I’m not an economist

I’m not an economist. I’m not a business analyst or advisor. I’m not an expert on social issues. But I can see a potential issue that needs to be addressed, in light of the recent announcement of Holden’s departure from Australia in 2017. I can’t give you a particularly solid solution to this problem; but I can offer you a thought-provoking and relevant statistic to begin with.
Can you imagine working in the same company for over 30 years?
For older generations, such as the baby boomers, this is the norm. You got a job in a particular organisation, and you stayed there.
For people in my generation, this is less common. Two years ago, a careers advisor gave my class a statistic; members of gen Y could change career around 30 times. A more recent statistic states that Gen Y-ers could have 5 different careers over their lifetime.
The recent announcement of Holden’s plans to end manufacturing in Australia will affect thousands of jobs throughout the country. I imagine that, as with the case of Ford, many of the workers in these factories may not be educated in any other form of work; they may have been working in the auto production industry for their entire working lives. Their prospects of finding another job in the car industry are slim.
Quite aside from the economic effect of the job losses, the government needs to consider the social flow on from this announcement. Support for the families of the redundant workers is paramount; programs for re-education and financial support for the families while they search for new jobs and careers should be a priority. Fortunately, the Federal Government plans to unveil support of this kind shortly.
In the long term, there needs to be more thought about diversifying Australia’s manufacturing economy. Australia needs to have solid, well-made goods to offer for trade in a global economy; we need to find our manufacturing strengths and focus on these. But in addition, we need to have multi-skilled workers, whose abilities can be applied to various industries, so that in the event of a major shutdown such as those we have witnessed recently, the economic and social effects are less severe. And indeed, why can’t we? Shouldn’t it be possible to broadly educate our manufacturers so that the basic education is there – to mitigate the sudden need for full re-education when something goes wrong? It is difficult, especially for those who have worked in the same place for much of their life, to suddenly move on. Anything that the government and community can do through practical education to make this transition easier will be well worth the financial effort, and would also be economically rewarding in the longer term as workers are able to capably fill any gaps. Education is the key here; teaching the skills that will enable our economy to prosper through production. More TAFE courses and practical opportunities for people to develop their skills for the benefit of wider society.
As I said, I’m not an economist or business analyst or advisor of any kind. But I think that the social aspect of our economy is something that governments need to consider and plan for.

Poverty, Charity and Philosophical Wonderings

Something I’ve noticed recently, largely through the constant email appeals of my work colleagues, is that there are an awful lot of charities out there. Foundations supporting disadvantaged kids, cancer research, women’s’ rights, men’s health, the general poor… The list is virtually endless. It really makes you think about the numerous ills afflicting our society.
I mentioned this to a workmate – “there are so many charities out there, I can’t afford to donate to them all!” I complained. She agreed it was a shame that there needed to be so many – that there was so much wrong with the world, that we needed so many NGOs to help ease the pain. But, I thought, they say if all the world’s billionaires donated some of their wealth, they could eradicate extreme poverty…
A friend to whom I related the story thought differently. What if, she suggested, the world actually needs poverty in order to run as we know it? A ridiculous thought, was my initial response. But then she laid out her reasoning.
Economically, poverty makes sense as a source of cheap labour and cheap production. With the eradication of poverty, millions of people would suddenly find their cost of living rising – and no one wants that.
In addition, socially, it gives people something to strive for. After all, the eradication of poverty is a goal that many people ostensibly want to attain – if you want proof, simply look at the number of charities in operation around the world.
Politically, it gives governments something to have on the agenda. While it can be a source of shame in some countries (see what Beijing did in the lead up to the 2008 Olympic Games), it can also be a sort of weapon. Think pledges to increase aid budgets, thereby enhancing global reputation and giving the people back home a warm fuzzy feeling that at least they are doing something.
The reasoning behind this school of thought seemed both logical and selfish. Sure, I could see why people might subscribe to this worldview, but what about all those who were trampled on along the way? The 99%, sustaining the lifestyle of the other 1%. Unfortunately, as extreme poverty continues and the gap between each end of the spectrum widens, it seems that this viewpoint is the dominant one, at least for now.
You could say that this is simply the result of our capitalist society. Indeed, capitalism does allow for people to be richer than others. The alternative put forward by Karl Marx has been widely discredited. Does that mean there is no hope of eradicating poverty?
There are other ways, other methods. But until one is widely accepted and implemented, the world will keep turning as it does now – and my inbox will continue to overflow with the requests for charitable support that go at least some way to helping those living in poverty.

