Mark

If your position is at all true (starkly, it probably is) then this also reflects on the argument that has been made for the pulp mill for its ability to create jobs.  Claims of employment for it ALSO use the 2.3 job flow on effect (or the Government does).

These sorts of articles, while informative, often confuse and frustrate me by the manner in which they impute one thing for a sector while entirely ignoring, or not venturing into, the wider territory around.

So 2,300 people lose their jobs.  They’re a commodity - right?  Wrong - they’re people and using facts and figures to basically dismiss people as things to be pawned is part of why the world at large is turning in to a trash heap.

The problem as I see it is ‘real jobs’ are really feedlots for governments to harvest taxation revenue. With 150 different taxes and 19 parliamentary representatives, maintaining ‘governance’ is a self-perpetuating industry in Tasmania. The real ‘flow-on effects’ come from the random and incompetent way the governments spend those taxes. We have hundreds of jobs right now building a superhighway to a closed-down wood chip mill. In other words Tasmanians are building infrastructure for imaginary industries. Look at how many jobs our ‘cancer epidemic’ is creating? A government run tax avoidance scheme in tree plantations that provides jobs saving victims from the toxic residues.

An easy way to create more jobs in an environmentally and sustainable way here in Tasmania would be to lobby the State Government to remove industrial hemp from the Tasmanian Poisons’ Act plus send a submission to Food Standards Australia and New Zealand by 27th April to ask them to lift the ban on the human consumption of hempseed and its oil. (email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) or snailmail to FSANZ PO Box 7186 Canberra BC, ACT 2610).
There is virtually nothing that cannot be made from hemp using its fibre, seed or oil, so the value adding opportunities are boundless. Tasmania is suited to niche industries we have not the size or population to warrant mass commodity industries. Besides which diversity is the answer to economic safety. If you put all your eggs in one basket-look out!

Ed: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/05/3182216.htm

What is your view on the Unions role in creating employment? I could not but help notice at the start of para. 6 Union without a capital. Michael Swanton.

Any benefit of PS job cuts could be multiplied many times over by targeting those jobs, particularly at executive levels, created to serve the Government’s parasitic cronies.

John Hayward

Stephen,

In case of the the pulp mill (and any other private investment for that matter) its economic value to the State (capex, wages and profits less direct Government spending) is derived from willing foreign customers, not taxes on Tasmanian residents. As such, there is a net employment gain, which is not the case for public service positions.

As to the ‘flow on effect’ or ‘employment multiplyer’, any estimate’s validity really depends on the robustness of the particular methodology used.

Mark

Replace reasonable paying government jobs (in part or whole funded by Federal government re-distributions from the resource riches) with people on significantly lower welfare payments (also a Federal government redistribution) at a time when the economy is contracting… Will do wonders for Tassie retail and trade services. Hmmm, sensible stuff.

Similarly, RBF choosing to sack approx. 60 staff to let Mercer take over the IT reigns (with a long term trajectory which would likely cost the fund more than implementing a new system, after initial incentives to get them in disappear from the recurrent pricing. My gut feeling is they felt incapable of managing the transition, ie. they wanted to de-risk), losing even more opportunities for local skilled employment.

With this coming from the TCCI, I’m assuming a neoclassical slant, so making the claim of “it stems from misunderstanding and how some people genuinely think economies work” is a laughable statement. It’s become patently evident that neoclassical economists certainly don’t know how “real” economies work, particularly at the macro level. Steve Keen’s Debunking Economics is a great starting point for why this is so. The prevailing economics is called the dismal science for a reason, trying to make the real world fit the theory. Yes, that theory would be the neoliberalism project opening a legal avenue to give average joe’s money to the millionaires.

With the brains trust thinking like this, no wonder they are serial offenders at shooting themselves in the foot.

