【龙腾网】全国基本生活工资公开。现在来讨论全球基本生活工资（下）

正文翻译

原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译：大卫王 转载请注明出处


A nationalliving wage is on the table. Now let’s talk about a global living wage

全国基本生活工资公开。现在来讨论全球基本生活工资

评论翻译

原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译：大卫王 转载请注明出处


Graeme Bennett
Thisis just another poorly thought through anti-globalisation piece.
Theauthor mentions factories being moved to another country when wages get toohigh. She neglects to mention why wagesget too high. Globalisation brings jobsfor urban workers, attracts employees because they offer opportunities wherethere were none. It provides betterincomes as a consequence, allowing populations to be skilled up and educatetheir children. New opportunities andnew industries open up. Sweatshop wagesmay no longer be enough, unless there is a continuing population flow to thecities. Low wages attract manufacturersto move on to other jurisdictions. Thatdoes not result in the previous hub falling back to where it was before themanufacturers first came. Or at least itdidn’t in Japan, South Korea, China…… Vietnam has been a beneficiary of such moves. In time their populations will change for thebetter as a result. The author seemsconcerned that Ethiopia might benefit from such movements. Her case would see them condemned to lag theglobal economy forever.
Asfor countries banding together to pursue a common cause I offer you OPEC. Our American friends are in a constant battlefor markets with us for agricultural products. I can’t imagine them preferring our farmers over theirs in pursuit ofthe common good. If they did theEuropeans would be glad to exploit the new opportunities.
IfAustralian consumers went against their nature and paid more to benefit foreignworkers I would be shocked. $1 milkanyone? The foreign manufacturers wouldbe grateful no doubt but the odds of that money filtering down to low-skilled workerswould be very long indeed.

这只是另一篇关于反全球化的拙劣文章。
作者提到，当工资过高时，工厂就会迁往另一个国家。她没有提到工资过高的原因。全球化为城市工人带来了就业机会，吸引了员工，因为他们提供了以前没有的机会。其结果是，它带来了更好的收入，使人们能够提高技能并教育子女。新机遇、新产业不断涌现。除非有源源不断的人口流向城市，否则血汗工厂（指工人劳动条件差，工作时间长，工资低的工厂）可能赚不到足够的钱了。低工资吸引制造商转移到其他司法管辖区。但这并没有导致之前的中心回落到制造商首次出现之前的水平。至少日本、韩国、中国没有这样做……越南一直是这些举措的受益者。随着时间的推移，他们的人口生活会因此变得更好。作者似乎担心埃塞俄比亚可能会从这些运动中获益。她的情况将使他们注定永远落后于全球经济。

至于那些联合起来追求共同事业的国家，我向你们推荐石油输出国组织。我们的美国朋友在不断地与我们争夺农产品市场。我无法想象他们在追求共同利益时，会选择我们的农民而不是他们的农民。如果他们这样做了，欧洲人将乐于利用这些新的机会。
如果澳大利亚的消费者违背他们的本性，花更多的钱让外国工人受益，我会感到震惊。1美元的牛奶吗? 外国制造商无疑会很感激，但这些资金流向低技能工人的可能性确实非常大。

John Geoffrey Mosley
Anotherobvious initiative is to have a maximum wage. This would make it easier to payfor a rise in the minimum wage.

另一个明显的举措是设定最高工资。这将使支付提高最低工资变得更容易。

Shelley Marshall回复John GeoffreyMosley
Thanksfor this interesting proposal.

谢谢你提出这个有趣的建议。

Don Saavedra
Aliving Wage? .. right now in Australia people over 55 but under theirretirement age are asked to volunteer between 2-3 days per week (some only 1day per week) in order to receive a payment of roughly $606.00 per fortnight(singles). And of course, for all theirvolunteering duties they receive the enormous gift of a concession card
Ifyou get injured there is not much insurance cover unless you call a bit ofmoney for a broken bone something else rather than the rip-off it really is;the rest is all covered by Medicare or if costs exceed the Medicare cover thenthey’ll make up the rest, but you must pay first.
Takea couple of days off from volunteering and your payments may get cut off so noHolidays ever again until the day you retire, come in for volunteering late,says 10 minutes and Centerlink gets informed and you may very well lose yourpayments for 12 weeks.
Charitybosses are usually good and understand that one is there of their own free willso they treat volunteers fairly good. But take note, this is not something offered to those one the dole, nosir, it is offered only to those over 55 who come into any employment officeactually looking for work.
Youmight think this is bad but in reality for those who accept the deal it is anincredibly rewarding move, because working for almost nothing and helping thecommunity makes people feel happy, don’t ask me how, it just happens.
Ifully agree the system should be expanded, the oldies love it, or at leastthose who are willing to work, because if you are not seen lending a hand youare soon asked to leave, you must contribute to whatever charity you arevolunteering with or out you go. The only option then is to get a job, there isnothing left if you happen to be a bum looking for an easy life.
Thescheme gives the young ones a chance at full employment because now there areless (and more experienced oldies) looking for work and what with the advent ofrobots and humanity almost ready to lose 50% of all its jobs to them then Ithink overall, even if not perfect ….. it works.
Butit has a hidden danger, if expanded to the young then it has the potential tokeep them on low wages for the rest of their lives while others whose parentsare rich and do not require some sort of welfare payment might be offered allthe other opportunities which will pay them $150,000 Plus … in other words, ifthe system were to be applied to the young then it will wreck the social fabricof our civilization ..
Sorryabout the rant

