Civil 4.6 — ‘Compare the Pair’: The CDO’s USI-Reform versus The ACTU’s IR Bill

‘Compare the Pair’: Who’s ‘got their ducks in a row’, The Citizens’ Dividend Organisation (CDO) Australia or the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU)?

. . .

November 4, 2022

Hello Paul,

On behalf of the ACTU, I would like to notify you that ACTU secretary Sally McManus and president Michele O’Neil do not support or endorse the Citizen’s Dividend Organisation (CDO) and its objectives.

. . .

December 6, 2022

Hello

Mystified at receiving the ACTU’s note (above) — i.e. while aware they only superficially pretend to economics literacy, why wouldn’t Sally & Michele want all trade-union members and their members’ partners-&-adult-children to each unconditionally receive an extra $20,000 per year plus tax reductions? — we decided to ‘compare the pair’.

The ACTU: Labor’s Industrial Relations (IR) Framer

Why have we referred to the ‘Secure Jobs, Better Pay’ Industrial Relations Bill (which parliament passed on December 2, 2022) as the ACTU’s bill and not The Labor Party’s?

First, though some may debate it, on Industrial Relations, Labor is the quasi-political-arm of The ACTU (and broader trade-union movement), which is neither below-board nor untoward — i.e. in Labor’s constitution, trade-unions are transparently referred to throughout — for example: in PART B — OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES:

1. Origins: 3 (b) The Australian Labor Party had its origins in (b) the recognition by the trade union movement of the necessity for a political voice to take forward the struggle of the working class against the excesses, injustices and inequalities of capitalism.

2. Principles of action: 6 The Australian Labor Party believes that the task of building democratic socialism is a co-operative process that requires: (b) union action

3. Membership and organisation: 9 Party policy within the states is framed by conferences of delegates elected by constituent branches, affiliated unions and members. Policy within the Australian Labor Party is not made by directives from the leadership, but by resolutions originating from branches, affiliated unions and individual Party members.

Second, regarding the recently passed IR bill, it certainly concurs with the ACTU’s desires.

Third, should the ACTU support ‘The USI-Reform’, wouldn’t Labor likely also adopt it?

[Disclosure: the CDO founder is pro-union (and a former unionist) plus, within Coopetition theory (explained below), trade-unions are natural bottom-up entities.]

‘Compare the Pair’ Criteria

‘The USI-Reform’ involves substituting The Universal Subsistence Income (USI) for our current USI-proxy, which consists of:

1. The income-Welfare system

2. The Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW) system — currently, $21.38.

The USI is pitched at:

1. $20,000 per year for all non-incarcerated in-country adult-citizens below 67

2. $5,000 per year for all child-citizens (to their guardian/s)

3. $25,000 per year for all citizens over 67.

Regarding the CDO’s ‘USI-Reform’ and the ACTU’s IR Bill, the judgement criteria are:

1. Does it achieve Universal Empowerment? (necessary condition)

2. Does it achieve the vision of ‘universal sustainable stability-prosperity optimisation’? (sufficient condition)

3. Does it achieve a government-budget-surplus/downward-pressure-on-taxes? (corollary)

Regarding all 3, while ‘The USI-Reform’ achieves them, disturbingly, the IR Bill:

1. Doesn’t come close to achieving any of them

2. Doesn’t even attempt to achieve any of them

3. Detracts from all 3.

Detail

In brief, ‘The USI-Reform’ solves our governance’s single greatest distortion — i.e. Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS).

SIS, which the ACTU’s IR bill worsens, refers to citizens being beholden (for their subsistence) to the income generated by either a job or, if they own one, their business.

SIS distorts our economy such that it squanders human and other resources, which manufactures everything from mental-illness to wanton-environmental-destruction.

However, ‘The USI-Reform’ transforms the economy from a jobs-for-jobs’-sake Squandonomy to a Coopetonomy — i.e. to ‘exclusively efficiently empoweringly producing and distributing the goods & services citizens need/desire’.

‘The USI-Reform’ is also a PUSCHER-eradicator — i.e. it infrastructurally eradicates Poverty, Unemployment (and Underemployment), Stigma (‘the dole-bludger’ narrative including its racist and disablist variants), Corruption (particularly, Developing World relevant), Harassment (‘mutual obligations’), paid-worker-Exploitation & excess workplace Regulation (PUSCHER).

[Note: With unemployment defined as, ‘those who want paid-work at the going wage-rate but cannot obtain it’, Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW) is unemployment’s sole manufacturer. Curiously, while there are millions of volunteers earning $0.00 per hour, earning anything between $0.01 and $21.37 is illegal.]

Regarding reduced workplace-Regulation, this enhances business’ international competitiveness, which increases our national wealth and income.

Yet, while business is unleashed, there’s no workplace-Exploitation because every citizen can say “no” to any boss and either take a paid-work rest (provided they’re content to live simply with a low environmental footprint) or, because there’s zero unemployment, find another job.

In addition, ‘The USI-Reform’ ‘Closes the Gap’ — i.e. via eradicating Poverty, Unemployment & Alienation, it means, for example, in an outback community, a young idle adult may decide to peel-off from their peer group and, with the assistance of the unconditional and mobile USI, go to a town or outstation for paid-work, which they can most certainly find because there’s zero unemployment.

And, with many of their brightest and most adventurous peers leaving, others will follow. For those who wish to stay, it will probably be because they are needed and, with The USI, without harassment and while exercising their Agency of Choice, they will be able to do so.

Thus, within a generation, without fuss or wastage, the Gap will be closed.

Regarding domestic violence, because a sufferer has the mobile USI, they only need to escape the residence. [Note: The USI is prohibited from being deposited into joint bank-accounts.]

The disabled benefit because, amongst other things, with no unemployment, they can find paid-work.

Another ‘USI-Reform’ benefit is the dispensing of the annual UMHoW-determining brawl between governments, trade-unions and business — i.e. The USI will be inflation-indexed yet businesses don’t directly pay for it (i.e. it’s not part of wages), which means it’s neither wage-price inflationary nor business-distortionary.

Regarding the government-budget benefit, this occurs because:

1. Via a more efficient economy, tax revenues improve

2. Via savings in welfare, mental-illness, law-enforcement etc., costs will plummet.

Nevertheless, according to the ACTU, their IR bill is a win because it will increase wages.

Priority: Increasing Wages or Increasing Incomes?

While the IR bill assists trade-unions to take industrial action, which, in the short-term, will assist wages’ growth, in the long-term, it’s likely to ‘kill the goose that lays the golden egg’ by sending businesses broke.

Trade-union militancy has already driven the entire car-manufacturing industry from Australia.

At a time when Australia ceasing to manufacture cars was virtually unimaginable, enjoying high base-wages and great overtime multiplications, as the author worked 7 days a week, one-and-a-half to two-shifts per day, in addition to wondering if he was earning more than the factory manager, he also remembers an ‘us and them’ ‘perpetual struggle’ ‘stuff the boss’ atmosphere including such anecdotes as:

1. Being brought to a basketball centre for a union meeting (where us machinists filled the stands) — though our reps tried to persuade us to strike for increased wages, we voted ‘no’, which left them shaking their heads (as I understand it, on that occasion, we were the only car factory in the country to decline to strike)

2. Being reprimanded for “making too many parts”

3. Every day, in our section, despite productivity between shifts differing by 600 percent, those on the delinquent shift were never spoken to.

4. Expensive precision German machines being purposely crashed so some could get overtime.

[Nevertheless, the trade-unions were invaluable — particularly regarding health & safety — as there were some horrific accidents.]

In any case, what matters is not wages but incomes:

Income = USI + Wage

A full-time Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW) earning paid-worker currently earns around $37,000 (after tax) per year. Thus, with The USI at $20,000, initially, their income will be around $57,000; however, with business booming, their wage will be bid-up, which means they may receive a personal income of over $60,000. And, to repeat, their partner and adult children also receive $20,000. Plus, all their neighbours receive it, which relieves base-stress across society.

Thus, if the ACTU enters into a ‘Grand Bargain’ of trading-in UMHoW so as to trade-up to The USI, they will eclipse their July 1, 2022 ‘win’ when the Fair Work Commission raised UMHoW by $1.05 (or, for a full-timer, less than $2,000 per year, which has since been inflation gobbled) from $20.33 to $21.38.

And, all the ACTU needs do is ask.

Employers will agree because, via efficiency increases, all citizens (including them) will be better-off.

So, why not?

UMHoW-sentamentalism? Why not trade it in for the upgrade?

A trade-union member survey of, ‘Do you want an extra $20,000 per year or not?’ would soon get to the core of it.

If the trade-union movement makes the ‘Grand Bargain’ decision, it will win tremendous and eternal kudos because they will be recognisably responsible for achieving everything from:

1. Universal Empowerment such that the current divided-and-conquered-Disempowered in which those with paid-work call those without ‘dole-bludgers’; to,

2. ‘Universal sustainable stability-prosperity optimisation’.

Conclusion

The ACTU leadership is the key; if they take the lead toward ‘The USI-Reform’ — the ‘Grandest Bargain’ in 3 centuries — then bipartisanship will be achieved, the policy will be implemented and Australia will lead the world into an optimal governance phase.

Thus, the CDO invites the ACTU leadership of not only ACTU Secretary Sally McManus and President Michele O’Neil but also the Assistant Secretaries of Liam O’Brien (who has an economics degree) and Scott Connolly to consider ‘The USI-Reform’.

$20,000 for all adult citizens plus reduced taxes, which are all paid for by efficiency gains — why not?

Thank you.

Best regards

Paul Ross

Founder

The Citizens’ Dividend Organisation (CDO) Australia

P.S. The CDO founder is seeking paid-work.

‘The USI-Reform’

Humanity is facing a culminating perfect storm of exponentiating Socio-Econo-Enviro[international/natural] (SEE-in) catastrophes including, regarding:

1. The Socio-: poverty, homelessness, mental-illness, escapism (such as alcohol & other drug abuse and suicide), domestic-violence etc.
2. The Econo-: the inefficiency of not ‘exclusively producing and delivering the goods & services we need/desire’
3. The Enviro-:

• International: conflict with Authoritarians such as Xi and Putin
• Natural: ecosystem destruction, species extinction, human population growth, plastic, climate change, etc.

SEE-in outcomes are systemically influenced by Science, Human-Organisation & Technology (SHOT).

Hypothesis: Our SEE-in catastrophes are due to violations of ‘Coopetition’, which is defined as ‘Cooperation first & foremost and Competition the treasured second’. [In sport, Coopetition consists of Cooperation via agreement on the rules, playing-field, umpires and, broader, ‘spirit of the game’ understandings then, within this context, up to all-out Competition.]

Vision: Nations that are ‘universal sustainable SEE-in stability-prosperity optimised’.

Mission: ‘Coopetition’ — Government that infrastructuralises citizen ‘Coopetition-contributive self-actualisation maximisation’.

Regarding human-rights, Coopetism encompasses its full-spectrum and full-magnitude — i.e. it systematises universal empowerment (including minority rights and women’s rights) infinitely more effectively than any stand-alone law or set of laws including a Bill of Rights.

Coopetism is characterised via ‘Universal Rule of Coopetition-maximising Law’, which includes, as an Industrial Revolution inheritance, 5 ‘universal, unconditional & guaranteed’ RIDEH cornerstones:

1. [R] Universal Rule of Personal & Property Security Law — [In Australia] comparatively robust
2. [I] Universal Subsistence Income (USI) — no, not yet
3. [D] Universal (including compulsory-voting) Liberal Democracy — robust
4. [E] Universal Education — robust
5. [H] Universal Healthcare — robust.

[Note: In place of The USI, we have 2 inefficient proxies of Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW) and (targeted) income-Welfare yet a ‘targeted, conditional & non-guaranteed’ Subsistence-Income violates Coopetition because it is not ‘Cooperation first & foremost’; hence, our perfect SEE-in storm.]

RIDEH empowers, inspires and energizes citizens such that the correlation between citizen benefit and their contribution to the nation is maximised — i.e. there is citizen ‘Coopetition-contributive self-actualisation maximisation’.

Regarding the current USI-omission, this means there is Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS), which detracts from each of the other cornerstones — for ex., poverty reduces children’s capacity to absorb Education.

Thus, regarding The Universal Subsistence Income (USI):

It’s not that it is the solution;

It’s that its omission is the problem.

The USI is pitched at:

1. $20,000 per year for all non-incarcerated in-country adult-citizens below 67
2. $5,000 per year for all child-citizens [to their guardian/s]
3. $25,000 per year for all citizens over 67.