One thing that has always interested me in the debate about Government jobs and expenditure is where the traditional Government blue collar jobs fit in.
My personal opinion is that a serious mistake has been made over the years by shutting down, and contracting out, the various Government workshops. I appreciate that they were very inefficient and had many employees who classed a good day as one where they avoided doing any work whatsoever. I also believe that those sins were exaggerated. It’s hard work hiding in the toilet all day!
An alternative view was that they trained many apprentices. They were a source of many, many skilled workers. They had good tradesman who knew how to do things properly. Money spent in a Government workshop stayed close to home. So what if the odd length of steel built an employees boat trailer. It was still money being injected at the grass roots.
Now days the money is wasted on consultants, PR, middle men, and very little stays close to home. The blue collar tasks, those that are tackled rather than being ignored, are done by contractors. Contractors (and I’ve been one) do it the quickest, cheapest way and train very few apprentices.

Mark post #6

quote"In case of the the pulp mill (and any other private investment for that matter)“endquote.

But that’s just it Mark.  So far as I’m seeing, EVERY biggish business in Tasmania is being subsidised with taxpayers money. Whether it’s through subsidies, infrastructure assistance or low cost loans (donations as far as I’m concerned) to prop up the business.  Subsidies that encourage growth I can understand.  Assistance, monetary or otherwise, that doesn’t provide the State with a return I can’t. If it was “private” investment in it’s entirety I would be less confused and frustrated.

I’m not that naive that I don’t think this doesn’t happen in other States Mark.  But, hell, e.g. $6 million for how many AFL matches that generate what sort of return??? I did some basic sums on the capacity of planes and the ferry.  There have got to be better ways of redistributing Tasmania’s hard earned, but I also recognise the need for bread and circuses to placate the teaming masses.

I don’t entirely disagree with your point and I’d really, really like to see more transparency in Government.  The “keystone cops” way that things have been bumbling along at is less than amusing. I really dislike the obsfucation that is politics.

Re #6
“In case of the the pulp mill (and any other private investment for that matter) its economic value to the State (capex, wages and profits less direct Government spending) is derived from willing foreign customers, not taxes on Tasmanian residents.”

Specifically, who are these “willing foreign customers” of the proposed pulp mill’s product?

And where is the cost/benefit analysis showing that it will actually make a profit?

I’m wondering where front line workers fit in the TCCI view of the Public service. Should Doctors, Dentists, Nurses, Psychologists, Occupational Therapists, Teachers, Secretarial Staff, Teacher Aides etc etc be among those who are retrenched by the Government? 

There are several positions in Private Enterprise that can objectively be shown to not actually create wealth, these positions potentially reducing dividends share holders might expect.

jobs can come from recommencing construction of the gordon-below-franklin - that is if the feds & the greens butt out.

4.What is your view on the Unions role in creating employment?

Easy one to answer they don’t.  Except in their own bureaucracy of course.  But feel free to provide examples showing otherwise.

With a blackhole, according to Lara, now at $1.2B there is no other choice but to cut the number of public servants.  The only choices we do have are how many and from which areas.

Ideally, you would only cut from the ‘frontline’ (police, nurses, teachers etc.) once you had made substantial cuts into the ‘back office’ areas.  Since the public sector wage bill has gone from $1B to $2.7B in the last 11 years it should not be too hard to find positions to cut that will have no detrimental effect on service delivery.  Particularly when you see data suggesting that 90% of these new positions are in the back office area.

Perhaps the starting point is where did Aird (or Mr Ed according to another thread) and Bartlett spend that extra $1B, that Gidding said they spent, in the last two years to save us from the GFC?

Most of it would appear to have been spent on more public sector jobs.  Perhaps they need to be the first jobs cut.  As an aside, it beggers belief that senior Ministers (and their staff) see no problem in spending one-off capital injections on recurring expenses like wages.  No wonder the finances are munted.

#8 has hit the nail on the head absolutely though I should add that it is fairly well known that costs went up, not down, after such work was outsourced.

Look at the state of just about any infrastructure around you if you want to see how the outsourcing approach has failed. A fortune is being spent but very little work is actually getting done. And much of what is done, is done to a very poor standard.

Government blue collar workers may well have spent a bit of time leaning on shovels, but at the end of the day they did actually get the job done to a much higher standard than the average contractor appears to be doing, and they did so at no real extra cost.

Worth noting also that all the outsourcing didn’t really reduce the size of the public service overly much. It just added an entirely new category of job, that required to deal with the contractors, which employs hundreds if not thousands of people. Then we have to pay for the actual work to be done by someone else, plus profit for the private contractor as well.

It ends up being cheaper to do it with your own workers, even if they are a tad inefficient at times.

There is a simple solution to unemployment. It is called compassion. As in the story of the Good Samaritan, in the compassionate society that practices tough love, unemployment would simply not exist. It would be appreciated that competition is terrific to a point and delivers exciting pathways to success, but when this winning creates losers, it becomes a form of abuse that cannot be tolerated in a tough love society.

Those who are good at winning would be obligated by the culture of the mature society to ensure that all citizens are able to participate in the social fabric. To achieve this, the ferocity of competition would need to be balanced by the consideration of cooperation. In a society driven by the vision of the art of fearless compassion, where the “fair go” is delivered to all, the balance of competitive and cooperative enterprises would eliminate unemployment and thus also serve to send poverty into history.

Compassion is the simple solution to unemployment that happens when tough love becomes the guiding light of a society and as in the story of the Good Samaritan, it happens from the hearts of individuals deciding that the injured should not be left by the side of the road to suffer and die.

Kim Peart

Some sayings that may, or may not, cast some light on these matters.

(A) TYPES OF SPENDING IN DECREASING ORDER OF PROBABLE EFFICIENCY:

(i) spending your money on yourself;

(ii) spending your money on other people;

(iii) spending other people’s money on yourself;

(iv) spending other people’s money on other people.

Most government spending is type (iv), which helps to account for its usually being so badly spent. Classic big exemplar: the USSR. Classic realisation of this: post Deng China.

(B) OF FORMS OF GOVERNMENT LET FOOLS CONTEST.
  THAT WHICH GOVERNS LEAST GOVERNS BEST.

(C) GOVERNMENTS DON’T MAKE ECONOMIES -  PEOPLE DO. But governments can destroy them. Current government most likely: Venezuela’s Chavez government.

(D) WEALTH DOESN’T CREATE ECONOMIES -  ECONOMIES CREATE WEALTH. Historical exemplars, one each: Spain and the Netherlands in the 1500s & 1600s. Most of the gold & silver from Catholic Spain’s American empire ended up in the Protestant Netherlands -  for your average blue-blooded hidalgo, ‘commerce’ was an utterly filthy notion, especially if expressed as ‘Jewish commerce’; for your average Netherlander, the “Protestant ethic” was much more than mere economic jargon.

(E) THERE IS ALWAYS A MARKET, EVEN WHEN THERE OFFICALLY ISN’T, AND THERE IS ALWAYS A CURRENCY. Classic exemplar: any ‘black market’, such as in immediate post-war Germany, where American cigarettes comprised the currency.

There WAS a market in the Soviet Union, not in goods & services (“What ‘goods’ & what ‘services’?” old Soviet hands would chortle), but in power & influence in the CPSU. There is a similar sort of market in the world’s largest weight-loss programme, commonly known as North Korea.

(F) CHANGE IS THE NUMBER ONE CONSTANT IN EVERY ECONOMY AND IN EVERY MARKET. Australians have PMs Hawke & Keating to thank that we accepted and undertook those changes which 1980s global developments demanded, particularly in escaping from our sheltered workshop mentality.

I do not find this paper all that useful. When I see somebody relying on a range of references from the early 1980’s I am concerned. Economic theory and thinking has moved on since then.  Then what does a 50% correlation mean? And Yes ABS did get the wobbles about its multiplier effect predictions but what about more recent work and statistics on job generation?

#13. I was unaware you wrote this forum?
Michael Swanton.

#17 so what is the multiplier effect for every public service job?  Economic common sense (not that there is much economic common sense in the Keynesian theory) dictates it is less than one.

The recent stimulus package from the Commonwealth reputedly had a TEMPORARY only multiplier effect of 0.4.  Not much value for money there which fits into the most inefficient way of spending money outlined by #16, namely spending other people’s money on other people.

#18 rather than just twitter-like responses how about you come up with examples where Unions have created employment.

#19.I bet you have accepted all the conditions,entitlements and hard fought wages that others have given blood sweat and tears to achieve for you.      Michael Swanton.

I thank the Editor for thoughtfully supplying this link in Estelle Ross’s post #3 above ..

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/05/3182216.htm

.. and advise those interested in Tasmania’s hemp industry and caring enough to lodge a Submission in support of it that Application A1039 – Low THC Hemp as a Food may be downloaded here ..

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodstandards/changingthecode/documentsforpublicco868.cfm

To enlarge on Estelle Ross’s post #3 I advise that further information on Hemp is available at this link ..

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/scienceandeducation/factsheets/factsheets2011/industrialhempasafoo5102.cfm

.. where this appears:

“What is hemp?

“Hemp or industrial hemp is a Cannabis plant species (Cannabis sativa). Historically, hemp has been used as a source of fibre and oil. Cannabis extracts have also been used in medicine for a variety of ailments.

“Due to its low THC levels, hemp is different to other varieties of Cannabis sativa, commonly referred to as marijuana. Hemp contains no, or very low levels of THC, and does not have any psychoactive properties.

“Hemp is cultivated worldwide, including in Australia and New Zealand (under strict licensing arrangements), and is currently used in Australia as a source of clothing and building products.

“What health benefits does hemp have?

“Hempseeds are rich in the essential fatty acids, omega-3 and omega-6, which are required for vital body functions, including the immune response, lipid hydrolysis, blood clotting, vascular dilation and cardiac function. These and other polyunsaturated fatty acids also play a vital role in maintaining cell membrane structure. 

“Is hemp used in food in Australia and New Zealand?

“At present, hemp cannot be used in food in Australia and New Zealand as it is prohibited in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. An exception is made for hempseed oil in New Zealand.

“Hemp is currently used in other countries, including in Europe, Canada and the United States, in a range of foods including health bars, salad oils, non-soy tofu, non-dairy cheeses, and as an additive to baked goods, as well as being used as the whole seed, raw or roasted.

“An application to permit food derived from hemp is currently being considered by FSANZ. FSANZ is assessing this application and has released a paper for public comment. FSANZ has not identified any public health and safety concerns associated with consuming hemp foods. However, a number of other issues associated with approving hemp foods are raised in the paper and comment is sought from interested parties before 27 April 2011.

“A previous application in 2002 was rejected by State, Territory and Federal health ministers. Ministers were concerned that the availability of hemp foods may increase consumer acceptance of illicitCannabisuse and pose problems for drug enforcement agencies. Therefore, the prohibition on all Cannabis species remained in the Code. The continuing sale of hempseed oil as a food in New Zealand is made possible by a separate provision in the New Zealand Food (Safety) Regulations.

“If an application is approved, will hemp food products require special labelling?

Food ingredients must be declared in the statement of ingredients by the common name of the ingredient or a name that describes the true nature of the ingredient. If hemp is considered to be a characterising ingredient in the food, then the percentage of hemp in the food would also need to be declared. Other labelling requirements will be considered as part of the FSANZ assessment of the current application for approval of hemp as a food.”

I presume from your answers at #18 and #20 that you do not have any examples of Unions creating employment.  This was your original query after all.

#23. You are not Mark Bowles.  Michael Swanton.

Re #3 & #22
It is astounding of the current situation where industrial hemp (a non-drug) has to meet so many onerous conditions to be grown in Tasmania and Australia, yet poppies (one of the most dangerous drugs, opium) are permitted to be grown in vast quantities alongside major highways with only a rusty wire and sign between them and the public.

The law is so hypocritically and chemical industry-biased.

I am sure once Mark Bowles stops laughing at the thought of Unions creating employment he will respond.

And then we can discuss how Unions create unemployment.

#26. While you are waiting,you might like to read the Paul Eslake article on the North West,and see the Unions involvement in employment creation.

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/new-prospects-for-north-west-tasmania/

Michael Swanton.

Mark, suggest you have a read of Tim Jackson’s book, ‘Prosperity Without Growth’.  It’s time to get over the notion that there is any real future in a growth-based model.

Re #27
On one hand, it’s not a very good answer, Michael,  because it doesn’t address the question of any jobs being created by Unions here in Tasmania (and zero about the North West), or Australia for that matter.

The link you provided is just about a speech to be given by a visiting overseas non-Unionist “about prospects for the recovery, development and sustainability of skilled manufacturing in the region.”

The crucial word here is “prospects,” nothing guaranteed.

On the other hand, it’s a very good non-answer, Michael.

Re: 28   John Alford

Whether in ecology or the economy, growth to maturity is essential, or all dies of old age. The challenge is therefore to identify how to have growth within a mature system, but not over-growth that results in an unhealthy cancerous disease.

Humanity has become a disease on the Earth, with a ballooning unsustainability bubble and the release of toxic levels of carbon. Severe surgery is required to win back a healthy Earth.

After extensive investigations I have come to appreciate that the necessary surgery requires expansion rather than contraction, as contraction alone can result in a slide toward collapse.

If we can appreciate that the first law of the cosmos is expansion, which was how the cosmos was born and can be seen with life and human society, then this is a critical factor in undertaking the operation.

When it is also appreciated that humanity was in a position to start building solar power stations in space in the 1970s, which would have given us direct access to our star’s unlimited energy well, then we can see that the present problems could have been entirely avoided by running with Nature and expanding beyond Earth.

If we had, we would not have burnt all that fossil fuel, driven an ever increasing unsustainability bubble and forced the planet into dangerous Earth changes.

The essential surgery is to get back to that 1970s fork in the road and take the highway to build solar power stations in space. This will give us the energy to build our way through dangerous Earth changes and make the transition from a carbon economy to a solar civilization.

With solar power stations in space, industry can be located beyond Earth and the human settlement of space begin.

We will also be able to use this energy to mine carbon from the air as a resource and win back a safe planet.

In this program of severe surgery, we can shift to a slow Earth with solar powered electric transport and replace jets and cargo ships with fleets of air ships.

In the process we can send poverty into history, as we build a mature and cultured solar civilization, on Earth and in space, where the art of fearless compassion can deliver a healthy life with unlimited creative opportunities for all Earth’s children.

If we fail to get our society into the operating theatre in a timely fashion and the need is now extremely critical, we may find that the disease phase that we have brought on by clinging to the Earth has gone into a terminal conclusion and it could be “Hasta la vista, baby” for us.

Kim Peart

#29. Russell I like your encouragement.I believe what Unions have done for workplace reform and employment is historically immeasurable going back at least to the 1850’s in this country. The toll puddle martyr’s were the first political prisoners sent to this country in the the late 1830’s, and one of them George Loveless was transported to this State. To be quizzed by an unknown, who will not answer #20 what advantages they have taken from Union bargaining deserves the response that I offered on this forum.ing deserves the response that I offered #19 on this forum. Michael Swanton.

Re #31
You have once again avoided answering the question, “how about you come up with examples where Unions have created employment”?

Re 331
It’s a simple question, Michael. If you can’t answer it directly, say so. There’s no shame in that.

Re: 32   Russell Langfield

It is not the role of the unions to create employment, that is a silly thought. Union watch dogs like the old silver bodgy established an accord that opened up new economic opportunities in Australia and indirectly this was unions creating work, just as it has been a union political role that has often enabled work to exist for workers.

To see the connections one must break the nut of a single thought and expand the imagination.

