Politics

[pk.sax]

A point in the case above, how many people keep separate 'online savers' and whip out their phones and transfer money across at the friggin shop!!! The interest they make on the puny amounts is minuscule, but the population has been sufficiently brainwashed that the bank is for their benefit, they could put more importance on working harder and paying their bills, but that would be preposterous.

 

[philmud]

you all have to vote .... please , not even a hint of a clue



lest we forget ,

I love these discussions. We get enigmatic political geniuses popping in to tell us all how ignorant we are, but they provide nothing in the way of an alternate perspective.

 

[philmud]

If you don't see Label's point, you are being naive. Take it as an analogy, if you run a candy shop, nice clean windows, great display cases, big lettering labels, colourful candy on the displays. Great way to make people come in and get some. However, there is now a recession. People aren't paying for your overheads. Isn't it good sense to bail on the shop and take the good candy, put it on a roadside cart and sell by the street corner?
Adjustment to reality. Not ditching social responsibility (like the idiot at libs wants to) but making it realistic. A recession needs to see decreases in prices and drops in interest rates, intervention in the right places to make repayments for the industry that is needed realistic (lots of them borrow in a boom and are stuck wih debts that aren't worth that much anymore). Do I see the lib/nationals wield a stick to the banks?! Nooooooo. Now there is a teet sucker that's been pouring the common man's wealth overseas and collecting the returns into fewer hands.

I'm a bit confused by the candy shop analogy and how it relates to label's posts - are you suggesting that wages should be a flexible overhead that floats with market trends?

 

[pk.sax]

There is an interesting idea there. Certainly better than laying off half your peeps, don't you think?

 

[Bizier]

The united bogans of Perth would not stand for that, it is a divine right to have more sports utes than your father.

 

[philmud]

I think the problem is that wages would float like petrol, very quick to react to unfavorable conditions and very slow to react to improvement. But, during the GFC there were many examples of people accepting reduced wages or hours to help keep their employers businesses (some large) viable.
I think the danger is that the most vulnerable workers are often the least mobile. If my employer said, "right, we haven't done very well this week, I'll have to reduce your basic wage by 10%", I'd be very likely to find a new employer. The cleaner at work might not. The guy in the mail room with an intellectual disability, who is in his 50s, who was out of work for 7 years prior to starting this job, he might not either.

 

[philmud]

The united bogans of Perth would not stand for that, it is a divine right to have more sports utes than your father.

I think the bogans should organise. It'd be like Summernats all year 'round.

 

[Bizier]

Would?

 

[Liam_snorkel]

I love these discussions. We get enigmatic political geniuses popping in to tell us all how ignorant we are, but they provide nothing in the way of an alternate perspective.

to be fair on northside it was 4:19am on a Saturday morning. He was on fire, check the other threads haha

 

[pk.sax]

@ Phil, maybe it can be applied to the more 'luxurious' parts of the packet. Like, across the board, drop wages in oz by a %, increase super (nominal, i.e., good times super) and let the government adjust the super up and down based on current market scenario. In a bad market, prices would be lower, so saving less for the future would be acceptable?
At the same time, companies that do well would be more likely to raise wages when super cuts are mandated to keep their workers happier and productive. Pretty much a self balancing equation towards rewarding productivity and absorbing and spreading out losses. Also a fair bit of natural selection gets applied to business with such policy as like you said, they'd be left with cleaners and the challenged, reflects on their business model. Charity starts at home.

PS: don't confuse me for a heartless Nazi. I believe that people with challenges should be looked after by their family a lot more, they certainly looked after their young when/if they were able. Also, the attitude of gimme cuz the law says so is kindof like that new law they passed in China which allows elderly parents to sue their kids if they don't visit often enough. - actually true story, heard it on abc radio.

 

[philmud]

to be fair on northside it was 4:19am on a Saturday morning. He was on fire, check the other threads haha

I did notice that. Sorry Northside, it was far more insightful that a post 4am Sat morning post from me would be!

 

[Airgead]

Greens FTW??
I think the next election will answer that
The forest industry employs 3500-4000 thousand people directly and tens of thousands indirectly ( 2011 census data) .
The numbers in the industry has been in decline due to constant market attacks and lies by such pieces of filth as peg putt and bob brown.
The figures recently released by the Australia Institute (extreme left wing think tank who's director Richard Denniss, was bob browns senior strategic advisor) of 972 employees are just rubbish. The 972 people must be very busy to produce approx 1 million plus tonnes of various wood products in the state per year.
Forest industry is under pressure and is under performing at the moment but it will be resurgent.

Where do you suggest Australia will get its timber from? Indonesia, China, Thailand, Burma, Fiji any other third countries without the forest practices that Australia and Tasmania enshrines?

Cheers
Chris

Tas - we don'ty use much Tas timber here in Aus. 90% or more of native forrestry is destined for the woodchip industry. Not for actual timber. The woodchip industry is moving to plantations and away from native forersts as plantation timber is a better quality product for pulp/paper.

There was an excellenty accademic review of Tas done a while back on The Conversattion -

The fate of the forest-products industry was emblematic of Tasmania’s challenges. Plunging global wood chip prices, rising Australian exchange rates, wages set by booming mining industries, tightening environmental regulation, and internationally effective campaigns by environmentalists, combined to lose customers in high-paying markets such as Japan and Europe and make the industry uncompetitive in growth markets such as China. The industry collapsed as revenue dived and costs spiralled.
Clearly the forestry industry had reached a watershed, and would need to change, or perish. But the industry appeared unable, or unwilling, to change, and most Tasmanian politicians’ response was to deny the need, blame the Greens, or delay the inevitable. The industry, strenuously backed by the Liberal Party and key Labor figures in Tasmania, essentially demanded the “right” to endless public subsidies. Any serious discussion of a new future for the industry was ruled out of bounds, for fear of offering succour to the conservation lobby.

http://theconversation.com/obstacles-to-progress-whats-wrong-with-tasmania-really-11330

Part of a very good series.

The industry has been living on handouts for decades (much like car manufactuing).

A few thousand people employed sounds like a lot but its 1.6% of the working population. There are many times more than that employed in other industries. There was a review of forerstry employment (again on the conversation) here - http://theconversation.com/still-here-why-tasmanian-forest-industry-job-figures-are-misleading-10827

They will need help to re-skill and move to othetr work but the sooner the native forest industry is gone, the better for Tasmania.

Better to close it in a structured way and help people move on than have it wither away naturally as its doing now. People get no help at all that way.

Cheers
Dave

 

[philmud]

@practicalfool - there is dignity in work though, this bloke shouldn't need to be supported by family. I think a balance is what's needed. I support the union movement in principle, but I think some if the stronger blue collar unions take the piss. I quit my own union because the secretary was party to some very undemocratic, back room ALP deals. I may rejoin ahead of this election though. Anything to stop the votes!

 

[Rowy]

Great idea, but I reckon we need a separate thread titled "Dumb things Abbott said"


“We just can’t stop people from being homeless if that’s their choice.”

— Tony Abbott February 11th 2010 Sydney Morning Herald


“I also think that if you want to put a price on carbon, why not just do it with a simple tax? Why not ask motorists to pay more, why not ask electricity consumers to pay more and then at the end of the year you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate of the carbon tax you've paid.”

— Tony Abbott July 29th 2009 Interview with Sky News Australia


“Just as Al Gore invented the internet: whatever policy she wants, she invented it.”

— Tony Abbott September 13th 2011 Australian Parliament: Hansard

and let him invoke Godwins law too...

“I believe that there is a vast moral gulf which separates modern Australia from Nazi Germany. But can we be so sure that, under pressure over time, we will not slide down the same slippery slope. We only have to look at the abortion situation in this country.”

— Tony Abbott October 16th 1995 Australian Parliament: Hansard

And there's so many more gems to choose from.

We could also do one on 'policy fuckups by Kevin Rudd'

 

[Rowy]

certainly. But remember the rhodes scholarship in the 80s was more like a gentleman's club and had little to no academic basis to admission (which it does now). He studied a Master of 'arts' whatever that means at Oxford I don't know.

Bullshit.....would you like me to reel off the famous Rhodes Scholars who were greats.

 

[TasChris]

Bullshit.....would you like me to reel off the famous Rhodes Scholars who were greats.

Mike Fitzpatrick was a great ruck man and captain for Carlton in the 1980's

 

[Rowy]

David Marr, he's almost surgical. Brough's position should be untenable, but no-one closes ranks like the LNP, so no doubt he'll get Fisher for his trouble. The whole affair is grubby and depressing. Ashby is a slimey prick - I wouldn't trust any out, gay person who aligns themself with the LNP.

Dave Marr as always is very selective with his look down your nose at the working pleb facts. Dig a bit into his history gents and you may not be so supportive.

 

[Bridges]

We could also do one on 'policy fuckups by Kevin Rudd'

Fair enough, I'll also put in one focusing on all the liberal policy that's been released in the last couple of years...

"S.F.A."

 

[TasChris]

Tas - we don'ty use much Tas timber here in Aus. 90% or more of native forrestry is destined for the woodchip industry.
Rubbish break down in Tas is more like
20 % High value sawlogs including Blackwood, myrtle Tas Oak, Celery Top Pine Huon pine for fine furniture,craft, building, structural stuff etc
25% for peeler veneer logs to make ply wood etc
55% to chip,bio fuel,chip board, potentially bio char, oriented fibre board, activated carbon and most exciting nano cellulose.
Not for actual timber. The woodchip industry is moving to plantations and away from native forersts as plantation timber is a better quality product for pulp/paper.
True the qualities of plantation pulp can be better than native forest but this is mainly for paper applications where less bleaching agent can be used as the plantations is normally lighter in colour.
There was an excellenty accademic review of Tas done a while back on The Conversattion -
Well aware of Dr Jonathon Wests opinions.

http://theconversation.com/obstacles-to-progress-whats-wrong-with-tasmania-really-11330

Part of a very good series.

The industry has been living on handouts for decades (much like car manufactuing).
Incorrect industry was paid compensation by state and fed governments to off set loses in resource from last 4 rounds of " this will be the last" land reserve programs, Helshem Inquiry, TFA,CFA and now IGA. If you keep undermining an industry over 20+ years it tends to get a bit wobbly

A few thousand people employed sounds like a lot but its 1.6% of the working population. There are many times more than that employed in other industries. There was a review of forerstry employment (again on the conversation) here - http://theconversation.com/still-here-why-tasmanian-forest-industry-job-figures-are-misleading-10827

They will need help to re-skill and move to othetr work but the sooner the native forest industry is gone, the better for Tasmania.

Better to close it in a structured way and help people move on than have it wither away naturally as its doing now. People get no help at all that way.

Where is the timber coming from? Chemical reliant plantations with poor wood qualities for building, furniture, Third world counties?
How about we just use concrete, aluminium and steel with their massive footprints?

Why should mainland governments close Tasmanian industries so that inner Sydney/Melbourne residents can feel as though they are doing their bit for the environment while driving their over sized Urban Sombrero to work and keep the AC/Heater turned on to a comfortable 21 C.

Again where is the timber coming from?

Cheers
Dave

 

[jlm]

Like most things I wish we could find a balance with the forestry going ons here in Tassie, but I don't see that happening soon. I had a very one sided mainlander view of things when I moved down here, something along the lines of what Airgeared is on about. I've changed my view a lot since the move and can see logic on both sides.

But......You think it's acceptable to dislodge 1.6% of the the workforce out of a job? Along with all the associated workers that depend on that 1.6% that Taschris refered to earlier? It's oh so easy to say from your home far away from where all this is happening we should just retrain those people. How'd you feel if a bunch of Tasmanians put that idea forward for your industry?

I'm really getting the shits with the Greens harping on about investing in Tasmania's clean and green reputation........I'm all for it, but the absence of any form of policy other than trying to get everyone working in tourism is wearing thin.

As a case study, I've recently taken up working in a micro brewery down here part-time, and the volume of product brewed is HEAVILY dependant on tourism. If this was to be my sole source of income, even if it were full time, it would be a massive kick to the balls financially, I'm talking cutting my income by over a third. Luckily for me I've got no kids, work as an electrician in my spare time to earn some decent coin, and have a wife who's supportive of me doing something I really enjoy.

What incentive is there for someone with a family to support to retrain themselves for a role where they're going to to earn significantly less and very seasonal with the volume of work (because by shoving people into a tourism job means they'll cop exactly that)?