World's richest woman wants her workers to take a pay cut

POSTED BY: kpo
UPDATED: Saturday, October 25, 2025 15:50
VIEWED: 6414
PAGE 4 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, September 9, 2012 4:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I believe it's called "politics".

Dirty politics.

But then, is there any other kind?

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, September 9, 2012 5:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

Um, are Gina's mines in Africa or in Australia?

Cause if the mines are in Australia, it doesn't matter how many Africans are willing to work for $2/day, if they can't physically get to the mines, does it?

So, no, I don't think she is suggesting that Australians be paid $2, because they have no global labor competition in the Australian mines.

Africa isn't the only country in the world where people are paid little. we are officially in Asia, Indonesia and Malaysia just to our north, and not to mention the Pacific Islands our traditional 'guest' (ie slave) labour resource. Regardless of where the labour comes from, Gina is talking about our global competetiveness. Her argument is precisely that and one of her antitodes is guest labour.

Quote:
Bingo. She is not trying to lower Australian wages. She is trying to bring in guest workers, which is a different issue altogether.

http://afr.com/p/business/companies/furore_over_rinehart_guest_workers
_SV8zHafIGC1zNaDDqOUIHJ

This is a dangerous move and can be easily criticized on its own merits without resorting to misinterpreting some youtube comments and erecting strawmen.

It's not a strawman to suggest that use of guest labour forces labour costs down.

I feel you may be sticking up for someone who you know little about. Her words reflect her philosophy and have not been misrepresented. she is not a great philanthropist seeking change to third world conditions, or bemoaning the conditions of African miners. She is looking at her own personal, substantial bank account and nothing more.

Perhaps it is your philosophy you are defending?

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, September 9, 2012 6:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
It's not a strawman to suggest that use of guest labour forces labour costs down.

No, that is not a strawman. I said that was a legitimate criticism.

The strawman is interpreting her quotation about Africans as her intent to bring Ozzie wages down to $2. We just shouldn't go there. It's dishonest.

Quote:
I feel you may be sticking up for someone who you know little about.

To be clear, I am not sticking up for HER, the person. She sounds despicable. I'm sticking up for her right to not be villainized based on one misinterpreted quotation. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to villainize her--use one of those.

1KIKI

Sunday, September 9, 2012 6:45 AM

Misrepresented quote? Here is the video, at length. There was no misrepresentation:

http://gnli.christianpost.com/video/gina-rinehart-worlds-richest-woman
-6308

While she briefly mentions guest workers, the entire argument rests on the fact that companies will take their business elsewhere where workers are cheaper (including the US where illegals are REALLY cheap, S Africa or the Congo) --- so wise-up Aussies, bend over, and let her drive. Or who knows WHAT she may end up doing.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, September 9, 2012 8:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

The strawman is interpreting her quotation about Africans as her intent to bring Ozzie wages down to $2. We just shouldn't go there. It's dishonest.

I haven't seen any commentary in this country that suggests that she has explicitly said that - but her aim certainly is to reduce wages and standard of living, so we can be 'competitive'. And as I stated before, one of the flaws inherent in the 'labour costs are cheaper overseas' is that to be competitive, you have to match or lessen the costs. ie if labour costs in africa, a mining competitor, is $2 per hour, then to reduce wages to $10 an hour or $6 per hour STILL isn't going to be competitive.

I think you have misunderstood the intent in people's argument, by being too literal. People are dismayed that she is going down this road of argument, for the reasons stated above, and because of the shitey conditions of African miners. It's just poor form, but it is standard Gina fare.

KWICKO

Sunday, September 9, 2012 1:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
It's not a strawman to suggest that use of guest labour forces labour costs down.
No, that is not a strawman. I said that was a legitimate criticism.

The strawman is interpreting her quotation about Africans as her intent to bring Ozzie wages down to $2. We just shouldn't go there. It's dishonest.

