Jon J, why aren't you running the country, or at least someone just as pragmatic?
We need to revitalise the private sector economy, so that those 2.6 under/unemployed able bodied, are snapped up.
What an incredibly dispiriting waste of real peoples' time and lives!
One remembers a time when even a 1% unemployment rate was considered shameful, and or, those collecting the dole, beach bums and those who wouldn't work in an iron lung, did so by choice rather than compulsion!
That time also saw us as a much more egalitarian society, the third wealthiest nation state on the planet, and a creditor one at that! Before Thatcherism, Reganism and Howardism, and or the hubris and self congratulation, that seems to have so marked it!?
That was the time when some employers would even pay an employee a generous spotters fee, for introducing a new able-bodied, willing worker!
That was also the time when we ran railways, and trained many of our apprentices, in our many railway workshops.
Yes, they were mired in the previous century; but imagine if they could have moved with the times.
I mean, Japan introduced her rapid rail in 1953-4 for just 5 billion!
Suppose we had looked and decided, this was the way we should go?
When we could still afford the land corridors.
And no, I don't hanker for the past, just the practical pragmatism, that was applied to most public decision making, and politicians who came to their positions, very late in life as virtual retirees, with a wealth of practical experience, real world wisdom, a REAL desire to serve others, rather than themselves; and more than just pieces of paper, backing their judgement calls.
Since those days, both major parties have moved very much to the right, and we are a vastly poorer, less well run country for it!?
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty, the proportion of the population that is regarded as being part of the workforce has increased by well over 30% since the 70s because of the mobilisation of women.Since productivity has increased, albeit at a lower rate, then the actual amount of work that needs doing per employed person has decreased or at best remained static, all things being equal. Nearly all the growth in female employment has been Government funded, either directly or indirectly via subsidy and a great deal of that has been part-time.

In other words, the growth in apparent under-employment is an artefact of the growth that has occurred in the labour pool which has been created artificially and has resulted in a large increase in workers with skill sets that do not match demand from industry. A social worker isn't much use to a mine developer, so the 457 worker (invariably male) is imported and works overtime while the social worker is given a part-time job filling out forms for old people and illiterates, paid for by the Government.

She then dutifully notes on whatever surveys are circulated that she is under-employed and idiot politicians regulate higher wages for her sector and give her charitable employer more money to pay her with.

But nobody in government suggests that we actually have more than enough social workers, teachers, nurses, child carers or bureaucrats and that perhaps women might be better serving the country by either staying at home with the kids, supported by a loving husband, or showing willing to do the training that would enable them to do the work that the 457s are doing.

That would be "patriarchal" and anathema.

I agree with following paragraph

'Public sector jobs growth, particularly in the 'new commanding heights' of education, health and welfare, has proceeded on its merry way, irrespective of the economic weather, whilst major productive sectors have struggled to maintain their jobs base in an underperforming post‑GFC Australian economy'.

However, i am curious to what evidence the author cold point me to to show what industry (productive) will be created if following occurs.


'A significant reduction in public sector employment, founded upon critically assessing the economic merits of functions and activities presently undertaken by government, remains a meritorious strategy for reform‑minded governments to promote long term economic growth and productivity'.

Chris Lewis,
If the public service were to be reduced (take note, not cut) & public service pays & condition reduced by 10% no one would experience even the slightest hardship & more monies would be freed up for development & projects.
There simply is too much money going to high ranking bureaucrats whilst services & associated jobs are cut. That last federal bludgers pay rise was higher than thousands of full time wages. Look at how much some utterly pointless & useless uni chancellor or a judge gets paid . It's nothing short of criminal. They could all do with a cut thus freeing up money to build a more functional society. Teachers are asking for a pay rise at this very moment. give us some evidence that they deserve one more dollar. Money makes things go round, 6 digits in some bank statement don't.

individual, i dont disagree with you. i reckon there can be significant cuts to the PS, and probably academia. In my life, i have seen considerable waste in the public sector, academia, and even the provate sector. I have also seen a link of waste between public and private sector.

I am just interested in what industries will prosper. I have asked the author this and am open to all evidence.

My feeling is that it is going to be quite hard to get productive sectors going, even if we cut public spending. I hope i am wrong.

Where i live famers are struggling, and every second ad on the weekend seems to be for a house purchase or Tom waterhouse. Now these latter industries are based on consumption, i am interested in production, preferably production by Australians.

I am just interested in what industries will prosper.
Chris Lewis,
I suppose that depends entirely on the decision makers. Where they say the money shall go that's where it goes to be syphoned in all directions. The most likely to prosper in Government projects are the consultants & in private projects it'll be the principal contractor although private projects do not generate the insane profits as in those made by government appointed private consultants on five year contracts.
The losers are always the tax payers. Of course it is made to look like infrastructure is being graciously provided but once you start delving into things you find out how much our Government bureaucrats waste so criminally & so criminally unaccountable. I hope the new Coalition Governments have a few ounces of integrity to stop the sorts.