26
The Australia interest rate rise is the wrong medicine and an even worse alibi (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/australianpolitics@aussie.zone
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Slashing and burning housebuilding and investment today will inhibit inflation a little in the short-run at the price of diminishing long-term supply – a sure way to breed more long-term inflation.

This is not an anti-inflation policy. It is a cynical transfer of income from people who did not cause the problem to people who are, in fact, profiting handsomely from it. And it is an excuse for further acts of vandalism on some of Australia’s important institutions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

"disincentivising work" is a null concept though. Covid proved that. People want to work on the vast majority - and they certainly want to earn more money. Yeah you're gonna have outliers but you always do and need to accept them.

Having it below minimum wage does not afford a safety net. People can't afford to live on minimum wage right now. You know what causes a significant negative impact on social cohesion? Keeping people at half starved for reasons that when probed, utterly fall apart. It feeds resentment, disengagement and makes people prime fodder for the next shithead who promises them candy and unicorns

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    I think we largely align, so please don’t mistake what I’m trying to say.

    Unemployment benefits should be enough to afford people to live. Minimum wage should be higher, and afford people the ability to thrive.

    The implicit incentive being to get out and find employment, as that contributes greatly more to social cohesion than anything else we’ve discussed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    See this is where I'm jamming. People don't need to be "incentivised" to find work. They seek it on their own. This has been proven in multiple studies. Politicians saying they need "incentives" have just found a weaselly way to say being hard up should be punished.

    EDIT:

    • Finnish UBI experiment gave a bunch of citizens a living wage per month with no obligation to seek employment. They found recipients worked essentially the same number of days as the control group. Employment rates between both groups were virtually identical

    • Research by Marinescu, Jones, and Harvey (2018) analyzed decades of data from Alaska's unconditional yearly cash dividend. They found that guaranteed cash payments had zero negative effect on overall employment.

    • Randomised controlled trials in Kenya and other developing nations conducted by MIT and Harvard evaluated cash transfer programs across multiple countries. The cross-country synthesis published by the World Bank and NBER found no systematic evidence that unconditional cash transfers reduce work effort or increase leisure time.

    And then you get the sociologists involved and again and again they find that people seek work regardless of financial coercion or benefit cutoffs, Covid was the big whopper, a lot of people - especially in the US, granted - were receiving more "support payments" than their actual wages. They still went into work when possible. Likewise, country after country found that when they cancelled off teh support payments started during lockodwn, the employment rate did not increase in any meaningful manner

    so threatening people with low money "get a job" is just...cruelty based on nothing but bias.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent