• Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Hello and welcome to Aussie Stock Forums!

To gain full access you must register. Registration is free and takes only a few seconds to complete.

Already a member? Log in here.

Where is the pro-business chat?

Discussion in 'Business, Investment and Economics' started by Zaxon, Mar 30, 2019.

sentifi.com

Aussie Stock Forum Sentifi Top themes and market attention on:

Tags:
  1. Zaxon

    Zaxon The voice of reason

    Posts:
    752
    Likes Received:
    759
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    This forum has a lot of people from both sides of religion vs atheism, politically left vs right. And that reflects the cross section of society. What I don't see much of is pro-business chat.

    Take some examples. When a company downsizes its workforce or cuts wage rates, that's terrible for workers, but good news for business. When a company hikes its prices, that's terrible for customers, but potentially great for business profits.

    So why would I expect to see pro-business chat here? Since this is specifically a share investing forum, most people here want their shares and hence businesses to do well. And I presume there is a percentage of people, including retirees, who make their "living" directly from shares.

    I'm not necessarily pro-business myself. That's not my point. I'm just wondering why it seems to be absent from the forum, whereas for every other topic, there's a full spectrum of opinions.
     
  2. Smurf1976

    Smurf1976

    Posts:
    9,411
    Likes Received:
    2,827
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    One reason is complacency which is rife in Australia.

    Another would be that many likely do realise that you can’t cut your way to prosperity but they don’t have an alternative proposal.
     
    fiftyeight and cynic like this.
  3. Zaxon

    Zaxon The voice of reason

    Posts:
    752
    Likes Received:
    759
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    Agreed. And while cutting wages is great for business profits, there also needs to be well paid customers who can afford your products.
     
    CanOz, fiftyeight and cynic like this.
  4. SirRumpole

    SirRumpole

    Posts:
    12,844
    Likes Received:
    2,388
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    That is certainly Labor's argument and it's hard to disagree with it.

    If burdens on households increase in excess of wages, discretionary spending decreases which is bad for business.

    It's amazing to me that payroll tax still exists in this country. One of the most stupid taxes ever invented, a tax on employment.

    Abolish it and make wage rises more affordable for business.
     
    qldfrog likes this.
  5. Zaxon

    Zaxon The voice of reason

    Posts:
    752
    Likes Received:
    759
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    Yup. Particularly in the US, you see people working full time who are still essentially below the poverty line, and besides the supermarkets and their landlord, you can't imagine many other businesses are selling anything to them.

    Certainly business would benefit from it gone. However, payroll tax is a state tax whereas income tax is a federal. So that might encourage them to increase the GST or stamp duty. Although GST is essentially a consumer tax, so I guess that wouldn't affect business.
     
  6. Smurf1976

    Smurf1976

    Posts:
    9,411
    Likes Received:
    2,827
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    On the GST I always thought that despite his infamous difficulties in explaining it in regard to cakes, John Hewson had it right with a flat 15% on everything and getting rid of things like Payroll Tax and several other taxes.

    Obviously nobody's going to be keen to pay more tax but the concept was a reasonable one in my view. Get rid of complexity with taxation, get rid of Payroll Tax in particular, slap a 15% GST on everything since the money has to come from somewhere but at least that's a simple way to collect it. It won't happen due to politics but I've always thought the concept had merit.

    As far as other things that would benefit business, one I think we really need is to have efficient services and by that I'm referring to utilities and transport in particular. High costs there amount to a tax on just about every consumer and business which harms both.

    For things like infrastructure, well if we need a railway or a dam then we need a railway or a dam. Best way to look after that stuff is to have someone in charge of railways or water and let them get on with it with the political process restricted to signing off of major capital expenditure (not routine operations) and with the formulation of proposals completely removed from the hands of politicians. That approach worked fine in the past with railways, water, roads, gas, power etc so no reason it couldn't be done again to help get our costs back down to internationally competitive levels. :2twocents
     
  7. SirRumpole

    SirRumpole

    Posts:
    12,844
    Likes Received:
    2,388
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014

    Infrastructure Australia ?

    Like Kevin Rudd envisioned it and set it up, but Abbott politicised it .
     
  8. Value Collector

    Value Collector Have courage, and be kind.

    Posts:
    6,831
    Likes Received:
    1,333
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    I would guess the vast majority of us are pro business, in the sense that it is business that provides all the goods and services we need.

    But I don’t think being pro business makes you anti labour.

