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 > Securing the future of Australian manufacturing > Comments

Securing the future of Australian manufacturing : Comments

By Kim Carr, published 10/4/2008

Kim Carr lays out his plans for the future of Australian manufacturing.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All
It is also the governments responsibility to keep the unions under control and not cave in to their demands to inhibit or eliminate: 1)productivity enhancements, 2) elimination of redundant or unnecessary jobs, 3) the implementation of new higher productive manufacturing processes, 4)competition through pattern bargaining.

Employers must be given latitude to build and reinvent their businesses to address their competitors. They do not need to be hobbled by the ball and chain of archaic union workplace demands codified into state and national law.
Posted by Bruce, Thursday, 10 April 2008 12:27:11 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
Exploring the 'glue' within Australian society so as to create Micro as well as Macro opportunities from the bottom-up could help us ALL. I believe there could be a view to 'mini' manufacturing frameworks as well as the bigger manufacturing frameworks.

Australia historically has constantly lost itself in manufacturing because weíve been too rigid. Manufacturing is mostly always visualised to mean BIG + Expensive instead of many well-planned, smart and thrifty.

A modern new look at manufacturing could reveal potential productive openings for many different industries, in new ways that help serve humanity better, by finding more inclusive ways that help us transcend in targeting the greater needs of a ever changing labour force. Something like blending the old with the new. Adam Smith (many needing ever-changing different degrees of low skilled work) with Alvin Toffler (workstation clusters in the home-garden).

Unleashing Australia's national innovation potential is key.

"More importantly, it will suggest ways to increase and strengthen those connections. It's especially important that we bring Australian industry into the picture - not just as a consumer, but as a producer of new ideas. "

In fact spending on technology may mean re-introducing Human Labour and hence Human Capital and designing a more savy-use for on-going discoveries, through technology.

Instead of displacing humanity we might enhance it because with the re-introduction of human labour and human capital the constant up-grade cost of hard-ware (and its associated cycle-of-waste) may supercool by replacing the need for so much of it.

What is BALANCE?

If we could find ourselves being less fickle we may instead find ourselves with meanfulness through innovative designs. Strategies that help both ways in building economic growth, through authentically geared industries.

This approach could help shift other dubious demands and help us resolve issues in climate change, by adding at the same time new value to a renewal of productive growth in regional communities.

http://www.miacat.com/
.
Posted by miacat, Thursday, 10 April 2008 10:08:47 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
Dear Kim.... you can have all the reviews under the sun, but they will all arrive at the same conclusion.

1/ UNLESS we decide that we WILL be competitive in global market, using the same successful strategies as our competitors (but with a more human face and heart) we will be relegated to a 'remote mine which will be discarded like an old rag once our resources are used up"

2/ CHERISHED VALUES and beliefs about industrial justice and fairness must be made FLEXIBLE and suitable for a competitive, dog eat dog world.

I believe this must recognize:

a) We have abundant resources.
b) We have the same population as Taiwan approx.
c) If THEY can reach global markets with price competitive value added goods.. why can we not? (specially when WE have the raw materials, not they)
d)If we think we can 'out-think/out-innovate' the Chinese from our population base, we are dreaming. If we think they will not simply 'copy' any innovation we come up with, again..we dream.

RULES.. if we, as team "A" try to play Aussie rules using Rugby Union rules with Team "B".. who are adhering to correct Aussie rules 'rules'...and where the Referee is controlling the game based on Aussie Rules rules.... then of course, we, Team "A" is going to lose badly.

INNOVATION CHAIN... We have to look at things in a 'Start2finish' approach.

RESOURCE->VALUE ADD->MARKETING.

Perhaps some helpful ideas would be.

-APPROVALS....Dedicated sub groups who are strictly focused on the approvals aspects of most major market target countries. They can then liase with manufacturers from a specialized knowledge base to ensure manufactured products are ready4market.

-MARKETING....Others who specialize in market information about particular countries.

-MANUFACTURING.. must be flexible. High tech/automated/huge volumes.

Lets not be like King Hezekiah, who, when told by Isaiah the prophet "The Babylonians are coming, but not in your lifetime" said "This news is good"(because he personally didn't have to face them)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 11 April 2008 6:18:16 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
Australian industry has suffered from the second class status of the companies and their directors.

Even in the 1970s many Australian manufacturing companies operated to enhance the bottom line of their overseas parent so it was absolutely deadly to operate the Australian business profitably,

In the 1950s and 1960s when high school students were streamed,
- the top stream was educated for university entrance into professions like law, medicine, engineering,
- the next stream was trained for commerce
- the next stream was waiting for apprenticeships into the trades
and the bottom stream wasn't expected to amount to much

Currently Australian firms make more money or hide profit more effectively if they can put a national border between the producer and the consumer so any review of Australian manufacturing should consider whether Australian industry might be better served by a tax on turnover rather than tax on net profit
Posted by billie, Friday, 11 April 2008 9:40:42 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
The article avoids discussion of what should be the blindingly obvious issue in manufacturing, that is, the disparity between incomes that working Australians had been accustomed to and the incomes of workers in the slave-wage economies with which they are now forced to compete. This situation has been exacerbated by the destruction of livelihoods of Third Word peasants who now inhabitant slums on the outskirts of sprawling metropolises who comprise a pool of surplus workers who are desperate enough to work for a pittance (See Mike Davies "Planet of Slums" http://www.versobooks.com/books/cdef/d-titles/davis_m_planet_of_slums.shtml "Closing our borders can't mean turning our backs" at http://candobetter.org/node/228)

In these circumstances, the hope that Australia can ever profitably manufacture any products other than a few specialised niche or boutique products, unless Australian workers are prepared to work for Third World wage levels, is a pipe dream.

It was a reckless and irresponsible for tariffs to be removed in the way they were. As even a fool could have anticipated, this led to the wholesale export of Australia's manufacturing sector to countries like China, Malaysia and Vietnam. If objections to this had not been so stridently shouted down in previous decades by a chorus of economists who assured us, against what our own intuition and common sense should have told us, that they knew what they were doing and that they had our best interests at heart, this would never have been tolerated.

Between the First and Second World Wars, Australia carefully built its manufacturing sector to become one of the World's most advanced industrial economies (See Andrew Ross "Armed and Ready - The Industrial Development and Defence of Australia 1900-1945" http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6665&page=0 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=860&page=0). Since then our proud achievement has been thrown away by our Governments doing the bidding of the growth lobby who preferred the easier, but ultimately unsustainable path to wealth through land speculation and population growth (See Sheila Newman's 2002 Master's thesis at http://candobetter.org/sheila).

Australia has now become effectively a third world country dependant upon the accelerating rate of mineral extraction and the sale of real estate.
Posted by daggett, Friday, 11 April 2008 10:56:59 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
Well said Daggett. Clearly an Aussie of knowledge, integrity and patriotism.

Contrary to the fevered beliefs of industrial and investment ideologues, Australia does not have to compete on the global market. In fact, the only reason we need to export at all is to cover our imports; and we do not actually need to import anything other than lubricating greases and oils. (News in Tassie may prove even these can be Australia-produced).

Australia is potentially self-sustaining and we export and import to make elites rich, not because this is intrinsically required in terms of text book economics.

While it is true that we import one third of our petrol, we can always develop unilateral trade with Venezuela, or use alternative fuels and transport systems, and eliminate the fuel barrel we are so treacherously screwed over. With more use of rail and public transport systems alone, half of that requirement would be negated. The bonus here is that we could then dump the Oil Price Parity Agreement, which forces us to pay international prices for Aussie oil. Eliminate tax as well and we would be paying 12 cents a litre at the bowser. Imagine how competitive that would make industry and commerce. Then there could be taxes on productivity rather than on overheads.

The cold truth is that, if we were to restore tariffs, and extend these to service and IT industries, our manufacturing sector would expand at least 50% over three years,and our family farms would be back in the black. Moreover, the resultant boost to the rural and regional economy would see a return of the one million citizens who were earlier forced into coastal cities for jobs. This boomerang migration would instantly relieve demand for city water and housing, and would generate regional council wealth, thus terminating the hated and undemocratic council amalgamations.

Finally, reinvigoration of farming and manufacturing will rapidly absorb the 21% unemployment currently blighting Australia. And for those in ideological denial over this status, just trot down the street and ask your local Job Network personnel.

Now, what arguments can be leveled against these proposals?
Posted by Tony Ryan oziz4oz, Friday, 11 April 2008 2:14:06 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
*In these circumstances, the hope that Australia can ever profitably manufacture any products other than a few specialised niche or boutique products, unless Australian workers are prepared to work for Third World wage levels, is a pipe dream.*

Funny that Switzerland, Germany, Japan etc, all have very healthy
manufacturing industries, none pay third world wages. I once saw
a documentary on the Korean shipbuilding industry. No slave wages
paid, again it is booming.

The main problem we have is that local manufacturing was for far
too long, protected by high tarrifs. It became fat, lazy and non
competitive. It increased costs for efficient industries, such
as mining and farming.

Slowly some specialised industries are emerging in Australia, which
are globally competitive. Like building ferries, specialised farming
and mining equipment. Forget trying to compete with China, making
consumer goods by the millions. You will fail and raising tariffs
will only lower everyones standard of living.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 11 April 2008 3:30:19 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
I note that Yabby has accepted my central argument that Australia will only be able to compete in specialised niche areas of manufacturing.

How much does he believe that we can ever earn from the sale of a few ferries, specialised mining and farm equipment? In any case, I worked for a farm equipment distributer for a while. It seemed to me that much more was being imported than exported and the same would be the case for ships.

Sweeping statements about how "Switzerland, Germany, Japan etc" are presumably withstanding the onslaught of competition from slave-wage economies as opposed to the record of Australia's presumably "fat, lazy and non-competitive" manufacturing sector are not helpful unless the substance of these claims are examined more closely and the differences acknowledged.

It's quite a while since I was able to find any of the famous German brand name tools in a hardware store which had been manufactured in Germany rather than in China, and I don't remember when I last saw an electrical appliance in the store that was manufactured in Europe, so it seems to me that in many regards, the European manufacturing sector may not be doing so well either.

To the extent that there is residual strength in the European manufacturing sector, I would suggest that it would have a lot to do with the way those countries have not embraced free-market laissez-faire capitalism whether or not they choose to use tariff walls.

Yabby wrote: "raising tariffs will only lower everyones standard of living"

That's a subjective opinion and, in any case, that is a choice that should be put to the Australian public as the choice to remove tariffs never was.

I think, unlike the case for Australia's lazy self-satisfied elites who are driving this country and the planet to ruin to satiate their own rapacious selfish greed, the majority of Australians would be prepared to pay whatever cost was necessary to make Australia self-reliant again.
Posted by daggett, Saturday, 12 April 2008 6:00:33 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
Daggett, why on earth would Australia want to compete, making pairs of shoes
that wholesale for 5 $ or t shirts that wholesale for 3$ ?

I remind you that niche is where the money is and lots of niche means huge amounts
of money, for those that do it right. No wonder that the trade balances of Switzerland,
Germany and Japan, are all so healthy. They all do niche.

Bally shoes are still made in Switzerland. So are Rolex watches, Cartier watches
and a number of others. Pharmaceuticals, another niche industry. Hermes handbags
sell for 5000$ a pop and the fastest growing market for luxury goods is in fact China!

Germany is racing ahead with IT equipment, solar cells, etc. All niche industries,
booming.

The Australian company that builds DBS seeders, exports them to Africa, Asia,
all over the place. They would cost around quarter of a million $ each, but they
are way behind in filling orders, as they canít find the labour in Australia. Western
Australia is the State of full employment!

If consumer goods were forced to be made in Australia, the losers would be the poor.
For their price would skyrocket, the poor could no longer afford them. I note that
even pensioners now can afford to own a few power tools and do their hobby crafts,
since China started making cheaper versions. Heavy duty industrial power tools
are still made elsewhere. There will always be 2 markets, one based on price,
one based on quality and niche.

Scanpan for instance, have been a huge hit in Australia. Made in Denmark, with high
cost labour.

That high tariffs lower standards of living is not a subjective opinion, its been analysed to death.
Keating, Hawke etc, understood all this 25 years ago, thatís
why they acted as they did. Sounds like you are 25 years behind the times Daggett :)

.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 12 April 2008 8:59:44 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
Yabby,

I notice, you have dodged my point about giving the Australian public some say in whether or not we should rebuild a healthy manufacturing sector by the use of tariffs, if necessary.

