What's new

I present to you Aust funniest man.

Chris.C

Top Contributor
your callous disregard for those losing jobs and the lack of empathy in what it actually means in terms of suicides, houses repossessed, failed marriages really is very telling. Even more so when you say you've experienced some of that type of trauma.
I understand. I would like to clarify that I was speaking from a macro sense, where the individual stories shouldn't sway decision making or judgement.

If it were my friend or a family member going through that tough time I would definitely empathise and do whatever I could to help even if that meant listening to them pissing and moaning about how unfair the system was.

If someone wants to commit suicide over losing their job, whilst a tradegy, it is still completely irrational and ridiculous - you can't design systems for that. I'm not saying their "feelings" aren't real, but their negative "perception" of the future as a result of losing their job aren't real. So their friends and family need to be there to make sure they aren't being overly negative and to help reframe their perspective if they are.

I don't think we should all give up on capitalism and become a socialist country because the odd fruit loop jumps off a building because he "thinks" his life has ended because he lost his retail job.

:confused:

You talk about efficiency gains of job losses and how that benefits society but in reality it benefits shareholders and to a very much lesser extent society.
As long as competition within the industry is still maintained efficiency gains will be passed onto consumers as businesses will continue to compete for market share and profits via price reductions.

Don't get me wrong, I think there is a REAL risk that the internet over consolidates industries, ie from my perspective the internet tends to create a winner takes all scenario, ie there is only one major search engine, one major video site, one major social network, one major online store, one major auction house, one major online payment system, etc and I know you all know who each of the above are, but I fear we will see the same effect begin to influence real world businesses as well over the next decade and this could cause some monopoly rent seeking behaviour, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

So I do have a real fear about the limitations of capitalism - but given the alternative options it is still HANDS DOWN the best and fairest model to conduct an economy.

I think Apple is a good current example of this.
Apple is one of the finest examples of capitalism out there... yes Apple shareholders have done well, but for Apple to have done so well many consumer tech companies had to go bust as a result of Apple's successes - so not ALL shareholders win - just the winning companies shareholders are overcompensate from an ROE perspective, but they are not overcompensate from a risk perspective given they are in more of high risk winner taks all industry, but ALL of the companies need to be able to raise capital and be funded to facilitate a competitive environment that brings about successes like Apple.

And I don't know about you but I think it's a small price to pay given that smartphones are freaking amazing! Ten years ago I'd literally have to carry around a large mobile phone, a camera, a laptop, a modem, calculator, a pocket organisers, a discman, a mini TV, etc to achieve what an iphone does very simply 10 years later... You can't tell me the WORLD isn't better off as a result of Apple and the iphone.

And don't worried Apple taking over the world, as a company they will probably be bust within your lifetime - its a tech company. They almost never last because they almost always move from a model of innovation to replication and rent seeking. Maybe Apple will be an exception, but it probably won't, but we will all definitely be the recipients of the great products they make.

These articles are written by journalists with a short term mindset who is overly focussed on the "poor American worker".

I tell you what, Steve Jobs is bloody right - the workers of the emerging world have a work ethic and skills that is just not seen these days in countries like ours.

I have had half a dozen or so Filipinos and Indians working for me for the last couple of years and they rip strips out of their Australian competition in terms of speed, cost, skill, everything. As a capitalist - it's a no brainer. The best capitalists in the world "at the moment" are now Indian and Chinese - no point arguing about.

The other day I had a client say they needed XYZ site completed within 5 days to present in a meeting with a major supplier to help close a major deal! I told them they were dreaming, but I'd try - with a lot of hustle and some double time by some of my emerging market contractors 5 days later they had their fully functioning site and content completed!

Wouldn't have been possible working with an Australian web design firm.

Emerging market workers rarely complain, their biggest complaint is that they always want more hours (most tell me they'd be happy working 12 hours a day 6 days a week) and I always have to say sorry, I love the commitment, but I'm not willing to work those hours myself and I run the business!

And don't get me started on what wage they will HAPPILY work for!

:eek:

On the flip side, I sent an email yesterday morning to an Australia web design firm who does some work for one of my clients, just asking for a quote to fix up some of the poor design decisions they made when they originally designed the site for $15,000 - I finally got an email from them this afternoon saying they will try and get back to me sometime tomorrow.

