Comments on Chris Evans “Industry backs our skills plan”, 16/05/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/budgets/industry-backs-our-skills-plan/story-fn8gf1nz-1226056357593
Chris Evans is selectively using opinions to back up his claims.
One does not need Evans' post to know that business has always supported for higher immigration, because higher immigration benefits businesses in two ways:
1. It depresses wages as labour supply increases
2. It increases domestic market demand for goods and services
Of course the bottom line is to increase business profits.
However, if one looks from the welfare of Australians' point of view, the picture can be different. Real wages and productivity may not grow as rapidly with higher immigration. So wouldn't be their welfare and well being, as per capita income is diluted and infrastructure becomes inadequate, such as traffic congestions, worsening housing market.
Further, by increasing labour supply through immigration, government can hide its inadequacy and shortcomings in training and education of our own labour.
So political rhetoric, particularly selective use of opinions by politicians is harmful to our society and our collective welfare.
Showing posts with label Labour. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Labour. Show all posts
2011-05-16
2011-04-04
Policy strategies for increasing labour participation
Comments on Judith Sloan “PM won't get two million more into jobs this way”, 4/04/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/pm-wont-get-two-million-more-into-jobs-this-way/story-fn59niix-1226032907131
There are a number of good policy options that can increase labour participation rates, market flexibility, economic efficiency and people's living standards.
1. The employment income for people over a certain age, say, 60, or 65 should not be taxed at all and should not be counted to affect their other income for tax purpose.
2. The minimum wages should not be allowed to increase more than inflation plus a fraction of economy wide labour productivity increase to make it a safety net but not to decrease market efficiency.
3. People on minimum wages and standard working hours of 7.30 should not be taxed, that is, the minimum tax threshold should be set at least at that level and indexed with the rate of increase in minimum wages.
4. To encourage people to reduce welfare trap and dependence, the welfare withdrawal should ensure that their marginal tax rates don't increase within a sufficient level of income.
5. Welfare benefits should generally not be allowed to exceed people on minimum wages, unless they are seriously medically handicapped.
There are a number of good policy options that can increase labour participation rates, market flexibility, economic efficiency and people's living standards.
1. The employment income for people over a certain age, say, 60, or 65 should not be taxed at all and should not be counted to affect their other income for tax purpose.
2. The minimum wages should not be allowed to increase more than inflation plus a fraction of economy wide labour productivity increase to make it a safety net but not to decrease market efficiency.
3. People on minimum wages and standard working hours of 7.30 should not be taxed, that is, the minimum tax threshold should be set at least at that level and indexed with the rate of increase in minimum wages.
4. To encourage people to reduce welfare trap and dependence, the welfare withdrawal should ensure that their marginal tax rates don't increase within a sufficient level of income.
5. Welfare benefits should generally not be allowed to exceed people on minimum wages, unless they are seriously medically handicapped.
2011-02-24
Get the IR balance truly right
Comments on Peter Reith “With unions flexing muscles, Libs must fight back”, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/with-unions-flexing-muscles-libs-must-fight-back/story-e6frg6zo-1226010964144
Clearly Howard era's Work Choices had its own problems, as reflected in Rudd's historical win of the 2007 election. Equally, there are problems of over corrections with Gillard' new IR laws.
There should be a balance between flexibility, individual agreements, collective agreements, decent conditions and adequate protections, as well as appropriate union roles.
It is pity and regrettable that both major political parties tend to go into one of the two extremes and not be able to get the balance right. The main reasons for that to have been the case include that each party has not tried to govern for the whole nation, but instead they all become a particular special interest group.
The best strategy for them and especially the opposition coalition is to move to the centre and get the balance right and articulate in that way.
The government could also initiatives some self correction to get the balance right to avoid potential coalition attacks.
Clearly Howard era's Work Choices had its own problems, as reflected in Rudd's historical win of the 2007 election. Equally, there are problems of over corrections with Gillard' new IR laws.
There should be a balance between flexibility, individual agreements, collective agreements, decent conditions and adequate protections, as well as appropriate union roles.
It is pity and regrettable that both major political parties tend to go into one of the two extremes and not be able to get the balance right. The main reasons for that to have been the case include that each party has not tried to govern for the whole nation, but instead they all become a particular special interest group.
The best strategy for them and especially the opposition coalition is to move to the centre and get the balance right and articulate in that way.
The government could also initiatives some self correction to get the balance right to avoid potential coalition attacks.
2011-01-18
Labour laws and industrial relations
Comments on Richard Blandy “Labour laws can hurt the weak”, 18/01/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/labour-laws-can-hurt-the-weak/story-e6frg6zo-1225989811394
It would be fair to say that both the efficiency of the labour market and fairness of industrial relations are equally important and neither should be sacrificed.
