04-15 4 9081 大卫王
原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译:大卫王 转载请注明出处

A nationalliving wage is on the table. Now let’s talk about a global living wage


原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译:大卫王 转载请注明出处

Graeme Bennett
Thisis just another poorly thought through anti-globalisation piece.
Theauthor mentions factories being moved to another country when wages get toohigh. She neglects to mention why wagesget too high. Globalisation brings jobsfor urban workers, attracts employees because they offer opportunities wherethere were none. It provides betterincomes as a consequence, allowing populations to be skilled up and educatetheir children. New opportunities andnew industries open up. Sweatshop wagesmay no longer be enough, unless there is a continuing population flow to thecities. Low wages attract manufacturersto move on to other jurisdictions. Thatdoes not result in the previous hub falling back to where it was before themanufacturers first came. Or at least itdidn’t in Japan, South Korea, China…… Vietnam has been a beneficiary of such moves. In time their populations will change for thebetter as a result. The author seemsconcerned that Ethiopia might benefit from such movements. Her case would see them condemned to lag theglobal economy forever.
Asfor countries banding together to pursue a common cause I offer you OPEC. Our American friends are in a constant battlefor markets with us for agricultural products. I can’t imagine them preferring our farmers over theirs in pursuit ofthe common good. If they did theEuropeans would be glad to exploit the new opportunities.
IfAustralian consumers went against their nature and paid more to benefit foreignworkers I would be shocked. $1 milkanyone? The foreign manufacturers wouldbe grateful no doubt but the odds of that money filtering down to low-skilled workerswould be very long indeed.


如果澳大利亚的消费者违背他们的本性,花更多的钱让外国工人受益,我会感到震惊。1美元的牛奶吗? 外国制造商无疑会很感激,但这些资金流向低技能工人的可能性确实非常大。


John Geoffrey Mosley
Anotherobvious initiative is to have a maximum wage. This would make it easier to payfor a rise in the minimum wage.


Shelley Marshall回复John GeoffreyMosley
Thanksfor this interesting proposal.


Don Saavedra
Aliving Wage? .. right now in Australia people over 55 but under theirretirement age are asked to volunteer between 2-3 days per week (some only 1day per week) in order to receive a payment of roughly $606.00 per fortnight(singles). And of course, for all theirvolunteering duties they receive the enormous gift of a concession card
Ifyou get injured there is not much insurance cover unless you call a bit ofmoney for a broken bone something else rather than the rip-off it really is;the rest is all covered by Medicare or if costs exceed the Medicare cover thenthey’ll make up the rest, but you must pay first.
Takea couple of days off from volunteering and your payments may get cut off so noHolidays ever again until the day you retire, come in for volunteering late,says 10 minutes and Centerlink gets informed and you may very well lose yourpayments for 12 weeks.
Charitybosses are usually good and understand that one is there of their own free willso they treat volunteers fairly good. But take note, this is not something offered to those one the dole, nosir, it is offered only to those over 55 who come into any employment officeactually looking for work.
Youmight think this is bad but in reality for those who accept the deal it is anincredibly rewarding move, because working for almost nothing and helping thecommunity makes people feel happy, don’t ask me how, it just happens.
Ifully agree the system should be expanded, the oldies love it, or at leastthose who are willing to work, because if you are not seen lending a hand youare soon asked to leave, you must contribute to whatever charity you arevolunteering with or out you go. The only option then is to get a job, there isnothing left if you happen to be a bum looking for an easy life.
Thescheme gives the young ones a chance at full employment because now there areless (and more experienced oldies) looking for work and what with the advent ofrobots and humanity almost ready to lose 50% of all its jobs to them then Ithink overall, even if not perfect ….. it works.
Butit has a hidden danger, if expanded to the young then it has the potential tokeep them on low wages for the rest of their lives while others whose parentsare rich and do not require some sort of welfare payment might be offered allthe other opportunities which will pay them $150,000 Plus … in other words, ifthe system were to be applied to the young then it will wreck the social fabricof our civilization ..
Sorryabout the rant

基本生活工资吗?. .现在在澳大利亚,55岁以上但低于退休年龄的人被要求每周2-3天(有些人每周只有1天)做志愿者,以获得每两周约606.00美元的报酬(单身人士)。在他们所有的志愿工作中,他们都得到了一张巨大的优惠卡作为礼物。



