The most arrogant people in Australia....

Discussion of current events
neverfail
Posts: 1836
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: The proud ostriches globally are business people!

Post by neverfail » Fri Sep 08, 2017 8:17 am

cassowary wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:40 am

In the case of Qantas before privatization, Was it losing money? I don't have time to check.
No Cassowary - it was not losing money. A big part of the reason why it remained under state ownership for so long was that its earned profits, year after year, proved such a great cash cow for our Federal government that there was no justification to sell it off.

My father often said (going back to our conservative governments of the 1950's, '60 and '70's era that had it not been so they would have privatised it without hesitation.

As for my friend; I believe that he was good at what he did but his skill was so specialised that no other airline operating out of Australia had the equivalent on offer.

His observation about restructures I believe is still valid - as it coincides with one I gained when I was once caught up in. Some people lose their jobs while those who keep them have more work pushed on to them. When they give the retained employees higher remuneration, added benefits, for the added responsibilities and (usually) work stress then fair enough. But too often they don't: which is a clear case of employer theft from employees - otherwise known as capitalist exploitation.

I do not care what the corporate balance sheets say at the time cassowary - loyal employees deserve far better than that!

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1807
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The proud ostriches globally are business people!

Post by cassowary » Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:20 am

neverfail wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 8:17 am

His observation about restructures I believe is still valid - as it coincides with one I gained when I was once caught up in. Some people lose their jobs while those who keep them have more work pushed on to them.
What that means was that the company was inefficiently run before. If 3 men can do the work that was once done by 4, it means that the 4th man was not needed.

Costs go down and your airline is now more competitive. It can lower the price of airline seats, or pay more dividends to shareholders. If the former, it can sell more seats and drive less efficient competitors from the market. Then it can use the cash generated to buy more airplanes.

I don't know about Qantas because I rarely follow Australian affairs. But i do know that many state owned British companies were loss making before Thatcher sold them to the private sector. Too many inefficient companies with too many workers with too little work.

neverfail
Posts: 1836
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: The proud ostriches globally are business people!

Post by neverfail » Sat Sep 09, 2017 6:58 am

cassowary wrote:
Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:20 am
What that means was that the company was inefficiently run before.
Not necessarily!
cassowary wrote:
Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:20 am
If 3 men can do the work that was once done by 4, it means that the 4th man was not needed.
Just as likely you will end up with 3 stressed, overworked men - which is the whole point I made that you choose to ignore for the purpose of proving your pet doctrine.

What a slave driver bastard of a boss you would make Cass! And I suppose you still wonder where the socialist revolutionary upheavals come from? :roll:
cassowary wrote:
Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:20 am
Costs go down and your airline is now more competitive. It can lower the price of airline seats, or pay more dividends to shareholders. If the former, it can sell more seats and drive less efficient competitors from the market. Then it can use the cash generated to buy more airplanes.
Well la de dah de dah! Of course the employees of those "less efficient" (which usually means less ruthless) airlines are now permanently out of a job. But I suppose that in your jungle law dystopia they don't count.

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1271
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: The proud ostriches globally are business people!

Post by SteveFoerster » Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:24 am

neverfail wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 8:17 am
cassowary wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:40 am

In the case of Qantas before privatization, Was it losing money? I don't have time to check.
No Cassowary - it was not losing money. A big part of the reason why it remained under state ownership for so long was that its earned profits, year after year, proved such a great cash cow for our Federal government that there was no justification to sell it off.
When you're the regulator and the largest participant, I suppose that's what happens.
My father often said (going back to our conservative governments of the 1950's, '60 and '70's era that had it not been so they would have privatised it without hesitation.
I wish that LIAT, the airline in the Eastern Caribbean that is jointly owned by a number of small island governments, would be auctioned off. It's a longtime money losing operation with a dreadful reputation for late flights and lost luggage. People have their jokes for what the acronym means, mine is "Legendary Incompetence And Tardiness".
As for my friend; I believe that he was good at what he did but his skill was so specialised that no other airline operating out of Australia had the equivalent on offer.