基本生活工资吗?. .现在在澳大利亚，55岁以上但低于退休年龄的人被要求每周2-3天(有些人每周只有1天)做志愿者，以获得每两周约606.00美元的报酬(单身人士)。在他们所有的志愿工作中，他们都得到了一张巨大的优惠卡作为礼物。
如果你受伤了，不会得到多少保险，除非你为受伤的地方花一些钱，而不是索要高价。其余的都由医疗保险支付，或者如果费用超过了医疗保险的覆盖范围，那么他们就会补足其余的费用，但你必须先支付。

从志愿服务中请几天假，你的报酬可能就会被中断，直到你退休之前再也没有假期了。10分钟后，福利署（澳大利亚的一个政府机构）就会得到通知，你很可能会在12周内失去你的报酬。
慈善机构的老板通常都很好，他们知道志愿者是自愿的，所以他们对志愿者也很好。但是请注意，这并不是向那些领取救济金的人提供的。不是的，先生，它只提供给那些进入任何职业介绍所找工作的55岁以上的人。

Tony Dickson
Havingwaded through the comments of this well intended, entirely reasonable, butsadly Utopian article, I note only one has even mentioned a range of factors that are fundamental to thesubject.
Onecomment only mentioned as an afterthought the major cause of unemployment sincethe industrial revolution: technology.Technological innovation increases“productivity” which is broadly characterised as positive. In fact the term iscode for replacing people with machines, which is why economic theory isfundamentally underpinned by an ideological commitment to perpetual andcompounding consumption.Current trajectories indicate that by the middle of thecentury, half of current occupations will be replaced by robots.
Unfortunatelywe live on a finite planet. Thus the entire global economy is based on themathematical equation: finite resources divided by infinite demand. Brilliant,what could go wrong?
Ourmost valuable economic asset is the biosphere because it underpins all economicactivity. You can’t by shiny things if you are dead. However, our most valuableasset appears on no balance sheet and its diminution is not costed in anyprofit and loss account, but is rather externalised as an unfunded liability,otherwise known as toxic debt.
Ihave been writing to economists for over forty years, asking for an explanationof this apparent absurdity, but have never received a cogent response. I usuallyconclude with a suggestion that they phone a biologist, because they seem notto be aware that we are rapidly approaching an existential ecological crisis. Current estimates are thatby the middle of the century, a third of species on this planet will beextinct. If this is anywhere near correct, we will be selling our children to buy the groceries. But whatwould I know, I’m just a farmer.
Providinga living wage to the most needy, would ultimately need to be at the expense ofwe who live in relative opulence; bearing in mind that the average Australianconsumes about fifty times that of the average African.
Oh,and then there is the political and legal reality that public corporations arerequired by most legal juridictions to make their primary legal obligation themaximisation of profits for their shareholders. Boards of director can be suedby their shareholders if they waver from this duty. Thus the corporate entitiesthat largely control the world, are required by Law to behave as psychopaths.It is not surprising that such instituions are governed disproportionately byhuman psychopaths. So don’t expect any warm and fuzzies from them, or the governmentsthey control.

40多年来，我一直在给经济学家写信，要求他们解释这种荒谬的现象，但从未得到过令人信服的答复。最后，我通常会建议他们打电话给生物学家，因为他们似乎没有意识到我们正快速接近一场生存的生态危机。目前的估计是，到本世纪中叶，地球上三分之一的物种将灭绝。
为最贫困的人提供基本生活工资，最终需要以我们这些生活相对富裕的人为代价;请记住，澳大利亚人的平均消费量大约是非洲人的50倍。

哦，还有一个政治和法律上的情况，即大多数法律法规都要求上市公司将其主要法律义务定为股东利润最大化。如果董事会不履行这一职责，他们可能会被股东起诉。因此，法律要求控制着世界的企业实体表现得像精神病患者。这样的机构由人类精神病患者不成比例地管理，这并不奇怪。因此，不要指望他们或他们所控制的政府会给你任何温暖模糊的感觉。

“第一个事实是，如果人民容忍私人权力的增长超过其民主国家本身，民主的自由就不安全。这在本质上就是法西斯主义——个人、团体或任何其他控制私人权力对政府的所有权。——1938年4月29日富兰克林·D·罗斯福向国会发表的国情咨文。

