The Daily Wire: Corporate welfare for the car industry - The Daily Wire

Jump to content

  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

Corporate welfare for the car industry

#41 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 28 February 2012 - 03:50 PM

View Posticey, on 28 February 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

Car industry will continue in Australia with ALP govt: PM





Wow Sight & Sound Goes Belly Up Vendors Owed Millions





500 jobs is a significant number in anyone's eyes. Should the taxpayer chip in to keep Wow afloat even if their business model is in doubt?

And if not, why prop up an ailing car industry competing against superior offerings from abroad?




How many flow-on jobs depend on the survival of WOW? What skills base would we be in danger of losing?


Any job losses are devastating for the people made redundant, but really. There's no comparison.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#42 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 28 February 2012 - 04:49 PM

View PostHDMC, on 28 February 2012 - 03:50 PM, said:

How many flow-on jobs depend on the survival of WOW? What skills base would we be in danger of losing?

Any job losses are devastating for the people made redundant, but really. There's no comparison.


There will certainly be flow on jobs, though granted the number is unlikely to be as many as applicable to car manufacturing. It would be an interesting excercise to quantify the government subsidy per car worker per annum (including "flow on" jobs) and then decide if this was appropriate value for money.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#43 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 02 April 2013 - 12:47 PM

Holden reveals billions in subsidies

Quote

revealed that it has received $2.17 billion in Federal Government assistance in the past 12 years.

The figure, which is much higher than previous estimates, was released by Holden after a dispute with the Australian Financial Review newspaper.

It is astonishing that the car maker has to reveal this information voluntarily for us to learn the figure.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#44 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 02 April 2013 - 03:46 PM

View PostBam, on 02 April 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

Holden reveals billions in subsidies

It is astonishing that the car maker has to reveal this information voluntarily for us to learn the figure.


Surely such figures would be publicly tabled somewhere, even if not widely publicised?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#45 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 02 April 2013 - 03:54 PM

View Posticey, on 02 April 2013 - 03:46 PM, said:

Surely such figures would be publicly tabled somewhere, even if not widely publicised?

Yes, I would have thought so too.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#46 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 08 April 2013 - 05:54 PM

"Holden to axe 500 jobs, citing market conditions and a fall in demand for its Cruze model"



Quote

A $275 million taxpayer subsidy has failed to prevent another round of job cuts at Holden's Australian operations, with the car maker slashing 500 positions today.

The announcement comes a year after the Gillard government committed $215 million to the company to “secure” its Australian car-making operations, with an additional $60m from the South Australian and Victorian governments.


Are we all united in agreeing that such "corporate welfare" should cease?

Sophie Mirabella said:

This announcement will once again raise very serious questions about the approach that Julia Gillard and Labor have taken in providing assistance to the car industry,
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#47 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 08 April 2013 - 06:26 PM

View Posticey, on 08 April 2013 - 05:54 PM, said:

Quote

A $275 million taxpayer subsidy has failed to prevent another round of job cuts at Holden's Australian operations, with the car maker slashing 500 positions today.



$55 grand per position. That must be a union benchmark to die for!
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#48 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 08 April 2013 - 07:01 PM

A bit rich to blame Labor exclusively for subsidising the car industry given that Coalition governments have also been handing out subsidies when they were in office. It's bipartisan.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#49 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 08 April 2013 - 07:32 PM

View PostBam, on 08 April 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

A bit rich to blame Labor exclusively for subsidising the car industry given that Coalition governments have also been handing out subsidies when they were in office. It's bipartisan.


Nothing rich here except the handouts to the car makers.

I'm blaming the government of the past five or six years and you should cop that one sweet. Prior government ditto though in respect to the matter.

So are we indeed agreed that the millions should not be given to the car makers, albeit with loss of some jobs?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#50 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 08 April 2013 - 07:45 PM

View Posticey, on 08 April 2013 - 07:32 PM, said:

Nothing rich here except the handouts to the car makers.

I'm blaming the government of the past five or six years and you should cop that one sweet. Prior government ditto though in respect to the matter.

So are we indeed agreed that the millions should not be given to the car makers, albeit with loss of some jobs?

So you're saying that Liberal/NP governments also are responsible... okay, that makes your slag off at the unions a waste of your time, doesn't it?

I'm sure this has been discussed before. Ideally it would be great for any industry to survive independently, but we were informed that the car industries in a number of other countries are either protected or heavily subsidized themselves.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#51 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 08 April 2013 - 08:19 PM

View Posticey, on 08 April 2013 - 07:32 PM, said:

Nothing rich here except the handouts to the car makers.

I'm blaming the government of the past five or six years and you should cop that one sweet. Prior government ditto though in respect to the matter.

So are we indeed agreed that the millions should not be given to the car makers, albeit with loss of some jobs?

Not necessarily, I was just forcibly opening your other eye.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#52 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 08 April 2013 - 11:03 PM

View Postscotto, on 08 April 2013 - 07:45 PM, said:

So you're saying that Liberal/NP governments also are responsible... okay, that makes your slag off at the unions a waste of your time, doesn't it?


Not sure to which particular "slag of" you might possibly refer, but why can't I "slag off" the union if they are a participant?

View Postscotto, on 08 April 2013 - 07:45 PM, said:

I'm sure this has been discussed before. Ideally it would be great for any industry to survive independently, but we were informed that the car industries in a number of other countries are either protected or heavily subsidized themselves.


I have read that it's the way of doing business in lots of countries. IMHO, "can it" here.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#53 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 09 April 2013 - 01:38 AM

Is that a question?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#54 User is offline   Trogdor 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: 17-January 11

Posted 09 April 2013 - 11:57 AM

View Posticey, on 08 April 2013 - 11:03 PM, said:


I have read that it's the way of doing business in lots of countries. IMHO, "can it" here.


The problem is - which industries do you let go in the face of subsidies, to countries who will be only too happy to pick them up? For example - Do we stop subsidies to farmers in the face of EU and US massive handouts to their farmers?

Like it or not, we dont live in a wonderful free market world where there are no tariffs, no subsidies, no skewed FTAs and no dirty tactics used to advance one country's industry over another.

The questions is not whether or not to subsidise, but which industries to subsidise. While it is probly smart to "give up" lower skill industries such as clothing and footwear, giving up a high-tech, very much value-adding industry like car manufacture presents real problems.

Incompetant tiers of government that impose petty environmental regulations on their car purchasing models, or enact stupid free trade agreements (like the one with Thailand that blantantly disadvantages our local car makers over theirs) dont help either.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#55 User is offline   NotFrogman 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 856
  • Joined: 24-July 12

Posted 09 April 2013 - 12:18 PM

View PostTrogdor, on 09 April 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

The questions is not whether or not to subsidise, but which industries to subsidise. While it is probly smart to "give up" lower skill industries such as clothing and footwear, giving up a high-tech, very much value-adding industry like car manufacture presents real problems.

Car manufacturing is closer to an assembly line than a manufacturing line though.

Apart from maybe an engine here and there, who actually build the parts? Pretty sure 95%+ of parts are created elsewhere.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#56 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 09 April 2013 - 03:52 PM

View Postscotto, on 09 April 2013 - 01:38 AM, said:

Is that a question?


The quotes made it clear to me and at the time. :) More clearly put:

I have read that it's the way of doing business in lots of countries. IMHO, "ditch the subsidies" here.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#57 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 09 April 2013 - 09:17 PM

View PostTrogdor, on 09 April 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

The problem is - which industries do you let go in the face of subsidies, to countries who will be only too happy to pick them up? For example - Do we stop subsidies to farmers in the face of EU and US massive handouts to their farmers?

Like it or not, we dont live in a wonderful free market world where there are no tariffs, no subsidies, no skewed FTAs and no dirty tactics used to advance one country's industry over another.

The questions is not whether or not to subsidise, but which industries to subsidise. While it is probly smart to "give up" lower skill industries such as clothing and footwear, giving up a high-tech, very much value-adding industry like car manufacture presents real problems.

Incompetant tiers of government that impose petty environmental regulations on their car purchasing models, or enact stupid free trade agreements (like the one with Thailand that blantantly disadvantages our local car makers over theirs) dont help either.

Good post.

We also have China's currency manipulation that holds their currency well below its true value.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#58 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 09 April 2013 - 09:18 PM

View PostNotFrogman, on 09 April 2013 - 12:18 PM, said:

Car manufacturing is closer to an assembly line than a manufacturing line though.

Apart from maybe an engine here and there, who actually build the parts? Pretty sure 95%+ of parts are created elsewhere.

Actually, many of the parts are made locally, such as windscreen wiper motors and the like.

I also understand that Holden makes engines for export.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#59 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 23 May 2013 - 12:20 PM

Ford Australia to close Broadmeadows and Geelong plants, 1,200 jobs to go

Quote

Ford Australia says it will close its Australian manufacturing plants in October 2016, with the loss of hundreds of jobs.

Ford president Bob Graziano said approximately 1,200 workers would lose their jobs when the Broadmeadows and Geelong plants were shut down.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#60 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 23 May 2013 - 01:37 PM

View PostBam, on 23 May 2013 - 12:20 PM, said:


The sooner that these companies, that bludge on the Australian taxpayers, shut up shop and go elsewhere the better.

That Ford's cars aren't selling well is no surprise as I had the misfortune to have to use one of their leading models when, under NRMA cover, I had to have a hired car.

One of the stipulations of its use was that I was not covered by insurance if I damaged the front valances. All of the other cars in the fleet were already damaged but they were booked out, so I had no choice but to take the new car (less than 2,000 kms on the clock).
The damage was usually caused by entering private driveways and so I was very cautious entering my own. Any approach other than at 90 degrees looked like doing damage and I got in with about an inch clearance.

So much for designing cars for Australian conditions.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

Share this topic:


  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4


Fast Reply