>Miners ages are mostly determined by supply and demand. >What monetary value they produce doesn't come into play. It's not like the mine owners share their hu

>Miners ages are mostly determined by supply and demand. >What monetary value they produce doesn't come into play. It's not like the mine owners share their huge profits with the miners. Of course productivity matters, as that's what determines how much profit is created and thus how much money is available for higher wages. Since 2007, the wages of South African mine workers have increased by about 12% per annum on average, well above inflation, while productivity per worker has declined by 35% and total output has shrunk. For instance, during the commodities boom of 2001-2008, South Africa's mining sector shrank by 1% per year as opposed to a global average increase of 5%, largely caused by the cost increases of labour and electricity. As it is, labour costs are about 60% of the total costs of an average South African mine, compared to a global average of around 25%. And while Australian mine workers earn on average three times more than their South African counterparts, they produce 10 times more value per person. So your assumption that mining firms in South Africa are making 'huge profits' off of their South African operations is incorrect. They used to, but that's no longer the case. South African gold and platinum mines are nearly all marginal in terms of profit and face a future of decreasing output and increasing input costs. That's why there's zero meaningful investment in new mining operations in the country, as all the mining multinationals have gone elsewhere in the world to find high-margin and high-profit opportunities. It's a dying sector. The only way South African mines can remain sustainable is for costs to be dramatically cut, which is going to mean mechanising operations the same way as has been done in countries like Australia, allowing for the work force to be reduced massively and for higher-skilled workers to produce more. Those who remain will earn far more than even the highest union demand at the moment, those who are let go face certain poverty and suffering. >Well, I lived in an era without "modern computers" and it wasn't that bad at all. In fact in several respects it was better than today. >What does "perfectly OK" mean? I like my gadgets, shopping online, instant communications and everything. In fact, I'm one of those "programmers" (though with a better than 3-year degree). >But none of those things are indispensable. We managed without those, not in antiquity, but merely 40-50 years ago. And even 25 years ago mostly geeks had computers. The eighties, seventies are not some medieval dark ages of humanity. Much less so the sixties. We coped with that situation decades ago, the world has changed with the advent of better technology and thus the idea of us turning back the clock and suffering few consequences is what I find odd. In any case, it's irrelevant. The software developer's salary was just an example of what a highly-skilled worker in South Africa earns, so it applies far more broadly than just to software. A country can certainly not do without a highly-skilled work force, its engineers, mechanics, scientists, etc. What it comes down to is a simple calculus: The South African mining industry cannot afford to pay its 500 000 mostly-unskilled employees higher wages than the market is able to bear for even highly-skilled workers. Something has to give.