Another shot at WorkChoices in HSC Economics exam (1 Viewer)

Sh4DoW

Finance Jock
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
116
Gender
Female
HSC
2007
natt256 said:
Ok, so I should be the bigger man in this situation (which I’m sure wouldn’t be terribly hard) and ignore that last comment… but the feminist in me is irritated and quite frankly perplexed and disappointed that people like you still exist in contemporary society. So GO TO HELL YOU CHAUVINISTIC NEANDERTHAL!

Australians being happy has NOTHING to do with Workchoices you idiot… only 5% of Australian workers are on awards whilst around 25% are on enterprise agreements (which you may need to be reminded was implemented by a Labor government..)
….I highly doubt the 5% of workers on AWA’s has significantly boosted our ‘happiness rating’

And you talk about going backwards? Well that’s where your headed honey… You can go and join your mate Johnny H back in the 1950’s where you belong…

Also, please come back and tell me I don’t belong in the economics world when I beat you in the HSC and probably continue to beat you throughout economics at university… see I can toot my own horn too.
Mate, chill! He has your opinion and you have yours.

Yes it's probable that approximately 25% of Australians are on Collective Agreements, but that is because they were introduced in 1991 as Stage 2 (Accord VI) of The Accords. AWA's were introduced in 2005, which was 2 years ago. Given the same amount of time I could say with great certainty more Australians would be on AWA's than Enterprise Agreements. AWA's provide more scope for negotiation by employee's than does Enterprise Agreements (relative to education, training .. all the benefits they can provide to the firm and the economy) as well as benefiting the employer because they don't have the Trade Unions pushing for unrealistic wage agreements (i.e. higher wages without productivity increases) that can increase inflationary expectations.

Employees DON'T have to sign these agreements, they can stick to their Award or Enterprise Agreement .. It just benefits them more so if they do. Yes the Labor party introduced it .. For the 5 years they were in Government; the present Government has had 11 years to refine and improve it, and that's what they've done through the Workplace Relations Act and it's ammendments (including WorkChoices).

AWA's also encourage employees to improve their skills through additional training and further education to become more productive/gain employment to increase their wages .. essentially by moving into more efficient, productive and higher paying industries; hence also reducing structural unemployment because the positions they have left will be filled with greater ease due to the lower level of skill/training required for that position.

OT the decentralisation of wages has resulted in decreased inflation, lower unemployment and driven economic growth. WorkChoices is a continuation of this hence allowing for the achievement of the economic objectives of price stability, full employment and economic growth. You certainly cannot argue that.
 
Last edited:

Mevelyn2551

Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
60
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
williamc said:
1) i could have got 20 doing either question ..
2) You're alluding to the fact that workchoices is slavery, it is no where near it.
3) If you understand anything about economics you will come to realise "the freer the market, the freer the people". The fulls effects of workchoices will not be seen now, but in another couple decades. Most microeconomic policies will have short term "costs" and longer term benefits.
4) WHO GIVES A FUCK IF IT ERODES BOGANS RIGHTS!


Workchoices isn't even completely de-centralised anyway. The 'non-market' forces should be fucked off, and everything should be up for grabs. I don't even believe there should be a minimum wage or award.

kgovotegreenies
williamc said:
1) i could have got 20 doing either question ..
Firstly - irrelevant, and an obvious lie. Unless you beleive it, in which case it is simple arrogance. I cant wait for your HSC to get back, so you can cry over the marks you lost because in the fiscal/CAD question you sprinkled irrelevant anti-Labor propaganda.

