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

    • _Bruce_ on 12/12/2013 - 15:23
      +3

      cars capable of 240kph when our speed limits are half that.

      Poor argument, the top speed is a factor of power, which has a lot of use at lower speeds. Happy for you to argue for speed limiting on cars, but that isn't the same as power limiting. Also, it is what the market wants (for some markets).

      this is when we need to take a good look at 1930's germany

      1930s Germany is a great example of what we do NOT want. Consider yourself very lucky we do not have those problems.

      simple, reliable and affordable.

      One thing VW cars are not is simple. Reliable and affordable are subjective, they certainly aren't as affordable as Asian cars.

      bloody cars nowadays…they park themselves. when did we become so retarded that we can't reverse park?!

      We've always been retarded. Death toll for driving has always been crazy high, we are trying to remove the humans, because they frankly are no good at driving (and never have been).

      You seem to be suggesting we should be going back to removing safety and automation and have human labour for everything. Perhaps this is OK because we can just create labour camps and get all these 'boat people' to do the work for us? Hello Germany.

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

      Can't have one without the other. Humans are unsafe.

      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.

      Not cost effective. How useful is this anyway? It is also a safety issue (old WV cars are so VERY unsafe).

      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?

      Sounds like just a random idea. Any reason you think this will work better? Ceramic doesn't magically make the heat go away.

      • altomic on 12/12/2013 - 17:53

        all your points are valid.

      • Speckled Jim on 19/12/2013 - 10:01

        bloody cars nowadays…they park themselves. when did we become so retarded that we can't reverse park?!

        We've always been retarded. Death toll for driving has always been crazy high, we are trying to remove the humans, because they frankly are no good at driving (and never have been).

        You seem to be suggesting we should be going back to removing safety and automation and have human labour for everything. Perhaps this is OK because we can just create labour camps and get all these 'boat people' to do the work for us? Hello Germany.

        Only because the driving "test" is a joke. Training people to actually drive safely (like in Finland for example) is an expensive matter that no Australian government wants any part of.
        We can thank the punitive nature of state authorities for this. They'd rather the revenue raising bonanzas of speed cameras, unroadworthy vehicle "blitzes" and licence suspensions. They'd rather the authoritarian posture of preaching to the masses the dangers of Drink-driving, inattention and Speed. Notice it's always Speed and never Speeding? That's because 30km/hr is a Speed and can be lethal.

        All lucrative band-aid measures that are required because there's little to no preventative, educational initiatives that would address bad habits before they took root.

        A motor vehicle is a machine, and requires a human operator to control. If you give more and more control to the machine, you lose skills. Once skills are lost, they're lost forever. What happens if the onboard computer dies or malfunctions? What then? It's happened many times, with tragic consequences on trains and planes.

        So, driving aids for appliance drivers. Auto-braking, ESP, ABS, auto-parking because teaching real driving skills is just too hard in the 21st century.

        • NosDan on 19/12/2013 - 10:06

          What happens if the onboard computer dies or malfunctions? What then? It's happened many times, with tragic consequences on trains and planes.

          and cars….

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_unintended_acceleration…

        • _Bruce_ on 19/12/2013 - 10:12

          A motor vehicle is a machine, and requires a human operator to control. If you give more and more control to the machine, you lose skills. Once skills are lost, they're lost forever. What happens if the onboard computer dies or malfunctions? What then? It's happened many times, with tragic consequences on trains and planes.

          The consequences of NOT letting the computer take control are much more tragic much more often. You can train all you like, you have one bad day when you are not 100% refreshed and attentive or just in a bad mood and people die.

          Statistically I'll take the automation every time.

        • Speckled Jim on 19/12/2013 - 11:42

          I thought the Prius thing turned out to be false?

          Remember we had a bad batch of automatic Magnas that were flinging themselves off mutli-storeys and into random cars/people/objects? I do.
          Yeah, automation is great.

        • _Bruce_ on 19/12/2013 - 11:47

          Remember we had a bad batch of automatic Magnas that were flinging themselves off mutli-storeys and into random cars/people/objects?

          Did 282 people die per year?

          http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/road-safety/statistics/road-toll-a…

        • Speckled Jim on 19/12/2013 - 12:49

          Did 282 people die per year?

          Did anyone die? I don't recall. Probably not.

          Flashing up the road toll does nothing in defence of vehicle automation. In fact, most likely the opposite. Can you state with any certainty that all the fatalities were in older vehicles without driver aids? You can't.

          When pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists make up nearly a third of the total, you can't blame cars or drivers in every case. 41 were motorcyclists who were doing God knows what (I used to be one). But this is mostly a speed differential and visibility issue.

          35 were pedestrians. Too many people haven't been taught how to cross a road safely. The responsibility for this is open to debate, but when I was a kid there were road safety ads during kids' television broadcasting. There's been little to none of that in the past 20 years.
          I doubt the childcare worker or nanny is going to address it either.

          About 8 years ago when there was a spike in people being skittled, it did the media cycle with emphasis placed fairly and squarely on (being plugged into or reading) portable devices being the main culprit. But nothing came of it. It's typical crisis-management — it's not a problem until it's a problem.

          Rego and sales statistics will reveal most of the 199 drivers/passenger deaths were in automatics. What of ABS, ESP (mandatory in Victoria) and airbags? A certain percentage would have had these, and yet for all the technology in the world, it didn't save them.

          In all runaway Magna cases, they were low-speed incidents (from rest remember). They were using the cars as intended by the manufacturer, therefore it was a manufacturing fault in a labour-saving feature of the car and not a maintenance or driver issue.
          Manual Magnas had no such problem, did they?

      • Speckled Jim on 19/12/2013 - 10:17

        cars capable of 240kph when our speed limits are half that.

        Poor argument, the top speed is a factor of power, which has a lot of use at lower speeds.

        ?
        At lower speeds it is torque that comes into play, not power.
        It is torque that moves vehicle mass from standstill and a major contributor to acceleration.

        • _Bruce_ on 19/12/2013 - 10:22
          +1

          Power = Velocity * Torque.

          How does a car deliver more Torque at low speeds? By having more power. You can't have one without the other.

        • Speckled Jim on 19/12/2013 - 11:29
          -1

          Incorrect again I'm afraid.

          Turbo-diesel engines have relatively low maximum power outputs but more torque than a petrol engine of the same capacity. So you CAN have high torque and low power.

          It's even more extreme with electric motors. The Audi e-tron has "only" 230kW power but 4500Nm torque.
          Sorry to destroy your theory, but there it is.

        • _Bruce_ on 19/12/2013 - 11:37
          +1

          Turbo-diesel engines have relatively low maximum power outputs but more torque than a petrol engine of the same capacity.

          No. It outputs higher peak torque. To have low peak power output and high peak torque the torque is peaking low in the rev range. The peak engine power may have the same number, but the power at lower RPM is higher.

          Alternatively if you increase power you ARE increasing torque, but you may only be creasing the high end of the torque curve which may not change peak torque.

          When people talk about enignes with high 'torque' they mean an engine that has high torque at low rpm (but low torque at high RPM). This can also be altered by gearing or using different sized wheels.

        • Speckled Jim on 19/12/2013 - 12:58
          -1

          Turbo-diesels don't have peaky torque curves, they're plateaus where ~80% of maximum torque is available just above idle.

          Electric provides 100% torque from rest and remains constant until the physical limit of max current draw.

          If I bored an engine from 75x90mm to 110x90mm I'd have more peak power, less torque everywhere and both curves would be moved up the rev range.
          And I'd have wasted an engine.

        • _Bruce_ on 19/12/2013 - 16:04

          Turbo-diesels don't have peaky torque curves, they're plateaus where ~80% of maximum torque is available just above idle.

          This is getting further off topic but you are still wrong. The ONLY way to have high peak torque value for the same peak power value is to have high torque at low RPM and low torque at high RPM. If you had high torque at high RPM the peak power would also be higher. Here is a typical example:

          http://www.fordscorpio.co.uk/images/powertdi.jpg

          Electric provides 100% torque from rest and remains constant until the physical limit of max current draw.

          Still wrong. DC looks like this:
          http://lancet.mit.edu/motors/colorTS1.jpg
          AC look like this:
          http://raise.spd.louisville.edu/ECE252/images/L19-18.gif

          Servo motors with permanent magnets can achieve a flat torque for a bit, but they fall off due to field weakening.

          If I bored an engine from 75x90mm to 110x90mm I'd have more peak power, less torque everywhere

          You CANNOT have more peak power without increasing torque at the new peak RPM. Can't. Not possible.

        • Speckled Jim on 19/12/2013 - 19:04
          -1

          In that rebored engine example, I can.

          Measured at the flywheel and not the driving wheels, where the gearing has multiplied it. Tuners have done it for decades — power up and very high in the rev range with a huge torque hole everywhere else.

          Unless the last 100 years never happened?

          The fact remains, torque moves you off the line and determines acceleration. Maximum power does its thing at a higher speed, where it battles against increasing wind resistance.

          I've established that low power/high torque has been done, which I think is where this all started.

  • Shwayne on 12/12/2013 - 15:28
    +1

    So is the Australian Government going to reduce import levies and taxes on internationally sourced cars?

  • BinaryPirate on 12/12/2013 - 15:43
    +1

    For those in the anti-welfare position, corporate or otherwise, almost everything in Australia receives government handouts in one respect or another.

    A brief list:
    Property
    Education
    Pharmaceuticals
    Healthcare
    Having a child
    All forms of employment via tax deductions & allowances
    Superannuation
    Groceries via no GST on fresh food

    The mistake looks to have been successive govts not putting enough or appropriate conditions on the money being given to Holden rather than it being a question of to fund or not to fund.

    • Jinster on 12/12/2013 - 16:05
      +3

      A brief list:
      Property - needs to stop this negative gearing BS!
      Education - money well spent, will make our workforce more competitive
      Pharmaceuticals - as nations get wealthier, more money naturally go towards things like medicine, i.e looking after its population
      Healthcare - as above
      Having a child - needs to stop, for so many reasons…
      All forms of employment via tax deductions & allowances - legitimate, what's wrong with that?
      Superannuation - encourages savings, so as long as we are poor savers, this has benefits
      Groceries via no GST on fresh food - hmm… whatever.

      • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 12/12/2013 - 19:06
        +1

        Wanna start a party?

