Rudd vAbbott

[Aaron_C]

It will be a brave Gubbmint which bring in import tarrifs on those purchases to stop the trend and flow of dollars offshore.

Tariffs aren't the answer...adaptation is. We will always need shops that service cars, sell tyres etc. It's just that we will probably require less of them. People who would otherwise be employed / run these type of businesses will allocate their time/expertise to running other higher-level service businesses that is what the economy requires.

This is why I am concerned with a lot of the Socialist policies from people like Bob Katter because if we just focus on preserving the status quo, then the economy will be even less prepared to adapt to changes in business. Businesses exist today that weren't even thought of 20 years ago. Sure, it's not great to have to close your business or lose a profession that is now obsolete (as that individual person) - but the economy is bigger than you. Maybe what I do one day will be replaced by a simple online calculator and system. However, by that time, I would have adapted to the situation and be earning even more money in other higher-serviced endeavours and still be fine.

 

[topcropper]

That's why the GDP of the state of California, for example, is higher than the whole of Australia. :

California has a population of 38 million. So you would expect their GDP to be greater.

Australia's GDP per person is a lot greater than California's.


See ya's.

 

[BayView]

Tariffs aren't the answer...adaptation is. We will always need shops that service cars, sell tyres etc. It's just that we will probably require less of them. People who would otherwise be employed / run these type of businesses will allocate their time/expertise to running other higher-level service businesses that is what the economy requires.
.

I'm interested to know what the higher level businesses will be that ordinary folk who run little businesses now will be running when we need less tyre shops, less dress shops, less beauty parlours, less sports shops, less white goods shops, less chemists, less everything.

Hell; even Maccas is experiencing a downturn. Imagine all the check-out chicks/dudes and the Maccas workers out of jobs.....

Won't all these folk require retraining, re-education, relocation etc to run these "higher level businesses"?

Where will these "higher level businesses" be?

Don't higher level businesses and positions by nature cater to only a minority of the workforce anyway?

Aren't a fair number of them already relocated O/S?

Aargh; she'll be right, we'll find sumfin' for 'em to do.

It's all a bit glib, don't you reckon...a bit of a "wave of the hand".

 

[cimbom]

California has more folk in it than the whole of Aus, so it wouldn't be hard to produce more than us.

They also have an enormous workforce of unskilled and illegal immigrants who - due to their circumstances and the fact that it is a "fire on the spot" State - are way more productive and hard working than most Aussies, and cost less to employ.

They also have the film industry - we don't. That produces billions per year.
They have the orange farming industry,
About a zillion Costcos and Walmarts.

I used California as an example because it's the type of diversified economy we should be trying to emulate - we can't be another India or China. You can even compare individual cities instead of the state and the result is the same. I didn't realise unskilled illegal immigrants were taking all the jobs in companies like Boeing, University of California and Sony, for example. How about New York City?

California has a film industry. So what? Why can't we have our own entertainment industry? It has a massive ROI and the flow on to other sectors of the economy is huge. But I guess it's not as "real" of an industry as producing Ford Falcons that are gathering dust somewhere.

I find it worrying that Coles Myer and Woolworths are the two biggest employers in this country. We could have much higher economic growth if employment was concentrated in more highly paid and secure sectors.

We've been doing the same thing for a while now and it's not working that well. Clearly it is now the time to get rid of the previous excuses and try something different.

 

[Aaron_C]

Won't all these folk require retraining, re-education, relocation etc to run these "higher level businesses"?

I am sure a lot will require retraining, yes. We have far more professional jobs these days compared to say 30-40 years ago. Back in my parents' days, if you did ANY profession (doctor, lawyer, accountant etc) you were considered quite intelligent and virtually guaranteed a good income. Now, a graduate lawyer/accountant gets paid........$50k. Same level/years of study, but now you are just like any other graduate since there are so many of them.

Like I said, there are winners and losers all the time. It is harder for 'unskilled' workers to get jobs these days. I accept that. However, it is also true that there are more skilled people as we have higher education standards. So overall, the economy is better.

Where will these "higher level businesses" be?

I don't know - don't pretend to either. 20 years ago could you predict that there would be IT consultants being paid big dollars for designing software? I do know, however, that there will be plenty of higher level businesses being started up doing things beyond what we know today.

Aren't a fair number of them already relocated O/S?

