Meanwhile, my boss refused to give me a raise because “we don’t take inflation into account” and “your coworker was using his phone, and therefore you might be”.
Frankly, if they get a payrise for doing fuck-all, I should be getting at least equivalent for busting my arse and producing some of the best results for the company in a decade.
Also, fuck the fact that we don’t have legislated consistent payrises. If we legislated wages being directly tied to inflation, life would be much easier.
Hope you’re in an industry where you can jump ship after that conversation
If only. Tutoring and sham contractor at that, so God knows how much of my experience will be treated as valid
Quiet quit.
It sounds like you’re being taken advantage of and need to leave your job.
If you think you’re worth more money, prove it, quit your job and find another one. Otherwise you’re just making excuses or aren’t as good at your job as you think.
Because its so simple to up sticks and find another job. You sound like a free-market neo-liberal. That is a bad thing, because in this comment you’ve demonstrated a thoughtlessness to the myriad obstacles that can be in an individuals way to seamlessly transition into other employment, like the comment suggests they can/should.
Please don’t get me wrong, in some instances what your advocating would be the best decision. But you and I have no idea of the context of the pay dispute OG is talking about, so a less ‘accusatory’ tone is probably a wiser stance to take.
A lot of people are probably going to jump on the bandwagon and say that it’s too much and that they’re out of touch - just remember that the CEOs of big companies get millions of dollars per year for significantly less work and managing less stress. While we may not agree that these particular politicians particularly deserve this pay - I don’t think it is unreasonable
And noting this, if %4 is all it takes to keep you out of the grasp of cronyism and corruption - take it.
But we need national legislated pay rise too because you bet your arse I’ll get 1-2% at best each year for a net -20% in relation to inflation over the last 5-10y.
Unfortunately, that’s just not how greed works.
If you give a greedy person $100 in the hope they won’t take a $200 bribe, they’ll have $300.
Usually, they’ll then try and manipulate people into giving them even more. “Well of course I took the $200. You guys only offered me $100. What did you expect?”.
So you buckle and offer them $300 to not take the $200 dollars. How much does the greedy person end up with? $500 of course.
What comes next? Manipulating the new lowest bidder of course! “Well of course I took the $300. You guys only offered me $200. What did you expect?”.
If they can take it all, they’ll take it all. If they can squeeze you for more, they’ll squeeze you for more.
There is never a point they will say “no, I already have enough”. The closest they ever come is concluding “If I take the $100 now, I won’t be able to take the $200 later”.
Thats why this stuff needs to be properly regulated and fiercely enforced.
Hey you raise some serious points.
My argument is “give them 4% but aggressively stamp out corruption”. As long as I get a legislated pay rise too in line with inflation.
Unfortunately, they get to decide what counts as corruption.
Your not going to get rid of cronyism and corruption by the carrot alone though. I see that as a red herring to ease the passage of pay rises like these.
I’m pretty sure the PM is getting about half the amount the VC at my university gets for a more important more stressful job, there’s just the cynicism of people voting to increase their own income (which I’m sure my VC does too). I always feel like politician pay should be based on the median income (like, starting at 80% going up to 250%) adjusted yearly or something. Not much reasoning, just idle thought on that though.
That’s always been my take. That way if they want a pay rise just improve things for everyone and they get one
That’s a really good way to look at it, should certainly incentivise them to do better for Australians, but they might just go corrupt or take donations
It is unreasonable for anyone to be earning that amount of money and the fact that others earn more should not be used as a justification. Particularly considering how many additional benefits politicians receive alongside their exorbitant salaries.
Personally I do want politicians to be earning enough that it stops being super easy to bribe them. If that means giving them a few million a year that’s fine, because it’s pocket change compared to the cost savings in terms of corruption.
The other side of this is that higher wages increasingly attract people fixated solely on personal wealth accumulation, who themselves are hardly immune to bribery. Are these the personalities we need in positions of power?
In first world countries, wages do not influence susceptibility to bribery.
In high-income countries, petty corruption is less common because wages are above subsistence level. Corruption in these countries, if present, involves more secret deals, brings about larger payoffs, and is more difficult to detect. Government wages will arguably be less effective to combat the latter form of corruption.
https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/higher-government-wages-may-reduce-corruption
No one should be earning (up to) half a million a year?
If I could augment your argument a little…
The number itself isn’t unreasonable. Its the disparity and ‘quality of life’ differences that yeilds, that i think are the key issues. Such as personal agency in life choices.
The worst parts of poverty are often about the choice constraints imposed.
About the same as I got, and I considered mine quite low.
Well the point of adjusting rates is so people’s salary aggressively goes backwards and realistically the people at the top should sacrifice the most.
CEOs should probably just be banished though, legality has nothing to do with permissibility. Anyone that keeps those ludicrous salaries becomes a monster.
Meh.
Maybe im just getting old but I dont really give a shit if they get a 4% pay rise. Its under CPI and our pollies dont earn obscene amounts of money compared to the middle/top end of the private sector.
It sucks people here saying they will only get 1-2%, but thats the reason we have unions. If you think you are worth more, fight for it. If you dont get it, find another job that agrees with your self evaluation.
Im not saying that in a trolly way, I mean it. People arent going to jump out and just give you more money, you need to fight for it and that might mean jumping ship.
It’s better than the deal they offered APS staff
They earn almost 4x the median Australian. That’s obscene.
The median personal income is less than $50K when you take into account unemployed and retired and other income streams, so it’s closer to 10X of the median Australian.
I suspect you are talking about the median Jobs in Australia rather than Personal Income in Australia.
Honestly I’d rather see politician remuneration indexed to minimum wage. I suspect tying the wealth of the decision makers to the minimum wage might actually make a difference to the average Australian.
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-working-conditions
won’t they just be more reliant on lobbying gifts to compensate?
Where does that point stop though? If people are in it to make money they’ll take every opportunity to make more and this has been proven time and time and again.
So what’s not obscene then? 1x?
Median income includes part time, casual, and unsure work
And they are a part of our country and should be counted.
Things sure do look rosier if we ignore the shit aspects.
But it’s not like for like. Misusing statistics like you are doing doesn’t help the conversation it just makes you look ignorant.
When you include someone who works 10 hours a week against a minister who is responsible for a department that manages thousands of people it just makes you look small minded and, quite frankly, not knowledgeable enough to join the conversation.
When you realise that some people work 10 hours a week because it’s all they can, it makes you look out of touch.
Underemployment is a huge issue.
Whoa bud, there’s a heap of nuance here and accusing someone of misusing stats rather than presenting under a different context doesn’t help anyone.
If we only count full time workers we are ignoring under employed, volunteers, people whose circumstances prevent them from working full time. All these people can provide a benefit to society, whether it’s raising family, caring for elderly, volunteering at their local sports club or men’s shed, etc… Your position seems to be saying their value to society is zero. I would put it to you that you that your way of representing the stats doesn’t reflect the nation as a whole.
Another question to ask when counting the rate of income increase is also where the poverty line comes into it. If you say poverty line is $30K (I haven’t looked this up) then $50K income is only $20 on making your life better, and $230K is still $200k, so we are back to 10x on income to improve your life.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The independent Remuneration Tribunal published that it was awarding a 4 per cent pay increase across the board, even though wage data shows the average salary has risen by slightly less, because it had been more conservative in its previous rulings.
“The Tribunal is aware the remuneration increases it has awarded to offices in its jurisdiction over the past decade have been conservative,” it said in its determination.
“The tribunal’s primary focus is to provide competitive and equitable remuneration that is appropriate to the responsibilities and experience required of the roles, and that is sufficient to attract and retain people of calibre.”
The latest ruling is the largest pay rise for MPs in more than a decade, and separates federal parliamentarians from some of their state colleagues.
In NSW, legislation was introduced to freeze politician pay for two years from July, which then-newly installed Premier Chris Minns described as a “budget-saving measure”.
The tribunal says it is obliged to consider annual wage reviews by the Fair Work Commission as well as movements in public and private salaries in its deliberations.
The original article contains 508 words, the summary contains 178 words. Saved 65%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
you know, I really fucking hate how they bait us with photos of the politicians looking manically delighted, I’m positive those expressions weren’t in response to a pay rise but implying they were makes them look like absolute ghouls. poor reporting.
Every photo is chosen for a reason.