      • p1 ama on 13/12/2013 - 11:15
        +2

        The government doesn't actually pay anyone to have a child, that way of looking at it is wrong, nobody has a child because of government payouts, the government is assisting parents so that they can better provide for their child, in many ways, it's just like healthcare or education.

      • OzzyOzbourne on 13/12/2013 - 14:09

        people sacrifice a lot to have children, including their careers. If you don't think children and young workers are necessary, who's going to pay taxes to support your country and it's economy and development when you retire?

      • edgar28 on 17/12/2013 - 11:42
        +2

        Property - no negative gearing makes rental more expensive

        Education - money NOT well spent each school teaches different standard but TEE exam is the same Australia wide - unfair?

        Pharmaceuticals - It's economy cycle that it get out of control and become more expensive, medicare is getting less for money, better off use the 1.5% tax yourself

        Healthcare - too many secret agenda……

        Having a child - should not give out as money but child support/ food voucher

        All forms of employment via tax deductions & allowances - someone has to pay….. but not for 1 billion stadium during recession period!

        Superannuation - management fee too high for bonkers to help people loses money….. singapore and malaysia have a scheme that it will never go negative to promise your retirement support.

        Groceries via no GST on fresh food - no idea about the chain effect …..

        • _Bruce_ on 17/12/2013 - 12:44

          Property - no negative gearing makes rental more expensive

          Source? Most economists don't agree with you.

          Education - money NOT well spent each school teaches different standard but TEE exam is the same Australia wide - unfair?

          What do you mean different standard? Australia is pretty good at this, with slight variations between states. Don't see how this makes it not work spending money on education anyway.

          medicare is getting less for money, better off use the 1.5% tax yourself

          This isn't even remotely true. Try actually working out how much most people get from medicare and how much it would cost them to pay themselves. Not to mention your plan only works for people on large incomes.

          Healthcare - too many secret agenda……

          What?

          Having a child - should not give out as money but child support/ food voucher

          Sure, might as well make these people sit at the back of the bus also.

          …not for 1 billion stadium during recession period!

          That is the best time to do it. History has shown time and time again that government infrastructure projects are one of the best ways to recover from a recession.

          Superannuation - management fee too high for bonkers to help people loses money…

          So use a different provider - it's called the open market. Or do it yourself.

          .. singapore and malaysia have a scheme that it will never go negative to promise your retirement support.

          You are against any government spending, but OK with the governemtn promising retirement support? With an aging population this is a massive issue.

        • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 17/12/2013 - 12:54
          +1

          Property - no negative gearing makes rental more expensive

          The only people who say this are people with "investment" (i.e. speculative) properties to their names. The truth is, they're not being kind to anybody. If they could squeeze more rent out of us, they would. They just don't, because the market won't bear it.

          The only long term consequence of the policy is the lazy property speculators see a house with a rental stream representing a poor return on income, then factor in the tax dodges they'll use to justify it. It's a truly disgusting practice.

        • edgar28 on 17/12/2013 - 13:08

          Negative gearing
          http://blog.rpdata.com/2012/12/negative-gearing-and-its-impa…

          "History has shown time and time again that government infrastructure projects are one of the best ways to recover from a recession" - With government sacking so many public servant saving its AAA rating, making the whole market worried and react to it and sacking more in private too…… (of a chain effect market morale)

        • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 17/12/2013 - 13:21
          +1

          I'm not saying it's a good time to ditch it. I'm saying it's an immoral and economically unjustifiable practice.

          As for its effect on construction, the fact is most speculators are too lazy to build, and simply flip existing houses. Benefits should only apply to genuine investment, not brainless speculators.

        • cheepwun on 17/12/2013 - 17:03
          +1

          So use a different provider - it's called the open market. Or do it yourself.

          Oh yeah, superannuation is an open market.

          If it was an open market I'd be adding to my mattress fund. It's called losing control over your savings and what you do with the fruit of your time…and you're praising this as "open market". What if I didn't want crooks having a play with my money? What if I don't believe in any of them, nor what they do for profit? Can I have my mattress fund and ask for NO ASSISTANCE from the gov? No I cannot. I must let them have a play with my money, so they can generate more funds for themselves that they didn't earn.

          Even if you manage your Super yourself it's not cost-effective for most after you count all the fees. Good luck with that "open market" nonsense Bruce.

          And good luck collecting when it's time.

        • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 17/12/2013 - 22:32
          +2

          If you didn't have super, the government would be even deeper in debt, poverty amongst the elderly would be rampant, and all you'd have to show for it would be higher house prices. The evidence is there - we're too stupid to save, and will use any excess funds to bid up houses.

        • ESEMCE on 18/12/2013 - 08:40
          +1

          I'm with you Bruce, the arguments are blown out of the water by the first commenter.
          Negative Gearing in it's current guise does little to encourage new property development, all it does is inflate existing property prices, thereby forcing more people to be lifetime renters and thereby inflating the rental market!

        • ESEMCE on 18/12/2013 - 08:52
          +2

          Nothing stops you from having Self Managed Super..
          You can't have a true mattress fund, but that's the stupidest idea anyway! It is guaranteed to lose money over time due to inflation.. $30 today might buy food for a week, but $30 in 20 years time, is likely to only buy you food for the day.

          At least an investment, even if it's just a Bank account, has some chance of matching inflation (even after fees) in the long term.

        • cheepwun on 18/12/2013 - 12:22
          +2

          It is guaranteed to lose money over time due to inflation.