How about quantifying exactly what proportion of the export incomes of the countries to which you refer is made up of these specialised and boutique products? How does the income earned by Switzerland by export of luxury items compared to what it earns by banking? How does the income gained from those specialised Australian exports to which you refer measure up against the income gained from export of minerals and real estate? I would suggest to you, in the scheme of things, very little.

In any case, can the world afford economy afford much longer to support the wealthy elites who have the incomes to buy the Rolexes, Hermes handbags etc? I somehow doubt it.

If the free market propaganda peddling for the last three decades had any basis, then Australia would have already arrived at a state where we would have a healthy manufacturing sector. It wouldn't be held out to us as it is by Senator Kim Carr as a dream yet to be attained at some indeterminant point in the future.

We are now living with the consequences of having allowed our economy to be opened up to global free market forces, that is the destruction of much of the manufacturing sector we once had and the transformation of the basis of our economy to the unsustainable export of our mineral wealth and the sale of real estate. No amount of wishful thinking will change that until our governments begin to actively intervene in our economy again.

The issue is not about competing on the world market with exports from slave-wage economies. The issue is about making this country sustainably self-reliant and giving everyone within it a dignified means to earn an income.
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 13 April 2008 12:23:25 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
Friend Daggett... you are talking to the proverbial brick wall. Yabby is another of those who will never respond to empirical challenges; and who is so isolated from his/her fellow humans as to be either oblivious of the misery in which one in five Australians now live, or simply not care.

Yabby's is the signature sentiment of the elite's blow-jobbers; the drones who nibble and lick the bloated queen; and we are not talking worker bees here, but termites who chew away on the foundation timbers of Australian sovereign independence and prosperity.

These are the political groupies who so slavishly worshiped Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, John Button, Gareth Evans and John Howard as these traitors sold out the Australian nation.

In my more self-indulgent moments, I like to imagine these treasonous criminals lined up on the gallows; although I suppose our softer hearted Aussies mates would probably settle for 'Life with Hard Labour'.

I would not argue, after all, one day's labour of any kind would kill them anyway.

But getting back to your central observation, much to Yabby's chagrin the decision is neither mine nor yours. In a democracy, it must be the consensus of all Australians that we restore tariffs. I imagine that you, as well I, will be happy to go along with the judgement of our fellow Aussies. But democracy is really what Yabby hates.
Posted by Tony Ryan oziz4oz, Sunday, 13 April 2008 1:59:47 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
Daggett I certainly did not dodge your question. For anyone who thinks a bit, it is
bleeding obvious that the Australian public vote every day of their lives with their
wallets, as to which companies manufacturing in Australia, are any good
and offer customers value for money. Just recently I bought a Mig welder for
3500$. I bought Australian made, as I wanted quality, not an el cheapo that only
half works. Similarly, when BHP or other companies buy new equipment for
their workshops, price is only one factor, certainly not the dominant one.

Why do you want to deny consumers the right to vote with their wallets?

Luxury items are just one of many niche products made by countries with intelligent
manufacturing industries. You might be fascinated by cheap consumer goods, but
open your eyes to the real market. Cheap consumer goods are only a small section.

Why do people buy Miele household appliances, Grohe taps and a whole host of
other things from a place like Germany? Because bargain price appeals to only
a section of the community and economy. Go to your supermarket, you will see
Hero jam, Lindt chocolate, none of them cheap and made with slave labour.

Niche is where the money is, from specialised mining equipment to you name it.
Why on earth should Australia compete in areas where it does not have a comparative advantage?

You might not like the new millionaires, but I gather from CNN that China now
has one million of them, in $ terms. Nearly all became wealthy in the last 10 years.
They are prepared to pay for status, so why not sell them expensive dreams?

Australiaís biggest problem in developing a competitive manufacturing sector
will be not enough skilled labour. Good staff are always hard to find and they
will be snapped up by the booming mining sector which can outbid industries
such as manufacturing and agriculture.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 13 April 2008 3:17:58 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
Of course, it is to be expected that Yabby would have us believe that consumer choice within a market economy is the same as democracy. However, if we don't accept that, my point still stands. The Australian public were never asked if they wanted to see their manufacturing sector sacrificed in a globalised race to the bottom. If given the choice once again, I believe they would ask for the restoration of tariff walls for reasons given above.

The argument that superior technical skills of workers in First World countries can indefinitely safeguard their jobs against competition from slave-wage economies, as Yabby would have us believe could be done, was comprehensive demolished by Geoff Davies in Economia (2004). On page 150 the example of the manufacture of the Boeing 737 being relocated from the US to China is given:

"Boeing machinists and engineers did not need higher technological skill; they were already acknowledged to be the most advanced workforce in the global industry. And tens of thousands of them were losing their jobs, many of them permanently."

Yabby has still failed to quantify the actual amount earned and the number of workers employed in the niche manufacturing sectors. As I said before, in all likelihood, they would count for little in the overall scheme of things. Should any of these niche manufacturing sectors grow to a point where they would earn a significant amount of foreign exchange, then in all likelihood, their workers would suffer the same fate as Boeing's workers.

---

Tony Ryan, I appreciate your concern, but please be assured that I am not attempting to convince a brick wall. I just happen to think it is worth some minimal effort to show others where that brick wall is wrong.

Whilst I have been burnt by encounters with trolls in the past, I don't expect the same will happen again very easily. As a warning to others of how just one troll can destroy what would otherwise be an informative and useful discussion, I urge them to look at the forum discussion at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6697#103811&page=0
Posted by daggett, Monday, 14 April 2008 2:16:54 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
I may be very much on my own here, but to me the value of this and any other discussion is entirely in the action that follows.

Most certainly, I have found that most contributions are positive, but only one in ten is informative; which is why I am here.

However, in recent years, a virulent form of elitism has emerged in Australia, typified by the loud presumption of Yabby and his ilk that other Aussies have money to invest. My organisation's surveys show that 68% of Aussies have incomes below $29,000. There is nothing democratic about this systemic denial of access to investment or any other kind of wealth.

As has been well reported, one family in three has cut back on food to pay for fuel to get to work. One in five survive on less than $15,000.Currently, if my surveys are accurate, 54% of Australians cannot afford adequate nutrition, medical or dental care; and are dying prematurely in slow motion.

A single organisation exists to address this issue; the Tariff Restoration Bloc (TRB), which represents small political parties, independent candidates and their supporters, the Small Business Forum, and a variety of reform-oriented publications and their readers.

Unless I am missing some more hidden theatre of action on the Australian political landscape, this is the only entity that pursues the single objective of restoring tariffs. It is reasonable, therefore, to contend that if the TRB fails to achieve its goal, we can say goodbye forever to egalitarian and democratic Australia.

So perhaps I can be forgiven for viewing forum participants in terms of their likely future contributions for and against a just and prosperous Australian nation.

If there is a more real world perspective I would like to be made aware of it.
Posted by Tony Ryan oziz4oz, Monday, 14 April 2008 10:02:44 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
Daggett, you have yet to point out why consumers voting with their wallets every
day, is not highly democratic. In fact it is far more democratic, then being
given a vote every few years, with lots of issues bundled into one single vote.

Anyone is free to buy Australian every single day, if they wish.

I remind you that Boeing is still made in the USA. Their main competition
is not China at all, but Europe.

I certainly have not done a comprehensive and detailed analysis for you, firstly
about the definition of niche, secondly how huge it is (most of manufacturing)

That is not my job, unless somebody pays for it.

What I do assume is that most posters on OLO have a little bit of common sense.
In your case, I am clearly expecting too much.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 14 April 2008 10:07:14 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
Kim Carr's proposals are yet another protection racket disguised as an industry policy.

The reviews of the automobile and TCF industries have wrongly bypassed the Productivity Commission and instead employed known protectionists that will likely recommend further protection, in the form of tariffs and subsidies, for both industries.

Industry protection is costly to both consumers and the broader economy. Not only does protection artificially inflate the cost of goods and increase the general level of taxation, it also encourages bad management, poor working practices and a general climate of complacency, while diverting labour and capital from efficient industries. The fact that all of the available workers recently retrenched from Mitsubishi were quickly redeployed to other more productive jobs is evidence of my last point.

If Carr truly wants to increase the level of innovation and boost productivity, he should remove barriers to import competition not increase them.
Posted by Leith, Monday, 14 April 2008 4:58:31 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
Presumably if John Howard had cancelled the 2007 elections and had declared martial law, Australia would still be a democracy according to Yabby's logic, just as long as Australians were still free to choose whether or not to buy Australian made products.

Yabby wrote: "I certainly have not done a comprehensive and detailed analysis for you, firstly about the definition of niche, secondly how huge it is (most of manufacturing)."

"That is not my job, unless somebody pays for it."

I wasn't asking for a comprehensive and detailed analysis. I was just asking for you to provide meaningful figures that would have allowed me to put the occasional Australian manufacturing success story in its proper overall context.

If you choose not to substantiate your claims, it's your funeral and not mine.

In regard to China and Boeing, the point remains that Boeing has offshored a lot of its work to China where wages are lower and many Boeing employees lost their jobs as a result. It's clear from the is example that even being highly skilled is no guarantee that your job won't be lost to workers who are paid less.
Posted by daggett, Tuesday, 15 April 2008 2:06:32 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
TONY RYAN.. you said 2 important things (among others)

1/ <<we export and import to make elites rich, not because this is intrinsically required in terms of text book economics.>>

2/ <<We could be self sustaining.>>

The downside also, of us being self sustaining, (which is a laudable ideal) would be our consequent possible vulnerability to military threat.

Unfortunately, all alliances come at a cost- Usually economic, and sometimes territorial.
One only need to read the books of Kings in the old testament to see what it cost the various kings who were under threat..and then, history in general also testifies to this.

AUSTRALIA CAN ONLY SURVIVE BY NICHE MANUFACTURING... says Yabby and supported by Dagget.

NO NO NO!.. how we wish.... sorry, as someone on China related thread said... they have 100s of dedicated engineers coming up with new, innovative and more producable things than we can ever hope to achieve..simply by weight of numbers.

Such a mantra might be like a soothing balm to our weary hearts, but the finely tuned 'mind' knows different.

Unfortunately, what we are in reality witnessing, in the big historical picture view, is nothing less than the actual decay of Western Dominance and Economic well being, not to mention power. This will have only ONE predictable result, along with a few sub plots.

CHINA will treat us as we treated them when we made megabucks from their squalor and opium addiction. (no surprise there)

INDIA will compete with China for that position, and will remember that during the British Colonial times, ALL manufacturing was concentrated in the hands of British interests, and nothing of note was shared with Indians. (if you can believe Mahatma Ghandi)

END GAME.
What will become of us? Well.. Unions will kick and scream while factory after factory closes, and jobs go overseas, gradually (as todays headlines state) Food and shelter(homes) are becoming much less affordable. Eventually.. we will find ourselves humbled, poor and dependant.. or.. there will be WAR.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 15 April 2008 8:22:27 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
*Presumably if John Howard had cancelled the 2007 elections and had declared martial law, Australia
would still be a democracy according to Yabby's logic*

No Daggett, that is you trying to create a strawman argument, attributing things
to me that I did not say.

*If you choose not to substantiate your claims, it's your funeral and not mine.*

If you choose not to do your homework and examine economies such as those
in Swtzerland, Germany etc, to understand why they still do so well, despite
paying high wages, then that is your problem, not mine.

But Australia has another problem, because of the booming mining industry,
we just donít have the workers. Virtually every manufacturing industry that
I know of, is complaining of a shortage.

*Boeing has offshored a lot of its work to
China where wages are lower*

So what? The bulk of their work is still in the US. Meantime, take a look around
you at new companies created in the last 10-15 years. Silicon Valley, the whole
IT industry, PC industry, Google, Microsoft etc. The world keeps changing
get used to it.

*even being highly skilled is no guarantee that your job won't be lost to workers
who are paid less.*

If you have skills and the economy is diversified, then even if one door closes,
another opens. Why are you so terrified of change?
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 15 April 2008 10:32:32 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
Yabby wrote: "No Daggett, that is you ... attributing things to me that I did not say."

I never claimed you said that. I claimed that that is where your logic led. Read your own words again: "In fact it is far more democratic, then being given a vote every few years, ..." and tell me why my conclusion is wrong.

Yabby wrote: "But Australia has another problem, because of the booming mining industry, we just don't have the workers. Virtually every manufacturing industry thatI know of, is complaining of a shortage. "

What you are doing is focussing on circumstances in one state at one particular point in our history, in isolation from all other considerations, and, from that, drawing the conclusion that these circumstances will apply indefinitely into the future.

This is exactly what happened when similar deceitful claims were made about an alleged IT skills shortage starting in 1999. As a result restrictions on the importation of IT professionals were lifted. In conjunction with the off-shoring of IT work, this led to IT graduates for years afterwards being unable to obtain employment in the industry.

Those who anticipated these problems were ignored by those hysterically clamouring for knee-jerk short term solutions, just as you are doing now, whilst refusing to substantiate their claims with hard facts and figures.

Yabby wrote: "Why are you so terrified of change?"

What a stupid question!

I would have thought, in a democracy, the onus should have been on those seeking to change the status quo to prove their case, rather than on those seeking to preserve it.

The real solution to the skills shortages problem that you identify is for more, and not less, government intervention in the economy. A government with its focus on the job would have anticipated the skills shortages problems, whether real and imagined, which exist today and would have either:

1. Made funding available for the training or re-training of workers, or
2. Controlled the growth of sectors such as mining and property development so that the rest of the economy would not have suffered.
Posted by daggett, Tuesday, 15 April 2008 11:58:07 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
Tim Carr has adopted the strategy of embracing the values of Aussie critics, then purports to incorporate these values in trade policies.

For example, he almost tearfully lauds Aussie manufacturing as the creator of genuine full time jobs. Meanwhile, his crony, Simon Crean, invites one of the world corporate giants, Tata of India, to colonise Australia. Not abashed by his own largesse (the gift of our livelihoods and survival) he also paves the way for IT predators Infoseys and Uniys to expand the new Indian Raj of Oz (nodding to your insights here, Boaz). And we have all seen what China is doing to our food producers (two thirds gone) and manufacturers (one third dead).

This is cynical formulaic politics; not good government... which is what the Oz Constitution specifically calls for.

Another example is his reference to skills shortages and training, while his NSW buddy Frank Satour is selling off TAFEs and secondary schools to developers, like toffee apples at sausage sizzles.

Likewise, he refers to the water crisis. In fact there are two separate crises. The first is the cyclical drought we have suffered since settlement, and the second was created by the driving of the rural and regional populations into cities; a one million person urban migration of three decade's duration; precipitated by tariff removal's destruction of family farms, and exacerbated by refugees and migrants. Restore tariffs and we resolve our urban water problem, not to mention the urban housing availability crisis.
Posted by Tony Ryan oziz4oz, Tuesday, 15 April 2008 1:11:10 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
Daggett, clearly your logic is not very logical :)

Voting for a Govt is one thing. Letting people make decisions about their lives
is another. People decide which schools they send their kids to, private of public.
People decide if they go to public or private hospitals. People decide if they
go to church or not. People decide what goods they want to buy. That does not
mean that elections have to be cancelled.

You clearly think that Govts should control everything. Perhaps you are a control
freak :) I think that people know better what is good for themselves then Govt.
On that we will always agree to disagree.

If people want better paying jobs, they are free to educate themselves, do a trade,
whatever. If there is no work where they live, well move to where there is work.

There are still plenty of IT jobs out there. Its just that a small % of the population
are difficult types, so employers try to avoid hiring them. Good employees will
always find jobs. At the end of the day, the idea is that employees are hired to
make the company money. It should not be the other way around, or why bother
to employ them?

It is not just WA that is booming. I tried to buy some equipment from Northern
Queensland. He knocked back my order, not enough staff, canít find any.

Meatworks all over Australia canít find staff. The list goes on.

You being terrified of change is certainly not a stupid observation. IMHO it is
your problem. We live in a fast changing world, the most permanent thing in
life is change. Those who adapt thrive, those who donít, well they will sulk for
the rest of their lives. So be it.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 15 April 2008 8:20:24 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
Could some patient person with exceptional communication skills explain to Yabby that a person on $15,000 per year does not get to choose what school to send his children to, what car to purchase, what shares to invest in, or what home to purchase.

Then explain very slowly that 54% of the Australian population actually means more than half of his fellow Aussies.

The inescapable conclusion, based on Yabby's clearly exposed values, is that those thus unemployed or retired are lazy, incompetent, ignorant or stupid; or all of these.

My experience has been that most of these victims are no such thing. They have been marginalised to create an impoverished and pliable work force. If Yabby approves of this then he is indeed sociopathic.
Posted by Tony Ryan oziz4oz, Tuesday, 15 April 2008 9:13:51 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
Yabby is once again doing exactly what he accused me of, that is, putting into my mouth words I did not say. I wrote: "Presumably if John Howard had cancelled the 2007 elections and had declared martial law, Australia would still be a democracy according to Yabby's logic ..."

What did I ever write that could be construed as saying "elections have to be cancelled"?

I am not interested in Yabby's subjective view of what he claims the state of the IT job market is in 2008. I am pointing out that the hysterical clamouring by IT employers for hasty knee-jerk responses to a claimed IT skill shortages in 1999 led to a glut of IT professionals in this country. The result was that for many years, experienced IT professionals as well as large numbers of graduates, were unable to obtain work in the vocation in which they had trained for many years afterwards. Many of those are still unable to obtain work.

I think this example illustrates how we need to be very wary when Yabby's ilk similarly shriek for knee-jerk responses about claimed skills shortages in 2008.

In the manner to which many of us have already become accustomed, Yabby's response is, without any basis, to attribute the problem to shortcomings in the IT workers who lost their jobs as if suddenly a large number of graduates and experienced professionals who had been previously able to achieve gainful employment had suddenly become "difficult types".

It may be instructive to others to see how, in another discussion thread "Housing affordability squeezed by speculators", Yabby similarly resorted to attributing the worsening crisis of housing unaffordability to the supposed personal shortcomings of those struggling to pay rents or mortgages. See, as just one of many examples, how Yabby referred to one (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4834&page=0#98113) as "the 25 year old kid who spat the dummy" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6697&page=0#103757). (It is most interesting that Yab-bot declined to comment further when I cited statistics of mortgage foreclosures (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6697&page=0#105094).)
Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 16 April 2008 8:26:46 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
Daggett, if John Howard had cancelled the elections and had declared martial law,
Australia would not have a democracy, period. Either you understand that or
you donít. Forget the strawman arguments. I canít remember you mentioning
mortgage foreclosures, perhaps I never bothered to go back to the thread.

Tony, your figures sound quite plausible, by some of the stats that I have seen.
One was that we have around 8 million taxpayers and the same amount of recipients
of welfare. Only something like 65% of the population works and some of those
part time.

We have a whole lot of people on invalid pensions, carers, widows, old age pensioners, you name it, they are on pensions. We spend over 90 billion on them.
Mind you, lots of those on invalid pensions will still do cash jobs, but that is
another story :)

At one of the local banks they employ something like 8 women. Only one is full
time, she is the junior. The rest are married women whose husbands do pretty
well, so they only want to work 2-3 days a week at most. They would also be
classified as ďlow paidĒ, according to you.

I had a look in Saturdayís paper to have a look what jobs were offered. Just a small
fraction of them.

Roof tilers - 350$ a day
Concreters Ė 32$ an hour
Truckies - 25$ an hour
Sparkies Ė 40$ an hour
Brickies labourers Ė 180$ a day
Brickies - 320$ a day
Grader operators - 32$ an hour
Coles dist centre unskilled staff Ė minimum 22.50 an hour plus various bonuses
Cleaners - 20$ an hour.

Clearly there are heaps of jobs out there for good money, for those who get off their
butts and want to work.

I once employed a 17 year old fresh from school, in the early 90s. Whilst her friends
bought cds, make up, designer clothes etc, she lived at home, saved her pennies and
when she had 12í000$ together, she bought Westpac shares for 3$ each. Have
a look what they are worth now
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 16 April 2008 12:47:18 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
Yabby

Your reasonable response was appreciated.

However, my surveys are physically person-to-person and average 25 minutes per participant. My survey interview training and experience goes back to the mid 1970s, whereupon I consistently turned Commonwealth stats on its head; and later, commercial market research.

Secondly, I am not trying to persuade anyone; only provide info and context for those who want to know more.

The vast majority of workers on part-time wages want full time, and a return to sick leave and paid holidays. The bored mums element don't even measure on the statistical scale. Rather they are mums who sacrifice parenting time to make ends meet. They do not say say this out of respect for their spouse's pride. Believe me, this is something I have researched deeply since 1985.

And ignore advertised wages of contractors. Ask the individuals what they actually take home after overheads. I associate with a lot of tradies and none of them take home anything like what you quote.

But even here, these are the trained tradesmen. The vast majority of workers out there cannot afford to upgrade skills; the courses are too expensive on a small family budget, and the TAFEs are too distant from home.

Finally, advertised wages are rarely what is paid. And then there is the tourist and hospitality industry wherein slavery is practised. Yes, I am talking working human beings 7 hour days without pay, except a nominal amount for overtime, and the payment of visas and airfares. Only they don't call this slavery, but internship. The Industrial Relations Inspectors would not tell me the real figures, but admitted this is rife. The Minister's advisor would not deny it either.

But by all means, check this out for yourself.
Posted by Tony Ryan oziz4oz, Wednesday, 16 April 2008 3:23:37 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
Tony,

Sorry to have to differ, but whilst your own posts, including your most recent, were both reasonable and informative, the same cannot be said of Yabby's.

Yabby simply ignores arguments and evidence which don't support his world view and proceeds to restate the same tired irrelevant points which he has already put time and time again before, but this time in a slightly altered guise.

Yabby, the fact that there is an (ecologically unsustainable) economic boom of sorts in Western Australia is not under dispute. What I do dispute is your contention that Australia can ever have a significant manufacturing sector in a globalised world economy with competition from so many slave-wage economies. You have yet to quantify exactly how what proportion of Australia's export income is comprised of manufactured items. The fact that none of the job advertisements you cited relate in any obvious way to the manufacturing sector would seem to further reinforce the point I have been making.

---

Yabby wrote, "I canít remember you mentioning mortgage foreclosures, perhaps I never bothered to go back to the thread."

Silly me!

Here I was thinking that Yabby had run away from the discussion because he had made a complete ass of himself (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6697&page=0#103825), when, in fact as I now have learnt after making 59 posts (or rather, three posts over and over again), he had simply LOST INTEREST.

Well, please Yabby, don't, on my account, feel any obligation to post 52 more times to this forum. Please don't hang around this discussion for one moment longer than it holds any interest for you.

---

Yabby wrote "I once employed a 17 year old fresh from school, ..."

I heard that one before, too (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6697#102298). Just as well she didn't invest her $13,000 in sub-prime mortagages.

Tell me, Yabby, what do you see as the essential difference between investing on the stock market and gambling?
Posted by daggett, Thursday, 17 April 2008 2:00:43 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
Tony, yes tax has to be deducted etc, but everyone pays that.
There is still good money available for those wanting to work.
Perhaps rates are higher in WA, then they are in the East.

As to people being unable to get to a TAFE centre or other
place to learn, they will if they want to. They can get to
the footy or similar, if they want to. All this stuff is
about attitude, some want to help themselves and move ahead,
others prefer to just complain.

I used to employ nearly exclusively women and there were
lots of reasons why they came to work. Single ones wanted
full time work, those married with a family, were far more
keen to create a balance between work, family etc, which
included flexible hours to suit. 2-3 days was more then
emough, most of the time. They also came to work for the social
side of things. Women just happen to enjoy telling other women
how they feel and work is a great place to do it, if everyone
gets along. So money was not the big driving factor.

IMHO the days of everyone going back to full time work, with
holidays and sick leave etc, are over. That is fine for Govt
or some large companies in some situations, that is about it.
Add 9% super, insurance, payroll tax etc, and in business you cannot
afford to have people who are not fully occupied, its too competitive
these days. Demand for labour varies and the best solution is
flexibility of labour, to suit demand. Productivity matters
these days.

Daggett, I just listed a few common straight forward jobs. If
I started listing the demands from the export sector, the list
would have gone off the page.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 17 April 2008 4:43:52 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
Yabby wrote: "There is still good money available for those wanting to work."

I was shocked to learn, recently, from a friend who was an experienced secretary that she was earning the princely sum of $15 per hour in Brisbane. No doubt, Yabby would tell her to spend her nights at TAFE retraining as concreter and move to Western Australia. And, if she were not to immediately act upon his advice, Yabby's retort would no doubt be:

"... All this stuff is about attitude, some want to help themselves and move ahead, others prefer to just complain."

---

Yabby wrote: "Daggett, I just listed a few common straight forward jobs. If I started listing the demands from the export sector, the list would have gone off the page."

As I said, I am still waiting for evidence that manufacturing exports amount to a significant part of the Australian economy. All you have done is shown that there are jobs available in parts of the Australia due to the boom in both mining and housing development, which even a fool should be able to see is unsustainable.
Posted by daggett, Thursday, 17 April 2008 10:12:29 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
It's definitely worth getting a copy of the most recent edition of Dissent Magazine (RRP= $7.70 Anunal subscription = $22.00 http://www.dissent.com.au PO Box 26, Deakin West ACT 2600) just for John M. Legge's excellent review of Naomi Klein's excellent "The Shock Doctrine" (RRP $32.95). It covers the subject of protectionism. John Legge writes:

"With the exception of Britain every developed country in the world (and the once-developed countries of South America) built its domestic manufacturing industries behind a tariff barrier. The effect was generally a slight increase in domestic prices accompanied by a very large increase in well-paid jobs in the manufacturing industry: the bargain was and still is well-understood and in spite of remorseless rhetoric of free trade economists, the majority of the population in every developed country believes in moderate tariffs and the preservation of good jobs. ..."
Posted by cacofonix, Thursday, 17 April 2008 2:58:39 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
Daggett/cacafonix, show me where I said that manufacturing exports were a
significant part of the Australian economy, as you claim. More strawman arguments
from you, as expected.

As I have said all along, Australian manufacturing got fat and lazy, hiding behind
huge tariff walls. Well the sheep collapsed in the end, you canít ride on its back
anymore. Now you ride on the back of mining, until you learn to make a living
in the real world, as the rest of the world has to.

Manufacturing in Australia today is largely geared towards supplying mining and
farming with niche products. Some of those products are also exported.

Some niche manufacturing industries, such as exporting ferries worth 70 million$
each, are actually doing quite well. But they cannot expand due to a labour shortage,
so are moving off shore more and more.

Australia is already protected by moderate tariffs. The MV industry, Nufarm etc,
all protected by moderate import tariffs.

The problem was that Australian tariffs were not moderate, but outrageous.

As an exporter at the time, I was competing on global markets, yet having to
pay for inputs with 140% tariff protection! The result was that our products were
far less competitive, as people in Melbourne, were getting fat and lazy hiding behind
that kind of protection.

With a mere 20 million population, what you land up with is lots of little monopolies,
thriving behind tariff walls, rather then efficient industries.

Perhaps that is what Daggett/Cacafonix is after. Extremely little work for huge pay.
It wonít work, sorry.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 17 April 2008 3:47:26 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
Perhaps Leith or Yabby would care to comment on a story in today's Courier Mail:

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23554201-5003402,00.html

Fisher Paykel does not fear backlash after job cuts

FISHER & Paykel Appliances Holdings Ltd is confident its decision to axe 740 jobs in Australia and New Zealand will not prompt a local consumer backlash.
The New Zealand company is closing its Brisbane plant with the loss of 310 jobs as part of a strategy to concentrate its production operations in Thailand, Mexico and Italy.

Another 430 jobs will go at the whitegoods maker's Dunedin, New Zealand, plant and 330 jobs will go at its DCS cooking plant in California.

...

Mr Bongard attributed the decision to globalisation - as developed countries struggle to compete with low labour costs in developing countries - exacerbated by local factors.

The Fisher & Paykel chief cited the high New Zealand dollar, complex and expensive compliance costs in manufacturing in Australia and New Zealand and free trade agreements with China and Thailand as factors.

"When you're having to compete on a playing field where you've got zero tariffs from low cost countries, it doesn't matter how smart and how tough our guys are, you can't compete against unlike economies,'' he said.

Labor costs in Mexico, where Fisher & Paykel has acquired a plant from rival US whitegoods maker Whirlpool, are one sixth the cost of labor in New Zealand, he said.

In terms of its local manufacturing operations, the restructure leaves Fisher & Paykel with refrigeration and production machinery facilities in Auckland with 350 workers.

...

Fisher & Paykel, which has been a substantial manufacturer in New Zealand for almost 70 years, expects to to save $NZ14.5 million ($12.24 million) per annum by closing the Dunedin plant, after a one off cost of $NZ26.0 million ($21.95 million), pre-tax.

The company, which started manufacturing in Australia almost 20 years ago, will start the relocation of the Brisbane pant to Thailand by March 31, 2009.
Posted by cacofonix, Thursday, 17 April 2008 3:57:11 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
One of the comforts of being a thorough researcher is that one can compare real world scenarios.

The 1950s and 1960s were the greatest period of prosperity in Australian history.

This was also the period of maximum union influence and protective tariffs.

Let me put a human face on this. We were all happy. We all could buy a home. We all could have a holiday. We all could buy a car, or two. We were all healthy, and we knew we lived in the greatest country on Earth.

What fool would say this today.

The difference? Compliance with the WTO, WB and IMF dictums.

Yabby; you are either blind, a sociopath, or both. Either way, I give up treating you like a rational and emotionally balanced human being. Contrary to your claims, no significant trade factor on this planet has changed since those times. Only absurd trade ideology. Further discussion is pointless.
Posted by Tony Ryan oziz4oz, Friday, 18 April 2008 12:06:35 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
Tony, in the 50s and 60s, Australia rode on the sheep's back. That
sheep eventually collapsed from all the weight that you put on it.
Now you are riding on mining's back.

If you think that Australia can live in blissfull isolation from
the rest of the world, think again.

People who are economic realists, like Keating and others, are
aware of the fundamentals, you clearly are not.

Daggett, its really up to F&P, if they want to manufacture
whitegoods here or not. Personally, all the whitegoods that
I buy are Australian made, so they will lose me as a customer.

With our near full employment levels, those workers will soon
be absorbed by other industries.

Whilst Australia still imposes taxes like payroll tax etc on
manufacturing, plus a heap of beurocratic nightmares to go along
with it all, I certainly don't blame anyone for moving offshore.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 18 April 2008 9:22:07 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
I will keep on repeating this, to counteract the propaganda of the neo-feudalists:

Bulletin Gallop survey of 1999... More than 23% without a job that pays a livable wage (the whole point of having a job).

Survey by the Australian Independent, July 2006... 19% unemployed; and a more conservative assessment than the Bulletin/Gallop.

All Job Network offices between Maroochydore and Emerald; 2007-2008... absolute consensus that national unemployment is 20%.

This is 5% higher than for any sustained period of the Great Depression; yet the ALP Governments (the worker's party - ha ha) is about to introduce mass scale third world workers to Australia.

I request that readers either accept my quoted figures and repeat these at every opportunity, OR do their own research and surveys and proselytise the results. The criminal propaganda of the Government, BBC and SBS, and Murdoch media must be rebutted.
Posted by Tony Ryan oziz4oz, Friday, 18 April 2008 11:51:47 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
Here's some more great news about Fisher & Paykel. (Note how the sackings are a consequence of the China New Zealand Free Trade agreement. Australia is now also negotiating an FTA agreement with China):

http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,23559063-462,00.html
Fisher & Paykel jump after mass firings
By Gavin Evans April 18, 2008 12:00am
Article from: Herald Sun

NEW Zealand's Fisher & Paykel (F&P) Appliances jumped almost 12 per cent yesterday after the company announced plans to fire 1070 workers and shift production to Italy, Thailand and Mexico.

In addition to closing its Brisbane plant which gave it the biggest saving of $NZ28.6 million ($24 million) a year, the company will shut factories in NZ and California during the next 18 months.

The moves were forecast to save $NZ50 million a year, after a matching one-time cost, F&P said.

The dual-listed shares jumped 22Ę ... to $2.10 on the ASX.

The closures are the latest by F&P, which last year shifted its electronics and laundry units from Auckland to Thailand, citing the rising NZ dollar, increasing competition and higher steel and plastics costs. A trade accord signed between NZ and China this month will cut tariffs on Chinese-made whitegoods by 2013, increasing competition.

...

F&P managing director John Bongard said "exchange rates, interest rates, FTA agreements and relative labour costs" made it difficult for an NZ manufacturer.

...

F&P said it was investing $US41 million ($A44 million) ... in Mexico, where labour rates are about a sixth of those in NZ and transport is cheaper than the US.

---

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23558203-2702,00.html
Anger as jobs go offshore

...

Unions claim that workers in Thailand will be paid about $2 an hour, while the workers at the Cleveland plant were receiving $18-$21 an hour.

...

"The loss of these jobs is particularly worrying because they are relatively hi-tech and not jobs down the bottom of the manufacturing scale," (said Australian Manufacturing Workers Union national president Julius Roe).
Posted by cacofonix, Saturday, 19 April 2008 12:40:41 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
Yabby wrote: "... show me where I said that manufacturing exports were a significant part of the Australian economy ..."

This argument began when you disputed my statement "In these circumstances, the hope that Australia can ever profitably manufacture any products other than a few specialised niche or boutique products, unless Australian workers are prepared to work for Third World wage levels, is a pipe dream."

You continued: "Funny that Switzerland, Germany, Japan etc, all have very healthy manufacturing industries, none pay third world wages. I once saw a documentary on the Korean shipbuilding industry. No slave wages paid, again it is booming."

The implication that I drew is that Australia could have a large manufacturing sector and pay its workers well without protective tariffs.

Yabby, are you now saying that you no longer dispute what I wrote?
Posted by daggett, Saturday, 19 April 2008 2:11:03 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
No Daggett, what I am saying is that I donít think that the future of Australian
manufacturing lies in making consumer products that compete on price in your
Harvey Norman catalogues. Tariffs wonít create that either.

Manufacturing will play second fiddle to mining, as mining is where the money is,
so they get first choice, when it comes to employees.

http://business.smh.com.au/need-for-coal-fuels-spending-in-hunter/20080418-2740.html

Alone on that one announcement, you are talking 24í000 jobs. Those sorts of
announcements are appearing regularly around Australia. In SA you have a huge
Roxby Downs expansion, in Queensland its coal, in WA its everything, then
various projects in the NT. All those developments not only employ people directly,
but create a demand for all sorts of specialised equipment and services and supplies,
to meet their needs. Manufacturing all those things, where prices is not the driving
factor, is where Australian manufacturing is heading more and more.

Coal has now hit 300$ a tonnes and gas has gone up 10 times in price. In Qld you
have large coal seam gas developments, again lots of specialised equipment.

Farming, being a primary resource driver, has a similar effect, it just doesnít have
the money that mining has. I know a bloke who makes silos for instance. His
production for the next year is sold out, the Chinese are not about to compete with
him and never will, due to comparative advantage. Once again of course, he
canít find more staff, they arenít out there.

When all this profitable manufacturing is available, why should Australia try
to compete with others making cheap consumer goods?
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 19 April 2008 6:43:46 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
Yabby,

You are exhibiting the same thoughtless uncaring attitude that was displayed by those who in the 1980's treated Britain's North Sea gas and oil reserves as if they were an unlimited resource. Now the production of North Sea Oil is declining at the rate of 6% per year (as I seem to recall) and The UK has no long term secure source of energy. Australia's coal is also a finite resource and it will be exhausted sooner than may of us are expecting if we continue to allow it to be exported at an exponentially increasing rate.

If some sectors of the economy, including, as you argue, some niche manufacturing enterprises (which you now seem to agree are not greatly significant to our economy in the overall scheme of things), don't have the necessary workers and are suffering as a consequence, then the Government should not have allowed this situation to develop in the first place. They should have simply acted to slow down the rate of extraction of our mineral resources and housing development at least until the needs of the industries could have been met without harming other sectors of our economy, or they should have properly funded training.

To instead demand that the problem be solved only by the importation of more workers without regard to the other adverse environmental, social and economic consequences is reckless and irresponsible.

It would do no harm to future generations or to the planet's atmosphere to instead simply leave some of our mineral wealth in the ground for the time being.
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 20 April 2008 2:11:06 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
Daggett

Well said. With you all the way.

Yabby

You don't care a toss for the children included in the 54% of Australians whose income is now so low that they cannot afford adequate nutrition to maintain health; a situation that will worsen with imported workers.

Nor do you care about the millions of Australians whose teeth cannot be treated because they do not have the money to pay the over-charging dentists, and who will die an early death from heart failure.

You just don't want to think about the hundreds of thousands of Aussies who will die because they cannot access proper medical care.

None of this happened before your insane free market genocide.

You are definitely among the most dispicable human beings I have encountered and, one day when we have restored our nation to democracy, egalitarian prosperity and justice, I will move heaven and earth to have people like you tracked down and stand trial; and by courts that represent the values of the people.
Posted by Tony Ryan oziz4oz, Sunday, 20 April 2008 10:23:11 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
No thoughtless attitude at all Daggett. Britain flogged a lot of itís oil off for 10$,
very different situation to Australia today. On the back of the China/India growth
story, we are seeing huge prices increases for resources, it makes perfect sense to
sell a few more of them. Last time I looked Australia had something like 76 billion
tonnes of coal, so we are not about to run out in 20 years. Roxby Downs has uranium
that they did not even know about, until they started active drilling when BHP took
over. The coal seam gas is a resource we did not even know was tappable until
recently. To not develop these projects a bit further, whilst the world is screaming for
energy, would be quite foolish. I remind you that if somebody through clever
technology, comes up with the holy grail of energy, they would well be near worthless. Thatís exactly why the Govt flogged off Telstra. They were well aware
that as things move more and more to wireless, those copper wires could well be
worth very little. New technology can bite you in the bum, when you least expect it.

Specialised manufacturing is highly significant in a diversified economy, as all the cogs of the economy works together. Why you insist that we should make Australian
toasters etc and charge consumers a fortune for them, when we can buy them
dirt cheap elsewhere, totally beats me.

Our big problem today is that Aussies have had it too good for too long and many
have lost the work ethic. Many would rather frolic by the seaside, then put in a days
work in an industrial situation. If the job is not a few minutes from home, they
are frankly not interested and donít need to be, as we pamper them. It is pointless
retraining people who have no aptitude or will to work. For those that do, there
is heaps of work for good money.

Tony, donít blame me if some people spend their baby bonuses and many other social security benefits on the pokies, etc.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 20 April 2008 2:07:33 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
Yabby wrote, "it makes perfect sense to sell a few more of them"

It only makes 'perfect sense' to a person who cares nothing for the environment or for future generations. You shown elsewhere both that you are actually aware of the envionmental consequences of the growth of the economies of India and China, but that you don't care. So, instead of trying to stop the rape of this planet, you devote your days on forums such as these to denigrating and insulting those of us who do care enough to try to do something about it. Presumably you are gaining in some way from these appalling circumstances and are unconcerned that others further down the track will have to pay the cost.

---

Yabby wrote, "Specialised manufacturing is highly significant in a diversified economy, as all the cogs of the economy works together."

An economy based largely on mining and housing development with only a tiny manufacturing sector is not what I consider 'diversified'.

Yabby wrote, "Last time I looked Australia had something like 76 billion tonnes of coal, so we are not about to run out in 20 years."

Well, I suggest that you give this issue just a little bit more careful thought. According to page 275 of the Final Energy Crisis(2005 - second edition due in September) edited by Newman (http://candobetter.org/sheila) and McKillop, all the world's coal reserves will be exhausted by 2150 if we simply extract coal at the current rate. If we Increase the rate moderately each year it could all be gone by 2080, if we increase the rate rapidly as we may need to do if we have to make up for the shortfall in petroleum production, it may be all be used up by 2062. And we have to take into account the fact that and that is based upon estimates that may have been optimistic.

So, coal is hardly the limitless resource that Yabby would have us believe it is, but he is clearly unconcerned by what is likely to happen more than 20 years down the track.
Posted by daggett, Monday, 21 April 2008 2:31:10 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
Yabby wrote, "Roxby Downs has uranium that they did not even know about ..."

Of course it would be too much to expect of Yabby to acknowledge the sound moral and environmental case against uranium mining at Roxby Downs.

Who cares if it adds to the proliferation of nuclear weapons making nuclear war practically inevitable? Who cares if the recurrence of nuclear disasters in the mould of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are made practically certain? Who cares if future generations of Australians will have to face the legacy of massive tailings dams from which poisonous clouds of radioactive dust will be deposited by wind on eastern seaboard cities? Who cares if Australian Uranium will further add to the quantity of waste from nuclear power stations which will have to be cared for at least tens of thousands of years into the future?

As long a few Australians stand to gorge themselves today from the profits to be made from uranium mining, why give another thought to problems which that will be left to others to deal with?

---

Yabby ranted, "Our big problem today is that Aussies have had it too good for too long and many have lost the work ethic. blah, blah, blah, etc, ..."

Of course, Yabby. And you are obviously made of sterner moral fibre than that of which all those fellow Australians whom you despise are made.

The problems of which Tony has written are somehow not due to the fact that neo-liberals have been given virtually open slather in Australia for the last 30 years. Rather, it is all because so many Australians, who somehow were previously able to play dignified roles within our society, have suddenly become lazy.

The fact that so many Australians now go without basic dental care is, of course, because they choose to spend all their money on poker machines.

It has nothing to do with the fact that Howard and Costello needlessly and spitefully abolished Labor's Commonwealth dental program and never bothered to restore it even through all those years when their budgets were massively in surplus.
Posted by daggett, Monday, 21 April 2008 1:56:08 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
Daggett

I suppose the fact that social or environmental or humanitarian responsibility issues roll off Yabby like water off a duck's back, at least serves the purposes of demonstrating to other readers the true nature of globalisation supporters. Very alienating.

If I were a political science lecturer, I would be using this and similar sites as a learning tool. Sadly, few if any political science lecturers are not clones of Yabby and his ilk. This is hardly surprising considering that universities were the first targets of David Rockefeller and his UNESCO managers back in 1970, wherein healthy debate and analysis were exchanged for free market doctrines, simultaneously replacing family with state, and promoting any and all minorities above democratic electoral sentiment.
Posted by Tony Ryan oziz4oz, Monday, 21 April 2008 3:07:48 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
Daggett, AFAIK, mining companies need a rehabilitation plan, to restore things
after mining. Certainly that is the case with bauxite here, where a lot of money
is spent doing exactly that.

If you think that a mere 20 million Australians, are going to sit on huge piles
of resources, refusing to sell them, whilst the rest of the world runs out, think again.
You clearly know nothing about nature or history, for I assure you, they will simply
take what they need. Australia cannot live isolated from the global economy, that
is the reality. Resources is what people have fought wars over, throughout history,
when they get scarce, people fight. Our 3 planes and 2 ships are not going to stop
them either lol.

If Saudi Arabia cut the oil tap tomorrow, in order to preserve oil for the futue,
I can assure you, the Americans would move in fairly quickly.

Yes, the world faces a crisis, ever more people, nobody says boo. 9-10 billion
is accepted as a given. That fact is not even being addressed by the international
community. So most likely the planet will be raped in the name of ever increasing
populations. I have argued for 30 years about the population factor, people donít
care. I have long ago learnt to stop worrying about the things that I cannot change,
so have no sleepless nights because of it.

Manufacturing does not have to be tiny at all. Specialised manufacturing can be
huge, as we see in counties like Switzerland, with no resources. But they are based
on intellectual property etc, not on trying to compete with the Chinese making
toasters. Or of course, building specialised equipment for primary wealth generators,
like farming and mining.

Last time I checked, the Australian coal industry claimed to have about 200 years of
reserves, with new deposits still being discovered. We are not about to run out
tomorrow.

If kids need dental care, there is enough money in the kitty to pay for it, generated by
the resources industry, not by Australian exports of toasters.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 21 April 2008 3:12:35 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
Once more, I see Yabby has displayed his considerable skill at dragging red herrings across the trail, changing the subject just at the point when the case he is putting is starting to unravel and adding noise and repetition to the discussion, rather than useful information.

The classic refrains of those who have contempt for the democratic rights of those who wish to to stop policies which are against the public interest are: we have no choice, everyone else is doing it, we will be invaded next week if we even stop to think about what is happening, etc, etc.

---

Yabby, how about we first of all reach a conclusion as to whether digging out our mineral wealth right now and poisoning this whole continent is desirable before we discuss whether we have any choice?
Posted by daggett, Tuesday, 22 April 2008 4:36:30 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
No red herrings Dagget, either you can think about the big picture
or you can't. Meantimes you continue to try and create strawman
arguments.

No evidence that the whole continent is being poisoned either.
No evidence that the Australian public are concerned about increased
mining either. It was not even an election issue, just a few fringe
dwellers like yourself think it is.

At present its actually the Rudd Govt pushing for increasing mining.
Some gas explorers had capped wells for the future and I note they
have been told that they should develop those resources or risk
losing the rights to them.

Of course its your democratic right to put forward your extremist
ideas, its my democratic right to point out that you are peeing
in the breeze.

Sulk all you want, the rest of us have moved on.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 22 April 2008 8:42:37 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
Yabby wrote: "AFAIK, mining companies need a rehabilitation plan, to restore things after mining. Certainly that is the case with bauxite here, where a lot of money is spent doing exactly that."

But we are talking about uranium mining and tailings dams. What's rehabilitation for bauxite mining got to do with this?

"No evidence that the whole continent is being poisoned either."

What about this:

"Bad Developers" at http://www.baddevelopers.green.net.au/Docs/roxby.htm (go to section headed "Recent spills at the Olympic Dam Mine")

"The Tailings Leak at Roxby Downs" at
http://www.ccsa.asn.au/nic/UMining/Roxbyleak.htm?

... or:

"Chronology of uranium tailings dam failures" at http://www.wise-uranium.org/mdafu.html

... or:

David Bradbury's Film "Blowin' in the Wind" at http://www.bsharp.net.au/htm/reviews.htm ?

David Bradbury is concerned that it may prove to be impossible to keep properly contained all the massive amount of toxic dust the tailings dams that are to store. "Over the lifetime of the uranium mine at Roxby Downs it is estimated that there will be a 30-metre high, 1000 hectare pile of radioactive tailings left. The Adelaide CBD covers 260 hectares." (http://www.baddevelopers.green.net.au/Docs/roxby.htm). Almost certainly, large amounts will be picked up by the winds and blown eastwards.

I would have though that Yabby, being the expert on Uranium mining in South Australia, would have been familiar with this.

---

"Last time I checked, the Australian coal industry claimed to have about 200 years of
reserves, ..."

As I said, Yabby, I think you need to give this issue a little more careful thought and not just accept your recollection of figures given by the coal industry with an obvious political vested interest in exaggerating the amount of remaining coal reserves. In any case, they invariabley base such cancluations on the assumption that coal will contiunue to be extracted at teh current rate. In contrast the figures given in the Final Energy Crisis (TFEC) are soundly based.

"... with new deposits still being discovered."

In fact, as the years progress estimates of reserves tend to go down. You will learn this from Seppo Korpella's article "Coal Resources of the World" in the second edition of TFEC due in September.

(tobcontinued)
Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 23 April 2008 2:10:26 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
(continuedfromabove - Whoops! I misspelled calculations as 'cancluations' and 'continue' as 'contiunue' etc.)

In the meantime if you want to fill in some of the gaping holes that you have displayed in your understanding of this question I suggest you read "The Great Coal Hole" at http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=116

---

Yabby wrote, "I have argued for 30 years about the population factor ..."

What kind of population control advocate is it that actually welcomes higher consumption of resources? Hasn't Yabby heard of Paul Ehrlich's equation I = PAT

(I = Impact on Environment, P = Population, A = Affluence, T = Technology).

What kind of population control advocate demands higher immigration into a country without enough water for no reason other than to satisfy the excessive consumption demands of some of the inhabitants of that country?

If Yabby had ever been a genuine population control advocate, which I doubt, so what? People who have sold out their principles for comfort and expediency are a dime a dozen. No doubt his low regard for so many of his fellow citizens helps him to rationalise his choice.

---

Yabby wrote, "You clearly know nothing about nature or history, for I assure you, they will simply
take what they need."

When his other rationales for the rape of our environment fail to stand up, Yabby now hides behind an alleged need for Australia's unconditional servile acquiescence to the demands of overseas powers which have not even been explicitly stated.

