I’m not generally in favour of summary justice, but I fully concur with coremelt, with the proviso that we include Rupert Murdoch - another despicable cunt that inherited a business empire and hates poor people - in the punishment.
Best thing abut Gina is her blue with Rose Porteous.
Good, but she deserves pitting again. Even her own children despise her and have taken her to court.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/judge-orders-gina-rinehart-to-pay-eldest-kids-2m-legal-costs/news-story/4b6c81a50612eda9207c77ac4b903bc9
Shes such a selfish cunt that getting 76 percent of Hancock Prospecting wasn’t enough for her and she tried to cut her own children out of inheritance.
As point of clarification, whatever the sentiment, the estate Rupert inherited was by necessity sold off on the death of his father Keith to cover mortages, taxes and death duties leaving a single masthead (The Adelaide News). The News Corp empire is absolutely his creation.
That’s not kind nor is keeping people out of work and keeping them dependent on others by enacting a counterproductive wage floor. But anything for a vote?
Yep, why does Australia only have utterly contemptible billionaires, Rinehart, Murdoch and Packer are all gutter slime. Why can’t we have a Musk or a Gates who are using their billions to do something worthy?
Edited to add: Octopus, Australia’s economy is doing just fine, we’re one of the few that didn’t get hit hard by the global financial crisis. So what exactly is counter-productive about our mimimum wage laws?
She’s deserving of harsh criticism, but I should just take your word for it?
“Do your own research,” is not a argument that can be lauded for its cogency.
No. And I’m not bothering to click on any of your links to try and fish for what you think might be there. Quote something to back up what you’re claiming or admit you don’t know what you’re talking about.
This is the pit, not GQ or GD. I’ve demonstrated the cretinous nature of this foul sac of fecal matter to my own satisfaction. If you can’t be arsed to click on a link then you can bugger off back to masturbating about your wife’s moustache.
Let her keep her money. It’s a pittance. It’s only enough to pay the Australian Commonwealth school budgets for 15 weeks and she’d be broke.
None of these philanthropists are going to change the world with their seemingly huge fortunes. Unless one of them is smart enough to start a socialist revolution.
Yes, Gina is a big fat pig sucking off the dicks of the Aussie taxpayers. But instead of railing against her, how about pitting the Gummint who have enabled her sucking to go on for so long??
You’ve demonstrated that you can’t read. Guess it’s true what they say about XXXX beer.
Four X is abysmal swill. I wouldn’t be seen dead quaffing that pissweak excuse for a lager. Coopers is a real Australian beer.
Wrong John. :dubious:
Also, you’ve been here long enough to know that Dopers are not particularly receptive to getting a research assignment in response to a request for a cite, whether in GD, GQ, or the Pit.
And a cite is more than a bare link. It should be accompanied by a money quote, at the very least.
I’m still not seeing anything in the provided links (congrats on posting one that’s only two years old) suggesting that this woman is trying to get an exemption on minimum wage standards so she can pay imported workers less.
Sounds to me more like she was trying to get tax breaks and setting the stage for tougher negotiations with unions on pay. How did that work out?
The Pit doesn’t particularly welcome imaginary complaints, either.
And, for the love of Og, Stop Fucking Gina Rinehart…!
“Won’t somebody please think of the children!” 
:eek:
That’s not what she’s saying. What she *IS *saying is a variant of what we’ve been hearing here in the US for a few decades now.
To wit: There are workers in Africa/Mexico/China/Vietnam/developing world who are willing to do the same job for $2 that our $7.25/hr minimum wage people are paid to do, and that they’ll do it in much more risky and worse conditions. And furthermore, that this makes the foreign companies that much more competitive, as they don’t pay $5.25/hr more in wages, nor do they have to invest in all the OSHA/WHS stuff that we do.
The implication isn’t that US or Australian workers should be paid $2, it’s that US/Australian companies are in a risky position- they have to do something to compete with that- greater automation or something (she was talking about mining) in order to offset that price difference.
To use some numbers- if a ton of iron ore is $50 on the open market, and an Australian producer can produce their ton of ore for $46, then they make $4/ton in profit. If the Africans can do it for $40 (less wages/less safety), they make $10/ton. Ok… .so they make more per ton. No big deal, right?
Wrong. Iron ore’s a commodity, and the price is set by the market. If enough lower-cost producers enter the market, they can start selling their iron ore for $45, make $5 per ton, and cut the Australians out completely.
THAT is what she’s trying to point out. It doesn’t have anything to do with necessarily dropping wages, or implying that the workers are sub-standard, it’s that drastically cheap labor and globalization tends to destabilize markets in the short term; look at the decline in US manufacturing as an example- it’s all gone to China and other much cheaper countries, because they pay $2/hr instead of $7.25.
And something similar is likely to happen with Australian mining if the same situation WRT wages keeps up.
You talking to ME?
You TALKING to me?
YOU talking to me?