尽管我赞同这篇文章的观点，但任何不彻底改变人性和社会的行为，都不太可能产生多大的善意。这是因为，正如我那不法之徒哥哥所说，当他为一美元买牛奶辩护时，像他这样的普通人买不起更多的牛奶;但当他们为今年的另一艘游轮攒钱的时候就不会说没钱了。
我承认这一评论是悲观的;这是自上世纪60年代末研究经济学以来，试图支持公众讨论这些情况的结果。我是极度失败的。

Tony Dickson回复Shelley Marshall
Noresponse Shelley? I wrote it for you because I was impressed by yourparticipation in the conversation, which is unusual. Most contributingacademics seem to disdain joining in discussion with the hoi paloi; which is apity because the it is my perception that the polymath comments tend to be moreinteresting and erudite than the narrow predictability of the experts.
Mycomments were made with polemical but serious intent. The observations abouteconomic growth are so fundamental that they leave only two options. Eitherthey are absurd nonsense, in which case they should be easily and summarilyrebutted; or if they cannot, then they represent a profound challenge to thefoundations of our “civilization”.
Iremain genuinely perplexed that not oneof the hundreds of economists that I have written to over the decades, has seen fit to cogently respond to thischallenge.
Thelogical and tempting explanation for this deafening silence is that I amobviously an obsessed nutter who is best ignored. This would indeed be areasonable conclusion, if I did not travel in some illustrious company.
“If the earth must lose that great portion of its pleasantness whichit owes to things that the unlimited increase of wealth and population wouldextirpate from it, for the mere purpose of enabling it to support a larger, butnot a better or a happier population, I sincerely hope, for the sake ofposterity, that they will be content to be stationary, long before necessitycompel them to it” John Stuart Mill“Principles of Political Economy” - Book IV, Chapter VI (1848)
Andthen there was Hardin’s “The Tragedy ofThe Commons” in 1968 and The Club ofRome’s “The Limits to Growth” in 1972.
Thelatter was revisited by a research team from the CSIRO, headed by the physicistGraham Turner, which published a 40th anniversary interim report in 2012. Itsconclusion was that The Limits to Growth was indeed deficient, in that it underestimated its dire conclusions. Turner’s report concluded that the pivot pointfor the terminal decline of the global economy was 2015.
Andthen there is the vast weight of evidence accumulated by the biologicalsciences that we are enthusiastically committing global ecocide. Evidence thatis universally ignored by those responsible for public policy. Indeed it isrejected so vociferously that our governing political party equates the Green’sempirically supported urgency with the troglodyte passions of One Nation.

2012年，由物理学家Graham Turner领导的联邦科学与工业研究组织（澳大利亚）研究小组重新审视了后者，并发表了一份40周年的中期报告。它的结论是，增长的极限确实存在缺陷，因为它低估了其可怕的结论。GrahamTurner的报告得出结论是，全球经济最终衰退的转折点是2015年。
此外，生物科学积累的大量证据表明，我们正积极地致力于全球生态灭绝。那些负责公共政策负责人普遍忽视了这一点。我们的执政党把绿党的经验与一个民族的传统情节相提并论。我承认，我的观点与你的文章有些相悖，但我认为，他们实际上强调了一些经济讨论，特别是那些关心全人类未来生活水平的人。

我完全理解为什么任何一个从事工业、公共服务、学术乃至政治的人都会避免接触像我这样日益壮大的异端分子，但最终我们都必须决定自己站在历史的哪一边。
选择很简单:我们是继续只关注征兆，还是把注意力集中在这些点上，深呼吸，至少尝试对抗这种弊病。
如果对我这类事情有任何兴趣，可以在这里找到更详细的论据:https://ferretfarmforestry.com/ophy-politics/themarketeconomys-dirty-little-secret/

Tony Dickson回复Shelley Marshall
Shelley,it occurs to me that this letter written in 2013 is more directly relavent toyour article: https://ferretfarmforestry.com/philosophy-politics/response-to-the-business-council-of-australias-action-plan-for-enduring-prosperity/

Shelley，我突然想到，2013年写的这些文字与你的文章相关：https://ferretfarmforestry.com/physical-politics/response-to-the-business-council-of-australias-action-plan-for-peringing-prospence/

Kumudhu Alwis
Thereis another article about Labors National minimum wage, part of electioneering.No more comments allowed in it.
Itis relevant to note minimum income has been the election propaganda of Congressin India. It is challenged by the war in space by the BJP.
Hereour labors’ living wage is challenged by LNP boat wars in India’s Ocean.
Neryinteresting days.

还有一篇关于全国劳工最低工资的文章，这是竞选活动的一部分。里面不许再写评论了。
值得注意的是，最低收入一直是印度国会选举宣传的重点。它受到印度人民党太空战争的挑战。
在这里，我们工人的基本生活工资受到了印度海上LNP船只战争的挑战。
非常有趣的日子。