God will guide fair pay
Ian Harper is the head of the new fair pay commission (which is amazing seeing as we don’t even have legislation on this yet). Anyway, he apparently is guided by God as to how this will work:
“I’ll be praying for wisdom … praying for courage and praying above all that God’s will is being done through this, not mine,” the committed Anglican said.
“I’m a Christian. I believe in God and I believe that God’s will is important to be done in the world. It means I hold very dear to the values of fairness, justice, honesty, integrity in the process that I’ll use to be making a decision with my fellow commissioners.”
Now admittedly he was talking to a meeting of the Australian Christian Lobby, which is concerning in itself if you ask me. The article goes on to say that he believes minimum wages have been “historically high”, that God wants low inflation and good economic growth and that he would be against slavery. Sounds just peachy really.
November 9th, 2005 at 10:39 am
Well Homer, why don’t you republish it here? You make it pretty hard to educate oneself when you don’t provide these “papers” or even the authors names.
I dare say there will be a lot more papers coming from Sydney Anglicans that you’ll disagree with. For a start, try Gordon Preece, previously of Ridley College and no of Macquarie Christian Studies Institute. Or are they irrelevant now?
November 9th, 2005 at 11:16 am
Bec,
you would be probably be very good friend of mine.
We do disagree on a lot of things.
I don’t know if gordon would like to be known as a sydney anglican!
bec look under ssocial issues on their website it might still be there
Luke,
secondary education is more important in these cases. The people who do pull themselves up in the US usually finish their high school diploma.
November 9th, 2005 at 11:36 am
Wow Homer,
I just wanted to acknowledge that your debating style seems to have improved. As you know I have been offended by the way you have spoken to me in the past, but here you seem to be putting forward your oppinion without such a need to put others down.
If I read you correctly you even said the Uniting Church spokespeople with whom you disagree are Christians. That is great. At this rate you will have me back as a regular correspondant.
I’d be happy to read your report for the Sydney anglican social issues committee too.
November 9th, 2005 at 11:46 am
this was written back in 2000!
“Globalization deepens the divide between winners and losers, as income gaps widen”
“Obscene executive payouts anger Premier Carr - dumped AMP chief gets $13.2 million for his pain”
“Job creation starts with self-help”
It’s never pleasant being unemployed. And, these recent newspaper headlines remind us that at present in Australia, those who find themselves without work are probably closer to the bottom of the community’s concerns than they have been since the “dole-bludger” myths of the late 1970s.
Thinking about work and the money it brings in consumes much of our life. Our culture succeeds in focussing us on the material world and equating our self-worth with the right job that will enable us to consume with the best of them.
There is no denying that work is a fundamental human activity. It is part of the divine ordering of the world, instituted by God in its creation. Our Doctrine Commission puts it this way: “the value of work arises from the original work of God and hence from the purposes of God for man (sic) and his creation. The human race carries out his work because he has commanded us to do so as the ones who bear his image who himself is the ruler of the world.”* As Genesis chapters 1 and 2 make clear, people act as God’s agents in creation, being stewards of his works. By serving God, that is by working in his creation, we serve others, sustaining our lives and the lives of our dependents.
It is no surprise then that unemployment, the state of being without paid work when such work is needed,** has such a negative impact on individuals and the community. For without the opportunity to “do something useful with your own hands” (Ephesians 4:28), and “to provide for those who depend on you” (1 Timothy 5:8), significant material and emotional consequences for the individual, as well as social dysfunction, can and do occur.
The individual suffers in obvious ways - financial insecurity and material deprivation can be immediate at the loss of income producing activity. Feelings of inadequacy and the loss of a significant component of identity develop, worsening as the period of unemployment continues. Society also suffers from increases in crime, family and household disintegration, and the under-utilisation of its resources for meeting community-wide needs. Disparities in wealth widen between individuals and regions. Clearly these effects of unemployment are all unwanted.
Although these effects are felt and to a degree recognised throughout the community, agreement on what to do about them is not as evident. The levels of unemployment experienced in all parts of the world over the last two decades have challenged governments as well as economists as to the appropriate mix of policy responses required to reduce unemployment and to alleviate the suffering it causes.
Unemployment in Australia is currently 7%. It has been reducing since it reached a high of 11.2% in 1992. Despite a number of years of high economic growth (traditionally seen by economists as essential to maintaining low unemployment rates) the level of unemployment in Australia remains unacceptably high. In particular, high levels of long-term unemployment (defined as those unemployed for longer than one year) persist.
