by Kris Sayce on March 12, 2010
Perhaps even if you still don’t agree with our arguments about minimum wages and pay equalisation, maybe you can agree that artificial interference in the market by governments only tends to create another problem while claiming to solve one problem.
We’ll bang on about it for one last time today. If you’ve had enough already then I suggest you give today’s Money Morning a miss. Join Shae again tomorrow for Money Weekend, or we’ll see you again on Monday where we’ll bang on about something else.
To our way of thinking, there’s no difference between pay equalisation and minimum wage legislation. Both create artificial wage markets which aren’t sustainable over time.
So today we’ll take another bash at the ultimate job killer, the minimum wage. The argument always put forward is that without a minimum wage, wages would be pushed to zero and workers would work in slave-like conditions.
[click to continue...]
VN:F [1.7.3_972]
Rating: 10.0/10 (6 votes cast)
VN:F [1.7.3_972]
Rating: +5 (from 7 votes)
by Shae Smith on March 12, 2010
Sadly, this week the papers have been dominated by the Lara Bingle and Michael Clark fiasco. However, other things have been happening.
After much digging around, and getting past pictures and celebrity hanger’s on quotes, I’ve dug up some much needed to know financial information for you this week.
Centrebet, an online gambling service in Australia, will now be offering the chance to ‘bet’ on where the ASX 200 ends the month. So just in case you can’t get enough of betting on boxing, the dogs, the horses, elections or even interest rate decisions, you can now take a punt on the stock market.
[click to continue...]
VN:F [1.7.3_972]
Rating: 1.0/10 (1 vote cast)
VN:F [1.7.3_972]
by Kris Sayce on March 11, 2010
This week we’ve made a conscious decision not to write about p——y or h—–g. Even though we’ve come across a few gems worth commenting on. And even though several readers have sent us a couple of choice morsels too.
But, we’ll stick to our guns and leave any p——y or h—–g comments until next week.
Anyway, our comments on pay equalisation seem to have set off something of a discussion both on the Money Morning website and in emails we’ve received to the Money Morning mailbag.
It’s an interesting topic so I thought it worth our while having another look at it based on some of the comments we’ve received.
[click to continue...]
VN:F [1.7.3_972]
Rating: 9.0/10 (9 votes cast)
VN:F [1.7.3_972]
Rating: +6 (from 8 votes)
by Shae Smith on March 11, 2010
Yesterday the S&P/ASX200 had a very ordinary trading session. The index finished up 0.1 point to close at 4,820.00. The trading day started with the index higher, however when the home lending data was released for the month of February, the market saw a sell-off.
Economists were predicting an increase of 2%. Already, market ‘experts’ are suggesting that the 7.9% drop in housing finance will prevent the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) increasing interest rates in April.
[click to continue...]
VN:F [1.7.3_972]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)
VN:F [1.7.3_972]
by Kris Sayce on March 10, 2010
A quick follow on from yesterday’s Money Morning. We like this quote we’ve found from Professor Walter Block:
“Consider a man and a woman each with a productivity of $10 per hour, and suppose, because of discrimination or whatever, that the man is paid $10 per hour and the woman is paid $8 per hour. It is as if the woman had a little sign on her forehead saying, ‘Hire me and earn an extra $2 an hour.’ This makes her a desirable employee even for a sexist boss. But when an equal-pay law stipulates that she must be paid the same as the man, the employer can indulge his discriminatory tendencies and not hire her at all, at no cost to himself.”
This example is applied to a comparison of male labour versus female labour. As was our article yesterday.
But in reality, it’s not even a Male v Female thing.
[click to continue...]
VN:F [1.7.3_972]
Rating: 9.8/10 (12 votes cast)
VN:F [1.7.3_972]
Rating: +9 (from 9 votes)