His observation about restructures I believe is still valid - as it coincides with one I gained when I was once caught up in. Some people lose their jobs while those who keep them have more work pushed on to them. When they give the retained employees higher remuneration, added benefits, for the added responsibilities and (usually) work stress then fair enough. But too often they don't: which is a clear case of employer theft from employees - otherwise known as capitalist exploitation.
Only if employees have some reciprocal obligation to be loyal to a single employer, and are incapable of seeking out training in other areas that makes them useful for other things and attractive to other employers. But that's not so.
I do not care what the corporate balance sheets say at the time cassowary - loyal employees deserve far better than that!
All that said, I personally do tend to shop at places that treat their employees fairly, although I'm a lot more concerned about places like shops that hire entry level and low skilled workers (e.g., supermarkets), and don't feel this is necessary when choosing a service provided by companies that need highly skilled workers who are in a much better position to look out for their own interests (e.g., software).

Moreover, as Peter Drucker said, in business culture eats strategy for breakfast. Employee morale matters to productivity. Wise executives will care about it for their own self-interest if for no other reason. And that too is part of capitalism.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1807
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The proud ostriches globally are business people!

Post by cassowary » Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:12 am

neverfail wrote:
Sat Sep 09, 2017 6:58 am
cassowary wrote:
Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:20 am
If 3 men can do the work that was once done by 4, it means that the 4th man was not needed.
Just as likely you will end up with 3 stressed, overworked men - which is the whole point I made that you choose to ignore for the purpose of proving your pet doctrine.

What a slave driver bastard of a boss you would make Cass! And I suppose you still wonder where the socialist revolutionary upheavals come from? :roll:
Well, it is the interest of the employer to have happy workers. Unhappy ones have low productivity and may resign. Then the employer must hire and retrain new workers. This means costs. What usually happens is that of the four workers in the above example, they fire the slowest worker and keep the three better ones. The three faster workers may not find it so stressful.

They will probably increase their wages to keep them happy so that they don't resign. But the employer will, of course, keep a portion of the savings of having fewer workers. Socialist upheavals come from diabolical leaders who promise people Other People's Money.
cassowary wrote:
Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:20 am
Costs go down and your airline is now more competitive. It can lower the price of airline seats, or pay more dividends to shareholders. If the former, it can sell more seats and drive less efficient competitors from the market. Then it can use the cash generated to buy more airplanes.
Well la de dah de dah! Of course the employees of those "less efficient" (which usually means less ruthless) airlines are now permanently out of a job. But I suppose that in your jungle law dystopia they don't count.
I am trying to point out the invisible benefits that are not apparent to you. The airline might get cheaper tickets. This will increast Qantas' market share and thus create more jobs in the long run. From that link I gave uou, it seems that it worked. Ten years after privatization, Qantas ended up with more employees.

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 1116
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: The most arrogant people in Australia....

Post by Milo » Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:46 am

I tend to be quite laissez-faire in my economic beliefs but it must be said that, despite the inefficiencies, we need a government and so need government employees for some things.

The debate is about where that line should be drawn, so it's not helpful to just recite some dogma about one side or the other.

Of course it tends to make one look smarter:

A Sad Fact of Life: It's Actually Smart to Be Mean Online

"When we hear negative statements, we think they’re inherently more intelligent than positive ones. Teresa Amabile, director of research for Harvard Business School, began exploring this back in the 1980s. She took a group of 55 students, roughly half men, half women, and showed them excerpts from two book reviews printed in an issue of The New York Times. The same reviewer wrote both, but Amabile anonymized them and tweaked the language to produce two versions of each—one positive, one negative. Then she asked the students to evaluate the reviewer’s intelligence.

The verdict was clear: The students thought the negative author was smarter than the positive one—“by a lot,” Amabile tells me. Most said the nastier critic was “more competent.” Granted, being negative wasn’t all upside—they also rated the harsh reviewer as “less warm and more cruel, not as nice,” she says. “But definitely smarter.” Like my mordant tweets, presumably."

https://www.wired.com/2014/11/be-mean-online/

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1807
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The proud ostriches globally are business people!

Post by cassowary » Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:42 pm

neverfail wrote:
Sat Sep 09, 2017 6:58 am

cassowary wrote:
Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:20 am
If 3 men can do the work that was once done by 4, it means that the 4th man was not needed.
Just as likely you will end up with 3 stressed, overworked men - which is the whole point I made that you choose to ignore for the purpose of proving your pet doctrine.
I am not ignoring your point. I am using it to show you how wonderful capitalism is. Shedding redundant staff is part of it. By making the company more efficient, you drive down costs and increase profits. You end up expanding the business and creating jobs. It is good for the company and good for the workers. That's what happened to Qantas.

The company has to compete with other companies. If it has the bloated labour force, it will lose out to the competition and close down. This means people losing their jobs.

neverfail
Posts: 1836
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: The proud ostriches globally are business people!

Post by neverfail » Mon Sep 11, 2017 4:37 am

cassowary wrote:
Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:42 pm
neverfail wrote:
Sat Sep 09, 2017 6:58 am

cassowary wrote:
Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:20 am
If 3 men can do the work that was once done by 4, it means that the 4th man was not needed.
Just as likely you will end up with 3 stressed, overworked men - which is the whole point I made that you choose to ignore for the purpose of proving your pet doctrine.
I am not ignoring your point. I am using it to show you how wonderful capitalism is. Shedding redundant staff is part of it. By making the company more efficient, you drive down costs and increase profits. You end up expanding the business and creating jobs. It is good for the company and good for the workers. That's what happened to Qantas.

The company has to compete with other companies. If it has the bloated labour force, it will lose out to the competition and close down. This means people losing their jobs.
Nice of you to acknowledge that you are not ignoring my point cassowary. Really no need to as by arguing against it with such passion you are "acknowledging" it anyway. ;) Not in the way I would prefer though.

You are trying to show me how "wonderful" capitalism is? 8-) Well, I have likewise been trying to show you how amorally cold hearted the capitalist beast can be and often is. :twisted:

You think in terms of expediency while I view the same situation in terms of natural justice.

Have you ever been on the receiving end of a redundancy package - with no hope of obtaining any gainful employment in future (due to age or other equally valid reasons) equivalent to the job you lost? Have you ever sunk into deep depression over it? Lost your home? Seen your marriage break up? Obviously not! Well, such is the penalty often paid by those whose career paths are brought to an abrupt end by unforeseen (and undeserved) workplace redundancy.

I see no natural justice at play in that at all.

I suggest that you are barking up the wrong tree, cassowary. Men are not tempted to socialism (and/or nihilism) by envy but by hatred. The sort of hatred that grows from the feeling of having been unjustly victimised, disempowered and diminished by others. Hatred for those who have caused you unacceptable loss and grief.

Your sunny theorising lacks any sign of empathy for those who personally bear the cost of capitalism's eternal quest for improved "efficiency". That in itself ememplifies the arrogance of business people (those lords of the universe :( ) that Herald economics editor Ross Gittins was complaining about in his column (link: opening post in this discussion).

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1807
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The proud ostriches globally are business people!

Post by cassowary » Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:57 am

neverfail wrote:
Mon Sep 11, 2017 4:37 am
cassowary wrote:
Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:42 pm
neverfail wrote:
Sat Sep 09, 2017 6:58 am

cassowary wrote:
Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:20 am
If 3 men can do the work that was once done by 4, it means that the 4th man was not needed.
Just as likely you will end up with 3 stressed, overworked men - which is the whole point I made that you choose to ignore for the purpose of proving your pet doctrine.
I am not ignoring your point. I am using it to show you how wonderful capitalism is. Shedding redundant staff is part of it. By making the company more efficient, you drive down costs and increase profits. You end up expanding the business and creating jobs. It is good for the company and good for the workers. That's what happened to Qantas.

The company has to compete with other companies. If it has the bloated labour force, it will lose out to the competition and close down. This means people losing their jobs.
Nice of you to acknowledge that you are not ignoring my point cassowary. Really no need to as by arguing against it with such passion you are "acknowledging" it anyway. ;) Not in the way I would prefer though.

You are trying to show me how "wonderful" capitalism is? 8-) Well, I have likewise been trying to show you how amorally cold hearted the capitalist beast can be and often is. :twisted:

You think in terms of expediency while I view the same situation in terms of natural justice.

Have you ever been on the receiving end of a redundancy package - with no hope of obtaining any gainful employment in future (due to age or other equally valid reasons) equivalent to the job you lost? Have you ever sunk into deep depression over it? Lost your home? Seen your marriage break up? Obviously not! Well, such is the penalty often paid by those whose career paths are brought to an abrupt end by unforeseen (and undeserved) workplace redundancy.

I see no natural justice at play in that at all.

I suggest that you are barking up the wrong tree, cassowary. Men are not tempted to socialism (and/or nihilism) by envy but by hatred. The sort of hatred that grows from the feeling of having been unjustly victimised, disempowered and diminished by others. Hatred for those who have caused you unacceptable loss and grief.

Your sunny theorising lacks any sign of empathy for those who personally bear the cost of capitalism's eternal quest for improved "efficiency". That in itself exemplifies the arrogance of business people (those lords of the universe :( ) that Herald economics editor Ross Gittins was complaining about in his column (link: opening post in this discussion).
Have you put all your money into a business? Do you think it is easy? Your employees can always resign if there is a problem and seek another job. But you can't escape because you own the business. Have you faced bankruptcy of your business because your competitors can make and sell cheaper than you can?

Have you seen your employees pilfer your goods when you are not looking? Have you got the feeling that you are making almost nothing when your employees are all well paid? Have you felt that all the hours you put in does not benefit you but benefit those you employ?

You act as if your employer has the obligation to give you an easy well paid job when he may be in distress. He has no choice but to get as much productivity out of his employees as he can or his costs go up and he can't earn enough to pay everyone. What about the rent to his landlord?

You only see one side of the picture. I was not interested in telling you the employers side because I felt it was redundant. I only wanted to tell you that capitalism works much better than Socialism. I used Qantas as an example because your friend got redundant.

I gave you a link showing that 10 years after privatization, the company was larger, employed more employees. It created jobs. So it was beneficial to society as a whole. That's all I wanted to tell you. But you ignored all this. You only focused on the plight of those retrenched like your friend.

You don't see more jobs being created, cheaper fares as a result of cost cutting. Consumers benefit. These are the workings of the "invisible hands" of capitalism.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1807
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The proud ostriches globally are business people!

Post by cassowary » Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:07 pm

neverfail wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 8:17 am


His observation about restructures I believe is still valid - as it coincides with one I gained when I was once caught up in. Some people lose their jobs while those who keep them have more work pushed on to them.
Neverfail,

This is actually something good. It is called productivity improvement. The workforce is said to be more productive. Three men doing the work previously done by four is something to be celebrated. Productivity growth is the key to prosperity. I was surprised and a little shocked that you think of it as something bad. Let me help you to understand economics.

Here is a definition of productivity.
Productivity is an economic measure of output per unit of input. Inputs include labor and capital, while output is typically measured in revenues and other gross domestic product (GDP) components such as business inventories.
Let me give you a hypothetical example. Suppose you have a government owned airline, called Qantup, belonging to some small Pacific Island. It has only one airplane. The government privatized it because it wasn't doing well. An entrepreneur bought it. He noticed that he has a staff of 30 people to operate this plane. They are pilots, cabin crew, technicians etc.

He figures that he can make do with only 20 staff. So he fires 10 of them. His PRODUCTIVITY is said to have improved. With lower costs, he finds he can make a handsome profit. He now has three options:

1)Pay the staff more.
2)Pay himself a dividend
3)Use the money to get more business. This can be done in two ways. Either he cuts price of an airline ticket and maintain the service level. Or he can maintain the price of a ticket, but improve the service level. He gives his passengers steaks instead of hamburgers.

He may decide to do a bit of each, which is common in well run companies. Let's say other airlines cannot match his productivity. So he gains business at their expense. He finds that one aeroplane is not enough to handle all the business. So he buys another plane and employs another 20 people. So he has created jobs by improving his productivity.

This is how productivity gains translate into jobs and even higher wages. While the above is a hypothetical example, it is probably what happened to a real life situation, Qantas. I have already shown you a link telling you what happened to Qantas 10 years after privatization. They had more planes and more staff, despite initially retrenching people. The consumer also benefits in better service or cheaper tickets.

Think of all these blessings that capitalism has given.

Post Reply