The official figures also disguise significant levels of underemployment where people are working below their skill level or for less hours than they would prefer. They also hide severe regional differences in economic growth and employment opportunities, with small rural communities suffering particularly despite the national economic “success”. The very nature of work is also evolving - people today often have more than one career over their lifetime, or at least have many employers punctuated by periods of unemployment. Most work longer hours. Increasing numbers experience the insecurity of contract employment.
Despite these developments, unemployment is often viewed as something that happens to someone else. Our individualist culture means that it can be difficult to foster community concern about those in our midst who are not benefiting from the new technology driven economy. Minorities without a strong voice can be left out. The opportunity for the Christian church in this situation seems obvious - to ensure that those disadvantaged in our community should not be forgotten and indeed should be helped to participate fully in society.
In Australia a variety of measures exist to address unemployment and its consequences. Unemployment benefits and job placement services are provided. Business subsidies assist regional areas and whole industries. Wage subsidies are also available for individual firms taking on unemployed people. Incentives and support are provided to assist in starting up small enterprise.
Both sides of Australian politics support each of these responses - the disagreements occur over the degree of assistance or the level of benefits. Even greater differences arise over the extent of government involvement in the economy and the commitment of public sector financial resources. This debate has a significant impact on the responses made to unemployment. For example, large government budget outlays are required to fund key policies like retraining schemes or income tax credit arrangements. The larger issue of whether one is committed to a more prominent role for the government, or for the market, however, often frames conclusions about the value and extent of such responses.
As a rule economists today are more likely to expound policy solutions that give primacy to market solutions. Governments and communities also, however, rightly desire equitable outcomes from policy prescriptions, which are unlikely to come from the market alone. For example, employment protection requirements such as redundancy payments and unfair dismissal laws can be viewed as a hindrance to firms hiring workers, and contemporary economic paradigms demand these approaches be minimised if not removed. However, equity arguments are clearly stronger in this instance and require the retention and strengthening of these protections in the face of calls for their removal.
The balance between equity and efficiency, between regulation and deregulation, is the fundamental challenge to government in the 21st century, and needs to be kept at the forefront of consideration of various responses to unemployment. These classic contentions are complicated by the globalization push which creates universal pressure to lower taxation and to minimise employment protections. Capitalism without significant government involvement is more likely than not to result in unacceptable inequality and insecurity amongst the populace. No where is this clearer in our community than in the changing nature of work and the persistence of unemployment.
Some major proposals to deal with unemployment include:
1. Reduction of minimum wages. One side of the argument is that low skilled unemployed people are being priced out of jobs, their productivity not commensurate with the current minimum wage. It is noted that some evidence exists that people do not spend a lot of time in the initial low paying job. They rise up the ladder as they gain important core competencies learnt on the job. It is said that Australia’s national minimum wage is high by international standards, measured both as a proportion of median earnings and in terms of purchasing power.
Proponents point out that one couldn’t abolish minimum wages overnight. This would have a potential catastrophic effect on low skilled workers. There would be potential inequality problems as well. Rather, leaving the minimum wage where it is would mean a de-facto fall over time as has happened in the United States.
However, the other side of the argument views the Australian minimum wage regime as ensuring adequate reward to sustain a basic standard of living as well as limiting inequality (especially in relation to executive salaries). The benefits of this approach are in dispute amongst economists, although there is less dispute about the negative equity impacts.
2. Boosting of training schemes. There is little dispute amongst economists about the value of well-targeted training schemes. Training programs are aimed at better matching peoples’ skills with the jobs on offer. Past experience (eg the One Nation program of the Labor Government in the early to mid 1990’s) shows these approaches to be quite expensive, a reason for the current relatively low government involvement in this area in Australia. Our low tax culture might suggest that the focus in the short term will need to be on designing incentive structures for firms to engage in the training.
3. Using income tax credits. The marginal tax rates for people who attempt to leave government benefits and get full-time work can be extremely high, sometimes over 100%. The use of tax credits, part of the Labor Opposition’s platform for the last Federal Election, can offset this disincentive thus making the transition to work more attractive and worthwhile. A tax credit is simply a payment to low-wage earners in low-income families (not, however, middle to high-income families) in place of a living wage increase which has the effect of reducing the marginal tax rate for the family.
US evidence (there is no Australian evidence since there are no tax credits available in Australia) suggests that tax credits increase the job search intensity of those on unemployment benefits, as well as helping to lift people out of poverty. Again, however, it is an expensive solution.
