The Don's party Election night thread

[Tiger74]

I'm not blaming the ALP at all for the Libs lack of transitional leadership.....I'm blaming the Libs themselves.
Kennett's era was that he and his government had the economic smarts of the Libs, but the 'hollywood' feel that the ALP are good at portraying....that is something that the Libs miss now, and a small reason towards why Howard lost the election.
It is something the ALP have been good at.
I guess a simple comparison would be the nerds (Libs) at school being good at maths and no good at sports and socialising......and the 'jocks' being good at sport, mixing with people, etc...but useless at maths and science.
Kennett blended a bit of both....Rudd is trying to bottle a bit of both.

If you get down to the bare bones of it....Howard didn't do anything majorly wrong.
I still haven't heard from anyone where WorkChoices as affected THEM. And some of the stories I have heard about problems at a workplace have turned out to be nothing to do with WorkChoices.
The ALP/Unions jumped on this big time and got people in such a state, that any time there was a problem at work it was "Bloody Johnny and his workplace reforms!"...when in reality, it was nothing to do with WorkChoices and simply a boss doing something illegal under the banner of that it was the new legislation.
Apart from this, there wasn't much else that was so far out of the ordinary that people wanted him out desperately.
People just wanted a change. Full stop.

On WorkChoices, I think they just couldn't sell the fairness test. It was too complicated, took too long, and people lost faith in the credibility and fairness of the Workplace Authority. You knew it was a lost battle when the Govt told the dept to no longer use the term WorkChoices.

Agree Howard did little wrong in the 11, but WorkChoices was his step too far (he didn't take the people with him).

 

[Liverpool]

On WorkChoices, I think they just couldn't sell the fairness test. It was too complicated, took too long, and people lost faith in the credibility and fairness of the Workplace Authority. You knew it was a lost battle when the Govt told the dept to no longer use the term WorkChoices.
Agree Howard did little wrong in the 11, but WorkChoices was his step too far (he didn't take the people with him).

I don't think they sold it very well....i agree.

The unions had commercials and banners up, gaining a ground-swell of support before the Government moved.
I thought that was poor......I'm sitting watching Tv and seeing commercial after commercial from union sponsored ads criticising WorkChoices and nothing back from the Government for people to hang their hat on that this was a good way to go for the country.

 

[Tiger74]

it was a
'hung election" and the "3" gave the knob his crown,3 people is a little bit differant to a handfull of votes

Hows it different from the Nats delivering the Libs Govt? A principle of parliamentary democracy in a constitutional monarchy is ANYONE with over 50% of seats can form Govt. This is non-negotiable,

 

[AngryAnt]

Good post Pool-cleaner. Some tough questions there.

Even under Workchoices though, you could still collectively bargain at the 'worker level', Antman.

Wrong - the workers could bargain collectively only IF the employer agreed. Not a right at all. Also, if they at any point sign an AWA they lose the right to bargain collectively forever.

What was illegal was the 'pattern bargaining' where you have an agreement across an entire industry....and funnily enough, this is still supposed to be illegal under Rudd's workplace reforms....however the unions, such as the CFMEU, are pretty adamant on this that this type of bargaining should stay.
This could be part of a showdown that will test the mettle of the new government.

I haven't found any literature that states a formal position on this from the ALP (maybe you could point me to one) so you could be right on this.

I'm sure everyone loves the nurses and the teachers, but you have to be realistic with some of the demands and can't price yourself out of a market altogether.

Yes, but the point is that nurses and teachers are leaving in droves to go to other states that pay better. Ambit claims are ambit claims.

Look at manufacturing.....yes, it would be great if a bloke on a scaffold earns $150,000 per year by unions striking and winning this type of pay for their members. Great. Fantastic. Money for everyone.
And how long would the business last by handing out this type of money to their workers?
Two seconds.

This didn't happen under Hawke and Keating as we had the Prices and Income Accord. Remember that?

