![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
catsidheThe Federal Minister for Cerebral Aneurysms, Julie Bishop, has declared that it is unacceptable to ask people even to think about an area in which controversial (and widely unpopular) legislation has been imposed, even if that legislation is not actually mentioned. If the Government has passed a set of Industrial Relations ‘reforms’, then it is ipso facto Union propaganda to even consider the effect of legislation on employee conditions.
Yes, you heard it from the mouth of one of the most humourless androids in Howard's cabinet (and that's an achievement), that it is not acceptable to think about what the government has done. Because Thinking leads to Questioning. And Questioning leads to Disagreement. And Disagreement with the Government is Sedition. And Sedition is Terrorism. A law says so, it must be true.
But we shouldn't be thinking about what social damage has been done by Howard and his gang of thugs. Not just because thinking is not acceptable, but because money is the only meaningful measure. If you can't sell it, it's beneath notice.
Yes, you heard it from the mouth of one of the most humourless androids in Howard's cabinet (and that's an achievement), that it is not acceptable to think about what the government has done. Because Thinking leads to Questioning. And Questioning leads to Disagreement. And Disagreement with the Government is Sedition. And Sedition is Terrorism. A law says so, it must be true.
But we shouldn't be thinking about what social damage has been done by Howard and his gang of thugs. Not just because thinking is not acceptable, but because money is the only meaningful measure. If you can't sell it, it's beneath notice.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-19 06:53 am (UTC)Thinking .... is terrorism!
(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-19 08:33 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-19 08:43 am (UTC)In fact, almost exactly the opposite.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-19 08:49 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-19 08:52 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-19 02:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-20 12:29 am (UTC)"Consume. Conform. Be silent. Die." Seems to pretty much sum it up.
$$$
Date: 2007-10-25 04:08 am (UTC)The wages share of GDP has moved from 53.9% to 53.8%
This is supposed to be a good thing??
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/6d78e92a3f2bc51aca25727200796236!OpenDocument
Australia's 2005/6 GDP was $921,747m. Therefore 0.1% was $921m. So let's crunch some numbers here ... how many people were earning above the minimum wage?
Minimum wage was $511.86 per week in 2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#Australia
An approximate number of people earning at least this was 16 million people.
http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ABSNavigation/prenav/ViewData?action=404&documentproductno=0&documenttype=Details&order=1&tabname=Details&areacode=0&issue=2006&producttype=Census%20Tables&javascript=true&textversion=false&navmapdisplayed=true&breadcrumb=POTLD&&collection=Census&period=2006&productlabel=Gross%20Individual%20Income%20(weekly)%20by%20Age%20by%20Sex%20&producttype=Census%20Tables&method=Location%20on%20Census%20Night&topic=Earnings&
So, if we assume that people earning above the minimum wage are the main contributors to realising GDP (yeah, ok, but what other number can I use??), I should be earning $57 more per week? An extra $3,000 per year could buy me a pretty cool new bicycle every year!!
-- mpp