Pub-Hypotheses (Pypotheses)
Pypothesis 1: ‘Employers can’t find anyone to fill their vacancies.’
Real-world: Pay more and the market will deliver – after all, attracting doctors, engineers, lawyers, coders etc., usually requires more than the Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW) rate [currently $21.38].
Pypothesis 2: ‘We need more skilled people.’
Real-world: Train your employees and make their employment packages attractive enough to keep them.
Pypothesis 3: ‘Anyone with a pulse who wants a job can get one because there are more vacancies than unemployed.’
Real-world: If an employer has a vacancy, at the least, they can still only employ someone whose labour they think will be worth more than the UMHoW rate (plus expenses such as super, holidays and workplace resources).
In addition, employers need to price-in the ‘exploitation-regulation standard-deviation’ – i.e. due to all the modern regulations, if an employer gets someone who, for instance, is a troublemaker then that can disproportionately cost them – for example, workplace-turbulence, ‘unfair’ dismissal legalities and/or bogus harassment claims.
Moreover, if an employer thinks they can find someone better then they may choose to wait.
[P.S. Notwithstanding this application is a little unorthodox, the CDO founder (who has a pulse and is globally-mobile) seeks paid-work. Please reply to this email.]
…
September 28, 2022
Hello
The following is an open letter …
To leaders in business, trade-unions, social-services, the government & other political parties
Referencing Mr Ewin Hannan’s post-‘Jobs + Skills Summit’ article in The Australian September 26, 2022 titled, ‘BCA [Business Council of Australia] urges ACTU [Australian Council of Trade Unions] to detail multi-employer bargaining’, we note this brings together perspectives of unions and business (big and small) concerning possible regulatory solutions re the labour market …
“I think it’s important [the ACTU spells] out how they see it’s [multi-employer bargaining system working], and what is the objective,” Ms Westacott [BCA Chief Executive] said.
“… I do think they have to be clear about here’s the problem, here’s the solution, here’s how it would work, here’s how it would work in practice, here’s how it wouldn’t cause these unintended consequences.” …
Ms Westacott said business was concerned about the potential for widespread industrial action in support of multi-employer claims.
She said the system had to be voluntary as “I don’t believe small business wants to be compelled to be unionised.”
“I don’t believe the ACTU wants to see pattern bargaining but they have to be clear about that and they have got to be clear about what it is they are seeking to achieve and how do we avoid these unintended consequences.”
Ms McManus [ACTU Secretary] said “the problem is that our settings have delivered a decade of flatlining wages growth”.
… “The ACTU has been clear that we believe there needs to be new bargaining options as one size does not fit all, and the system must be fair and simple whilst delivering on the key objective, which is to get wages moving.”
The Council of Small Business Organisations Australia … COSBOA says small businesses seek a simpler system.
… “This may include an option to build bespoke agreements to meet their unique needs and those of their employees.
… COSBOA does not support the “unionisation of small business”; compulsory sector-wide or industry bargaining, including compulsory multi-employer bargaining; pattern bargaining; or “any measure that enables or would make strike action more likely within an organisation, within a sector, across sectors or across groups of businesses”.
Ms McManus said: “The ACTU understands one size fits all options for bargaining have not worked for small business who do not have HR departments and the resources needed to gain the benefits that larger businesses have from bargaining. We are committed to working with those organisations interested in adopting options that suit them and (their) employees”.
To summarise, the ACTU wants wages growth and business wants reduced obstruction.
Accordingly, The CDO wonders if you have considered ‘The USI-Reform’, which consists of trading-in 2 inefficient systems for a single efficient one – i.e. trading-up and out of:
- The (targeted) income-Welfare system (already 45% of The USI without including Public-Housing)
- The Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW) system
for The Universal Subsistence Income (USI).
We believe The USI-Reform will deliver rewards to:
- Unions/paid-workers – i.e. much greater incomes for those currently on the UMHoW rate plus the eradication of workplace-Exploitation
- Business (particularly small but also large) – i.e. significant labour-market deregulation
- Government – i.e. first, depressurising its budget to the extent there will be perpetual surpluses and/or tax relief for paid-workers and business and, second, automatically in-perpetuity eliminating Unemployment/Underemployment.