We have seen (and continue to see) manufacturing here in Australia disappear off our shores, hence the need for something like WorkChoices to try and control things.
I read posts from yourself and Remote....and I'm sure both of you mean well by wanting workers to get money and rights and all that...but we are in a global market here...and if wages skyrocket,, then businesses will move offshore....unemployment will rise...interest rates will rise...and we are then in trouble.
It is why I hope I'm terribly wrong and that Rudd IS the 'economic conservative' he proclaims.

I'll think you'll find that he is - as was Paul Keating - like Labour in the UK, the ALP has learned the economic lessons of the 1970s and 80s. Paul Keating kickstarted the reform of the Australian economy - John Howard as Treasurer did nothing under Fraser - in fact later on he claimed that Fraser blocked his reforms - Fraser denies this, but even if true it showed how weak Howard was a treasurer.

The globalisation issue is interesting. I'd argue that industries that can only survive by exploiting workers don't really deserve to survive - Australia will prosper through smarter industries because we cannot compete with Asia in terms of labour costs. We have to have develop other competitive and comparative advantages.

* Future Fund

* Just clever economic management.....using asset sales to retire the debt Keating had racked up. Keating used asset sales to spend instead of paying off the debt he had incurred.

Now we get to the crux. Which assets did Keating sell? A lot of the Future Fund came from the sale of Telstra - how are those shares doing again? Selling the farm does not mean good economic management. The future fund shows that the liberals had generated a surplus in times of economic plenty globally but didn't know what to do with the proceeds. So instead of fixing the hospitals, roads, indigenous communities, schools, hospitals, universities, R&D they just dumped it all into a big portfolio.

Hardly inspiring economic management. So all you can come up with in terms of innovative economic reforms is the Future Fund and "good economic management" - most of which comes down to selling assets and generating surpluses. All well and good but hardly taking Australia forward long term.

Now a challenge for you:
Tell me what policies Howard copied Keating on?

I don't recall ever claiming Howard copied Keating's policies. I did say he used a "small target" election strategy in 1996.

I think many of the Libs (including them federally now) have lost a lot of leadership.
For example, Bracks would have had a bigger run for his money here last election if Bailleau wasn't so new in the job and people really didn't know who he was....so they stuck with the 'devil they knew'. Plus they don't have as much flamboyancy anymore with delivering policies.

Could be true. A problem for the Federal party now too. If you don't have the leadership to run the party , you certainly don't have the leadership to run the government, to use the old cliche.

They might be sound and very good for the country....but they don't have the slogans, the hi-fiving kids, and the 'razza-matazz' that the ALP use to woo young voters.

Can't run elections, can't run the country - or the state even.

I think the ALP running all states and nationally, in a few cases, is down to the Libs not having the people/leadership to put up a good challenge. Simple as that.

So you are saying that state Labor has done a bad job (true in some states for many instances - no government is perfect) but the liberals have no-one who can do any better or even as well? Sounds like the voters have done the right thing keeping Labor in power across the states.

Plus like I said yesterday...it does go in a cycle....we'll have Rudd for 4 years and probably another 4 years after that, and then after that...no matter how good (or bad) the country is going, the Coaltion will get back up there again.
It's like a footy team turning over players....you might trade a reasonable player for a draft pick who is inexperienced...you might get a gun, or you might get a dud. We'll see whether Rudd is a dud or not over the journey, won't we?

Indeed we will...

I see he's starting strong with an apology to indigenous Australians to come early in the parliamentary term.

 

[Tiger74]

I don't think they sold it very well....i agree.

The unions had commercials and banners up, gaining a ground-swell of support before the Government moved.
I thought that was poor......I'm sitting watching Tv and seeing commercial after commercial from union sponsored ads criticising WorkChoices and nothing back from the Government for people to hang their hat on that this was a good way to go for the country.

I hated the Govt counter. They needed to bring people with them, not hand out the propaganda. The Govt ads lacked this, and did not come across as information but an attempt to manage a problem.

From a marketing point they could have done a lot better.

Read an interesting article today. Said Howard ignored all expect his closest advisor (Moore) during the election, and listened to Janette more than most Libs. Costello was almost on the sidelines, if you believe the report (I think it may have some truth, but has overplayed its hand).

 

[Liverpool]

I'll think you'll find that he is - as was Paul Keating - like Labour in the UK, the ALP has learned the economic lessons of the 1970s and 80s. Paul Keating kickstarted the reform of the Australian economy - John Howard as Treasurer did nothing under Fraser - in fact later on he claimed that Fraser blocked his reforms - Fraser denies this, but even if true it showed how weak Howard was a treasurer.

I think it is more personal between Fraser and Howard than has been let on.
Fraser has been undermining Howard even during this campaign.
You can be an excellent treasurer but if you don't have the support of the main man, then all is lost....plus maybe being a treasurer wasn't Howard's game?
But he has done o.k as PM....one of our longest ever serving, so you can't complain that much.

The globalisation issue is interesting. I'd argue that industries that can only survive by exploiting workers don't really deserve to survive - Australia will prosper through smarter industries because we cannot compete with Asia in terms of labour costs. We have to have develop other competitive and comparative advantages.

Agree to a small point.
Look, I'm not saying we should get to a stage where we have workers earning the same as Chinese workers, for example.....but it has been getting out of hand what was being demanded by unions and their members.
The rest of your answer is typical left-wing hocus-pocus, similar to the drivel the Greens dish out. They give an answer, but don't give anything concrete.
Like, what the hell does "We have to have develop other competitive and comparative advantages." mean?
Sounds great...but there is no substance there.

Hardly inspiring economic management. So all you can come up with in terms of innovative economic reforms is the Future Fund and "good economic management" - most of which comes down to selling assets and generating surpluses. All well and good but hardly taking Australia forward long term.

I don't care if it isn't "inspiring"....I care if it works.
And as for moving forward.....well, last time I was at high school.....if you went from $-96billion to $0, then you have moved forward at least $96-billion.
It's called fact.

I don't recall ever claiming Howard copied Keating's policies. I did say he used a "small target" election strategy in 1996.

Don't backtrack....so why do you mean by "small target" strategy then?

Could be true. A problem for the Federal party now too. If you don't have the leadership to run the party , you certainly don't have the leadership to run the government, to use the old cliche.
Can't run elections, can't run the country - or the state even.

At this moment, you are correct.
However, if the Libs did win the election, then they would still have their leaders still present and 4 years to bring through younger blood....maybe something they should have done in the 4 years previous.
Like the Aussie cricket team....took losing the Ashes to lose a few players.

I see he's starting strong with an apology to indigenous Australians to come early in the parliamentary term.

Great! :
I don't know who is drooling more...the Aborigines with their hands out, or the lawyers also with their hands out...

 

[AngryAnt]

I think it is more personal between Fraser and Howard than has been let on.
Fraser has been undermining Howard even during this campaign.
You can be an excellent treasurer but if you don't have the support of the main man, then all is lost....plus maybe being a treasurer wasn't Howard's game?

Maybe. If he didn't have support he shouldn't have been treasurer at all, end of. If he couldn't get reforms through cabinet he should have resigned, end of. The more likely scenario is that he did bugger all. But you are right, it was a long time ago and he was much more successful as PM.

The rest of your answer is typical left-wing hocus-pocus, similar to the drivel the Greens dish out. They give an answer, but don't give anything concrete.
Like, what the hell does "We have to have develop other competitive and comparative advantages." mean?
Sounds great...but there is no substance there.

You couldn't be more wrong old chum, contemporary economic theory - Michael Porter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_advantage

Some examples of competitive advantage at the firm level.

Cost: Low-cost operations
Quality: High quality, Consistent quality
Time: Delivery speed, On-time delivery, Development speed
Flexibility: Customization, Volume flexibility, Variety

Reducing labour costs is only one tiny part of the equation. Most of the other benefits come from technology, process, skills. Australia can't compete on labour cost so we have compete through technology, innovation, R&D, knowledge, creativity. I thought you worked in management and would know about this stuff - it's pretty basic and not waffle at all :hihi :hihi

Comparative advantage is actually classical economic theory - Adam Smith, Ricardo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage Essentially this theory explains why countries should focus on what they are good at. Asia is better at manufacture of simple goods, clothes for example, they do that, we do other things that we are good at - mutual trade is then beneficial for both countries. This is Ricardo's classical example way from back in 1817.

In Portugal it is possible to produce both wine and cloth with less work than it takes in England. However the relative costs of producing those two goods are different in the two countries. In England it is very hard to produce wine, and only moderately difficult to produce cloth. In Portugal both are easy to produce. Therefore while it is cheaper to produce cloth in Portugal than England, it is cheaper still for Portugal to produce excess wine, and trade that for English cloth. And conversely England benefits from this trade because its cost for producing cloth has not changed but it can now get wine at a cheaper cost, closer to the cost of cloth.

The conclusion drawn from this analysis is that a country should specialize in products and services in which it has a comparative advantage. It should trade with another country for products in which the other country has a comparative advantage. In this way both countries become better off and gain from trade.

Lesson for Liverpool - if you don't know about or understand something, it doesn't mean it is meaningless lefty drivel.

I don't care if it isn't "inspiring"....I care if it works.

so all we have after much p1ss and wind is sound fiscal management - not rocket science.. As I said, all well and good but based on the ground breaking reforms of Keating. Hard for you to stomach that I know, but there it is.

Don't backtrack....so why do you mean by "small target" strategy then?

Oh that's easy. Howard learned from Hewson's mistake - don't release all your policies as it just makes you a bigger target for the other side to attack. Hence we get the minimal or "me too" approach to policy announcement. More effective to just say - we'll do that too, just better. In a perfect world all parties would be honest and upfront with policy but we all know the world ain't perfect.

 

[AngryAnt]

On a lighter note does anyone like Led Zeppelin?

Bennelong time, Bennelong time, Bennelong lonely lonely lonely lonely lonely time

 

[TigerForce]

On a lighter note does anyone like Led Zeppelin?

Yeah it's definitely been a long time Johnny Boy.

Now he can power walk in his backyard.

 

[Liverpool]

You couldn't be more wrong old chum, contemporary economic theory - Michael Porter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_advantage

Some examples of competitive advantage at the firm level.

Reducing labour costs is only one tiny part of the equation. Most of the other benefits come from technology, process, skills. Australia can't compete on labour cost so we have compete through technology, innovation, R&D, knowledge, creativity. I thought you worked in management and would know about this stuff - it's pretty basic and not waffle at all :hihi :hihi

It is waffle Antman because what you mention:

Cost: Low-cost operations
Quality: High quality, Consistent quality
Time: Delivery speed, On-time delivery, Development speed
Flexibility: Customization, Volume flexibility, Variety

....is just basic fundamentals and what most businesses of any ambition do already.

Ask any manager out there what they want/expect....and the will reel off the above examples you mentioned without blinking an eye-lid.
However the above isn't going to compete against China and the other mass-producing Asian markets (except maybe for the 'quality' part)

In my last job, we sent our Procurement Manager to China as we were looking at sourcing some good from over there.
She visited some different companies to look at their operations, etc....and it is completely different how they do things.
She was amazed that on-site, at this particular factory, the machines NEVER stop....no public holidays, no Sundays, no rostered RDOs, no union 'picnic days', etc.
The workers at this particular place lived on site....that's right...they lived at the factory (the company had accommodation on-site plus communal kitchen,etc).
This is what we are up against.

So here they are in China getting paid less yet working more hours and producing more product (however living conditions and lifestyle is poor)....compared to here, where they get paid much more, work far less hours, and therefore produce less product. You do the maths.

So again....giving an answer like the one above is all well and dandy...but when you are up against a country that can afford to pay their workers less due to communism and sheer numbers of people more than happy to work for next to nothing so they actually get some sort of income....then we cannot compete in areas such as low-cost operations, volume flexibility, variety, or delivery speed.

As for technology, innovation, R&D, knowledge, creativity...again...all well and good, but you need the money to invest in these areas and one of (if not THE) most costly part of running a business is paying for employees.
Why do you think that when a business is finding it hard financially, they lay off workers first?
It is easy and you cut at least $50,000 per annum from your expenses, that is why.

Oh that's easy. Howard learned from Hewson's mistake - don't release all your policies as it just makes you a bigger target for the other side to attack. Hence we get the minimal or "me too" approach to policy announcement. More effective to just say - we'll do that too, just better. In a perfect world all parties would be honest and upfront with policy but we all know the world ain't perfect.

All politicians hold back on certain policies that may cause some controversy...so what you are accusing Howard of doing has been going on since Adam was a boy.
So did Howard copy Keating then and "me too" such as Rudd did with Howard?

 

[AngryAnt]

It is waffle Antman because what you mention:

....is just basic fundamentals and what most businesses of any ambition do already.

You are a fair dinkum bonehead sometimes Poolman. So the meaningless "lefty waffle" I spouted a few posts ago is now basic business fundamentals? Make up your mind.

Ask any manager out there what they want/expect....and the will reel off the above examples you mentioned without blinking an eye-lid.
However the above isn't going to compete against China and the other mass-producing Asian markets (except maybe for the 'quality' part)

You've missed the point again. We can't compete on labour so we have to compete on technology, process, creativity. Your answer always comes back to labour costs.

I'll say it again. No matter how many hours we work, how many public holidays we work, however much we cut wages - we can't compete on labour costs which is one part of overall production cost. We have to be smarter in technology, process, design, creativity, innovation.

In my last job, we sent our Procurement Manager to China as we were looking at sourcing some good from over there.
..
This is what we are up against.

Well duh. Didn't I say in my post that we can't compete on raw labour costs? I'll say it again. We can't compete on labour costs.

And yes Liverpool, I too have been to China and seen manufacturing facilities there. It's only a matter of a short degree of time before they are our equal on design, process, innovation and creativity too - which is why we need to be smart and pick industries where we still have a comparative advantage - remember that term? The one you ignored as you probably didn't understand it? This is where we have to pick and choose our products, services and industries - because we can't compete in those industries that China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, whereever - have comparative advantages in. They have lower overall production costs because labour, technology, component sourcing and so on make it cheaper for them to produce widgets than we can. So we have to produce products/services that we have a comparative advantage in.

No doubt in your next post you'll claim it was your idea all along.

You have an interesting argumentative style - disagree with my points, realise you were wrong and then pretend they were your points. I guess it's one way of coming to an agreement.

So here they are in China getting paid less yet working more hours and producing more product (however living conditions and lifestyle is poor)....compared to here, where they get paid much more, work far less hours, and therefore produce less product. You do the maths.

Well duh. Wasn't it my point that we can't compete with China on labour costs? Funny how my argument has now magically become all your own work.

I'll say it again. We can't compete with Asia on labour costs. Didn't I say this in my last post? I seem to recall that I did. We can't compete on labour costs.

So again....giving an answer like the one above is all well and dandy...but when you are up against a country that can afford to pay their workers less due to communism and sheer numbers of people more than happy to work for next to nothing so they actually get some sort of income....then we cannot compete in areas such as low-cost operations, volume flexibility, variety, or delivery speed.

Exactly wrong - our innovation and creativity is our comparative advantage - for example with service, medical, biotech, software and gaming, knowledge-based industries. But in your book labour costs are the most critical area we have to compete in - despite agreeing with about four times THAT WE CANNOT COMPETE ON RAW LABOUR COSTS!

As for technology, innovation, R&D, knowledge, creativity...again...all well and good, but you need the money to invest in these areas and one of (if not THE) most costly part of running a business is paying for employees.

Well duh. The whole point of Porter and also Michael Christensen - (innovation theorist - no doubt you have never heard of him either - although this no doubt is just lefty waffle/basic business management depending on which way the wind is blowing) is that R&D and innovation is inherently risky, costly, and a long term undertaking. It is also essential if companies and nations are to develop competitive and comparative advantages. Which makes the erosion of our skills, technology and R&D infrastructure under Howard in a time of prosperity even more irresponsible. But you are partly right - low paid unskilled workers are increasingly being replaced by higher skilled, higher paid workers. This is how you stay ahead of the game, not by laying people off and cutting wages.

Why do you think that when a business is finding it hard financially, they lay off workers first?
It is easy and you cut at least $50,000 per annum from your expenses, that is why.

Well duh. Cost cutting is the first and most obvious thing to do when a business is in trouble. However it's only the first part of the equation - a business that only cuts costs will find it difficult to compete and grow long term.

All politicians hold back on certain policies that may cause some controversy...so what you are accusing Howard of doing has been going on since Adam was a boy.

You are a fair dinkum bonehead sometimes Liverpool. I was not accusing Howard of anything apart from sensible campaign strategy. If you exercise your powers of memory you will recall that you raised Rudd's "me too" policies, I said that that was the merely same as Howard's small target strategy - Howard having learnt from Hewson's mistakes. I was complimenting Howard on his 1996 strategy - a strategy Rudd mimicked successfully. Duh.

You really need to understand that I don't always take an ideological position - the theories I cite are well-known and accepted - even though you consider them to be loony lefty waffle - or were they basic business fundamentals?

Now I would love to go round and round with you like this all day - with you pretending my ideas are actually yours - but unfortunately I have work to do and if I don't do it some poor Chinaman will, so enjoy your many hours of posting time on PRE today - now that's one area where you do have a competitive and comparative advantage.

 

[Freezer]

So here they are in China getting paid less yet working more hours and producing more product (however living conditions and lifestyle is poor)....compared to here, where they get paid much more, work far less hours, and therefore produce less product. You do the maths.

Didn't Mattel just have a world-wide multi-million unit product recall due to low quality children's toys being pumped out of China? Something about the lead in the paint they used being toxic.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6946425.stm

Perhaps they need to slow down their operations and get them right, rather than pumping out high volume, low quality sh!te that puts kids lives in danger.

 

[Tiger74]

Didn't Mattel just have a world-wide multi-million unit product recall due to low quality children's toys being pumped out of China? Something about the lead in the paint they used being toxic.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6946425.stm

Perhaps they need to slow down their operations and get them right, rather than pumping out high volume, low quality sh!te that puts kids lives in danger.

As someone who has been involved in this issue on a daily basis, I should bring some facts into play here.

1) The majority of toys Mattell recalled were NOT because of lead, they were because of magnets that could come loose. Until recently this was not an issue, but with magnets now cheaper and more powerful than before, they are being used more and more. Standards have only been brought in this year to address this issue in the US, and the EU is just doing this now too. Australia is currently reviewing its options, but Mattell recalled the magnet toys here as well even though they fully complied with Australian law.

2) This magnet issue was not caused by poor worksmanship, but by poor design. The products were designed in the USA (I understand).

3) Companies like Mattell have testing regimes in place, where the toys are tested routinely for a number of isssues, heavy metals being one. The reason the lead issue occurred is one pigment of paint ran out. The manufacturer went to their approved Mattell paint supplier for more, but they were out too. In order to fulfill the order, the supplier obtained stock from a new source, and this source provided dodgy paint. Unfortunately the failure was only detected after a significant amount was already in the market, so as a result, Mattell is already beefing up their compliance regime.

4) 70% of the world's toys come from China, including the best and most well made ones. Yes there is a lot of cheap rubbish, but there is also a lot of quality coming in too.

5) Not just any factory can export toys from China. They need to have their factory granted a licence by a Govt laboratory, and this lab is doing no-one any favours (700+ have been rejected so far). Also many countries require independant 3rd party lab testing for their product, with the majority of this being done by private European based testing houses.

6) The number of recalls happening in China is proportional with their production volume. If you make the majority of the toys, you will suffer the majority of the recalls. Don't think we are immune. For instance on food (where we are first world manufacturers in terms of quality) we have had recent recalls for risk of metal in yoghurt, soy in non-soy confectionary, use of tainted ingredients, plastic and foreign matter contaminations, and so on.

 

[Liverpool]

You are a fair dinkum bonehead sometimes Poolman. So the meaningless "lefty waffle" I spouted a few posts ago is now basic business fundamentals? Make up your mind.

It is 'lefty waffle' because people like yourself think that spouting off a lot of "we need to me more competitive in other areas other than labour" lines from a management webpage is all we have to do to be up there with the Chinese, when in fact things like what you mentioned are already at the forefront of simple management.
I think you underestimate the managers of businesses here in Australia.
You don't think we already try and invest time and money into the areas you mentioned?
Of course we do.
So producing throwaway lines...while they are good business acumen, we already are pretty competitive I feel in these areas....so end up being lefty waffle when using them as the reason why we lose many jobs offshore now.

You've missed the point again. We can't compete on labour so we have to compete on technology, process, creativity. Your answer always comes back to labour costs.

I agree....that's great....but do you think the Chinese aren't doing the same thing? or that we aren't already ahead of China in areas such as quality, technology, and creativity...yet we still see jobs move off shore?
So why is that?
It is labour costs...and why I keep coming back to it.
Do you think they are over there sitting on their hands, and just churning out cheap mass-produced products by millions of underpaid workers? Their research and technology is improving all the time to compete with us here, the Yanks, and the Euros.
Like I said above....'lefty wathis and do that we'll be competing with the Chinese....when in reality, we do this and that already, or are at least ahead of China in many of these facets, but it comes down to labour at the end of the day.
I know you agree with me on this about labour costs....so least you're not a total lost cause yet... :hihi

And yes Liverpool, I too have been to China and seen manufacturing facilities there. It's only a matter of a short degree of time before they are our equal on design, process, innovation and creativity too - which is why we need to be smart and pick industries where we still have a comparative advantage - remember that term? The one you ignored as you probably didn't understand it? This is where we have to pick and choose our products, services and industries - because we can't compete in those industries that China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, whereever - have comparative advantages in. They have lower overall production costs because labour, technology, component sourcing and so on make it cheaper for them to produce widgets than we can. So we have to produce products/services that we have a comparative advantage in.

I agree that it is only a matter of time before China catches up with the Western world in areas like design, creativity, and quality.
The comparitive advantage you mention we already do Antman.
You are trying to make out that this is some sort of new concept....but it has been happening for years.
For example, plastics manufacturing here in Australia has fallen by the wayside over the years as cheaper imports flood the market here from Asia. So what do we do?
We go away from that type of manufacturing more and concentrate more on lower production niche markets that produce quality products.
But what happens when the Asians also become quite adept at competing quality-wise, design-wise, and creativity-wise, as well?
The only thing separating us then is labour cost, which flows on down to the consumer.
Why would anyone buy a product of good quality for $50 when they can get one of similar quality for half the price from China?

You have an interesting argumentative style - disagree with my points, realise you were wrong and then pretend they were your points. I guess it's one way of coming to an agreement.

I don't disagree.
I agree with what you are saying but I think you underestimate businesses and managers here in Australia.
I agree with you that quality, creativity, innovation, etc are important....but we already are ahead of China in these aspects. So to raise them again is pointless. WE ALREADY KNOW!
I think China are catching up in many of these areas, yet they will always have the 'cheap labour' to fall back on, which in the end kills is no matter how creative and cost-effective we are.

Well duh. Cost cutting is the first and most obvious thing to do when a business is in trouble. However it's only the first part of the equation - a business that only cuts costs will find it difficult to compete and grow long term.

Don't ever let your boss hear that... :hihi
There is always room for improvement and hence cost-cutting, which you not only do when a business in trouble, but you do when a business is NOT in trouble also.
We are always looking at ways to cut costs...particularly labour costs...because there are so many added expenses when it comes to humans at work.
Not only do you have a wage to pay, but you have things such as...insurance...medicals...RDOs...leave...training...overtime...the list goes on.
I'm not ignoring other factors such as process efficiencies, equipment/machinery used, quality of product, customer service, etc....because laying off people to the detriment of these areas would be a poor decision.
But if you can lay people off and still keep the output of production at required levels...then that is the way you go.

 

[Liverpool]

Didn't Mattel just have a world-wide multi-million unit product recall due to low quality children's toys being pumped out of China? Something about the lead in the paint they used being toxic.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6946425.stm
Perhaps they need to slow down their operations and get them right, rather than pumping out high volume, low quality sh!te that puts kids lives in danger.

Freezer,
"Quality of product" is something we are ahead of China...but they are slowly catching up in this area also.
If they ever start producing good quality products at the third of the price that we can make a similar quality product for...then we are in big trouble.
Then you have the banks sending operations offshore as well...as well as IT positions.
Twenty years ago, no one would have believed that India would be housing IT departments for our banks...yet they are catching up, technology-wise and in other areas as well.

It is a catch-22....we get lambasted about sending aid over and helping developing nations....some people even think we should eliminate third-world debt...however, these 'developing nations' are the ones in 20-30 years time will be taking more jobs based here over to there, simply because they can afford to do it cheaper.

 

[Tiger74]

I agree....that's great....but do you think the Chinese aren't doing the same thing? or that we aren't already ahead of China in areas such as quality, technology, and creativity...yet we still see jobs move off shore?
So why is that?
It is labour costs...and why I keep coming back to it.
Do you think they are over there sitting on their hands, and just churning out cheap mass-produced products by millions of underpaid workers? Their research and technology is improving all the time to compete with us here, the Yanks, and the Euros.
Like I said above....'lefty wathis and do that we'll be competing with the Chinese....when in reality, we do this and that already, or are at least ahead of China in many of these facets, but it comes down to labour at the end of the day.
I know you agree with me on this about labour costs....so least you're not a total lost cause yet... :hihi

I agree that it is only a matter of time before China catches up with the Western world in areas like design, creativity, and quality.
The comparitive advantage you mention we already do Antman.
You are trying to make out that this is some sort of new concept....but it has been happening for years.
For example, plastics manufacturing here in Australia has fallen by the wayside over the years as cheaper imports flood the market here from Asia. So what do we do?
We go away from that type of manufacturing more and concentrate more on lower production niche markets that produce quality products.
But what happens when the Asians also become quite adept at competing quality-wise, design-wise, and creativity-wise, as well?
The only thing separating us then is labour cost, which flows on down to the consumer.
Why would anyone buy a product of good quality for $50 when they can get one of similar quality for half the price from China?

I don't disagree.
I agree with what you are saying but I think you underestimate businesses and managers here in Australia.
I agree with you that quality, creativity, innovation, etc are important....but we already are ahead of China in these aspects. So to raise them again is pointless. WE ALREADY KNOW!
I think China are catching up in many of these areas, yet they will always have the 'cheap labour' to fall back on, which in the end kills is no matter how creative and cost-effective we are.

The Chinese Govt is actually trying to discourage "low-rent"industries like toy manufacture and clothing, and encourage growth in electronics and digital technology.  While your plasma is likely to be a Samsung or LG screen (regardless of name), the odds of your LCD being Chinese are rising each year, with more and more LCD factories opening up in China (which is why the things are so cheap now compared to previous years).

The cheaper production is moving to Vietnam, India and so on, as Chinese wages are also on the rise.  This is not an overnight issue, but one which is already influencing the decisions on new factories.

As for Australia, the move is more to the services area, with this now making up a massive part of the economy (sorry - cannot remember %age).  Even in manufacturing, this leads to situations where an Australian company designs the product, markets the product, distributes the product, but its made in China.

It should be noted, this is where the $$$ are made.  The Chinese make SFA manufacturing, and only make $$$ with massive volumes that deliver economies of scale benefits (which is also a pusher for smaller orders to more flexible manufacturers in India for instance).

 

[Six Pack]

man this was supposed to be the PARTY THREAD :-[

 

[ssstone]

man this was supposed to be the PARTY THREAD :-[

to qoute chisel from swingshift."the partys over"

 

[Six Pack]

i might lock it up then!

 

[ssstone]

i might lock it up then!

as you want.