|
Post by 3onthetree on May 21, 2007 0:41:46 GMT -4
This can all be negated by replacing full time employees with casual workers, in fact most of our illustrious employment figures are based on the fact that an employed person in Australia is anyone over 15 years of age who earns money for work or commission for more than one hour per week. It takes me about an hour to get ready for work by the time I have a triple S and a cup of tea. That means I'm a workaholic. A triple S means **** shower and shave by the way.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on May 21, 2007 0:58:43 GMT -4
Feelfree said: Well it seem that Australia have not really fully experienced the effect of the Globalisation here is why? Australia-China "China and Australia are currently negotiating a bilateral free trade deal. A framework agreement for the potential FTA was signed in October 2003, and talks began in May 2005 after a feasibility study. Australia seeks a comprehensive agreement covering all sectors, while China seeks to limit the deal’s coverage, and to complete negotiations within two years. The sixth round of negotiations took place in June 2006." www.bilaterals.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=97Australia-Japan Australia and Japan expect to launch FTA negotiations in late 2006 or early in 2007. www.bilaterals.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=125Read about some articles about Australian protectora going against the free trade agreement with Thailand www.bilaterals.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=23Exerpts Shrimpers cry foul over new Australia ban 7-December-2006 Thai shrimpers yesterday submitted a letter to protest against Australia’s ban on shrimp imports even before its import risk analysis is completed. Viewing the move as unfair, Thai officials will also discuss the issue at a forum on the Thailand-Australia free trade agreement next week. Thai tuna import tariff to double 7-September-2006 Australia will increase tariffs on canned tuna and canned pineapple from Thailand after the finding that they had exceeded quotas under the Thailand-Australia Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Negative effectsFTA hurting Thai farmers 11-June-2006 A recent study led by Thammasat University academic Rangsan Thanapornpan claims that the Australia-Thailand free trade agreement has benefited only a small group of industrialists, while people in the agricultural sector have been adversely affected.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on May 21, 2007 1:10:17 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on May 21, 2007 1:18:05 GMT -4
What is the average salary the workers have in Australia ? According to www.abs.gov.au, it was Aus$1058 per week late last year. This is an increase of 75% since November 1993. In the same time, the cost of living has increased 41%.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on May 21, 2007 1:33:26 GMT -4
What is the average salary the workers have in Australia ? According to www.abs.gov.au, it was Aus$1058 per week late last year. This is an increase of 75% since November 1993. In the same time, the cost of living has increased 41%. Edited So the net increase in salaries since November 1993 is 34 % (75% -41%) that means it not cover the inflation rate (41%) occuring during that period. What is the lower salary paid for a full time worker in industrie? How much of the Australian population work for low salaries?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on May 21, 2007 1:44:49 GMT -4
Feelfree said:
What I get from that site is an indication that US govt statistics are unreliable. The specific article you linked described money and jobs going from China to the USA. My impression is that this is because of market forces. I saw nothing which suggested it was the decision of some shadowy group of people. If I missed it, could you please specify it?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on May 21, 2007 1:52:48 GMT -4
According to www.abs.gov.au, it was Aus$1058 per week late last year. This is an increase of 75% since November 1993. In the same time, the cost of living has increased 41%. Edited So the net increase in salaries since November 1993 is 34 % (75% -41%) that means it not cover the inflation rate (41%) occuring during that period. What is the lower salary paid for a full time worker in industrie? How much of the Australian population work for low salaries? Pardon? Why do you do the maths like that? Salaries have increased 75% in the time that prices have increased 41%. That means that salaries have increased 34% more than prices. As for the salaries of lower paid workers and how many there are, why don't you find those for yourself? You're the one who's trying to convince us they're going backwards. If you think it's true, prove it.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on May 21, 2007 2:01:11 GMT -4
Feelfree said: What I get from that site is an indication that US govt statistics are unreliable. The specific article you linked described money and jobs going from China to the USA. That is the contrary. Record Trade Deficit Eliminates 8.8 Million U.S. Jobs, 2.3 million Lost to Communist China, 1.4 Million Lost to NAFTA My impression is that this is because of market forces. That is rather the effect of a well prepared plan made by international bankers and industrials which promised large benifits for industrial country. I saw nothing which suggested it was the decision of some shadowy group of people. If I missed it, could you please specify it? These international bankers and industrials are those who make such decision behind close doors. Bilderberg group
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on May 21, 2007 2:07:20 GMT -4
What I get from that site is an indication that US govt statistics are unreliable. The specific article you linked described money and jobs going from China to the USA. That is the contrary. Record Trade Deficit Eliminates 8.8 Million U.S. Jobs, 2.3 million Lost to Communist China, 1.4 Million Lost to NAFTA Sorry, my mistake. You're right. And the evidence for this is what? And the evidence for this is what?
