
Australia Mourns the End of Its Car Manufacturing Industry - kumarharsh
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/world/australia/holden-automaker-factory-closes.html
======
quicklime
I used to work at Toyota in Australia, which also shut down recently. A lot of
people here are saying this is about quality, but it's really about
profitability.

Australia's economy is heavily dependent on mining, and China's economic
growth created a local mining boom. This resulted in heavy demand for
Australian dollars, and at its peak in 2013 1 AUD was worth about 1.05 USD.

It was at this time that Ford (the weakest of the three Australian
manufacturers) made the decision to close its Australian manufacturing
operations. The high value of the local currency meant the factory was
unprofitable and uncompetitive with other factories around the world.

The conservative government at the time, led by Tony Abbott, refused to
provide subsidies to help close the gap (even temporarily).

Toyota and GM Holden had similar problems, and all knew that the local
automotive parts suppliers needed at least three companies to sell to. So once
Ford was out, the supply chain for parts became unsustainable, and the others
quickly announced that they would pull out too. It takes time to close an
entire industry, which is why all three companies closed their factories in
2017.

Around 2015 the slowdown in China's growth led to a slowdown in Australia's
mining industry, and a drop in the AUD. It dropped to around 0.80 USD, and
interestingly, Australia's car manufacturers became quite profitable again.
But the wheels were already in motion and the decisions couldn't be reversed.

Australia's mining industry has bought in a lot of money, but its impact on
the dollar has done a lot of damage to the country's export economy. There's a
term that economists use to describe this: Dutch disease. Australia has a bad
case of it.

Edit: s/80 USD/0.80 USD/

~~~
jussij
> This resulted in heavy demand for Australian dollars, and at its peak in
> 2013 1 AUD was worth about 1.05 USD.

One of the main reasons the AUD remained at such high levels was because of
the carry trade.

[http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-09/carrying-the-
australia...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-09/carrying-the-australian-
dollar-higher/2705140)

From the link below you can see the Reserve Bank of Australia kept interest
rates very high during that period:

[http://www.rba.gov.au/statistics/cash-
rate/](http://www.rba.gov.au/statistics/cash-rate/)

That allowed big multinational banks to borrow massive amounts of money in one
country at a near zero interest rate and park that cash in Australia to get a
guaranteed 4% return on those billions. That create the high demand for the
AUD which drove up it's price.

The RBA was asleep at the wheel as it should have driven down that cash rate
much faster and far sooner than it did.

Only after they finally moved and started cutting the interest rate did the
dollar fall to the levels we see today.

Unfortunately, they now find themselves in a bit of a mess, since the economy
really needs another rate cut to help repair the damage caused by that high
dollar.

However they can't do that because it would add fuel to an already over heated
property market, which is starting to look a lot like a bubble.

If they had moved earlier, the local manufacturing/export/tourist industries
would be much stronger today and the RBA would in fact now be in a position to
raise rates, something that is desperately need to take heat out of the
property bubble.

~~~
dageshi
Wouldn't driving down interest rates at that point have pumped up the housing
bubble even more back then?

Ultimately there's only so much you can do with interest rates.

~~~
jussij
I think it is all in the timing.

Consider this chart of the AUD to the USD over that time:

[http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=AUD&to=USD&view=10Y](http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=AUD&to=USD&view=10Y)

From the RBA interest rate chart linked earlier you get these maximum yearly
numbers over the last decade:

    
    
        Year    Rate    AUD
        2008    7.25    0.69
        2009    3.00    0.91
        2010    4.75    0.98
        2011    4.75    1.10
        2012    4.25    1.51
        2013    3.00    1.50
        2014    2.50    0.94
        2017    1.50    0.80
    

As the numbers show, before the GFC and even after the GFC through to 2014
(some 7 years) the RBA kept the rates very high.

Thanks to those high rates the carry trade kept the AUD high, but those high
rates also put a dampener on the housing market.

Now during that time most of Australia was struggling, but two mining states
(WA, QLD) where doing extremely.

China had created a commodities bubble that saw iron ore prices well over the
$100 a tonne.

By 2014 the mining bubble had bursts, so much so that WA, the once booming
state was on it's way to recession.

Only then does the RBA then decides to move on rates.

However those 7 years of high AUD has really hurt the local export industry,
the tourist sector and the agricultural sector industry.

But even after 2014 the RBA is still slow to cut so the carry trade persists,
keeping the AUD stubbornly high.

However, with the rate now at 2.50% and going even lower in the years to come,
mortgages are now very cheap and only getting cheaper.

Say goodbye to the mining boom and welcome to the housing bubble.

Might point would be, if they had cut faster after the GFC they would have
kept alive the other non mining sectors and then, if they had seen a problem
developing in the housing market they could have raised rates to deal with the
issue.

Over that time they did the exact opposite.

~~~
dageshi
Looking from the outside I'll be honest you can't have everything. One of the
primary aims of a central bank is to control inflation which it looks like the
bank has done pretty well.

[https://www.rateinflation.com/inflation-rate/australia-
histo...](https://www.rateinflation.com/inflation-rate/australia-historical-
inflation-rate)

In hindsight it's easy to say what should be done but they really look like
they've done a pretty decent job. No economy grows forever and Australia has
had a very good run in recent history.

~~~
jussij
Those inflation figures you quote don't reflect what is actually happening in
Australia.

Like most of the developed world wage growth in Australia is flat and has been
flat for at least the last decade. So wages growth has not driving up
inflation.

However, each time a cyclone hits Queensland that drives up the price of
bananas and other fruits, which does drive up inflation.

Add to that the fact you can now buy Australian gas at a cheaper price in all
parts of the world other than Australia. Go figure?

Then consider the fact we closed our oil refineries so we could import our
gasoline from Singapore.

Strangely enough when the international price of oil goes up (or the AUD
dollar goes down), we instantly pay more for our gasoline.

However when the international price of oil drops (or the AUD dollar goes up)
the price of gasoline takes weeks to come down. Strange?

Add to that the current joke in Australia where most state governments have
privatised their electricity utilities only to see the price of electricity
increase by 20% in last quarter.

So yes we do have lots of inflationary pressure here in Australia, but most of
that pressure is created by the multi-nationals screwing us with our elected
governments providing the lubrication.

------
stephenr
This is hardly surprising when you know a little local history.

For reference: I grew up in Adelaide, about 15-20 minutes drive (15 km.. erm
9.3 miles for _you lot_ ) from the suburb where the Holden factory is located.

I remember as a student/early graduate (so, 2000 - 2003ish) having..
acquaintances who were in their early 20's, bringing home close to
$AUD100K/year, for assembling commodores. People who would laugh about how
funny it is to let a car leave the production line, with the wrong colour door
handle fitted.

Another "acquaintance" took forever to get a resolution because his 2-door ute
was delivered to him with a 20cm gap in the carpet on the passenger side. It
went through the factory, through QA, through a DEALER and nobody fucking
noticed a 20cm gap on the passenger side of the floor.

These were not high quality cars being built by well trained craftsmen. They
weren't even average quality cars built by moderately trained craftsmen. They
were pieces of shit slapped together by over paid idiots.

~~~
scriptman
The labour unions were unwilling to compromise to stay competitive with
international factories.

I was surprised when it was reported that Toyota wanted to reduce the
Christmas shutdown period from 21 days to 10 days in line with other
international factories and the union rejected this. This was in the context
of other car manufacturers shutting down in Australia at the time and they had
to know that this attitude was risking Toyota leaving as well, but they just
couldn't accept a reduction in any conditions.

[http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/toyotas-altona-plant-to-
st...](http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/toyotas-altona-plant-to-start-21day-
shutdown-amid-survival-fears-20131217-2zj05.html)

~~~
sgift
While I'm not sure that this is a great example for it there's always the
matter of deciding if any job is really better than no job - sure, you could
stay competitive with other places/countries by matching ever worse
conditions, but is that really a good idea? Is a job which doesn't pay someone
a living wage really a job that should exist?

~~~
scriptman
I think you've moved the goal posts a long way there.

A living wage as defined by the Harvester judgement, which seems to be what
you are referencing, was based on begin paid enough money to be able to afford
food, shelter and clothing for a family.

In the case I'm referencing the dispute is over whether the workers should
have their standard break for Christmas reduced from 21 days to 10 days. I
can't think of any other companies within Australia that offer such a generous
Christmas break, but maybe there are some; i think it would be a very small
number. What they were being asked to give up seemed very generous and the
replacement of 10 days instead doesn't seem onerous - it still seems generous
compared to many companies.

You'd have to ask the workers that lost their jobs if they are now better off
having lost their jobs rather than stay competitive with other places by
bringing their conditions in line with what is typical even within the country
they live in.

~~~
johnvonneumann
I don't believe he moved the goalposts at all, he made a valid point. The
argument that you have made about staying "competitive" IMO is a classic
example of bandwagon fallacy. Just because other countries allow companies to
treat their workers like shit does not make it ok for our country to start
doing it.

I also disagree with the way you phrased your point, on one hand, you mention
that the unions would not budge on conditions, but then state that they should
have because "no other company that you know of" allows 21 days of holiday
over the Christmas. First of all drawing to the fact that the Union represents
workers, not companies, it makes sense why the companies have an interest in
shortening the holiday break of the workers. It is not in the interest of
workers however. To counter your point that their breaks should have been cut
in line with that of other countries, then we should keep in mind that some
Northern European countries are going further in terms of workers rights, in
the opposite direction, so all of us a sudden, your advice that we should
follow the lead of some countries leads us to question which way we go.

I would also like to highlight that the CFMEU (Construction) enforces a 17 day
shutdown over the Christmas break, so there are other's who do lengthy breaks.

I also struggle to understand your last point about bringing conditions in
line within the country they live in, Australia has Union representation
across most industries. If you wish to do business in Australia, then you
surely understand this, I would hazard a guess that given this, then good
conditions and decent pay is the typical situation. Why would anyone want to
degrade that?

Winning a race to the bottom is a zero sum game.

~~~
scriptman
But we're not talking about treating workers badly by any reasonable
definition. These are workers that were paid more than the average Australian
worker, they got far more Christmas holiday leave than the Australian worker.
They weren't living on the minimum wage.

They weren't forced to take a reduction in Christmas leave. They company asked
if they could, considering the local and international conditions in their
industry. The workers weren't forced, it was their decision and they said no,
presumably knowing that the consequence might be that this may be the straw
that shuts the factory down permanently.

If the company had made a draconian decision that cut workers pay
unreasonably, regardless of the current economic circumstances and pocketed
this money, I'd agree strongly with you. But, this isn't what happened. The
workers kept all of their conditions and the factory shut down.

There have to be some circumstances where you would see that it would be
reasonable for workers to give up some conditions in the industry they are
working in if it is under some economic pressure, either internally or
externally? They may only agree to give them up temporarily until conditions
improve, or make some other offer to help the company to increase output or
reduce costs.

The reality is that Australia is an open, market economy. Its companies have
to be competitive with the rest of the world in order for those companies to
survive.

You say that companies only have an interest in shortening holiday breaks. But
if this is the case, how did the holiday break end up as 21 days in the first
place? Companies have to compete for workers too - there must have been a time
when it was beneficial to the company to attract and retain workers with a
longer Christmas break. You point out that some European countries have more
workers rights, but this misses the point that the competitive pressure at the
time wasn't for workers - it was on total cost of production.

Nobody wants to degrade good conditions and decent pay for workers. However,
for many people that work in small business and haven't had a pay rise in
several years can only look on with bemusement when highly unionized
industries demand 4% pay rises plus extra Christmas holidays and then demand
tax payer money when their industries falls over.

It seems like every time a unionized industry is asked to make a small
concession that it's seen as a zero sum game, the thin end of the wedge, a
race to the bottom and the apocalypse. It's blown completely out of
proportion. Most industries go through ups and downs. The inflexible ones go
broke.

------
tallblondeguy
I studied abroad in Melbourne in 2008 and it's crazy to see this happen. I
guess I left a few months before the GM bailouts got started in the United
States and the whole recession kicked off after that.

It was really neat to see a uniquely Aussie car culture that felt really
vibrant. I loved that El Caminos and Rancheros, long gone in the US, were
alive and well as Holden and Ford Falcon Utes. It was neat that Toyota had its
own Camry-ish car, called the Aurion, made in Australia. It was neat that
Pontiac in the US was getting the Commodore, which was a great-looking car.
Even though it was still Ford, GM, and Toyota on some corporate level, they
had their own unique thing that I was able to discover while I was there.

~~~
danieltillett
Aurion is not quite a Camry-ish car - it is a bit more up market and more
importantly came with a much more powerful engine. The Aurion was probably the
best car ever made in Australia, although it was never a great success.

------
jpatokal
Aussie here: Good riddance. This country is at the end of Earth in terms of
supply chains and export markets, has a small local market and has extremely
high labor costs -- all in all, a terrible place to build the kind of
megafactory you need to stay competitive these days. The only reason they
managed to survive even this long is massive government subsidies, and I
applaud the fact that the government had the guts to finally pull the plug.

All that said, the transition away is going to have a high human cost,
particularly in Adelaide which just doesn't have a whole lot else going
economically. But my wife used to work for a Ford supplier in Melbourne, and
that city has managed to absorb Ford's shutdown a few years ago without too
much pain. (Nearby Geelong, though, had both the main factory and a steel
mill, and is having a harder time.)

~~~
vkou
So, without value-add industries, how will the economy of Australia function
long-term? As an exporter of raw commodities? That has not worked out well...
For pretty much every nation that's tried it.

~~~
dalbasal
Works ok in Norway.

~~~
vkou
How well is it working in Sub-Saharan Africa?

And, uh, Norway is diversifying its economy, instead of doubling-down on
resource extraction. It's not actively de-industrializing.

~~~
l33tbro
I'm guessing that OP is referring to the publicly owned $1trn oil fund that
the government has only recently dipped into. They're actually now claiming
they're going to minimise withdrawals due to an increase in revenue (1).

Wish my own government here in Australia had the brains and chutzpah to do
this a few years back. We've never been much cop when it comes to visionary
economics (apart from, arguably, rum being our first legal currency).

(1)
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-02/norway-s-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-02/norway-
s-withdrawals-from-sovereign-wealth-fund-now-falling-fast)

~~~
arkem
Maybe not on the same scale but there's the Australian Government Future
Fund[1] which is a sovereign wealth fund founded in 2006.

It's about 10% of the size of Norway's so not especially impressive but it
does exist.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Government_Future_F...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Government_Future_Fund)

------
tinbad
Interesting detail is that the, for American market created, Chevrolet SS was
basically a rebadged Holden Commodore built in Australia. Together with the
Dodge Charger, it was the "cheapest bang per buck" performance sedan with a
V8. Although the Charger still for sale, the Chevy SS died with the closure of
that plant making the 17' model year it's last.

~~~
sp332
I got really confused for a minute because I confused the Holden Commodore
with the Hudson Commodore!
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Commodore](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Commodore)

------
gaius
The Aussie economic model - export bulk raw materials to China, buy
manufactured products back - is a curious inversion of the old British Empire
economy. And it's one that is not even remotely viable over the long term.
Countries whose only source of wealth is raw materials get eaten alive by
manufacturing economies, then left to rot when the mines are exhausted. There
is a ton of historical precedent.

~~~
jpatokal
The sheer scale of Australia means that they're not about to get exhausted
anytime soon though. Only something on the order of 1% of the continent has
even been prospected yet.

~~~
drodgers
The best data I could find is here: [http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-
topics/minerals/mineral-reso...](http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-
topics/minerals/mineral-resources/iron-ore#heading-1)

That document lists 51GT of 'accessible economically demonstrated' iron ore,
with an production rate of 0.81GT per annum, and 86GT of inferred resources
(ie. yet-to-be-prospected).

So there's _at least_ half a century of ore left, even if production ramps-up
steadily. 1% prospected doesn't seem supportable though; it's more in the
range of 50% based on the ratio of the inferred to known figures above.

~~~
nikcub
Australia will always have whatever resource is in demand next. Three lithium
mines are coming online every year for the next few years starting this year.

Australia will become the largest natural gas exporter - it will overtake iron
ore in value in the next couple of years.

Then you have tourism, education and becoming the food bowl for China's
growing middle class

Everyone likes to complain about being resource-export dependent but it has
never been more than ~10% of GDP and is quiet an enviable position to be in

------
Jedd
Holden - better known as GMH or GM Holden - where the GM stands for General
Motors, a famous US-based company that bought Holden in the 1930's.