Tony Dickson
Havingwaded through the comments of this well intended, entirely reasonable, butsadly Utopian article, I note only one has even mentioned a range of factors that are fundamental to thesubject.
Onecomment only mentioned as an afterthought the major cause of unemployment sincethe industrial revolution: technology.Technological innovation increases“productivity” which is broadly characterised as positive. In fact the term iscode for replacing people with machines, which is why economic theory isfundamentally underpinned by an ideological commitment to perpetual andcompounding consumption.Current trajectories indicate that by the middle of thecentury, half of current occupations will be replaced by robots.
Unfortunatelywe live on a finite planet. Thus the entire global economy is based on themathematical equation: finite resources divided by infinite demand. Brilliant,what could go wrong?
Ourmost valuable economic asset is the biosphere because it underpins all economicactivity. You can’t by shiny things if you are dead. However, our most valuableasset appears on no balance sheet and its diminution is not costed in anyprofit and loss account, but is rather externalised as an unfunded liability,otherwise known as toxic debt.
Ihave been writing to economists for over forty years, asking for an explanationof this apparent absurdity, but have never received a cogent response. I usuallyconclude with a suggestion that they phone a biologist, because they seem notto be aware that we are rapidly approaching an existential ecological crisis. Current estimates are thatby the middle of the century, a third of species on this planet will beextinct. If this is anywhere near correct, we will be selling our children to buy the groceries. But whatwould I know, I’m just a farmer.
Providinga living wage to the most needy, would ultimately need to be at the expense ofwe who live in relative opulence; bearing in mind that the average Australianconsumes about fifty times that of the average African.
Oh,and then there is the political and legal reality that public corporations arerequired by most legal juridictions to make their primary legal obligation themaximisation of profits for their shareholders. Boards of director can be suedby their shareholders if they waver from this duty. Thus the corporate entitiesthat largely control the world, are required by Law to behave as psychopaths.It is not surprising that such instituions are governed disproportionately byhuman psychopaths. So don’t expect any warm and fuzzies from them, or the governmentsthey control.





Tony Dickson回复Shelley Marshall
Noresponse Shelley? I wrote it for you because I was impressed by yourparticipation in the conversation, which is unusual. Most contributingacademics seem to disdain joining in discussion with the hoi paloi; which is apity because the it is my perception that the polymath comments tend to be moreinteresting and erudite than the narrow predictability of the experts.
Mycomments were made with polemical but serious intent. The observations abouteconomic growth are so fundamental that they leave only two options. Eitherthey are absurd nonsense, in which case they should be easily and summarilyrebutted; or if they cannot, then they represent a profound challenge to thefoundations of our “civilization”.
Iremain genuinely perplexed that not oneof the hundreds of economists that I have written to over the decades, has seen fit to cogently respond to thischallenge.
Thelogical and tempting explanation for this deafening silence is that I amobviously an obsessed nutter who is best ignored. This would indeed be areasonable conclusion, if I did not travel in some illustrious company.
“If the earth must lose that great portion of its pleasantness whichit owes to things that the unlimited increase of wealth and population wouldextirpate from it, for the mere purpose of enabling it to support a larger, butnot a better or a happier population, I sincerely hope, for the sake ofposterity, that they will be content to be stationary, long before necessitycompel them to it” John Stuart Mill“Principles of Political Economy” - Book IV, Chapter VI (1848)
Andthen there was Hardin’s “The Tragedy ofThe Commons” in 1968 and The Club ofRome’s “The Limits to Growth” in 1972.
Thelatter was revisited by a research team from the CSIRO, headed by the physicistGraham Turner, which published a 40th anniversary interim report in 2012. Itsconclusion was that The Limits to Growth was indeed deficient, in that it underestimated its dire conclusions. Turner’s report concluded that the pivot pointfor the terminal decline of the global economy was 2015.
Andthen there is the vast weight of evidence accumulated by the biologicalsciences that we are enthusiastically committing global ecocide. Evidence thatis universally ignored by those responsible for public policy. Indeed it isrejected so vociferously that our governing political party equates the Green’sempirically supported urgency with the troglodyte passions of One Nation.

2012年,由物理学家Graham Turner领导的联邦科学与工业研究组织(澳大利亚)研究小组重新审视了后者,并发表了一份40周年的中期报告。它的结论是,增长的极限确实存在缺陷,因为它低估了其可怕的结论。GrahamTurner的报告得出结论是,全球经济最终衰退的转折点是2015年。


Tony Dickson回复Shelley Marshall
Shelley,it occurs to me that this letter written in 2013 is more directly relavent toyour article: https://ferretfarmforestry.com/philosophy-politics/response-to-the-business-council-of-australias-action-plan-for-enduring-prosperity/


Kumudhu Alwis
Thereis another article about Labors National minimum wage, part of electioneering.No more comments allowed in it.
Itis relevant to note minimum income has been the election propaganda of Congressin India. It is challenged by the war in space by the BJP.
Hereour labors’ living wage is challenged by LNP boat wars in India’s Ocean.
Neryinteresting days.

首页 > 网帖翻译 > 美国
讨论 4
游客 您尚未登录
龙腾网提示: 关闭