[evilgenius]

I was interested to see that the world's richest woman, an Australian mining magnate, recently spewed about how the workers in the West have got to come to terms with lower wages or become so uncompetitive as to lose out. At the same time South Africa, part of the continent she praised for its low wages, is consumed by an expanding industrial action amongst its miners for more money. It seems that even with double wages they wouldn't even come close to base pay in the West and they don't like that. These low wages have contributed to South Africa having perhaps the greatest discrepancy between rich and poor in the world. This doesn't say very much for the transparency of the opinions held by the world's richest woman. My bet is that she would love for the West to go farther toward South Africa style wage discrepancy than away from it.

In the end attitudes like this by the rich seem short-sighted to me. Sure they produce greater wealth amongst the successful because of relative changes, if nothing else, but they don't bode well for any kind of long term sustainability concerning a rich person's revenue stream. Maybe this is a reflection of how much the rich are actually quite lucky, having started with a pile or having found themselves in a greatly advantageous position to begin with rather than working a fixture of probabilities and discovering opportunity? Maybe, in this way, they are like people who invest for short term gain and have nothing but bad things to say about dividends and other kinds of more steadily returning aspects of investment? Maybe, having really been actually quite lucky, they just try to drain what they have working for them of every last drop before it goes away completely? Maybe they are far less expert at wealth and much more lucky than even the most ardent social critic might think? I can hear you saying, nah. Ok, but think about it. The balance that society holds these people in may be a little off, producing a little more confidence in them than they deserve.

That being said, what does this mean when it comes to the first world? Real wages amongst the working people have been drifting down in places like the US since the 70's. Meanwhile, what the capitalists claim for themselves, and probably more importantly the pseudo-capitalist managers, has been going nowhere but up. The crisis of the most recent crash in housing was what? Wasn't it a result of people borrowing? Hmmm, borrowing in order to make up the difference between what they actually made and what they perceived they needed to make in order to live the life they could see transpiring all about them. The habit of turning to borrowing rather than agitating for an increase in wages was a gentle way to get along with the status quo as long as it lasted, wasn't it? Now look where it has gotten us. There is scarcely a person in a regular working position that can say they wouldn't take a pay cut in order to preserve their job right now. The working class has reached a real ebb in its power to speak for itself too, organized workplaces are very small in number compared to all of the shops where every worker essentially goes it alone. All of this has happened and, I bet you, still the majority of workers look upon unions with an attitude of disdain and a fear that they will take too much of their wages in dues.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'M')arx was correct. Overpopulation on a finite planet will turn us all into beggars.

[SeaGypsy]

Gina recently got a deal with the government to fly in up to 29,000 foreign workers for a big project in WA needing up to 80,000 workers over 10 years. The same person refuses to employ Australians with less than 2 years specific mining experience.

[seenmostofit]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('evilgenius', ' ')The working class has reached a real ebb in its power to speak for itself too, organized workplaces are very small in number compared to all of the shops where every worker essentially goes it alone. All of this has happened and, I bet you, still the majority of workers look upon unions with an attitude of disdain and a fear that they will take too much of their wages in dues.

[SeaGypsy]

That's what migration's for isn't it?

[evilgenius]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seenmostofit', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('evilgenius', ' ')The working class has reached a real ebb in its power to speak for itself too, organized workplaces are very small in number compared to all of the shops where every worker essentially goes it alone. All of this has happened and, I bet you, still the majority of workers look upon unions with an attitude of disdain and a fear that they will take too much of their wages in dues.

[evilgenius]

Here's a link to a real life story that is dealing with this, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/14/amanda_palmer_play_for_beer/. It's not about mining, but it does have to do with paying those that capital needs working for it in order to accomplish what it wants. Plus it's funny.

[Outcast_Searcher]

It would be nice if EVERYBODY, and I mean rich, poor, irresponsible and think they're poor (self-inflicted poor), politicians, lawyers, etc. would ALL be willing (net) "accept less money" via:

A). Compromise a bit.
B). Pay a little more in taxes
C). Give a little something up (for the truly very badly off, this could be an exception if society agreed on that).

If we could just do THAT -- we in the first world might be able to dig out of the financial nightmare in, say, a generation of hard work.

So, again, since there are NO adults in the room (politicians, or the whiny populace (of all flavors including me) which elects them, I think we need to:

a). Cut ALL programs to some extent.
b). Raise ALL individual taxes to some extent.
c). Gradually repeat A and B until we actually have a meaningful budget SURPLUS, and can eventually pay off our debts.

.....

Now I know: depending on which economic pundit you listen to this would "be too hard" on some group, "cause disincentives", "be cruel and mean and heartless", "be 'unfair':, etc). And I know since almost NO one wants to look out for anyone outside THEIR interests (family, etc), that this will NEVER EVER be accepted. We'll all ride off the cliff screaming hatred and stupidity at each other first.

I just wanted to point out that if EVERYONE would adjust somewhat and we collectively agreed to live within our means (whatever sacrifices, including having lots less kids in the future), that it would at least be a noble and reasonably intelligent try.

(And BTW, this doesn't mean we couldn't have more of SOME things. We would just need to actually prioritize and be willing to choose (preferably wisely), and forego some things. Again, I know, this has less chance than a snowball surviving a billion years in Hell).

(And FWIW, I do the equivalent of this in my own life by practicing what I preach, via private decisions about lifestyle, helping people, charitable giving, etc. So I'm not just saying "hey - 'you all' should behave like THAT while I do the opposite").

I'll shut up now as humans definitely do NOT generally resemble Vulcans in discipline or logic!

[FarQ3]

Evil,

That same Australian mining magnate also explained that Australian workers should work longer hours for less money to attain personal wealth .... I'm still trying to figure the logic in that idea, perhaps she was really refering to the enhancement of her own personal wealth? ,maybe we should all take turns at sucking her toes for her? or maybe giving her a back scrub .... Well, her daddy did refer to her as a baby elephant!

[chris89]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', 'I')t would be nice if EVERYBODY, and I mean rich, poor, irresponsible and think they're poor (self-inflicted poor), politicians, lawyers, etc. would ALL be willing (net) "accept less money"

[evilgenius]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('chris89', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', 'I')t would be nice if EVERYBODY, and I mean rich, poor, irresponsible and think they're poor (self-inflicted poor), politicians, lawyers, etc. would ALL be willing (net) "accept less money"

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('evilgenius', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('chris89', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', 'I')t would be nice if EVERYBODY, and I mean rich, poor, irresponsible and think they're poor (self-inflicted poor), politicians, lawyers, etc. would ALL be willing (net) "accept less money"

[FarQ3]

OS,

I can definatey see where you are coming from and your argument has a large degree of merit. Consider however that the 'poverty line' income level in for what size family? or is it meant as a per capita income level? Also the laptop and mobile phones many have these days are in fact very cheap items and 'essential' as in you need to have them for gaining employment and also how many 'public phone boxes' are around these days. Also 'expensive' to run cars are cheaper to purchase up front so people on low incomes tend to have large uneconomical cars.

I was bought up in a low income neighbourhood where the families are similar to the one mentioned by OS in the 'Working Poor' show. Many (not most) of the parents have health OR mental OR addiction problems and if government subsidies were cut they and their children would go hungry, that is unless they could gain further income via criminal activity. Sadly in a some cases parents care more about their addictions than they care about their children.

It is probably cheaper to try support families so that their children have some (albeit small) chance at a better life than to build and staff institutions for more criminals and parentless children. When there is less oportunity it is the less educated and their children that suffer the most. We could just let the children starve I suppose and shoot them whenever they break the law sufficiently.

I was lucky, my dad had a well paying job that allowed my mother to stay at home and rear us. How many parents get that nowadays?

[vision-master]

Poor ppl and addictions? What's next, hookers in the private suites at the football game, don't you feel small, it happens to us all

[chris89]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', '
')Well, it would be nice if we could actually have some balance and honesty in the discussion. Acting like there will be a meaningful number of people who would DIE if a little were taken from some programs

[SeaGypsy]

I applaud OS' openness to socialised medicine & call for balance/ rationalised debate.

Paradoxically much of what is being done/ not being done to improve the situation is in the defence of middle class asset value; ie. the real estate and stock markets. There are a swathe of wasteful government spends in all first world countries based on nothing much more than maintaining the wage status quo in fear of RE/ banking collapse. There are reams of papers to wade through in order to be allowed to legally trade a carrot for an egg/ stupid laws galore, anti productive, anti local, anti competitive, pro mega business, anti the ordinary family. A crazy situation with no end in sight.

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('chris89', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', '
')Well, it would be nice if we could actually have some balance and honesty in the discussion. Acting like there will be a meaningful number of people who would DIE if a little were taken from some programs

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', '
')So the two sides are MILES apart and show NO sign of any willingness to work toward ANY kind of compromise whatsoever. And this general trend has been going on for at least as long as the "war on poverty" in America.