So 48 hours later, the overcharging, mediocre web design firm will LOOK at my email... if they didn't have my client by the balls because they were the original designer of the site and talked them onto an uncommon content management system that they now have everything operating through I'd tell my client to cut them loose ASAP.

Anyway the point was Steve Jobs is right, the work goes overseas not just because Asia is cheaper, but also because they are BETTER.

The develop world needs to refind it's lost "work ethic".


"...job destruction is the underlying principle of capitalism..."

That's just bs. Efficient markets and allocation of resources perhaps but "job destruction" c'mon you just made that term up to suit your argument.
I was ranting on a domain names forum, I didn't realise I was meant to use economic terms.

:p

"Efficient markets" is one I would have used, but I think when you talk about the internet and innovation I think you can't skip Joseph Schumpeter's "creative destruction" theory.

I have one of his most famous books sitting 6 feet behind me "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy" definitely worth a read.

:p

As for making "an argument", I see it more as I'm "stating realities", but everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want to believe.

:)


The idea that all those that lose their job in one sector will find another job in another sector is seriously flawed. Some will, some will do more training and a large group will go on the dole for extended periods of time.
I'm not saying the transition isn't painless and I'm not saying no one is left behind, but we can focus on the couple that are worse off (albeit with their ongoing welfare payments which tend to increase over time anyway) or we can focus on the VAST majority who benefit from not only more economical goods and services freeing up capital which can be allocated elsewhere (including reallocation to welfare payments) but also from the freed up human capital that will go on to solve the higher order problems of the world.

I know which I prefer to focus on.

Basically you just don't give a stuff about the human trauma of structural changes to our economy.
You can think I'm a cold heartless bastard, just because I'm aware of the brutal realities of the world, but I'm know I'm not. I just chose to reinterpret them as positives to be aspired for, because I know what's on the other side, rather than negatives to be feared and avoided.

That doesn't mean I'm a tyrant, it just means I see the bigger picture. I see what society COULD BE and I want to do everything in my power to help US ALL get there faster. If a few people have to be dragged kicking and screaming to a world of better living standards for all so be it, but don't expect me to join in on the pity party.

By calling politicians retarded for wanting to create jobs well that's just ignorant.
Last time I checked government only "redistributes wealth" it's not in the business of "creating wealth" I haven't spoken to any North Koreans in awhile (they don't get out and about often) but I don't think their communist government is doing well at the "creating wealth" game.

:D

So government AT BEST helps eliminate/regulate some market inefficiencies and helps redistribute wealth to allow social harmony, but AT WORST they are a leech on economies that slowly bleeds them to death. They definitely don't create JOBS, ie real VALUE producing jobs, but they can definitely get in the way of job creation.

I hired an Australian assistant once, I put up with all the bureaucratic BS that went with that for a few months before I decided to offshore everything. Best thing I ever did.

:rolleyes:

With all that said, I'd describe the Australian government like this, "utterly crap, but much better than most". So you can look at it either way, most of the time I can't bare to watch the ineptness of politicians, but I'm grateful they are not worse.

:p

The GFC just proved pure capitalism is far from being society friendly.
If you don't like capitalism I hear North Korean or Cuba is good this time of year. Feel free to vote with your feet.

;)

It's the best system we have by miles!

Also be careful not to confuse capitalism with mistakes of society and government. Capitalism works A LOT better when democracy is functioning well and the general voting population is well informed. The failings of society are rooted in poor governance and an under informed population - that's not capitalism fault.

But you're right those poor dumb saps should have realised they were being taken for a ride.
I actually blame government - those "poor dumb saps" were busy working hard in their professions. Government should have stopped the sharks (even if well intentioned) from being allowed to advise or sell crap advice or products to Joe Public who didn't know any better.

:mad:

That said, society does need to take a good look in the mirror and reflect on how much we ourselves were to blame, most people "allowed themselves" to believe the lies sold to them because they liked "sounds" of the lie that was being sold, even if it was ridiculous, because they didn't want to "hear the reality". So in that sense many were complicit in the lie.

Most Australian haven't been forced to look in the mirror yet, from a financial perspective, but over the next 5 years they will certainly get their chance, of course as per human instinct they will blame everyone else initially, but the penny will drop, and many will learn their life long lessons hard way, and after a decade or so of tough times we'll be better for the experience.

Gerry Harvey logic - Customers shopping more and more online? Better open retail fronts in Ireland!
+1

I expect the world's changed a little since the 1800's
The world has changed but the system is largely the same.

