's not up to me at all, you're the one making the claim. all I did was express that I disagreed with you

Security is worth something. Take that away there has to be more money. In other words it is a "right" if you aren't going to up the pay to match the lack of security. And why is that a right ? ... Why do I not have the right to shoot you ? ... because our society says so.

all you're doing is saying it's so because you say so. you still haven't even defined job security, let alone explained why you believe it's a right. I'd also love to know why you try to compare the right to life with the right to hold a position of employ. Another thing that's way off topic but still interesting to me is why you think it's because society says so that you don't have the right to shoot me.

Numbers weren't arbitary, they are reality.

And I am sorry if I have a work ethic, and a s*** boss.


And there is no difference between a right to life and a right to fair teatment at work.. society determines those rights

what you are in fact suggesting is that people need protecting from themselves. in a free society people should be able to live and learn from their mistakes.

You mean like laws to protect oneself from things like speeding and causing accidents that may kill themselves and heaven forbid even others. You mean laws like drink driving to protect themselves and heaven forbid others. Gee, what a sily notion these things called laws that protect oneself and even others. Yep let them make these mistakes and learn from it. They'll learn that resurrection is a lie.

Oh and lets forget about human rights, nobody should have those to protect themselves with. As long as they learn kungfu, buy a sub machine gun everything is A-Okay.

You are such a bleedin knob.

anyone who knows my views on things knows i am extremely distrustful of authority. look how drunk the construction unions get on their (illegitimate) authority over worksites.

Then you should distrust other Unions like ACCI, BCA, AIG, SBA cause that's all they are or in your world it's okay for Employers to have their unions lobbying government on their behalf, help determine policy on their behalf and collude on determining employment conditions for industries.

Funny how you rant about employee groups representing their members self-interest but not at the other end of the scale for business. Hypocritical.

Forget about rebutting with Union Hack too. Never been in one, so you'll have to luck out on that one.

another example of the union movement's growing irrelevance and the need for our modern economy to modernise the workplace laws too.

That's right Peter Hendy.

that doesn't answer my question though, even more so since I'm not even talking about unfair dismissal, let alone even attempting to define 'unfair'

You really are dumber than I thought and quite selective in your rebuttals. Unfair is being dismissed cause someone in HR doesn't like you. Unfair is getting dismissed and not getting severance pay or any notice. Unfair is getting sacked cause you're a woman who just got pregnant. Unfair is being sacked cause you don't want to work Xmas day.

It's not a given at all, and whether you consider something a given or not is beside the point.

Of course it's a given and relevant.

Additionally, "due to no job security, no holiday pay, no overtime, no sick leave" is considerably different to "Contractor's get paid more for a lack of security"

I never stated it was just job security, someone else did. I'm just explaining what other reasons why.

Another thing you're glossing over which is actually the primary reason a contractor typically gets more money is the sheer overhead, responsibility and liability of being a contractor.

I never glossed over them Jim, just like you not mentioning no holiday pay, sick leave etc. I was replying to the inference form infi about contractors don't forfiet anything for higher pay.

Besides let's go with your point. Of course there is overheads, but at the end of the day no one goes on contract to earn nett pay less than being employed. No one. To imply people do is sheer bulls***. People go on contract on the whole to earn a higher nett pay. TO earn that higher pay they take responsibility for themselves, the liabilities of insecurity and insolvency and the overheads for providing for their own tools, payment of their own taxes, and their own accountancy fees, insurance, sueprannuation and more. But to say that at the end of the day they take on all this extra for no nett gain in remuneration is absolute poppycock and you f***en know it.

I have never contracted at any time in my career to earn less nett or the same as someone on a payroll as an employee and don't f***en say you have, cause that would be utter bulls***. You also forget there are benefits to being on contract such as a huge array of tax deductions available for everything from your car, your clothes, your office, your computers, your stationary, your travel, everything you use to conduct your business and if you can't see that as a distinct advantage then your're the simpleton. You know that when you talk to your accountant he has a myriad of ways to ensure you end up with more money in the pocket than an employee in the exact same role and if you weren't your accountant would be the first to tell you you're a f***head and go get a job as an employee. If not then you need a bloody new accountant. This is all taking into account non-payment for holidays, sick leave and other conditions and the risk of no work between contracts.

Lastly, when on contract you have more opportunity to charge for every hour you work and very few hours unbilled. If you are a contractor working huge unbilled hours then you shouldn't be a contractor cause you're a tool. Add to this the ability to take on more than one contract at a time thus have more earning capcity with also the ability to sub-contract and earn from the outsourced labour than you can certainly make more success out of that than just being an employee. Don't tell me that subcontracting due to the extra workload, liability and s*** isn't a way to earn more either, cause if it wasn't then you wouldn't be using subcontractors, it's as simple as that.

Oh, 'only' their contract? I'll take that and being a contractor anyday over being some gimp who desperately clings to unrealistic and unpractical laws to keep a job

There you go showing your true colours, contempt for people not like you. What a knob.

in fact that's exactly what I did choose back in the late 80's and have continued to do since whether I was an employer or not

Wow you sarted contracting when you were 17 or younger, cause the 80's finished over 17 years ago and you're what 33/34 now? Yeah sure Jim, pull the other leg? In those days you would have been the boil on the butt of the IT industry if you were even in it and it was nothing like it is now. Professionalism was a fact not a figment of people's imagination like it is today and you wouldn't of been one by that stage, just on a learner's permit.

there's that unfair word again!

There's that lack of substance again! You continually harass people to further explain, further justify things like "the term unfair" and "their views", "their facts", when you donpt even have the courtesy to do the same. You can't even give us what your definition of unfair/fair is, nor any real substantial arguments other than low-grade doublespeak with attempted wit wrapped around it. I'm bored with you already.

How about these interest rates heh?

do you have something to substantiate the numbers obes? even more importantly, are they numbers that reflect the average situation and not some uncommon niche?

what's a work ethic have to do with it? having a work ethic doesn't mean you have to cop unreasonable requests does it? you should apologise to yourself, not to me

and the right to live is nothing like the right to 'job security' - possibly having a common factor doesn't make them the same



some fat bastard:

You really are dumber than I thought and quite selective in your rebuttals. Unfair is being dismissed cause someone in HR doesn't like you. Unfair is getting dismissed and not getting severance pay or any notice. Unfair is getting sacked cause you're a woman who just got pregnant. Unfair is being sacked cause you don't want to work Xmas day.

it's ironic that you're calling me dumb when you completely fail to grasp the flow of a simple conversation. What part of:

that doesn't answer my question though, even more so since I'm not even talking about unfair dismissal, let alone even attempting to define 'unfair'

_don't_ you understand? How was that even a rebuttal, let alone a selective one?

I never glossed over them Jim, just like you not mentioning no holiday pay, sick leave etc.

what?! why would I mention them? I came back to the thread and directly under obes/hogfather's post was infi's making that exact point. it's you guys, or at least obes/hogfather who provided 'lack of job security' as the sole reason a contractor typically earns more money

Besides let's go with your point. Of course there is overheads, but at the end of the day no one goes on contract to earn nett pay less than being employed. No one. To imply people do is sheer bulls***. People go on contract on the whole to earn a higher nett pay. TO earn that higher pay they take responsibility for themselves, the liabilities of insecurity and insolvency and the overheads for providing for their own tools, payment of their own taxes, and their own accountancy fees, insurance, sueprannuation and more. But to say that at the end of the day they take on all this extra for no nett gain in remuneration is absolute poppycock and you f***en know it.

heh how do you think that is that even a logical response to what I've said?

There you go showing your true colours, contempt for people not like you. What a knob.

wow, cos I made an unobjective categorisation as a small part of my response. and wow, big surpise! like I haven't been around qgl since it was a mailing list before a forum, showing my true colours. besides, practically every post you make is brimming with contempt for the person you're addressing, not to mention petty name-calling. I wonder how you rationalise that.

Wow you sarted contracting when you were 17 or younger, cause the 80's finished over 17 years ago and you're what 33/34 now?

I started a carpentry apprenticeship when I was 16 in 1988, moved on from that to plastering on subcontract a few months later, then contract directly to builders/developers as a small business. So... yes I was close to 17, maybe actually 18 when I began contracting, as I said, in the late 80's.
But by all means, languish in the shadow of your glory days of early IT stardom and continue to show your obvious professionalism each time you post, no matter how bored you claim to be!

You continually harass people to further explain, further justify things like "the term unfair" and "their views", "their facts",

isn't asking for substantiation a reasonable response when someone makes statements saying I'm wrong, throwing around subjective and arbitrary words like 'unfair' and quoting figures without source as a means of dismissing my point of view? besides, all I did was ask a genuine question, and after that, tell obes I disagreed with him, and why. it's almost like you don't actually know what harass means

Jim ... you fail to do what you ask of others ... (and you are so arogant that you can't see it)

As for proof ... ask any nurse. Is it a niche ? I doubt it, but possibly. I know I'd get more doing contract work. If the exact percentages vary from field to field it in no way change the underlying point. But you don't want to see that. So lets just all pretend you're right jim and you can go back to one liners.

There is no point arguing it. I wish you luck trying to explain your beliefs on this issue when your children when they enter the labour market and get fired because they get a year older (means a slightly higher wage, its enough to fire or not hire) or when they get asked to sign an awa wiping everything with out you present.

And remember you need the garbo to collect that rubish bin, you need that guy to make your roads, you need that teacher to teach the next generation.

I'm not sitting here saying postulating that something like 'job security' is a basic human right (quite a call!) like you - I'm simply asking you why you think it is, and saying that I don't agree with your responses. I can only conclude that you are saying that about me because it's the only response you can make. It's all very well to say "you do this and that and are arrogant, there's no point arguing it" - but how the dongs do you think it feels from my side? take a look in the mirror obes


As for my kids... I've already explained my feelings on these and other topics to them, why would I wait? Both of them have already entered the labour market prepared to meet employers or anyone, anywhere, who will try and put one over them. I'm sure they'll try and deal with it as best they can - they'll certainly get more from me than being urged to cry to be spoonfed their entire lives.


Thanks for the reminder about the garbo *boggle*

there is generally higher unemployment and inflation under labor g'ments

god I am so sick of hearing this.

we don't live in the same economy as we used to anymore. people are 'lucky' to get contract work now - let alone part time or casual work if you are of mature age. this actually makes up the bulk of the current Aussie 'liberal' workforce.

for those of you who actually bothered to do management at a tertiary level.. did you not read the books by Alvin Toffler? He spelt out the demise of capitalism as we know in plain black and white a good 30 years ago.

and here we are - arguing amongst ourselves, splitting hairs, instead of looking at the bigger picture.

personally, I'd like to see someone rock up to the US presidential debate and openly say "I'm not gonna tow the company line like the guys behind me want me too" instead of doing what I believe is right and unproffitable.

At least here in Aus they have a political party where people do that. They aren't about to become the leader of the pack (PM), and it's because we're all afraid to really put our vote where we know it needs to go to.

Jim ... you fail to do what you ask of others ... (and you are so arogant that you can't see it)

you two d*******s are all that is left of the soul of Qgl.. well - you two and Typo... everyone else is gone now. keep up the good work. this didn't work without you guys.. doya see where it's going? :/

last edited by koopz at 00:29:05 11/Aug/07

be careful.. the last 5 years of economic mismanagement will be a disaster for investments..

my current tip

buy government bonds

guys guys, can't we all just be friends?

Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
entry into force 3 January 1976
(Australia is a signatory)
Part 3
Article 7

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work which ensure, in particular:

(a) Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with:

(i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work;

(ii) A decent living for themselves and their families in accordance with the provisions of the present Covenant;
(b) Safe and healthy working conditions;

(c) Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his employment to an appropriate higher level, subject to no considerations other than those of seniority and competence;

(d ) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public holidays

Seems even law makers (laywers and pollies) use the word fair. "whats fair mean ?" ... fair means fair.

And you boggle cos you don't seem to realize .. not everyone has an option to be on a contract, or is sure what their conditions are worth when they trade them away on an AWA. And while you may want them to be screwwed over for every cent and every condition. I'd rather they get treated properly.

Changing jobs all the time because job security has been deemed meaningless would be s***

i like job security

if you dont your gay

the end

I'm simply asking you why you think it is,

that's the point exactly. why should one segment of the economy be guaranteed so many benefits when no other segments enjoy it?

it's this sickening entitlement mentality of unionised workforces which is so poisonous to our prosperity. everyone should be at risk. we all profit more as a result.

infi is gay.

that's the point exactly. why should one segment of the economy be guaranteed so many benefits when no other segments enjoy it?

You mean those segments that get multi-million dollar golden parachutes when they fail to perform, meet targets or not increase their productivity? Yes, for once I agree with you infi, why should they enjoy such benefits when other segments of the economy aren't guaranteed benefits of any kind relative to these (make sure you understand why I used the term relative). Bit like politicians too with life long entitlements after we the public sack them for non-performance at election time. Bit like Trujillo getting a 30% pay increase for a 5% increase in profit. Yep, agree with you 100% they don't deserve these benefits and if we removed them a lot more would prosper.

it's this sickening entitlement mentality of unionised workforces which is so poisonous to our prosperity.

Yep I agree with you 100%. Why should a union representing 1% have any entitlement to directing Industrial Policy. Can I get you to write to Peter Hendy of the ACCI and tell him how you feel about his unrepresentative union. I mean to say a Union representation of 1% compared to the ACTU representation of 20% should have no say at all.

everyone should be at risk.

Gee we're on a roll of agreement here. I too believe the people I stated in the first part of my post should be at exactly the same risk as everybody else with the same lack of entitlement and security (like no golden parachutes, if they fail, get the sack and get nothing). I'm with you on that one.

we all profit more as a result.

Agree 100% we'd all profit.

Now if only we could get those 13 executives (workers remember, not owners) to hand back some of the $184million for losing money on behalf of their customers due to the SubPrime collapse in the USA that they're so exposed to and which they used their customers money to do so. That sure is failure to perform on these customers behalf. Just think we'd all prosper from such.

I wonder if we can get back that $10million from Jodie Rich over his failed performance and lack of producivity in the Onetel thingo. Wasn't just Packer and Murdoch who lost on that one.

I'm all with you infi. Count me in.

last edited by Some Fat Bastard at 18:44:35 11/Aug/07

hey guys count me in aswell i'm down.

no arguments from me in respect of any of those comments. i have no soft spot for overpaid execs either.

no arguments from me in respect of any of those comments. i have no soft spot for overpaid execs either.

I'm glad we could find some common ground.

A friend, female, had a Dick Bong that she bought in Bali - big shiny black ceramic f***er. Used to put the fear into me after a few cones.

I was a big fan of the double chamber glass bong, filled with chilled water, but wasn't averse to the odd bucket or two with close friends.

Tea, a friend of mine in Melbourne used to grow the stuff in his house - heads as big as Sherrins - so the odd puff was never a problem to source.

All the angst and bad vibes from this thread is adding to climate change.

and the flue.