Well, that's Holden stuffed. Where do people think that the economy is headed?

cannedhams on 11/12/2013 - 15:34
Last edited 11/12/2013 - 16:57 by 1 other user

Holden will stop production in Australia from 2017:-

http://www.smh.com.au/drive/motor-news/holden-to-cease-manuf…

Ford has already bowed out. It will be all but impossible for Toyota to sustain local production on its own.

50,000 workers in the Automotive sector. Plus the knock-on effect for all the people who cut their hair and cook their burgers and chips.

Softening terms of trade, business and consumer confidence down, it certainly doesnt bode well for the near future.

Anyone got any views on where the economy is headed?

Edit (_Bruce_): Corrected statistics.

Financial

Comments

  • bigticket on 11/12/2013 - 17:50
    +5

    Do we really want to head down the banana republic route?

    The manufacturing industries not only provide thousands of jobs but also and many thousands more from a network of flow on jobs in supply industries which have highly qualified engineers/employees and Research and Development teams.

    It is important for Australia to maintain this knowledge base, otherwise its gone and it takes many many years get to back to where we are today and Australia will be technology-wise backwards. By world standards we will be seen as a banana republic.

    I and am sure Australians want to be a smart nation, not a dumb nation where our children can only aspire to be someone with a shovel in hand digging up minerals for export and then buy back the value added products from smart nations.

    And now, only Toyota is left.

  • TheAviator on 11/12/2013 - 21:26
    +3

    This morning the Financial Review reported treasurer Joe Hockey 'dares GM to leave'. Hours later, they did it. Perhaps his comment was poorly timed, but it certainly couldn't have helped.

    But yes, in terms of the economy, quite a bit of trouble ahead it seems. Dollar is still pretty high and that hurts a lot of exporters. I think a lot of it is caused by mining, and we're left with a case of the Dutch Disease which, unless fixed, will continue to hurt our exporters.

    I think the best thing to do is keep investing in education and innovation, to get the high quality jobs we want and need. There are other things that can be done too but if I listed them this would go on forever :)

    • epicaricacy on 12/12/2013 - 13:43
      +4

      Here in WA we aren't investing in Education. We're massively CUTTING funds! Teach to the average, teach to the tests. We're not funded beyond that

  • thepigs on 11/12/2013 - 23:49
    +5

    5 years from now we'll all just be handing each other lattes

    • MITM on 12/12/2013 - 00:20
      +3

      ..serving lattes to the European tourists if we innovate to get them here.

      • andyken on 12/12/2013 - 17:54
        +3

        European goin broke too, maybe serving china tourist a latte as is the only country cant broke for at least next 50 year

  • MITM on 12/12/2013 - 00:17
    +7

    The Reserve bank is to blame with its maniacal drive for 2-3% inflation. This stat body was set up in an age of high inflation and is acting counter productive.
    The interest rate is twice as high as it should be (check against any other nation eg Swiss has 0% and 8% gst - how come ??)
    and GST too low to service all our wants and needs - relying on income and other taxes/levies to make up the diff.

    Not one mention was made about tourism during the election - which use to be our #1 export earner. Maybe 1 billion dollars PA would be better of spent flying in tourists for free or at least subsidised, by who else but QANTAS (after nationalisation). That is what Emirates is doing via Dubai - no one went there 10 years ago.

    Tourists dont come here any more because of the high dollar, same reason we cant sell exports. Tourist use to come here that could afford the travel time, the low dollar was a bonus. Australia is a politically stable, safe, healthy destination with an array of environments - so where the bloody hell are ya?

    We should have hopped into bed with Airbus or Boeing to help produce a plane suitable for Australia's distance from its markets. The QANTAS' A380 makes no difference compared to VirginOz 777 planes timewise. We need a Concorde equivalent where getting here is half of the Oz experience, not crammed into a lowball tin can for 15+ hours.

    And what is with giving back the GST to the tourists at the airport when they leave. Duh.

    Put up GST, increase tourist numbers and we'll be rolling in the tax dollars.
    Reducing the interest rate will leave more money in the pockets of the retail spenders while savers will offset overseas borrowings.

    People can choose not to pay a high GST by declining spending on unnecessary stuff (found on Ozbargain), but we'll have hospitals and schools and roads and wheelchairs for all, that we all bitch for. :-) Rant over.

    • _Bruce_ on 12/12/2013 - 07:08

      No government can raise taxes and stay in power, so it won't happen, regardless of if it is good policy.

    • Speckled Jim on 12/12/2013 - 10:34

      We need a Concorde equivalent where getting here is half of the Oz experience, not crammed into a lowball tin can for 15+ hours.

      Great idea in theory.
      Taken literally, the Concorde was hideously expensive to keep in service. The Air France accident was the final straw.

      Innovation must extend to this initiative, but I suspect NASA and others have already worked it out. Scramjets are supposed to be very fast but they're still ironing out the bugs.

    • nickj on 12/12/2013 - 11:29
      +15

      I think interest rates are WAY too low. If 4% rates are an issue, then we've got much bigger problems. Rates are supposed to be an indication of risk, and we are in a risky environment, not a risk-free one. Instead all that's happened is that people have used the lowest rates in history to leverage up property prices. It's a bomb waiting to go off when rates and unemployment rise, which after 22 years of expansion is sure to happen sooner rather than later. We need higher rates, tax reform related to property, and mandated higher deposit ratios.

      Also the problem with Aussie car manufacturing is that they were not making cars that people want to buy. e.g. my family used to be all locally manufactured cars 15 years ago, but they've bought 5 new cars in the past few years, and not a single one of them is Australian made. You can buy cheaper better foreign cars, that give more of what the customer wants - better mileage, better build quality, better reviews, better safety ratings, longer warranties, more features - for the same or fewer dollars. The government is not to blame, it's the car companies for not making cars that people want to buy.

      • [Deactivated] on 12/12/2013 - 20:55
        +4

        This. +1000. The last bit of insanity was to allow SMSF to lever up into property. The whole system is a house of cards now.

        • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 12/12/2013 - 20:59
          +2

          Yep, and the stupidity of the dimwits who used their SMSF to buy them. So lacking in creativity or effort, they just buy a house, crowding it out for the rest of us. I won't feel sorry for them (or any of the speculators, for that matter), when the bubble goes pop.

        • Resonance on 16/12/2013 - 14:14

          Unfortunately there is too much at stake for the politicians, banks, real estate developers and the media for any real action on property. They will do everything to keep property prices high. Compound this with the influx of Chinese and other Asian property buyers it is going to be unpleasant for the rest of us.

          http://smh.domain.com.au/real-estate-news/from-its-harbour-t…

        • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 16/12/2013 - 14:21
          +1

          Agree, but that doesn't prevent a collapse. Even with all the tax dodges and the insidious real estate industry culture, a recession leads to people (already up to their necks in debt) defaulting, mass defaulting leads to fire sales/foreclosures galore, which in turn lead to house prices dropping, in turn leading to halting of new construction (coupled with low consumer confidence, exacerbating the problem), this leading to a further drop in economic activity (i.e. a deeper recession), rinse and repeat. When house prices drop, the blow-in speculators from overseas will blow out just as quickly.

          I don't know when, I just know that it will in all likelihood happen.

    • cannedhams on 12/12/2013 - 12:08
      +1

      The Concorde is dead. Too expensive, too much fuel.

      The dollar is high, but not much we can do about it. Currency rates are a beauty contest, the least ugly wins. Right now Australia (economy not too bad, sovereign debt rates fairly low) is the least ugly.

      "And what is with giving back the GST to the tourists at the airport when they leave. Duh."

      Because we dont charge GST on exports, which is essentially what happens when tourists buy stuff. If I buy a Camry from Australia and get it shipped to the Seychelles, I dont pay GST. On the other hand, if I travel to Australia and pick it up, I pay GST but get it back at the airport.

      Change that, and you're essentially penalising people for travelling to Australia.

    • Cluster on 12/12/2013 - 21:37
      +3

      The Concorde was hideously expensive to design and run. The British and French governments had to join forces and bail out the whole program. It was more successful than the Tu-144 but by no means economical.

      Speed of flight is almost irrelevant today. Does it really make such a big difference to the vast majority of travelers if they get to Europe in 12 hours instead of 24? Would most people pay several times more per flight just to get there a little over twice as fast? Only two major aspects of aircraft performance matter today: fuel burn per passenger mile, and maintenance costs.

    • mousie on 12/12/2013 - 22:01
      +3

      Good idea. We should subsidise modelling contests, bikini waxes, tanning salons etc and promote our hot as$ babes to the likes of South Korea and China. So when they inevitably take us over with their 'tourist' dollars our women can help scam them out of their hard and fairly earned cash.

    • edgar28 on 13/12/2013 - 10:42

      RBA has no control over the bank……

      Policy holder should go study economics again! RBA should regulate the bank back! it's just a standard economy cycles, you regulate, deregulate, regulate, deregulate …… it's time to regulate back.

      Check the earning figures from the bank, "recession" or "bad time" earns record high compare to booming period…… where's the logic?

  • Cluster on 12/12/2013 - 01:23
    +4

    Many people are asking how the government could have let Holden fail. I don't think it's a government's responsibility to approach the situation with an open cheque book and 'how much?' being the only question.

    How many of us own a recent model Commodore, Cruze or Falcon? I don't, and almost nobody I know does either. A relative bought a new Prius C this year because that's the car he really wanted. Nothing locally made was available. A few friends own old 10+ year old Commodores that weren't purchased new and Holden makes nothing off old cars. We're all struggling with huge mortgages because we collectively, as Australians, have bid up the price of essentials such as housing. Me and my friends are out of the new car market for probably 5 years, maybe 10. If we had smaller mortgages we could have spent the money on a new car, but that won't be happening now. A new car is optional, but a place to live is mandatory.

    • Jstrrrr on 12/12/2013 - 02:18
      +2

      Yep. A small part of the reason why prices are high, is because the government is spending money on these inefficient industries, like Holden. The less we subsidise a mature industry, the more prosperous we get as a nation.

      The only time to subsidise an industry, is when it's at its infancy, with good prospect for growth, and just needs some money now to tide over. This is not Holden.

    • _Bruce_ on 12/12/2013 - 07:10
      +1

      The main reason for this is because of how cheap all the imported cars are. The real failing here is not subsidies but poorly negotiated trade agreements that stop us taxing imported cars to a competitive level. We also tend to get forced into placing certain laws and other issues.

      • Jstrrrr on 12/12/2013 - 11:13
        +1

        Tariff on imports do the same thing as subsidising Holden.

        An extra $5000 spent on tariff by the consumer, is $5000 not spent buying furniture, clothes, movies, etc.

        Besides, we already have LCT. Our "above-average" cars are already two to three times more expensive than Europe or USA.

        • _Bruce_ on 12/12/2013 - 11:41

          It isn't the same at all. The money goes into the government and could offset other taxes to this supposed person who is not able to buy furniture or clothes. Realistically though, only people with money to burn are buying new cars, so it is a perfect market to target.

        • Jstrrrr on 12/12/2013 - 15:47
          +1

          It is more same than not.

          This extra money that goes to the government comes from the consumer, who is paying for the tariff. If the car doesn't sell, no tariff is paid by the consumer, the government doesn't' get to collect the tariff.

          Either way, the consumer is paying the tariff or the government subsidy. I will accept that there is a difference in that with a subsidy, the entire tax paying population is propping up Holden. Whereas with a tariff, only those buying import cars who would've otherwise bought a Holden is propping up Holden.

          But the net effect is still the same. 10 million people each with 1 less dollar to spend, is ultimately the same as 10 thousand people each with 1000 dollars less to spend, on the whole.

    • supersabroso on 13/12/2013 - 00:48

      Hear hear! I don't need anymore rich people jacking up housing prices because they have bought 5 investment properties after fighting off competition . God I hope something gets done about that, forget the first home buyer bonus. How about you make it so that houses are sold to first home buyers as a priority over investors? Once the people/couples can get a single roof over their heads, let the investors buy as many properties as they want.

      Furthermore, has no government worked out that if you just force people to work the maximum that they can (ie. 5 days a week) there won't be so many moochers on Centrelink? Soooo many people choose to work 2 or 3 days a week so that they can get the max benefit for the least effort. They refuse to work the extra 2 or 3 days a week because then it cuts into their centrelink money.

      If their employer is happy for them to work 5, force them to work 5! Otherwise, cut their centrelink to 0, that'll teach them to be lazy. Centrelink should be for getting people on their feet, not for lazy people who just want the minimum standard of life. You can have your freedom to be slack, just don't expect other people to pay for you because you've made a life decision to be poor with spare time rather than average with only the weekends as spare time.

      • _Bruce_ on 13/12/2013 - 07:04

        Furthermore, has no government worked out that if you just force people to work the maximum that they can (ie. 5 days a week) there won't be so many moochers on Centrelink?

        Have you heard of communism?

        • supersabroso on 13/12/2013 - 22:14

          Haha, I meant our government. No need to resort to communism, I just don't want my hard earned cash going to slackers who could get off their lazy butts and not need my money which could go to people that actually need it. (Or getting started on a railway that moves faster than our slow, slow roads)

        • _Bruce_ on 14/12/2013 - 09:07
          +1

          You realise you just described communism right?

        • cheepwun on 15/12/2013 - 01:54
          +1

          I just don't want my hard earned cash going to slackers who could get off their lazy butts and not need my money which could go to people that actually need it.

          Government (& bankers) are the biggest welfare recipients.
          http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-23/government-gives-rba-o…

          I'm pretty sure we had no say in this either.
          Freedom & democracy at work.

  • RefusdClassification on 12/12/2013 - 01:26
    -1

    It is worrying because Australia has almost lost what capacity it had to manufacture tech items and is almost wholly dependent upon imports. A trade blockade would send us back to the Middle Ages. We can mine raw materials but we cannot craft them into finished items.

    MITM, even if the Australian dollar dropped to 75% of the US dollar, Australia still wouldn't be able to export manufactured products, because our wages are too high, there is too much redtape jacking up production costs, and we no longer know how to. Why would anyone choose to manufacture anything in Australia when they can offshore to Commie China? Only a massively automated factory would possibly be viable (like Volkswagen have in Germany). Australia would still be a very expensive destination for tourists with the dollar at 75% of the US, and unlike France, another expensive destination, we don't have historical and artistic attractions.

    I simply don't know what the solution is, but I think reducing government and nonessential services would be a start, rather than hiking up GST to pay for more handouts and entitlements. It is very expensive to run a bureacraccy heavy socialist nation; educating a child costs $12,500 a year here and apparaently it costs $80,000 a year to incarcerate criminals (why so expensive?).In America for instance, expenditure on complying with government legislaion has increased at 2.7 times the rate of economic growth since the sixties, and the figures are probably similar here. It apparently works out at $4,680 US per person in the States.

    "Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."
    Ayn Rand

    • cheepwun on 13/12/2013 - 23:00

      As usual, some of the best comments are the faded ones. Well-put.
      We pay too much to thieves in this country.

      Most of the developed nations are in the same boat.
      The politicians don't give a damn; this is the way of the world now.

      New slaves to milk while milking us too.
      People that think we can just keep importing cheap goods with no repercussions on local industry are dreaming. People that hang on to "buy Australian" are dreaming too. The sandpit we play in has inevitable consequences with the rules we live under.

      All the while we pay carbon taxes to our UN overlords, fund wars for resources and destroy the planet (& millions of lives) while doing so.

  • Jstrrrr on 12/12/2013 - 01:57
    +4

    We should do what we are good at. If it's not manufacturing cars, then it's time to let Holden go. More people will benefit from this overall. But it will be hard, temporarily, for some of those 50,000 people who will need to look for new jobs. However, ultimately, this is good for our economy.

  • SpaceNinja on 12/12/2013 - 03:40
    +2

    Note sure why some people are trying down play it by implying that only unskilled jobs will be affected. I am pretty sure many upper, middle management and other professional positions like IT, accounting, marketing, law etc will also be hit, directly and flow-on.
    In all, I see this as a big blow to the economy.
    Instead of daring GM to leave why didn't the government try to get in touch with them to see what could be done. Worth a try at-least.

    • Jstrrrr on 12/12/2013 - 10:53

      The skilled worker will find new jobs. So the effect on them would be small.

      • kwaker on 12/12/2013 - 14:18
        +6

        Find what jobs? There are no 50,000 skilled jobs sitting there waiting for them. There is already competition.

        • Jstrrrr on 12/12/2013 - 15:53

          Jobs are out there. As more workers come to the market, companies can hire the same worker for less pay, or stifle pay increases in its current work force, or hire 5 people for the price of 4. Thus the jobs are created, people are employed. Yes, everyone will earn less, but because we are no longer subsidising an inefficient industry, the overall wastage is smaller - that is to say, with your reduced pay, you can, in fact, buy more! This is not something you will realise - for example, you will realise that your pay has been cut by 20% in the above example, let's say. But you will fail to notice that your yearly grocery cost didn't go up by 20%, but will certainly otherwise have, had you kept subsidising Holden, and deprived the farming industry of funds, for example.

          You will just have to trust that the math works out, if you take out the inefficiencies.

          As more workers become available, work becomes cheaper for all employers. The profit that result will be spent, either by investing in something, or on consumption. This would then create new jobs for the whole nation.

          But yes, a sudden influx of 50,000 workers would make it difficult in the short term. That's why we have the dole, and programs to support you finding a job, or New Start. etc. Whether these programs can be improved upon, that's a different story.

        • uccoffee on 12/12/2013 - 18:51
          +2

          yours is a theory , It may become true like any other economic theory.
          Only time can tell.

        • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 12/12/2013 - 19:05

          His 'theory' ignores economic history. Namely that countries rise and fall, due to poverty driving ambition, and affluence driving complacency. It's a natural human condition.

          You'll only fix this by directly intervening politically to educate, plan cities well and build infrastructure. This current government wouldn't have a clue though - everything's viewed through a warped moralistic prism.

        • burpa on 13/12/2013 - 23:05

          There's quite alot of debates on the web such as smh discussing the very fact that Holden workers have been extremely apathetic to their companies interests. Think of it this way, car workers in the US have been happy to work with $14 instead $28 per hour and had during the GFC without pay. The mentality in Australia had been difficult with unions demanding pay rises every year or so let alone the strikes in the past month. Im not going to talk about salaries but i think it could of gone done alot better considering that 56k is not that bad for a non-skilled assemble worker.

        • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 13/12/2013 - 23:20

          When you say US, you need to clarify that it's not the Detroit workers, but those in the southern states, where wages are decidedly meagre.

        • burpa on 13/12/2013 - 23:28

          I dont think the local detroit governement still functions. Didn't they need to borrow money from some other city. Back on to the point, you must be joking with Detroit right, 16% unemployment and still rising. The US car industry is recovering and if not, why would it still support so many workers whilst earning substantial profits.

          Actually Detroit is officially bankrupt for reasons i don't want to say. If the corporations say they are cutting people because of competition than believe only half what is said. Ive heard that GM is investing in 3D printing technology, used by NASA, and it wont be long before there will be a mass sacking. Google it if you dont believe me. Corporations aren't charities in the end and will only continue investing in projects which make more money than the previous.

        • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 14/12/2013 - 00:00

          My point was simply that it wasn't GM HQ that was leaning down so much as the newer factories in the south.

          Corporations are probably running toward the end of their tethers, as the last drops of productivity are squeezed out of value chains, and they aren't serving society well. Cooperatives will be the only chance at saving the world from this slide into hyper capitalist destruction.

  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 12/12/2013 - 06:26

    The REAL question is what badges will the bogans have to whack on their shitbox lowered Holdens, after 2017, to maintain street cred when cutting laps and the odd burnout on a Saturday night.

  • BobD on 12/12/2013 - 07:50

    Apparently the decision was made by Detroit back in October at the same time the Holden CEO Mike Devereux was promoted out of here. They did not want to announce it then or even now until they were pushed.

    The GM chairman & CEO (Dan Akerson) gave a number of reasons including high dollar, high costs of production, small domestic market and he implied tariffs were too low. The Holden CEO (Devereux) said they looked at building two new models but ultimately building cars in OZ was unsustainable.

    • _Bruce_ on 12/12/2013 - 11:42
      -1

      Source?

  • tomleonhart on 12/12/2013 - 08:23
    +2

    Now Qantas to follow.

    • Jstrrrr on 12/12/2013 - 11:28
      +8

      Quote: "Its time our over-paid, professional pollies planned many years ahead, like China does: they plan 50, 100 years ahead!
      By comparison we are but a mickey-mouse nation with little minds and no future vision beyond the 3 years elections!"

      This is one of the significant failings of a democratic nation. Election forces the government to bend to the will of the people. And if the people aren't smart enough to know what's good for them, then the whole nation fails.

      For all the bad press China gets for its iron fist central rule, their 5/10/50 year plans can be carried out by a government that stays in perpetual power. And it works.

      Democracy = mediocre government that placates the people
      Iron fist = you take a chance on the guys in charge - it can work really well, or really poorly.

      • skillet on 12/12/2013 - 11:45

        Exactly, good example - North Korea

        • Speckled Jim on 12/12/2013 - 13:04

          Yeah!
          Look at all the repeals, wind-backs and general "one step forwards, two steps back" we get here.
          Or is that two forward, one back?

          As I type this, they're rolling out NBN cable in my street, but they're doing the houses opposite. At least, they've blocked the footpath and their trucks are on that side.
          The NBN review was published today. I wonder if we'll all get FTTP or will it be another have/not scenario?

          But seriously? China? Would you like to breathe the air in China?
          NK still has forced labour camps, as did Burma (Myanmar) but that's okay so long as there's long-term results?

        • Jstrrrr on 12/12/2013 - 15:59

          For all the bad press China air gets, China's life expectancy isn't that far below ours. And their asthma rate is much much much much lower than Australia.

        • Cluster on 12/12/2013 - 21:27
          +5

          http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24880737

          "The number of lung cancer cases in the Chinese capital Beijing has soared over the last decade.

          According to figures published by the state-run Xinhua news agency, they have increased by more than 50%."

          Unless the Chinese have taken up tobacco in a big way over the last ten years I'd say something else is at play.

          I remember visiting China in 2007 and seeing a grey smog in and between cities on many days. Made the lights look rather pretty, but you have to wonder what it's doing to the people and farmland. Hong Kong was crystal clear one day and a brown mass of smog the next, depending on which way the wind was blowing from Shenzhen. In Xian we couldn't tell a big rainstorm was coming (got caught in it) because visibility was maybe 100m all the time. Couldn't see the clouds roll in.

          Much of this pollution comes from households burning coal as a winter heating fuel. It was common to see stacks of coal and briquettes near homes. No pollution controls at all as the flue gasses enter the atmosphere.

          I have extended family living in China. They recently visited Australia and have just gone back to China and are complaining about the pollution. It's not a Western beat up or propaganda: the country is facing an air quality crisis.

    • JediJan on 12/12/2013 - 11:31
      +5

      I agree with you that Australia has become far too complacent … selling Australian land and farms to Asian countries at an alarming rate. I honestly don't see the sense in this; economists will probably disagree there but selling Australia under our feet cannot be a good thing. My understanding is that China is headed for a huge downfall, but the problem for us is that it will drag the rest of it's trading partners down with it (including Australia).

      Just returned from China! Thought you had a problem with communism/socialism so why did you waste your hard earned Aussie dollars there? Seeking a cheap labour source or goods perhaps? We do have a Liberal government back in power now so why are you bagging the Labor Party once again though? Must say the Liberals are a tad slow in repealing the Carbon Tax and seeking to raise the debt ceiling to boot! Who exactly are you peeing on; Australia and/or the unions?

      Unions are nothing these days to what they once were; perhaps you don't have a young teen to support, who does not have the same workplace rights you would have enjoyed in your youth. You came back to Australia after Vietnam to job opportunities everywhere. You are part and parcel of the same process in action; you enjoyed the low interest rates that enabled you to buy your first homes, with job security and high incomes. Think of what your generation has left to the youth of Australia; they don't have a chance with your generation's greed. Yes, you are definitely peeing on Australia (the next generation).

      • goers on 12/12/2013 - 12:07
        -5

        Hey Oi Oi Oi. Thnx for your yobbo comments.
        Before you jump to conclusions, I go to countries like China and Vietnam doing charitable work, all at my expense.
        And making an impact there since 1994. No not there for any personal gain, but to give out.
        Thnx for the typical sarcasm and insensitivity.
        As for 'Labor (mispelled, should be labour. We are not Yanks) Party': they are are not ALP but ACTU through and through. And socialists. Some Unions are actually pseudo-mafia! Let's get it right.
        And, I have been self-employed, not bludging in any way on tax payers.
        Don't blame me for 'my generation'. Had nothing to do with their greed.
        Except the next generation has had it too good and expect more of the same without the price us 'pioneers' had to pay. (my family pioneered without power, radio, tv, and hand tools and made a go of it)

        • Car-la-la on 12/12/2013 - 12:15
          +6

          damn guess the ALP must have misspelt it too on their official website/documents …

          www.alp.org.au

          it's definitely Labor you old goose!

        • ESEMCE on 12/12/2013 - 14:06

          Ouch…

        • JediJan on 13/12/2013 - 13:46
          +1

          Must say I have never been called a "yobbo" before; find that most interesting (not I thumbing you down by the way). I asked about your interest in Asia as I do know of others that do just what I said, with no thought of helping to keep the jobs at home; just opportunists really. Nice of you to be engaged in charitable work. Unfortunately many seem to forget that many Australians are living well below the poverty line too. I find it quite absurd we, as an apparent affluent country, still have homeless. Most of these homeless are youth with no future employment prospects; I would like to see more work done to help the young get on. (Ulp, my ex was self-employed and he used that method to avoid paying child support (and tax) quite effectively. I am certainly not insinuating you would do the same, but just hope you can see where I am coming from). Nevertheless I still feel Australia is the best country in the World; just hope above all things improve soon for all concerned. I wonder if public works is a possibility for improvement in the current climate, but I am not knowledgeable in this area.

      • dealman on 12/12/2013 - 17:55
        -2

        Must say the Liberals are a tad slow in repealing the Carbon Tax

        Have you been living under a ROCK ? it was the A LABOR P that after two mandates still refuses to give the people what they are asking for.

        and seeking to raise the debt ceiling to boot!

        Labor Supporters have no basis to speak of Debt, look at what the past 6 years has been when the country was left with a huge surplus to begin with.

        Unions are nothing these days to what they once were;

        And aren't we glad about that, the fact that there are atleast some jobs left in the country. If it were only up to the unions, all of Australian manufacturing would be already dead. Let's get this clear,

        Unions DON'T create jobs, Infact come to think of it, Unions don't create anything but trouble.

        They are about a fifty years past Best before their use by date..

      • aripper on 12/12/2013 - 18:32

        "Must say the Liberals are a tad slow in repealing the Carbon Tax" (?) *What are you smoking there? The Libs are trying to repeal the carbon tax - Labor and the Greens are blocking it in the senate!

        "You came back to Australia after Vietnam to job opportunities everywhere. You are part and parcel of the same process in action; you enjoyed the low interest rates that enabled you to buy your first homes, with job security and high incomes. Think of what your generation has left to the youth of Australia; they don't have a chance with your generation's greed. Yes, you are definitely peeing on Australia (the next generation)" (?) What an uninformed attack on the 70's people.

        ????? low interest rates - job security - in the early seventies???? You obviously read books and get the facts and dates mixed up. There was a real estate crash and loan interest rates (I was there!) were up around 20% at worst.
        Not like today's 6 or 7%.

        "Greed" - (a word often used by losers)wasn't as prevalent then as it is capable of being now - and the correct term is "opportunity", a word seldom used or understood by losers and whingers like your uninformed self.

        Perhaps "Jedi's" dont always read a situation before attacking it.

        • JediJan on 13/12/2013 - 12:32
          +2

          I was also working in the seventies; days where a single income family could afford to repay a home loan and survive quite well. My brother's single income (white collar) had a wife at home and four young children to support and managed quite well. That was the norm back in the 60s and 70s. I don't mean to appear to attack the 70s people at all, just don't see why we can be complaining of our lot when it is so more difficult for today's generations.

          Also, apart from having better working conditions in the 70s (first hand experience) when you could resign from a job one day and have another lined up for the next … new employers were annoyed they had to wait while you worked your week's notice! If you were unhappy with an employer you simply left and found one that appreciated your efforts better, as many of us did (several times).

          I don't particularly favour one party over another (although I must admit I did like John Howard as PM … now that has thrown a spanner in the works!) although I have been noticing the election propaganda has not been followed. Hardly surprising I know.

          Sorry that you disagree with me, but seriously the young folk of today do not have it as easy as the young and families of the 60s and 70s. Unless both parents are working full-time today it is nigh on impossible for them to manage; that is my "simple" comparison. I have no economics background, although a working career in finance, insurance and semi government authorities. How many do you know of that can manage on a single (average) income today?