The great chasm in human understanding is that the world changed as work was eliminated by automation, so that less wealth flowed into society through worker income. Staggering on and attempting to run a nation as if we were still living in a 1950s economy is the great crime of the last millennium. With the dawning of the robot revolution fast rising, the process will be taken further.

That we have locked ourselves into a post-fair go society that requires 5% unemployment to keep the wealth bubbling is an absurd abuse of human intelligence. The only way to break this criminal mentality is through individual action collectively expressed, to quietly bring back the fair go by simply demanding that we shift from an economy and become a Human family, where no individual is left to flounder in the humiliation of living as a reject of the social fabric and most frequently in poverty and too frequently left sleeping on the street, where they can and do get there heads kicked in.

Kim Peart

#32. & #33.Russell I did not realise I was still in the witness box, or if I was not, I was still under oath.If you look at my question at #4 you will see the key word ‘role’. Employment is created by negotiation with various representatives of groups including Unions.Therefore any example of employment creation could not be attributed to one of those groups.#13 conveniently overlooked the word role and then went on to answer their own question. Thanks for your interest, and I have answered the question. Michael Swanton

Re #34 & #35
So the answer is, none.

#36.William ,I think natural justice and procedural fairness would allow the jury to make that decision.
Michael Swanton.

Re 36   Russell Langfield

The answer is “Yes” - through the indirect application of hard-won principles fought for by unions and workers who believed in freedom and fought for justice since the Eureka Stockade.

The union green bans at The Rocks in Sydney created employment opportunities with culture that would have otherwise been demolished.

In the 1960s automation was expected to deliver prosperity and more leisure. We were naive.

Anyone seriously interested in the solution to this problem must look at the whole situation, consider what could have been, how it could have happened, why those opportunities were lost and how we could fight our way back to a fair go for all.

Kim Peart

#37.Russell Langfield, I apologise for referring to your posting as William.However I have taken some interest in your posting style since ,and conclude a remarkable resemblance to the Monty Python ‘argument’ sketch.  #29. You also need to reread the link I provided and see the reference to discussions with groups,including Unions, in the Chicago m Michael Swanton.

Re #38
“The union green bans at The Rocks in Sydney created employment opportunities with culture that would have otherwise been demolished.”

Like what?

Re #39
It is still just a speech. It doesn’t create employment in Tasmania.

Re: 40   Russell Langford

There are none so blind
as them who cannot see
the benefits of tourism
to crusty old Sydney

Kim Peart

#40 Given the number of tourists who visit the area, it could be argued that this must surely be creating at least some employment.

Is that the best you can do to prove Unions have a role in creating employment?  There is a much stronger arugement to suggest that Unions actually destroy jobs in Australia through their anti-competitive practices, pattern bargaining, high minimum wages, and generally a number of barriers they have in place to raise the cost of a worker, both in wages and compliance, and also to decrease the flexibility of workers and workplaces.

I agree with #34 that 5% unemployment indicates that many people are not reaching their potential.  The situation is actually even worse because if the Government measured unemployment the way they used to the real rate would be close to 10%. 

But why are these people missing out?  It is a number of reasons one of which is the high cost of labour in Australia.  Another reason is because they do not have to.  Government programs will look after them and why should they make the effort to get a job when their whole family and most of their friends do not have a job.  Even more compelling, if a person does try to gain work and move ahead they will be taxed at the rate of around 66%.  That is one hell of a disincentive.

Re: 43   Davies

Read comment 41 and then revisit the matter.

There only has to be one good example, because the matter is not in the running. Unions were not established to create employment, but to fight for the rights of workers.

The figure of 10% real unemployment is an abuse of the nation, that is an artificially manipulated situation quietly designed to:

keep workers in fear of becoming unemployed and that is why the system is set up like a penal system, humiliating people, slamming some heads on the footpath at night as homeless,

direct more wealth up the money tree that would otherwise have to be given out in wages.

Anyone serious about a new way must first get off the Tony Abbot carnival side-show, where he struts his budgy as Mr Muscles and decide what the base line is that we need to be working from and how we are going to get there.

