From: lawriew@runx.oz.au (Lawrie Waller)
Subject: Re: How Fightback Delivers Hi Unemploy
Organization: RUNX Un*x Timeshare.  Sydney, Australia.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 02:17:45 GMT

In article <hoconnel.713502369@adelphi> hoconnel@physics.adelaide.edu.au (Heath O'Connell) writes:
>agarton@peg.pegasus.oz.au (what a surprise) presents a thesis:
>
>>This is for anyone with a stake in the result of the forthcoming
>>Federal election - particularly in regard to the Hewson/Fightback
>>approach to industrial relations.
>	(Keep in mind the tremendous achievements of the current Government
>while reading this).
>
>>It is not difficult to argue that Hewson's strategies for raising
>>productivity and lowering unemployment will create entirely the
>>opposite results from those intended and even cause lasting damage
>>on both fronts.
>	It's not difficult to argue, yes that is correct.
>
>
>>In fact an overall lowering of wages will bring about a RISE in
>>unemployment because it will DRIVE UP THE PARTICIPATION RATE (the
>>demand for jobs). It stands to reason that if a breadwinner is
>>working at 70% of the current award it's far more likely that that
>>person's spouse will also have to go out and look for work.
>	Well, they'd better go back to the old drawing-board. It WILL bring
>about an unemployment rise.
>	What about families currently without a breadwinner?
>
>>restraint etc. Whatever the changing gender ratio in the
>>workforce, the two income family has become the de-rigueur
>>situation for servicing mortages and so on.
>	Yes, that high-interest rate policy was sheer genius.
>
>>Idiotic isn't it? It's a classic case of one-eyed, supply-side
>>economics.  And everybody loses.
>	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?
>
>	
>>However Hewson and Howard seem to want to change all that. They
>>point to superficial gains in productivity that can be had by
>>cheapening the cost of human labour and with typical
>>singlemindedness ("to gain we simply must have more pain!")
>	Sort of like when you 'have to have a recession'.
>
>>ignore the importance of the race for technological productivity
>>and efficiency in the world economy.  Cheapening human labour puts
>>it in competiton with technological labour and serves to slow the
>>introduction of new technologies and before long we would see many
>>Australian industries out of the race for good. So much for the
>>clever country, so much for the lucky country.
>	What sort of industry? So competition slows the introduction of the
>new, curious. What sort of technology do you mean?
>	 Wait a minute... low wages AND new technology... no that could
>never work.
>
>>So again we can see the Liberals' strategy delivering negative
>>results, precisely the opposite from the ones they apparently
>>expect. We can see and show what a pair of pathological ideologues
>>Hewson and Howard really are and what an unmitigated disaster
>>their election would be.
>	"We can see and show", well there you have it, unassailable proof
>completely free of any hint of ideology.
>	My God, he's got it down to a science; or perhaps owns a crystal ball.
>
Gee and here I am thinking that the original was simply an ideological
diatribe from a lilliputian intellect.Never thought of a crystal ball!
Live and learn eh!
Cheers.
>
>
>
>--
>		hoconnel@adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au


-- 
===========================================================================
lawriew@runx.oz.au              |Friend is sometimes a word devoid of
Lawrie Waller-SYDNEY AUS        |meaning;enemy,never.(Victor Hugo)
============================================================================