          Yes, I do agree with you that the "opportunities" today are far more limited for this generation. Perhaps "greed" was not the correct term to use (please accept my apology); "whinge" as a lament for today's working families and the workers of the 70s who do not appreciate how good we really had it (under the Unions). Tell me I am wrong but I felt much more secure in my employment, as a "permanent" staffer too, not a "casual" worried about job security.

        • _Bruce_ on 13/12/2013 - 12:44

          Unless both parents are working full-time today it is nigh on impossible for them to compete

          Fixed that for you. In the middle class keep up with your peers world, it is expected to have both parents work and amas big shiny cars, have a house in the right location and so on.

          It is not needed to 'manage'.

          As for getting a job at all - here I agree with you, but this is (and always has been) somewhat industry specific.

        • JediJan on 13/12/2013 - 13:15
          +1

          There are plenty of working families out there struggling to make ends meet - It is just "nigh on impossible" to run a household on a single income, and most are seriously worried about job security, some putting up with really depressing work environments. Not all amass big shiny cars etc.

          Look what happened with the 90s recession when one parent either lost their job or had their hours cut; families simply couldn't meet the mortgage repayments. Many of them never recovered from those defaults; never tried again to purchase their own homes. I remember families living out of cars, men holding up cardboard signs standing on highway kerbsides desperately seeking work. Industry specific? One of my parents had an extension built onto their house and men were knocking on the door day and night seeking any kind of work. I was facing redundancy in a semi government authority, so moved interstate seeking casual employment, so did not take up a pre-approved mortgage.

          Anyways, better buzz off for now. Thank you for your response but I don't wish to keep getting off-topic; just showing my concern for today's young workers.

    • NosDan on 12/12/2013 - 11:42
      +4

      Us VN Vets died and suffered for nothing!

      you got that bit right…

      That is just what John Howard tried to open us up to with Work Choices, so we could be competitive, IF we were willing to be so

      what the morons who wanted this in forgot was to be "competitive" you cant only do that on someones income alone, cost and standards of living have to take a massive dive. to put it into something you may be able to understand (assuming you really are a vet), all you VV's who came home to all the perks like war pensions and your own vets hospitals and government paid for private transport, things like that would be out the window. in fact if you cant come back and work a full time job (caus say, your arm was blown off) you would have to either be taken care of 100% by your own family or would simply be cast out and left to die… i bet if that happened your views of howards workchoices would be a lot different

    • cheepwun on 14/12/2013 - 08:54
      +2

      Folks, I am a Vietnam Vet and we paid a big price to keep out socialism /communism.

      At least that's what they'd like you to think.
      Unfortunately, like all wars, the propaganda regarding them is false and many innocent died for the psychopaths calling for war and profiting from it. (see the War On Terror we are living through now)

      http://www.prisonplanet.com/de-classified-vietnam-era-transc…

      Otherwise I agree with your post completely.

      Back to wars. Today we are living through the modern equivalent of "you're a commie", with the War On Terror raging now. And we are losing more and more freedoms we thought we had. Then there's the environmental fascism that's going to kill our property rights under the guise of protecting the environment, all under the UN's Agenda 21. And it's not like any of us have ANY SAY whatsoever with regards to our participation in this either. We are under the control of the UN and its various agencies. So much for our so-called freedom & democracy.

      We fight for corporate interests. Always have.

      http://williamblum.org/books/killing-hope/
      http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

  • [Deactivated] on 12/12/2013 - 10:16
    +4

    Someone asked what government will do to keep the unemployment rate down. The answer of course is, the same thing they've always done in the past (but that few noticed):

    Invent another flood of "vitally necessary" public servant jobs to prop up their deck of cards, keeping unemployment artificially low, in the hope the whole thing doesn't implode on their watch so they still get to shove their snouts into their fat pensions.

    The carry on effect of this is of course, more interference in our lives. More of their inept nanny-state rules, fines, control measures… because the new influx of pen-pushers will have little to actually DO. They'll feel obligated to look busy and the rest of us will pay for their boredom.

    Watch for new government departments popping up and being tasked to fix this or that (when it never needed fixing before). New government buildings will go up to house them, as they did recently with new FaCS/Child Protection buildings that sprung up nearly overnight (like the cockroach dens they are) throughout most of Australia.

    • Jstrrrr on 12/12/2013 - 10:56
      +1

      Yep. Government approves its own waste - doing what is seen to be right in the media than what is actually right.

      The only real way to keep people employed is to give them skills, AND MOTIVATION.

      Unfortunately, as a nation gets wealthier, motivation drops.

    • one man clan on 12/12/2013 - 11:28
      +4

      The government is cutting jobs not creating them.

      Those people are the same as holden factory workers, ie. they have families, mortgages, kids etc. to support.

  • aripper on 12/12/2013 - 11:50
    +3

    I for one (?) would have liked to see Holden stay in Oz, but there are some hard cold facts to now be considered.

    It must now be accepted that GMH was never an Australian car. It was merely a money making subsidiary of a foreign company that had gradually come to getting Australians to pay their own wages via their government.

    eg….
    50 thousand workers av. $50000 comes to approx $250 million

    50 thousand workers on welfare less GST approx $ 90 million

    So apart from anything else, it would appear having Holden is a net balance plus of $240 million to our economy. BUT considering the handouts to "keep" them here, the real loss in monetary terms is zero!

    5 Considering 4 above, everytime we see the Holden badged racing team going around or a Holden ad on TV etc. it's understandable that we see Holden as our car - because we made it and we paid for it - twice if we own one!

    Holden has known for a lot of years now that because of steeply rising fuel costs and supply uncertainty, the market demand has been to smaller more economical cars. Sure, you can buy a smaller model badged Holden,
    but it's not really a Holden if it's made overseas… and you may ask why they didn't start making them here? Why did they ignore local demand and allow many other overseas brands to establish here because they didn't offer the demanded alternative to larger cars. Could it have been the influence of their parent company… that even today, feeds their market demands there for larger cars… in the face of the market changes they too face but fail to adjust to.

    We were so excited in 1948 (I remember!) to get an "Australian" car manufacturer, but that was then. We are so much better informed and wiser these days that we cant be so easily fooled as we were then.