There's the misunderstanding, then. I don't believe anyone here seriously suggested that her plan is to bring Ozzie wages down to $2, but rather that her suggestion that others are willing to do so much for so little is aimed at BRINGING DOWN OZZIE WAGES; the $2 figure is brought up because SHE brought it up as if it were a shining example. She's also trying to argue for slashing benefits and cutting regulation to the bone or beyond, but the main gist of her position is to bring down wages and up her profits, ALWAYS at the expense of workers and safety.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, September 9, 2012 2:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I don't believe anyone here seriously suggested that her plan is to bring Ozzie wages down to $2, but rather that her suggestion that others are willing to do so much for so little is aimed at BRINGING DOWN OZZIE WAGES; the $2 figure is brought up because SHE brought it up as if it were a shining example.

I listened to the entire speech.

It strikes me that the purpose of this speech is threefold:

1. She wants to bring in guest workers. This is the main goal of this speech, the "solution" she presents to the whole problem of Australian competitiveness.
2. She wants to undercut the goals of the labor unions. She knows she can't make Ozzie wages go lower, but these are her arguments to keep labor unions from achieving higher wages and benefits.
3. She wants to justify getting rid of laws that drive up her costs. This is a long shot, but she had to throw that in there.

She brought up the $2 African wage in the context that African mines can undersell Australian ore in the global market because their labor costs are not as high.

This IS a fact.

Again, villainizing her for pointing out this fact doesn't improve Australian global competitiveness or the Australian economy. The problems she presents are very real. Her solutions are despicable and selfish, to be sure. But it would be a mistake, IMHO, to dismiss the problems she presents just because her solutions are dismissable.

I think the wise thing to do here is to reframe the problems she discussed and come up with alternative solutions.

1KIKI

Sunday, September 9, 2012 4:01 PM

Given the large public investment in her company, Australia could nationalize the mines. By cutting out the 'need' to make excessive profits on top of production costs, Australia could drop the product price and keep the good wages and safety. They won't nationalize of course, but there are more ways to solve this problem that don't involve being a tool of rich people and corporations, which seems to be the only solution YOU support.

1KIKI

Sunday, September 9, 2012 4:55 PM

So, CTS, these are your comments which you made BEFORE you had all the information, something you derided other people for doing. Which of these straw-man arguments, inaccurate conclusions, outright lies and ad hominem attacks that you posted do you still support?

> Actually, what she said was African workers willing to work for $2 a day make her worry for her country's future. - here you are arguing from incomplete information, something you freely criticize others for doing, and also assuming that the papers were doing so as well. You failed to consider that not only the papers but the country could have had access to the entire video.

> Her thrust was that Australia competes for labor on the global stage and needs to keep the competition in mind. - her statements were not nearly as neutral as you restated them to be, you are creating a strawman argument

> It is true that such statistics need to be considered when deciding public policy. - this is YOUR CONCLUSION, something which YOU STATE AS FACT but haven't proven

> I am saying her quotations have been mischaracterized - strawman argument, you are arguing against a position no one took

> to serve some ideological agenda. - ad hominem

> I happen to agree with said ideological agenda - stated as fact, no indication of how

> but I won't lie about what people say to achieve my agenda - implied ad hominem, strawman, and by accepting incomplete information and repeating it you yourself are lying about what was actually said

> I am saying that any public policy that simply ignores labor competitiveness on the global level will not thrive. - not true, China did quite well by concentrating on internal markets and developing internal resources for decades

> Public policy must give companies some incentive for paying higher wages to local workers and not outsourcing the labor. - so here you ARE supporting her arguments, the arguments you say she didn't make

> Simply demonizing them as "selfish" isn't going to work. - you argue consistently that she should have the right to say what she wants and would restrict the rights of others to say what they want

> Again, I don't think that is what she said at all. - arguing from incomplete information, the same thing you accuse others of doing

> We can argue against what she actually said without resorting to strawmen and adhominems. - something you have failed to do

> If we start arguing dishonestly - ad hominem

> what are we really doing here? Masturbating in public to some fantasy porno in our heads? - ad hominem

> Again, that is NOT what she's saying. - stated as fact with no indication of how it's wrong, and based on incomplete information

> She has never said in that link that I could find that Australia needs to become more like Africa in wages. - it was the logical conclusion of her argument, an argument you accept and ven support (see above) while at the same time you claim it doesn't exist

> Why do you insist on mischaracterizing her statements? - why do you?

> But the method here is wrong. - no proof, strawman

> And without integrity. - ad hominem

> You guys are better than that. - ad hominem

> It sounds like a conversation about some fantasy you guys have concocted in your heads about her statement, as opposed to what her statement really says. - ad hominem

> And then getting off on that fantasy. - ad hominem

> Cause if the mines are in Australia, it doesn't matter how many Africans are willing to work for $2/day, if they can't physically get to the mines, does it? - strawman

> So, no, I don't think she is suggesting that Australians be paid $2, because they have no global labor competition in the Australian mines. as opposed to your previous argument Public policy must give companies some incentive for paying higher wages to local workers and not outsourcing the labor.

> ... the strategy to combat this agenda is not t

KWICKO

Sunday, September 9, 2012 5:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I don't believe anyone here seriously suggested that her plan is to bring Ozzie wages down to $2, but rather that her suggestion that others are willing to do so much for so little is aimed at BRINGING DOWN OZZIE WAGES; the $2 figure is brought up because SHE brought it up as if it were a shining example.

I listened to the entire speech.

It strikes me that the purpose of this speech is threefold:

1. She wants to bring in guest workers. This is the main goal of this speech, the "solution" she presents to the whole problem of Australian competitiveness.
2. She wants to undercut the goals of the labor unions. She knows she can't make Ozzie wages go lower, but these are her arguments to keep labor unions from achieving higher wages and benefits.
3. She wants to justify getting rid of laws that drive up her costs. This is a long shot, but she had to throw that in there.

You brought up the idea of "global" competitiveness when you pointed out that the people making $2 a day are in Africa, a long way from Australia. Her bringing them into the conversation is a ruse BY HER, an attempt to try to force concessions from unions and regulators and government by holding up people far away who will work FAR AWAY for much less, purely so she can increase her own private fortune.

The truth of the matter is, Australia doesn't NEED to compete with African miners; it needs to stay competitive only in its REGION. I can point out that there are people making iPods for $12 a day in China, but that doesn't do any good in bringing manufacturing jobs back to the U.S., does it? If a coca farmer earns $2 a day in Peru, how does pointing it out help migrant workers in Arizona?

Quote:

She brought up the $2 African wage in the context that African mines can undersell Australian ore in the global market because their labor costs are not as high.

This IS a fact.

Again, villainizing her for pointing out this fact doesn't improve Australian global competitiveness or the Australian economy. The problems she presents are very real. Her solutions are despicable and selfish, to be sure. But it would be a mistake, IMHO, to dismiss the problems she presents just because her solutions are dismissable.

I think the wise thing to do here is to reframe the problems she discussed and come up with alternative solutions.

Again I point out that chasing cheap wages all around the globe doesn't help anyone except the corporations and their owners. Playing African miners' wages off against Australian wages in an effort to do away with unions, benefits, and a "living wage" doesn't help either African miners OR Australian miners, and in fact hurts them both.

African miners, once their product is in high demand because of its low price, will agitate for better conditions and higher wages, and they'll be shown the bogeyman of low-paid Chinese miners to try to keep them in line. And Chinese miners will then do the same, and be shown Peruvian miners as an object lesson. You keep chasing the lowest wages around the globe, and you end up right back where you started, only now you've completely obliterated ANY middle class there ever was, and you're using disposable people and paying them slave wages only until you find someone who's willing to do the job for less than slave wages.

You can continue to drive down wages and benefits for people and crush them under your heel, but only for a time. Once a people have nothing left to lose, their life is no longer something you can threaten, because death is a sweet release.

Similarly, destroying the middle class in any country is a surefire way to collapse the economy of that country, and the quickest way to destroy the middle class is by doing exactly what Gine Rinehart is attempting to do in Australia, and what Scott Walker is doing in Wisconsin. When you destroy unions and remove the ability of the people to try to improve their situation in regards to their

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE