Without jobs we're Scrooged

In this article Michael Mullins shows the leftist attachment to big government ever so clearly. The workers who will lose their jobs are NOT the government's workers, nor were they taken for granted by the government. They were employed by a private company. They lost their jobs because the consumers would not buy Holden's products at the prices Holden was asking. Full stop. Consumers were exercising their free choice. The best way to encourage employment is not rely on government as a large employment agency. (How leftists remain attached to the delusion that there is no problem government cannot solve with enough money is beyond me.) It is to allow those with the nous, energy and insight into what the market wants to go to it, and to provide it. They then negotiate with people to supply their services. Many posters here talk of accepting same sex marriage because the majority want it and it's a free choice. Why can I not buy products I want at the price set by the producers? If people value money before love, so what? No government can make greed illegal. Not that hard core leftists will ever be disabused of this fallacy.

Two thoughts: 1. I think the focus on "having a job" is off. It's not just having a job that counts: it's creating wealth whether by a job or other means (including, say, being a homemaker or a contemplative monk or nun). Digging holes and filling them in, and being paid for it by the government, is a "job". It's also meaningless, depressing, and undignified, because it's not creating real wealth. So too is making cars that don't sell in open competition, but have to be protected from it by huge tariffs walls, to the detriment of the poor. 2. But that being said, what about this: "Because a government must avoid taking its workers for granted, decisions that have consequences for employment are among the most serious it needs to take." How serious are we talking here? Why is abolishing the minimum wage a no-go area for all the major parties, when it's uncontroversial that minimum wages above market rates price marginal workers out of a job? And what about the state creating a highly regulated and coercive, union-centred wage regime which prevents individuals from negotiating deals with their employer which might enhance their job security? If Pope Francis is right, then abolishing the minimum wage and scrapping our coercive, centralized wage fixing regime should be back on the table. But of course, we're not THAT serious about having a job after all, are we?

Thank you Michael. In a similar vein see "A Hong Kong Christmas Carol" at http://oneminuteenglish.com/mp/2013/2013-11-26a-HK-Christmas-carol.htm

"If a government kills a car industry by withdrawing subsidies, it must... "

Really? Must a government follow this "Mullins' Law" unconditionally? Is there any limit on the subsidies the government "must" pay the American shareholders of GM? According to Malcolm Maiden (The Age 11/12/13 p.34) "Holden's share [of annual subsidies] amounts to about $50,000 per manufacturing worker". Perhaps some of these workers would prefer to cut out the 'middle-man' of dirty and dangerous shift work and just be paid the $50,000 p.a. directly. Some might choose to employ their new leisure in visiting the sick and elderly, helping the homeless or even tapping out opinion pieces for the internet.

Does Michael's article imply that Socialism is the only political system that is compatible with the gospel? I ask this not as a hypothetical question but seeking a genuine response, I am inclined to think the answer is "yes." If so, we Christians better start trying to get the ALP to be a party our consciences can safely lead us to support. At present a significant number of us can't even though we would like to. Perhaps the Greens are in the same boat.

Michael, this is very silly stuff. We cannot and should`t put huge amounts of tax-payer money into jobs that are not needed and not viable in Australia. Indeed that is in fact an indirect insult to the workers involved and the rest of us. But money should be spent on making the country competitive for real jobs and to train us up to be able to do the jobs that will be competitive in advanced countries like Australia in the twenty-first century. You are talking about last-century jobs that will not be done in Australia any more; they should be used to help the world`s really poor become very much less so.

“A successful nation doesn't need a car industry …” is easy to say. But ignores the need of our physically isolated country to have a sophisticated manufacturing capacity for defence. And stories of two friends here in Melbourne suggest that it is also necessary for the economy. One, who commenced one of those modern high-tech niche companies of the type that free-trade commentators never tire of insisting is ‘the future’, advises that manufacturing their cutting-edge products (they export to the US, Europe, China and the Middle East) depended on expertise from the unfashionable car industry. The other, a component supplier to vehicle manufacturers, has also been developing other products for international export (including to Germany) for years, but depends on the auto industry for bread & butter viability. These companies haven’t depended on the government, but on the car industry. Some of the free-market ideologues who comment above are true to their leader Thatcher’s reported statement that there is no such thing as ‘society’. And are either selective or uninformed. For example, an advocate for medical research, insensitively making a bid for the $400-500 million the government is now expected to save – casually informs that his industry is already receiving some $750 million pa of government funding.

Of course Michael is right in stressing government's role in the creation of "jobs for all". In 1861, one-third of the world's total wool production, came from Victoria. By the early twentieth century Australia had the highest living standard (regarding nutrition), of any country in the world. In contrast our levels of industrial production as a percentage of our economy have fallen drastically in the last forty years; I think to around 10% of our total GDP. Ironically it's not true that wages in the Australian motor vehicle industry are a major cause of our lack of competition in international car making, it's productivity. World-wide (and including Australia), wages represent only 5% of production costs. Our Asian competitors, Japan for example, produce cars in half the time that we do. Maybe addressing climate change by Direct Action, and enlisting enlisting thousands of workers into the Australian Green Army (stressing high productivity levels) would be a good way to start redressing our employment shortfall.

The curse of resource rich nations is complacency and laziness. Australia needs to reject the advice of economists. They have not delivered us policy settings for jobs, let alone good jobs. who have not delivered jobs.

We need modern day Rex Xavier Connors and King O'Malley's to legislate for government ownership either in whole but more often in part, within toll roads, airports, a nationally owned bank once again, and control over all mining. Setting the Australian dollar as low as 75 cents to the US dollar along with spot quotas on imports and mild tariffs midway between McEwen and Keating levels will give us all jobs- full time , permanent and with good pay and conditions of service.