From: agarton@peg.pegasus.oz.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: How Fightback Delivers Hi Unemploy
Date: 18 Aug 92 04:21:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:peg:996200257:peg:996200262:000:3091
Nf-From: peg.UUCP!agarton    Aug 17 23:21:00 1992


From David Nerlich
posted c/o agarton

***************

Re:
>agarton@peg.pegasus.oz.au (what a surprise) presents a thesis:

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

While I'm here....

I'm a little confused by most of your response, in that you seem
to be agreeing with me for the large part, yet doing so in a 
disagreeable way. Perhaps this is because you mistake my intent
to be to make apologies for the ALP. No, its just that most elections 
are a choice between two or more evils. We could just as easily have 
mistaken you as an apologist for the Libs?

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? 
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. 
Industries or firms failing to keep up in the hardware (or software) 
race can eventually become structurally incompatible with the 
advancing production base around them. It's tempting to argue that 
the buffer provided by cheap wages might lead to more employer 
investment in the technology race, but tarrifs don't seem to have 
delivered that.

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?

>Wait a minute... low wages AND new technology... no that could
>never work.

Well perhaps it could - but *for whom?* - as they say...

>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.

>completely free of any hint of ideology.

Well, I was hoping to provide some possibly useful tools. Ideology 
already exists in the values of the people who may see an opportunity 
to use them. If there's no-one like that here then I've wasted my time. 
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. If Australia's going to punch it out 
its better if we win than if we lose. Isn't it?

David Nerlich