In this case I doubt it. Even if you calculate out the GST portion, markups on electronics are extremely high in Australia. They're probably doing well there no matter what. If it moved way out of alignment, I would see it as more likely to influence the number of Apple-branded retail stores that are opened there. I don't live there, but I have spent a lot of time there. I can also tell you some of their bigger cities (Sydney, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne) are extremely expensive with relatively high taxes. It doesn't go as far as you might expect. I mention bigger cities because those are the ones that are most likely to have Apple retail stores.
Apple doesn't set minimum wages or taxes in Australia, so they abide by whatever the local situation dictates. Increased costs are always passed along to consumers.
My bad. The 2009 agreement is also annexed and was what I read.
However, it's an Australian agreement so I have no idea why you think it's expressed in USD.
The 20.15 you're talking about is already AUD. It's an Australian agreement. And it's still less than Coles agreement which is 20.30 for the least paid full time employee.
High stakes game, this internet.
Per your own article : By comparison, the bottom rung for retail workers at Coles was $773.70 a week and the basic award minimum for shop assistants was $703.90, he said.
According to my maths AUD20.30 is less than US$20.15 (AUD 21.59), the ifoapplestore article states clearly that the wages are US$ not AUD.
Ifoapplestore is written by apple retail employees so they have pretty good sources and this raises to $20.55 on Nov 1st.
Nor is the $ sign the legal sign (even if customary for informal use) for an agreement document with a multinational company. At the very least it should be AU$ or normally AUD. $ without qualification is US$
Per your own article : By comparison, the bottom rung for retail workers at Coles was $773.70 a week and the basic award minimum for shop assistants was $703.90, he said.
<div style="border:medium none;color:rgb(0,0,0);text-align:left;">
According to my maths AUD20.30 is less than US$20.15 (AUD 21.59), the ifoapplestore article states clearly that the wages are US$ not AUD.
Ifoapplestore is written by apple retail employees so they have pretty good sources and this raises to $20.55 on Nov 1st.
Nor is the $ sign the legal sign (even if customary for informal use) for an agreement document with a multinational company. At the very least it should be AU$ or normally AUD. $ without qualification is US$
So why are you still lying ?
It's aud. there's zero reason to express an Australian workplace agreement in usd and it's probably illegal. Why would the Australian government, through the fair work commission, ever accept an agreement between an Australian workforce and an Australian company where the dominator is USd. Do you understand how silly that sounds? When you're in Australia and you talk dollars, you actually mean Australian dollars.
Ignore the articles. Read the agreements. The Coles one is at the sda.org.au site. Or is that one in usd too?
I feel a minimum-wage rant coming on Skip if you'd rather not hear it. And yes, I know that government mandated minimum-wage is a fundamentally different thing than an employer who voluntarily elects to pay its employees notably higher than the competition. Some companies do that as a way of attracting certain qualities in their job candidates, or for other reasons, which is great and entirely appropriate that they chose to do so, or not to.
So...
Person flips burger. This provides something with an arguably fixed real value to their employer. Employer in a free market pays wage at or very close to the real value provided by employee.
Legislation or corporate policy increases minimum wage to, let's say 2 times the actual real value of the labor performed. You haven't increased the value the employee is providing to the employer by a factor of 2. You have, instead, redefined the real value of the monetary unit to be half of what it was before.
It's not entirely that simple, and the impact isn't fully felt overnight. But it's close to that simple, and the impact will spread eventually to the whole economy. But the immediate and primary negative impact will be on the employer, who can now afford to hire half as many minimum-wage employees. Economy loses jobs for those who can least afford to lose them in the short term. Once the full redefinition of the value of the monetary unit hits, everyone has less value sitting in their retirement account even if the number on the investment statement has gone up. In addition, more of those with the least education now rely on social programs while out of work which puts a greater strain on the now-fewer individuals still working, depressing their ability to spend and thereby further decreasing demand for laborers to meet the consumer need.
And let's not forget that the short-term gain (aside from the minimum-wage employees getting more worth-less money to spend, at least until everything costs more which erases the benefit) goes primarily to the politicians who implement such policies as a way of essentially buying votes. This increases the likelihood of people getting into and staying in office who tend to implement policies which benefit themselves and end up hurting those they claim to be benefiting.
An overly-simplistic (or flat wrong) view of economics, you may say? Please enlighten me. And I don't mean that sarcastically. Either you'll inform me of things I'm overlooking or misunderstanding and help me (and others) to better understand the realities of economics and wage policies, or you'll reinforce my perception. I'm always open to both.
Comments
In this case I doubt it. Even if you calculate out the GST portion, markups on electronics are extremely high in Australia. They're probably doing well there no matter what. If it moved way out of alignment, I would see it as more likely to influence the number of Apple-branded retail stores that are opened there. I don't live there, but I have spent a lot of time there. I can also tell you some of their bigger cities (Sydney, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne) are extremely expensive with relatively high taxes. It doesn't go as far as you might expect. I mention bigger cities because those are the ones that are most likely to have Apple retail stores.
Apple doesn't set minimum wages or taxes in Australia, so they abide by whatever the local situation dictates. Increased costs are always passed along to consumers.
My bad. The 2009 agreement is also annexed and was what I read.
However, it's an Australian agreement so I have no idea why you think it's expressed in USD.
The 20.15 you're talking about is already AUD. It's an Australian agreement. And it's still less than Coles agreement which is 20.30 for the least paid full time employee.
High stakes game, this internet.
Per your own article : By comparison, the bottom rung for retail workers at Coles was $773.70 a week and the basic award minimum for shop assistants was $703.90, he said.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/genius-deal-apples-staff-paid-less-than-coles-checkout-workers-20140606-39nvc.html#ixzz33tuk9wOv
According to my maths AUD20.30 is less than US$20.15 (AUD 21.59), the ifoapplestore article states clearly that the wages are US$ not AUD.
Ifoapplestore is written by apple retail employees so they have pretty good sources and this raises to $20.55 on Nov 1st.
Nor is the $ sign the legal sign (even if customary for informal use) for an agreement document with a multinational company. At the very least it should be AU$ or normally AUD. $ without qualification is US$
So why are you still lying ?
It's aud. there's zero reason to express an Australian workplace agreement in usd and it's probably illegal. Why would the Australian government, through the fair work commission, ever accept an agreement between an Australian workforce and an Australian company where the dominator is USd. Do you understand how silly that sounds? When you're in Australia and you talk dollars, you actually mean Australian dollars.
Ignore the articles. Read the agreements. The Coles one is at the sda.org.au site. Or is that one in usd too?
I feel a minimum-wage rant coming on
Skip if you'd rather not hear it. And yes, I know that government mandated minimum-wage is a fundamentally different thing than an employer who voluntarily elects to pay its employees notably higher than the competition. Some companies do that as a way of attracting certain qualities in their job candidates, or for other reasons, which is great and entirely appropriate that they chose to do so, or not to.
So...
Person flips burger. This provides something with an arguably fixed real value to their employer. Employer in a free market pays wage at or very close to the real value provided by employee.
Legislation or corporate policy increases minimum wage to, let's say 2 times the actual real value of the labor performed. You haven't increased the value the employee is providing to the employer by a factor of 2. You have, instead, redefined the real value of the monetary unit to be half of what it was before.
It's not entirely that simple, and the impact isn't fully felt overnight. But it's close to that simple, and the impact will spread eventually to the whole economy. But the immediate and primary negative impact will be on the employer, who can now afford to hire half as many minimum-wage employees. Economy loses jobs for those who can least afford to lose them in the short term. Once the full redefinition of the value of the monetary unit hits, everyone has less value sitting in their retirement account even if the number on the investment statement has gone up. In addition, more of those with the least education now rely on social programs while out of work which puts a greater strain on the now-fewer individuals still working, depressing their ability to spend and thereby further decreasing demand for laborers to meet the consumer need.
And let's not forget that the short-term gain (aside from the minimum-wage employees getting more worth-less money to spend, at least until everything costs more which erases the benefit) goes primarily to the politicians who implement such policies as a way of essentially buying votes. This increases the likelihood of people getting into and staying in office who tend to implement policies which benefit themselves and end up hurting those they claim to be benefiting.
An overly-simplistic (or flat wrong) view of economics, you may say? Please enlighten me. And I don't mean that sarcastically. Either you'll inform me of things I'm overlooking or misunderstanding and help me (and others) to better understand the realities of economics and wage policies, or you'll reinforce my perception. I'm always open to both.