A key problem with industrial relations is that employers are in much stronger positions over employees and there are significant problems with transparency in employers' decisions to show they are fair.
No industrial system is perfect, although the Gillard reregulation may have gone a bit too far in correcting the previous one.
I think a good industrial relations system should be a balance of the interests of both employers and employees, especially to ensure that the weaker is not exploited by the stronger.
It would be fair to say that both the efficiency of the labour market and fairness of industrial relations are equally important and neither should be sacrificed.
A key problem with industrial relations is that employers are in much stronger positions over employees and there are significant problems with transparency in employers' decisions to show they are fair.
No industrial system is perfect, although the Gillard reregulation may have gone a bit too far in correcting the previous one.
I think a good industrial relations system should be a balance of the interests of both employers and employees, especially to ensure that the weaker is not exploited by the stronger.
2010-12-19
Immigrations must bring benefits to all
Comments on Paul Kelly “All out of options on boatpeople”, 18/12/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/all-out-of-options-on-boatpeople/story-e6frg6zo-1225972956310
I have not read any of the three reports Kelly mentioned. However, it seems that it may not be a bad thing if "the Sustainable Development report chaired by former NSW premier Bob Carr proposes the biggest changes to immigration since its inception", with recommendations "that immigration levels be linked to sustainability indicators such as biodiversity preservation, reductions in urban encroachments, improved water efficiency and better housing affordability and availability."
Rather than using those popular indicators, it could just using a criterion that requires immigration be linked to demonstrable enhancement of the well beings of existing Australian residents.
There should and must be a appropriate balance between businesses that clearly benefit from more immigrations due to increases in both the supply of labour and the expansion of the markets for many things, and the real earnings of existing labour who may or may not necessarily benefit from more immigrations due to the downward pressure of their wages as a result of increased labour supply.
In the past, the government has been too heavily influenced by businesses because they have very strong lobby groups with loud voices backed by money from businesses. On the other hand, residents are not so strong in their presentations to influence government policies. As a result, there have been natural biases in favour of businesses and larger immigrations.
Now the government should recognise this and set up criteria for immigration policies that have an autonomous mechanism to keep a balance between businesses and labour.
This should be the right way for the population minister out on most of the population issues he is faced including immigrations.
It is a different matter for boat arrivals and border protection.
While many people may say that the Howard government's Pacific solution is on the cruel side, it is a fact that it was effective in preventing or significantly reducing boat arrivals to the Australia shores.
On the other hand, Gillard's regional processing centres are unlikely to produce results any time soon.
Maybe the Pacific solution could be an interim means, pending on a better solution if that could be found.
I have not read any of the three reports Kelly mentioned. However, it seems that it may not be a bad thing if "the Sustainable Development report chaired by former NSW premier Bob Carr proposes the biggest changes to immigration since its inception", with recommendations "that immigration levels be linked to sustainability indicators such as biodiversity preservation, reductions in urban encroachments, improved water efficiency and better housing affordability and availability."
Rather than using those popular indicators, it could just using a criterion that requires immigration be linked to demonstrable enhancement of the well beings of existing Australian residents.
There should and must be a appropriate balance between businesses that clearly benefit from more immigrations due to increases in both the supply of labour and the expansion of the markets for many things, and the real earnings of existing labour who may or may not necessarily benefit from more immigrations due to the downward pressure of their wages as a result of increased labour supply.
In the past, the government has been too heavily influenced by businesses because they have very strong lobby groups with loud voices backed by money from businesses. On the other hand, residents are not so strong in their presentations to influence government policies. As a result, there have been natural biases in favour of businesses and larger immigrations.
Now the government should recognise this and set up criteria for immigration policies that have an autonomous mechanism to keep a balance between businesses and labour.
This should be the right way for the population minister out on most of the population issues he is faced including immigrations.
It is a different matter for boat arrivals and border protection.
While many people may say that the Howard government's Pacific solution is on the cruel side, it is a fact that it was effective in preventing or significantly reducing boat arrivals to the Australia shores.
On the other hand, Gillard's regional processing centres are unlikely to produce results any time soon.
Maybe the Pacific solution could be an interim means, pending on a better solution if that could be found.
2010-11-24
What should be important to consider on immigration by government?
Comments on Ross Gittins “Punters well aware of economic case against more immigration”, 24/11/2010, http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/punters-well-aware-of-economic-case-against-more-immigration-20101123-185ij.html?posted=error
This is a good article with a balanced view on the issue of immigration from an economist – it is the per capita wellbeing of the local people/workers/labour that should be the first order issue to be considered by government and policy makers.
Most economists only talk about wage and its impact inflation but ignoring the political economy of impact on local wage earners of immigration and the required extra infrastructure.
Of course, the political economy of higher immigration benefits businesses, due to lower wages resulting from more labour supply.
A side issue is the view of taxation of mobile capital and labour and consumption. Business should be made to contribute to building infrastructure, as opposed to taxing less on capital, with consumption tax that is not too different from taxing labour more heavily in a different guise.
This is a good article with a balanced view on the issue of immigration from an economist – it is the per capita wellbeing of the local people/workers/labour that should be the first order issue to be considered by government and policy makers.
Most economists only talk about wage and its impact inflation but ignoring the political economy of impact on local wage earners of immigration and the required extra infrastructure.
Of course, the political economy of higher immigration benefits businesses, due to lower wages resulting from more labour supply.
A side issue is the view of taxation of mobile capital and labour and consumption. Business should be made to contribute to building infrastructure, as opposed to taxing less on capital, with consumption tax that is not too different from taxing labour more heavily in a different guise.
2010-05-17
Euro’s Greece rupture - what role has labour played?
Comments on David Vines “Greece and the vulnerability of the European Monetary Union”, 16/05/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/05/16/greece-and-the-vulnerability-of-the-european-monetary-union/
The above analysis has obviously some truth. However, it, as with many commentators and economists, relies on rigid of internal members, especially labour rigidity between member countries.
Leaving the conflict between monetary union and fiscal independence of Euro countries aside for the moment, why hasn't labour moved from other members to Germany in response to its higher wages, say flowing from its good fiscal and economic management?
If labour moves in response to higher wage opportunities, the market would have been able to gradually restore relative competitiveness between Euro member countries, at least in the longer run.
Why didn't that work? Because of cultural, language, or whatever reasons?
Understanding these factors may be helpful to the future and to future policy development for Euro.
Perhaps I should add that by labour move between countries I meant to include first of all the unemployed in the slower growing members.
Even by the employed labour, it should create more opportunities for the incumbent local unemployed ones to find jobs, at least easier.
The above analysis has obviously some truth. However, it, as with many commentators and economists, relies on rigid of internal members, especially labour rigidity between member countries.
Leaving the conflict between monetary union and fiscal independence of Euro countries aside for the moment, why hasn't labour moved from other members to Germany in response to its higher wages, say flowing from its good fiscal and economic management?
If labour moves in response to higher wage opportunities, the market would have been able to gradually restore relative competitiveness between Euro member countries, at least in the longer run.
Why didn't that work? Because of cultural, language, or whatever reasons?
Understanding these factors may be helpful to the future and to future policy development for Euro.
Perhaps I should add that by labour move between countries I meant to include first of all the unemployed in the slower growing members.
Even by the employed labour, it should create more opportunities for the incumbent local unemployed ones to find jobs, at least easier.
2010-05-10
Greater strategic framework needed
Comments on Peter McDonald “Demand for workers will outstrip fear about resources”, 10/05/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/demand-for-workers-will-outstrip-fear-about-resources/story-e6frg6zo-1225864239240
With all respect, it seems that Peter McDonald, director of the Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute at the Australian National University, is using nothing more than only partial arguments to support his points. And that is a pity and regrettable in terms of informing the debate and the public.
People know that it is notoriously difficult to forecast the economy, the resource sector particularly when it is driven by overseas demand and labour demand due to the resource sector. In that case the advantages of forecast of labour demand for certainty for population and immigration planning purpose would certainly be overwhelmed by the uncertainty created by any forecasts, no matter how credible and reasonable one might consider they are.
So, the argument for immigration planning based on forecast of resources sector growth is nice in name only and naive and impractical.
However, that does not mean immigration cannot be part of the solution to any labour shortage. Everyone knows that we can vary immigration intake very easily, that is to either increase or decrease as the domestic demand changes.
So the latter solution is much better than what McDonald argues.
The lesson from this is that many studies, while well intended, may fall far short than what are needed to be reliable and credible, because of their narrow focuses, or the limitations of their authors, if not greater strategic framework is considered.
With all respect, it seems that Peter McDonald, director of the Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute at the Australian National University, is using nothing more than only partial arguments to support his points. And that is a pity and regrettable in terms of informing the debate and the public.
People know that it is notoriously difficult to forecast the economy, the resource sector particularly when it is driven by overseas demand and labour demand due to the resource sector. In that case the advantages of forecast of labour demand for certainty for population and immigration planning purpose would certainly be overwhelmed by the uncertainty created by any forecasts, no matter how credible and reasonable one might consider they are.
So, the argument for immigration planning based on forecast of resources sector growth is nice in name only and naive and impractical.
However, that does not mean immigration cannot be part of the solution to any labour shortage. Everyone knows that we can vary immigration intake very easily, that is to either increase or decrease as the domestic demand changes.
So the latter solution is much better than what McDonald argues.
The lesson from this is that many studies, while well intended, may fall far short than what are needed to be reliable and credible, because of their narrow focuses, or the limitations of their authors, if not greater strategic framework is considered.