No, I don't think so. The jobs that have been shifted overseas are those that were always considered 'unskilled' - call centres, data entry work etc. Those jobs that require real skill sets are still in Australia and, dare I say, still get paid very well for it.

It's all a bit glib, don't you reckon?

No, I don't think so. The economy is larger than any of us. Some of us may lose our jobs, but 5 others get one. Overall the economy is better off and that is what we must focus on.

 

[sanj]

Good post Aaron.

Unfortunately someone actually advocating higher tariffs to improve our competetiveness is probably not going to get it

 

[BayView]

Some of us may lose our jobs, but 5 others get one.

That equation works well if "some of us" is less than 5.

From my understanding, the predicted unemployment figure is set to rise even further by the end of this year.

This is of course the quoted figures by the Gubb, which we all know is not accurate. Yes, there are some sectors which are increasing workers, but overall - down.

I would say that the overall full-time permanent figures are lower than last year, and the year before. My suspicion is the Gubb includes part-time jobs created as new jobs, when in fact they are the full timers who were laid off and found a piece-meal fill in, or were offered less hours, etc.

Nice spin.

Overall the economy is better off and that is what we must focus on.

Reports I get on a daily basis from various industry reps, various industry workers and employers is not matching this.

Let's revisit this after the end of year figures on employment, retail sales etc.

Happy to be proved wrong.

 

[BayView]

California has a film industry. So what?

You brought California up as a much higher GDP than us, dude.

I just gave you one example why.

"So what", indeed.

We would love to have the income and employment level in Aus that their "so what" industry provides.

Why can't we have our own entertainment industry?

We do, and it is subsidised by us, because it makes a loss. Why is that? I know a few actors and a couple of cameramen (through golf) who work elsewhere to make a living.

It has a massive ROI and the flow on to other sectors of the economy is huge. But I guess it's not as "real" of an industry as producing Ford Falcons that are gathering dust somewhere.

If I was living in a $10 mill house above Sunset looking out over "The Valley"..I reckon I could call it a "real industry".

But you're right; we have enormous talent here in Aus, and can make world class films at times, so yeah; put more money there instead of into a dying dinosaur.

I find it worrying that Coles Myer and Woolworths are the two biggest employers in this country. We could have much higher economic growth if employment was concentrated in more highly paid and secure sectors.

It's not possible.

The reality is that our society is a pyramid. Highest earners and highest educated (both don't necessarily go together) are the minority.

The lowest educated and lowest earners are the majority. It is not possible to simply turn it upside down, or make it into a perfect square where all are more equal and all earning shoit loads more.

We've been doing the same thing for a while now and it's not working that well. Clearly it is now the time to get rid of the previous excuses and try something different.

I'm all for that, but I can't see how we can manage it.

The world has shifted enormously and irrevocably, and has become a global market.

Fee free to list any new businesses which will emerge that will replace the dying industries in Aus, and that will more than provide for the volume of jobs lost from those dying industries....even while the population continues to grow.

hmmmmm.

I am not saying all this for my benefit; I'm alright, despite my recent problems.

I am saying this as an observer of the economy in general.

The workers in the offices, or at the check out, or the car wash etc don't always see the wider picture.

You need to get out and ask a wide variety of employers to get the correct story, folks.

 

[BayView]

Maybe what I do one day will be replaced by a simple online calculator and system. However, by that time, I would have adapted to the situation and be earning even more money in other higher-serviced endeavours and still be fine.

Well, I hope that is the case Aaron for your sake.

Mortgage broking might be safe for a good while yet.

There are many people out there who were once high flying and thought it would never end, and are now the house cleaners and lawn mowers.

 

[Angel]

Aaron is an entrepreneur as well as a MB. He is the one who will be developing those high-end units for as long as there are consumers happy to purchase them. Any one of us can follow in his footsteps if we choose to get out of our comfort zones and re-educate ourselves.



Of course funeral parlours are recession-proof for those looking to retrain or diversify.

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

The job I do today didn't even exist 20 years ago, which was, coincidentally, my final year of school (year 12).

When I started as a graduate engineer in 1999 I was earning less than $30k per year.

Times, and jobs, change.

 

[devank]

Of course funeral parlours are recession-proof for those looking to retrain or diversify.

It may even flourish during recession

oh.. man.. now some people are going to be offended

 

[Ed Barton]

Of course funeral parlours are recession-proof for those looking to retrain or diversify.