Yep, those jobs are going to be lost, doesn't matter what Gerry thinks, or anyone else about whether it is right, wrong, good or bad. It is simply a fact so people either need to deal with it and accept it or get left behind.
+1

If SEO stopped tomorrow (could happen), I would move into Social Media full time (I have experience in it), if the internet stopped tomorrow, I would move into construction as I use to work in that field when I was younger + many cousins and uncles have businesses in it. Would even consider the mines doing something!!!
+1
 
Last edited:

Snooks

Top Contributor
If someone wants to commit suicide over losing their job, whilst a tradegy, it is still completely irrational and ridiculous - you can't design systems for that. I'm not saying their "feelings" aren't real, but their negative "perception" of the future as a result of losing their job aren't real. So their friends and family need to be there to make sure they aren't being overly negative and to help reframe their perspective if they are.

The problem with people committing suicide is that their loved ones very rarely see any signs or indications of it coming. :( Its probably better to stick to the econmic side of the discussion unless you have experience in mental health and associated issues.
 

Lucas

Top Contributor
I can't believe someone who has thrived so well under a capitalistic system can't understand that the retail sector losing 100,000 jobs and distribution picking 2,000 is a MASSIVE net win for society, in that we all get the same retail good and services, but the total production cost of those retail goods and services are now 98,000 salaries cheaper and 98,000 people now have 24 hours a day to think about new problems they can solve for the world (hell one of them might just create the next Google or Apple). Sure it temporarily sucks to be one of the 98,000 but life doesn't end when you lose a "retail" job.

+1 What he said!

Chris you make some good points and I totally agree with you.

I would be interested to know who here shops at a large local retailer for a pair of shoes that can be purchased for a fraction of the price on the internet from an international retailer for the sole purpose of helping the Australian retail worker?

The internet has been a big game changer and the times of old are gone. 10 Years ago imagine the hassle if I wanted to buy a battery from China or Taiwan (whoever was making them 10 years ago) - it was just not worth it. I would probably have needed some sort of mail order catalog possibly called them on an expensive monopolised service, sent an expensive telegraphic transfer etc etc. Now we can hop on ebay or wherever and purchase and pay for an item in about 60 seconds then forget about it until it arrives with a knock at the front door a few days later. Thats what I call service. If its cheaper to buy a battery from china for $5 with a $2 postage fee then why should I have to pay someone $25 for exactly the same battery in a local shop. Now thanks to the internet it IS worth buying a $5 battery from a retailer overseas!

Thinking we can stop it from happening and 'save' retail jobs I think is just deluded. Doesn't mean the transition is going to be easy but the right choices or realities are often not the easy ones. For those of you that thinks Chris is being harsh how many things do you own in your home that were made in China?

If you are an optimist why not think that those 98,000 people could spend their time much more effectively (on various levels) solving problems that need to be solved or innovating or working in different emerging industries.

There is a more positive side to the argument also that I think is often overlooked, if the price of goods that people buy online such as shoes, clothing, mp3 players, LCD TVs, smartphones and so on goes down people will have more money to spend on local entertainment, local restaurants, local services etc. Even if the money for these cheaper goods is going overseas, the same money is going overseas anyway even if people purchased it in a local shop - They just don't have to pay the $18 extra because someone wanted to work in a shop all day.

I am certainly not an economist but I would have thought the whole thing is economics 101. Industries come and go, supply and demand and all that. Like snoopy mentioned we don't see too many chimney sweeps around these days or for that matter blacksmiths? Should we have 'saved' their jobs and turned our back on the innovations of the times that meant they were not needed anymore?
 
Last edited:

Lucas

Top Contributor
Plus doesn't it strike people as slightly hypocritical when Gerry Harvey says buying from overseas retailers is risking Australian retail workers their jobs when all he does is buy from overseas then mark up and make a killing? Personally I think what he is really interested in is his bank account, and is just dressing up his concerns as some sort of social injustice that must be stopped. What do you prefer - Australian consumers being ripped off or Australian retail workers losing their jobs?
 

Billy01

Top Contributor
Here is a pretty graph for the mentally challenged

http://www.smh.com.au/business/big-retailers-hammered-20120321-1vkdi.html

So in 2003 after Mark McInness was flying around the world first class at DJ's expense he decided to close the online store.

Thats right read the article again "close the online store"

It reopened in 2009 and is still shit

These CEO's have no one to blame but themselves.

They thought the internet (what's that) in OZ would never be a threat.

This is just ridiculous how can a boom be happening in 1999 and a CEO think this internet thingy will never catch on.

Employees and shareholders should have a class action over DUD Ceo's (that's a joke by the way)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Chris.C

Top Contributor
http://www.smh.com.au/business/big-retailers-hammered-20120321-1vkdi.html

So in 2003 after Mark McInness was flying around the world first class at DJ's expense he decided to close the online store.

Thats right read the article again "close the online store"
When you own a business (like shareholders do) you get what you "reward" or "reprimand" your employees for (which includes the CEOs).

Can't blame a CEO for closing a loss making part of the business when his bonuses are paid quarterly or annually, and that divisions was unlikely the become profitable within the next 3 - 5 years a which point he probably wouldn't be there. Sure he shot DJ's in the foot - but his bonus was protected and none of the "owners" had the foresight to "reprimand" him for it.

It's their own fault.

I don't understand why people don't expect other people to work in their own self interest when the ongoing relationship isn't guaranteed or even "likely".

Employees and shareholders should have a class action over DUD Ceo's (that's a joke by the way)
Shareholders and Board of Directors need to have a look in the mirror first.
 

snoopy

Top Contributor
http://www.smh.com.au/business/big-retailers-hammered-20120321-1vkdi.html

So in 2003 after Mark McInness was flying around the world first class at DJ's expense he decided to close the online store.

Thats right read the article again "close the online store"

It reopened in 2009 and is still shit

Maybe it should have stayed closed.

I think one issue that these companies have, David Jones, Harvey Norman. The are typically the most expensive in the marketplace. With high prices, what hope do they really have online when selling generic items?

Typical example is say TV's, saw one I liked in Harvey Norman, Samsung LED (this was about 6 months ago). If I remember rightly Harvey Norman was about $3800. The lowest online price was $2500. The price is just world's apart and I was shocked at how much Harvey Norman must be making form those walk in type of customer. They had all the $200 Monster cables sitting next to them as well (which they probably pay about $5 for). It's all a cash extraction excercise, nothing wrong with that, but it is terrible deal if you are a consumer.

So to compete online they'd probably need to sacrifice their brand or call it something else entirely and get a different business model for it. Or charge totally different prices which would probably soon get around. There is no sharp salesman online to convince people that if they spend $4000 on a tv they should waste hundreds more on fancily packaged cables as well.

I think they'd need a really dramatic shift to do well online. They are probably in for a gradual decline no matter what they do. I'd rather be them than the online guys but I think they are probably in a bit of a "Network Solutions" style situation in terms of growth. Why compete with cheap players when a lot will pay really high prices, even if that market is declining?

So what do you do, launch some other low price brand? (which is a business model they know nothing about about) whine about it? I don't know, maybe the the whining, make money while you can option is the best choice?
 
Last edited:

soj

Founder
Since I have opened the can of worms I guess I owe an explanation, but his will be my final post on this topic. I'm too old (just turned 27) to be ranting, each to their own I say, the markets and capitalism will determine who was right over time.


:)
 

Chris.C

Top Contributor
So to compete online they'd probably need to sacrifice their brand or call it something else entirely and get a different business model for it. Or charge totally different prices which would probably soon get around. There is no sharp salesman online to convince people that if they spend $4000 on a tv they should waste hundreds more on fancily packaged cables as well.
Exactly. The problem is you require a bit of a foreward thinking CEO/organisation to execute such a strategy and who recognises that whilst they will be undercutting themselves they are also building business security going foreward.

The nature of business is if the market demands something, you don't meet that demand, inevitably someone else will. Sometimes the first mover advantage isn't a big deal - sometimes being first secures you the lions share of the market.

Times be a changing, keep up or get left behind.

Couldn't help myself.

:rolleyes:

I swear there will be no more ranting from me (at least not in this thread)

;).
 
Last edited:

acheeva

Top Contributor
Property Portfolio

Hey.....it is not a bad property portfolio

The tenants always pay on time and never bitch
 

Community sponsors

Domain Parking Manager

AddMe Reputation Management

Digital Marketing Experts

Catch Expired Domains

Web Hosting

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
11,098
Messages
92,044
Members
2,394
Latest member
Spacemo
Top