    I mean in my opinion a “good business” is one that provides its owners a decent return on their capital employed, while providing their employees with decent returns on the labour they provide and the customers more value in return than the cash they hand over for the products.
     
    SirRumpole likes this.
  9. SirRumpole

    SirRumpole

    Posts:
    12,844
    Likes Received:
    2,388
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    It seems a bit like Disneyland, but I agree with the sentiment. :D
     
  10. Value Collector

    Value Collector Have courage, and be kind.

    Posts:
    6,831
    Likes Received:
    1,333
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    It happens more than you think.

    It’s just in some cases people have unreasonable expectations about how big their piece of the pie should be, and often discount the value contributed by other groups.

    (All sides are guilty of this)
     
    SirRumpole likes this.
  11. Zaxon

    Zaxon The voice of reason

    Posts:
    752
    Likes Received:
    759
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    I'd agree with that. Back in the 1950s, employees and customers were considered stakeholders. Today, they're considered expenses and profit centres. Although that did have some rather bizarre side effects, such as paying a married man more than a single man, just because he had a wife and family.
     
  12. Value Collector

    Value Collector Have courage, and be kind.

    Posts:
    6,831
    Likes Received:
    1,333
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    On average workers are better off today than in the 1950’s.

    Work places are safer,
    work loads are easier,
    Benefits are higher,
    And each hour of labour purchases far more goods and services than before.
     
    CanOz likes this.
  13. Smurf1976

    Smurf1976

    Posts:
    9,411
    Likes Received:
    2,827
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    That's one way yes.

    Keeping politics out of such decisions is what we need.
     
  14. SirRumpole

    SirRumpole

    Posts:
    12,844
    Likes Received:
    2,388
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Yes, the standard of customer service has certainly declined.

    Remember petrol pump attendants ?

    I do, vaguely.
     
  15. Zaxon

    Zaxon The voice of reason

    Posts:
    752
    Likes Received:
    759
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    I'd agree with that.

    I wonder how basic wage Americans would compare with their 1950s version. Although I have no direct data to compare them with, I'd assume that a full time, minimum wage 1950s worker would have more discretionary money than his modern counterpart.
     
  16. Zaxon

    Zaxon The voice of reason

    Posts:
    752
    Likes Received:
    759
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    Vaguely for me too. I'm happy enough to pump my own fuel. And I actually prefer self serve checkouts at supermarkets, although having to bring my own bags to pack my groceries...that's a definite service drop right there.
     
    qldfrog likes this.
  17. Value Collector

    Value Collector Have courage, and be kind.

    Posts:
    6,831
    Likes Received:
    1,333
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Businesses exist to produce products and services.

    To achieve this outcome outcome investors capital and the labour of workers need to be combined.

    The endless debate is always, once all this “value” is produced who gets what portion of it.

    Workers, investors and government all want a piece of the pie.

    Eg, what is the fair percentage of value generation that should go back to the workers, what goes to the investors who supplied the capital, and what goes to the government.

    —————
    In general business is becoming more capital intensive, and less labour intensive.

    So it’s natural that a growing percentage of total GDP should go to the investors who are putting increasing amounts of capital into businesses.

    Ofcourse this means that workers more than ever should be putting some effort in to become investors as well as workers, super achieves this a bit, but it’s not enough, they need to build investments outside super too
     
  18. Value Collector

    Value Collector Have courage, and be kind.

    Posts:
    6,831
    Likes Received:
    1,333
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    You forget a lot of people in the 1950’s didn’t even have flushing indoor toilets.

    It’s easy to forget all the modern luxuries we take for granted these days, available to even low income earners, while also forgetting how hard 1950’s life probably was in comparison for a low income family.

    “Happy Days” wasn’t a documentary
     
  19. Zaxon

    Zaxon The voice of reason

    Posts:
    752
    Likes Received:
    759
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    The question comes then whether they should be state provided, or more like toll roads: built by a private 3rd party, and then business pays a toll each time they use the shiny, new highway or railroad.
     
  20. Value Collector

    Value Collector Have courage, and be kind.

    Posts:
    6,831
    Likes Received:
    1,333
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Either way you will probably need investors, either investing in the infrastructure as owners or buying government bonds to provide the debt money needed to build the infrastructure.

    I guess it just comes down to who you want to pay for the infrastructure

    Eg. The users of it or society in general including people that never touch it.

    And it also depends on who you want to carry the risk, eg the government (society in general) or a group of private investors.

    Because obviously when it’s funded by selling government bonds the bond holders aren’t taking any business risk in the deal,
     
Loading...

Share This Page