Public Transport Woes

Ask any Melbourne commuter, and they will tell you how “sucky” their city’s public transport system is. They will start telling you how much they hate the overcrowding, how much crime there is on certain lines and how trains never, ever run on time.

And I must say, I can’t help but agree with them.

I should perhaps clarify my authority to speak on the topic. I am something of a proud dual Melbournian-outer suburbian, having commuted from the outer suburbs to the city for four years. Not short trips either; they have always been at least an hour and at one stage involved all three major modes of public transport – bus, train and tram. 

Yes there have been some good trips, good times, excellent service even. There is one particular train driver, still doing the rounds, who likes to treat his passengers to a bit of an airport treatment, even going so far as to explain the altitude of the train (just over a metre). A favourite tram driver of mine keeps his passengers entertained with descriptions of the landmarks we pass. He explained once that he used to be a tour bus driver, and the habit has stayed with him over the years. And a certain bus driver once let me bring my bike on the bus, even though you aren’t meant to, because it was pouring with rain outside and he didn’t want me to “drown” riding home. I will forever be grateful.

But why oh why can my trains never be on time? I’m not exaggerating this. At least four days in a week, my morning train will be late. The evening peak train is always delayed, without fail. I’m sick of being told of “signal failures” that cause my journey to be stopped halfway through, or of sitting at that invisible station between Richmond and Flinders Street stations. Seriously, maybe they should move Flinders Street slightly further down the line, as that is where all the trains seem to get stuck.

Our train system is not without its dangers. I recall a frightening experience where a drug affected lout threatened to harm an innocent man on the train, who happened to look like his enemy. The lout kicked doors, yanked on hand rails, hurled abuse, slammed the carriage doors… I was genuinely frightened for my life that day. The worst part was, I wondered what the few people on the train could do to help. We could press the emergency button of course, but then the train would stop, in the middle of nowhere, between stations, far away from any emergency help – and by the time it arrived, we could all be grievously injured. 

And of course, we have all seen the news headlines about racism on public transport. Nor is it just limited to trains, as one French tourist discovered.

Finally, there are the overcrowding issues – on my particular line, the trains in morning peak are full – that is, no one else can fit through the doors – within four stops from the beginning of the line.

There seem to be real problems on Melbourne’s public transport system. No wonder we complain.

But they can be fixed.

Obviously, after multiple timetable alterations by Metro, the company managing Melbourne’s trains, the issue with trains running on time has still not been fixed. The rumours on the lines are growing – we need to invest in our public transport system. Anecdotally, I know nobody really wants to pay more in fares, so perhaps the ones we pay now should be more wisely managed. Reinvest our fares into upgrading train tracks, purchasing new trains that will better serve the growing patronage. Recently, Public Transport Victoria announced a plan to carry the one billion passengers predicted to take Melbourne’s trains by 2031. The plan includes high capacity trains, improved signals and track duplications. A further part of Public Transport Victoria’s plan involves the building of the Melbourne Metro, a series of tunnels and links between certain lines. It is suggested this will improve capacity in the future, to meet service demands. So, that takes care of the capacity issue, and hopefully the punctuality. Improved links with buses and trams, particularly in high growth corridors in the West and East, would go some way to improving punctuality and capacity too.

But what about safety?

Protective Services Officers now patrol many of Melbourne’s stations. Yet their presence is sadly lacking on the trains, trams and buses themselves. Is a higher security presence on transport needed to curb the apparently endemic racism and violence? Perhaps. Personally I would feel safer if the trains, trams and buses themselves were patrolled. But the manpower and funds need for this sort of project are unbelievable – and are governments willing to back this sort of plan?

Investment in public transport is a major government sticking point. In the lead up to the September 2013 election, both sides of Federal politics have had their say. Tony Abbott stated in early April that he would support a major road project over the the Melbourne Metro scheme, while Julia Gillard has stated the opposite. Each of these statements though, is dependent upon the announcer being elected in September.

Public transport is a major part of the lives of many. Investing in this service is necessary for the future development of our city. Currently, it seems that quick fixes, long term feasibility studies and political arguments get in the way of this – and Melbournians continue to wait on an overcrowded, late and dangerous public transport system.