Budget sinks further with no sign of revival

by: David Uren, Economics Editor
From: The Australian
March 16, 2013 12:00AM

THE federal budget sank $4.6 billion further into deficit in the first four weeks of the year, without any sign of the revival in revenue that had prompted forecasts of a surplus.

Treasury figures released yesterday showed the deficit had reached $26.8bn for the first seven months of the financial year, far from the $1.2bn surplus forecast in the mid-year review by the end of June. Wayne Swan conceded in December that the promised surplus would not be achieved in the face of weak revenue.

What’s the significance? I’m not sure it shows that Robert Reid is a prize moron who said something dumb when he was confronted with the incontrovertible results of his ill-considered policy proposals. Interesting that Fairfax went with the headline “Secretary of union questions low wages.” instead of “Secretary of union questions existence of small businesses.”

I think the significance is that it illustrates two points that need to be hammered every time some self-righteous union organiser opens his mouth:

1 – Union demands favour big business over small business and market incumbents over market newcomers. Higher minimum wages help big businesses who can afford the additional payroll burden while small business’s can’t. Unsurprisingly, big businesses are more likely to be unionised than small businesses.

———————————
Oh so true. Used to have to deal with this years ago, that was until the very staff that they tried to rort told them to fuck off and never ever enter the building again. (certain dire consequences sure sorted out the A—-s)(At 4 am in the morning all without any prompting by me. Funny to listen to afterwards.

2 – Unions don’t represent the unemployed – they represent their members (sometimes poorly). Higher wages might mean more subscriptions from unionised sectors – which is good for the unions. If it means more unemployed people in other sectors then that’s no concern of the union.

Again correct and with auto payments they don’t even have to front to collect the money. In tyhe old days remember staying at work until 5 am waiting for the Union guy to go home. He didn’t, just sat there waiting to collect off the guys at the end of theior shift. Then back to one of the down town boozers open behind closed doors in downtown Wellington.

I think the significance is that it illustrates two points that need to be hammered every time some self-righteous union organiser opens his mouth:

1 – Union demands favour big business over small business and market incumbents over market newcomers. Higher minimum wages help big businesses who can afford the additional payroll burden while small business’s can’t. Unsurprisingly, big businesses are more likely to be unionised than small businesses.

2 – Unions don’t represent the unemployed – they represent their members (sometimes poorly). Higher wages might mean more subscriptions from unionised sectors – which is good for the unions. If it means more unemployed people in other sectors then that’s no concern of the union.

You would think that the media would ensure some of this context when reporting on matters, of course. However, because journalism tends to attract people who(at least in this country) probably have less native intelligence than most comparitvely educated folk, are not widely read, have poor analytical skills and are willing to accept a job with low prospects of material success they tend not to be up to scratch in this regard.

1: Offspring of upper middle class parents (trustafarians) who just can’t bear the thought that people might be poor. They’ve seen poor people from a distance and want to do something to make everybody happy because everybody should be happy. As I’ve said before they find poor people faintly revolting, but don’t actually want to live amongst them thank you very much. They go to University and sit about plotting how to make things right (Clark, Wilson etc etc), and then get into politics.

2: Offspring of genuinely poor people, but poor people with cloth caps sewn into their scalps. Raised with bitter hatred towards the well off, they become union leaders and go about their business of stirring up resentment towards the nasty bosses (whose ultimate goal is often nothing more than a decent runabout and a beach house) until the weight of regulation stifles the business and kills it.

When I come across people like this, I always ask them what their father did and where they grew up. I’m never surprised by the answer.

What should be, and what is.

No that’s just how it really is.

I guarantee if you did an attitudinal survey amongst union officials across the country and designed it in a way that produced honest answers it would come up with that result. This is quite obvious when you talk to any of them on this topic in an atmosphere where they feel free to voice their real opinions. A union official who has a reasonable attitude toward employers is by far the exception, not the rule. All you have to do is listen to the mutterings of Helen Kelly for example, the hatred just drips from her, just like it does from Sue Bradford.

If the shoe fits…

Consider this

Say that company is has 100 staff and is paying 10 of them under the ‘living’ wage and as a result of wage increase it pushes the company into bankruptcy. Now 90 more people are ‘not able to live’ according to these dumb shits.

Sure most of them would find other well paying jobs but you get the point.

Robert Reid and First Union should feel free to setup their own fast food joint, their cleaning business, etc etc and pay their staff a living wage, give them 6 months fully paid parental leave etc etc.

Surely the best way for the unions to demonstrate the brilliance and righteousness of their views is by putting them into real-life practice?

Good for whom?

Don’t imagine for one second that these people are genuinely trying to act in the interests of the workers. Ignore the crocodile tears.

The more fear and job uncertainty there is, the better for Reid and his cronies.

And there’s nothing that works to this effect quite like minimum wage legislation. They get all the benefit, their opponents are depicted as greedy and uncaring, and the workers are thrown under a bus.

And as has been pointed out by others here. Shutting down those businesses that can’t afford to pay more will lead to those people being unemployed. How can this be good?

Care to guess where that sum, went?

Yep, to NZEI for union fees. That info was in the public arena when silly TV One did their PR piece for the NZEI.

I hold no brief for Novapay (f/wits)….. but unions should also be subject to Commerce Commission scrutiny, should they not?

It seems the union folk have no idea that without capital there are no jobs. Those who provide the capital should get their reward just as those who sell their time should get their wage.