The current system will not open the way to full economic participation for all in the Australian social fabric, because it is driven by greed and fear.

The solution lies in the hands of each individual working with others to heal the nation of greed and fear and open up a new way in Australia, that is inclusive and compassionate and views heads on pavements at night as a form of system-driven abuse.

If we want to get those half million Australian children out of poverty, then we need to have a way that actually does that. We need to work with each child and build a stronger nation that is free of system abuse.

To achieve this in the face of escalating automation and the dawning robot revolution, taxes may not have to be higher, but individual commitment to a healthy nation will have to translate into engagement to reconnect all Australians with what we are supposed to be as a nation.

If we are still living in convict heads under governor whips, then we have not travelled very far beyond the Eureka Stockade.

Advance Australia fair!

OK, but where and how?

Kim Peart

#44. Well done! I must have lost the passion brother. I had almost decided this faceless contributor was not worth the energy. You have rallied to the ‘fair go’ picket line, confronting ignorance and blind prejudice. Thank you.
Michael Swanton.

Gibberish and socialist clap-trap dressed up as ‘caring’ for the community.  Yet not one practical solution, or even an inpractical one. 

And if I read it right your blaming greedy rich people for the unemployment?!  I would have thought there are a number of people unemployed because firstly, there may not be enough jobs, secondly, they may not have the right skills for the jobs or sadly most likely, they do not have any job skills including reading, writing and numeracy.

But you blame “direct more wealth up the money tree that would otherwise have to be given out in wages” as the problem.  I own a business and I know many business owners and I cannot think of one that is deliberately not employing a person, when they are required to maintain or build the business, because they want to keep the unemployment levels high. 

It is nonsense and shows a total lack of understanding to what motivates business owners and how and why they grow their business.

Re: 46   Davies

While we rely on the ferocity of competition alone to deliver solutions to unemployment and poverty in a wealthy nation like Australia, we are shooting ourselves in the feet and crippling our opportunities.

Read carefully: It was the process of industrialisation that turned more resources into more products at a faster pace. It has been the process of automation, including the computer revolution, that has created a new form of economy that needs fewer workers, resulting in at least 10% real unemployment in Australia. It will be the currently dawning robot revolution that will accelerate this process.

As a consequence, with a high level of unemployment and under-employment, real-world income which would once have gone to workers no longer does.

If we want to turn our ship of State around to a ‘fair go’ for all, we must be brutally honest about the process in which many gain, but too many lose and are left without hope.

Mickey Mouse employment creating fantasies in this environment must be run like a criminal system, as those rejected by society and left in a disempowered state in life, often no matter how hard they try to improve themselves, must be treated like criminals in a humiliating penal-style system, so they may be controlled.

This abusive approach to running an economy and a society is creating a humiliated underclass of untouchables without hope.  If we allow this to continue, we can expect survival crimes, like stealing food and homelessness to continual to haunt us.

I suggest that the way out of this hell we are making is to accept that much of our national wealth is now generated by resources and machines that need fewer and fewer works workers, resulting in the wealth created not being fairly shared by one means or other.

One solution could be to balance the ferocity of competition, which is exciting, with the consideration of cooperation, which is compassionate. By balancing competition with cooperation, a full employment society could be won for all.

To achieve this may require those who are in benefit of the system working with those who are rejected to develop successful cooperative enterprises, which are not a walkover or a holiday camp, as they must operate in the free market just like any other company.

To be successful, it was found in Spain that they must be new initiatives. One in Brazil worked when the previous workers took over their abandoned factory, though it had been stripped and was essentially a new enterprise.

For “Gibberish and socialist clap-trap dressed up as ‘caring’ for the community”, go to Sweden, which appears to be able to maintain quite an even keel. For a lesser example, come to Australia.

Should we follow the Vikings and be more like Sweden?

There is a deeper root to this problem that runs back through evolution and to the primary law of the cosmos, with expansion, but challenge me on that if you wish.