There I was thinking it was a dying industry!

 

[willair]

Looks like the bonfire is just about to be lit,go Clive ..

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-...aiming-wife-is-a-spy/4936982?section=business

 

[geoffw]

Of course funeral parlours are recession-proof for those looking to retrain or diversify.

Actually they're changing as well. Or maybe they had already changed. No frills funerals are available at something like 25% of the cost of a full price. I was quite staggered at the differences now available.

Rock bottom graves?

 

[Crabnet]

There I was thinking it was a dying industry!

I thought I'd make a passing comment on this. As it happens the industry experienced a downturn this last winter. They put it down to unseasonable mild weather. Not enough oldies dying from flu I suppose.

 

[Tony3008]

I thought I'd make a passing comment on this. As it happens the industry experienced a downturn this last winter. They put it down to unseasonable mild weather. Not enough oldies dying from flu I suppose.

Yes, but that's income deferred, not denied - they get you in the end.

Contrary to popular belief undertakers don't make pots of money: the killer is the overheads, keeping buildings maintained and staff in place for when the phone rings - which might be not at all this week.

 

[cimbom]

We do, and it is subsidised by us, because it makes a loss. Why is that? I know a few actors and a couple of cameramen (through golf) who work elsewhere to make a living.

If I was living in a $10 mill house above Sunset looking out over "The Valley"..I reckon I could call it a "real industry".

But you're right; we have enormous talent here in Aus, and can make world class films at times, so yeah; put more money there instead of into a dying dinosaur.

Most film industries around the world get some level of government subsidy. As do lots of other industries like banking, car manufacturing and others. It's not the subsidy itself that matters (or should matter) but what the return is on that investment. Successful films often make tens or hundreds of millions of dollars above the cost of production. They also create lots of spin-offs in industries like tourism, retail and many others.

In addition, it also employs lots of people from many different professions - not just the obvious ones like cameramen, editors, writers and the like. In New York City, for example, there are 100,000 people employed just in the film sector (i.e. excluding other media like TV, radio, etc).

The reality is that our society is a pyramid. Highest earners and highest educated (both don't necessarily go together) are the minority.

The lowest educated and lowest earners are the majority. It is not possible to simply turn it upside down, or make it into a perfect square where all are more equal and all earning shoit loads more.

I never stated that everyone is going have equal earnings. What I said was if we invest well, we can increase employment in sectors that are higher paying (not necassarily highest paying), have better working conditions, are more productive and contribute to the economy in dynamic ways. A massive concentration of workers in sectors like retail doesn't do this and I have never heard of the industry being regarded as desireable in this way in any economic measure. Of course, retail is important and will always exist but we need far more diversity in our economy than what we have at present.

 

[Intrinsic_Value]

Even retail is fast disappearing as people become more fluent at buying online from O/S where things are cheaper in many cases, while shop fronts are copping ever-increasing running costs which can't be passed on to the customer to stay competitive.

It will be a brave Gubbmint which bring in import tarrifs on those purchases to stop the trend and flow of dollars offshore.

and what did Intrinsic_value warn off several years ago?

There were topic threads on this, and I was shot down by many.

The simple fact is that its NOT a level playing field between bricks and morter and internet based businesses.

And as usual the average person will reap what they sow.

And as usual, Intrinsic_value gets bored debating subjective topics, and instead focuses on:

so be it, how do I profit from it.

 

[Graemsay]

I'm going to have to disagree with the comments that it's only low skilled work that's being shifted overseas.

A few weeks back I had an interview with an Indian company for an on-site contract position at one of the major banks in London. As far as I could tell, my duties would involve being an intermediary between the end client and an offshore development team.

The project would be to develop an Android app. Writing software counts as a skilled occupation (most practitioners are degree educated, and you need a few years experience to be decent at it), and has been heavily offshored in recent years.

It's not just software development that's headed to India: Accountancy, legal, financial and other professions are going the same way.

The net result is that wages and rates in the British IT industry have been pretty flat for a decade, and that's in nominal rather than real terms. In fact, there's been a real fall in the number of people going into the field since 2000 or so.

Given the importance of computers in modern society, that might come as a surprise. But outside of Silicon Valley, software development is a cost rather than a profit centre.

I agree with BayView's sentiments. Changing career is difficult, particularly if you need several years of training and education to achieve it. Throw in younger, less cynical, and cheaper competition, and it could be hard to get established.