First, we often hear (including from government) that ‘wages must rise’; however, is it wages or is it incomes, which must rise?
Currently, a full-time paid-worker on the UMHoW rate receives around $37,000 (after tax) per annum; yet, with The USI ($20,000 to every adult non-incarcerated in-country citizen), that same individual would receive around $57,000.
Regarding trading-in the Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW) system, the ACTU’s reluctance is understandable – yes, it has arisen via ‘blood, sweat and tears’ – yes, there’s momentous history – yes, there’s extremely justifiable sentimentality; however, is it reasonable for the Disempowered (who are currently divided and conquered with the half in paid-work hissing at the other half that they’re ‘dole-bludgers’) to continue unnecessarily suffering when UMHoW can be traded-in for an efficient universally-empowering upgrade?
In this way, doesn’t ‘The USI-Reform’ pass the Pub test, the ‘Better-Off Overall Test’ (BOOT) and, to extra bluntly put it into perspective, the 5th grade algebra test?
Thank you.
Best regards
Paul Ross
Founder
The Citizens’ Dividend Organisation (CDO) Australia
‘The USI-Reform’
Humanity is facing a culminating perfect storm of exponentiating Socio-Econo-Enviro[international/natural] (SEE-in) catastrophes including, regarding:
- The Socio-: poverty, homelessness, mental-illness, escapism (such as alcohol & other drug abuse and suicide), domestic-violence etc.
- The Econo-: the inefficiency of not ‘exclusively producing and delivering the goods & services we need/desire’
- The Enviro-:
- International: conflict with Authoritarians such as Xi and Putin
- Natural: ecosystem destruction, species extinction, human population growth, plastic, climate change, etc.
SEE-in outcomes are systemically influenced by Science, Human-Organisation & Technology (SHOT).
Hypothesis: Our SEE-in catastrophes are due to violations of ‘Coopetition’, which is defined as ‘Cooperation first & foremost and Competition the treasured second’. [In sport, Coopetition consists of Cooperation via agreement on the rules, playing-field, umpires and, broader, ‘spirit of the game’ understandings then, within this context, up to all-out Competition.]
Vision: Nations that are ‘universal sustainable SEE-in stability-prosperity optimised’.
Mission: ‘Coopetition’ – Government that infrastructuralises citizen ‘Coopetition-contributive self-actualisation maximisation’.
Regarding human-rights, Coopetism encompasses its full-spectrum and full-magnitude – i.e. it systematises universal empowerment (including minority rights and women’s rights) infinitely more effectively than any stand-alone law or set of laws including a Bill of Rights.
Coopetism is characterised via ‘Universal Rule of Coopetition-maximising Law’, which, as an Industrial Revolution inheritance, amongst other things, includes 5 ‘universal, unconditional and guaranteed’ universal RIDEH infrastructure cornerstones:
- [R] Universal Rule of Personal & Property Security Law – [In Australia] comparatively robust
- [I] Universal Subsistence Income (USI) – no, not yet
- [D] Universal (including compulsory-voting) Liberal Democracy – robust
- [E] Universal Education – robust
- [H] Universal Healthcare – robust.
RIDEH empowers, inspires and energizes citizens such that the correlation between citizen benefit and their contribution to the nation is maximised – i.e. there is citizen ‘Coopetition-contributive self-actualisation maximisation’.
Regarding the current USI-omission, this means there is Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS), which detracts from each of the other cornerstones – for ex., poverty reduces children’s capacity to absorb Education.
Thus, regarding The Universal Subsistence Income (USI):
It’s not that it is the solution;
It’s that its omission is the problem.
The USI is pitched at:
- $20,000 per year for all non-incarcerated in-country adult-citizens below 67
- $5,000 per year for all child-citizens [to their guardian/s]
- $25,000 per year for all citizens over 67.
