GarryP

Not really.

You are thinking of tinkering around the edges - 1-2% here or there.

The size and scale of the issue is much bigger than that, tinkering goes along with the idea of 'soft landing' - and the reality is anything large enough count and make a difference doesn't result in a soft landing for an inflated marketplace.

And it is a federal issue, since if one state actually addresses those strategic structural issues, but the others don't, then all that happens is they take the pain and the money flows to the states that haven't acted. It has to be done across the entire country at the same time - eg at the federal level. For a start, if you actually address the negative gearing rort, that's a federal issue.

Amazulu

If we are going to continue to prosper and grow into the future, some workers rights and benefits are going to be have to cut - our workforce is one of the most pampered in the western world

It will happen orderly and progressively or it will happen suddenly and dramatically - depended on the colour of the government

Economics 101

Amazulu

But it all started as a 1st year electrician apprentice at David Brown Gear Industries in Benoni, South Africa in the early '80s.........

old.sparkles

It is possible but I would have to see it to believe it. The government is already looking at cutting corporate tax rates and that would achieve the same results as you are suggesting without affecting low income earners.

old.sparkles

I didn't because to the point raised I didn't see the relevance of including it. The point was that a union was rallying behind another group of workers which will be affected by changing penalty rates and that it was none of their business. No need to bring a discussion on union corruption into that topic.

However, I think everyone would agree that corruption is never a good thing be it conducted by trade unions, businesses, or governments. Corruption should be high lighted in all its forms, not only those of the trade unions.

Beoz

You have it totally incorrect I am afraid.

You think that the housing affordability and supply and demand is the same right across Australia. Its not. There's your first error.

On top of that, anything but a soft landing will destroy the economy. Its that what you really want? You probably do. You probably want destruction of the Australian economy for 2 reasons.

1. You would take great pleasure in watching the Liberal government suffer.
2. You work in government sheltered from economic forces, protected by unions for your own selfish needs.

Your second mistake

As far as NG goes, it is a rort, and it rewards investors for making bad investments, but ask yourself this, why was it implemented in the first place? To support the construction industry. Its one of the core reasons why construction is up there as one of the major employers of people in Australia.

Take it away now and we are all screwed. Especially those locations around Australia where markets are not as boyant as places like Melbourne and Sydney. And with the apartment over supply about to crush Brisbane ..... well nice work Shorten tinkering with that.

Its typically short sighted and dumb arse from left wingers again.

Its a state problem, the states have the tools to tinker with housing affordability to suit their own regional needs.

Beoz

Not really. Both are designed to increase transactions and subsequent taxation yield. The by product of both is more jobs which equals more choice for workers. More choice and more competition for workers equals higher salaries.

ozzieeagle

Yehp keeping my eye on the ball with this one.... Not being distracted by any step overs.


Besides for every case of Union Corruption you'll find 50 cases of Business corruption.

GarryP

Sigh.

Once again - failure to take a real strategic view, coupled with insults when you can't substantiate your position.

old.sparkles

But if you cut peoples incomes, they will need to work more hours, more jobs, etc than before and still possibly cut spending which leads to fewer people in the work force not more.

A company currently operating on Sundays / public holidays knows how many people they can work with. Why would decreasing the pay of the workers lead them to employ more people? Yes they can now afford to employ more, but if the business has operated effectively with a set number of employees, why raise that number?

As for businesses not currently operating during those times, I will wait to see as this would be the only hope for increased jobs I think. But as said above, if those workers are having pay cuts, they may take any new jobs created, already having the required experience so no net new jobs would be created, and people would end up working more hours for the same pay, and possibly spending more earning it (travel to work for example)

Beoz

Its not about existing businesses employing more staff. Its about more business opening on a Sunday. Hospitality and retail is a weekend thing, not a weekday thing.

Beoz

It was substantiated. I can't help it if you use 'sigh' and a narrow minded, unionised, "attack the centralists" mentality to justify stupity. You came up with zero plan. Try that before you attack the federdal government with nothing but hatred and hot air.

old.sparkles

Really???

I guess they are all running at a loss during the week then when pay is at it's lowest anyway, and I am clearly shopping, eating out, etc at the wrong times.

Beoz

What? You disagree that Westfield and your local boozer see its busiest times at a weekend?

Why would you want the measly pickings of a pensioner on a Monday when you can have the substantial pickings everyone else on a weekend?

Beoz

Ok. So tell me how the Victorian governments plan is strategic? Tell me how the WA governments plan is not.