正文翻譯

原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.ltaaa.com 翻譯：大衛(wèi)王 轉載請注明出處


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

全國基本生活工資公開?，F(xiàn)在來討論全球基本生活工資

評論翻譯

原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.ltaaa.com 翻譯：大衛(wèi)王 轉載請注明出處


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.

這只是另一篇關于反全球化的拙劣文章。
作者提到，當工資過高時，工廠就會遷往另一個國家。她沒有提到工資過高的原因。全球化為城市工人帶來了就業(yè)機會，吸引了員工，因為他們提供了以前沒有的機會。其結果是，它帶來了更好的收入，使人們能夠提高技能并教育子女。新機遇、新產(chǎn)業(yè)不斷涌現(xiàn)。除非有源源不斷的人口流向城市，否則血汗工廠（指工人勞動條件差，工作時間長，工資低的工廠）可能賺不到足夠的錢了。低工資吸引制造商轉移到其他司法管轄區(qū)。但這并沒有導致之前的中心回落到制造商首次出現(xiàn)之前的水平。至少日本、韓國、中國沒有這樣做……越南一直是這些舉措的受益者。隨著時間的推移，他們的人口生活會因此變得更好。作者似乎擔心埃塞俄比亞可能會從這些運動中獲益。她的情況將使他們注定永遠落后于全球經(jīng)濟。

至于那些聯(lián)合起來追求共同事業(yè)的國家，我向你們推薦石油輸出國組織。我們的美國朋友在不斷地與我們爭奪農(nóng)產(chǎn)品市場。我無法想象他們在追求共同利益時，會選擇我們的農(nóng)民而不是他們的農(nóng)民。如果他們這樣做了，歐洲人將樂于利用這些新的機會。
如果澳大利亞的消費者違背他們的本性，花更多的錢讓外國工人受益，我會感到震驚。1美元的牛奶嗎? 外國制造商無疑會很感激，但這些資金流向低技能工人的可能性確實非常大。

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

另一個明顯的舉措是設定最高工資。這將使支付提高最低工資變得更容易。

Shelley Marshall回復John GeoffreyMosley
Thanksfor this interesting proposal.

謝謝你提出這個有趣的建議。

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

基本生活工資嗎?. .現(xiàn)在在澳大利亞，55歲以上但低于退休年齡的人被要求每周2-3天(有些人每周只有1天)做志愿者，以獲得每兩周約606.00美元的報酬(單身人士)。在他們所有的志愿工作中，他們都得到了一張巨大的優(yōu)惠卡作為禮物。
如果你受傷了，不會得到多少保險，除非你為受傷的地方花一些錢，而不是索要高價。其余的都由醫(yī)療保險支付，或者如果費用超過了醫(yī)療保險的覆蓋范圍，那么他們就會補足其余的費用，但你必須先支付。

從志愿服務中請幾天假，你的報酬可能就會被中斷，直到你退休之前再也沒有假期了。10分鐘后，福利署（澳大利亞的一個政府機構）就會得到通知，你很可能會在12周內(nèi)失去你的報酬。
慈善機構的老板通常都很好，他們知道志愿者是自愿的，所以他們對志愿者也很好。但是請注意，這并不是向那些領取救濟金的人提供的。不是的，先生，它只提供給那些進入任何職業(yè)介紹所找工作的55歲以上的人。

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多年來，我一直在給經(jīng)濟學家寫信，要求他們解釋這種荒謬的現(xiàn)象，但從未得到過令人信服的答復。最后，我通常會建議他們打電話給生物學家，因為他們似乎沒有意識到我們正快速接近一場生存的生態(tài)危機。目前的估計是，到本世紀中葉，地球上三分之一的物種將滅絕。
為最貧困的人提供基本生活工資，最終需要以我們這些生活相對富裕的人為代價;請記住，澳大利亞人的平均消費量大約是非洲人的50倍。

哦，還有一個政治和法律上的情況，即大多數(shù)法律法規(guī)都要求上市公司將其主要法律義務定為股東利潤最大化。如果董事會不履行這一職責，他們可能會被股東起訴。因此，法律要求控制著世界的企業(yè)實體表現(xiàn)得像精神病患者。這樣的機構由人類精神病患者不成比例地管理，這并不奇怪。因此，不要指望他們或他們所控制的政府會給你任何溫暖模糊的感覺。

“第一個事實是，如果人民容忍私人權力的增長超過其民主國家本身，民主的自由就不安全。這在本質(zhì)上就是法西斯主義——個人、團體或任何其他控制私人權力對政府的所有權。——1938年4月29日富蘭克林·D·羅斯福向國會發(fā)表的國情咨文。

盡管我贊同這篇文章的觀點，但任何不徹底改變?nèi)诵院蜕鐣男袨?，都不太可能產(chǎn)生多大的善意。這是因為，正如我那不法之徒哥哥所說，當他為一美元買牛奶辯護時，像他這樣的普通人買不起更多的牛奶;但當他們?yōu)榻衲甑牧硪凰矣屋啍€錢的時候就不會說沒錢了。
我承認這一評論是悲觀的;這是自上世紀60年代末研究經(jīng)濟學以來，試圖支持公眾討論這些情況的結果。我是極度失敗的。

Tony Dickson回復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，由物理學家Graham Turner領導的聯(lián)邦科學與工業(yè)研究組織（澳大利亞）研究小組重新審視了后者，并發(fā)表了一份40周年的中期報告。它的結論是，增長的極限確實存在缺陷，因為它低估了其可怕的結論。GrahamTurner的報告得出結論是，全球經(jīng)濟最終衰退的轉折點是2015年。
此外，生物科學積累的大量證據(jù)表明，我們正積極地致力于全球生態(tài)滅絕。那些負責公共政策負責人普遍忽視了這一點。我們的執(zhí)政黨把綠黨的經(jīng)驗與一個民族的傳統(tǒng)情節(jié)相提并論。我承認，我的觀點與你的文章有些相悖，但我認為，他們實際上強調(diào)了一些經(jīng)濟討論，特別是那些關心全人類未來生活水平的人。

我完全理解為什么任何一個從事工業(yè)、公共服務、學術乃至政治的人都會避免接觸像我這樣日益壯大的異端分子，但最終我們都必須決定自己站在歷史的哪一邊。
選擇很簡單:我們是繼續(xù)只關注征兆，還是把注意力集中在這些點上，深呼吸，至少嘗試對抗這種弊病。
如果對我這類事情有任何興趣，可以在這里找到更詳細的論據(jù):https://ferretfarmforestry.com/ophy-politics/themarketeconomys-dirty-little-secret/

Tony Dickson回復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年寫的這些文字與你的文章相關：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.

還有一篇關于全國勞工最低工資的文章，這是競選活動的一部分。里面不許再寫評論了。
值得注意的是，最低收入一直是印度國會選舉宣傳的重點。它受到印度人民黨太空戰(zhàn)爭的挑戰(zhàn)。
在這里，我們工人的基本生活工資受到了印度海上LNP船只戰(zhàn)爭的挑戰(zhàn)。
非常有趣的日子。