Unlike Sathius I don't make statements that can't be backed up and are outright lies. Maybe you can dispute what I have said.Thanks for quoting a liberal party publication sathius v2
Unlike Sathius I don't make statements that can't be backed up and are outright lies. Maybe you can dispute what I have said.Thanks for quoting a liberal party publication sathius v2
Figure of speech. That does not negate the fact that per machine came near $15,000. Boost to productivity of course.
Be glad to. Unlike Sathius I can back what I say with raw facts.hahhahhahahaha no way, pls source this
What are you on about? Manufacturing is declining because we can't compete with low wage economies. People might not want to do blue collar work in the future but the fact is most middle age people RIGHT NOW have no choice. Only skills they have. And problem is most of them can't find work in other industries. How can you expect a guy who been attaching doors to cars for his whole life transitioning to another industry overnight.theres so much misinformation on how our government works its astounding.
Okashi: Theres a reason why manufacturing is almost dead in aussie, everyone wants their kids to go to uni and get a "good" white collar job. I don't blame parents for trying to give their kids a better life, but the effect is nobody wants to do all the blue collar work. I've worked in a factory before and it fucking sucked. Attrition rate is pretty high for factories, hard to keep employees and what not.
edit: just because all the factory workers get laid off doesn't mean they'll be forever unemployed, most of them would find work in other industries. It's a faulty argument about "job loss."
Slowly phase it out while developing transition plans and not yanking it away in a kneejerk fashion.That's why you need to think longer term. Structurally speaking, should we be dedicating resources to low-value skills or should we be re positioning our modern economy and higher levels of education to something else?
Car manufacturing has little to do with "low wage economies" and more to do with the fact that GM and Ford can't make a car worth a shit anymore. You know who's one of the largest builders of cars in the US? Toyota and Nissan. Wages in Japan are high and they still manufacture cars. Only reason why cars are built in China these days is just to save on shipping costs to the Asian market. Besides, why should the Australian government bail out two American companies? Australia never had a competitive advantage in manufacturing in the first place. We never built an industrious nation like Germany, US or China. Manufacturing overseas only works for products that are high cost low volume, not low cost high volume products such as a car. If you're going to bail out holden and ford everytime they have problems, might as well do the same for Toyota, they make cars in Australia.What are you on about? Manufacturing is declining because we can't compete with low wage economies. People might not want to do blue collar work in the future but the fact is most middle age people RIGHT NOW have no choice. Only skills they have. And problem is most of them can't find work in other industries. How can you expect a guy who been attaching doors to cars for his whole life transitioning to another industry overnight.
car manufacturing might have relatively less to do with low wage economies (though, like all manufacturing industries, it does have a lot to do with low wages), but it has even less to do with the fact that GM and Ford can't make a car worth shit. the fact is that all the innovation in supply chain management and logistics since the 1980s (just-in-time production, mass container shipping, robotised manufacturing) have introduced a massive geographic advantage in favour of manufacturers in commercial hubs like japan, korea, the chinese seaboard, germany, and the midwest U.S. in each of these countries, governments have made a strong commitment to maintaining their automotive industries. you'll also note that opel (GM) and ford of europe are thriving.Car manufacturing has little to do with "low wage economies" and more to do with the fact that GM and Ford can't make a car worth a shit anymore. You know who's one of the largest builders of cars in the US? Toyota and Nissan. Wages in Japan are high and they still manufacture cars. Only reason why cars are built in China these days is just to save on shipping costs to the Asian market. Besides, why should the Australian government bail out two American companies? Australia never had a competitive advantage in manufacturing in the first place. We never built an industrious nation like Germany, US or China. Manufacturing overseas only works for products that are high cost low volume, not low cost high volume products such as a car. If you're going to bail out holden and ford everytime they have problems, might as well do the same for Toyota, they make cars in Australia.
That is not how the manufacturing industry works loltheres so much misinformation on how our government works its astounding.
Okashi: Theres a reason why manufacturing is almost dead in aussie, everyone wants their kids to go to uni and get a "good" white collar job. I don't blame parents for trying to give their kids a better life, but the effect is nobody wants to do all the blue collar work. I've worked in a factory before and it fucking sucked. Attrition rate is pretty high for factories, hard to keep employees and what not.
edit: just because all the factory workers get laid off doesn't mean they'll be forever unemployed, most of them would find work in other industries. It's a faulty argument about "job loss."
So, you're saying positions vital for the functioning of departments aren't being eliminated? Cool.Wrong again. You are acting like the coalition has a plan to cut specific jobs for specific reasons. From the limited policy information out there the proposal is just an across the board recruitment freeze which affects departments based on their rate of attrition not their function.
no, he's saying that instead of cutting low-productivity workers and roles, there is an across the board recruitment freeze. this means that existing staff, many in senior/vital roles, leaving a department aren't being replaced, which generally result in skills and leadership shortages. quite contrary to the goal of reducing wasteful spending, shortages affect the productivity of the whole department, and in a few years there will be people raging about the incompetency and waste of the APS again.So, you're saying positions vital for the functioning of departments aren't being eliminated? Cool.
Isn't that what's been happening for the past twenty years when tariffs started being reduced?Slowly phase it out while developing transition plans and not yanking it away in a kneejerk fashion.
Ugh Indeed.