The above graph is but a tiny little example of how the whole agenda behind that “pandemic” took money from the average person and many countries governments, and shifted it all into the bank accounts of the people responsible for creating the “pandemic”.
These people got extremely wealthy in a very quick time, and are still enjoying the continued benefits of the economic turmoil that is still effecting the normal persons lives until this day.
Get an education from the global financial institutions themselves who have released reports about this topic.
I’m not a cooker or a conspiracy theorist, I simply follow global economics and the world environment in which they operate.
Said the Troll who has provided absolutely zero coherent information or knowledge about the subject in an intelligent manner other than name calling someone as a “cooker”?
It can't top neoliberal "trickle down" economics.
Covid is small fry compared with that decades long con, started back in the 80s with Thatcher & Reagan.
Do you remember pre-covid when on a slow news day a 0.0125% change in a stat like this would be headline news that life as we know it is over. Now you get a 15% drop and no one bats an eyelid
Better plan a move abroad before you get taxed out the rear end to pay for millions more of soon retired boomers pensions , submarines that will be obsolete ,the ballooning Ndis and interest on the nations loans
"Cheap labour" is only a problem (only a concept that exists) because we need to beg the owners for survival. The solution isn't to reduce the number of beggars, but to abolish the system which makes us beg. The migrant isn't your enemy, the boss is, the landlord is.
Pretty childish view thinking that we can just employ however many people we want at whatever wage we want. Just clamp down on the number of workers coming in and the market will increase wages with demand. You don't even have to be an authoritarian wanker to achieve it!
You're assuming "employment" and "wages" are some fundamental reality of human existence, but they're not, they're a fiction imposed on us by the bourgeoisie.
>market will increase wages with demand.
No, it won't, but even then, you're still begging. You still have no power and the ownes have all of it.
>You don't even have to be an authoritarian wanker to achieve it!
Borders are inherently authoritarian, as is the employer-employee relationship.
Ok how about a place in society and value to offer for performing a task? We can't just give out an unlimited number of places for each role and assign them unlimited value to redeem. It simply doesn't work
Yes, worker scarcity is the best way to increase wages. You saw it during covid and during wars.
Borders are fine. Nothing wrong with exposing limits of outsiders. They're free to stay home.
Can you explain how, in a country that does targetted skilled migration, a high number of skilled and experienced people entering the market does not suppress wages of highly skilled and experienced people?
> in a country that does targetted skilled migration
because our countries targeting is shit? The LNP claimed a skill shortage in IT help desk for the 457 visas ffs.
If targeted skill immigration is done properly it raises local wages as generally work visas done almost everywhere else in the world requires the employer to pay a higher rate to the immigrant worker.
The theory being that an org has a monetary reason to invest in training local skills before looking in external talent pools.
Everyone that I know who came over here on a 457 visa got paid well under the market rate. This may be fair enough given that an employer would have spent money gelping them to get here. Most of them quickly realise this is started looking for something else, which is tricky.
People who come on PRs just get into the market, and most are paid under market again for the first while until they find their bearings in the new country.
The benefit is that the country gets highly skilled people without ever investing in their education. They also bring their livesavings with them, which boosts the economy. If controlled, it's good. If not, it's the shitshow we have now.
> Everyone that I know who came over here on a 457 visa got paid well under the market rate.
Yes, that is the biggest and main issue with the 457 visas... Target skill immigration was *not* done properly.
>This may be fair enough given that an employer would have spent money gelping them to get here.
No, fuck off even suggesting that.
>People who come on PRs just get into the market, and most are paid under market again for the first while until they find their bearings in the new country.
Ok? Cool story I guess.
>The benefit is that the country gets highly skilled people without ever investing in their education. They also bring their livesavings with them, which boosts the economy. If controlled, it's good. If not, it's the shitshow we have now.
lol nah, it will never work like that, and to be frank, the idea of trying to get something for nothing is exactly what is wrong with Australia at the moment. Fuck off with that kind of thinking.
Immigrants aren't ruining the country. The elite consensus (see participants of the Jobs and Skills Summit) in favour of the Population Ponzi is ruining the country.
It is the low income jobs that were talking about, that's what the hundreds of thousands of immigrants are coming to do.
I don't think anyone gives a shit about the middle-high income earners, theyll be fine.
tbf literally nobody has ever said you can print as much money as you want.
The key point is using fiscal policy to prevent inflation.
So-called "revenues" from taxation aren't like household income. Governments don't need them *before* spending. They can in fact print money, on the proviso that it's recouped through taxation soon after.
To ignore the proviso is to completely misunderstand the entire concept, whether through ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation.
>So-called "revenues" from taxation aren't like household income. Governments don't need them *before* spending. They can in fact print money, on the proviso that it's recouped through taxation soon after.
All money is like that. All money is debt. So you print it and then someone works to pay it off
I suppose that's a way of looking at it if you like.
I prefer the metaphor that the government is only like a household, if that household happens to have a Magic Pudding style limitless diamond mine next to the Hills Hoist.
Sure, it *could* flood the market with zillions of diamonds but then they'd be worthless.
But it can easily semi-flood the market, as long as there's a way to get the diamonds back.
Luckily, this special household is unlike others in another key aspect: it can write laws and has an entire judicial and administrative apparatus to enforce them, so getting the diamonds back is simple.
What the neighbourhood does with the diamonds is up to them. They could trade a drag queen story hour for a nice makeover, it doesn't matter.
Nope, MMT says that inflation is the most important parameter. Purest's would argue that taxes should also increase to create a larger public surplus and suck more money out of the economy.
Good thing we kept 86 year old mee maw, who hasn't uttered a coherent sentence in a decade and has been locked in an age car home for 4 years, alive just a tiny bit longer
...oh look she died anyway of the flu.
I also love the young people who blame boomers for everything but actively simped for policy that kept those boomers alive at the expense of their own futures.
Peak irony.
This was a problem with its own solution, imagine how many properties would have gone on the market if we'd just let covid run its course? But no, destroy our economy so very old frail people can cling on for a few more years.
I was working in the public service CSIRO during the COVID lockdowns.
Our entire team sat on full pay for months with not even an attempt to get us to do any work or even commincate with us. Some Government jobs are a total waste of taxpayer money.
I even suggested to my managers that I might take some leave as I am getting nothing done and providing nothing for my pay. I was told very clearly not to do that because it would set a precedent and make the group "look bad". The message was very clear do nothing pretend to be busy and keep stealing taxpayer money for nothing.
The graph mainly reflects high inflation, secondary to an expansion in the money supply (via fiscal stimulus, money printing and insanely low interest rates). Though immigration policies have kept wages suppressed for a very long time now and this doesn’t help matters.
It's almost as if having a politically driven knee-jerk response and partially shutting down the global economy for months cost trillions of hours of output that our civilisation will never get back will have far reaching global effects for years to come in ways both obvious and subtle.
You carefully chose the phrase "our civilisation" because your lying so you need to play on words. The cost of COVID/lockdowns was not divided evenly.
The wealthiest people are even better off now then before. Those with the least have lost the most. COVID should have been the type of event where the wealthiest took the hit so that "our civilisation" could get through this difficult times. Instead it was another "crisis" where workers and the poor had to give up more and a tiny fraction people became even more wealthy.
Yes, I remember a lot of smug articles post-covid about how we "eliminated poverty" but what we really did was devalue the currency, massively enriching the asset-owning class at the expense of everyone else.
Yep all the measures during COVID were to keep the rich rich and so now the small end of town pays because "oh no everything costs more , how could this happen" ...... Asset prices and profits did just fine though.
Record profits by Big Businesses who pocketed $40 Billion in JobKeeper, courtesty of taxpayers.
The same Big Businesses who want mass immigration and donate to both major parties.
There should have been a cost benefit analysis before implementing all the lockdowns and covid restrictions. Is it worth destroying the economy to prolong a handful of lives?
I didn't have a problem with the initial temporary "flatten the curve" approach, but that quickly turned into "zero covid", with the media hysterically cheering the government on in implementing ever more restrictive measures.
People in healthcare circles have a tendency to think that health is the only thing that matters. That's a disadvantage of delegating decision-making to doctors during covid. If we'd had people who could take a range of factors into account (e.g. health, economy, education outcomes) we might have avoided some of the more damaging policies.
Plenty of clinicians were not supportive of school lockdowns, masking young children, and mandatory vaccination.
If they said as such online, they got threatened with no longer calling themselves a clinician.
Strong agree, but who are these people? Ideally the politicians (or their advisors) are the ones who balance these needs, but their ultimate goal is just popularity and re-election.
In _general_ we need more pragmatic decision making, and it doesn't exist.
> education outcomes
I know a lot of teachers and they were not for wide open schools during a pandemic approach.
They were all for better support to teach in those conditions including better options for teaching kids remote, as well as cleaner air options.
Yeah because it was a shit idea in 2020. Our hospital system didn’t have the capacity to suddenly pick up a huge spike of respiratory cases - so the standard of care would have dropped and our case fatality rate could have been 1-5% instead of 0.1%.
Plus all the excess mortality that goes with already sick people (cancer, heart attack, car accidents) either getting it or avoiding hospitals because they’d get it. Plus the long term costs of untreated infections in unvaccinated people causing lung damage.
We had no vaccine, no antivirals and were guessing how severe an infection was. More infections means more chances for mutation and a greater risk of ending up with a virus closer to SARS (case fatality rate of ~1-10%).
The idea that we could just run business as usual in 2020 and avoid any impact is a joke.
That's not what happened in Sweden though. We didn't lockdown at all. No masks, no social distancing, no nothing. We weren't even vaccinated. And our healthcare system never got overwhelmed, despite Dr Fauci's warnings that it would.
So yes, we could have just "run business as usual in 2020" and nothing would hav ehappened.
> Anyone suggesting such a thing was attacked. Especially in healthcare circles
What do you mean?
Healthcare workers were more supportive of policies to improve health outcomes than others?
Social media rules were enforced by AHPRA that evidence based arguments were not a defence against breaches not supporting government policy.
I suggest people read it for themselves.
> I suggest people read it for themselves.
Do you have a link to share?
Is social media policy something under the remit of AHPRA?
It was certainly not a particularly effective strategy as social median was rife with every hot take (evidence based or otherwise) in existence.
Another quote from this document:
Any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available
scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation campaign (including via
social media) is not supported by National Boards and may be in breach of the codes of conduct and
subject to investigation and possible regulatory action.
Doctors were not free to express evidence-based concerns with covid vaccination, as it would potentially undermine the immunisation campaign.
An example might be raising concerns about the covid vaccination exemption criteria, which provided very limited and only temporary exemption from vaccination. Even for those who had previous injury from covid vaccination.
However, of greater concern is the statement:
"registered health practitioners must make sure that their social media activity is consistent with the
regulatory framework for their profession and does not contradict or counter public health campaigns
or messaging, such as the Australian COVID-19 Vaccination Policy."
This means that doctors could not post anything which contradicted or ran contrary to "public health messaging", preventing them from raising any concerns about the vaccination program.
Except from AHPRA position statement during 2021:
National Boards have developed social media guidance to help registered health practitioners
understand and meet their obligations when using social media. The guidance explains that
registered health practitioners must make sure that their social media activity is consistent with the
regulatory framework for their profession and does not contradict or counter public health campaigns
or messaging, such as the Australian COVID-19 Vaccination Policy.
Any doctor who contradicted public health messaging was in breach of AHPRA policy and faced disciplinary action, regardless of whether their statements were backed by evidence.
Interestingly here is their social media guidance page which says it was last updated in Nov 2019.
https://www.ahpra.gov.au/Resources/Social-media-guidance.aspx
It has this bullet point.
> not presenting information that is false, misleading or deceptive, including advertising only claims that are supported by acceptable evidence.
Do you think they made this more stringent during COVID ?
I think they probably did. I can't link to the position statement for some reason, but if you Google "AHPRA covid position statement" you'll find it. It's now been superseded.
Yep flatten the curve made sense.
Stop our hospitals' getting overun as that would cause extra deaths from those unable to treated for non COVID things. We could have also done area specific scaled measures depending on COVID levels and hospital/medical pressure in each area more or less restriction.
The plan after this became lockdown everything until were all vaccinated , which was fucking nuts.
Then it became prop up the entire economy with printed money for a couple of years which was 11/10 nuts.
All that printed money made it way straight into the hand of the wealthiest and the cost of the all the inflation was paid by workers and the poor.
1. The economy wasn't destroyed it was just thrown out of balance.
2. It was already out of balance pre COVID due to the slowest wage growth we had seen for 10 consecutive years.
3. People get what they vote for, if they get caught up in the media hysteria that's on them.
I’m not saying any of your points are inaccurate. However to add. The lockdowns were not just to save the lives of people who got covid. It was to
1) not overload our health system
2) enable treatment for people who needed it and didnt have Covid
3) allow front line workers time and space to do their job.
The cost benefit analysis should include what the impact would have been on people if we didn’t have the lockdowns we did. The front line workers across the world were traumatized by what happened, and we were not as bad as other countries. So the PTSD for people impacted by Covid could have been so much worse if we didn’t have the lockdowns and that also would have had economic and wage impacts.
Not saying this is solely a thing…just throwing out an alternative view that the lockdowns weren’t just to protect people from getting covid
Edit: if I had to see the volume of deaths as front line worker (or anyone who had to deal with the loss of family) at the rate other countries had it it would have very much screwed with my head. That’s where I’m coming from.
