> Says you, about an arrangement that doesn't involve you.
This is something that was also said by the judge in the 1907 Australian Harvester Decision which set a set a ‘living’ or ‘family’ wage.
It was ruled to allow an unskilled labourer to support a wife and three children, to feed, house, and clothe them.
This became the basis of the national minimum wage system in Australia that persists to this day, that a minimum wage should allow a 40 hour work week to feed, clothe and house a worker and reasonable immediate dependants.
> resulting in people eating bugs, sleeping in concrete tube "pods", getting paid a dollar an hour, and dying alone.
Well, here we are in Australia, 115+ years on and this is still yet to happen.
Any ideas on when your predicted outcomes will kick in?
>>> ...shift the consensus position for an acceptable standard of living...
>> Well, here we are in Australia, 115+ years on and this is still yet to happen.
> ...recently have COVID concentration camps?
I pointed to a shifting consensus position, he denied it, I pointed to an outrageous example of the warping of normalcy in his own backyard. That clear it up for you?
And the answer remains the same: a redefinition of what constitutes the standard of living is far more likely than "economic collapse"... it is already happening.
This is something that was also said by the judge in the 1907 Australian Harvester Decision which set a set a ‘living’ or ‘family’ wage.
It was ruled to allow an unskilled labourer to support a wife and three children, to feed, house, and clothe them.
This became the basis of the national minimum wage system in Australia that persists to this day, that a minimum wage should allow a 40 hour work week to feed, clothe and house a worker and reasonable immediate dependants.
> resulting in people eating bugs, sleeping in concrete tube "pods", getting paid a dollar an hour, and dying alone.
Well, here we are in Australia, 115+ years on and this is still yet to happen.
Any ideas on when your predicted outcomes will kick in?