    I didn't want to see Ford go and again, I don't want to see the equally familiar face of Holden disappear, but if the Australian taxpayer has to permanently prop them up then they must be considered a liability… and a manufacturing liability should never be accepted as a fixture or ignored.

    • Jstrrrr on 12/12/2013 - 12:14
      +3

      Regardless of where the headquarters is, a business plant that is local, is, for all intends and purposes, local. The economic effects are local.

      I don't know about the profits and where it goes though. Seems like if the taxpayers are subsidising Holden, then Holden should not be allowed to stream revenue overseas, or indeed claim to turn a profit. They should've re-invested everything to make themselves self-sustainable. I don't know if they did that.

      If they didn't, then Holden management has a lot to answer for. If they did and did it well, then ultimately, labour costs in Australia are not suited to making cars when overseas labourers are willing to accept less payments.

      In any case, the government will soon have an extra few hundred million to spend on other things - let's hope they put the money to good use.

    • Speckled Jim on 12/12/2013 - 14:07

      I don't mean to be picky, but Holden did start local manufacture of the Cruze a couple of years ago IIRC.
      But it's no class leader.

    • krunchymoses on 12/12/2013 - 22:53
      +1

      Hold on, did you just say 50,000 workers @ $50,000 = $250 million. Isn't that actually $2.5bn? (50,000 x50,000 = 2,500,000,000) if those workers are being paid $50k each and their tax is estimated online at being $7797, then that equals $389,850,000 directly in income taxes alone. Right? Didn't the government just make $139,850,000 in almost effortless revenue? And we stopped a swathe of people being forced to default on their mortgages, possibly leading to dissolved families and suicides (I have done a study on the correlation between suicide, domestic violence and unemployment, especially long term. So please don't flame me for that).

      • aripper on 13/12/2013 - 13:18

        It's like the bald parrot who said "If I had one more feather I'd fly" - my calculator only has 8 digits, so I bow to your superior sourcing and apologise for my unintended error. On the corrected figures it seems we just cant afford to lose Holden from manufacturing in Australia then.

        Maybe our government should consider un-floating the Oz dollar and resetting it's value way below what it is to better compete here in Asia and elsewhere - just as the very successful Chinese are doing.

        • burpa on 13/12/2013 - 23:17

          No need to reset since the dollar is falling faster than anything now. Pegging the currency would be more harmful than anything whilst given the current public debt levels as a well as a highly inefficient government. Australia is fine as long as people realize that living below means sometimes is necessary given that has been the situation in Asia, Europe and Usa.

        • krunchymoses on 15/12/2013 - 16:01

          Well, for some reason China doesn't have to follow WTO rules and we do. Who the hell thinks free trade is actually a good idea in practice? Not in this world. We should have tariffs on things to protect local industry. The ideology that all tariffs are simply bad is just silly. And hurting this country.

        • NosDan on 15/12/2013 - 21:36
          +1

          Who the hell thinks free trade is actually a good idea in practice?

          and the more you learn about FTA's the more horrid they become. theres a LOT of dirty back room crap going on in secret that they dont want getting out. 99% of people dont/wont benefit from FTA's… its mostly only the 1% who will.

  • Cluster on 12/12/2013 - 12:21
    +2

    We have a free trade agreement with Thailand. Nissan, Mazda, Holden and Honda manufacture vehicles there and import them tax free into Australia.

    What does Australia get in return?

    "Australia has an FTA with Thailand. The Ford Territory, which costs between $39,990 and $62,740 in Australia, costs around $100,000 in Thailand. The equivalent locally made car in Thailand costs $35,000.

    The main reason for the difference is an internal excise tax which gets around the FTA. There's also a tax rebate for first car buyers that only applies to cars built in Thailand."

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-16/kohler-car-industry/50…

    Whoever negotiated the FTA with Thailand and thought they were getting a good deal is a fool. We're lowering our tariffs while other nations are raising theirs (either directly or indirectly through special rebates). They must think we're idiots.

    • Jstrrrr on 12/12/2013 - 12:36

      Lowering our tariffs is good for us as a whole. We will have more spare money to spend on other industries, buying other things, and those associated industries will benefit, which will have their own flow-on effects - since everyone loves to talk about flow-on.

      As long as the effect is not sudden and leaves the inevitable retrenched employees unprepared. Holden and Ford employees knew this was coming. I hope they have been preparing - following new job leads, acquiring new skills, etc. If not, they have until 2016/17 to do so. That is enough time to get a new certificate/diploma/degree!

      • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 12/12/2013 - 13:28
        +2

        "As long as the effect is not sudden and leaves the inevitable retrenched employees unprepared."

        Three years isn't a whole lot of time when you have a government not interested in supporting education or infrastructure.

      • Cluster on 12/12/2013 - 14:13
        +2

        Lower tariffs are generally a good idea, but only if the lowering is bilateral. If one side lowers their tariffs and the other doesn't the benefit is solely unidirectional.

        Thailand gets to build up their car industry through exports to Australia while our manufacturers can't compete due to Thai tariffs under the alleged FTA. Thai consumers who would like to buy an Australian made car miss out, but considering how broad their locally manufactured product base is it's not much of an issue.

        We're too complacent in Australia and think mining will save the day. The reality is we need manufacturing as China is rapidly expanding mining operations in Africa where workers don't demand $150k/pa to drive a truck. Perhaps we're too small to sustain a car industry and should look to specialise in something else, but we should do it very quickly. Once an industry leaves a nation it never returns.

        • Jstrrrr on 12/12/2013 - 15:33
          +2

          But this is not true. When we buy cheap cars from Thailand, we will have spare cash to spend on other things. And some of these other things be locally produced - such as, dining out for breakfast more often.

          A lower import tariff on cars means our car industry suffers, but our other industries will benefit.

          Thailand's tariff on our cars does hurt our car industry, no argument there. But that's beyond our control.

          There needs to be no symmetry between nations on tariffs on industries.

