“We as a society should work out what is a basic minimum income and use the most efficient means to determine how those with insufficient income receive it.”

I would argue that we have already largely done that. We already have a social security system that means that virtually any work is better than the dole, because you can work and receive an income top-up from the dole, if your income is low enough. So you’ll always be better off financially (though not all that much) and if you are getting some satisfaction from working and from supporting yourself you should be better off psychologically as well.

And jimmy, don’t bring up the surfing topic, before you know it we’ll be arguing about why we don’t adequately remunerate amateur sportspeople and budding artists and other kinds of people who think that life is all about doing what you want, rather than what you need to do

I am being a bit of a devil’s advocate here, lest you think I’m a RWDB in disguise, but presumably employers suffer along with everyone else during a recession. Presumably they don’t lay people off simply for their own sake, but because they can no longer afford to employ as many people. (Which is where this discussion started - so we’ve managed to neatly bring it full circle.)

I also agree with you that the social security system is very important (not least to ensure an adequate standard of living in households with low earnings from employment). And while I can understand the argument for getting rid of the minimum wage (and see nothing wrong in principle with letting the social security system take more of the load), I also understand the important political role that the minimum wage has played in Australia historically and personally doubt that any government would ever be able to allow the minimum wage to fall significantly, let alone get rid of it entirely.

“Yes - sharing the costs amongst the employed but leaving the employer untouched. It’s at this point the argument gets all ideological (how far do you let people get into poverty while claiming that any work is better than the dole?).”

The worth of work to humans and income support are separate issues really. It is good for people to be productively engaged, as this ameliorates potential social problems. The question of income support is thus irrelevant in terms of “is any job better than the dole”. We as a society should work out what is a basic minimum income and use the most efficient means to determine how those with insufficient income receive it.

And, btw, going surfing everyday doesn’t count as productive engagement- if you want that you’ll have to fund it yourself.

David - I think you are right about that, but I always thought that one of the main arguments in favour of genuinely flexible employment arrangements were that they could adjust down along with the economy

Yes - sharing the costs amongst the employed but leaving the employer untouched. It’s at this point the argument gets all ideological (how far do you let people get into poverty while claiming that any work is better than the dole?). I’m not sure why employers are seen as inherently more virtuous than their employees and therefore should be insulated as far as possible from recessions. I don’t agree with the idea, and it’s why minimum wages and social security are valuable (to me at least).

David - I think you are right about that, but I always thought that one of the main arguments in favour of genuinely flexible employment arrangements were that they could adjust down along with the economy and therefore share the costs of a recession more equitably among the employed, rather than looking after some of the employed and consigning the rest to unemployment.

Equally, leaving the issue of penalty rates to the market would no doubt see some people with skills in demand maintain or even improve on current arrangements, while those with few skills in occupations where labour supply outstrips demand might end up either losing penalty rates altogether or have them shift downwards. (Leopold, in comments above, has pointed out that this was already happening in enterprise bargains before Workchoices - it seems that many people are not aware of this.)

For example, my daughter once worked under an enterprise award that had done away with penalty rates for weekend work and only had them for public holidays. Not surprisingly, as a 14 year old she got to work every public holiday, while the older (more expensive) workers did not. So it seems the market continues to operate at some level whether or not people think they are stopping it from doing so.

Until recently I did very challenging policy work for a government body and derived immense satisfaction from it (but not a huge salary). Whether at work or not, my mind was usually on work.

Yet my happiest memories of work were as a commercial cleaner - and when not working, I didn’t think about it.

Each job, menial or not, brings some rewards or satisfaction. Humans need a challenge - idleness is a curse. This does not justify serfdom- but rather the sense of accomplisment felt in completing a task well.

Incidently, in “A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” , Solzenitzyn documents this sense of accomplishment as the Zeks build a wall.

It sounds perfect for me - no kids and I already walk into the Sydney CBD each work morning to catch the train in any event. But I’ve become a 4 day a week employee now and I don’t know if I could really be a 5 day a week employee. No - of course I could - for the right work. But I’m finding my career feet, so to speak.

I’ll say it again: I agree we were well compensated for the “unpaid” overtime - so to call it that is a bit of a misnomer. I agree with the majority of Andrews piece.