So sure, whatever you say. Too bad no matter how high your marks are, you will still be a conceited little prick with no friends.

williamc said:
2) You're alluding to the fact that workchoices is slavery, it is no where near it.
If you read the exam question as thoroughly as you read my post, I doubt that the 20/20 you seem to think you got will become reality.

village_idoit36 said:
After all, slavery was the most cheap and efficient of all workplace systems (and before you say it, I am not comparing Workchoices to slavery)
williamc said:
3) If you understand anything about economics you will come to realise "the freer the market, the freer the people". The fulls effects of workchoices will not be seen now, but in another couple decades. Most microeconomic policies will have short term "costs" and longer term benefits.
Thats where you are wrong. The full effects of workchoices will not be seen in a few decades, because Rudd is going to win the election and scrap the lot of it.
"the freer the market, the freer the people"? Come on. In a market completely "free" of government intervention, the public (including the workforce) would be completely at the mercy of the buisinesses.



williamc said:
4) WHO GIVES A FUCK IF IT ERODES BOGANS RIGHTS!
Call me crazy, but I would expect the "bogans" might care. And we outnumber your kind 100 to 1. I surely must be misinterpreting this - because there is no way someone could be as much of an arsehole as you seem to be - but are you actually claiming that those who dont agree with you (whom you label "bogans") dont deserve rights? I may just be a simple country boy, but isnt the system where an individual has not rights called "slavery" - a claim that so offended you?

I know your kind well enough. Let me guess - rich parents, city boy, sent to an expensive private school? Throughout your childhood you had your every material whim delivered to you, which caused you to grow up with a pre-programmed attitude that the rest of the world only exists to serve you. However, deep inside you know that you are an arrogant fuckwit, yet are powerless to resist it because if you show any compassion for the "commoners" then your dad will beat you like he did when you asked "How come that man doesnt have a home daddy?" when you were 6.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

williamc

Active Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,400
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
village-idoit36 said:
Firstly - irrelevant, and an obvious lie. Unless you beleive it, in which case it is simple arrogance. I cant wait for your HSC to get back, so you can cry over the marks you lost because in the fiscal/CAD question you sprinkled irrelevant anti-Labor propaganda.

So sure, whatever you say. Too bad no matter how high your marks are, you will still be a conceited little prick with no friends.

If you read the exam question as thoroughly as you read my post, I doubt that the 20/20 you seem to think you got will become reality.

Thats where you are wrong. The full effects of workchoices will not be seen in a few decades, because Rudd is going to win the election and scrap the lot of it.
"the freer the market, the freer the people"? Come on. In a market completely "free" of government intervention, the public (including the workforce) would be completely at the mercy of the buisinesses.

Call me crazy, but I would expect the "bogans" might care. And we outnumber your kind 100 to 1. I surely must be misinterpreting this - because there is no way someone could be as much of an arsehole as you seem to be - but are you actually claiming that those who dont agree with you (whom you label "bogans") dont deserve rights? I may just be a simple country boy, but isnt the system where an individual has not rights called "slavery" - a claim that so offended you?

I know your kind well enough. Let me guess - rich parents, city boy, sent to an expensive private school? Throughout your childhood you had your every material whim delivered to you, which caused you to grow up with a pre-programmed attitude that the rest of the world only exists to serve you. However, deep inside you know that you are an arrogant fuckwit, yet are powerless to resist it because if you show any compassion for the "commoners" then your dad will beat you like he did when you asked "How come that man doesnt have a home daddy?" when you were 6.
lol im 100% sure i wont be crying over my eco mark.. Irrelevant anti-labour propaganda? i ddint mention labour at all in my essays?

funny thing is.. im not little.. im not a prick.. and ive got friends.. that is all.

Why would i read ur post as through as the exam question?.. thats just stupid.

ok u can predict election results ur a genious.

"Come on. In a market completely "free" of government intervention, the public (including the workforce) would be completely at the mercy of the buisinesses." Point being?

Funny thing is.. im a bogan myself.. i drink alot beer.. i wear flannos.. and watch the cricket with the boys.. many of my mates are apprentices and 'lower' skilled workers.. they arnt getting screwed over.. they seem to be enjoying this eco growth and 32 year low unemployment.

Im not rich.. my dad is a mechanic.. mum doesnt work.. i live like 30 k's from the city.. my parents dont get me shit.. im independent.. dad is very old fasioned..

I aint an arrogant fuck wit.. im merely expressing my opinons... why in rebuttal must personal insults be used.. lol at ur closing lines mate.. RIGHT ON.. he hit me hard.. it fucking hurt.
 

Mevelyn2551

Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
60
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
williamc said:
Funny thing is.. im a bogan myself.. i drink alot beer.. i wear flannos.. and watch the cricket with the boys.. many of my mates are apprentices and 'lower' skilled workers.. they arnt getting screwed over.. they seem to be enjoying this eco growth and 32 year low unemployment.
williamc said:
4) WHO GIVES A FUCK IF IT ERODES BOGANS RIGHTS!
Errrr.... so.... seems to me that the answer should be you? Unless you dont like having rights?

williamc said:
"Come on. In a market completely "free" of government intervention, the public (including the workforce) would be completely at the mercy of the buisinesses." Point being?

Point being that this is bad for consumers. Whole "price elasticity" thing from yr11. Without govt competiton laws, monopolies would emerge, and we would have no control over prices. Another yr 11 term - "consumer soverignty".


williamc said:
I aint an arrogant fuck wit.. im merely expressing my opinons...
So... lets review your opinions
williamc said:
1) i could have got 20 doing either question ..

YOU'RE A FUCKING CHICK, you don't belong in the economic world.

4) WHO GIVES A FUCK IF IT ERODES BOGANS RIGHTS!

SCREW THE BUMS.

I don't even believe there should be a minimum wage or award.

i think the government should be able to censor this left wing loonie questions.

fuck off u commie..
Sooo... you are better than Bogans (who dont deserve rights, yet you are one), better than women, superior to all those with differing political persuasions and "Bums". Also, you are the best economics student in the entire state because you got perfect marks in the exam. And yet, having this beleif that you are better than all those around you does not make you arrogant. And beleiving that women should be restricted from the "male" world of economics and that there are people who dont deserve rights does not make you a fuckwit.

My mistake.
 

williamc

Active Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,400
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
village-idoit36 said:
Errrr.... so.... seems to me that the answer should be you? Unless you dont like having rights?




Point being that this is bad for consumers. Whole "price elasticity" thing from yr11. Without govt competiton laws, monopolies would emerge, and we would have no control over prices. Another yr 11 term - "consumer soverignty".




So... lets review your opinions


Sooo... you are better than Bogans (who dont deserve rights, yet you are one), better than women, superior to all those with differing political persuasions and "Bums". Also, you are the best economics student in the entire state because you got perfect marks in the exam. And yet, having this beleif that you are better than all those around you does not make you arrogant. And beleiving that women should be restricted from the "male" world of economics and that there are people who dont deserve rights does not make you a fuckwit.

My mistake.
ok so ur obviously a fucking idiot.. DONT U GET IT.. i had to fight for my rights.. me differentiating myself from my family and friends is what made all the difference.. i dont want to be like them.. this pushed me to work harder to get into something i want.. so yer i like not having rights..

ok.. not a completely free market.. but i like all these micro reforms.. ridding protection.. floating dollars.. national competition policy.. etc.. Ones in which enhance competition.. but there should be NO subsidies given to starting off business'.. or any forms of protection at all..

na i wont come first in the state.. i got 1 MC wrong.. im saying fuck the bogans.. make them work harder.. this will urge them to further their skills.. chicks.. pfft.. besides shadow my fellow right wing lover..

that is all.. mate get over it.. peopel can have their own views wirthout being flammed.. i will just vote Australia first whilst u vote Green's.. leave it at that please.. im tired of responding to ur childish comments..
 

Sh4DoW

Finance Jock
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
116
Gender
Female
HSC
2007
village-idoit36 said:
Errrr.... so.... seems to me that the answer should be you? Unless you dont like having rights?




Point being that this is bad for consumers. Whole "price elasticity" thing from yr11. Without govt competiton laws, monopolies would emerge, and we would have no control over prices. Another yr 11 term - "consumer soverignty".