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on May 21, 2007 2:19:20 GMT -4
That is the contrary. Record Trade Deficit Eliminates 8.8 Million U.S. Jobs, 2.3 million Lost to Communist China, 1.4 Million Lost to NAFTA Sorry, my mistake. You're right. And the evidence for this is what? And the evidence for this is what? Bilderberg Group www.crystalinks.com/bilderberg.htmledited I forget to include the Trilateral Commission The “growing interdependence” that so impressed the founders of the Trilateral Commission in the early 1970s is deepening into “globalization.” www.trilateral.org/about.htmwww.4rie.com/rie%205.html
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on May 21, 2007 2:39:11 GMT -4
Edited So the net increase in salaries since November 1993 is 34 % (75% -41%) that means it not cover the inflation rate (41%) occuring during that period. What is the lower salary paid for a full time worker in industrie? How much of the Australian population work for low salaries? Pardon? Why do you do the maths like that? Salaries have increased 75% in the time that prices have increased 41%. That means that salaries have increased 34% more than prices. Yep i made a little mistake .I wanted to point out the net increase was not 75 % but 34% As for the salaries of lower paid workers and how many there are, why don't you find those for yourself? You're the one who's trying to convince us they're going backwards. If you think it's true, prove it. I dont really care. Be prepare because ... as i said earlier « Reply #31, it seem that Australia have not really fully experienced the effect of the Globalisation here is why? Australia-China "China and Australia are currently negotiating a bilateral free trade deal. A framework agreement for the potential FTA was signed in October 2003, and talks began in May 2005 after a feasibility study. Australia seeks a comprehensive agreement covering all sectors, while China seeks to limit the deal’s coverage, and to complete negotiations within two years. The sixth round of negotiations took place in June 2006." www.bilaterals.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=97Australia-Japan Australia and Japan expect to launch FTA negotiations in late 2006 or early in 2007. www.bilaterals.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=125Read some articles about Australian protectora going against the free trade agreement with Thailand www.bilaterals.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=23Exerpts Shrimpers cry foul over new Australia ban 7-December-2006 Thai shrimpers yesterday submitted a letter to protest against Australia’s ban on shrimp imports even before its import risk analysis is completed. Viewing the move as unfair, Thai officials will also discuss the issue at a forum on the Thailand-Australia free trade agreement next week. Thai tuna import tariff to double 7-September-2006 Australia will increase tariffs on canned tuna and canned pineapple from Thailand after the finding that they had exceeded quotas under the Thailand-Australia Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Negative effects FTA hurting Thai farmers 11-June-2006 A recent study led by Thammasat University academic Rangsan Thanapornpan claims that the Australia-Thailand free trade agreement has benefited only a small group of industrialists, while people in the agricultural sector have been adversely affected.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on May 21, 2007 8:11:20 GMT -4
According to www.abs.gov.au, it was Aus$1058 per week late last year. This is an increase of 75% since November 1993. In the same time, the cost of living has increased 41%. Edited So the net increase in salaries since November 1993 is 34 % (75% -41%) that means it not cover the inflation rate (41%) occuring during that period. What is the lower salary paid for a full time worker in industrie? How much of the Australian population work for low salaries? What is that "new math"? The net gain was 34% over inflation, why are you deducting inflation twice? Actually based on the cited statistics the average Australian worker had a 24% increase in their purchasing power (175%/141% = 124%)
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on May 26, 2007 2:04:34 GMT -4
My apologies to peter - I forgot to reply to a question (I put in red, below) he had asked me some weeks ago. A quick recap is needed first. peter said.... Third World countries don’t have the money to develop their own economies. They have only two ways to get money. One is to export food. But they’re often stymied by First World governments subsidising their own farmers. The other is to encourage manufacturers to relocate to their countries where labour is cheap. But people like you, Feelfree, don’t like that because it costs jobs in the USA. So which is it to be? I replied that other options exist... But a big factor is whether or not some of those alternatives can ever be implemented in light of major obstacles, such as external interference. peter replied.... You're right, Turbonium, that I've simplified things. But what sort of external interference are you talking about? An unwillingness of the USA or Europe to import things which might cost jobs (and thus votes) at home? That's quite possible. But I think there are greater factors in play, beyond politicos trying to stay in office. First, to review the two methods you mentioned (on how Third World countries can get the money they need to develop their own economies)......... "One is to export food. But they’re often stymied by First World governments subsidising their own farmers." Very good point. But, (as I'm sure you know), other problems exist. I mentioned "external inteference". A prime example is when the First World countries flood the poor countries with the very same food the Third World countries are trying to export themselves. By exporting food at less than 1/2, even 1/4, the price of locally grown food, Western nations can wipe out any competition from far less advanced producers in the Third World nations. A double whammy of subsidies and trade distortion / imbalance. And once the locals are out of business, the multinationals move in to "offer their services" to these countries. This dovetails into the second method you noted.... "The other is to encourage manufacturers to relocate to their countries where labour is cheap"Money does indeed come in to those Third World nations. But sweatshops owned by Western multinationals don't lead to a prosperous local economy. External interference yet again. This issue goes well beyond these basic points, of course.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on May 29, 2007 12:15:36 GMT -4
Turbonium I have a sneaky suspicion you're trying to contradict me using exactly the same arguments I'm using. I said that Third World countries can try to make money by selling food, but that many First World countries subsidise their famers to undercut the Third World imports. You then spoke of external interference, which you've just described as "...First World countries flood[ing] the poor countries with the very same food the Third World countries are trying to export..." How is this different from the argument I presented? You then said "But sweatshops owned by Western multinationals don't lead to a prosperous local economy." Yes, the wages paid in those factories are low by First World standards, but so is the cost of living. The first point is that money is entering those countries, and the people have income they wouldn't have otherwise. If they didn't have the job in the factory, what would they be doing? The second point is that, at least in Australia, we have close to full employment, and manufacturing jobs lost here mean employees are available for other jobs in search of people to fill them. I'm curious to know - what thoughts do you have on how poverty in Third World countries can be reduced?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on May 31, 2007 3:19:27 GMT -4
Turbonium I have a sneaky suspicion you're trying to contradict me using exactly the same arguments I'm using. Entirely unintentional on my part, as I hope to explain next.... I said that Third World countries can try to make money by selling food, but that many First World countries subsidise their famers to undercut the Third World imports. You then spoke of external interference, which you've just described as "...First World countries flood[ing] the poor countries with the very same food the Third World countries are trying to export..." How is this different from the argument I presented? I assumed you meant First World farmers were subsidized to undercut Third World imports specifically for cheaper locally grown foods, sold domestically (in that First World country) That's why I pointed out the First World exporting the same foods en masse into the Third World. So, you meant the same sort of thing in your example? "External interference" certainly applies to both scenarios, at any rate. You then said "But sweatshops owned by Western multinationals don't lead to a prosperous local economy." Yes, the wages paid in those factories are low by First World standards, but so is the cost of living. The first point is that money is entering those countries, and the people have income they wouldn't have otherwise. If they didn't have the job in the factory, what would they be doing? The second point is that, at least in Australia, we have close to full employment, and manufacturing jobs lost here mean employees are available for other jobs in search of people to fill them. This issue really does have the potential to open a can (maybe a truckload) of worms! I understand your point, though such a reality doesn't mean it's all fine and dandy, in many cases. A laborer in China might earn a dollar a week, and that dollar might buy him/her enough food and shelter to get by for that week. But if the laborer has a family, they might all have to work - even young children. Two parents, both working 24/7, but it's still not enough to feed the kids..... To me, I guess it's really a question of living, and "quality of life". If you are the Chinese laborer, it's possible that you have only two options- either become a work slave, or starve to death. Nothing to live for, just to live. It's not always this extreme, but it's not much better anywhere else in the Third World. It doesn't have to be this way, anywhere around the world. Not so long ago, it was the same way in the First World as it is today in the Third World. Look at our history - Europe, America, Australia - from past centuries. What changed for us, that didn't change for others? I'm curious to know - what thoughts do you have on how poverty in Third World countries can be reduced? It goes to my previous point. How did we reduce our poverty, which was so widescale, just a few centuries ago?
|
|