Minimum Wage Increases Vs Interest Rate Increases

The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) increased interest rates supposedly to combat inflation and bring it back down.
So they have increased it by 0.75% this year.
Today Fairwork announced 4.75% Wage increases to Australia's low paid workers, as if they were the only ones affected by egregious money grubbing politicians.
It not only the low paid workers.
Blind Freddy knows this will permeate the whole economy.
.
Every home owner in the country has been stripped of their money, after being blamed for inflation that was driven solely by government spending.
And everyone else has become little more than a piggy bank for the states
Only stopping government spending will stop inflation, and hopefully restore some common sense back into our country's politicians

We know the Canberra lunatics don't know anything about economies, but their advisors need to go back to primary school.
As for Fairwork, it's the retirement village for failed solicitors with connections. They do as they are told.

Comments

Search through all the comments in this post.
                          • @tenpercent:

                            What part of "we don't have free markets" don't you understand?

                            because we have a 'stupid' system - thus is why Australia is going backwards

                            for the record min wages going down is just 'one part' of the problem in Australia

                            high taxation, pointless regulation, bracket creep are all issues too - and yes hording of wealth is another issue

                            remove income tax or have a 'very low flat rate' ie 10% and get rid of capital gains taxation - introduce a death tax of 50% on all assests

                            • @Checkmate3023:

                              get rid of capital gains taxation

                              This is taxation on revenue you have earned. Even though I benefit significantly here (from abolishing or discounting) at an overarching financial level, I believe it is income (ergo why it is a gain) so should be taxed.

                              introduce a death tax of 50% on all assests

                              That's double dipping. Tax has already been payed on that money. Most people frown on double dipping.

                              There is no money to pay that tax until the asset is sold at a profit/gain.

                              Can't do that lol.

                              Could monitor a few more of these "hobby" sellers who are actually operating "in trade and commerce" & meeting the requirement of regularity as specified as a business by ATO.

                              Lotteries another area too. IMO, as this is income, it should be taxed. I'm glad that we don't, but I'm not sure why.

                              I believe that all income should be subject to tax (at relevant taxation bracket)

                    • +3

                      @Checkmate3023:

                      legit all these businesses far and away Number 1 or Number 2 biggest expenses would be wages and when i say wages this includes things like insurance for workers, OHS, superannuation, leave entitlements etc not just the wage of the worker

                      The reason we have all these employee related insurances is actually to protect the employer and the business. It's not actually about protecting the employee - that's just a nice bonus.

                      Without these insurances, the employer would be exposed to unlimited financial risk for any work related injuries etc. at least with these insurances in place, employer financial risk (and business exposure).

                      Imagine if an employee or member of general public were injured in a situation where you (employer) has a legally established duty of care. Without insurance (including work cover & NDIS) those injured could be awarded millions in compensation etc (notice how there are rarely any $5 odd million compensation pay outs anymore? Majority under $1million - except for TPP in vehicle sector for some reason, they get the odd higher compensation payout, but not sure why tbh)

                      How many millions of dollars can you or your business withstand/survive in compensation payouts?

                      Leave entitlements included in wage in Australia.

                • +1

                  @Checkmate3023:

                  you fail to understand how a 'free market works'

                  Australia does not operate with a Free Market economy. We have a mixed market economy.

                  someone else will come in under-cut them

                  Only until they begin to operate at a loss. This behaviour is dictated by Nash Equilibrium.

                  • -6

                    @Muppet Detector:

                    Australia does not operate with a Free Market economy. We have a mixed market economy.

                    This is why the living standards have been declining the past 3 decades whilst naitons like the UAE, Sinapore etc are flying - less regulation, less tax and less government spending on rubbish is needed

                    • +2

                      @Checkmate3023: Australia's living standards have been declining, but UAE and Singapore's living standards have increased from a lower base. It's not an apples to apples comparison you're making.

                    • +1

                      @Checkmate3023: My living standards have gone up exponentially in the last 30 years. I live in a big house that is heated and cooled year round, I drive a nice car that is also heated and cooled, I buy whatever food I like at the supermarket, I go on overseas holidays to far away destinations, I have a device in my pocket that replaced many other devices and connects me to all the information I could ever want, I could go and on. The point is most people these days live better than Kings did last century.

                    • @Checkmate3023: I love how you mention both UAE & Singapore. Our family has business interests in both.

