Australia needs to create more jobs. #100daysofblogging #Day61

Unemployment + Participation Rate in AustraliaThere are not enough jobs to go around in Australia, and that is a serious problem if you are one of the 740,000+ people looking for work.

While Liberal Party MP’s are always on about ‘getting people into jobs’,  this is proving to be nothing more than ‘political rhetoric’ under the current government.

You simply can not reduce unemployment without creating new jobs. Instead they use victim-blaming as a way to win votes, without actually doing anything to create jobs or reduce unemployment.

In fact it seems the Liberal Party do not understand how to create jobs.

You do not create jobs by withholding unemployment payments. You do not create jobs by forcing unemployed people people to apply for 40 jobs per month. You do not create jobs by forcing government control over spending by unemployed people.

You do not create jobs by forcing mature, highly qualified or skilled workers to take on unskilled roles that could be filled by younger, unskilled workers.

You do not create jobs by forcing unemployed people to work for below minimum wage in ‘work for the dole’ schemes, in fact they destroy jobs.

You create jobs through investment, particularly in innovation and infrastructure.  Continue reading Australia needs to create more jobs. #100daysofblogging #Day61

How do you shop? #100daysofblogging #Day33

It might sound a little boring to you, a blog post about shopping. A little too ‘domestic’.

But how you shop and what your motives are for the purchasing choices you make reveal a lot about your personality. They also send powerful financial signals to the people whose products you buy and also those you choose to ignore.

In a world where money unfortunately dominates business decisions, how you spend really does matter.

Are you spending local, supporting extra local jobs?

Or are you buying the cheapest similar product, regardless of it’s origin, likely supporting the under-payment of workers in foreign nations? Do you join in ‘boycotts’ of products with certain ingredients or brands involved in controversial practices?

Do you go and visit a local butcher? Do you get your bread from a local bakery? Do you visit a local fruit and vegetable store for your fruit and veg?

Or do you do all of your shopping in one particular store because it’s the ‘easiest’ option? Continue reading How do you shop? #100daysofblogging #Day33

A maximum wage to reduce inequality, why not? #100daysofblogging #Day29

Wealth Inequality ImageWhen I mention a maximum wage I am often given a blank, stare in return.

Like I’ve walked straight out of an alien dimension with a pink tail, and 4 extra eyes on my face that are whirling around like it was wheel of fortune or something.

But seriously, what is so strange about the concept of a maximum wage?

We already have a minimum wage ($34,580 per year).

We expect Members of Parliament to keep their wages in reasonably proportional to the minimum wage. The ‘base salary’ for a Member of Federal Parliament is $195,130. That’s a little over 5.5 times the minimum wage salary, but the hours are MUCH longer for it.

So why do we not expect the same from CEOs like Peter Lowy, who recently received a salary equivalent to 341 times the minimum wage? Or to put it another way, Peter Lowy receive 60 times the salary of a Member of the Australian Parliament.

It is these levels of income inequality that make me believe we should have a ‘maximum wage’ which is a ratio of the ‘minimum wage’, lets say 40 to 1. Continue reading A maximum wage to reduce inequality, why not? #100daysofblogging #Day29

Story of Stuff — best, simplest economics video ever. #100daysofblogging #Day24

Today has been a long day and I haven’t the energy for any serious political analysis after work and rehearsing for the Selekt Few performance at Back to the Roots this Saturday, at ‘The Bakery’ Northbridge.

So today’s post is an educational video for you to watch and from which to learn.


Do the double dissolution with me #100daysofblogging #Day16

Is Climate Change Crap?
Image Credit: Fiona Katauskas

Today the upper house of the Australian Parliament, the Senate, voted down the Liberal Party’s absurd proposal to disband the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

This gave the Abbott Government it’s first potential ‘trigger’ for a Double Dissolution election, which it had been threatening to force since failing to win a majority in both houses at the election last year.

The CEFC provides a critically important function in enabling Renewable Energy projects to get off the ground in Australia, investing $536M in 2013 and enabling projects worth more than $2bn to go ahead. These projects will generate abatements in excess of 3.8M tonnes of carbon emissions per year. Additionally the CEFC is profitable business in it’s own right, with a 7% profit achieved in its first 3 reporting quarters.

There are no ‘savings’ to be made by abandoning the CEFC.

Continue reading Do the double dissolution with me #100daysofblogging #Day16