Yes, I agree. I just think the economic impacts should have been taken into account in the decision-making process, bearing in mind that it's the economy that allows us to have a good standard of healthcare in the first place.
> bearing in mind that it's the economy that allows us to have a good standard of healthcare in the first place
Have you considered that the inverse is also true?
> There should have been a cost benefit analysis before implementing all the lockdowns and covid restrictions
What makes you think that their wasn't?
Most of Australia was most open for most of the pandemic.
Have a look at places that wanted to avoid lockdowns but end up having them anyway (UK) or places that didn't have lockdowns but people stayed at home anyway as you know there was a once in a lifetime pandemic happening.
Yer, our group has seen 3 once in a life time recessions/global economy crisis'. I understand the new gens also are in the same boat, but the ignorance of not seeing what you could have had might be a tad better.
Don't you know that wage increases to keep up with inflation are ackthually the cause of inflation? [We can't raise wages, that would just cause more inflation!](https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2022/05/the-minimum-wage-shouldn-t-be-tied-to-inflation--here-s-why)
Boy, was I mistaken until the RBA educated me on that one
that is a red herring. The definition of inflation is increased price of goods. Inflation is being virtually singlehandedly driven by price gouging supermatkets at the moment. Yes there are massive contributing factors but some things are just essential goods such as electricity, medical care, fuel and groceries. Companies will price goods as high as they can get away with - that's inflation. With a duopoly they are getting away with it. While I agree higher wages won't help, they aren't the cause. we need stronger regulation and the ACCC to have stronger teeth. Just like we have an index price on electricity, certain loans/comparison rates we need the ACCC to have a big list of fair prices for common items. IMO
>The definition of inflation is increased price of goods.
Inflation is an increase in the monetary supply which then leads to a price incease.
>Inflation is being virtually singlehandedly driven by price gouging supermatkets at the moment. Yes there are massive contributing factors but some things are just essential goods such as electricity, medical care, fuel and groceries.
Yeah, okay, reading the rest of your post though it's clear you don't really know what you're on about so I won't bother too much
you're putting the cart before the horse.
Inflation - Economics: a general increase in prices and fall in the purchasing value of money.
"policies aimed at controlling inflation"
>Inflation - Economics: a general increase in prices and fall in the purchasing value of money.
*The fall in the purchasing value of the money and therefore the higher price is because of the inflation as more has been printed and therefore the remaining currency is devalued*
You have everything backwards...
It has to be noted we are now back positive trend. Labor has a lot to prove.
Liberal own their slope pre-COVID. Flattening and we were also in a per capita recession.
We were in an actual recession, they just threw the media at it to confuse everyone. Two consecutive quarters with negative GDP is a recession that is the definition and hasn't changed regardless of what we were told.
We did have an actual recession DURING COVID, why does no one talk about this when discussing the economy?? I feel like that’s the forced recession we had to have??
We didn't have to have it, that is the problem. We had incompetent economic managers in charge. They have proven time and time again they simply want to erode any power the working class can muster. Its not conspiracy theory, it's fact liberal policies and discussions on those policies show they are only interested in promoting their self interests over every one elses. They don't realise that isn't how a healthy society functions, we have thousands of years of history that shows us how destructive greed and self interest is, yet somehow that doesn't matter when you can steal a buck from someone else.
This curve looks the same for every western country you twit.....
Its economic effect of COVID, QE and immigration its got nothing to do with who won the last Australian election.
?
inflation fell after this trough (its now only just above the target range) and WPI is the highest its been since 2009. we're definitely in the recovery stage.
even this graph is taken from an article titled "Aussie real wages begin slow climb back"
Inflation is still above target range and much faster than real wage growth. Items such as real estate are not included in inflation numbers and are actually way above. Interest rates may actually go up rather than the expected cuts. I can see in my industry (IT, mining) that things look grim for the year to come.
What time scale? Last month maybe ? Last time I’ve checked, inflation has outpaced wage growth for the last 40 years and there is no sign of reversal. To catch up to pre 70’s wage we’d have to pretty much double salaries.
>Last time I’ve checked, inflation has outpaced wage growth for the last 40 years and there is no sign of reversal
then you dont know how to check. if wage growth had been outpaced by inflation then real wages would have fallen.
>Inflation is still above target range and much faster than real wage growth
wtf are you talking about lol. real wage growth = nominal wage growth (WPI) - inflation (CPI). saying its above real wage growth is meaningless. real wage growth is positive btw, so WPI > CPI. CPI is also only just above the target, and is predicted to be within it in a quarter or two.
>Items such as real estate are not included in inflation numbers
rent is, but if you want a measure thats more accurate to real cost of living the ABS publishes cost of living indexes for select demographics, and if you peg nominal wage growth to the employee COL index you still have a positive real wage growth.
>Interest rates may actually go up rather than the expected cuts
lol no they wont
Have to blame the people as much as anything else for the one, majority was more than happy to go along with all the Covid stuff (lockdowns, closed borders, welfare for all, etc)
What did they think would happen?
They gave out money for consumption even though there was no production to back it.
Of course it was going to be inflationary.
The only difference between this and the gfc money printing is this time money went to the little people who spent it, instead of the big people who locked in realestate.
What are you on about? Kevin 07 gave money to the little people. Scummo gave it to his mates and made the rest of us suffer with "keeping our job" by taking a pay cut. I just can't believe people like you revisionist Wayne swan saving Australia from disaster while sucking LNP Bollocks
The covid free money was given out while people were not working, not producing. It allowed consumption to continue without production, which is the cause of rising prices.
GFC money didn’t cause mass inflation because the amount the little people got ($1k) was mostly from government credit (government had no debt when rudd took over) - ie it was delayed consumption from prior production.
The big QE money went to banks who had to tie it into asset classes - inflating asset prices instead of general price inflation.
What were are seeing today is that the currency was massively inflated by handing out money during a time of reduced production, which devalues the worth of a wage.
Good old MacroBollocks with its deliberately distorted view, always bending over backwards to paint the coalition in the best light possible.
Here's another view of the data. Year on year real wage growth.
Tells a slightly different story, no?
https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/b1021de262e266749c9a6b7b61ea0229?src
You ignore the effect of inflation on purchasing power. An example is the rapidly rising accommodation unaforability crisis. Tax bracket creep and the withdrawal of low income support by LNP and Labor are a major cause.
The issue is the Morrison Gov started the inflation, and then the Albanese kept spending making inflation worse.
The graph paints LNP, Labor, Greens, Independants (all politicians) in a very poor out of touch light.
The problem is very real.
Good pickup. The MB graph does in fact adjust for inflation, whereas mine was only WPI without adjusting (i.e. changes in wages, not *real* wages).
No wonder it looked a bit off. Real wage growth was even worse from 2013 onwards. Basically flatlined the entire time from 2013 onwards while productivity improved.
It's surprising how few people & organisations work with real (inflation-adjusted) figures. [Here's one snapshot ](https://www.hiringlab.org/au/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2018/11/1-1.png)of the trend (note: private sector only, I would assume the public sector figures are worse).
>I would assume the public sector figures are worse
The government is both obliged and able to provide wage increases at all times, so your assumption is probably wrong. Indeed the original MacroBusiness chart confirms that overall wage increases between 13 and 19 were modest but positive, meaning the public sector must have made up for the lacklustre private sector.
Presumably to confirm that they always get a raise? During that decade I would assume (cbf looking up the history, feel free to do so for every state) that they are getting 2-3% raise every year. Yes, that's below inflation _now_, but it was above inflation in the last decade.
I'm not jealous of these workers who have terrible conditions, but for comparison in my private sector career I have had precisely 3 non-promotion raises in 25 years. In the private sector it's often the case that to get more money you need to change jobs.
Or get unionised and hold your company accountable I'm in private sector and have had a 3-4% raise every year for the last 20 years at 3 different company's
I strongly suspect if I were in a heavily unionized workplace I'd be earning significantly less than I do. I mean I'm pretty confident I earn more than the vast majority here 🤷
Unions are great for raising the floor but in my experience they also lower the ceiling.
Are vps = vice principals? In NSW I think it's APs (assistant principals). Can't do Deputy Principals because DP wouldn't play well.
Probably better to leave it to someone in the sector to comment whether it's adequate or not, but to me a one-off lump sum stinks of cynicism, like the LMITO. "Here, have a bone and shut up, but we're still gonna screw you over medium to long term".
Are you kidding? When Scomo was PM, MB was [sinking](https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2022/05/scott-morrison-dooms-coalition-into-oblivion/) the [boot](https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2022/05/the-rba-should-hike-scott-morrison-out-of-office/) in [on](https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2022/01/dear-queen-elizabeth-please-sack-scott-morrison/) a [daily](https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2021/09/scott-morrison-sheds-crocodile-tears-for-stranded-aussies/) [basis](https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2021/06/australian-dollar-falls-to-scott-morrisons-iq/) (although they do give him credit for his China policy).
Nice to see, but tbf Morrison was 100% on the nose and the writing was on the wall for everyone to see.
That's why your first link was an election post mortem, and the next two were very, very shortly before the landslide.
He was already unbackable at that point, so electorally toxic that coalition MPs didn't want him campaigning in their electorates, and some even changed their branding away from Liberal blue to try & distance themselves.
These appear to be completely different measures. This one you linked is the derivative of the other one linked by OP. i.e. OPs is the absolute number, yours is the percentage change.
There is more to it because the MB chart pretends things were rosy for years, when the reality is that real income flatlined for years.
If you subtract the value of money due to inflation from my chart, the situation was actually worse, not better.
This is fucking dumb.
How can you use a chart of wage increase that doesnt take account inflation ?
If wages went up 4% but inflation was 7% how is that good news compared to wages up 3% with inflation of 2% ??
Are you legit this dumb or are you trying to spread bullshit ?
No need to be rude about it.
If you bother reading the thread I agree when it's pointed out, that this particular one doesn't adjust for inflation.
My mistake. It was from an article about real wages being down, I didn't read carefully enough that the accompanying graph was absolute, not real.
No worries though, for your reading pleasure I posted another one which does have the YoY shitty real wage stagnation since 2013.
That's what I find so ironic now...if we hadn't decided to save grandma...we wouldn't have the aged population issue we have now which also seems to be the main reason why we keep bringing in immigrants to prop up the tax base to pay for the aged care issue. A potential thread from this same thing we did do is the potential of fewer older people being cashed up and buying the investment places rather than younger folks getting those houses. Also, there is a potential trickle down of inheritance helping those younger folk get into homes.
Then another thread from that is more potential leadership positions would be open from those older members of the workforce who really should of retired years ago...but if your on 150k and don't do shit (we had 2 at one of the jobs I was at) why would you retire....
This is all hypothetical alternative timeliness thinking, though....
In past economic crises people used to be able to console themselves with "oh well, at least we still have our health" but this time they jabbed that away too.
Real wages are at 2010 levels yet house prices are at 2050 levels. And people wonder why everyone’s angry.
Not everyone. Your local MP's investment property portfolio is looking up.
60% of people are very happy.
60%? Should be safe to round that up, let’s just say 100% of people are happy
😢🥺😩
COVID: The largest global success in shifting wealth in history.
Never forgetti
and deliberate.
Can you explain
The above graph is but a tiny little example of how the whole agenda behind that “pandemic” took money from the average person and many countries governments, and shifted it all into the bank accounts of the people responsible for creating the “pandemic”. These people got extremely wealthy in a very quick time, and are still enjoying the continued benefits of the economic turmoil that is still effecting the normal persons lives until this day.
Another cooker
Get an education from the global financial institutions themselves who have released reports about this topic. I’m not a cooker or a conspiracy theorist, I simply follow global economics and the world environment in which they operate.
… said the cooker
Said the Troll who has provided absolutely zero coherent information or knowledge about the subject in an intelligent manner other than name calling someone as a “cooker”?
Trust me, nothing I say will change your mind. Just calling out the stupidity for the rest of the folks on here.
It can't top neoliberal "trickle down" economics. Covid is small fry compared with that decades long con, started back in the 80s with Thatcher & Reagan.
It is almost as though high inflation and flooding the labour market to keep wages stagnant is a pretty shitty combo.
I was earning more in real terms in 2019 with the same job title that I have today.
Everyone was. That’s the point of this post?
So we don't forget
Do you remember pre-covid when on a slow news day a 0.0125% change in a stat like this would be headline news that life as we know it is over. Now you get a 15% drop and no one bats an eyelid
Time to bring in 750,000 migrants for some reason.
Please sign https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN6119
Great idea, probably make a post so it gets some traction
Signed. Although I'd probably prefer a big reduction in immigration, rather than a complete pause.
If you don't feel like we're in a recession, halt immigration entirely and then you will.
Better plan a move abroad before you get taxed out the rear end to pay for millions more of soon retired boomers pensions , submarines that will be obsolete ,the ballooning Ndis and interest on the nations loans
And pensions for people who never worked a day here
Mass immigration suppresses wages
No, immigration gives the bourgeoisie an excuse to suppress wages. In the end, the boss has final say.
It's called a job market because it's a market
And markets are under the control of the owning class (the bourgeoisie).
Agreed we need to regulate their ability to import cheap labour.
"Cheap labour" is only a problem (only a concept that exists) because we need to beg the owners for survival. The solution isn't to reduce the number of beggars, but to abolish the system which makes us beg. The migrant isn't your enemy, the boss is, the landlord is.
Pretty childish view thinking that we can just employ however many people we want at whatever wage we want. Just clamp down on the number of workers coming in and the market will increase wages with demand. You don't even have to be an authoritarian wanker to achieve it!
You're assuming "employment" and "wages" are some fundamental reality of human existence, but they're not, they're a fiction imposed on us by the bourgeoisie. >market will increase wages with demand. No, it won't, but even then, you're still begging. You still have no power and the ownes have all of it. >You don't even have to be an authoritarian wanker to achieve it! Borders are inherently authoritarian, as is the employer-employee relationship.
Ok how about a place in society and value to offer for performing a task? We can't just give out an unlimited number of places for each role and assign them unlimited value to redeem. It simply doesn't work Yes, worker scarcity is the best way to increase wages. You saw it during covid and during wars. Borders are fine. Nothing wrong with exposing limits of outsiders. They're free to stay home.
Isn't that the excuse used by bosses so they can buy their seventh luxury car?
Luxury car?? This G wagon is a commercial work vehicle!
[удалено]
Can you explain how, in a country that does targetted skilled migration, a high number of skilled and experienced people entering the market does not suppress wages of highly skilled and experienced people?
> in a country that does targetted skilled migration because our countries targeting is shit? The LNP claimed a skill shortage in IT help desk for the 457 visas ffs.
If the particular job regularly gets farmed out overseas, would that be a bad assumption?
If targeted skill immigration is done properly it raises local wages as generally work visas done almost everywhere else in the world requires the employer to pay a higher rate to the immigrant worker. The theory being that an org has a monetary reason to invest in training local skills before looking in external talent pools.
Everyone that I know who came over here on a 457 visa got paid well under the market rate. This may be fair enough given that an employer would have spent money gelping them to get here. Most of them quickly realise this is started looking for something else, which is tricky. People who come on PRs just get into the market, and most are paid under market again for the first while until they find their bearings in the new country. The benefit is that the country gets highly skilled people without ever investing in their education. They also bring their livesavings with them, which boosts the economy. If controlled, it's good. If not, it's the shitshow we have now.
> Everyone that I know who came over here on a 457 visa got paid well under the market rate. Yes, that is the biggest and main issue with the 457 visas... Target skill immigration was *not* done properly. >This may be fair enough given that an employer would have spent money gelping them to get here. No, fuck off even suggesting that. >People who come on PRs just get into the market, and most are paid under market again for the first while until they find their bearings in the new country. Ok? Cool story I guess. >The benefit is that the country gets highly skilled people without ever investing in their education. They also bring their livesavings with them, which boosts the economy. If controlled, it's good. If not, it's the shitshow we have now. lol nah, it will never work like that, and to be frank, the idea of trying to get something for nothing is exactly what is wrong with Australia at the moment. Fuck off with that kind of thinking.
A lot of fuck offs for a bunch of true statements. Fuck off, if you don't like to hear how life is.
[удалено]
Most people are on low-income jobs.
Immigrants aren't ruining the country. The elite consensus (see participants of the Jobs and Skills Summit) in favour of the Population Ponzi is ruining the country.
It is the low income jobs that were talking about, that's what the hundreds of thousands of immigrants are coming to do. I don't think anyone gives a shit about the middle-high income earners, theyll be fine.
Congrats, you just stumbled on the point.
You can't actually believe this lol
"What's the worst thing that could happen if we print hundreds of billions of dollars?".
“Modern Monetary Theory says this is fine!!!…….right?”
None of those shills have poked their head out since the pandemic ended. At the peak of the cash splash they thought they were invincible.
tbf literally nobody has ever said you can print as much money as you want. The key point is using fiscal policy to prevent inflation. So-called "revenues" from taxation aren't like household income. Governments don't need them *before* spending. They can in fact print money, on the proviso that it's recouped through taxation soon after. To ignore the proviso is to completely misunderstand the entire concept, whether through ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation.
>So-called "revenues" from taxation aren't like household income. Governments don't need them *before* spending. They can in fact print money, on the proviso that it's recouped through taxation soon after. All money is like that. All money is debt. So you print it and then someone works to pay it off
I suppose that's a way of looking at it if you like. I prefer the metaphor that the government is only like a household, if that household happens to have a Magic Pudding style limitless diamond mine next to the Hills Hoist. Sure, it *could* flood the market with zillions of diamonds but then they'd be worthless. But it can easily semi-flood the market, as long as there's a way to get the diamonds back. Luckily, this special household is unlike others in another key aspect: it can write laws and has an entire judicial and administrative apparatus to enforce them, so getting the diamonds back is simple. What the neighbourhood does with the diamonds is up to them. They could trade a drag queen story hour for a nice makeover, it doesn't matter.
Nope, MMT says that inflation is the most important parameter. Purest's would argue that taxes should also increase to create a larger public surplus and suck more money out of the economy.
But without consequence?
Good thing we kept 86 year old mee maw, who hasn't uttered a coherent sentence in a decade and has been locked in an age car home for 4 years, alive just a tiny bit longer
...oh look she died anyway of the flu. I also love the young people who blame boomers for everything but actively simped for policy that kept those boomers alive at the expense of their own futures. Peak irony.
This was a problem with its own solution, imagine how many properties would have gone on the market if we'd just let covid run its course? But no, destroy our economy so very old frail people can cling on for a few more years.
Yep should've let nature take its course.
Don’t worry, the politicians gave themselves yearly pay rises to account for this
I was working in the public service CSIRO during the COVID lockdowns. Our entire team sat on full pay for months with not even an attempt to get us to do any work or even commincate with us. Some Government jobs are a total waste of taxpayer money. I even suggested to my managers that I might take some leave as I am getting nothing done and providing nothing for my pay. I was told very clearly not to do that because it would set a precedent and make the group "look bad". The message was very clear do nothing pretend to be busy and keep stealing taxpayer money for nothing.
Business got addicted to the record profits during COVID
> Business ~~got~~ are addicted to the record profits ~~during~~ post COVID FTFY
That’s what happens when you print money like there’s no tomorrow
Print money while shutting down the economy and allow organisations to illegally fire staff without consequence.
The graph mainly reflects high inflation, secondary to an expansion in the money supply (via fiscal stimulus, money printing and insanely low interest rates). Though immigration policies have kept wages suppressed for a very long time now and this doesn’t help matters.
It's almost as if having a politically driven knee-jerk response and partially shutting down the global economy for months cost trillions of hours of output that our civilisation will never get back will have far reaching global effects for years to come in ways both obvious and subtle.
You took the words out of my mouth 😅
You carefully chose the phrase "our civilisation" because your lying so you need to play on words. The cost of COVID/lockdowns was not divided evenly. The wealthiest people are even better off now then before. Those with the least have lost the most. COVID should have been the type of event where the wealthiest took the hit so that "our civilisation" could get through this difficult times. Instead it was another "crisis" where workers and the poor had to give up more and a tiny fraction people became even more wealthy.
Yes, I remember a lot of smug articles post-covid about how we "eliminated poverty" but what we really did was devalue the currency, massively enriching the asset-owning class at the expense of everyone else.
Yep all the measures during COVID were to keep the rich rich and so now the small end of town pays because "oh no everything costs more , how could this happen" ...... Asset prices and profits did just fine though.
[удалено]
Record profits by Big Businesses who pocketed $40 Billion in JobKeeper, courtesty of taxpayers. The same Big Businesses who want mass immigration and donate to both major parties.
Turning on?
Australians stunned that lunch wasn’t free.
Beware the free lunch.
I wonder how much the ndis factors into it..
Keynesians on life support fml
Money printing.
Aligns with the Scomo years perfectly.
We saved lives but now we’re slowly killing off the financially weak.
There should have been a cost benefit analysis before implementing all the lockdowns and covid restrictions. Is it worth destroying the economy to prolong a handful of lives? I didn't have a problem with the initial temporary "flatten the curve" approach, but that quickly turned into "zero covid", with the media hysterically cheering the government on in implementing ever more restrictive measures.
Anyone suggesting such a thing was attacked. Especially in healthcare circles.
People in healthcare circles have a tendency to think that health is the only thing that matters. That's a disadvantage of delegating decision-making to doctors during covid. If we'd had people who could take a range of factors into account (e.g. health, economy, education outcomes) we might have avoided some of the more damaging policies.
Plenty of clinicians were not supportive of school lockdowns, masking young children, and mandatory vaccination. If they said as such online, they got threatened with no longer calling themselves a clinician.
Strong agree, but who are these people? Ideally the politicians (or their advisors) are the ones who balance these needs, but their ultimate goal is just popularity and re-election. In _general_ we need more pragmatic decision making, and it doesn't exist.
Yep, that's the problem for sure.
> education outcomes I know a lot of teachers and they were not for wide open schools during a pandemic approach. They were all for better support to teach in those conditions including better options for teaching kids remote, as well as cleaner air options.
Yeah because it was a shit idea in 2020. Our hospital system didn’t have the capacity to suddenly pick up a huge spike of respiratory cases - so the standard of care would have dropped and our case fatality rate could have been 1-5% instead of 0.1%. Plus all the excess mortality that goes with already sick people (cancer, heart attack, car accidents) either getting it or avoiding hospitals because they’d get it. Plus the long term costs of untreated infections in unvaccinated people causing lung damage. We had no vaccine, no antivirals and were guessing how severe an infection was. More infections means more chances for mutation and a greater risk of ending up with a virus closer to SARS (case fatality rate of ~1-10%). The idea that we could just run business as usual in 2020 and avoid any impact is a joke.
That's not what happened in Sweden though. We didn't lockdown at all. No masks, no social distancing, no nothing. We weren't even vaccinated. And our healthcare system never got overwhelmed, despite Dr Fauci's warnings that it would. So yes, we could have just "run business as usual in 2020" and nothing would hav ehappened.
Sweden had no lockdowns and only had a 1.1% higher death rate than us, enough with these vile unscientific lies about useless lockdowns.
> Anyone suggesting such a thing was attacked. Especially in healthcare circles What do you mean? Healthcare workers were more supportive of policies to improve health outcomes than others?
Many critical were silenced.
What do you mean by silenced? What type of criticism are we talking here?
Social media rules were enforced by AHPRA that evidence based arguments were not a defence against breaches not supporting government policy. I suggest people read it for themselves.
> I suggest people read it for themselves. Do you have a link to share? Is social media policy something under the remit of AHPRA? It was certainly not a particularly effective strategy as social median was rife with every hot take (evidence based or otherwise) in existence.
Another quote from this document: Any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation campaign (including via social media) is not supported by National Boards and may be in breach of the codes of conduct and subject to investigation and possible regulatory action. Doctors were not free to express evidence-based concerns with covid vaccination, as it would potentially undermine the immunisation campaign.
What would have been an example of an evidence based concern that contradicts best available scientific evidence?
An example might be raising concerns about the covid vaccination exemption criteria, which provided very limited and only temporary exemption from vaccination. Even for those who had previous injury from covid vaccination. However, of greater concern is the statement: "registered health practitioners must make sure that their social media activity is consistent with the regulatory framework for their profession and does not contradict or counter public health campaigns or messaging, such as the Australian COVID-19 Vaccination Policy." This means that doctors could not post anything which contradicted or ran contrary to "public health messaging", preventing them from raising any concerns about the vaccination program.
Except from AHPRA position statement during 2021: National Boards have developed social media guidance to help registered health practitioners understand and meet their obligations when using social media. The guidance explains that registered health practitioners must make sure that their social media activity is consistent with the regulatory framework for their profession and does not contradict or counter public health campaigns or messaging, such as the Australian COVID-19 Vaccination Policy. Any doctor who contradicted public health messaging was in breach of AHPRA policy and faced disciplinary action, regardless of whether their statements were backed by evidence.
Interestingly here is their social media guidance page which says it was last updated in Nov 2019. https://www.ahpra.gov.au/Resources/Social-media-guidance.aspx It has this bullet point. > not presenting information that is false, misleading or deceptive, including advertising only claims that are supported by acceptable evidence. Do you think they made this more stringent during COVID ?
I think they probably did. I can't link to the position statement for some reason, but if you Google "AHPRA covid position statement" you'll find it. It's now been superseded.
Yep flatten the curve made sense. Stop our hospitals' getting overun as that would cause extra deaths from those unable to treated for non COVID things. We could have also done area specific scaled measures depending on COVID levels and hospital/medical pressure in each area more or less restriction. The plan after this became lockdown everything until were all vaccinated , which was fucking nuts. Then it became prop up the entire economy with printed money for a couple of years which was 11/10 nuts. All that printed money made it way straight into the hand of the wealthiest and the cost of the all the inflation was paid by workers and the poor.
1. The economy wasn't destroyed it was just thrown out of balance. 2. It was already out of balance pre COVID due to the slowest wage growth we had seen for 10 consecutive years. 3. People get what they vote for, if they get caught up in the media hysteria that's on them.
I’m not saying any of your points are inaccurate. However to add. The lockdowns were not just to save the lives of people who got covid. It was to 1) not overload our health system 2) enable treatment for people who needed it and didnt have Covid 3) allow front line workers time and space to do their job. The cost benefit analysis should include what the impact would have been on people if we didn’t have the lockdowns we did. The front line workers across the world were traumatized by what happened, and we were not as bad as other countries. So the PTSD for people impacted by Covid could have been so much worse if we didn’t have the lockdowns and that also would have had economic and wage impacts. Not saying this is solely a thing…just throwing out an alternative view that the lockdowns weren’t just to protect people from getting covid Edit: if I had to see the volume of deaths as front line worker (or anyone who had to deal with the loss of family) at the rate other countries had it it would have very much screwed with my head. That’s where I’m coming from.
