Comments on: Minimum wage – the most anti-poor law http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2007/10/08/the-most-anti-poor-law/ Australian Libertarian Society Blog Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:45:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: The ACTU: selfish then, still selfish now « Thoughts on Freedom http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2007/10/08/the-most-anti-poor-law/#comment-49816 Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:12:33 +0000 http://alsblog.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/the-most-anti-poor-law/#comment-49816 [...] they don’t protest about free trade as much, but they have diverted their selfishness towards minimum wages. The ACTU are experts at pretending they have the interests of the average Joe at heart. [...]

]]> By: Shem Bennett http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2007/10/08/the-most-anti-poor-law/#comment-31512 Fri, 19 Oct 2007 10:30:08 +0000 http://alsblog.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/the-most-anti-poor-law/#comment-31512

Unions have been demonised in Australia by the Liberal Party and media both (perhaps with good reason? I’m too young to remember). I think unions have a vital role to play in levelling the negotiating power disparity of employer and employee- especially in the case of low-skilled employees. I think that with high union membership AWAs would be less of an issue because employees would be able to use their unions to negotiate collective agreements where an individual AWA tried to be exploitive.

]]> By: E.D. http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2007/10/08/the-most-anti-poor-law/#comment-31510 Fri, 19 Oct 2007 10:05:33 +0000 http://alsblog.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/the-most-anti-poor-law/#comment-31510 In today’s SMH (p.8) article “Asbestos victim scorns Hockey”

“Bill Mitchell, a labour market economist at the University of Newcastle, said the latest OECD figures showed that countries with high levels of union membership – such as Sweden with 78 per cent membership, Finland with 74 per cent membership and Denmark with 80 per cent membership – had stronger levels of economic performance than Australia.”

]]> By: terje (say tay-a) http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2007/10/08/the-most-anti-poor-law/#comment-31422 Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:30:46 +0000 http://alsblog.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/the-most-anti-poor-law/#comment-31422 Bretton, Bretton, Bretton. Opps.

]]> By: Brendan Halfweeg http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2007/10/08/the-most-anti-poor-law/#comment-31403 Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:22:33 +0000 http://alsblog.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/the-most-anti-poor-law/#comment-31403 Terje, mate, you are going to have to stop calling it the Brenton Woods system, it was the Bretton Woods system. Sorry for being pedantic!

]]> By: terje (say tay-a) http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2007/10/08/the-most-anti-poor-law/#comment-31401 Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:30:32 +0000 http://alsblog.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/the-most-anti-poor-law/#comment-31401 ED,

The problem was not so much inflation as it was inflation combined with progressive income tax. The problem from the 1970s onwards was compounded because it was global in nature. And it was global in nature because of how Brenton Woods was setup (ie dependent on the US dollar).

There were several groups incorrectly blamed for the inflation of the 1970s. They include:-

1. Banks.
2. Foreigners.
3. Businesses.
4. Unions.

None of these is correct. The wage price spiral did include unions demanding higher pay but this was symptomatic of inflation and not causal. The real culprit was monetary policy as administered by central banks.

When inflation pushes an increasing percentage of the workforce into higher tax brackets the result is contractionary.

Regards,
Terje.

]]> By: E.D. http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2007/10/08/the-most-anti-poor-law/#comment-31395 Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:08:13 +0000 http://alsblog.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/the-most-anti-poor-law/#comment-31395 I get the first point, but not the second. Can you elaborate? Again, I don’t see the connection between low unemployment and low inflation of that era. Is low inflation necessary for low unemployment?

If Keynesian economics was responsible for almost 3 decades of low inflation and low unemployment, what went wrong?

]]> By: Mark Hill http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2007/10/08/the-most-anti-poor-law/#comment-31376 Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:17:47 +0000 http://alsblog.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/the-most-anti-poor-law/#comment-31376 Two glib explanations:

1. After the war, there was plenty of reconstruction to be done. There was also a lot of people killed off. Like how wages rose after the black plague (although virtually all of the time the relationship between labour and capital isn’t that direct – generally this is only a measure of labour’s share of income).

2. It was done on borrowed time. The stagflation of the 1970s was how it (Keynesian policy) ended – in an ugly mess.

]]> By: E.D. http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2007/10/08/the-most-anti-poor-law/#comment-31375 Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:07:22 +0000 http://alsblog.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/the-most-anti-poor-law/#comment-31375 I know there was less inflation in the 50s and 60s, but I don’t see the connection between that and low unemployment.

I thought the main free market argument was that unemployment is caused by unions pushing wage rates too high. Were the unions better behaved back then?

]]> By: terje (say tay-a) http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2007/10/08/the-most-anti-poor-law/#comment-31278 Wed, 17 Oct 2007 00:44:45 +0000 http://alsblog.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/the-most-anti-poor-law/#comment-31278 Poor old Keynes. In the 1950s and the 1960s we lived under the Brenton Woods gold standard. A system that delivered low inflation and much certainy. A system that Keynes was instrumental in creating. The policies of the 1970s were done in his name and are what we call Keynesian. But poor old Keynes.

]]>