          As opposed to paying fees to parasites who didn't earn it to have it "self-managed"!

          No, losses aren't guaranteed with a mattress fund actually. Even if they were, where is the choice to dig my own grave? Why is it taken away? That's something to ponder on right there.

          Anyway, you might find the opposite to be true with a mattress fund. I can still do with it whatever I want, whenever I want, without it being locked up by the State (including investing in my own business, holidays, accidents or whatever with far less need for a loan), and it allows me to avoid parasites who only think in terms of dollars and cents, and who are in fact destroying the world for that almighty dollar. I want complete control over who and when and what I put my money in, without parasites requesting fees for the privilege.

          Mattress fund gives me complete control over what I do with money I earned, as opposed to having fund managers handle something I can handle myself, without (again) paying fees to parasites who didn't earn it. Hard to believe now isn't it, but we had far more financial freedom in years past, and I didn't see Australia imploding. What we have now are a whole bunch of speculators instead, looking to earn anything they can and propping up prices for all of us. Anything for the dollar.

          The gains of financial freedom are tremendous. Actual financial freedom dictating the shape of the world as I see it (and as each of us sees it and can control it with our choices), not "lump it here and you'll get a return, no worries mate, and if you self-manage, well you need to fork out…". Plus I count returns in more than just dollars and cents. I care where my money is used and I don't need parasites managing it for me (even when I self-manage), while raping me for the privilege of having this choice. Nor do I need anyone telling me how much to put aside. I consider this a violation of my basic rights. What's next? Gov telling us where to spend our money (we are already there, in many ways).

          Mattress fund always wins, by my reckoning (and again, even if it doesn't, where is the choice?). If the gov and its cronies weren't winning with this Superannuation scam, they'd give us a CHOICE. Real choice, without the parasites. But they are winning, which is why we have no real choice. "Put your money here, Bob. Let me and my buddies play with it. We'll give you disincentives to do it any other way…oh but it's a 'free market'…."

          Yeah, sure it is.
          More like crony capitalism and loss of financial freedom (and by extension, loss of personal freedom).

        • LiamF on 18/12/2013 - 13:51
          +1

          Oh, come on mate - handing out a voucher for free childcare gear that you can redeem instead of just giving you the same amount of cash isn't making anyone 'sit at the back of the bus'.

        • ESEMCE on 18/12/2013 - 16:29
          +1

          The choice is taken away, if you choose to live in Australia, because society has an obligation to prevent you from digging your own grave.
          You do have a choice to build a mattress fund, all it takes is to move pretty much anywhere else in the world!

        • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 18/12/2013 - 23:43

          "society has an obligation to prevent you from digging your own grave"

          That's a fantastic line. I'm going to steal it!

        • NosDan on 19/12/2013 - 00:58

          "society has an obligation to prevent you from digging your own grave"
          That's a fantastic line. I'm going to steal it!

          pity its not actually true…..

    • ferguscan on 12/12/2013 - 20:18
      +2

      A tax break is not a government handout. The government taking less of your money is not the same as the government giving you someone else's money.

      That said: I think the tax code should be far more fair. Deductions should the be the same for all companies/industries. And no private company should get a subsidy from the government. Ever.

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

        Yeh, well when you have shameless dodges like novated less sans logbook, that's hardly better than a handout.

      • p1 ama on 13/12/2013 - 11:16
        +2

        And no private company should get a subsidy from the government. Ever.

        Why?

        • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 13/12/2013 - 11:20

          Because Milton Friedman told him so.

        • ferguscan on 13/12/2013 - 13:45
          +2

          There's an economic argument and a moral one, and they are intertwined.

          Economics: governments are inherently lazy and stupid (have you ever met an average government "worker"?). Therefore, in selecting recipients for subsidies, they will likely choose poorly. They will likely choose companies that destroy wealth (like the auto makers) rather than those which create it.

          Morality: that money had to come from somewhere. This is the ugly truth that left-wingers never want to face. Governments only get money by taking it (under threat of force) from someone who is productive. By what standard of morality is it OK to forcefully take money from someone who earned it (through voluntary exchange) and give it to someone who didn't?

        • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 13/12/2013 - 23:23
          +2

          This is the moral stupidity of the libertarian: "I created all this wealth, no generations past, no government investment, none of the education I was given, it's all me. Oh, and the rest of history with no government intervention, where all the wealth was held by a few elites, that's DIFFERENT! THIS IS FREEDOM!"

          The hard right/libertarian freedom fighters assume that if you don't worship the market, you don't understand how they work. I've studied economics, whereas most of the libertarians who accuse me of being a 'lefty' haven't.

        • Speckled Jim on 17/12/2013 - 13:30
          +2

          Taxation is the price you pay for living in a civilised society.

          You're advocating zero income tax but that can only work with a ~50% consumption tax — which is fine for employed people. In practice however, it would give rise to more second-hand transactions, huge black markets and an angry underclass.

          That has the whiff black-curtain to it.

        • Speckled Jim on 17/12/2013 - 14:45

          I meant, of course, Iron Curtain.
          Sorry for the Hitchcockian reference.

  • snakes on 12/12/2013 - 17:47
    +2

    Our country should be mining its own resources, because lets face it once the resources are gone the only thing Australia will be good for is vacation homes for the Chinese.