So... lets review your opinions


Sooo... you are better than Bogans (who dont deserve rights, yet you are one), better than women, superior to all those with differing political persuasions and "Bums". Also, you are the best economics student in the entire state because you got perfect marks in the exam. And yet, having this beleif that you are better than all those around you does not make you arrogant. And beleiving that women should be restricted from the "male" world of economics and that there are people who dont deserve rights does not make you a fuckwit.

My mistake.
Sorry but you're really beggining to piss me off. This is a thread about WorkChoices and the essay question .. Not a cause for a personal attack on Williamc. What you're saying has potential to offend more than just him. I know exactly where he's coming from, I'm in (from what he's said, virtually) the exact same position .. I come from a family of tradies, live in the middle of nowhere in a small city no-one's heard of and next year .. all my friends will be doing trades, except for me. I was expected to follow in their footsteps, but from my first day at school I knew I didn't want to do that and told them to shove that idea, as I'm so prone to doing. I wanted something more so I've pushed myself to achieve to get where I want and have now found myself in a position where I've got a cadetship at one of the Big 4 accounting firms next year. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, it's an awesome thing to have goals and actually achieve them! Williamc's obviously achieved .. and certainly looks like he'll be getting a state ranking for this subject, I don't know what everyone's problem is with that.. Jealousy, spite? You can easily debate the WorkChoices thing logically without the attacks..

WorkChoices encourages productivity increases as an incentive in wages negotiations, this does include the 'bogans' and 'bums' who tend to be employed in trades as these are the industries that are often most inefficient and have the lowest wages .. WorkChoices provides the opportunity for increases in wages as a result increasing the appeal of trades .. especially due to the 'skills shortages' .. plumbers are getting paid the same as senior finance/managerial positions .. and as Williamc said, this is also due to the record economic growth. They only get screwed over if they don't read their contracts and don't negotiate with their employer. They don't have to sign them.

Blah .. I'm lost and I'm sick of arguing my point.
 
Last edited:

Mevelyn2551

Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
60
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Sh4DoW said:
Sorry but you're really beggining to piss me off. This is a thread about WorkChoices and the essay question .. Not a cause for a personal attack on Williamc. What you're saying has potential to offend more than just him. I know exactly where he's coming from, I'm in (from what he's said, virtually) the exact same position .. I come from a family of tradies, live in the middle of nowhere in a small city no-one's heard of and next year .. all my friends will be doing trades, except for me. I was expected to follow in their footsteps, but from my first day at school I knew I didn't want to do that and told them to shove that idea, as I'm so prone to doing. I wanted something more so I've pushed myself to achieve to get where I want and have now found myself in a position where I've got a cadetship at one of the Big 4 accounting firms next year. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, it's an awesome thing to have goals and actually achieve them! Williamc's obviously achieved .. and certainly looks like he'll be getting a state ranking for this subject, I don't know what everyone's problem is with that.. Jealousy, spite? You can easily debate the WorkChoices thing logically without the attacks..

WorkChoices encourages productivity increases as an incentive in wages negotiations, this does include the 'bogans' and 'bums' who tend to be employed in trades as these are the industries that are often most inefficient and have the lowest wages .. WorkChoices provides the opportunity for increases in wages as a result increasing the appeal of trades .. especially due to the 'skills shortages' .. plumbers are getting paid the same as senior finance/managerial positions .. and as Williamc said, this is also due to the record economic growth. They only get screwed over if they don't read their contracts and don't negotiate with their employer. They don't have to sign them.

Blah .. I'm lost and I'm sick of arguing my point.
This is not a post about workchoices. THis is a post about some kind of perceived bias in the HSC question. THat being said, we have all gone off topic a bit.