[Note: Disabled-citizens also receive a ‘top-up’ from the Health budget, which, because it is less The USI, has reduced application requirements.]

We require ‘The USI-Reform’, which involves trading-up to a single efficient Socio- infrastructure via replacing 2 inefficient systems — i.e. The USI substituted for both:

1. The income-Welfare system (a Socio- Band-Aid)

2. The Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW) system (a suboptimal Econo- infrastructure).

The USI-Reform’s advantages span:

1. Reharmonising all our SEE-in objectives — i.e. it appears devoid of negative consequences
2. Counterintuitively, delivering perpetual government surpluses (and/or tax-decreases).

Regarding the Socio- and the Econo-, The USI-Reform is a PUSCHER-eradicator — i.e. it eradicates Poverty, Unemployment (and Underemployment), Stigma (‘the dole-bludger’ narrative including its racist and disablist variants as everyone receives The USI), Corruption (particularly, in the Developing World), Harassment (‘mutual obligations’), paid-worker-Exploitation (i.e. citizens can say, ‘no’) & significant workplace-Regulation (PUSCHER).

Regarding Unemployment/Underemployment, as per the economic definition of ‘those who want paid-work at the going-wage but cannot obtain paid-work’, it is unnatural; however, due to our UMHoW system, which, though failing to eradicate Poverty, prohibits people supplying their labour below the UMHoW rate, Un/der/employment exists.

Comparing The USI-Reform with our current 2-pronged system, while a full-time paid-worker on the UMHoW rate has an income around $37,000 after tax, with The USI-Reform, their income will equal The USI + their salary — i.e. it will be around $57,000. Plus:

1. Their partner and adult children will receive The USI
2. Due to the associated business boom and universal Subsistence-Income-Servitude emancipation, their salary will be bid-up.

Moreover, The USI-Reform is a universal empowerer — i.e.:

1. Economic-alienation is bridged, which will shut ‘the Gap’
2. The USI’s mobility assists women escaping domestic violence
3. No Poverty, no Unemployment & no alienation fractionalises mental-illness [The Productivity Commission states it costs over $200 billion per year].

Meanwhile, The USI-Reform transforms the economy from a ‘Squandonomy’ into a ‘Coopetonomy’ — i.e.:

1. Full-Employment means there’s no need for jobs-for-jobs’-sake paid-work or ‘Jobs-Jobs-Jobs’ (Triple-J) politics, which means the economy returns to ‘exclusively efficiently empoweringly producing and distributing the goods & services citizens need/desire’
2. There is substantial labour-market deregulation, which will particularly promote manufacturing and assist our international competitiveness
3. There is no longer the gain-paid-work-lose-income-Welfare distortion, which, among other things, means farmers will find seasonal-workers
4. SHOT innovations are fully taken advantage of and its compounding maximised
5. There are downward pressures on tax.

Regarding the international-Enviro-, The USI-Reform will not only maximise our strength, it will undermine Authoritarians as their citizens demand our optimised model for themselves. Also, it may demonstrate a way forward for the USA such as to prevent it becoming a failed state.

Regarding the natural-Enviro-, with Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS) abolished, citizens may choose to prioritise the natural-Enviro- plus, with Full-Employment, arguments such as ‘coal-mining creates jobs’ are transcended. Also, once the model is demonstrably successful, the Developing world may adopt it, which would halt population growth as adults no longer need many children for captive cheap labour and an old-age pension. Thus:

Without The USI;

It’s impossible to Save the Environment.

Lastly, this all culminates in government budget depressurisation as:

1. Tax revenues surge due to increased efficiencies including business unleashed
2. Government expenditure plummets because, in addition to replacing most of our present income-Welfare system (about 45% of The USI transfer), there are vast savings in charity (i.e. as mentioned, no Poverty, no Unemployment & no economic-alienation), law-enforcement (i.e. Universal Empowerment), health (including mental-health), bureaucracy (among other things, Centrelink will be closed), natural-environment rehabilitation and, as also mentioned, the end to jobs-for-jobs’-sake paid-work.

Accordingly, The USI-Reform is a candidate for bipartisanship — i.e. it delivers total benefit yet enables the financing of still more benefit.