Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Australian mining magnate Gina Rinehart: says African workers willing to work for $2 a day should be an inspiration.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Sounds like a good little Randroid.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Australian mining magnate Gina Rinehart: says African workers willing to work for $2 a day should be an inspiration.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19487985

An argument for unions, if ever I saw one...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
You seem to think that JUST BECAUSE some business wants to make a certain level of profit, the 99% of us have a duty to accommodate them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Here are some extra quotes

‘The evidence is unarguable, Australia is indeed becoming too expensive and too uncompetitive to do export-oriented business,’ she said.

‘Furthermore, Africans want to work, and its workers are willing to work for less than $2 per day. Such statistics make me worry for this country's future.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2198868/Gina-Rinehart-Worlds-r
ichest-woman-calls-Australian-workers-paid-2-day.html#ixzz25emlY05C

Well, let's all compete with children eating garbage off the streets. THAT will make things hum!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
And this is what this idiot woman wants for Australia.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky: Simply demonizing them as "selfish" isn't going to work.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky: Simply demonizing them as "selfish" isn't going to work.

---

It'll work w/ the clueless " 99% " Occu-babies. Those folks who are ignorant on such matters as to what it takes to run a successful corporation, and think that " profit " is actually a four letter word.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
er, no....

just having a conversation about her statement and its meaning,

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
How would it look if Romney held up a FoxConn employee in China and said this was what America should be looking to as a blueprint for the future?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
er, no....

just having a conversation about her statement and its meaning,

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
How would it look if Romney held up a FoxConn employee in China and said this was what America should be looking to as a blueprint for the future?

---

Again, that is NOT what she's saying.

She has never said in that link that I could find that Australia needs to become more like Africa in wages.

Why do you insist on mischaracterizing her statements?

I don't like her anymore than the next person here. But the method here is wrong. And without integrity. You guys are better than that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
And really that leaves you with one choice, pay $2 or less to be competetive, because taking a pay cut and paying decent living wages will not impact on that competetiveness, will it?

---

Quote:

---

What Gina really wants, and has twisted the arm of this so called leftwinged union supporting government, is to import 'guest workers' from poor nations to do the work at a fraction of the price. That is her agenda, and she is pretty much there.

---

Quote:

---

where did KPO get the "inspiration" bit?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
*WHAT* is the goal of bringing in so-called "guest workers", CTS?

To force wages down for "regular" workers. To threaten them, to show them that if they won't take less, you'll replace them with someone who will.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
*WHAT* is the goal of bringing in so-called "guest workers", CTS?

To force wages down for "regular" workers. To threaten them, to show them that if they won't take less, you'll replace them with someone who will.

---

That may be, K.

But the strategy to combat this agenda is not to take some quotation out of context and demonize her. It makes whoever is doing it look unreasonable.

---

Quote:

---

The only tactic that would work is to prevent guest workers from entering Australia. Stop the passage of the guest worker permits. That's it. End of story.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I believe it's called "politics".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Um, are Gina's mines in Africa or in Australia?

Cause if the mines are in Australia, it doesn't matter how many Africans are willing to work for $2/day, if they can't physically get to the mines, does it?

So, no, I don't think she is suggesting that Australians be paid $2, because they have no global labor competition in the Australian mines.

---

Quote:

---

Bingo. She is not trying to lower Australian wages. She is trying to bring in guest workers, which is a different issue altogether.

http://afr.com/p/business/companies/furore_over_rinehart_guest_workers
_SV8zHafIGC1zNaDDqOUIHJ

This is a dangerous move and can be easily criticized on its own merits without resorting to misinterpreting some youtube comments and erecting strawmen.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
It's not a strawman to suggest that use of guest labour forces labour costs down.

---

Quote:

---

I feel you may be sticking up for someone who you know little about.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:


The strawman is interpreting her quotation about Africans as her intent to bring Ozzie wages down to $2. We just shouldn't go there. It's dishonest.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
It's not a strawman to suggest that use of guest labour forces labour costs down.

---

No, that is not a strawman. I said that was a legitimate criticism.

The strawman is interpreting her quotation about Africans as her intent to bring Ozzie wages down to $2. We just shouldn't go there. It's dishonest.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I don't believe anyone here seriously suggested that her plan is to bring Ozzie wages down to $2, but rather that her suggestion that others are willing to do so much for so little is aimed at BRINGING DOWN OZZIE WAGES; the $2 figure is brought up because SHE brought it up as if it were a shining example.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I don't believe anyone here seriously suggested that her plan is to bring Ozzie wages down to $2, but rather that her suggestion that others are willing to do so much for so little is aimed at BRINGING DOWN OZZIE WAGES; the $2 figure is brought up because SHE brought it up as if it were a shining example.

---

I listened to the entire speech.

It strikes me that the purpose of this speech is threefold:

1. She wants to bring in guest workers. This is the main goal of this speech, the "solution" she presents to the whole problem of Australian competitiveness.
2. She wants to undercut the goals of the labor unions. She knows she can't make Ozzie wages go lower, but these are her arguments to keep labor unions from achieving higher wages and benefits.
3. She wants to justify getting rid of laws that drive up her costs. This is a long shot, but she had to throw that in there.

---

Quote:

---

She brought up the $2 African wage in the context that African mines can undersell Australian ore in the global market because their labor costs are not as high.

This IS a fact.

Again, villainizing her for pointing out this fact doesn't improve Australian global competitiveness or the Australian economy. The problems she presents are very real. Her solutions are despicable and selfish, to be sure. But it would be a mistake, IMHO, to dismiss the problems she presents just because her solutions are dismissable.

I think the wise thing to do here is to reframe the problems she discussed and come up with alternative solutions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Her bringing them into the conversation is a ruse BY HER, an attempt to try to force concessions from unions and regulators and government by holding up people far away who will work FAR AWAY for much less, purely so she can increase her own private fortune.

---

Quote:

---

If a coca farmer earns $2 a day in Peru, how does pointing it out help migrant workers in Arizona?

---

Quote:

---

Again I point out that chasing cheap wages all around the globe doesn't help anyone except the corporations and their owners.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
So, CTS, these are your comments which you made BEFORE you had all the information, something you derided other people for doing. Which of these straw-man arguments, inaccurate conclusions, outright lies and ad hominem attacks that you posted do you still support?


> Actually, what she said was African workers willing to work for $2 a day make her worry for her country's future. - here you are arguing from incomplete information, something you freely criticize others for doing, and also assuming that the papers were doing so as well. You failed to consider that not only the papers but the country could have had access to the entire video.

> Her thrust was that Australia competes for labor on the global stage and needs to keep the competition in mind. - her statements were not nearly as neutral as you restated them to be, you are creating a strawman argument

> It is true that such statistics need to be considered when deciding public policy. - this is YOUR CONCLUSION, something which YOU STATE AS FACT but haven't proven

> I am saying her quotations have been mischaracterized - strawman argument, you are arguing against a position no one took

> to serve some ideological agenda. - ad hominem

> I happen to agree with said ideological agenda - stated as fact, no indication of how

> but I won't lie about what people say to achieve my agenda - implied ad hominem, strawman, and by accepting incomplete information and repeating it you yourself are lying about what was actually said

> I am saying that any public policy that simply ignores labor competitiveness on the global level will not thrive. - not true, China did quite well by concentrating on internal markets and developing internal resources for decades

> Public policy must give companies some incentive for paying higher wages to local workers and not outsourcing the labor. - so here you ARE supporting her arguments, the arguments you say she didn't make

> Simply demonizing them as "selfish" isn't going to work. - you argue consistently that she should have the right to say what she wants and would restrict the rights of others to say what they want

> Again, I don't think that is what she said at all. - arguing from incomplete information, the same thing you accuse others of doing

> We can argue against what she actually said without resorting to strawmen and adhominems. - something you have failed to do

> If we start arguing dishonestly - ad hominem

> what are we really doing here? Masturbating in public to some fantasy porno in our heads? - ad hominem

> Again, that is NOT what she's saying. - stated as fact with no indication of how it's wrong, and based on incomplete information

> She has never said in that link that I could find that Australia needs to become more like Africa in wages. - it was the logical conclusion of her argument, an argument you accept and ven support (see above) while at the same time you claim it doesn't exist

> Why do you insist on mischaracterizing her statements? - why do you?

> But the method here is wrong. - no proof, strawman

> And without integrity. - ad hominem

> You guys are better than that. - ad hominem

> It sounds like a conversation about some fantasy you guys have concocted in your heads about her statement, as opposed to what her statement really says. - ad hominem

> And then getting off on that fantasy. - ad hominem

> Cause if the mines are in Australia, it doesn't matter how many Africans are willing to work for $2/day, if they can't physically get to the mines, does it? - strawman

> So, no, I don't think she is suggesting that Australians be paid $2, because they have no global labor competition in the Australian mines. as opposed to your previous argument Public policy must give companies some incentive for paying higher wages to local workers and not outsourcing the labor.

> ... the strategy to combat this agenda is not to take some quotation out of context - as you have repeatedly done

> It makes whoever is doing it look unreasonable. - ad hominme, strawman, and also applies to you

> The strawman is interpreting her quotation about Africans as her intent to bring Ozzie wages down to $2. - strawman, no one argued that at all

> It's dishonest. - ad hominem (but speaking of dishonesty ...)

> I'm sticking up for her right to not be villainized based on one misinterpreted quotation. - no, you were agreeing with her argument. You repeated, supported and restated that argument several times.

---