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

  • ESEMCE on 11/12/2013 - 15:41
    +9

    The 50,000 workers includes the component manufacturers I think you'll find, but very, very depressing news.
    If the economy doesn't go backwards, it'll stagnate for a number of years.
    I guess the silver lining is that we at least have a couple of years to transition. The focus is definitely back on Government now… ie "What are you doing to ensure that the unemployment rate doesn't spiral out of control?"

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

      "What are you doing to ensure that the unemployment rate doesn't spiral out of control?"

      Labor problem… we're outta here…

    • SlartiBartFozz on 12/12/2013 - 13:42
      +3

      Aside from the savings to the economy in subsidies to unsaleable cars, the job loses will be a bump on the unemployment road, particularly if GM lays off their workers en masse. For the first time ever, I am in agreement with Mr rAbbit - the unions are destroying this countrya and their thugs and criminal syndicates deserve no help from Australians; the companies gutted by these thugs aren't sustainable with the union controlling them so it's best for everyone to just let them die quickly.

      • Aguy on 12/12/2013 - 14:42
        +18

        I knew I shouldn't troll myself by reading uneducated opinions here but I sadly have. I'd just like to point out that this is one of the most idiotic posts I've ever seen. Do you not understand that without an industry the union ceases to exist? Yes it is most definitely in their interests to push it to destruction. Oh wait no it wouldn't and they have access to the annual reports like everyone else so would know when it is too far. Then you randomly accuse all unions of being thugs and criminals? Please source your facts on the unions in question that you have not named. Perhaps it is due to you pulling this opinion out of nowhere? Maybe globalized capitalism and neo-conservative politics taking power from the working classes and giving it all to the profit motive is to blame here? No thats not right, its EVIL UNIONS trying to redistribute weath to the less fortunate through EVIL CRIMINAL ACTS!

        • mb0005 on 12/12/2013 - 21:25
          +7

          I've seen two strikes in recent months from holden workers, what did they expect? when you don't show up to work for a few days/weeks at a time not once but twice! and more

        • Ryder on 13/12/2013 - 10:20
          +11

          Unions create an inefficient economy. They are short sighted because they drive up wages. Eventually companies cannot survive with the rise in costs. So they move elsewhere. In the end, its the employees who suffer. People lose their jobs but the economy eventually absorbs the impact as these workers find jobs elsewhere eg. think of our clothing manufacturers who have all fled overseas. Politicians have only delayed this process by propping up a dying industry with valuable taxpayer funds. These funds should instead be use to add skills to our current workforce, rather then chase non-profitable businesses. Compared to the rest of the world, Australia is expensive. Costs are high (wages, rent, electricity etc) and this is why the end products we buy are more expensive than the rest of the world. The only thing that can help us is a falling AUD which creates competitive pricing for domestic made products.

        • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 13/12/2013 - 10:22
          -1

          Congratulations! You've just passed year 12 economics!

        • tomclancy on 13/12/2013 - 10:36

          @Aguy - are you suggesting that unions have never done anything illegal or underhanded?

        • _Bruce_ on 13/12/2013 - 10:39
          +9

          @apate - are you suggesting that businesses have never done anything illegal or underhanded?

          As with everything it is a matter of balance. The purpose of a union is to move power. All such actions have problems. Neighter removing the unions or the business will fix the problem.

        • tomclancy on 13/12/2013 - 13:41
          +2

          Of course not. Neither side is squeaky clean and I agree with your point that it is a matter of balance.

          I also agree that unions exist to move power, unfortunately the union heads often move more power to themselves then they do to the workers.

          Perfect example, just 2 days ago: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/hunt…

        • Speckled Jim on 16/12/2013 - 12:02

          Compared to the rest of the world, Australia is expensive. Costs are high (wages, rent, electricity etc)

          Oh yeah?
          Tell us, what about Germany, the US and UK? They have relatively high wages and standards of living too. You made an absolute statement, not relative!

          In the case of Germany, well…they invented the motor car (Daimler/Benz) and I suppose they have that legacy to justify huge govt subsidies.

          The US? Last week it was revealed the US Fed lost over $11bn after progressively selling off their share of GM, following the $50bn bailout. They're goners.

          As for the UK, I'm not up with the latest but Honda, Nissan and others manufacture there. One can only conclude there's generous subsidies to keep the workers fed.

          So compared to SE Asia, Eastern European and developing economies, "Australia is expensive".
          But so are many others.

      • _Bruce_ on 12/12/2013 - 15:08
        +29

        I'm no fan on unions, but blaming this on them is ignorant and destructive.

        • DeWalt on 14/12/2013 - 10:49
          +3

          Well said Bruce. I personally don't like Unions either. But…

          Australia has a 2 speed economy. Mining is a key factor that has kept the dollar high.
          When the dollar is high, exports are not competitive.
          This is the key reason that Holden has closed.

          It isn't the unions, it's not the bosses, it's the TWO SPEED ECONOMY.

          Our manufacturing and exports will continue to crumble, and unless we can drive the dollar and the cost of living down, we won't be able to do a thing.

        • duneknight on 14/12/2013 - 21:54

          and how do we do that?

      • [Deactivated] on 13/12/2013 - 09:34
        +1

        I am all for equal employment and opportunity based on experience and capabilities, but to see 2 major car manufacturers leaving and the 3rd one, Toyota, being taken to Court at the moment regarding changes to the enterprise conditions…Don't some realise that when times are tough, everyone has to compromise? I still remember the days when Unions were "king" and that brought about so much disruption to VIC - odd & even petrol rationing days…

        The fact of the matter is that we will never be as competitive as some car manufacturing countries where wages are cheap and technologies/work ethics are class-leading…

        The perfect storm of all car manufacturing ceasing in Australia is inevitable to wipe the slate clean and start over…My 2 cents.

        • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 13/12/2013 - 09:42
          +4

          We never were competitive. Whitlam, Hawke and Keating brought down the tariff wall, and we were exposed as the average manufacturers we've always been. I'd say we're actually more comeptitive now (protection used to be > 100% for cars).

          All the more reason to demand a real NBN.

        • Untameable on 13/12/2013 - 14:55
          +3

          Compromise… is not workers taking endless cuts to conditions while the profits are used to line the pockets of executives and otherwise moved offshore.

      • arcticmonkey on 14/12/2013 - 09:22
        +4

        You're an idiot (that comment was to the same level as you're ignorant and uneducated bile).

        How about focusing on the ridiculous salary increases that under performing CEOs such as Alan Joyce are picking up? He received a 71% pay rise in one year and is now asking for government support:

        http://www.news.com.au/finance/qantas-boss-wins-71pc-pay-hik…

        Ever wonder why these pay rises get through? Take a look at who the share holders are(other big businesses).

        Unions are for the people trying to have a good quality of life, keep their job and get a fair wage. Stop reading the trash you read, get on a plane and travel to expand your mind.

        Or go and live in the U.S which may be more suited to your style.

      • counterbargainglobal on 17/12/2013 - 09:34
        +1

        If you don't like unions why don't you GO LIVE IN THE U.S.A.

        They have no union presence and the top 1% of the super rich own the entire country.

        You'd probably have to work harder for your money, a huge chunk of your wage would probably be going into a trust fund to pay for your kids college just so they can be unemployed down the road anyway since it's dog eat dog.

        Once your kids become unemployed they would not be covered for any healthcare as they are not entitled to anything.

        I can't believe people in this country can be so fucked up.

    • leeboy168 on 12/12/2013 - 15:29

      Those that say, don't know, and those that know, don't say.

      Watta load of rubbish.

    • dealman on 12/12/2013 - 17:28
      +22

      50,000 workers includes ….

      This always happens , It's the economy. If you can't compete in your current industry, you have to go out and find something else to do. That's the only way to survive, relying on public handouts is no way to run a company or your own career.

      I'm glad the Auto Industry will not be getting any more of my tax subsidies, and neither should any other industry. I am employed in the Auto industry by the way and I still hate subsidies. It makes companies uncompetitive and lazy, kills creativity and subsidizes weaker industries at the cost of more stronger ones.

      The Weaker industries should be allowed to fall over.
      It's called: Survival of the fittest.

      PS, What happened to the hundreds of thousands of Horse Cart and Buggy makers and the thousands of Horses + Farmers growing Hay + farm hands to look after them when Automobiles came along.

      They went and found other productive work.

      Unfortunately in Australia, there's a huge incentive for lazy people to not work - Centrelink and the Dole ! That's a whole new topic.

      Holden Good Riddance…

      • deal seeking missile on 12/12/2013 - 17:48
        +10

        Exactly! If its completely uneconomical to produce in Australia go somewhere else and produce cars more efficiently there. I'm sick of all the hand outs the auto industry gets just for existing.

        • shk on 12/12/2013 - 18:09
          +4

          +1 I was under the impression that Holden was an inefficient producer and hence the reallocation of federal resources towards the car industry in the form of subsidies was distorting the market (away from services) and consequently a bad thing. Seemed like ALP just wanted votes from the unaware (just like how the public thinks always TRYING to have a surplus is a good thing lol!) + maybe keep a sense of 'Aussie culture,' despite the fact that Holden is owned by GM!

        • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 12/12/2013 - 18:17
          +3

          Clearly you weren't paying attention during the last campaign. Abbott and co were skewering the ALP for ending the FBT rort on the basis that it would hurt local manufacturers (despite the fact that the ALP were offering money the Libs weren't, and the fact that most FBT rort cars aren't even local).

          The Liberals have been absolutely shameful in their indignant bungling of this.

        • shk on 12/12/2013 - 18:25
          +2

          I don't doubt for a second that both parties have done things in the pursuit of votes, despite being counter-productive for the economy - it is politics after all.

        • Macgyver on 12/12/2013 - 18:36
          -2

          "They went and found other productive work."

          Yeah but back then jobs were everywhere to be had. Not the case any more.

        • dealman on 12/12/2013 - 18:41
          +7

          If you believe that they get a 58,285 wage and that Each Holden staffer costs taxpayers $50,000 why are we calling them Holden Employees, when 80% of their wage comes from the Government ?

          No wonder being a Govt empoyee, Holden was just as inefficient as the Government is.

        • dealman on 12/12/2013 - 18:43
          +3

          Yeah but back then jobs were everywhere to be had. Not the case any more.

          Not true, look around get some skills, if you can't find a job create one, don't wait for a handout. Can anyone ever find a good tradie ? It's not that hard to find work if you want it bad enough.

        • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 12/12/2013 - 18:43
          +2

          i don't recall the ALP saying anything so logically contradictory, simply assuming voters were too stupid to realise the bullshit they were spinning.

        • [Deactivated] on 13/12/2013 - 01:11

          What about all the workers, should they go where they cars are now more efficiently produced? What about workers from other countries that want to work here because they have no work?

        • ESEMCE on 13/12/2013 - 08:57
          +1

          Completely pointless analogy. Those industries didn't just die overnight…
          They faded away over a very long period of time, most likely predominantly through natural attrition AND it occurred across the nation, rather than in predominatly 2 states.
          That causes far less of a ripple of instability through the economy than the domino effect we're likely to see with this shutdown.
          I don't know all the facts, (nor do you I might add), but it's clear to me that there is high risk of this decision dramatically effecting the performance of the SA and VIC economies for a number of years while those ripples subside.

        • Untameable on 13/12/2013 - 14:56

          People don't just become tradies without a huge set of manual skills and licenses.

        • Speckled Jim on 16/12/2013 - 13:31
          +1

          Yes JHE :)

          The joker ^^ proclaiming Survival Of The Fittest is most likely unaware the FBT car lease rorts are taxpayer funded.
          That whole little niche, cottage-industry only exists because of govt funding! And Abbott & Co sided with their cronies to "save" them.

          You want a new car? Get a loan. Want to have kids? Save up first.
          Bloody middle-class welfare (thanks Howard) gives me the irrits.

        • dealman on 16/12/2013 - 14:50
          +1

          Those industries didn't just die overnight…
          They faded away over a very long period of time,

          if you think the Automotive industry has died overnight, You deserve to be unemployed, Too dumb for work.

          People don't just become tradies without a huge set of manual skills and licenses.

          mate I suggested that as a way to start, It took me 5 tries to find a retired gentleman to do my lawn and clean up the backyard everyone in a while.

          IMHO, Anyone who says they can't find work in AUSTRALIA (Irrespective of the Govt in power) is either LYING or too lazy

          Agreed it is not great work, or high paying but certainly it's a start and then it's up to you to move forward in life.

      • 00 on 13/12/2013 - 13:45
        +6

        Does Germany's public purse subsidise their automotive industry?
        Do USA public taxes assist their automative industry?
        Do the Japanese devalue their own currency by printing money so their manufacturing sector remains globally competitive?

        Do other countries put tariffs on vehicle imports?
        Did Australia remove such tariffs on importing vehicles into Australia?

        Does Australia subsidise other industries such as mining and agriculture?

        Everyone nodding their heads?

        Free market survivial? I call bullshit.

        • lonewolf on 13/12/2013 - 13:54

          I think China, India try to stop importation of cars by making them get taxed or something right? I know Malaysia does. The proton is so much more viable and affordable for the general public there as the foreign cars are considerably more expensive than even in Australia once you convert the price. Hence only the real rich there can afford the BMWs or the Mercs.

        • Dollarsandsense on 15/12/2013 - 06:23

          I agree

        • Dollarsandsense on 15/12/2013 - 06:26

          Good point. How can Aus compete with overseas manufacturers when their governments are assisting and making them more competitive.

          It's like every country needs to stop the subsidies. If they don't then their cars are subjected to a tarrif on entry.

          Hard one to evaluate and police but going back to the horse and cart theory, the best innovation comes from necessity. If the market will only pay a max of 20k for something manufacturers will find a way to make something for this price.

        • dealman on 20/12/2013 - 12:03

          How can Aus compete with overseas manufacturers when their governments are assisting and making them more competitive

          delving deeper into economic theory, forums is not eh best place, but in short,

          If other countries subsidize unprofitable or uncompetitive industries they are doing that at a cost they impose on their citizens and other industries which could be stronger. There is no other way.

          Take the example of India subsidisizing farming with free water and electricity. What happens when a farmer gets free power and water , he runs the pumps 24 hours and wastes water. Result table dries up and there are power black outs for textiles and other industries.

          In short . subsidies in whatever form doon't copme free.

      • Cheetah2k on 14/12/2013 - 15:15
        +1

        @dealman, I agree 100%. We, the tax payers cant keep flogging a dead horse - and what do we get for our contribution to Holden (and Ford)?? Nothing.. Not even a thankyou letter from Holden or a couple of shares in the company…

        As for the 50,000 or so workers Labor blabbed on about in the media about becoming unemployed in 2017 - does it really take 50,000 people to build a Holden? I think not, its only the manufacturing base here which is more like 1-2000 (give or take) people affected and the rest are in servicing and sales - which will end up keeping their jobs but under a rebranded company eg. Chev, GM or something else.

        Also, how many people here get 3 years notice that their job is ending? I get 4 weeks notice at best, I'd love 3 years to enable me to work on my next chapter and into something else.

        Good bye Holden and thanks for nothing.

  • Car-la-la on 11/12/2013 - 15:48
    +26

    Whilst i know these industries keep a lot of people in work - they've been a huge financial burden recently. the government has thrown a lot of money into an unsustainable industry.

    Australia's future is not in manufacturing.

    The likes of India and China will push ahead as the workers/manufactures, as the Western nations become the ideas people, the innovators.

    Unskilled jobs are going to become increasingly difficult to find and without a qualification/trade people will get left behind.

    • cannedhams on 11/12/2013 - 16:07
      +14

      Innovation is not going to keep 22 million people employed, though.

      Plus, even the innovation game is increasingly out of reach of the average person. Australia's WW2 submachine gun (the Owen gun) was invented by a farmer's kid who made it out of two pieces of tailpipe and a mattress spring. I doubt the government would be particularly inclined to accept a farmer's bodgied up subgun today. That sort of stuff is more or less cornered by the R & D departments of the major defence firms.

      The one exception would be software, where there are still big opportunities for small startups.

      • dealman on 12/12/2013 - 17:34
        +1

        The one exception would be software, where there are still big opportunities for small startups.

        And that's where the govt should focus to improve conditions and legislation, not by giving subsidies and grants but by providing infrastructure and removing redtape.

        Perfect example : Australia's ESOP TAX.

        • scotty on 12/12/2013 - 17:57
          +3

          Yes for that. Software business is still quite laborious and startups usually cannot afford to hire experienced local developers. However it's also hard to pay them equities because those would be taxed as soon as options are vested (even for shares that have no market to sell to).

    • ESEMCE on 11/12/2013 - 16:25
      +4

      "they've been a huge financial burden recently"
      But have they?
      Sure, they've been slurping up hundreds of millions of dollars, but as has been widely discussed, there are flow on benefits that arguably may have re-paid those subsidies.
      In a few years, the people they have been employing will mostly be claiming unemployment, costing millions with no payback benefit…

      • Jinster on 12/12/2013 - 02:01
        +10

        The so-called flow-on benefit would exist no matter what. If those hundreds of millions in subsidies didn't go to propping up Holden, they would have been divided up and some of it would've gone into building roads, for example, partially "helping" the building industry; and some into building hospitals, "helping" the health industry. So on and on. Thus, the "flow-on" effect have now gone into these other industries. And because these industries are competitive (i.e not inefficient), the flow-on benefit would in fact be greater.

        Ultimately, each dollar needs to bring back a certain level of productivity for the economy to thrive. And subsidising an inefficient manufacturer means money didn't go to other more efficient industries - this means an overall loss of productivity, which is bad for our economy.

        Holden needs to go. Its demise is a sign that it has been an inefficient venture. Its demise will, contrary to the short-term focus on people losing jobs by popular media, benefit the entire country.

        Those losing their jobs will be able to find new employment, like any skilled worker.

        • antzz on 12/12/2013 - 08:05
          +12

          Yup those guy who works on assembly line waiting for overtime and benefit and earning 100k plus at the end of the day will need to start thinking. They bring the demise to them self, asking inappropriate wages for the small skill set they have.

          They will be lucky to get other job that pay 2/3 of what they earn now.

          In comparison labour in europe and us has voted to have pay cut and pay freeze and reduced hour to ensure the company that feed them keep on sustainable financial

        • Geekomatic on 12/12/2013 - 12:15
          +7

          "In comparison labour in europe and us has voted to have pay cut and pay freeze and reduced hour to ensure the company that feed them keep on sustainable financial"

          Which is fine— except that they cut the wages of the lowest workers whilst handing salaries & stock options of millions to the extremely select few at the top of the pile…In the US, 2-3% of the people hold the lion's share of the country's (world's) wealth. The worry there is a regression back to lords/serf classes w/no middle-class because decent manufacturing jobs are off-shored— where that same 2-3% tuck their US earnings away, tax-free.

          It's not something for AU to emulate, Imho.

        • Serapis on 12/12/2013 - 12:49
          +6

          It was bound to happen, only a matter of time

          The original plan under the Howard government was to phase out the car manufacturing subsidies by 2015 anyway, these workers should thank the government for keeping them employed for an extra 2 years…

        • coin saver on 12/12/2013 - 14:22
          +6

          as a holden worker i can tell you the top wage for assembly workers is $58285.as for a pay freeze yes we did vote and agree to one. so far this financial year they have worked 1 days overtime

        • Jinster on 12/12/2013 - 15:40
          +5

          Yep. The labourers agree to cut their wages. The company balance sheet looks good again. The management team now meets their "performance goals" that were set too low in the first place, and collect a large bonus.

          Not fair at all. I vote for civil uprising on this issue. But politicians are financed by people with money, who lobby them/for them. So this will never change.

        • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 12/12/2013 - 15:44

          Don't protest - join a party.

        • dealman on 12/12/2013 - 17:37

          as a holden worker i can tell you the top wage for assembly workers is $58285.

          You sure about that, my mates who have been in Holden make much more than that.

        • coin saver on 13/12/2013 - 12:24

          to earn more then that they would have to be a workgroup leader,supervisor or tradesman ask your mates to show you a payslip the yearly wage is clearly printed on it

    • IamEzza on 12/12/2013 - 02:08
      -2

      For every dollar the government spent on car manufactures they return multiples of that back to the economy. (Ford boss said $1 was $6 back to the economy) Which means the government collects the money back as tax revenue.

      In recent years Australia has spent far less per capita then other countries on subsidies.

      • Jinster on 12/12/2013 - 02:15
        +14

        How can you possibly get $6 back out of each $1 subsidised? If this is the case, Ford wouldn't have needed the subsidies after the first reception of it.

        Think about it. Ford/Holden is not profitable. i.e they can't cover their costs with their revenue. So the government subsidises them to cover their costs - which disseminates to their workers and debtors. How can the government possibly get more money back from this, taxes or whatever, let alone the figure being 1:6?

        Ford reached this figure by some preposterous method that ignores many things, and counts on you to trust that figure and make all the assumptions you want to make about it: "surely Ford would've included this factor, and that factor, and these factors, and those tricky things, to come up with a fair figure" you thought.

        This is just propaganda talk by the manufacturer. Ford boss is trying to deceive the public. And he knows it. Don't buy into it.

        • _Bruce_ on 12/12/2013 - 07:02
          +4

          How can you possibly get $6 back out of each $1 subsidised? If this is the case, Ford wouldn't have needed the subsidies after the first reception of it.

          Economy is measured in gross terms not net, it makes sense. Doesn't mean it isn't spin.

        • scotty on 12/12/2013 - 08:42
          +5

          Even the economy can generate $6 in circulation, government still would not be able to recoup the $1 invested in tax.

          What's worrying however is not whether the government can get their investment back, but the domino effect when Holden closes its door, and how much government needs to pay for the welfare.

        • Jinster on 12/12/2013 - 11:03
          +2

          Economy must be measured in terms people can understand, if Ford's comment is directed at the people.

          If you must measure it in such gross terms, then those $6 you brought back can then go on to generate $36, which then can go on to generate $216, and so on. In true OzBargain style, this $1 will single handedly buy you millions of dollars of economic activity at the end. How ridiculous. The guy is trying to use an unrelated economic fact to justify the subsidy, without accounting for inflation from inefficiency and opportunity cost. Such irresponsible comments (from Ford, not you Bruce) are the reason why a lot of people buy into this BS.

          I am yet to see a politician who will educate the public rather than placate the fools.

        • dealman on 12/12/2013 - 17:40

          how much government needs to pay for the welfare.

          imho, There shouldn't be any welfare(cash handouts) for Healthy Adults, Everyone should learn to stand up for themselves and provide for their family.

          Everyone in difficult circumstances should get subsidised very cheap food and healthcare but no cash handouts. No one should go hungry or not be taken care of when sick. But every healthy and able to work person should fend for him/herself.

          Never going to happen here I know, but I wish….

        • outlander on 13/12/2013 - 01:23
          +5

          Sounds cool to me. The middle class attack the lower class to make themselves feel superior, the starving lower class attack the wealthiest people they see, which happen to be the middle class, grasping at them in a desperate panic and dragging them down too. Before long its an all out war. Battle Royal

          Then the upper class, who orchestrated the whole thing, sit back and watch as it all unfolds, seizing opportunities to increase their wealth as they arise in the commotion. Not because they need it, or out of malice, but just because in this age, forethought in a social sense does not make you a fitter competitor

        • cheepwun on 15/12/2013 - 09:57
          -2

          What's worrying however is not whether the government can get their investment back, but the domino effect when Holden closes its door, and how much government needs to pay for the welfare.

          Gov has made no investment. Gov just loves to be the biggest welfare recipient. No worries, Aussie Battler will pay for all the fraud, deception and political point-scoring lies, as usual.

          Chalk it up in billions of dollars, all-up.

    • Jinster on 12/12/2013 - 02:26

      Agreed.

  • Ventak on 11/12/2013 - 15:50
    +1

    I think Toyota will last a bit longer…but ultimately it'll probably close down as well.

    • Cluster on 12/12/2013 - 01:08
      +13

      Apparently Toyota lose $2500 on every Camry sold, but make up the difference in sales of imported models. Toyota definately does not need a manufacturing base here. Hopefully they'll survive long enough to still produce hybrid Camrys once new Commodores and Falcons are no longer rolling off the production line. Taxi drivers love Toyota hybrid vehicles here and there's a growing market once Holden and Ford abandon ship.

      The question remains as to what Australians will be doing in the future. We once made many consumer items here, but that ended long ago. "No problem!" said the retailers, as apparently as long as there's an Australian to stack the store shelves full of imported products all is good. Alas, the Internet came along and we cut out the Australian retailer too. Maybe flipping massively inflated real estate between ourselves is what we aspire to…

  • battler on 11/12/2013 - 16:33
    +2

    bigger issue is what will V8Supercars races look like :(

    • _Bruce_ on 11/12/2013 - 16:40
      +8

      Looks are the only thing that change now. Holden, Ford, Volvo, Nissan and Mercedes all just bolt different panels on to the same frame.

      From Wikipedia:
      "The regulations control many aspects of the car to ensure parity between the manufacturers, allowing for minor differences in the engines and body shapes so that the cars bear some resemblance to their production counterparts."

    • mb0005 on 12/12/2013 - 21:31
      +1

      v8 supercar? hah! I never watched that, it was crap vs crap. i'm going to be rooting for Volvo!! you gotta test drive one of their cars, smooth, classy, refined and individual, not too expensive.

    • Cheeper on 19/12/2013 - 22:14

      Those bogan racers are nothing but a shell bolted onto mechanicals that cost around half a million bucks and have no resemblance to the dealer sold grocery racers.
      It's just PR propaganda but how many get sucked in by it? It works…

      • Speckled Jim on 19/12/2013 - 23:50

        My favourite bit?

        Commonwhores first got IRS about ten years ago (as an option), and they were shouting it from the rooftops.
        Yeah, about 30 years after the Japanese and 60 years after the Euros were doing it.

        And lately?
        They were making a lot of noise about some craptastic tablet they've shoved into the centre consoles. Wow, how very contemporary.

        I've still got a recording of the terrible Holden Barina ad where the girl wakes up in her CBD apartment and decides "it's time for a change". We're then told that because this car is endowed with five doors, it's "short-skirtable".

        I feel a youtube upload coming.

  • _Bruce_ on 11/12/2013 - 16:36
    +9

    It is part of an increasing problem that only service or highly skilled technical jobs have long term viability in prosperous countries.

    Ultimately this is a sign of how well Australia is doing, but it won't be read that way (of course we are all still struggling 'battlers'). Ultimately as more and more low skill jobs get automated or moved to poorer countries the only long term model that makes sense to me is to drop the amount of labour we expect to do overall as a society. You then need to completely rework the welfare model to support everyone and at the same time make them feel useful… which is a very hard problem to solve.

    • Jinster on 12/12/2013 - 11:07

      Agreed.

      Maybe we can even start to measure productivity in non-economic terms. How about creative outputs. :-)

    • NosDan on 12/12/2013 - 11:13
      -2

      You then need to completely rework the welfare model to support everyone and at the same time make them feel useful

      which is the complete opposite of what they are currently doing which is try and cut out all welfare because the country is to broke to support it…..

      why is the country so broke? because a great portion of the workforce is under worked and under payed already and the costs of living keep skyrocketing in comparison to wages in every sector

      • _Bruce_ on 12/12/2013 - 11:38
        +15

        why is the country so broke? because a great portion of the workforce is under worked and under payed already and the costs of living keep skyrocketing in comparison to wages in every sector

        Completely untrue. Country isn't even remotely broke, standards of living are higher than ever.

        • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 12/12/2013 - 13:37
          +7

          Not entirely true. In terms of take home pay, everything is more affordable, with the exception of housing, which is at record highs.

          We might have more food, TVs, holidays etc than before, but the cost of both renting, and especially buying (as an owner occupier) is out of proportion to wages. Mortgages are disgustingly high.

          You can thank the man on whose forehead I live for his pursuit and expansion of house speculation tax dodges for this situation.

        • kwaker on 12/12/2013 - 14:05
          +4

          For some. there are people living below the poverty line. It depends on what stats your using. Averages that are used are Normally used are selected in a way that does not reflect proportion. I.e average wage is >50k which most people do not get that much especially women.

          1 millionaire:40 people on 25k wages is average 50k. so in actual fact only 1 in 41 get >50k

          City rail justified its price rise by saying people using trains all earned >100k average (surveyed selected rich looking men only at town hall)

        • _Bruce_ on 12/12/2013 - 15:13

          Sure there are people below the povery line, there always has been. Even these people have better lives than even 10 years ago. If you like you need 50K to have a good life you really need a global reality check.

        • kwaker on 12/12/2013 - 15:32

          Even these people have better lives than even 10 years ago

          Source?

        • kwaker on 12/12/2013 - 15:37
          +1

          I said the average wage is supposedly 50k which is NOT the majority

          Global reality check: i know what you mean, but in other countries wages might be a fraction of ours but so are living expenses, our taxes and housing is far higher than most.

          You can't buy a house with a one person income here.

          Inflation on housing electricity and the likes in comparison to wages?

        • antzz on 13/12/2013 - 13:48
          +1

          _Bruce, i agree with most of your comment above except this one.

          I dont think anyone can live comfortably with 50K salary in Sydney/Melb/Perth if you consider the house prices? even the most modest 500k House or Apartment will set you back at least $3000 repayment each month (95% borrowing) while 50K salary will get you $3240 month net.

          My last electricity bill is $400 for 3 month and counting all other expenses you would need to have at least 100k salary to be able to live comfortable in my opinion.

          This is of course considering you dont have a house already. If you already have a house like most boomers/gen x, 50K per year is plenty.

          Also, when i said comfortable i meant

          does not include >1 hour daily commute (each way)
          Not living in less than 30sqm per person (so assuming 2 bedroom apartment for max 3-4 people or 1 bedroom for 2 people)
          can eat out non fancy restaurant twice a week
          have a proper digital life (have a TV, Smartphone, Computer, Internet plan)
          can go overseas / local vacation once in a while (every 1.5 - 2 years)
          have proper medical insurance
          can buy proper clothing every once in a while
          can give out gift to loved one every once in a while (xmas/birthday etc)
          can have a car replaced every 5 year or so (even second hand good condition small car is ok)
          still have some saving for rainy day (10% of income)

          I dont think i can do this on 50K even if i tried super hard. if you can, please give me some enlightenment so i can copy this

        • arislan on 14/12/2013 - 22:05

          Heh live with your parents? Anyone who claims they can live in Sydney with 50k probably do it that way :)

        • _Bruce_ on 15/12/2013 - 08:34

          Heh live with your parents? Anyone who claims they can live in Sydney with 50k probably do it that way :)

          This is simply not true. Average rent for 'Apartment (1 bedroom) Outside of Centre' is $19200 PA.

        • Binchicken22 on 16/12/2013 - 20:13

          The 'most modest' house you could live in is 500k? Maybe you need to move out of the cbd a little. I'm 23 and just bought my 2nd place, first was 2 years ago for $215k which is now being rented out for more than the mortgage and have moved into my 2nd place which is a nice 3bedroom place for $300k half an hour from Brisbane.

          I think your standards are too high.

    • Givemethemoney on 24/12/2013 - 21:23

      It's not just unskilled work being offshored, as the finance and accounting sector former employees whose jobs have been offshored to low-cost countries.

  • banzini on 11/12/2013 - 16:43
    +5

    When we run out of petrol then they're all doomed anyway!! get out now and think of the future. Waste of time and resources putting dead money into this industry

    • _Bruce_ on 11/12/2013 - 16:55
      +2

      If you'd been paying attention almost all of the big manufacturers are investing heavily (and releasing cars) in hybrid and electric vehicles. We make hybrid Camrys here.

      The other exciting direction the industry is headed is automated cars, with many manufacturers planning to have automated cars on sale within 10 years (not in Australia).

      The industry is far from dead. If anything cars are almost considered disposable items these days, replaced on a whim.

      • Speckled Jim on 12/12/2013 - 10:23
        +2

        Hybrid Camry, yes. But what did the "big two" do?
        Ford gave us a diesel Territory eight years too late.
        Holden make the Curze — a POS. They flashed the Chevy Volt as a tease, what happened to that I wonder?
        Too little, too late.

        • NosDan on 12/12/2013 - 11:17
          +1

          Too little, too late.

          for the bosses and share holders who made huge gains out of it over the years there BS promos have been great (specially when you take into account the handouts)… its only the country, the workers and the customers who get the short end of the stick….. welcome to capitalism

        • _Bruce_ on 12/12/2013 - 11:39
          +1

          I'm talking globally not in Australia specifically.

        • Speckled Jim on 12/12/2013 - 12:30

          We make hybrid Camrys here.

          That's a local reference. I compared Ford/GM actions to that.

          The Green car innovation fund was eagerly gobbled up and I feel they didn't produce compelling enough product.

        • sleek881 on 12/12/2013 - 13:10

          The Chevy Volt will still come, after Holden is transitioned into a Sales Company they can import almost any car on the GM menu

    • Geekomatic on 12/12/2013 - 12:20
      +1

      "In a 1912 speech Diesel said, "the use of vegetable oils for engine fuels may seem insignificant today but such oils may become, in the course of time, as important as petroleum and the coal-tar products of the present time."

      Rudolf Diesel

      *Methinks the oil barons killed that idea as quickly as possible…

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

        A dash of white-spirit to vege oil, let it sit for two weeks and presto.

        The absolute classic is, in the UK you must pay tax on bio-diesel you make yourself! Based on info from an old Top Gear episode from ~2002.

        • antzz on 13/12/2013 - 13:55

          i dont know. the last time i check 2 litre vege oil homebrand at aldi cost $4.79 and junk brand vodka cost at least $12 dollar a litre. how does this make it any cheaper than what we have now?

        • _Bruce_ on 13/12/2013 - 14:31
          +1

          On those products you are mostly paying for shipping, packaging, branding, shelf space and labour. Vodka in particular attracts additional tax (compare vodka to a bottle of metho).

        • Speckled Jim on 17/12/2013 - 13:06

          lol yes if you're buying new stuff, it's ridiculous. From that TG ep (S1E01, Oct 20 2002) it worked out to 3 pence/litre. With tax, 29p/l.

          But most were collecting used cooking oil from restaurants, screen-filtering it, then adding a small quantity of non-kerosene based white spirits. By white spirits, I mean the stuff you get in the cleaning aisle of a supermarket, often under the Hovex brand.

          A few years ago I lived near a retired bloke with a Fiesta diesel that he brought over from 'Ol Blighty. He was rebuilding it for a few months with the intention of running on his own fuel. I moved house before he got it registered.

      • _Bruce_ on 12/12/2013 - 15:14
        +2

        This is actually a huge market global, but not so much in Australia. Again mostly because we are so much better off we can afford the better* option.

        *not environmentally

    • machej on 12/12/2013 - 17:49
      +2

      We really need to increase algae/corn/cane growth to distill our own ethanol for car fuel. Brazil's industry is booming and ours can too.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join