|
Kurtofan posted:did you know that Australia had a president now Truly an unpresidented occasion in world diplomacy.
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 10:04 |
|
|
open24hours posted:Offshoring is essentially the same thing as importing, but you're importing labour instead of goods. All protectionism does is protect the rent seeking factory owner/employer from competition and make goods more expensive for the consumer. Mmm. The complexity of "find something else to do" is what is hurting more these days than it used to, because the viability of industries that used to rely on a high degree of localisation is no longer there. People know that "in the past" you could rely on your local area needing a basic level of human staffing, whereas now because of IT and automation a lot of that can be done remotely with far less people. The supports have been removed or weakened, and the steps required to get back to work are much higher and longer (move, train, skill up, get healthy, etc)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
open24hours posted:Which really highlights the importance of investing in skills that enable people to move around as necessary. Shame all we get is grade one phonics tests. But even then, in the minds of many they shouldn't need to move around just to find employment. Having to skill up is one thing, forcing your family to relocate just to survive is another, and getting more necessary over time. That pisses people off when they try to put down roots.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
open24hours posted:When I said move around I meant moving between industries, but I take your point. I'm not sure what can be done other than making the move as painless as possible. As society's demands change some places will become more viable and others less so. I'm note sure there's a way around that, or if there was that it would be a good idea to implement it. Its a shame but the NBN would have gone a long way to solve it, mostly by making industries that rely on human labour but not physical presence able to move to wherever in Australia is cheapest. Tasmania has a substantial amount of public department work in part because it is
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
hooman posted:What stops this from moving overseas? Depends on the industry, and the type of labour. If its just information processing, then nothing (think purely online delivery of a service). If its involving something that requires actual physical logistics (manufacturing or agriculture) then its a little moe resistant to pure offshoring. Just the same, if it requires local knowledge or a local accent (call centres anybody?) then all the same. The US had the same problem ever since the late seventies. They used to have a system of laws that flattened out many of the factors of production so that it made business as cheap or expensive in Wyoming as it did in New York or San Fransisco. Usually they revolved around grants or restrictive trade practises on things like the banks (local branches, restrictions on consolidation) and transport infrastructure (railways and air freight costs equal no matter where it was going) These got rolled back over the last forty years and look what happened, the economic opportunity shifted to areas of mass concentration, at the expense of regional areas. Hence Trump (who doesn't understand either this problem or any of the viable solutions). Same with Bernardi, I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
Anidav posted:On Thursday One Nation disendorsed a candidate for the Queensland state election for not paying a $2,400 upfront fee to cover, in part, campaign materials. This has happened before and its because whoever the candidate was probably refused to pay the money to use James Ashby's personal printing press or whatever the hell he has. The former party treasurer made the accusations in december.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2017 10:55
|
|
|
adamantium|wang posted:These cowardly fucks irl mad right now
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
I'm not too worried about the CEFC rule changing stuff. Ultimately their finance justification for projects comes down to how much the project costs versus the returns, a run of the mill business case. With the way renewables are going right now, the only projects put up to the CEFC that will be financially viable will be solar and wind installations. Clean coal just doesn't provide enough clean energy for the price per kilowatt hour in comparison, especially if there's no carbon price underpinning the modelling.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:Wow, that certainly feeds into the perception that corporate Australia, outside the Minerals Council have pretty much decided they can't trust this lot to mind a pram for 5 minutes let alone provide certainty around low-carbon transitions. Its not even that they cant trust the LNP, its more that the political position of each party is becoming irrelevant to the climate change debate, because regardless of whether there is a law or court precedent or whatever, board governance has to operate on the assumption that there is otherwise they can expose themselves to a whole lot of poo poo. Directors of most public facing companies and NFPs are generally required to have something called Directors insurance, which is a product that pays out in the event that a director is found personally liable for the actions of an organisation. If the insurers wont insure the directors unless they have climate change policies and actions at the board level no idiot in their right mind would take the job in the first place unless its their company.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 12:20
|
|
|
Doctor Whom
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 11:08
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Man kicked out of gay club Cory Bernardo rubs his hands with glee.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
The only way a reduction of penalty rates could be classed as a gift is if it were coupled with a significant increase in the base rate of pay in those same awards. Anything else is just pure horse poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
Cartoon posted:No. Taking something away is never a loving gift. Give/Take are loving opposites. This is where we have gotten to in the post factual world. Black is the new white. If the penalty rate is 200%, and the base is 15$, then if the penalty is reduced to 150% and the base goes up to 20$, there's no reduction, correct?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
Cartoon posted:At best you are balancing/redistributing/rationalising. It strains the English language beyond what it can take to suggest that reducing a penalty rate is giving anybody anything. Also your example (although obviously deliberately simple) in no way reflects the actual deals being talked about as 'gifts' The base rate generally didn't go up at all and other provisions were I'm not really trying to use her language, because it's poo poo language obviously. I've just been wondering about the stupidity behind the decision since it got handed down. The only possible way this thing could have been beneficial is if the reduction in penalty rate came with a massive increase in the base rate. It didn't, so it isn't.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
From what I remember about the SDA negotiated EBA with Coles & others was that it was found to be invalid because the agreement left Sunday workers worse off overall, which violated the policy of Fair Work (the law? idk). So now they need to negotiate a new one and in the meantime Fair Work has gifted them a lower bar to cross in order to do so.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 10:04 |
|
|
Solemn Sloth posted:Why the gently caress is she crying, her pay sure as gently caress hasn't been cut Because being mostly illiterate in economics and a former (current?) small business owner she believes this is a good thing overall and that only children and students do these jobs and are affected by the decision, and has been sold the propaganda by the others in the party who know better but don't give a poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2017 07:12
|
|