World's richest woman says poor should have less fun

[Korto]

Just to remind people, she's an Australian. Our minimum wage is twice as high as the United States, our tax rates are different and just this week we've had scumbag unions actively trying to prevent non-union workers making a living.

She's still an obnoxious, offensive harridan, but it's a mistake to think America's problems are Australia's problems.

Keep in mind that our cost of living most probably are higher. This I base on what Americans who are in Australia tell me, and also some food like McDonalds appear cheaper when I was there.

Another way of looking at it (keep in mind I am not an economist) is to look at GDP / capita nominal vs GDP / capita PPP. In pure exchange rates ie nominal terms, our GDP / capita is higher than the US. However when you use GDP / capita in PPP terms (ie reflecting costs of living) the positions reverse. Not as much as half the US (unlike the minimum wage) but it still counts for something.

Minimum wage is good here, compared to what I've heard about the US. I mean, the Australian Dole is enough money to live on. As long as you're careful. The fact that we actually have public health care and other services makes a huge difference.
But I thought we had an export business with these rich pricks. Murdoch, Skase... don't we just ship them off somewhere and pretend we have no idea who they are? What's been happening with that plan lately? At least Palmer's entertaining; Rinehart is just obnoxious.

Although I don't doubt she does work very hard at making more money. The fight she's been waging about the inheritance has shown that money is very, very important to her.

[mr friendly guy]

Whilst not defending her statement if memory serves Rineheart has trebled(? if not more) her fortune since inheriting it, and is widely regarded as a sensibleish level headed business woman.

One word.

CHINA.

She inherited her mining empire from her father Lang Hancock. Australia has traditionally relied on exports of primary goods rather than manufactured goods. As such the fortunes of the mining industry fluctuates with booms. In the 80s we had boom from Japan at the time some people feared Japan would challenge America economically for the largest GDP. Now in the last decade demand increasing has been from China and India, but particularly from the former as our own statistics show, with the PRC surpassing Japan as our largest trading partner. Naturally with the boom in commodities, mining companies will become more valuable. While counterfactual history is always a bit "iffy", if China did not make economic changes in the 1970s and was stuck in Maoist BS economic policies, I highly doubt there would be a commodity boom in the last decade, and as a result, her mining companies won't be quite as good.

I am not saying she is bad at business, but to sell your product you must have a customer who can afford to pay for it. Frankly if you had mines producing the types of minerals China wants, eg iron ore, copper etc they would have gone up in price even if you just sat on it. Just ask the other eccentric Australian billionaire Clive Palmer. *

* and yes I am aware Clive Palmer made his money through his own business savyness rather than inheriting it. I am merely using an example of how mines increase in price dramatically because of China's appetite for our raw materials.

[Starglider]

I support raising the minimum wage. It makes it easier to sell software, robotics and process automation that reduce headcount. Also increases offshoring which indirectly increases the demand for IT products (telecomms, group working and supply chain management). Once capital, development and adoption costs are repaid this makes everything cheaper for everyone.

[Broomstick]

By reducing headcount you reduce the number of people making any money at all. How does that help business?

One reason that the current global economic mess is staggering through a feeble recovery is that with unemployment rising there are fewer people with the money to purchase luxuries like electronics and IT, which means those companies have less incentive to expand, which means your company doesn't have as much business.

[Starglider]

By reducing headcount you reduce the number of people making any money at all. How does that help business?

If they were on minimum wage then their salary will be replaced with a similar amount of government benefits, maintaining spending on products and services. Enrollment in food stamp, disability, medicaid and similar programs is at all-time highs in the US and still growing rapidly. Fraudulent use of food stamps to buy non-food products is pervasive. All bold initial steps in the implementation of the socio-communoid post-scarcity utopia I'm sure.

Even disregarding this and assuming companies do have a collective interest in maintaining surplus labour, competitive pressure would strongly favour anyone who defected (by cutting staff). I refuse to call this a tragedy of the commons because if you genuinely believe that failure to use government force to make people to work more hours than necessary is a tragedy then your moral system is completely screwed up.

One reason that the current global economic mess is staggering through a feeble recovery is that with unemployment rising there are fewer people with the money to purchase luxuries like electronics and IT, which means those companies have less incentive to expand, which means your company doesn't have as much business.

The consumer electronics industry is a shining example of increasing consumer wealth through price deflation, instead of wage inflation. Incomes can be stagnant but if everything gets cheaper (through automation) people are still better off. More generally there is a practically infinite theoretical demand for personal and creative services that will not be automated in the near or medium term; releasing labour from jobs that have been automated should make these services more affordable. Failure to translate this into real demand that can consume the labor surplus is due to corrupt government policy geared to protecting rent-seekers from competitive pressure - policy that would exist regardless of continual progress in automation.

[Justforfun000]

She's just spoke out and said something even MORE outrageous:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... 2-day.html

World's richest woman calls for Australians to take a pay cut - 'because African workers are willing to earn just $2 a day'

Mining boss Gina Rinehart says Australian labour is becoming too costly
Comments received criticism by PM Julia Gillard who insists cheap labour is 'not the Australian way'

By Daily Mail Reporter

PUBLISHED: 19:38 GMT, 5 September 2012 | UPDATED: 23:39 GMT, 5 September 2012

Comments (304)
Share


The richest woman in the world warned her fellow countrymen they are becoming too expensive to employ.

Mining tycoon Gina Rinehart said it is becoming too costly for multinational companies who could hire workers for two dollars a day in Africa.

The 58-year-old said in a video address yesterday that businesses are forced to look to other nations as the price for Australian labour is too high, something which was immediately criticised by Prime Minister Julia Gillard.
Speaking from the hart: Gina Rinehart served up some harsh critique of the Australian government in her ten-minute long video address to the Sydney Mining Club

Speaking from the hart: Gina Rinehart served up some harsh critique of the Australian government in her ten-minute long video address to the Sydney Mining Club

In her ten-minute long video for the Sydney Mining Club, Gina Rinehart said Australia must become more competitive.

Ms Rinehart, head of resources giant Hancock Prospecting, blamed the government's mining and carbon taxes, red tape and high wages for the economy's 'sluggish' performance.

More...

Rare emus could get own subways to help them cross the road - but experts fear they're too bird brained to use them
Mother, 48, who already has TWELVE children gives birth to quintuplets after conceiving naturally
How baby with no limbs abandoned outside Baghdad orphanage grew up into an heroic Paralympic swimmer

‘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.’

Too expensive: Ms Rinehart said she was concerned about Australian jobs when African workers were available at a much cheaper cost

Too expensive: Ms Rinehart said she was concerned about Australian jobs when African workers were available at a much cheaper cost

Richest in the world: Gina pictured in 1982 with her father Lang Hancock whose empire she inherited, making her the richest woman in the world

Richest in the world: Gina pictured in 1982 with her father Lang Hancock whose empire she inherited, making her the richest woman in the world

Gina Rinehart is not averse to controversial statements. As recently as last week, she hit the headlines when she told Australians to ‘spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising, and more time working’.
Retort: Australia's Prime Minister Julia Gillard hit back at Ms Rinehart's comments

Retort: Australia's Prime Minister Julia Gillard hit back at Ms Rinehart's comments

Her comments on Wednesday drew immediate criticism from Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

‘It's not the Australian way to toss people $2, to toss them a gold coin, and then ask them to work for a day.

‘We support proper Australian wages and decent working conditions.’

Ms Rinehart also attacked the Australian government, accusing them of not being competitive enough on the international markets, and added: ‘If we competed at the Olympic Games as sluggishly as we compete economically there would be an outcry.’

Her outburst came a day after iron ore giant Fortescue announced it would defer planned developments.

Last month BHP Billiton shelved its multi-billion dollar expansion of the Olympic Dam copper and uranium mine.

Australian mining projects have faced headwinds from depressed conditions in Europe and the United States, softening growth in China and increased competition from other producers as well as falling commodity prices.

The price of iron ore, a crucial ingredient in steelmaking, has fallen dramatically in the past two months as the Chinese economy slows, while the price of coal, another major Australian export, has also dropped sharply.

Prime Minister Gillard insisted that Australia would continue to be competitive in mining.

'We're going to compete on our great mineral deposits, our application of technology and high skills to the task. We mine differently than in other countries,' she said.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z25hamJHgw

[Borgholio]

I'm actually more interested in this link found in the middle of the quote:

"Rare emus could get own subways to help them cross the road - but experts fear they're too bird brained to use them"

[The Grim Squeaker]

Making money with money is pretty easy if you have lots of money to start with.

If you're a savvy business person, sure. If you're not it's very easy to lose it all too.

You don't even have to be that savvy. Just be savvy enough to find some good advisors and have them do all the work.

No..It's not. It's really not. (Easy).

If you're smart/talented, then you can make more money with money. Sometimes. If you're not unluicky. Or invest badly. Or give your money to a bank that wastes it, or steals it. Or advisers who steal it or lose it (it's a problem also with big/"solid" banks. An investor there doesn't care if he loses all your money in a risky investment, it's not HIS money. [This happened to my grandmothers life savings. She checked the low yield savings account and found out that she had less than a third of what she put in there]). Or give you a negligible return/ interest.

This is all moot if you inherit 1 billion dollars and can live off the interest even with the money invested in 20 banks in a dozen countries, where you can't draw from it.
(Unless you get offered loans levered against your "capital" and lose it. )

[Aaron MkII]

Starglider, your post might be more comforting if America wasn't trying to disassemble those services.

[wautd]

She's just spoke out and said something even MORE outrageous:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... 2-day.html

World's richest woman calls for Australians to take a pay cut - 'because African workers are willing to earn just $2 a day'

Why stop there? Bring back child labour!

[Flagg]

And people wonder why I love the scene in TDKR where rich bastards get ripped out of their homes and offices.

[Dalton]

At it again, this time lauding $2/hr wages

[Zixinus]

Out of curiosity, does the quoted 2$ of unspecified African country is worthwhile to the worker? I mean, compare to that country's cost of living and so on?

[SilverWingedSeraph]

At it again, this time lauding $2/hr wages

I think you mistyped or misread. She wasn't lauding $2/hr wages. She was lauding $2/day wages. Which is just fucking insane.

[Zixinus]

At it again, this time lauding $2/hr wages

I think you mistyped or misread. She wasn't lauding $2/hr wages. She was lauding $2/day wages. Which is just fucking insane.

No, I understood that. That is indeed a miserable wage but it depends to who. If it is in a country where the cost of living is so low (ok, probably because they don't have to pay the water bill because there is no indoor plumbing and they don't have much else) that the above wage is actually good, then it is a different matter.

[thejester]

Whilst not defending her statement if memory serves Rineheart has trebled(? if not more) her fortune since inheriting it, and is widely regarded as a sensibleish level headed business woman.

One word.

CHINA.

She inherited her mining empire from her father Lang Hancock. Australia has traditionally relied on exports of primary goods rather than manufactured goods. As such the fortunes of the mining industry fluctuates with booms. In the 80s we had boom from Japan at the time some people feared Japan would challenge America economically for the largest GDP. Now in the last decade demand increasing has been from China and India, but particularly from the former as our own statistics show, with the PRC surpassing Japan as our largest trading partner. Naturally with the boom in commodities, mining companies will become more valuable. While counterfactual history is always a bit "iffy", if China did not make economic changes in the 1970s and was stuck in Maoist BS economic policies, I highly doubt there would be a commodity boom in the last decade, and as a result, her mining companies won't be quite as good.

I am not saying she is bad at business, but to sell your product you must have a customer who can afford to pay for it. Frankly if you had mines producing the types of minerals China wants, eg iron ore, copper etc they would have gone up in price even if you just sat on it. Just ask the other eccentric Australian billionaire Clive Palmer. *

* and yes I am aware Clive Palmer made his money through his own business savyness rather than inheriting it. I am merely using an example of how mines increase in price dramatically because of China's appetite for our raw materials.

I fucking hate the idea of defending Gina Rinehart but this 'she inherited her wealth' thing is only half true:
For all her efforts to have her late father venerated, however, Rinehart has also been at pains to point out that she deserves the credit for rescuing the company after his death in 1992. In an email to Tim Treadgold, she spoke of the “the mess and debts and liabilities I was left with”. Lang might have been the discoverer, but Rinehart has been the company’s developer. Her hatred of being labelled an ‘iron ore heiress’ is well known, precisely because she regards herself as a self-made businesswoman. Similarly, she never describes her father as the ‘King of the Pilbara’, because it would imply hers is a privileged inheritance. She is nobody’s princess.

Gina’s development story has a much stronger grounding in fact than Lang’s discovery story. It is true she inherited an underperforming company, and that at the time of her father’s death, when she was just 38, few would have predicted that she would become the wealthiest Australian. When in 1992 she appeared for the first time on the BRW ‘Rich 200’ list, after taking over Hancock Prospecting, she was worth $75 million. Now she has an estimated net wealth of US$18 billion, making her the world’s 29th richest person, according to Forbes magazine, and the fourth richest woman. Citigroup believes she will eventually top the global rich list, with more than US$100 billion in assets.