                      Depends on what you define "flying" as, and by all means, definitely some benefits in Singapore from a business perspective (hence why we operate that particular arm there as it failed in Aust) and well, we only export to UAE, and as we can't export to Australia….

                      In saying that, one of my nephews relocated his drop shipping business to UAE and is apparently raking in many, many millions of dollars. Abandoned his law career and that's what he does now shrugs

                      But as a female, there is no comparison to living in UAE over Australia, just saying. Still a very paternalistic culture. Better for females of all ages in Aus by country miles.

    • +4

      You should move to usa

    • +3

      the biggest issue in Australia is the high min wage for 'low paid workers' who are actually highly paid by international standards - mean while skilled workers are well underpaid in Australia

      Sounds like you need to upskill if minimum wage workers are encroaching on your wage. Most trades are paid more than double minimum wage, maybe start there.

      • -1

        Most trades are paid more than double minimum wage, maybe start there.

        not the point i was making

        • +1

          What point were you making? Are you one of those not so skilled people who went to uni and are jealous of how much tradies get paid?

    • +2

      the biggest issue in Australia is the high min wage for 'low paid workers' who are actually highly paid by international standards - mean while skilled workers are well underpaid in Australia

      the min wage should of set at $10.5 like Singapore

      I somewhat agree with your premises here, but I think that you're not comparing similar economies (again) or taking other factors into consideration.

      ABSOLUTELY I agree with you that Australia has a high minimum wage, in fact, google tells me that it is one of the highest in the world! (OMg, I did not know that).

      In 2020, apparently Australia was ranked #1 in world for highest minimum wage, however only #10 in global work life balance. But, Australia was back at #1 in 2025 (according to Skynews yikes) but only #8 in global work life balance (which is up two places since 2020).

      Only Luxembourg consistently outranks us, though there are 8 - 10 that out do us some years depending on what augmenting factors are considered. Common competitors are Switzerland, England, Ireland & Germany. (Different nuances and technical differences).

      Australia had the highest minimum wage in the world in 2019 - Australian Industry Group talks about the #1 spot shuffle going back 30 odd years using OECD standards including influencing and augmenting factors.

      Minimum Wage by Country 2026

      Warning, lots of pop up ads and distractions, but looks to be some pretty pictures and easy to understand graphs. It is published by World Population Review, but I can't work out if they are a credible source or not…

      #1 is Luxembourg

      It is the reigning global champion for statutory minimum wage. According to international wage databases like World Population Review and data from Globalization Partners.

      Luxembourg mandates a baseline salary equivalent to over $2,570 USD to $3,150+ USD per month (depending on whether the worker is classified as skilled or unskilled), putting it comfortably ahead of Australia's baseline.

      The Truth About Those ‘High Minimum Wage’ Countries


    • +1

      who are actually highly paid by international standards

      Maybe others are paid too low by "international standards"…

      • Yes 'everyone else' is the problem that is the right mentality to have….

        /s

      • Maybe others are paid too low by "international standards"…

        There are 195 recognised countries in the world.

        Australia has ranked #1 in 2019/20 & 2025, only ever falling to #2 (behind Luxembourg) in the last 5 years, and continually sharing one of the seven top spots with the same seven countries in at least the last 30 years.

        So, for at least the last thirty years, Australia has ranked higher than 188 other countries.

        If these top seven countries represent the "international standard", that's a lot of other countries being paid too low by "international standards".

        (However, Disclaimer - other factors and considerations do apply to determine whether each wage is enough to provide equitable living conditions etc and other things such as what their countries do or don't provide, what regulations and compliances exist and what their costs are etc)

    • Singapore doesn't have a universal minimum wage.

      Plenty reasons why they don't (plus their govt tops up, not just left to employer to fund) and plenty reasons why we do.

      Once again, you're comparing two completely different demographics. You need to compare like with like.

      A quick google will explain it further.

      • A quick google will explain it further.

        you might want to do one yourself just because they 'dont call it min wage' doesnt mean they dont have one they have a min wage based on sectors but the ultimate min wage for the lowest paid sector is $10.50 SD

        It is similar to an EBA for each sector opposed to those sectors that are Unionised here in Aus

        • Umm as I've said below, my family has reasonable business interests in Singapore, so I'm pretty clued in on how the two economies compare and operate.