There are myriad other proposals including reductions in working hours, improved wage flexibility, and profit sharing to name just a few. A combination of fresh proposals that strengthen the effectiveness of existing policies would enable a significant and permanent fall in unemployment. The bottom line is that given the expense of many of these remedies, particularly in terms of government funding and commitment, they could only be implemented if the community desires a significant and permanent fall in unemployment. In a selfish and material world such desire is not readily obtained.
* Quotation from Sydney Anglican Church Doctrine Commission Report on “The Value of Work” (12 June 1998). Another helpful discussion on the Christian view of work can be found in a recent Synod Committee report on “The Theology of Work” (20 May 1999).
** Work as viewed by the Bible encompasses both paid and unpaid activity. Employment here is defined as the paid subset of work.
FITTING PEOPLE FOR JOBS OR CREATING JOBS FOR PEOPLE; read here a paper writen by Professor John Nevile published by Anglicare Austsralia.
See http://www.bca.com.au for some interesting work on unemployment and welfare reform from a “right wing” perspective;
http://www.acoss.org.au/papers and http://e1.newcastle.edu.au/coffee/ have some papers on these topics from a “left wing” point of view.
topical index
features
submissions
publications
about us
home
top
back to anglicanmediasydney
November 9th, 2005 at 12:08 pm
Homer, I don’t really know how Gordon would define himself - maybe he would like to be known as a Sydney Anglican, in order to challenge/change definitions.
I’ve stared at your first sentence for a good minute now, and I still have absolutely no idea what you’re on about. Are you forgetting to type words again (not that I’m one to point the finger after my last post!)
November 9th, 2005 at 12:37 pm
bec,, insert surprised.
point the finger as much as possible!!
gordan was a very good football palyer. Two footed and scored the winning goal in a grand final!!
Very smart as well
November 9th, 2005 at 1:08 pm
“this was written back in 2000!”
Was that just before or just after you were sacked in 2000 for what you describe as ‘dubious reasons’ Homer?
November 9th, 2005 at 1:13 pm
Homer, I still have no idea what you’re on about, or where the word “surprised” is supposed to go.
Yeah, I reckon Gordon’s pretty smart…but I’m not sure whether he’d be a good football player anymore!
November 9th, 2005 at 1:47 pm
well after Lance
sorry Bec just don’t worry about it.
November 9th, 2005 at 3:20 pm
“well after Lance”
Umm…..what were the ‘dubious reasons’..for which you were sacked in 2000 Homer?
November 9th, 2005 at 3:43 pm
Lance,
I really don’t see it as any of your and anyone else’s business
November 9th, 2005 at 4:50 pm
“Lance,
I really don’t see it as any of your and anyone else’s business.”
But you feel so strongly Homer that the lives and sin of other people should be open to your scrutiny…even the scrutiny by the courts.
So in the interests of accountability..of which I know you and your moral compass are a big fan…….if you were guilty of no wrong-doing Homer, why would you be reluctant to share the ‘dubious reasons’..for which you were sacked in 2000?
What were those reasons?
November 9th, 2005 at 5:01 pm
Ok, fair point Lance. But to keep it fair, have you yourself ever sacked, or cautioned at work, arrested, charged or convicted of any crime, or ever acted in any improper way at all?
November 9th, 2005 at 5:18 pm
Yes, the main reason why I left Sonshine was because after the internet was connected I became addicted to hard-core porn, and eventually resigned because I could not break the addiction (which worked because I’ve had no problem in the workplace since then). I should say, another part of the reason I resigned was because Arthur Muhl was giving me the shits.
I have also been cautioned twice over my appearance at work.
Now, your turn Homer.
Why were you sacked for ‘dubious reasons’ in 2000?
November 9th, 2005 at 5:22 pm
Homer wants it both ways.
He wants to pontificate about the morality or lack thereof of others’ lives, but refuses to put his life and actions up for the same scrutiny.
It’s a simple case of, if Homer wants to play God, I think it’s fair to see what right this self-professed ‘God’ has to judge.
November 9th, 2005 at 7:11 pm
actually Lance you are wrong again as usual.
when i have talked of sinning and repentance i have talked either of what the bible says or in general terms.
I do not ever recal asking anyone to repent here or anywhere else.
Mind you in this case I have nothing to rpent of although I did come to realise how important forgiveness was!
November 9th, 2005 at 7:13 pm
So what were the ‘dubious reasons’..for which you were sacked in 2000 Homer?
November 9th, 2005 at 10:46 pm
I bet it was becasue he knew Leigh Cartright.
November 10th, 2005 at 12:39 am
Kevin…go [edited] yourself again.
November 10th, 2005 at 1:47 am
November 10th, 2005 at 2:27 am
To be sung to the tune of “Monster Mash”
I was working on the mac late one night
When my eyes beheld a guy named Leigh Cartwright
When up from Perth Lance began to rise
And suddenly not to our surprise
He did the bash
He did the homer bash
The homer bash
It was a signposts smash
He did the bash
It caught on in a flash
He did the bash
He did the Homer bash
From his townhouse in Sydney east
Rose Homer paxton for his morning feast
Then he looked up signposts from his humble abode
To recieve a jolt from the blog’s electrode
He did the bash
He did the homer bash
The homer bash
It was a signposts smash
He did the bash
It caught on in a flash
He did the bash
He did the Homer bash
The Homer haters were having fun
The party had just begun
The guests included Rev Man
Luke and his son
The scene was rockin’, all were digging the sounds
Lance on chains, backed by his baying hounds
The right wing-bangers were about to arrive
With their vocal group, “The Kevin-Kicker Five”
He did the bash
He did the homer bash
The homer bash
It was a signposts smash
He did the bash
It caught on in a flash
He did the bash
He did the Homer bash
Out from his coffin, Lance’s voice did ring
Seems he was troubled by just one thing
He opened the lid and to an awful sight
To find Homer didn’t actually know Leigh Cartwright
He did the bash
He did the homer bash
The homer bash
It was a signposts smash
He did the bash
It caught on in a flash
He did the bash
He did the Homer bash
Now everything’s cool, homer’s a part of the band
And the homer bash is the hit of the land
For you, the living, this mash was meant too
When you get to my door, tell them Kevin sent you
and you can bash
Do the homer bash
The homer bash
It was a signposts smash
and do the bash
It’ll catch on in a flash
just do the bash
He did the Homer bash
all in fun
November 10th, 2005 at 10:54 am
and very funny it was too, Kevin
November 10th, 2005 at 12:14 pm
To Quote Homer:
“As a rule economists today are more likely to expound policy solutions that give primacy to market solutions. Governments and communities however, rightly desire equitable outcomes from policy prescriptions, which are unlikely to come from the market alone.
“For example, unfair dismissal laws can be viewed as a hindrance to firms hiring workers. However, equity arguments are clearly stronger in this instance and require the retention and strengthening of these protections in the face of calls for their removal.”
Yes I agree with that.
“It is noted that some evidence exists that people do not spend a lot of time in the initial low paying job. They rise up the ladder as they gain important core competencies learnt on the job.”
I don’t know about that and if so, I haven’t seen that evidence.
November 10th, 2005 at 1:05 pm
Thanks Nigel -
November 10th, 2005 at 1:06 pm
Sung to the tune of ‘Shout to the Lord’.
Our Kevin, our wanker.
Kev, there are many like you.
All of your days,
You want to praise,
The wonders of your wanky church.
Our Kevin, our wanker.
We couldn’t give a rat’s arse.
You think it’s awesome.
But we think it’s boresome.
As we watch the offering, bag, pass.
Go [edited] yourself,
Brian, Bobbie, and Darlene.
LMI slush funds - APRA has never seen.
Dickheads bow down, and the crowd do roar
At the sound of Darlene’s name.
You pull your pud, at the work of your hands.
Forever you’re sucked in, forever you suck.
Nothing compares to the wank that comes from Kev.
November 10th, 2005 at 2:07 pm
Hey lance - me thinks may shock you - Leigh Cartwright doesn’t know Homer, and after you exposing all of that dribble about it - the “extensive” research - the “I’ve got you now Homer” -the BIG buildup and the …PHuttt! I guess you had a point about all of that, but it seems to have gotten lost in the translation. Merry Christmas!
November 10th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
and come up with a new line - I’m tired of editing.
November 10th, 2005 at 2:26 pm
To the tune of “Simply Irresistable”How is he so predictable
His research has no principle, yeah yeah
His kind of writing is so mythical
He’s getting oh so typical
He’s a craze not to endorse, not a powerful force
You’re obliged to confirm Lance is way off course
He used to just rage at me, but now I find him
Simply so predictable
Simply so predictable
His writings not so powerful, huh
It’s simply something voidable
The trend is irreversible
The man is not too logical
He’s an unnatural law, and he leaves me in awe
he deserves no applause, no surrender because
He used to just rage at me, but now I find him
Simply so predictable
Simply so predictable
November 10th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
And ….you’re ..a….ummmmm…..pastor?
November 10th, 2005 at 3:36 pm
We’re all priests, aren’t we Lance?