From: hoconnel@physics.adelaide.edu.au (Heath O'Connell)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: How Fightback Delivers Hi Unemploy
Date: 19 Aug 92 02:39:32 GMT

agarton@peg.pegasus.oz.au (David Nerlich) writes:


>I'd just like to keep it clear that yes, agarton presented but did
>not author this topic.
	Understood.

>Anyway, a couple of your (slightly) more coherent points:
>>What sort of industry? So competition slows the introduction of the
>>new, curious. What sort of technology do you mean?
>Competition? I was observing that cutting employers' wage bills 
>might slow the introduction of new technologies. Competition? 
	Might also free up funds for R&D leading to technology that would
lower production costs even further.

>Cutting employers' wage bills provides an initial, superficial cost 
>edge that removes the pressure to keep updating to more productive 
>technologies - ie the cheap wages undercut the efficient technology. 
	This pressure brought about by an inflexible high-cost wage system
also results in lay-offs and firms going broke. The development of new
technology is quite expensive and is not really catalysed by having an
overpaid workforce. Many Asian nations (eg South Korea) have very
high-technology factories, but lower wage structures than we have.
	Education is also a very important factor. A better educated workforce
is more efficient, but this is a digression.

>What technology do I mean? Well it's not exactly stable. Its changing 
>nature is what we're talking about. It's the changing technology 
>that's chased labour out of agriculture and into manufacturing and 
>out of manufacturing and into the services. Why would it stop there?
	This change of focus to the service industries is tantamount to
throwing in the towel as regards trying to keep up with the latest
technologies. The move away from manufacturing was due to us lacking the
competeive edge, for whatever reason.

>>Wait a minute... low wages AND new technology... no that could
>>never work.
>Well perhaps it could - but *for whom?* - as they say...
	What's good for General Motors...

>>Except those people who might for the first time in ages have a
>>chance of getting a job, but this has not been the emphasis, has it?
>>etc

>Surely if the two income scenario is not exacerbated by further drops 
>in real wages, then less house-husbands, who would rather stay home 
>and nuture the kids (or their posessions or watch TV or bet on the 
>horses - who cares?), less of them would feel obliged to join their 
>wives/ girlfriends/ whatever out in the workforce. And surely this 
>improves the odds for no-breadwinner families or those who haven't 
>had a job 'in ages'. 
>Ha... the sexual politics of this one are far more of a conundrum than 
>the economics.
	True, but don't forget some people might see higher wages as a very
large disincentive to staying home, and take up more jobs, if you wish to
pursue this sort of reasoning.


	
>Frankly the whole ethos of competition and job creation is an anathaema 
>to me (I prefer to look at the demand rather than the supply), but like 
>I said it's a choice between evils.
	But it's only through competition that the new technologies are
devised and implemented. The presentation seemed to say 'some evils are more
evil than others', without really an acknowledgement of faults on both sides.	

>If Australia's going to punch it out 
>its better if we win than if we lose. Isn't it?
	Can't argue with that.


--
		hoconnel@adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics