The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Where the jobs will be in 2023 > Comments

Where the jobs will be in 2023 : Comments

By Ross Elliott, published 7/12/2018

The figures released by the Federal Government show an economy increasingly reliant on jobs growth in two major cities, but not in the city centres of those cities.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Alan B On another thread you states we could have another 100 or 200 million people.

Say we have 100 million extra, a ratio of 1 person employed to 3 people not working, PLEASE TELL US where are you going to find jobs for 25,000,000 yes that is 25 million people at around $20 per hour minimum when in Asia and India they would not get that much PER DAY.

Can't wait for your answer to that.

You have still failed to answer this question from above.
"Why not, we have 2.5 trillion in our super funds, just begging a government to create a natural investment home for these funds as impossible to lose, thirty year self-terminating, government guaranteed, investment bonds!"

With the likelihood of Labor winning the next election how many people with money in Super would trust Shorten with it? NOT ME.

The national debt of Australian is A$ 595,637,894,202 and the interest to be paid is going up $608 per second.

Bearing in mind we have a Liberal Government how many people would trust Morrison with there money, NOT ME.

Like this part "as impossible to lose" If you believe that you have absolutely no credibility.

http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/australia

IT IS OBVIOUS YOU MAKE STATEMENTS THEN RUN AWAY WHEN SOMEONE SHOWS THE ERROR IN YOUR WISH LIST RATHER THAN STAND BY WHAT YOU SAY.
Posted by Philip S, Saturday, 8 December 2018 1:22:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan B.,
>Land management that includes annual burns, does a few things
That much is true: firstly it prevents the bigger fires that would occur if burnoffs were less frequent. Secondly it returns most of the nutrients to the soil.

>first, it destroys all the non-fire tolerant flora or fauna.
Fire tolerance is not boolean. Though burnoffs destroy the least fire tolerant flora and fauna (most of which is likely to be real anyway) it reduces the chance of more severe fires which the flora can't withstand and the fauna can't escape.

>Then sends clouds of scarce soil nutrient skyward with each burn
>to eventually wind up in the ocean where it does nothing but harm.
To say it does nothing but harm is very misleading. Though there are localised problems with marine nutrient overload, the ocean itself is mainly nutrient poor, and increasing the nutrients lead to an increase in marine life.

>Think, this land was once covered from coast to coast in verdant forest.
That was in pre human times when the continent was a lot further south.

>Moreover, We regularly flush millions of tons of soil nutrient out to sea annually along with millions and
>millions of litres of water. And could reverse all that with truly affordable, reliable, carbon-free 24/7 power.
Bit of a non sequiter there: how do you imagine that power would prevent millions of tons of soil nutrient being flushed out to sea?

Nuclear power is simply too expensive; it's more expensive than solar, and by the time they've got those thorium MSRs sufficiently reliable and able to produce power for 2c/kWh (or whatever you're claiming now) solar panels will be able to do the job in Australia for below 1c/kWh.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Philip S,
There's no shortage of things to do. All we have to do is set fiscal and monetary policy to enable the jobs to be created. Renounce the lie that we, or our children or grandchildren, or any generation, has to pay the country's debt off; accept that it can go on increasing for ever.
Posted by Aidan, Saturday, 8 December 2018 5:44:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan Quote "All we have to do is set fiscal and monetary policy to enable the jobs to be created."

I would like to hear where these 25 million jobs will be created, what industries, occupations etc.

Your idea is just to borrow money or print money to make jobs, that will not work, unless you want 25 million public servants who do not generate wealth for anyone.
Posted by Philip S, Saturday, 8 December 2018 7:13:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philip S,
>I would like to hear where these 25 million jobs will be created, what industries, occupations etc.
Of course you would, but how do you expect me to know? Though I'm better than average at predicting the future, anticipating our need for jobs that haven't even been invented yet is beyond me.

I could of course speculate as to what industries will employ more people in the future. But what would be the point? Would you even believe me anyway? It's all a distraction from my far more important point that the jobs can easily be created whatever industry they're in!

Still, if you want to give yourself some idea of where more jobs can be created, ask yourself four questions:
If you had more money, what would you spend it on?
What could the government spend more money on to improve the economy?
What could the government spend more money on to improve people's quality of life?
What could the government spend more money on to improve the environment?

>Your idea is just to borrow money or print money to make jobs, that will not work,
>unless you want 25 million public servants who do not generate wealth for anyone.

That comment indicates a lack of thinking on your part.

Firstly, the public service is not a stereotype of how the public service was in the 1970s or before. People are capable of doing work of real value whether their employer is public or private.

Secondly, even if the money is coming from the government, contractors can be used.

Thirdly, increased government spending on science produces a huge return.

Fourthly, loosening fiscal and monetary policy doesn't necessarily mean increased government spending. It could instead mean increased private spending.
Posted by Aidan, Saturday, 8 December 2018 11:36:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan Quote "That comment indicates a lack of thinking on your part."

Actually it does not, it shows a lack of taking all factors into account by you and others that think we can supply jobs for millions of people.

In your thinking did you consider the following.
What are your real employee costs?

Did you know an employee being paid ($16.30) per hour costs you around ($27) per hour when you consider?:
- Super @ 9%
- Long Service Leave @ 2.5%
- Payroll Tax @ 4.95%
- Workers Compensation (up to 12.5%)
- Sick Leave @ 3% (10 days per year)
- Annual Leave @ 7% (20 days per year)
- Public Holidays @ 4% (11 days per year)
- Payroll Administrative Costs ($4.50 - $21.00 per week)

There are more hidden costs not included like getting the employee first, training, workplace etc.

Also those figures are probably a year or so old, they would be minimum wage there would need to be many more people on higher wages within the organization.

So you come back with who is going to pay that when they can get the same work done in Asia, India or China for a third of that $27 for a whole days work as opposed to $27 per hour

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't even our own Government outsource jobs to Asia, call centers etc.
Posted by Philip S, Sunday, 9 December 2018 12:43:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philip S,
Yes it does. Even if it were true, your claim would not invalidate any of the reasons I mentioned.

But it is not true. We're capable of high value work that they're not. They mainly do low value stuff like fabrication.

If the value of their work ever rises to the value of ours, either their wages will rise substantial or their currency will rise substantially against ours (or a combination of both). Either way we will remain competitive.

So what if call centre work and the low value part of the manufacturing process goes overseas? We can do better!
Posted by Aidan, Sunday, 9 December 2018 1:42:52 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy