[LINK] This makes me angry.

TKoltai tomk at unwired.com.au
Mon Apr 2 14:07:16 AEST 2012


> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au 
> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Michael 
> Skeggs mike at bystander.net
> Sent: Monday, 2 April 2012 9:34 AM
> To: link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> Subject: Re: [LINK] This makes me angry.
> 
> 
> 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

Interesting option, sounds like an excellent outcome.
But before you vote for sponsoring engineering degrees as the solution
for building our economy, a few details might be worthy of
consideration;

The value of various engineering qualifications can actually be
calculated by analysing the Industry value added (IVA) per person
employed.

For the mining industry this is substantially higher ($608,200 p.p.)
than in the next highest industry Electricity, gas, water and waste
services (at $300,200 p.p.). (Source: ABS)

Therefore, I would suggest that your engineers should probably be mining
engineers to give Australia the most bang for it's training buck.
(Exceptions would be structural, electrical, mechanical employed in the
mining sphere.) 

There are approximately 280,000 persons employed on minesites in
Australia.
The average salary is 107,000 per person.

Each of those persons is likely to have or belong to a family unit.
If each person is a parent or future parent, that represents (@2.3
children per family unit) a total of 924,000 persons that are directly
benefiting from the salaries.

This number doesn't include the mining support industries:

Rail, Road, sea, mining Process machinery, or the employees and families
of corporations that were built on the back of mining like:

Leightons, Bechtel Pacific, Foreward Downs, Transfield, James Watt,
SHRAM, ATCO, Henry and Walker, the Australian Stock Exchange.

It doesn't include the thousands of persons employed across the country
in non-infrastructure support organisations like Australia Post, Qantas,
Coates Hire, (etc) that now derive much of their revenue as a direct
result of mining.

It fails to calculate the benefits of thousands of persons that obtained
jobs through money raised by emerging industries across a wide range of
disciplines on the Stock Exchange.

Most of all, it doesn't even hint at the retirees that are holding BHP
RIO and other stocks of similar ilk, hoping to eke out a living above
the poverty line from the dividends paid there-on.

So how many people in Australia do depend on mining ? The number is much
much larger than any person giving the subject a cursory shallow once
over could ever hope to understand.

>From almost the beginning of colonisation, Australia was built on mining
as being beneficial to the Empire, an empire that had just lost its
"Jewel" to the American Revolution.

Before we kick mining in the guts, too hard, these are all
considerations well worth pondering.  

Letter to Joseph Banks: "A person who intends to examine the mineral
Substances of any Country ought to have...', ca 1772 (Series 06.101)"
http://www2.sl.nsw.gov.au/images/banks/digitised/30278.jpg

TomK




More information about the Link mailing list