2010-04-21
Abbott's young dole idea worth further explore
Comments on Andrew Burrell “No more dole, Tony Abbott warns the under-30s”, 21/04/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/no-more-dole-tony-abbott-warns-the-under-30s/story-e6frgczf-1225856154348
It is not a too bad idea, but it can be politically difficult to be a national policy.
However, it could be more realistic to use both sticks and carrots.
That is, to reduce dole payments if an identified person does not have a work and does not move to areas where there is labour shortage, with additional supports and financial incentives to encourage that person to move, or to get a local job.
The idea is worth further considerations. Some sorts of personal obligations are not too unreasonable for able recipients of young dole. But the obligations also need to be reasonable.
It is not a too bad idea, but it can be politically difficult to be a national policy.
However, it could be more realistic to use both sticks and carrots.
That is, to reduce dole payments if an identified person does not have a work and does not move to areas where there is labour shortage, with additional supports and financial incentives to encourage that person to move, or to get a local job.
The idea is worth further considerations. Some sorts of personal obligations are not too unreasonable for able recipients of young dole. But the obligations also need to be reasonable.
2010-03-12
Left and Leftist thinking!
Comments on Nick Dyrenfurth “The battle for the Left”, 12/03/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/the-battle-for-the-left/story-e6frg6zo-1225839752277
It appears that the author confused himself very deeply and in the course also effected confusion for the readers.
He confused The Australian economic fundamentals with Labour's superficial management role - if no recession is proof of good economic management, many current governments in the world are much better economic managers, but are they really? What about the gifts from decades of economic reforms and prudential management by its predecessors? Further, what are the true and unnecessary costs to the budget and government debt?
He confused the already discredited Rudd/Wong ETS with real market based approach - what are those free handouts of the rights to pollute to polluters and inequitable subsidies?
In terms of thinking logic, one has to wonder the author is not an “extreme left” himself!
But certainly some sorts of extremist.
It appears that the author confused himself very deeply and in the course also effected confusion for the readers.
He confused The Australian economic fundamentals with Labour's superficial management role - if no recession is proof of good economic management, many current governments in the world are much better economic managers, but are they really? What about the gifts from decades of economic reforms and prudential management by its predecessors? Further, what are the true and unnecessary costs to the budget and government debt?
He confused the already discredited Rudd/Wong ETS with real market based approach - what are those free handouts of the rights to pollute to polluters and inequitable subsidies?
In terms of thinking logic, one has to wonder the author is not an “extreme left” himself!
But certainly some sorts of extremist.
2009-08-14
An ignorant Aussie polly
Comments on Michael Danby “Let's not appease Beijing”, 14/08/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25925627-5015664,00.html
It is appalling to see an Australian Labor federal politician is so, arrogant, ignorant and biased on prejudice on issues related to China. It is surprising to see a person with such a view of China still exists more than thirty years after 30 years of reforms and opening in China. It seems that Mr Michael Danby has lived in a complete isolated and different world during this period.
It is true that China is a different country with quite a different system. But China has changed enormously compared to what it was more than 30 years ago. Its economy is a market economy. It is not too much different from the Australian one and certainly not too much different from most Western European ones.
Mr Danby says that China is not a normal country. What is his definition of a normal country? Is that definition normal or from a same mind? One would ask. An abnormal person may see normal things as abnormal. That appears to be the case here.
There are differences in economic structure, in the share of public enterprises and in government policies. Can Mr Danby say the Australian economy is the same as the US economy in every aspect? Every adult with a same mind would know that they are different.
Mr Danby said so many things about China, but none of them makes sense. He appears to be on the charge in leading the Rudd government's poor encounter with China, one of the most important bilateral relations to Australia.
It is appalling to see an Australian Labor federal politician is so, arrogant, ignorant and biased on prejudice on issues related to China. It is surprising to see a person with such a view of China still exists more than thirty years after 30 years of reforms and opening in China. It seems that Mr Michael Danby has lived in a complete isolated and different world during this period.
It is true that China is a different country with quite a different system. But China has changed enormously compared to what it was more than 30 years ago. Its economy is a market economy. It is not too much different from the Australian one and certainly not too much different from most Western European ones.
Mr Danby says that China is not a normal country. What is his definition of a normal country? Is that definition normal or from a same mind? One would ask. An abnormal person may see normal things as abnormal. That appears to be the case here.
There are differences in economic structure, in the share of public enterprises and in government policies. Can Mr Danby say the Australian economy is the same as the US economy in every aspect? Every adult with a same mind would know that they are different.
Mr Danby said so many things about China, but none of them makes sense. He appears to be on the charge in leading the Rudd government's poor encounter with China, one of the most important bilateral relations to Australia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