Kim Peart

#47.The response is fairly typical of a fundamental, master servant, class structured thought process, that would have anyone with challenged ‘reading writing and numeracy’ ‘job skills’ further disadvantaged. Would Churchill sitting in his little cottage have taken a similar viewpoint? I think not. Where is compassion?
Michael Swanton.

#48.re #47. Stop moving the deck chairs. Should be #46.                    Michael Swanton.

If unions work proactively with management to identify and implement improved productivity or customer service then yes, they could ‘create’ (or sustain) employment, because they are helping enterprises become more competitive.

If they artificially raise wages, or implement restrictive work practices, then they are constraining employment.

#50.Unions are not allowed by law to ‘artificially raise wages, or implement restrictive work practices’                Michael Swanton.

By all means look at the Swedish model.  For sure it has high personal income tax rates, though they are coming down, but it does have the second lowest business tax rates in Europe.  Coupled with low regulation of the business sector and very little public ownership, Sweden has a freer market economy than the US has.

On the downside, the workforce is 80% unionised and perhaps not surprisingly unemployment rates are officially a bit over 7% with the unemployment rate of 15-25 year olds at around 20%. 

However, like here, the Government has been accused of fudging the unemployment figures and once those on state-organised job schemes in the public sector (Swedish version of painting rocks white along roads) and students who actually want jobs but cannot find them so continue with studies are discounted the unemployment rate is closer to 20%.

I would also point out that gross public debt is around 35%.  Not high by Japanese, US, UK or Greek standards but still high.  On the plus side it was over 60% in 2000 and strict budget guidelines, including spending ceilings, have ensured a number of budget surpluses over the last 10 years.

So yes the Swedish model has some interesting aspects we could examine for Australia/Tasmania but it is not the socialist panacea that many see it as.

Re; 52   Davies

Your comment demonstrates the universal nature of the problem that we are confronting and the simple fact that some are well able to compete in the ferocity of competition and do well, while a large block of willing workers are pushed out and in the process, disempowered and impoverished.

If it is possible to clear the table and start from scratch on the basis that all will be included in the social and economic fabric and then build a system that achieves this in the light of the forces of automation and the dawning robot revolution, then it may be possible to begin to see what we need to do.

If we attempt to keep juggling the existing balls, the problem increases when attempting to get more balls into the air.

We need the right approach as a foundation philosophical position that actually does deliver a ‘fair go’ for all citizens.

Fair crack of the whip?

Kim Peart

Considering the story below, I am forced to wonder why this group of youths had so much anger boiling within them. Does our society offer any hope of a better way that could have inspired them along a different path? Building peace on Earth will take a huge investment in compassion delivered with tough love that includes a creative future for each child born.

Man savagely slashed by gang of teens
========================
ABC Online   14 Apr 2011

Police are appealing for witnesses to a savage attack on a 28-year-old man in Melbourne’s CBD on Wednesday afternoon.

Ten youths approached the Ashwood man while he was dining outdoors with two friends in Lonsdale Street.

Police say they slashed his head, shoulders and forearm with weapons, including glass bottles.

The man is in a serious condition.

Detectives say it may have been a premeditated attack.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/13/3190839.htm

With the Prime Minister following the leadership of Tony Abbott to use an economic bull-dozer to push more dole-bludgers into work, should we wonder if this will be yet more corporate welfare that fails to generate sustainable employment, let alone address the real causes of the problem? There have been so many government programs over the years, why doesn’t that work exist now? As said, this will win votes, but will it diminish the 10% structural unemployment and entrenched poverty in Australia that has been created by removing work from society without rebuilding the structure of the economy to address the new and changing realities. The convict era has been recreated in this nation, with those lazy dole-bludgers needing to be chain-ganged, disciplined and punished, to keep these incalcitrants well and truly under control. If they are left feeling humiliated and disempowered as a new class of untouchables, that is their problem, as long as the government looks good to the electorate at large.

Kim Peart