    Probably off topic, but the future of Australia's economy looks grim all round.

    • machej on 12/12/2013 - 17:53
      +5

      Our country should be processing minerals not just mining them.

    • ferguscan on 12/12/2013 - 20:22
      +1

      We have Ag too, for which I predict a bright future.

      Once the resources boom goes tits-up, our economy will go with it. Thankfully, I think that's decades (not just years) in the future. Until then, a small percentage of our population will generate all the wealth by mining and growing commodities. And the rest will be personal trainers, estate agents, drug dealers and hairdressers.

      We live in the lucky country :)

      • mousie on 12/12/2013 - 21:36
        +3

        Don't forget recruitment consultants

        • ferguscan on 12/12/2013 - 21:39
          +1

          Hahaha! +1 to you :)

  • p1 ama on 12/12/2013 - 20:20
    +1

    It's bound to happen sooner or later, in my opinion. With increasing globalisation, Australia just cannot compete on price with manufacturers in Asia. The reason why manufacturing is strong in the US is because they have a much larger population, they are able to supply many parts of the world and many companies are US based, e.g. GM or Boeing…etc.

    It's happened with electronics, it'll eventually happen with other areas of manufacturing as well. Australia, and other well developed countries (look at Switzerland, Denmark, Norway…etc. all countries without a car industry) will eventually move towards a more knowledge based economy. For example, one of our most successful exports is our education industry where thousands of international students pay very large amounts of money to study at Australian universities. In fact, it is a major source of income for many universities.

    No matter what the government does, whether it be spending billions of dollars in subsidies for the car industry, raising taxes on imported vehicles or whatever, the end result is government intervention in an industry that just simply cannot compete with in a global environment. Not only that but it could potentially have a negative impact, pushing up the prices of cars meaning that ultimately, some people might not be able to afford a car.

    Also, I can't help but feel that the car industry has dug its own hole. In an age where people are more environmentally aware, petrol prices are high and most people drive around on cramped roads, not many people want to buy large cars. I know we all love our powerful V6s, but go for a walk around your neighbourhood, how many large V6s do you see compared to smaller Corollas, Cruzes, Focuses…etc.

    Holden only produces the Commodore here, I think the Cruze and Barina are from Korea (correct me if I'm wrong) and Toyota only produce the Aurion and Camry. Have a look at the sales charts.

    http://www.caradvice.com.au/259267/new-car-sales-figures-oct…

    Look at how many light cars and small cars are being sold compared to medium cars and large cars. The Camry, Aurion and Commodore together sold just 6000 cars. That's less than the amount of Corollas and Mazda 3s sold. Other popular markets apart from small cars and light cars that Australia doesn't manufacture in is the popular SUV market, dominated by Japanese and Korean imports. Even in the large SUV market, the Ford Territory doesn't do as well as it is often touted.

    Maybe if Australia started manufacturing cars that people wanted to buy, it would do a little better. Australians do support Australian made cars. The Commodore has a 65% market share in its Large Car segment. But Australia only makes Large cars, in fact, all of the three leaders in the Large Car segment - the Commodore, Falcon and Aurion - are all Australian made, but it is a segment which has been in decline and will decline in the future.

    • ferguscan on 12/12/2013 - 20:23
      +2

      Manufacturing isn't the least bit strong in the USA. They are bleeding manufacturing jobs every month, and have been for at least a decade.

    • Resonance on 16/12/2013 - 14:04

      Wait till automation and 3d printing destroy whatever is left of manufacturing in Australia.

    • Speckled Jim on 17/12/2013 - 14:36

      Holden only produces the Commodore here, I think the Cruze and Barina are from Korea (correct me if I'm wrong)

      Consider yourself corrected.
      It seems the Cruze can't shake off its Korean origins. It was originally imported from 2009 but in more recent times (2 years?) it's been locally built.
      With chocolate.

  • mousie on 12/12/2013 - 21:51

    My employer last week announced that we were closing our NZ factory down after operating for 70 years. Who knows about our Aus plants. 50000 jobs is a lot but unknown how many extra jobs will be created in mining or the gas projects. We need some killer innovators like Cochlear and stop looking at short term hassles like interest rates and house prices. People in Sydney are obsessed with property but won't play on the stock market. We more competition in the retail and banking sector and cause these businesses to diverge and shake their dominance as they are stifling our own potential.

  • lonix on 12/12/2013 - 21:57
    +1

    2 options,

    Aussies need to stop buying SUV's and start buying falcodores,

    or

    we start building SUV's!

    We need to corner the navara, hilux market

    • OzzyOzbourne on 13/12/2013 - 14:13

      by building SUV's like the Captiva or Territory?

  • Brick50 on 12/12/2013 - 22:27

    What will happen to all of the dealerships?

    • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 12/12/2013 - 23:10
      +1

      They'll just be selling yank tanks. Don't think the bogans really have a choice, unless they decide to go fully sick in a Camry.

      • JediJan on 13/12/2013 - 13:19
        +1

        Oi I had my Camry for 21 years; best car I ever owned. Unfortunately the Holden (first time I ever bought one) I replaced it with was made in West Germany; Vectra! I think I would rather go back to being fully sick! LOL.

      • Speckled Jim on 17/12/2013 - 14:38

        Oi! Marcus Ambrose races a Camry!

  • krunchymoses on 12/12/2013 - 23:03
    +3

    The number of 1:6 of every dollar put in is not unrealistic at all. Multiplier effect at work. It's actually quite conservative, when I do the maths in my head.
    The real thing here is not what we gain from it, but what we lose. The two are not the same. Things will happen in a dramatic way and it will send shockwaves through society. The workers are going to have a bad time, they will have to find other work. Easier for some than others. Much easier for some than others. And, of course, what happens to those that find it harder. Some of them will be lost through the cracks. Completely.

    We have another massive issue (which has been covered, but not emotively) which are the parts manufacturers. People who have businesses they built for years, with employees that indeed rely on them. People who have spent their lives doing work that the average joe cannot comprehend. Their factories are worth millions, if they are running. But the machines will be sold at fire sale prices once the assembly plants stop ordering.

    Even think about the corner store that runs near the factory. That place is dead. Maybe someone bought it a few years ago for $100k, hoping to keep a decent living from selling bacon and egg rolls to workers on the line. Well, they're now bankrupt.

    Housing prices in that area are going to take a huge hit. That is real money. Vanishing. Just disappearing off the balance sheet.

    I mean, even the local shoe store might need to close down. They were getting by okay, but now the Holden workers are all gone, or trying to leave, nobody is buying them anymore. Or they're all buying from K-Mart now that they're broke.

    I know some people will have a go at me, especially the neoliberal types that think in numbers instead of people. But try to think of how many lives are just going to be completely uprooted from this. Not only the workers, but the businesses, the families. The everyone. It's horrible. And I believe this government has been negligent to let this happen. IMO they have blood on their hands. Every suicide they didn't stop with this lack of effort to maintain an industry which actually has a net benefit on the economy regardless of subsidy is on their hands, thanks to their pigheaded attachment to orthodox economic ideals they learned at Sydney University.

    • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 12/12/2013 - 23:22
      +5

      Great post.

      Neoliberal types don't even think in numbers - they just think "market good, state bad!!" The fact that this government has dared Holden to do this, and has shown no desire whatsoever to invest in education and infrastructure, bodes very poorly for the unfortunate souls who are now facing a premature end to their careers.

    • ESEMCE on 13/12/2013 - 09:15
      +1

      It couldn't go on forever though…
      Unless the Government nationalised Holden!

      At some point the multiplier effect has to turn against you cause that same money multiplies in another industry better than yours.

      I 100% agree with the remainder of your post though and that's why I'm conflicted in how I feel about this situation.

  • edgar28 on 13/12/2013 - 10:49
    +2

    well……. the government thinks the economy is good! Hence no need to regulate the bank…..
    they still spending on new stadium (800M-1.2B), parks (1M), city statue (0.3M)…….
    I would rather hope they spend the money on hospital, school, police……… bad times need more police and doctors/ nurses….. Even "santa" rob the post office last week….. http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/bad-santa-charged-with-hol…

    ATO lost 900 jobs….. each one processes 100 applicants…… i.e. 90,000 jobs lost?

    • ferguscan on 13/12/2013 - 13:47

      The ATO lost jobs (downsized)? This is a bad thing?

      • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 13/12/2013 - 23:25
        +1

        If it results in a loss of revenue due to evasion, only a moron would argue otherwise.

  • rusty_oz on 13/12/2013 - 11:31

    Look, nothing serious will happen. We have 4 years to prepare for it. It's different if it close say next month. Economy will be fine.
    So, life will keep going normally IMHO

    • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 13/12/2013 - 11:38
      +1

      What new industry will pop up in Adelaide's north?

    • coin saver on 13/12/2013 - 14:04

      holdens closure is by the end of 2017 not at the end of 2017 they could still close or downsize earlier.

      • diddy50 on 13/12/2013 - 15:23
        +1

        yep, when their employees start getting new jobs and leaving that is when they will be closing sooner or reduce output quicker

    • Untameable on 13/12/2013 - 15:00

      I'd love to be a fly on the wall in Holden dealerships right now. I can't imagine any Holdens being sold at all between now and closure.

      I guess they'll have the cars underwritten so the insurance will be honored, but still… that's only a few years and people will be thinking of resale value.

      • LiamF on 18/12/2013 - 13:54

        Ironically, you may be able to get decent deals on Holdens - I know of at least one dealership running an 'Xmas Run-Out' sale that has a third-party 10 year warranty/roadside assistance package that'll kick in after the manufacturer warranty expires.

        Still, went with a Ford - I'm not a fan of the GM/Daewoo-designed cars.

  • mmecholet on 13/12/2013 - 12:48

    Interesting ABC radio prog t’other day (sorry; don’t remember which) suggested that the average income per capita in Australia is highest in world, & 22% higher than nearest ‘rival’ .
    As it doesn’t seem to be the workers’ incomes taking overall average to that dizzy height, then presumably it is the higher echelons who are benefitting from incomes which could be ever so slightly excessive. Why then aren’t the higher echelons subject to income in relation to productivity? That would cut their collective gallop. And hopefully allow many goods and services to be produced at an affordable level.
    I seem to remember Stephen Mayne is an effective campaigner in reducing salaries of those in higher echelons. Unwarranted high remuneration for being in an unproductive management role, or merely named as a Board member is not good enough reason to bring Australian industries to their knees.
    Yes, and why are there not more production units which are owned by those working there? Is there any more effective method of increasing productivity?

    • _Bruce_ on 13/12/2013 - 12:59

      As it doesn’t seem to be the workers’ incomes taking overall average to that dizzy height, then presumably it is the higher echelons who are benefitting from incomes which could be ever so slightly excessive.

      What are you basing the assumption on? Yes Australia has this problem, but the income divide isn't nearly as bad here as other places.

      Almost anyone with a full time job in Australia can afford clothes, food, basic rent, health costs and much more without any issue.

      Edit: Sources:
      http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/australias-one-per-cent…
      "Instead of holding assets equivalent to the bottom 90 per cent of society, Australia's one-per-centers hold assets equivalent to the bottom 50-odd per cent of the nation."

      http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/society-and-culture/w…
      "Australia is not America - we rank somewhere in the middle of advanced nations by income inequality - but the same trend is clear."

    • cannedhams on 13/12/2013 - 16:03
      +1

      I dont know that its that high, certainly Luxembourg and a number of other countries would have higher average incomes.

      Re: CEO salary - Unfortunately, companies are controlled largely by institutional investors, who are controlled by corporate directors, who are cut from the same cloth as the people whose remuneration packages they are usually voting on. So the same social class gets to keep voting for their own pay raises.

      I think Stephen Mayne campaigned against a number of remuneration packages, and succeeded in getting 30%+ no votes to a number of them, but didnt succeed in getting any of them tossed and certainly didnt succeed in getting pay rates reduced.

    • branners on 16/12/2013 - 13:05

      One of the reasons that Australia looks expensive compared to other countries — in wages, house prices, etc — is that the A$ has been artificially high for a number of years.
      That is also one of the reasons that Aussie cities keep appearing on the list of the most liveable cities in the world. Wages seem high once you convert them to £, € or your nearest convenient currency.

  • OzzyOzbourne on 13/12/2013 - 13:57
    +3

    The government will continue to support the mining, building industry, property investors and banks. So their will be jobs and money for some people, but not much in the manufacturing sector. Generally, the rich will get richer and tradies will get richer.

  • tsunamisurfer on 13/12/2013 - 14:52

    Any manufacturer will be doomed in this country as long as we have unions making demands for high pay.

    Unions helped doom Holden employees, they are putting up a strong fight to do the same to Toyota employees.

  • diddy50 on 13/12/2013 - 15:19
    -2

    It is OUR fault, it is GM Holden's fault.

    They stopped making cars we wanted to buy, we stopped buying cars they were making, simple as that.

    No amount of money from any political party was going to help.

    The union was too greedy with the conditions that they wanted for their workers.

    It made me angry hearing Bill Shorten blame Tony Abbott for the closure, that was a sickening comment, so untrue, just disgusting…I dislike Bill Shorten now

    • ESEMCE on 13/12/2013 - 15:38
      +2

      They're all trying to make political points, this is far from the worst example!

    • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 13/12/2013 - 15:39
      -1

      Holden said they wanted about $160m a year, until 2020 to stay until 2023. GM in Detroit couldn't care less if we stayed - from their perspective, they were doing us a favour being here.

      Hockey and Truss goaded them to leave. So they did.

      Shorten was right to be outraged - it was ill-considered bravado that led to this event, even if the broader context was out of the government's control.

      • ESEMCE on 13/12/2013 - 15:56
        +2

        Holden said they wanted about $160m a year on top of what they were already getting.

        If you give Holden that amount, Toyota of course would expect the same treatment, so it's really $320m/year extra..
        At some point it had to stop.

        I don't agree with our politician's behaviour, but I doubt that GM made the decision based on them being goaded.

        • _Bruce_ on 13/12/2013 - 15:58
          +1

          I don't agree with our politician's behaviour, but I doubt that GM made the decision based on them being goaded.

          This. It was brilliant timing from GM though (politically speaking). I'm willing to bet that if the comments weren't made GM would have waited till the results of the productivity commission to point to and say this is why we are leaving.

        • theworks on 14/12/2013 - 09:16

          Where does all that money come from though?

          It comes from the tax made on selling cars, tax paid up the supply chain, tax spent on luxuries bought by workers. Its unfair to view it as "costing the country" without taking into account what they give back. A bailout now would with a target to close in 8-10 years instead of 4 would have given the communities much more time to diversify.

          I was at a door stop yesterday with Nick Xenophon and a handful of factory heads in Adelaide and they were quoting Holdens prices right up to the day of the announcement. Holdens business model in Australia relied on government bailouts, no one is debating that, but I think it is the responsibility of the leaders of government to hedge the risk to the communities by buying them time to diversify away from manufacturing than just pulling the plug.

        • ESEMCE on 16/12/2013 - 10:19

          It comes from the tax made on selling cars, tax paid up the supply chain, tax spent on luxuries bought by workers. Its unfair to view it as "costing the country" without taking into account what they give back.

          So are you saying that the tax revenue generated by an industry should only be returned to that industry?
          If so, why bother having a tax system in the first place?

          A bailout now would with a target to close in 8-10 years instead of 4 would have given the communities much more time to diversify.

          Probably not, it's not like the assembly lines can run on half staff next year and then quarter staff the following one…
          If the line is running it needs 100% staff, similarly for the component makers. There can be no soft dismantling of the industry, unless there is investment made into extra robots on the line, which seems pointless given the impending shutdown!