Yes, Workchoices does increase productivity, but with unnacceptable cost to rights, pay, and working conditions. What none of the pro-workchoices people ever mention is that in an individually negotiated contract it is the employer that has all the power and makes all the rules. So when you option is "accept the new terms that cut your pay and increase your hours or find another job", then of course productivity is going to increase.

Workchoices increases the appeal of trades? Almost everyone I know would rather cut off their own hands than sign away their soul on an AWA.

Record economic growth? Where are you getting your statistics from mate? 3.3% is not anywhere near record economic growth. We've been in double digits before, albiet following a recession (so obviously that really isnt that relevant when the recession acts as the base year) but 3.3% is "good" economic growth - and we really dont want it that much higher lest we anger Keynes who will smite us with his mighty lightning bolts of inflation.

As for "They dont have to sign them". Give me a break. Its either sign them or dont take the job. There will be someone else out there who is desperate enough for the job who will work for less. It becomes a bidding war as every potential employee cuts their own wages futher and further to get an edge on the competition.

Hey - surprise surprise, but I am also in your situation. My dad used to work at a chip mill, my mum works as a chef. Next year I will be taking a law/economics degree at ANU. So why the attacks? I am pissed that someone who seems to do so well in the subject (unless he is lying, which on the interweb is hardly unheard of) seems to commoditise those around him. I could list a few more "bogan" attacks he made in his last post that lead me to beleive that he is lying about being a bogan and having bogan friends. The fact that whoever though him economics seemed to have left out the very important humanist componants disturbs me very much. Souless capitalists who sont see people as people sicken me.
 

Sh4DoW

Finance Jock
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
116
Gender
Female
HSC
2007
village-idoit36 said:
This is not a post about workchoices. THis is a post about some kind of perceived bias in the HSC question. THat being said, we have all gone off topic a bit.

Yes, Workchoices does increase productivity, but with unnacceptable cost to rights, pay, and working conditions. What none of the pro-workchoices people ever mention is that in an individually negotiated contract it is the employer that has all the power and makes all the rules. So when you option is "accept the new terms that cut your pay and increase your hours or find another job", then of course productivity is going to increase.

Workchoices increases the appeal of trades? Almost everyone I know would rather cut off their own hands than sign away their soul on an AWA.

Record economic growth? Where are you getting your statistics from mate? 3.3% is not anywhere near record economic growth. We've been in double digits before, albiet following a recession (so obviously that really isnt that relevant when the recession acts as the base year) but 3.3% is "good" economic growth - and we really dont want it that much higher lest we anger Keynes who will smite us with his mighty lightning bolts of inflation.

As for "They dont have to sign them". Give me a break. Its either sign them or dont take the job. There will be someone else out there who is desperate enough for the job who will work for less. It becomes a bidding war as every potential employee cuts their own wages futher and further to get an edge on the competition.

Hey - surprise surprise, but I am also in your situation. My dad used to work at a chip mill, my mum works as a chef. Next year I will be taking a law/economics degree at ANU. So why the attacks? I am pissed that someone who seems to do so well in the subject (unless he is lying, which on the interweb is hardly unheard of) seems to commoditise those around him. I could list a few more "bogan" attacks he made in his last post that lead me to beleive that he is lying about being a bogan and having bogan friends. The fact that whoever though him economics seemed to have left out the very important humanist componants disturbs me very much. Souless capitalists who sont see people as people sicken me.
Yea I'm very over arguing with everyone..

Record economic growth meaning the single longest consecutive period of economic growth in the history of the Australian economy.. 16 years. Generally the economic cycle lasts 7 years or something, I haven't touched a book since exams finished with good cause .. 16 years is pretty damn good. Hence my statistics are not at all false.

My 'they don't have to sign it' comment was more so directed at those in existing positions being offered new agreements .. They don't have to take it. That being said I've recently signed a AWA for my cadetship. I'm better off than I would be if I were just on award wages and conditions (as compared to my friends who are in similar positions in the same industry but with other firms). For me it's win/win, but that's just my experience.

All I'm going to say is each to their own..
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top