          Remember that Singapore govt subsidises the wages for lower wages as opposed to leaving employer to carry entire burden.

          So whilst minimum wage may be $10 from employer, govt "tops that up" to even them all out at higher rates (so an employer paid wage + govt paid wage) which essentially provides an artificially higher "minimum wage" per sector.

          Lol at unions in Australia…. hahaha, I think we only have two or three left that seem to be somewhat useful. Off the top of my head, I believe the teachers and nurses unions are pretty good, but not sure of any others (though they might exist, my Union knowledge comes from 2 subjects in a business degree at uni 15ish years ago (employment relations covered in both the marketing & management majors) and whatever clickbait material the internet serves up.

    • I kind of agree with some of this. Maybe some other countries have wages too low and we have ours too high, not sure what is right or wrong but at the other end of the spectrum wages can be rubbish compared to some other countries (UK has a similar problem with certain industries).

      For example tech salaries are significantly higher in the US, of course you have to account different taxes, health insurance, costs of housing etc but you can still come out way ahead.

    • -6

      It is $10.5/hr for Raj in restaurants who uses it to work 60h/ week to pay for his 3rd underwater basket weaving course at the same it is still less than dole. So this doesn't help whatsoever.

      • -2

        Current - min wage is around $26 an hour add super and leave benefits employers are looking at over $30 they have to pay for someone with zero skills

        if you want to fix inflation get rid of the high min wage - no one should be on the min wage for longer then few years it isnt about 'working for min wage' it is a start in which you should want to upskill to earn more money

        its become way to hard to run a business in Australia add in GST/Payroll taxes and other overheads essentially it is impossible to succeed long term without government support - this should NEVER be the case but hence why shit like NDIS is being ripped off

        Once again im happy to have this unpopular opinion because for 'too long' we have been too scared to face hard truths in Australia and this is one of them

        • +18

          So how do you propose that these people survive? The minimum wage should still afford you a living wage. What you're proposing would either massively increase government spending on support payments, or have people starving in the streets.

          Why do you state these stupid as shit opinions when you have no basic understanding yourself?

          • -5

            @Beef jerky time:

            So how do you propose that these people survive?

            Work more hours?

            Reduce costs like share accommodation?

            Why are low income people seemingly protected from having to make some sacrifices?

            • +7

              @tsunamisurfer: I'm sure they already are. Or more precisely, never had to sacrifice in the first place because they never had anything to sacrifice.

              Work more hours?

              How many hours do you think is reasonable? Please also let me know how many hours you work and your hourly rate so I can give you a detailed comparison.

              • -7

                @Beef jerky time:

                How many hours do you think is reasonable?

                As many as it takes, it's called being personally responsible.

                There is no law that says you should be able to live comfortably if you work 40 hours a week.

                My income is not the issue here, their's is.

                • +4

                  @tsunamisurfer: That's a damning non-answer.

                  My income is not the issue here, their's is.

                  No it isn't. You just want to keep people down. YOU should do better if you feel threatened.

                  • -2

                    @Beef jerky time: I'm not threatened.

                    I am concerned for businesses and their increases in costs.

                    • +5

                      @tsunamisurfer:

                      I am concerned for businesses and their increases in costs.

                      If people can't afford to pay for their goods and services from those businesses, the good news is that those businesses won't need to be worried about increasing costs for very long, eh?

                • @tsunamisurfer:

                  There is no law that says you should be able to live comfortably if you work 40 hours a week.

                  In Australia, we do have laws that say everyone should be able to survive though.

                  But yes, if you want to improve on a humane basic standard of survival, then get a casual job to augment your FT job or take on as many hours as you require to earn the additional income that's required to achieve your personal requirements*

                  Though note, this will have negative social effects such as breakdown in family units & unsupervised children etc - higher crime etc

                  For those who think that I don't understand the need/desire to work more than 40 hrs a week…

                  At times my OH worked his full time job and at least one casual job as well, sometimes up to three if you count him helping me out in my business. He's over 60 and still working his full time job (though only 3 - 4 day weeks as he has more annual & LSL accrued than he will probably ever be able to use - so takes "paid" days off work when they will let him) and a few casual shifts a week now, but kiddies are all educated and employed now, so he is able to take his foot off the pedal these days.


                  My job has only been a 40 hour week twice in my adult life, for about a year each time. (Though still operating businesses in addition to this) including when I was an apprentice. In 1987, I was working 16 hour days (our rostered day off was from 2pm Sunday until 2 pm Monday, yes one day per week aka 24 consecutive hours, but we never got out before 4pm on a Sunday and usually needed to start before 2pm on the Monday. I was earning $97 per week and my rent was btwn $35 & $65 per week.

                  It wasn't until I got employment overseas on a FIFO basis that I earned really good money, but damn, we were still underpaid by Aussie standards for working hours and conditions.

                  • -4

                    @Muppet Detector:

                    In Australia, we do have laws that say everyone should be able to survive though.

                    Would you mind referencing such a law?

                    People love to say "My dad used to be able to …." or "I used to be able to ….", those days are gone, as wonderful as they were they are gone. It's time to embrace and work with what is here now.

                    • +6

                      @tsunamisurfer:

                      Would you mind referencing such a law?

                      No worries :)

                      For a starting point, see Articles 7(a)(I) and 11(1) of the ICESCR which were both signed in 1972, ratified in 1975 and entered into force in 1976.

                      Art 7(a)(i) guarantees the right to "fair wages" and equal remuneration. It ensures that all workers receive remuneration that provides a "decent living" for themselves and their families.

                      Art 11(1) guarantees the right of everyone to an "adequate standard of living", which explicitly includes having enough money to provide necessities like adequate food, clothing, and housing.

                      Australian Government addresses the principles of these articles through a fragmented network of workplace and social welfare legislation including The Fair Work Act 2009 and Social Securities Act 1991

                      Many others at federal level, but many also incorporated into other legislation such as the various Criminal Codes (equivalent) both federal and state where a requirement to support the necessities of life (among other things) are established - for guardians to their children in their care.

                      as wonderful as they were they are gone. It's time to embrace and work with what is here now.

                      Been in force here since about 1976 and has not been rescinded, in fact we doubled down on this under the Gillard Govt within the numerous Articles of the ICCPR that she signed, ratified and assented.

                      • +2

                        @Muppet Detector: If I rember correctly it was at the turn of the 20th century that the high court in Victoria ruled that an employer must provide a decent salary (then in shillings and pence or whatever) such that a man can sustain the necessities of his household (then assumed to be a wife and a few kids). And these necessities including food, water, shelter, and things like being able to buy new clothes every so often/be able to cover the costs of unforeseen circumstances.

                        So yeah, Muppet detector is right (and managed to detect a Muppet, go figure). The minimum wage has century long precedent of being a fair wage.

                        Here's the source (the literal government): https://www.fwc.gov.au/about-us/history-sir-richard-kirby-ar…

                        • +1

                          @Some Random Guy: Thank you so much for providing that document, I am really looking forward to studying it in depth, I never knew that it even existed and it went into far more detail and far more history (and I like that sort of stuff) than we studied at uni.

                          We addressed it in a Business (management major) subject called "Employment Relations" and from a different angle in the llb/com "employment law" subject.

                          Obviously Criminal Code applications addressed in Criminal Law.

                          Not even the text books went into that much depth or history.

                          Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

                      • -2

                        @Muppet Detector: You have outlined some UN guidelines, these are not enshrined into Australian law.

                        I do not know the Criminal Code, but I am almost certain that it is not a crime to not pay wages to provide a decent living. The employer is required to pay according to the award rates.

                        The use of the word fair, decent, adequate fills me with dread because it is so subjective.

                        To me, living within one's means is the key concept here. If you earn minimum, live minimum. The market rate for low skilled work is fair. Sharing a room with others is decent and adequate.

                        I am sure other people would have a differing view, how could something like this be enacted into law?

                        $52k a year is MORE THAN ENOUGH to share accommodation and eat.

                        • +2

                          @tsunamisurfer:

                          You have outlined some UN guidelines, these are not enshrined into Australian law.

                          1976 & 2012ish.

                          Did you read my post to which you have responded? It doesn't seem like it?

                          Criminal code says you have to provide anybody under 16 in your care "the necessities of life", these include, food, shelter, clothing, supervision, healthcare and education.

                          Examples:
                          Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) 285 DUTY TO PROVIDE NECESSARIES

                          Neglect & Necessities

                          The employer is required to pay according to the award rates.

                          Yes. Under Fair Work Act and associated framework.

                          The use of the word fair, decent, adequate fills me with dread because it is so subjective.

                          These words and their relevant precedent are well defined in either legislation or case law precedent, though usually framed as "equitable", "the reasonable person", "the objective person" or "the subjective person" depending on the specific law.

                          As for "fair" the key piece of legislation in this sector is literally called The Fair Work Act. The entire Act is about establishing the legal definition of "fair" in that context.

                          To me, living within one's means is the key concept here. If you earn minimum, live minimum.

                          Yes, that is absolutely what it means.

                          $52k a year is MORE THAN ENOUGH to share accommodation and eat.

                          Probably very true if you don't have any dependents or any non ordinary costs.

                          (But even a single person has to do more than pay for food and shelter).

                          Although The Fair Work Act 2009 explicitly prohibits employers and the government from discriminating against workers based on their marital status or family and carer responsibilities.

                          So I'm thinking the minimum wage is set on the single and then augmented via various family govt top ups.

                          Apparently this is what the Fair Work Commission deemed to be necessary.

                          Probably talks about it in here but my care factor is too low to do much more than skim it.

                          Ministers of the Employment & Workforce Relations

                          An SBS Article seems like it talks about influencing factors too.

                          • @Muppet Detector: I have made a mistake and I must correct it. I have provided a link to the wrong criminal offence above with relation to providing the necessities of life to a child.

                            Whilst I provided a link to s285 Criminal Code (Qld) 1899, I should have provided a link to s286 of The Code.

                            s285 refers to a general duty to provide the necessities of life to a range of persons and dependents in another's care.

                            It is s286 that specifically refers to a duty to provide the necessities of care to a child (under 16).

                            I posted from memory without double checking my facts. I knew that a variety of duties (as related to causation) exited btwn ss285-289, I just referred to the incorrect one without double checking.

                            Sorry about that.

                            Side note weird they've changed the wording in quite a few sections of The Code since last time I read any of them (past the title).

                            Some great changes made including direct links to augmenting legislation such as that relating to family law, mental health laws and sentencing laws emphasising which sections of that Act the court must apply/consider during the sentencing phase of the court procedure.

                            But a while ago, there was intention to modernise and simplify legal language in all domains, most noticeably in legislation, so that legally untrained members of the general public could understand the laws more easily.

                            Thus, much work was done to update existing legislation with this plain language, including in this Code.

                            When I've revised it today, it seems like they've reverted to more complicated language for some reason. I wonder why they did that?

                            Haven't cross referenced with Austlu, but this is def, current updated legislation as evidenced by the addition of links to augmenting sources and a change to at least the homicide penalties (more severe), just haven't revised other offences yet.

                            Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)

                          • -3

                            @Muppet Detector:

                            Criminal code says you have to provide anybody under 16 in your care "the necessities of life", these include, food, shelter, clothing, supervision, healthcare and education.

                            We are talking about an employer / employee relationship. Where in the criminal code makes it illegal to pay a worker less than required for a 'decent' life.

                            • +1

                              @tsunamisurfer:

                              We are talking about an employer / employee relationship. Where in the criminal code makes it illegal to pay a worker less than required for a 'decent' life.

                              If wage doesn't give enough money to pay for those necessities of life, care giver becomes a defendant.

                              Therefor govt must put in place strategies for all caregivers to avoid becoming defendants (more tax payer cost btw)

                              If govt is going to make you criminally responsible to feed, clothe etc your dependents, they have to provide you with a basic ability to do that.

                              Same as govt can legislate for compulsory schooling (for most) and then charge fees for it which may create barriers to entry.

            • +6

              @tsunamisurfer:

              Work more hours?

              There are only 24 hours in a day.

              Reduce costs like share accommodation?

              Anybody with a partner or children are already living in share accomodation. Admittedly, the partner can often contribute, but those damn lazy arse children, eh? Particularly the ones under 14.

              Why are low income people seemingly protected from having to make some sacrifices?

              How many more would you like them to make? Sell their children? Sell those in their household unable to work?

              • -2

                @Muppet Detector:

                There are only 24 hours in a day.

                The article takes about a 38 hour week, there are more hours in a week for taking responsibility.

                Anybody with a partner or children are already living in share accomodation.

                This is not a clever retort.

                How many more would you like them to make?

                I have already said. Work more hours and reduce costs like share accommodation with others (I feel silly to have to specify with people not your own family).