        • _Bruce_ on 16/12/2013 - 11:00

          Probably not, it's not like the assembly lines can run on half staff next year and then quarter staff the following one…
          If the line is running it needs 100% staff, similarly for the component makers.

          Actually generally the lines are designed to be scalable to a reasonable extent. This is particularly true in the Toyota philosophy. The problem is that they are already running at the minumum. On top of this for the last 3 months Holden have been close to only making cars 3 days a week, so pushing everyone to part time isn't even an option they haven't already taken.

          There can be no soft dismantling of the industry, unless there is investment made into extra robots on the line, which seems pointless given the impending shutdown!

          I'm working on just this at the moment. Unsurprisingly I'm also looking at alternative employment options.

  • apprentice01 on 13/12/2013 - 16:52

    holden should sell cars just above cost make say 20% not there riduclous mark ups.
    Funny thing is that people at the factories dont even drive holdens

    • _Bruce_ on 13/12/2013 - 16:56

      holden should sell cars just above cost make say 20% not there riduclous mark ups.

      Eh? The mark ups are to pay for fixed costs, and even then don't cover it, which is why they are closing.

      Funny thing is that people at the factories dont even drive holdens

      News to me. I'm currently at a teir 1 supplier (for all three) and 90% of the car park is locally made cars.

  • cheepwun on 13/12/2013 - 18:45

    The economy's headed exactly where the politicians want it.

    You want a global market, you got it. Just a small issue: can I have some of the millions we paid to keep the scam running, or do the politicians and CEOs only have the right to dip into the taxpayer jar? (even if you don't drive a car, they get paid).

    Nice work if you can get it!

  • fruxo on 13/12/2013 - 20:59
    +2

    The economy could be heading somewhere great in the long run if investments in a proper communications network replacement were to be made, ie a fibre NBN. It would definitely help create jobs and attract businesses, especially as we are losing businesses such as holden and eventually the mining industry. And it has to be done eventually (no one is arguing this, not even coalition), so there's no better time than now while we still have a strong economy.

    But unfortunately the current NBN situation is a joke. I don't blame the general public for not understanding or caring what is going on as it has become such a political issue with a HUGE amount of spin and bias (struggling not to say straight out lies). Don't want to derail the thread, just thought it was directly relevant to the question asked :) If you want to discuss this issue in more details, there are plenty of forums with an abundance of information.

  • burpa on 13/12/2013 - 22:54

    This is why you don't bite the hand that feeds you. Peaceful demonstrations are acceptable once and a while but not turning up to work on the a considerably good salary which any healthy Joe Blow from Kokomo could do is ridiculous. I really don't believe an assembly worker could argue more for a comfortable salary of 58k (some guy i know) and 100k for a group leader. My parents waking up as early as four just to go to work whilst have parts (not alot but alot if everyone's taxes are added together) of taxes paid to these companies through subsidies making them similar to government workers in order to make a base salary below their pay is very unflattering. I find it amusing that this news comes after their strike last month while GM is still reporting a healthy profit. The dollar is 90c now.

    As far as the economy is headed, the manufacturing industry is definitely hanging on a thin rope whilst more attention could be paid towards the agricultural and possible tourist sectors due to dollars decline. Structural reform is nothing new whilst new technology will coming faster than you could imagine.

    • coin saver on 15/12/2013 - 17:11
      +1

      group leaders are below $63000pa

  • rayray78 on 13/12/2013 - 23:14
    +1

    So long as the US Fed reserve continues with their money printing and near zero interest rates the AUD will stay strong which will lead to more hardship for Aussie exporters

  • _Bruce_ on 14/12/2013 - 10:41

    Tony Abbott rules out more money for Toyota:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-14/tony-abbott-rules-out-…

    I'd be amazed if Toyota are still here in 2020.

    • JudoChop on 14/12/2013 - 15:20

      Tax payers should give not give extra funding to a business that agreed to some of the most unproductive conditions you'll ever see.

      Every 6 factory workers needs 1 supervisor. The supervisor is not allowed to assist with the workload because that could potentially take away an employees opportunity to work overtime and for Toyota to have to pay out even more money in wages, thereby raising the cost of manufacturing a vehicle in this country.

      The unions have the employees rort the system so that large scale union dominated workforces ensure that a companies ability to turn a profit and employ more staff, is stifled.

      The sense of entitlement has to end. Manufacturing will become profitable when productivity rises.
      Unions don't want raises in productivity because there goes overtime!

      • OzzyOzbourne on 16/12/2013 - 13:50

        All Of This Has Happened Before And Will Happen Again

        ref. unions and manufacturing in other countries (and BSG)

  • JudoChop on 14/12/2013 - 15:09

    We have the ace up our sleeve.
    It's called Uranium. Australia has a metric poop load of it.
    But at the moment, Uranium is still stuck in that cabinet behind the sticker that reads
    "only break glass in case of emergency".

    • _Bruce_ on 14/12/2013 - 16:13
      +1

      We do export it, but uranium is increasingly politically unpopular, despite it's huge benefit in addressing global warming.

    • JediJan on 14/12/2013 - 18:20

      Better still; find a lucrative export market for those cane toads; jobs potential and environmentally friendly.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join