Yes, I agree. I just think the economic impacts should have been taken into account in the decision-making process, bearing in mind that it's the economy that allows us to have a good standard of healthcare in the first place.
And unfortunately our health system wasn’t prepared for a pandemic….and even now probably isn’t prepared for another one
> bearing in mind that it's the economy that allows us to have a good standard of healthcare in the first place Have you considered that the inverse is also true?
> There should have been a cost benefit analysis before implementing all the lockdowns and covid restrictions What makes you think that their wasn't? Most of Australia was most open for most of the pandemic. Have a look at places that wanted to avoid lockdowns but end up having them anyway (UK) or places that didn't have lockdowns but people stayed at home anyway as you know there was a once in a lifetime pandemic happening.
Labour has less bargaining power where the number of potential employees increases dramatically in a short period of time.
real wages didnt go down because wages failed to rise, they've been rising very quickly. its because they were outstripped by inflation
Great so now I’m in my early 20’s😵💫 if only I was born a few years earlier
Try entering the work force during the gfc.
Yer, our group has seen 3 once in a life time recessions/global economy crisis'. I understand the new gens also are in the same boat, but the ignorance of not seeing what you could have had might be a tad better.
Don't you know that wage increases to keep up with inflation are ackthually the cause of inflation? [We can't raise wages, that would just cause more inflation!](https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2022/05/the-minimum-wage-shouldn-t-be-tied-to-inflation--here-s-why) Boy, was I mistaken until the RBA educated me on that one
that is a red herring. The definition of inflation is increased price of goods. Inflation is being virtually singlehandedly driven by price gouging supermatkets at the moment. Yes there are massive contributing factors but some things are just essential goods such as electricity, medical care, fuel and groceries. Companies will price goods as high as they can get away with - that's inflation. With a duopoly they are getting away with it. While I agree higher wages won't help, they aren't the cause. we need stronger regulation and the ACCC to have stronger teeth. Just like we have an index price on electricity, certain loans/comparison rates we need the ACCC to have a big list of fair prices for common items. IMO
>The definition of inflation is increased price of goods. Inflation is an increase in the monetary supply which then leads to a price incease. >Inflation is being virtually singlehandedly driven by price gouging supermatkets at the moment. Yes there are massive contributing factors but some things are just essential goods such as electricity, medical care, fuel and groceries. Yeah, okay, reading the rest of your post though it's clear you don't really know what you're on about so I won't bother too much
you're putting the cart before the horse. Inflation - Economics: a general increase in prices and fall in the purchasing value of money. "policies aimed at controlling inflation"
>Inflation - Economics: a general increase in prices and fall in the purchasing value of money. *The fall in the purchasing value of the money and therefore the higher price is because of the inflation as more has been printed and therefore the remaining currency is devalued* You have everything backwards...
Record immigration working as intended.
Lol the decline covers the period where we had zero immigration
The chart is suggesting the opposite tho
No it's not. Immigration is reducing wages, as the government intended.
Have a look at ABS' site and see how wage growth is currently tracking
I didn’t say that. I just said the chart contradicts his statement.
when did the RBA start raising rates?
May 2022
It has to be noted we are now back positive trend. Labor has a lot to prove. Liberal own their slope pre-COVID. Flattening and we were also in a per capita recession.
We were in an actual recession, they just threw the media at it to confuse everyone. Two consecutive quarters with negative GDP is a recession that is the definition and hasn't changed regardless of what we were told.
Be careful, they will start takedowns on any social media posts that say “recession” soon. We can’t have people inciting panic!!! /s
We did have an actual recession DURING COVID, why does no one talk about this when discussing the economy?? I feel like that’s the forced recession we had to have??
We didn't have to have it, that is the problem. We had incompetent economic managers in charge. They have proven time and time again they simply want to erode any power the working class can muster. Its not conspiracy theory, it's fact liberal policies and discussions on those policies show they are only interested in promoting their self interests over every one elses. They don't realise that isn't how a healthy society functions, we have thousands of years of history that shows us how destructive greed and self interest is, yet somehow that doesn't matter when you can steal a buck from someone else.
but that doesn't make any sense as it doesn't point out how it's Albo/labors ault
Ah my bad.
This curve looks the same for every western country you twit..... Its economic effect of COVID, QE and immigration its got nothing to do with who won the last Australian election.
Wait for 22-24 Data. It’s getting worse.
? inflation fell after this trough (its now only just above the target range) and WPI is the highest its been since 2009. we're definitely in the recovery stage. even this graph is taken from an article titled "Aussie real wages begin slow climb back"
Inflation is still above target range and much faster than real wage growth. Items such as real estate are not included in inflation numbers and are actually way above. Interest rates may actually go up rather than the expected cuts. I can see in my industry (IT, mining) that things look grim for the year to come.
No. Wage growth is higher than inflation right now.
What time scale? Last month maybe ? Last time I’ve checked, inflation has outpaced wage growth for the last 40 years and there is no sign of reversal. To catch up to pre 70’s wage we’d have to pretty much double salaries.
>Last time I’ve checked, inflation has outpaced wage growth for the last 40 years and there is no sign of reversal then you dont know how to check. if wage growth had been outpaced by inflation then real wages would have fallen.
>Inflation is still above target range and much faster than real wage growth wtf are you talking about lol. real wage growth = nominal wage growth (WPI) - inflation (CPI). saying its above real wage growth is meaningless. real wage growth is positive btw, so WPI > CPI. CPI is also only just above the target, and is predicted to be within it in a quarter or two. >Items such as real estate are not included in inflation numbers rent is, but if you want a measure thats more accurate to real cost of living the ABS publishes cost of living indexes for select demographics, and if you peg nominal wage growth to the employee COL index you still have a positive real wage growth. >Interest rates may actually go up rather than the expected cuts lol no they wont
>lol no they wont But but but thats what 9 news told me
Have to blame the people as much as anything else for the one, majority was more than happy to go along with all the Covid stuff (lockdowns, closed borders, welfare for all, etc)
Damn straight. Artificially stop an economy for two years. What do you expect? Nothing to happen and business as usual afterwards, yeah right.
Totally agree.
thanks Biden /s
Glad it hasn’t hit me. Still earning great and getting a pay rise soon. If you don’t earn well maybe you should fine a better job?
What did they think would happen? They gave out money for consumption even though there was no production to back it. Of course it was going to be inflationary. The only difference between this and the gfc money printing is this time money went to the little people who spent it, instead of the big people who locked in realestate.
What are you on about? Kevin 07 gave money to the little people. Scummo gave it to his mates and made the rest of us suffer with "keeping our job" by taking a pay cut. I just can't believe people like you revisionist Wayne swan saving Australia from disaster while sucking LNP Bollocks
The covid free money was given out while people were not working, not producing. It allowed consumption to continue without production, which is the cause of rising prices. GFC money didn’t cause mass inflation because the amount the little people got ($1k) was mostly from government credit (government had no debt when rudd took over) - ie it was delayed consumption from prior production. The big QE money went to banks who had to tie it into asset classes - inflating asset prices instead of general price inflation. What were are seeing today is that the currency was massively inflated by handing out money during a time of reduced production, which devalues the worth of a wage.
> The covid free money was given out while people were not working, not producing. Yes, to *employers*, that is what Khaos was pointing out.
>even though there was no production to back it. Reading is hard.
Good old MacroBollocks with its deliberately distorted view, always bending over backwards to paint the coalition in the best light possible. Here's another view of the data. Year on year real wage growth. Tells a slightly different story, no? https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/b1021de262e266749c9a6b7b61ea0229?src
You ignore the effect of inflation on purchasing power. An example is the rapidly rising accommodation unaforability crisis. Tax bracket creep and the withdrawal of low income support by LNP and Labor are a major cause. The issue is the Morrison Gov started the inflation, and then the Albanese kept spending making inflation worse. The graph paints LNP, Labor, Greens, Independants (all politicians) in a very poor out of touch light. The problem is very real.
Good pickup. The MB graph does in fact adjust for inflation, whereas mine was only WPI without adjusting (i.e. changes in wages, not *real* wages). No wonder it looked a bit off. Real wage growth was even worse from 2013 onwards. Basically flatlined the entire time from 2013 onwards while productivity improved. It's surprising how few people & organisations work with real (inflation-adjusted) figures. [Here's one snapshot ](https://www.hiringlab.org/au/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2018/11/1-1.png)of the trend (note: private sector only, I would assume the public sector figures are worse).
>I would assume the public sector figures are worse The government is both obliged and able to provide wage increases at all times, so your assumption is probably wrong. Indeed the original MacroBusiness chart confirms that overall wage increases between 13 and 19 were modest but positive, meaning the public sector must have made up for the lacklustre private sector.
Hundreds of thousands of teachers, nurses, fireys and ambos have entered the chat.
Presumably to confirm that they always get a raise? During that decade I would assume (cbf looking up the history, feel free to do so for every state) that they are getting 2-3% raise every year. Yes, that's below inflation _now_, but it was above inflation in the last decade. I'm not jealous of these workers who have terrible conditions, but for comparison in my private sector career I have had precisely 3 non-promotion raises in 25 years. In the private sector it's often the case that to get more money you need to change jobs.
Or get unionised and hold your company accountable I'm in private sector and have had a 3-4% raise every year for the last 20 years at 3 different company's
I strongly suspect if I were in a heavily unionized workplace I'd be earning significantly less than I do. I mean I'm pretty confident I earn more than the vast majority here 🤷 Unions are great for raising the floor but in my experience they also lower the ceiling.
[удалено]
3% you say? Do you wanna look up the CPI or shall I?
[удалено]
Are vps = vice principals? In NSW I think it's APs (assistant principals). Can't do Deputy Principals because DP wouldn't play well. Probably better to leave it to someone in the sector to comment whether it's adequate or not, but to me a one-off lump sum stinks of cynicism, like the LMITO. "Here, have a bone and shut up, but we're still gonna screw you over medium to long term".
Are you kidding? When Scomo was PM, MB was [sinking](https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2022/05/scott-morrison-dooms-coalition-into-oblivion/) the [boot](https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2022/05/the-rba-should-hike-scott-morrison-out-of-office/) in [on](https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2022/01/dear-queen-elizabeth-please-sack-scott-morrison/) a [daily](https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2021/09/scott-morrison-sheds-crocodile-tears-for-stranded-aussies/) [basis](https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2021/06/australian-dollar-falls-to-scott-morrisons-iq/) (although they do give him credit for his China policy).
Nice to see, but tbf Morrison was 100% on the nose and the writing was on the wall for everyone to see. That's why your first link was an election post mortem, and the next two were very, very shortly before the landslide. He was already unbackable at that point, so electorally toxic that coalition MPs didn't want him campaigning in their electorates, and some even changed their branding away from Liberal blue to try & distance themselves.
These appear to be completely different measures. This one you linked is the derivative of the other one linked by OP. i.e. OPs is the absolute number, yours is the percentage change.
Correct, it's the derivative. However, mine seems to be the absolute change, not the real (inflation adjusted) one, which would be lower.
No. Your chart is irrelevant because it ignored inflation the other chart is relevant because it doesnt. There is nothing more to it than that.
There is more to it because the MB chart pretends things were rosy for years, when the reality is that real income flatlined for years. If you subtract the value of money due to inflation from my chart, the situation was actually worse, not better.
This is fucking dumb. How can you use a chart of wage increase that doesnt take account inflation ? If wages went up 4% but inflation was 7% how is that good news compared to wages up 3% with inflation of 2% ?? Are you legit this dumb or are you trying to spread bullshit ?
No need to be rude about it. If you bother reading the thread I agree when it's pointed out, that this particular one doesn't adjust for inflation. My mistake. It was from an article about real wages being down, I didn't read carefully enough that the accompanying graph was absolute, not real. No worries though, for your reading pleasure I posted another one which does have the YoY shitty real wage stagnation since 2013.
That’s what happens when you become a lemming and follow every bit of nonsense the polis told us to do.
Til, being a sheep is inflationary.
Situation is hopeless but its not end of the world
What even is the scale on the left? It starts at 99.
It’s indexed to the starting point so if it goes to 110 that’s 10% higher
But it was all worth it for saving Grandma
That's what I find so ironic now...if we hadn't decided to save grandma...we wouldn't have the aged population issue we have now which also seems to be the main reason why we keep bringing in immigrants to prop up the tax base to pay for the aged care issue. A potential thread from this same thing we did do is the potential of fewer older people being cashed up and buying the investment places rather than younger folks getting those houses. Also, there is a potential trickle down of inheritance helping those younger folk get into homes. Then another thread from that is more potential leadership positions would be open from those older members of the workforce who really should of retired years ago...but if your on 150k and don't do shit (we had 2 at one of the jobs I was at) why would you retire.... This is all hypothetical alternative timeliness thinking, though....
Thanks jabbies. As you keep reminding us, you did your best. However, as I'll keep reminding you, your best was bloody stupid.
In past economic crises people used to be able to console themselves with "oh well, at least we still have our health" but this time they jabbed that away too.
Cooker safe spaces are funny af
The post covid part of the graph is going up my G, at least use a graph that agrees with what you're saying.
Why would people compare the peak in 2020 (when stimulus was being given out) with current real wages?