[Note: Disabled-citizens also receive a ‘top-up’ from the Health budget, which, because it is less The USI, has reduced application requirements.]
We require ‘The USI-Reform’, which involves trading-up to a single efficient system via replacing 2 inefficient ones – i.e. The USI substituted for both:
- The income-Welfare system
- The Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW) system.
The USI-Reform’s advantages span:
- Reharmonising all our SEE-in objectives – i.e. it appears devoid of negative consequences
- Counterintuitively, delivering perpetual government surpluses (and/or tax-decreases).
Regarding the Socio- and the Econo-, The USI-Reform is a PUSCHER-eradicator – i.e. it eradicates Poverty, Unemployment (and Underemployment), Stigma (‘the dole-bludger’ narrative including its racist and disablist variants as everyone receives The USI), Corruption (particularly, in the Developing World), Harassment (‘mutual obligations’), paid-worker-Exploitation (i.e. citizens can say, ‘no’) & significant workplace-Regulation (PUSCHER).
Regarding Unemployment/Underemployment, as per the economic definition of ‘those who want paid-work at the going-wage but cannot obtain paid-work’, it is unnatural; however, due to our UMHoW system, which, though failing to eradicate Poverty, prohibits people supplying their labour below the UMHoW rate, Un/der/employment exists.
Comparing The USI-Reform with our current 2-pronged system, while a full-time paid-worker on the UMHoW rate has an income around $37,000 after tax, with The USI-Reform, their income will equal The USI + their salary – i.e. it will be around $57,000. Plus:
- Their partner and adult children will receive The USI
- Due to the associated business boom and universal Subsistence-Income-Servitude emancipation, their salary will be bid-up.
Moreover, The USI-Reform is a universal empowerer – i.e.:
- Economic-alienation is bridged, which will shut ‘the Gap’
- The USI’s mobility assists women escaping domestic violence
- No Poverty, no Unemployment & no alienation fractionalises mental-illness [The Productivity Commission states it costs over $200 billion per year].
Meanwhile, The USI-Reform transforms the economy from a ‘Squandonomy’ into a ‘Coopetonomy’ – i.e.:
- Full-Employment means there’s no need for jobs-for-jobs’-sake paid-work or ‘Jobs-Jobs-Jobs’ (Triple-J) politics, which means the economy returns to ‘exclusively efficiently empoweringly producing and distributing the goods & services citizens need/desire’
- There is substantial labour-market deregulation, which will particularly promote manufacturing and assist our international competitiveness
- There is no longer the gain-paid-work-lose-income-Welfare distortion, which, among other things, means farmers will find seasonal-workers
- SHOT innovations are fully taken advantage of and its compounding maximised
- There are downward pressures on tax.
Regarding the international-Enviro-, The USI-Reform will not only maximise our strength, it will undermine Authoritarians as their citizens demand our optimised model for themselves. Also, it may demonstrate a way forward for the USA such as to prevent it becoming a failed state.
Regarding the natural-Enviro-, with Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS) abolished, citizens may choose to prioritise the natural-Enviro- plus, with Full-Employment, arguments such as ‘coal-mining creates jobs’ are transcended. Also, once the model is demonstrably successful, the Developing world may adopt it, which would halt population growth as adults no longer need many children for captive cheap labour and an old-age pension. Thus:
Without The USI;
It’s impossible to Save the Environment.
Lastly, this all culminates in government budget depressurisation as:
- Tax revenues surge due to increased efficiencies including business unleashed
- Government expenditure plummets because, in addition to replacing most of our present income-Welfare system (about 45% of The USI transfer), there are vast savings in charity (i.e. as mentioned, no Poverty, no Unemployment & no economic-alienation), law-enforcement (i.e. Universal Empowerment), health (including mental-health), bureaucracy (among other things, Centrelink will be closed), natural-environment rehabilitation and, as also mentioned, the end to jobs-for-jobs’-sake paid-work.
Accordingly, The USI-Reform is a candidate for bipartisanship – i.e. it delivers total benefit yet enables the financing of still more benefit.