In fact, Yabby is the person who has shown ignorance about history with the convenient simplistic one-dimensional grasp of geo-politics that he is now pushing. The fact is as has been demonstrated by historians such as Andrew Ross (see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=860
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6665) Australia did once stand up to the threat of foreign invasion contrary to the myth that the US saved us from invasion at the Battle of the Coral Sea. If we have, since the Second World War, lost some of that self-reliance it would have a lot to do with the destruction of Australia's manufacturing capacity due to the abolition of tariffs and other (tobecontinued...)
Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 23 April 2008 4:42:07 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
Dagget, unlike you, I don't break into pangs of terror, every time
somebody writes something in some book. That does not make it gospel.

I focus on the big picture, you can bog yourself down with the
little pictures, if you get your thrills that way.

Mining is mining and if State EPAs are doing their jobs, then
miners have rehabilitation plans, even uranium miners. Tailings
can be covered up, vegatation replanted etc. Miners have plenty
of money to do it. If a mine is going to poison large areas,
then clearly its up to the State EPA to see that it does not happen.

If the Australian Coal Association figures are wrong, then our
Govt can point that out. Just because you read something somewhere,
does not make it so.

Yes I've been saying for 30 years that the global population is
a problem. Alot of the problem is still that women are forced to
have children that they don't want, in much of the third world.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 23 April 2008 8:06:06 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
On what basis does Yabby dismiss Daggett's assertions? Dagget documents his arguments carefully, whereas Yabby's contributions here seem to be ideologically motivated, without objective support.
Posted by Kanga, Thursday, 24 April 2008 10:48:57 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
(...continuedfromabove) forms of government intervention which Yabby and his ilk support.

In fact, geo-politics is a combination of diplomacy and military capacity. Only in rare examples will it be necessary to give everything demanded by a superior foreign power in order to prevent invasion.

Whatever the truth of the world geo-political situation in 2008 may be, Australians need to discuss it calmly and rationally in order to reach an informed democratic consensus as to how to deal with it, free from the self-serving hysteria that the likes of Yabby would engender into it.

---

I think the rest of us would be well advised to be less trusting than Yabby would have us be in the willingness or ability of mining companies to fix up the mess they plan to create, particularly on the scale necessary for Uranium mining at Roxby Downs, or in government regulators to force them to do so, given their poor record thus far, the massive quantity of chemically toxic and radioactive materials that is to be unearthed and the time scale of over tens of thousands of year over which they need to be kept isolated from the surrounding environment, groundwater and the atmosphere. As Jared Diamond has also shown in his discussion of the legacy of the mining industry in Montana in Chapter 2 of "Collapse" (see also http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6002&page=0#86639), it is costly and difficult to properly isolate the by-prodcts of mining from the surrounding environment. In the past many mining companies have, either by design or ignorance, avoided doing this properly. If the cost of fixing the environment properly were fully factored into mining, this would have made many mines uneconomic.

Another factor which has not been factored into the nuclear industry are the massive costs of decommissioning old nulcear power stations and disposing of nuclear waste (see http://candobetter.org/node/349 http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/wales-news/2008/02/29/ministers-warned-of-nuclear-albatross-91466-20543168/). So, in the not-too-distant-future we will be faced with the unpalatable choice: either pay inordinate amounts to look after the mess created by mining, nuclear power and other industries, or accept living in an increasingly poisoned and radioactive environment.
Posted by daggett, Thursday, 24 April 2008 12:48:59 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
Well said, Kanga and Daggett.

If I may tremulously offer a supportive comment or two...

The estimates offered by John Howard's in-house committee did not include the extremely high cost of decommissioning (mentioned above); nor did these include the real cost of rehabilitation, wherein this requires replanting of appropriate local land unit flora; without which fauna habitation cannot be viable.

This includes the placement of hollow logs and tree trunks. Without these critical ecological links rehabilitation can take more than a century, rather than a mere decade or two. So far, no mining company has done this; often just dumping Acacia Ariculaformis seedlings or similar which, along with high grasses, archtypally precede degradation to desert.

On a typical throwaway comment of Yabby's, overpopulation is widely misunderstood. The feminist idea of women being forced to procreate, to satisfy the egos of evil and brutal men, is propaganda gibberish.

What we have, instead, is a single scenario linked to a chain of events. This first started when the British East India Company forced Indians to abandon traditional crops and adopt cotton to feed the Manchester mills. This monoculture depleted soils, fractured social systems and local economies and, along with other forms of exploitation, created the perennial famines and poverty that we now associate with once-prosperous India.

With social infrastructure all but destroyed, Indian parents know that, given poverty-induced infant mortality rates, if they do not have at least 12 children they cannot hope to have three males survive to look after them when they reach old age. This is India's only old age safety net; and until such eroded 3rd world countries are enabled to develop egalitarian economic management systems, they will be unable to replace this domestic crisis mis-management with a formal old age pension, and thus remove the launching pad of high birthrates.

Conversely, when Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, UK and Sweden established indexed age pensions, the birth rate went below zero within three decades. This is simply how humans respond to security of survival. Yabby will deny this because he would rather the satisfaction of a Malthusian cull.
Posted by Tony Ryan oziz4oz, Thursday, 24 April 2008 1:34:19 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
*The feminist idea of women being forced to procreate, to satisfy the egos of evil and brutal men, is propaganda gibberish.*

Actually not so Tony, its more about religious nuts like the
Catholic Church, who want more little Catholics. They have alot
of influence in the third world and their campaign against modern
family planning, abortion etc, is huge and relentless. Never
understimate their lobbying ability. So you cannot compare women
in the first and third worlds, they don't have the same options.

My argument for years has been that third world women should have
the same family planning options as first world women, then our
ever increasing population problem would be largely resolved.

In the first world, women have choices. Availability of family
planning, availability of abortion services. Not so in the third
world. So they keep popping out those babies, if they want them
or not. So you land up with even more poverty.

Kanga, you are free to believe every single word that Daggett
posts, read every single reference etc. Frankly I could not
be bothered lol. Some people can focus and understand
the big picture, some can't. Ah well. So be it.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 24 April 2008 9:06:31 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
I suspect that the odd lost Websurfer who reads this will by now have had sufficient exposure to Yabby's malevalant and meandering mind to finally have a firm handle on all globalist groupies. In this, we may have served some useful purpose.
Posted by Tony Ryan oziz4oz, Thursday, 24 April 2008 9:28:37 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
Tony, I agree. However, I may choose to persist a bit longer, even if you understandably choose not to. There are still bucketloads of Yabby's fallacious self-contradictory arguments that should be shown up for what they are. They could actually be used elsewhere in conjunction with our responses as a useful online resource if they were formatted and structured well. There's enough twaddle here to keep me going for possibly another week, even if Yabby chooses not to write another word.

---

'Malevolent' (and not 'malevalent' BTW) is definitely an apt description notwithstanding Yabby's token, hypocritical and probably disingenuous indignation at the Catholic Church's criminally reckless encouragement of population growth in the Third World.

Anyway, as Yabby has said, the fight against global overpopulation is all too hard for him to persist with seriously. So, instead, he chooses to devote his time to fighting for the overpopulation and environmental degradation of Australia, destroying social welfare and workers' rights, privatisation, the rights of land speculators to screw tenants and first home buyers, the continued destruction of our manufacturing sector in the race-to-the-bottom globalised economy etc, etc.

---

Yabby wrote, "Frankly I could not be bothered (reading the links that daggett has provided)".

I can only assume that Yabby is trying to imply that if he chooses not to look at the evidence of the poisoning of our environment as a consequence of uranium mining, then that evidence must not exist.

---

Anyhow, as I pointed out before we got sidetracked, "In these circumstances, the hope that Australia can ever profitably manufacture any products other than a few specialised niche or boutique products, unless Australian workers are prepared to work for Third World wage levels, is a pipe dream."
Posted by daggett, Friday, 25 April 2008 1:07:01 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
Tony I agree. Call me every single name under the sun, its great therapy and will
make you feel better. It might not do a thing for your argument, but as long as you
feel good, all is solved :)

If you believe that the Catholic Church has nothing to do with the overpopulation
problem, I would not even bother to change your mind. Its simply not worth
the time.

Daggett, I once took the time to follow one of your many claims, ie the amazing
work of the South Australian Housing Commission, about which you went on
and on. I did my homework. What it came down to was that they were given free
land, free money ( I have yet to see where they paid interest), then built a whole
heap of weatherboard dogboxes, which were onsold at cost. Now give me free
land and free money and I will build you some cheap dogboxes too!

Fact is, Australian houses have doubled in size in the last 30 years, people donít
want to live in those dogboxes anymore. Fact is, all those Govt charges in NSW,
applied to new land releases and houses are so great, that people can neither afford
to buy them, nor developers afford to build them. Quite a change from free land!

As you are clearly far more keen to play the person rather then the facts,
I donít bother with all the books that you claim to have read.

Around the world, in Japan, Europe, USA, Korea, Singapore, etc. etc, you have
so called specialised manufacture, all paying high wages to their employees and
selling their products. I note that West Australians have just won another 75 million
$ contract for aluminium patrol boats for Trinidad.

Perhaps you think that Australians are too stupid or lazy to compete on the global
markets, as workers all over the world are doing. You would rather rely on
tariffs, so screwing consumers and efficient industries such as farming and mining,
for your living.

Well think again. Get off your butt and compete in the real world.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 25 April 2008 9:59:43 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
This argument just gets more and more bizarre the longer it goes on. Instead of engaging with the evidence I have presented, Yabby complains about a transgression allegedly committed by myself months ago on 20th December 2007 (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6697#104085) in an arguemt over land speculation and proceeds to re-fight that argument.

If that is not dragging a red herring across the trail, I don't know what is.

---

Yabby wrote, "As you are clearly far more keen to play the person rather then the facts, I donít bother with all the books that you claim to have read."

As I wrote on 19 January 2007 "No doubt yab-bot will not delay in providing us with abundant examples of where daggett has for 'most of this thread' attacked him personally." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6697&page=0#103833)

I am still waiting.

---

Yabby wrote "I note that West Australians have just won another 75 million $ contract for aluminium patrol boats for Trinidad."

As I have said many times before, Yabby has yet to provide figures which demonstrate that these occasional Australian manufacturing success stories amount to a significant fraction of Australian economic output and provide employment to a sizable proportion of the Australian workforce.

The neo-liberal ideologues have been given virtually open slather to remake this country in their misearable image for many decades now. If there had been any validity in their claim that Australian manaufacturing can thrive in a world with so many workers paid slave wages, without protective tariffs, then I would have though it would have happened by now.
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 27 April 2008 1:41:35 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
*I am still waiting.*

Daggett, well keep waiting lol. Anyone who reads the posts can note the ad hominem attacks for themselves. For some posters its worth doing some homework,
for you, its not worth the bother. I prefer to leave people like you and Tony raving
on about the joys of reading Castroís speeches etc and simply chuckle to myself.

Those manufacturing industries which have changed with the times, doing specialised manufacturing, are generally doing fine in Australia. Their main
complaint seems to be a lack of workers. So it is pointless trying to grow
manufacture, if there is not the staff available. Good staff will go where the
money is and that is in mining right now.

Australian manufacturing can thrive, just like Swiss, German, Japanese, Korean
etc manufacturing industries do, despite wage rates and without tariff protection.
But it is about specialising, not trying to make cheap consumer goods, that can be
made far cheaper elsewhere. So it is all about innovation and consumer needs, be
they industrial or private.

Manufacturing should earn its living in this world, just like any other industry, not
by dragging others down with tariff protection.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 27 April 2008 7:35:42 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
Yabby,

Why I should feel the least bit concerned if you choose not to substantiate your claims that I have engaged in personal attacks against you?

Yabby wrote, "For some posters its worth doing some homework, for you, its not worth the bother."

That's fine, Yabby. Now at least you have made it clear that you never intended to discuss the issue seriously with me when you joined the discussion. I can certainly reciprocate.

Yabby wrote, "Those manufacturing industries which have changed with the times, doing specialised manufacturing, are generally doing fine in Australia. ...

"Australian manufacturing can thrive, just like Swiss, German, Japanese, Korean etc manufacturing industries do, ..."

You've said it all before, Yabby, over and over and over again. If it were not for the fact, as I have noted just above, that you are not interested in discussing this issue seriously with me, I would ask:

Don't you think it's time you contributed something new to this discussion?
Posted by daggett, Monday, 28 April 2008 1:06:51 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
The following comment posted, recently to a forum at http://candobetter.org/node/434#comment-854, may be of interest.

Further comments, by either anonymous or registered users, are welcome.

A BETTER FORM OF PROTECTION?

The argument against tariffs has always been that they lead to anti-competitive situations - especially in countries with smaller populations like Australia. A manufacturer sets up behind the protective wall of tariffs. Wages and conditions are protected but the manufacturer achieves monopoly status simply because Australia doesn't have the population to support the kind of competition that can be achieved on a global scale.

On the other hand, unrestricted free trade pitches Australian workers into a race to the bottom against slave labour countries, as writers on this site (http://candobetter.org) have pointed out. But at least we get competition. So the story goes.

Well, at the risk of sounding like the Mexican girl on the Taco ad; Why can't we have both? Or the benefits of both anyway, without the disadvantages?

What about a system where tariffs were applied on a sliding scale depending on the wages and conditions prevalent in the country of manufacture? So goods mostly manufactured in Norway attract a 0% tariff, whereas those manufactured in any place where subsistence wages apply attract the top rate? A medium rate could apply to countries where wages and conditions were moderate. The ILO could be the arbiter.

Such a system would provide bigger markets in which genuine competition could flourish, among true equals. The incentive to move manufacturing to low wage countries would be killed stone dead. If the system were sophisticated enough, companies in low wage countries paying higher wages could apply for special status, recognising their better treatment of their workers and rewarding that with favourable tariff status.

Given that the protection vs free trade debate is common to all developed countries where workers enjoy a reasonable standard of living, I think this notion would find support around the world. It's a concept worth thinking through in more detail.
Posted by daggett, Monday, 28 April 2008 4:51:46 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
Daggett, I will keep saying it, as long as you keep repeating your
crapola that Australian manufacturing needs to hide behind tariffs
to pay reasonable wages.

I remind you that if wages were the only issue, then most of our
imports would come from low wage countries and they don't. We
buy around 27 billion $ worth of stuff from China, but we buy
23.7billion $ worth of stuff from the US, another 17 billion$
worth from Japan, then another whole huge amount from Europe.
Add them up and our imports from low wage countries are small
in comparison.

Australia is far too small a country to try and make everything,
so best we let others make things at which we are not very good
at. Best to buy from countries that buy from us and China is
a great customer, taking over 22 billion $ worth of stuff.
The US and EU are far worse customers and yes the EU still protect
their agricultural sector with huge tariffs. What would be fair
would be to tax all their goods at the rate that they tax ours.

Consumers are the big winners from low tariffs and why you want
to slug poor people more for their consumer goods, beats me.

I'll tell you who benefits from going to Target etc to buy cheap
clothes for their kids, it is the poor, not the rich
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 28 April 2008 8:17:50 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
Yabby claims he is entitled to go on repeating ad infinitum his own arguments without regard to evidence which does not support his case. If everyone adopted that attitude, there is no possible way that any of the discussions of contentious topics on Online Opinion could ever progress.

To me this is further confirmation that Yabby is not here to help others gain an understanding of the issue at hand, rather he is using his account on OLO precisely to prevent others gaining that understanding through excessive repetition, red herrings, personal attacks and other debaters' tricks. So, as in the case of the previous forum in regard to "Housing affordability squeezed by speculators" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6697#101073) a straightforward discussion, which should have ended after no more than 50 entries at most, was bloated to a ridiculous 263 entries. Only the most determined and persistent will now be able to glean the useful knowledge contained in that discussion from the cacophonous background Yabby helped to create.

Unless Yabby is mad, he can only be doing this because either he has a personal vested interest in maintaining a situation which is against the public interest, or because he is being paid to do so.

---

I see that Yabby has, unusually for him, added some new points to the discussion, although most are hardly original. I will respond to them, even though I realise I stand almost no chance of having Yabby acknowledge any of this further down the track.

Yabby wrote "I remind you that if wages were the only issue."

Who said that wages were the only issue?

Your comparative statistics of imports from slave-wage economies vs non-slave-wage economies are hardly complete. Why no mention of imports from Vietnam, Indonesia, the Phillipines, India, Malaysia, Latin America etc? Even if the figures stand, they don't alter the point that Australia's manufacturing sector has largely been destroyed by the export of jobs to those countries as the recent export of jobs by Fisher and Paykel shows.

Yabby wrote, "Australia is far too small a country to try and make everything,"

(tobecontinued)
Posted by daggett, Tuesday, 29 April 2008 2:43:50 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
*through excessive repetition, red herrings, personal attacks and other debaters'
tricks.*

ROFL Daggett, sounds like the story of your life on OLO :)

*Unless Yabby is mad, he can only be doing this because either he has a personal vested interest in
maintaining a situation which is against the public interest, or because he is being paid to do so.*

The public is on my side Daggett, thatís why they vote liberal or labor, not for some
party who wants to turn Australia into something like Cuba, as you do. Look around
you, people on average are doing better then ever before, are richer then ever before
and have more opportunities then ever before. Innovation happens when people have
freedom to innovate, as we do, not when Govts dictate everything, as you would want. The real danger is that people like you would ever get a say in Govt, it would
be a disaster for the country. But Australians are too smart for that, thankfully.

So what if Fisher and Paykel close? We are that short of labour that we canít even
find enough truck drivers in Australia.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2229140.htm

Meantime new industries create new jobs.

http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/200804/s2230095.htm

The world keeps changing, get used to it. Many people prefer to work in service
industries, rather then on a production line. Our meat industry is screaming for
manufacturing workers, there are few takers.

Mobile phones, the internet, PCs, software creation etc, all industries that have
created new jobs which did not exist 20 years ago. You want to go back to
making Australian toasters etc and slugging consumers heaps for them, for no
good reason. Think again.

Yes I quoted our main trading partners, stuck to the big figures. You are free
to fartass around with the little figures, if that floats your boat.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 8:18:31 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
Personally, I'm not too worried about Aussies making overpriced toasters again. And it'd be a (convenient) mistake to characterise all opposition to unrestrained free trade as an attempt to build up industry in Australia behind a protective wall of indiscriminate tariffs.

If a non-Australian company has some really cool technology that allows it to make good toasters for 50c each, observing proper environmental practices and paying their staff great wages - good luck to them. They should flog all comers in the market and probably will. I'd happily buy such a toaster - whether it was made in Australia or not. I think a lot of Aussies would buy one.

What I object to is companies making toasters for 50c by paying subsistence wages to their workers and getting away with environmental crapulence. It's hypocritical, in my opinion, for Australians to buy 'cheap' products made under conditions they wouldn't tolerate in their own backyards. Made cheaply by externalising costs (environmental and social) in ways that wouldn't be allowed here.

Aside from these issues, the phenomena of offshoring to low wage countries undermines the technological progress that drives real productivity growth. It's easier and probably cheaper to relocate a manufacturing outfit to a low wage country than it is to do the R&D that might (just might..) result in a far more efficient way of making a product.

.
Posted by Redback, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 9:36:12 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
(continuedfromabove)

Yabby wrote, "Australia is far too small a country to try and make everything,"

As I already wrote in my very first contribution to this discussion(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7218#111687), Australia, with a population of only 7 million was one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world in 1942.

Perhaps we didn't manufacture quite 'everything' back then, but we came very close and were self-reliant enough to cause the Japanese Army to veto the Navy's plans to invade in March 1942 (i.e. even before the Battle of the Coral Sea). Back then Australia had developed world-leading aviation, shipbuilding, armaments, electronics and telecommunications manufacturing capacities in addition to the capacity to supply domestic consumer goods. It would have been no accident that one of the first computers in the world was built and operated in Australia in the early 1950's before it was scrapped.

As I have said before, that has been largely lost as a result of the adoption of the globalised free-market economic policies which Yabby supports.

---

Yabby wrote, "So what if Fisher and Paykel close? We are that short of labour that we canít even find enough truck drivers in Australia. ..."

Yabby seems to be arguing here that truck driving, timber harvesting, in addition to a minuscule number of specialised manufacturing jobs are a satisfactory alternative to the wholesale loss of skilled manufacturing jobs of which the closure of Fisher & Paykel is but one example.

I already responded earlier (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7218#111387) to Yabby's hysterical hyperbole about how shortages of labour are supposedly crippling our economy:

"If some sectors of the economy ... don't have the necessary workers and are suffering as a consequence, then the Government should not have allowed this situation to develop in the first place. They should have simply acted to slow down the rate of extraction of our mineral resources and housing development at least until the needs of these industries could have been met without harming other sectors of our economy, or they should have properly funded training."
Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 12:36:30 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
Daggett, I remind you that in 1942, there was hardly much worth calling
ďtechnologyĒ, life was simple, unlike today, where we have a world of massive
complexity and specialisation. Sure the Japanese did not invade Australia,
the size of the place would have been one extremely good reason, given that
their troops were already spread thin. The world has changed since 1942,
get used to it.

I have a 1963 geography book here, which makes for interesting reading.
Under Australian trade, wool is listed as the main export. Then came
meat, sugar, wheat, hides and skins, iron and steel, butter, flour.

Imports were motor vehicles and parts, petroleum, cotton, electrical appliances,
drugs and chemicals, tobacco, rubber and timber. Clearly Australia was an
agricultural economy, importing many manufactured products from overseas.

How much do you think it would cost consumers, if they had to buy Australian
made computers, printers etc? You have yet to give a good reason, as to why
they should.

Resource projects underway in WA amount to 166 billion$, so 70í000 extra
miners will be needed, earning top money. People servicing those miners will
add up to another 250í000 at least, including lots of specialised, highly profitable
manufacturing-engineering.

You would prefer people to give up those high paying jobs, put them on some
production line making toasters etc, then slug them extra for their consumer
products. Forget any notions of politics Daggett, you have no chance at all :)

.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 8:11:29 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
I question whether we really do have a skilled labour shortage or an excess of hyperbole.

We are so demanding of certificates for hands on work we are struggle to find skilled tradesmen. for example

Commonwealth Games Melbourne. lack of security personnel. In Victoria a security person must study at TAFE for 6 months and sit through classes given by serving policemen. The appropriately accredited bouncers were not going to drop their permanent night club job to do security for the Commonwealth Games for 4 to 6 weeks max. Consequently Indian students were hired. Now skippys had to be qualified by the Indians didn't know how to search bags, persons, were easily bribed with food and quite frankly some Indian security guards were too small to be any deterent to a 50 year old aussie.

railway linesman and bush firebrigade now has to attend TAFE to learn how to use a chainsaw. Can't see how practical experience isn't more beneficial.

Why do registered teachers have to pay an additional $2000 to get a Certificate IV of workplace training?

I am sure there are further examples of demands for certification that are used to create unnecessary barriers to entry.
Posted by billie, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 9:36:47 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
I have kept out of this bun-fest until now.

My professional training (accountancy) was orientated to manufacturing, rather than tax returns or audit.

This article whines on about governments role in providing the environment

Example ďIt is the government's job to create the right policy environment - to tame inflation, increase productivity, strengthen the national innovation system, unlock the knowledge created and preserved within our universities, provide infrastructure, expand skills, and develop strategies for specific industries like automotive and TCF.Ē

We have had 100 years of government supposedly providing the right policy environment and developing strategies for specific industry.

I was once gainfully consulting to TCF through NIES.

A complete waste of time.

Most of the companies reviewed failed to qualify for government assistance because their commercial future was so marginal.

Maybe a better solution would be

Government withdraw from pretending it knows anything and abandoning all the grants for jackasses which distort the real wealth creation process

Offset the savings of no more government grants, retrenchment of the pretend government industry planning boof-heads and reduce company tax rates and specific disruptive taxes, like land tax and FBT.
Maintain the liberals reigning in the excesses of unionism
Forgetting the grace and favour system of dubious R&D schemes (where, if some one wears a white lab coat they are a double deductible expense).

Improve freight infrastructure like better roads.

Stop pretending anyone is served by protectionism.

Fight for lower tariffs in export markets based on lower import tariffs and quotas into Australia.

Leave aussie manufacturing to produce what it has a natural advantage at and bugger the rest. With a domestic population of 23 million, we are competitively disadvantaged. The only way around that is to attract those with the vision to see beyond that local market and those fellows come with some conditions, one of them is autonomy. They have no need or desire for public service pratts taxing the reward for their innovation out of existence.

To me it is simple. Margaret Thatcher helped stop the rot in UK. We just need someone to do the same here.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 10:57:56 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
Billie has drawn attention to a serious obstacle to employment and promotion; the obsession with academic control over non-apprenticed manual skill employment.

Courses are expensive and out of reach for those unemployed, and at the rate in which TAFEs are being closed down, many students are forced to travel up to two hours each way to their nearest facility (ie as in the closure of Seaforth).

Even such simple jobs as building wooden fences, require a laborour to have several thousand dollars on hand; and (in Qld) be certified by a Building Services Authority that clearly exists to favour the big end of town. It is an indication of how extraneous this qualification demand is, that I learned this skill in a few hours at the age of sixteen.

Politicians insist these requirements were introduced to protect consumers yet, continuing with the example of fencing, construction standards have plummeted quite dramatically.

Of course, government then claims positions cannot be filled and these figures are deducted from unemployed statistics. Thus real unemployment is actually enforced, while simultaneously hiding the numbers.

I look forward to the day when the politicians and bureaucrats responsible stand trial for these crimes against the Australian people.
Posted by Tony Ryan oziz4oz, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 11:07:02 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
Yabby wrote: "Resource projects underway in WA amount to 166 billion$(sic), so 70í000(sic) extra miners will be needed, ..."

Hadn't you already said that, more or less, already? and hadn't I already responded:

"It only makes 'perfect sense' to a person who cares nothing for the environment or for future generations. ..." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7218#111456)

Of course it will always be easy to gain acceptance for the ransacking of our natural resources in return for short term wealth and much harder to gain acceptance for the more difficult course necessary for our our economy to become truly sustainable in the longer term.
Posted by daggett, Thursday, 1 May 2008 2:00:13 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
Col Rouge's post had me all teary eyed with nostalgia. Weren't the 80's fun? No such thing as society. Just an economy with units of production and consumption making rational choices to maximise their wealth. Privatisation rampant. Taxes slahed and public services and infrastructure crumbling. Truly a great time for a young accountant to be alive.
Of course there was the odd hiccup. European governments just didn't get the message and insisted on granting money to jackasses like Airbus. Complete waste of time as everyone knows the market (sorry..The Market) had already ensured perfect competition between Boeing, Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas.
The 90's started with great promise as well, with Thatcherite measures adopted with gusto by Australian governments. CSL got sold off and good riddance too. It's commercial potential and public service utility was simply too good to leave in public hands. Melbourne's public transport system and SA's electricity - greatly improved now after being managed by the private sector. Modbury Hospital in SA - another success story.
And private health insurance - the jewel in the crown. If only people would realise what a wonderful deal it is, succesive Governments wouldn't need to keep propping it up with public money.
When will people learn?

.
Posted by Redback, Thursday, 1 May 2008 9:12:01 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
Billie, I think you will find that a lot of that accreditation stuff is tied up with
Worksafe, a so called duty of care and some litigation that has gone on. One
property owner in NSW I was told, was fined something like 200k$, after
a couple of his staff rolled the 4wd whilst checking cattle. It seems he did not
fulfil his duty of care, by sending them to an accredited 4wd course.

Daggett, just because you say something does not make it so. Fact is that
when petrol prices reach 3$ a litre at the pumps, you will most likely be one
of those screaming loudest, that Govts should do something.

Relying more and more on the ME for our energy is not a good idea for many
reasons, cost being just one of them. As oil heads for 200$ a barrel, even you
will have to rethink your position.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2230825.htm

There is no good reason why Australia could not use natural gas to power its
fleet of vehicles, at much lower cost then oil. As oil prices rise, people might
finally get serious about it, but the lead times on many of those gas projects are
something like 5 years.

We have only scratched the surface of even knowing how much gas is out there,
many areas have never even been drilled yet, as Martin Ferguson points out.
At the moment, the reserves we know of, are enough for 150 years.

With the global energy crunch getting more serious by the day, itís a perfect time
to get serious about developing our gas reserves in the NW, for the benefit
of all Australians
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 1 May 2008 10:02:20 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
I refer to posts by Billie and Tony Ryan about Australia's skills 'crisis'.

Regardless of the causes of this phenomenon, the prefered solution to date - increasing skilled immigration - seems to have failed.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/migrants-add-to-skills-crisis-study/2008/04/28/1209234761904.html

.
Posted by Redback, Thursday, 1 May 2008 10:05:13 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
Redback

I agree. I don't think we have any fundamental disagreement.

Personally, I would like to see an end to all immigration and refugee programmes; and I suspect the majority of Aussies think similarly. I would go further; those who plainly do not respect Australian culture should be returned. But that's our problem. Decisions are made on the basis of what 15% of the population want. This is Government by Minority Lobby, not democracy.

According to my surveys, and depending upon specific issue, between 65% and 94% of Australians do not agree with government policy. I think that that just about sums up all of Australia's problems.

And I finally figured out who Yabby reminds me of; Cartman.

So, you long-suffering readers out there; whenever Yabby engages in his usual unilateral and sociopathic diatribes, just picture Cartman and this will become a hilarious exercise in entertainment.
Posted by Tony Ryan oziz4oz, Thursday, 1 May 2008 1:31:18 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
Cartman, sorry, Yabby wrote,

"Daggett, I remind you that in 1942, there was hardly much worth calling ďtechnologyĒ, ..."

I think I was trying to make the point that in 1942 Australia manufactured almost everything it needed for itself and that it had a technological edge over most countries of the world. To quote Andrew Ross, "... during the war, Australia's industry was more self-contained and technically capable than that of Japan. ..."

"There were an astonishing number of technical and manufacturing success as well. Australia succeeded in making all the major armament categories used by the major combatants in the Second World War - excluding the atomic bomb. ... There was also an astonishing number number of original contributions in major equipment design and manufacture. These included medium tanks, fighter aircraft, medium bombers, small arms, radar, field artillery, optical equipment and the process of tropical proofing. ..." (Armed and Ready(1995) Andrew Ross, p433).

Obviously the world has changed since then, but if this country had a technological edge back then then it should have been possible to maintain that edge instead of becoming dependant upon imports for what we used to be able to make for ourselves.

Cartman wrote,

"Sure the Japanese did not invade Australia, the size of the place would have been one extremely good reason, given that their troops were already spread thin."

It's not really clear here what point Cartman is trying to make. The previously accepted view is that the US saved Australia from certain invasion at the Battle of the Coral Sea. Ross has argued -- and, as far as I am aware, no historian has attempted to refute his argument since he wrote the book -- that the Japanese Navy wanted to invade notwithstanding all their logistical problems and the size of Australia, but the Army vetoed that decision on the basis of its knowledge of the military and industrial capability of Australia. If that capability had not existed, the Japanese would have attempted an invasion. Ross has shown that the Japanese Army was correct in its appraisal of the situation.
Posted by daggett, Friday, 2 May 2008 1:00:38 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
Daggett, in 1935 the Australians realised that war was coming and that they
might not be able to import things like planes, from Britain etc during
war. So CAC was formed, they copied American plane and engine designs
to built the Wirraway. The point is, in those days planes and technology were
simple. Of course Australia was advanced by world standards, due to our
connections with the US and Britain. Of course we were ahead of Japan,
for the real Japanese industrial boom only really took off after the war.

In times of war, one can sacrifice things and gain others, that does not mean
that it makes sense to do them always. With increased specialisation in
manufacture, it is getting increasingly harder, the speed of change is
also become faster, as the speed of information transfer increases.

Take a look at the Walkman, which Sony developed. It was a huge hit,
worldwide. Along came Apple with the I-Pod, demand for the Walkman
collapsed overnight. Manufacture today is about great design, innovation
and economies of scale. Trying to copy Sony or copy Apple, to make their
products locally, would be totally foolhardy and cost consumers a fortune,
reducing their standard of living. It makes no sense at all.

Now Apple is a great example of clever people making clever products,
understanding what consumers want and are prepared to pay for. If workers
are paid a bit more or less, is rather insignificant.

What you are trying to do is turn back the clock 100 years and it wonít work,
sorry. The world has moved on, like it or not
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 2 May 2008 2:32:29 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
Cartman, explain "Pig Iron Bob" please.
Posted by billie, Friday, 2 May 2008 6:21:25 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
Well, I sure hope you didn't hold your breath waiting for Cartman to respond, Billie.

Judging from his earlier posts, my guess is that he would have been all for cashing in on Japanese armaments manufacturing boom of the 1930's with the export of Australian pig iron.
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 4 May 2008 2:01:12 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
Had he been around then, with his unique brand of pseudo-pragmatism and sophistry, Cartman would have been the most noisy of Pig Iron Bob's supporters. And with compulsive consistency, he would have simultaneously applauded the embargo on oil and rubber that forced Japan to abandon the invasion of China, and invade Indonesia and Malaya in order to save Japan's industry base. His motivation would have been the same as that of the Seppo's and Pom's; not being able to stomach a "Yellow Race" being the world's 6th largest industrial state (which it was then). No doubt Cartman still believes that Japan bombed Darwin on route to Sydney.
Posted by Tony Ryan oziz4oz, Sunday, 4 May 2008 1:56:40 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
In fact, I don't completely accept the popular left-wing view that portrays the Conservative inter-war governments in which Menzies served as appeasers of fascism and sycophantic servants of British commercial and strategic interests. Whilst I think that the then Attorney General Menzies' actions in the Pig Iron dispute were morally questionable, to attribute them purely to a desire to appease the Japanese militarists is not consistent with the way his Government capably prepared this country for the war with Japan as Andrew Ross has shown. I have written more of this in an article "How to make sense of the 'Pig Iron Bob' dispute?" at http://candobetter.org/node/457 in case anyone may be interested.

---

Also, I have reposted some of the comments made above about the supposed skills crisis to : http://candobetter.org/node/447#comment-865 in response to a brief article "Skilled migrants causing problems". If that is not OK with anyone, please let me know. Further comments on that site are, oif course, welcome.
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 4 May 2008 2:04:23 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
It has been fairly obvious in the ICT industry that employment agencies make more money placing skilled migrants in jobs than placing qualified Australians. Agencies like Hudsons and Julia Ross are keen proponents of skilled migration but these agencies are not the first port of call for Australian professionals looking for work.

IT vacancies have been measured using the Olivier Index which counts the number of job vacancies. However this index inflates the real number of vacancies because a vacancy with say Telstra, will be advertised by each of the 5 agencies that supply staff to Telstra. The Australian Computer Society counts the number of vacancies filled. The ACS thinks they are counting 25% of the market. Projections based on ACS figures indicate that 25000 positions, fulltime, part time, permanent and contract were filled in 2006. At least 4000 people graduated in ICT in 2000 alone. University qualifications are not mandatory to work in the ICT industry.

Thanks for the information on "Pig Iron Bob".
Posted by billie, Sunday, 4 May 2008 3:09:16 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
Ooops the Olivier Index counts the number of advertised vacancies, so each Telstra position would be counted 4 or 5 times. The count also included the fishing advertisements that are looking for exceptional candidates for agencies to hawk around to potential employers.
Posted by billie, Sunday, 4 May 2008 3:12:10 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
In case anyone has formed the impression that Cartman is the unchallenged authority on early 20th century Australian history when he wrote "in 1935 the Australians realised that ... they might not be able to import things like planes, from Britain etc during war," Australian politicians and public servants had, in fact, already worked that out from their experiences in the First World war and had set about building up Australia's manufacturing base in 1920 (Andrew Ross, "Amed and ready" p32).

The pinnacle of Australian aeronautical achievement in WW2 was not the Wirraway copied from an American design, but the CA15 fighter, an aircraft superior in many regards to the US P51 Mustang (442mph vs 437mph top speed) (Ross, p324) and the CA4 bomber, uniquely capable of performing roles of both dive bomber and torpedo bomber(Ross p335-342).

Both had prototypes built but were not manufactured because by that time the tide had turned against the Japanese and, in the case of the CA15, it was judged easier to manufacture Mustangs.

Earlier, in 1942 Australia had succeeded in manufacturing the Boomerang fighter, which, whilst not as capable as the Japanese Zero, would have been capable of challenging the Zero, and certainly the Oscar, over the skies of Australia with all the advantages made possible in a defensive war. The production of the Boomerang in such a very short time scale was considered a considerable technological and industrial feat.
Posted by daggett, Thursday, 8 May 2008 3:08:45 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All

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