                • +4

                  @tsunamisurfer:

                  This is not a clever retort.

                  You seem to be fixed on the idea that only single people with no dependents are being paid the minimum wage.

                  Apparently, only 1 of 3 million affected people are single with no dependents.

                  • -2

                    @Muppet Detector:

                    You seem to be fixed on the idea that only single people with no dependents are being paid the minimum wage.

                    No.

                    I said to save money, share with others as in others that will help halve / third / quarter the rent.

                    You came back with, hey sharing with my family is sharing.

                    • +5

                      @tsunamisurfer: Well what do you do with those non income producing members of the household? No room or food for them? No clothes? No soap, no non pbs or Medicare health care? How about school supplies? No water or energy? Not even a bandaid, Panadol or cough syrup?

                      C'mon.

                      But for a single, if they are working, I believe that they are probably already in share housing, splitting bills and minimising costs.

                      $1k per week must be about 15% tax, isn't it? So $150 (including 2% $20 for Medicare levy).

                      Net pay before any expenses & opportunity cost is $850 per week.

                      Unemployment benefits including rent assistance & energy supplements appears to be about that much per fortnight for a single person (seems like more if you have dependents).

                      So, apparently, you can sit on your arse and do bugger all for $425 per week (plus other low income stuff like health care cards).

                      If you want these people to enter the workforce, you've really got to make it worth their while including opportunity costs.

                      Remember we want them (those who are able) in the workforce, not only to reduce their reliance on Centrelink, but to also contribute to their Superanuation and taxation and Medicare etc.

                      So, let's break down some costs, average rental on gold coast is about $600 for 4 bed house. There are quite a lot lower, but currently less than 1% occupancy rate, so extremely high competition for all the lower priced places.

                      Rent $150 for a room, but let's share that room and pay $75.

                      (A single room in a 5 bed, 2 bath share house including all internet, utilities & streaming services ($10 each) is $270 per fortnight. I think they then have a group fund for things like toilet paper, cleaning supplies and gardening supplies (petrol for lawnmower?)

                      Food $140 pw?
                      Utilities? Idk probably no solar or batteries etc in much of that market, so power, gas, water.
                      Internet
                      Clothing
                      Transport (car payment? Petrol? Bicycle tyre repair kit? PT not great for most.

                      Rego
                      Renter's insurance
                      Non pbs meds

                      Healthcare not covered by Medicare or healthcare card. Lot of scans and GP's here above bulk bill rates. Quite large gaps in accessing services for exploratory type procedures to aid in diagnosis (including anything over a basic blood test).

                      4 year wait for public dentist (apparently) so could incur some out of pocket dental costs?

                      I dare say just that would be nudging things up into the $400 ball park.

                      No allowance for a birthday card for mum or a charging cord for your phone…

                      Idk

                      Then, for just $400 more, you lose:

                      Rental assistance
                      Energy subsidy
                      Low income health care card

                      And have to pay for

                      Clothes suitable for work (boardies & singlet may not meet requirements.

                      Increased cost of getting to work. My OH spends about $170 pw on petrol (PT not available) comprehensive car insurance now becomes a necessity - no car, no work).

                      Parking fees ($5 a day if room onsite for OH, otherwise all unpaid street parking is max 2hrs, not sure of cost for private parking facilities)

                      He also gets up to 3 staff meals per 7 1/2 hour shift for $5 (a main and 2 snacks depending on shift) $5 for 1 or all 3, though his department has sneaky access to "free" coffee and sometimes sneaky snacks.

                      (Probably costs more than $5 if bringing meals from home or buying outside - $5 is really good for what they get and it's not unheard of for staff to take home "doggy bags" though classified as stealing if caught by security during random bag check)

                      When do things like HECS repayments kick in?

                      Idk,

                      I can see how anything much under $800 wouldn't seem very attractive for a lot of non motivated persons or those unable to look into the future and decide it not even worth putting in the effort for working 40 hrs a week.

                      Essentially going to work for $10 per hour plus any expenses incurred to go to work or they can surf all week or watch tv etc and not have to turn up to work at all.

            • +17

              @Checkmate3023: Possibly one of the dumbest takes ever.

              Why shouldn't you be able to live off the minimum wage? That's entirely the point.

              you're too lazy to try do something a little more difficult then stack selves for the rest of your life then you're probably not going to be living in the North Shore

              We're gatekeeping where people deserve to live now? Lol. If someone wants to stack shelves for their entire life, why shouldn't they be able to?

              You just seem like you yourself are pissed that those who you think are beneath you are catching up to you. Have YOU considered upskilling?

              • -8

                @Beef jerky time:

                We're gatekeeping where people deserve to live now? Lol. If someone wants to stack shelves for their entire life, why shouldn't they be able to?

                nothing to do with gate keeping and this is a stupid commment

                You just seem like you yourself are pissed that those who you think are beneath you are catching up to you. Have YOU considered upskilling?

                dont put works in my mouth - i have no dog in this fight at all just calling it as i see it

                politicians are too scared to push for unpoplar but needed reform lowing the min wage is probably one of the most unpoplar but it is probably the most needed - along with getting rid of brack creep and capital gains taxes and introducing a 50% death tax in its place

                • +13

                  @Checkmate3023:

                  nothing to do with gate keeping and this is a stupid commment

                  What is it about then? I'll assume your elitist views that you're better than these people. Sorry for putting words in your mouth, but they're probably better than what's coming out.

                  • -2

                    @Beef jerky time:

                    I'll assume your elitist views that you're better than these people

                    lol, ironic

                  • -5

                    @Beef jerky time:

                    What is it about then? I'll assume your elitist views that you're better than these people. Sorry for putting words in your mouth, but they're probably better than what's coming out.

                    Simple i want what is best for Australia as a whole or at least what i believe to be best for us going forward - not just a group or individual i dont care nor do i have an issue with rich or poor people

                    Most of our problems can be fixed if we take note from nations with way less natural resources and far more will to make hard/tough butbfair decisions

                    Our leaders are shit esp the current government nothing is getting better because the are doing the opposite of whats needed to improve the nation.

                • +5

                  @Checkmate3023:

                  introducing a 50% death tax

                  Solution:

                  Kids, I'm giving you the house now before I die. But I will remain living here until then.

            • +10

              @Checkmate3023:

              you're not supposed to survive on the min wage like youre not supposed to survive on the doll - that is why it is 'called the min wage' - it is meant to be a 'starting point' to build working skills to push yourself to do better and achieve higher - it is meant to be the 'start' of ones career not the entire career

              That's not how this is seen by the govt or our legal system though.

              It is about living and surviving, and nothing to do with a "starting point". In a meritocracy, some will always rise, whilst just as many will not. It's not one upwards projection backfilled by new waves of entrants to the employment market.

              It's not about being "too lazy". That's actually a terrible and narrow minded view of our population.

              In the sorting hat of life, not everybody comes out on top, eh. Many, many circumstances and biopsychosocial factors that can (and do) impact a person's employment projectory.

              The govt recognises that some people don't actually have the ability or cultural capital to facilitate class (and income) mobility.

              Society will always have a spectrum of people, including those in the workforce.

              This minimum wage is intended to enable survival and is particularly enacted to prevent exploitation of those without that mobility, including a nod to immigrant workers.

              If our minimum wage is not protected, businesses may seek their employees from other countries (particularly poverty stricken 3rd world) who will work for a pittance and stimulate a race to the bottom for boost local and imported workers.

              Minumum wage is about protecting Australian jobs as well as attempting to prevent exploitation of the most vulnerable people in the country.

              Lack of will is rarely a contributing factor. That's an awful thing to say.

              • -1

                @Muppet Detector:

                That's not how this is seen by the govt or our legal system though.

                look it isnt that i dont agree with anything you have posted - but both these institutions are directly responsible for Australia going backwards despite being the one of the most resource/land rich nations in the world

                maybe we need to 'rethink'

                • @Checkmate3023:

                  maybe we need to 'rethink'

                  Perhaps you need to "apply" for the jobs where this is required then, eh?

                  Easy enough for we keyboard warriors and armchair experts to say "we need to be doing differently", but here's the thing… They're not the ones throwing their hat into the ring to take on those jobs and "do it" how they think they "should be done".

            • +7

              @Checkmate3023: People in the North Shore probably want people to stack their shelves though. Nobody is going to travel from the outer suburbs to the North Shore to stack shelves for $10.50 an hour.

              • @tenpercent:

                Nobody is going to travel from the outer suburbs to the North Shore to stack shelves for $10.50 an hour.

                Then they would have to offer more.

        • +4

          Current - min wage is around $26 an hour add super and leave benefits employers are looking at over $30 they have to pay for someone with zero skills

          If they have zero skills, don't employ them.

          essentially it is impossible to succeed long term without government support - this should NEVER be the case

          It's not the case, nor is it impossible.

          BTW, the only gst business owners pay can be claimed back/offset in GST credits

          Once again im happy to have this unpopular opinion because for 'too long' we have been too scared to face hard truths in Australia and this is one of them

          You rarely seem to want to follow ANY truths.

          • -1

            @Muppet Detector:

            the only gst business owners pay can be claimed back/offset in

            you still have to 'pay that money' you also still have to pay pay roll tax and in most cases pay for workcover insurance

            i could go on

            but the min wage to way to high in Australia it should be at least halved

            • +5

              @Checkmate3023:

              i could go on

              Please no.

              but the min wage to way to high in Australia it should be at least halved

              You seem to think that people on min wage are living the high life. They are not. They are not even remotely responsible for your problems.

              • @Beef jerky time:

                You seem to think that people on min wage are living the high life. They are not. They are not even remotely responsible for your problems.

                never said that - dont put words in my mouth

                it is a problem with our system not a problem that 'workers' themselves have caused - please get the fact straight

            • +3

              @Checkmate3023: I understand that we need to pay taxes, I was commenting on GST.

              As for other taxes, if a business is paying tax, they're making money, so the tax angle sort of voids your argument.

              However, I can agree that insurance makes life difficult for a business owner, despite the large overhaul of the negligence law framework back in 2012. It is slightly better now, but people keep finding new ways to claim negligence or need insurance and new insurance products, which all contribute to driving insurance costs up to the crisis levels at 2008ish when we globally experienced an insurance crisis causing so many insurers to threaten walking away, that it significantly contributed to the ensuing global financial crisis.

              IMO (nothing to support this), we are moving towards another insurance crisis again right now. I believe it is only a matter of time that insurers just threaten to walk away from the table again as they can't set premiums high enough to ensure a profit. When they set them too high, people just can't afford it and end up self insuring.

              I completely agree that this is quite a frightening situation (as it will also place indirect upwards pressure on NDIS as well) but I'm not sure of what a workable solution that provided equal benefit to both sides, would look like.

              My unqualified opinion is that our negligence laws need to be more dynamic and more heavily integrated into insurance frameworks (both public and private.

              However, knowing what I do about negligence law (and what I don't know about insurance) I have no idea how we could go about integrating these two sectors.

              but the min wage to way to high in Australia it should be at least halved

              As a business owner, for purely short term economical purposes, I agree and even ok with no minimum wage.

              BUT employee satisfaction and health etc is probably the most significant factor behind a business's success.

              We have to incentivise every employee to do the best job they can for what the business requires.

              If an employee sees no value in working, they will either do a really shit job (or worse - a bad employee (including a resentful one, or one who feels undervalued) or not bother turning up because Centrelink provides a more beneficial choice (opportunity cost included) with harms long term business sustainability.

              Note staff turnover costs quite a bit of money too - about 10 years ago, they were using the projected figure of $3000 - $4,000 per new employee - so you want to minimise staff turnover, particularly at the lower end where you usually have higher number of employees and job mobility is easier.

              For a business, your greatest asset is your workforce. You need to invest heavily in your workforce. Train them well. Pay them well. Treat them well, and you significantly increase the sustainability of your business.

              (Same as tenants. Too many landlords forget about that principle creating the resentful tenants that go rogue. They see the money printing machine and forget that it needs new ink and maintenance from time to time).

              BTW, I have business interests in both Aust & Singapore, so quite familiar with those two economies from a business perspective. (And others).

        • I was being sarcastic. Minimum wage can be whatever there are people will find ways to get around it.

        • I wonder if minimum wage should be based on region.

          I can understand a very high minimum wage is necessary in a place like Sydney, but a blanket national high minimum wage can kill small businesses in rural areas. Then everyone loses, including the local community.

    • +19

      Let me guess… make a post on a bargain website?

      This is the forums section.

      Trying to start/have/participate in a discussion is surely better than shrugging your shoulders and saying "I've got mine, bugger everyone else… she'll be right".

Login or Join to leave a comment