        • Cluster on 12/12/2013 - 21:46

          A tariff levied by the government is essentially a tax that stays within the country. It's true that an Australian wanting to buy an imported car gets it at a cheaper price, but even with a tariff the money still stays within Australia and is included in general government revenue that's then (usually) spent internally.

          The imported vehicle without a tariff is cheaper, and the citizen gets the option of spending the saved money on other goods (such as dining out for breakfast), but not all spending is equally valuable. It can be argued that a dollar spent on manufacturing goods that can be exported is far more valuable than a dollar spent on a local service industry such as breakfast. Not to take away anything from the cook making breakfast, but the former example requires higher qualifications of an engineer or designer.

          There needs to be symmetry and counter balances in all free trade agreements. It seems to me whoever signed off on the FTA with Thailand left gaping loopholes behind that are now being exploited. Legally, Thailand is following the letter of the law, but they're really flouting the very spirit of it. A decent negotiator takes care of such fine details.

  • Baghern on 12/12/2013 - 13:38

    People make too much noise about this $1 subsidy : $6 return. Based on that fact it means non subsidized companies are giving us $8: for no subsidy(random).

    The problem is the size of the workforce… small companies go broke all the time, the money that people spent on them would of been spread out to elsewhere, the economy quickly bounces back from any ill effect that its not noticeable.

    Imagine if all the good ol' cornerstores disappeared at the same time, instead of bits and drabs.

    But due to the size of Holden, the effects will be more long term.

    These subsidies industries has others have mentioned, allowed wages to grow too quick, AND not scaled back their operations. They should not of been allowed to grow this big.

    Its like the US food industry, subsidized industry are profiting from subsidies by making more than whats needed, exporting even. Its akin to the Electricity companues gold plating.

    • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 12/12/2013 - 13:46

      "Imagine if all the good ol' cornerstores disappeared at the same time, instead of bits and drabs."

      They're not exactly hard to replace. Most of their employees would be able to find work in the new shops. Heavy manufacturing is nigh on impossible to establish these days - only the exisitng manufacturers have the capital and expertise to set new sites up.

      Re the $6 for $1 argument, I guess the question is do we need the car industry for the good of our country? The conentional wisdom was it's needed to have us prepared for heavy manufacture in time of war. Perhaps more investment needs to be made in Tenix and the like?

      We also need to work out what we are good at, and get better at it. We have an innovative streak, a decent sized and stable financial sector, a population which has become used to white collar work, yet education funding is drying up, and the central piece of infrastructure for a modern knowledge economy - the NBN - is being cut to pieces.

      We have no leadership right now. It needs to change.

      • H_J on 12/12/2013 - 14:57

        All right , Let's think.

        IT Biology goes to USA for sure.
        Manufacture goes to Japan or Germany for sure
        Cheap labor goes to China and south east Asia for sure.
        What left?
        Life Enjoyment!

        • Jstrrrr on 12/12/2013 - 15:34

          We have resources, and some biotech/health industry, also wool, and some tourism.

          But that's it, I think.

        • machej on 12/12/2013 - 17:52
          +1

          …and education. So many international students paying huge bucks for average education. :P

  • ironplus on 12/12/2013 - 14:06

    Am I the only one who found it hard to read the title? LOL

  • Moderatorneil on 12/12/2013 - 14:41

    Please stay on-topic. This is a thread about the recent announcement of Holden no longer manufacturing in Australia and where our economy is headed.

  • H_J on 12/12/2013 - 14:51

    If you build an Industry only supply your own country ,then you don't really need it.
    If Australia can not build cars to export then no meaning of keeping the industry.
    We don't need to worry about those are gone, they are gone for a good reason.

    • kwaker on 12/12/2013 - 14:57
      +1

      So all bakeries and hairdressers should close? They only supply their own country. I don't get your logic

      • H_J on 12/12/2013 - 14:58

        They are service.

    • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 12/12/2013 - 15:04
      +1

      You need lynchpin industries to earn FX, in order to afford imports. For every local purchase of an imported good, we need a matching sale of an export, otherwise we're losing wealth as a country.

    • _Bruce_ on 12/12/2013 - 15:18
      +1

      Australia exports a lot of cars now. Problem is with the Australian dollar they are loosing money.

  • cloudy on 12/12/2013 - 15:00
    +3

    For too long now, we have had companies and industries titled "too big to fail". It is good to know, they can fail, because they can't hold a govt to ransom for more and more money in order to keep someones job.

    In saying that, i really do hope lots of assistance is given to those who lost their jobs, too many of them would find it tough to find new employment, so i feel for them.

    • Jstrrrr on 12/12/2013 - 15:36

      Absolutely! They are such a waste of money, that can be directed to other more survivable industries, that these companies are in fact too big to not fail. But the average voter don't understand that. And the media, who one would hope that understand this, wants to feed them what they want to hear, rather than what's good for them.

      Yes. The upsets in job security is an issue.

  • altomic on 12/12/2013 - 15:15

    apparently the "economy" is going to keep going.

    the loss of holden is but a footnote in the pages of australian history.

    i don't know why the aus government was subsidising a car maker that continued to produce large CC cars capable of 240kph when our speed limits are half that.

    this is when we need to take a good look at 1930's germany and create a people car. simple, reliable and affordable. simplify things. bloody cars nowadays…they park themselves. when did we become so retarded that we can't reverse park?!

    and having all these bells and whistles (except safety features as I'm all for more safety).

    what ever happened to the concept of platform/changable cars that had a base that was the drive train, engine wheels etc and with a removable body? somehting that you could keep the body up to date by swapping the body. like the chassis of a VW beetle is removable by undoing 50 bolts or so.

    and ceramic engines. the promise of an aircooled engine that would use less petrol and would be simpler with out needing a fluid cooling system?

    • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 12/12/2013 - 15:19
      +2
      • "this is when we need to take a good look at 1930's germany"

      This they are doing.

      • "and create a people car"

      This they are not.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join