[LINK] This makes me angry.

[Michael Skeggs mike@bystander.net]

Wikipedia allows that mining employs 129,000 Australians.
That $3b subsidy equates to $23k per job.
Could that $23k be better spent alternatives such as training or other
means to enhance our international competitiveness, or is the smart
thing to do subsidising diesel?
I would suggest that a "paltry" $3b makes no difference to whether the
mines are built, but could make a significant long term difference by,
for example, sponsoring 20,000 engineering degrees each year.
Regards,
Michael Skeggs

On 2 April 2012 08:45, Craig Sanders <cas at taz.net.au> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 09:13:30PM +0200, Martin Barry wrote:
>> It's also not clear why those jobs would be in jeopardy without the
>> subsidies. The mining companies can't just pick up the mine and move
>> it to another country.
>
> oh, but they threaten to do so - "give us what we want or we'll go rip
> off some other country for their resources!"
>
> <ratbag>
> let 'em go if they insist, i say. voluntary abandonment is much cheaper
> than nationalising the mines :)
> </ratbag>
>
> craig
>
> --
> craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>
>
> BOFH excuse #55:
>
> Plumber mistook routing panel for decorative wall fixture
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link