She's certainly had a leg up but the reality is she's also an extremely talented businesswoman. What's fascinating about this latest outburst is the way it confirms the central thesis of Bryant's profile - that Rinehart feels desperately underappreciated in Australia, that she is a hero of the nation and that she's been denied due credit and respect. Thus her continued cherishing of two totally contradictory positions - that the mining industry keeps the country afloat (and thus the mining and carbon taxes are killing Australian jobs), but that Australians should be prepared to sacrifice to keep the mining industry afloat for the good of the nation. Rinehart clearly can't separate the two things in her mind.

But frankly, the more this shit happens the better. This is Australia's Marie-Antoinette moment - in an electorate obsessed by cost of living, the world's richest woman is telling everyone to harden the fuck up and take a pay cut so she can make more money by digging up their iron ore. Hard to think of a better ad for the mining tax.

[Stark]

I think you'll find people are way too busy chasing the rainbow to be offended. They're too stupid to wonder who paid for all those anti-mining tax reform ads, remember.

[weemadando]

But the carbon tax is destroying our economy and the mining tax is costing public servants their jobs in QLD!

[Stark]

Maybe I'm just bitter because of all those meetings where mining execs and project leaders literally laughed, saying 'haha yeah we're not even considering closing any projects if the tax goes through lol'. Poor people = fuckin dumb.

[thejester]

I think you'll find people are way too busy chasing the rainbow to be offended. They're too stupid to wonder who paid for all those anti-mining tax reform ads, remember.

Except those ads played to the same fears Rinehart is creating here - that the prosperity of middle Australia is under threat. I'm not sure the electorate is stupid, so much as spoiled/conditioned to respond to certain factors, and their personal prosperity is No 1. Being told to quite whinging and work for a shit wage goes to the heart of that.

[Stark]

But as you say, it'll just slide into the blindspot of fellating primary industry. We've all got to tighten our belts, jester, so that useless rich fucks can have their twenty thousand dollar shower curtains and none of us can afford to buy a house. Why aren't you taking a pay cut right now?

The contrast with 90s 'goddamn whiny farmers' is amazing. Thanks Howard for creating an entire generation!

[wautd]

At it again, this time lauding $2/hr wages

I think you mistyped or misread. She wasn't lauding $2/hr wages. She was lauding $2/day wages. Which is just fucking insane.

“Africans want to work. Its workers are willing to work for less than $2 per day.”

[aieeegrunt]

Does this stupid fat fuck not realize that without those little luxuries the poor would have nothing to distract them from just how badly they are being exploited by rich assholes like this fat fuck, and they might just band together and rip her limb from limb?

Are out plutocratic overlords THAT far out of touch with reality?

I have to say if anything remotely like the scenario in the latest Batman movie with a Bane having rich people being beaten in the streets went down in real life I'd be all fucking over that.

[Aaron MkII]

Well lets try changing things peacefully first, no need to start gunning down the rich just yet.

[mr friendly guy]

She's certainly had a leg up but the reality is she's also an extremely talented businesswoman. What's fascinating about this latest outburst is the way it confirms the central thesis of Bryant's profile - that Rinehart feels desperately underappreciated in Australia, that she is a hero of the nation and that she's been denied due credit and respect. Thus her continued cherishing of two totally contradictory positions - that the mining industry keeps the country afloat (and thus the mining and carbon taxes are killing Australian jobs), but that Australians should be prepared to sacrifice to keep the mining industry afloat for the good of the nation. Rinehart clearly can't separate the two things in her mind.

But frankly, the more this shit happens the better. This is Australia's Marie-Antoinette moment - in an electorate obsessed by cost of living, the world's richest woman is telling everyone to harden the fuck up and take a pay cut so she can make more money by digging up their iron ore. Hard to think of a better ad for the mining tax.

Frankly any of her business achievements over the last few years must have been swallowed up by the joke of a soap opera with her and Lang's widow, Rose going at each other in court cases which have become cannon fodder for tabloids.

Edit - to clarify, in the last ten to fifteen years from memory, news of Gina was mainly about her feud with Rose than any achievements she made in business.