The other 'famously Australian' car manufacturer is Ford. Indeed.

The kinds of (Australian) people that find cars interesting tend to polarise
between these two manufacturers, adopting the beliefs that it's patriotic, and
that it can be economic to produce (in most cases components were _built_
overseas but _assembled_ within AU) cars in Australia. A country with
breathtakingly high labour costs, small population, and low population
density. Specifically a relatively small market, container shipping costs
flatten out across the country.

That the designs of allegedly Australian cars, even recently, have focused on
ICE sedans hasn't helped, though that presumably ties in with the nostalgia
aspect for potential consumers of those types of vehicles.

The Monthly published[1] an exquisitely written article middle of last year,
describing the history of the Australian car industry, and the self-sabotage
exhibited. It's a depressingly sober read.

[1]
[https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2016/may/1462024800/rich...](https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2016/may/1462024800/richard-
denniss/crunch-time)

------
billforsternz
I was reading a piece lamenting that Australia was leaving a club of only "8
other nations" where a car could go all the way from conception to mass
manufacture. I will track the source down precisely if anyone expresses
interest. So I started mentally listing the 8 countries: US, Japan, Germany,
South Korea, China, UK, France, Italy. But surely also Sweden? India? Brazil?
Spain? Eight seems low to me.

~~~
abrowne
\- Sweden: Volvo is Chinese-owned now and Saab is gone, I think, at least for
now.

\- Spain: Is there anything other than SEAT, which is part of VW?

\- Brazil: I think they assemble a lot of cars, but I don't think I've heard
of a local company, despite there being an Brazilian aircraft maker.

OTOH, Tata Motors Cars would make India count, right?

~~~
nikcub
Sweden is the smallest nation in the world still doing end-to-end car
manufacturing. Australia was the second smallest.

The difference is Sweden sells cars all over the world, and in Australia
despite decades of attempts and popular Top Gear segments they could never
convince anybody else to buy an Australian car

~~~
billforsternz
No, GM did successfully sell Holden Commodores in the US (as Chevrolets). And
Aussie cars have always been popular here in New Zealand.

------
rdlecler1
We asssule that protectionism is bad because the consumer has to pay a higher
price when those goods are not optimally produced. The irony is that less
local consumption = less local labor, reducing competition for labor and
pushing down pricing power. But the second aspect of this that doesn’t often
get talked about is quality. If making a 65” TV in the US is going to cost
twice as much as when it’s made in China then I as the consumer will just by a
cheaper TV — probably spending the same amount of money I would have. We can
often buy cheaper substitutes with the same functional properties.

------
okreallywtf
Another great story from NYT in a similar vein that does a great job (I think)
of humanizing all of the people involved:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/14/us/union-jobs-mexico-
rexn...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/14/us/union-jobs-mexico-rexnord.html)

This is a tough issue for me because I consider myself a liberal, and in
_theory_ I am OK with globalization but it obviously has negatively impacted
many economies in similar ways.

I want to be pro-globalization but to me you really only have two (vastly
simplified) options:

1\. Be more isolationist or micromanage global trade to maintain your own
industries even though they can't compete globally. 2\. Find a way to make
globalization benefit everyone, not just the owners of companies who can cut
costs and increase profits. This most likely means some kind of universal
income and large education investment and vocational training built on top of
the profits of globalization.

We appear to be moving towards #1 and I'm afraid we'll all suffer as a result.

My biggest issue with globalization is that, while it makes sense in theory,
in practice most of the "efficiencies" come from dirt cheap labor due to
exchange rates, poor workers rights and working conditions, and lack of
environmental regulations (among others). Not because other countries have
developed _better_ ways to make things better or faster, they can just abuse
their workers in a way they can't here. You would think we would all benefit
in some ways even if we're just consumers by cheaper goods, but are they
really cheaper or cheap enough to offset the reduction in good jobs? Does
anyone know of some good data-sources for the prices of consumer goods vs
household income over time? My guess is our purchasing power has gone down in
general for the middle-class.

I can see honestly how this issue has given rise to nationalism in America, I
somehow hoped that people would see that isolationism is not the answer and we
instead need to rethink our economic model. Somehow Americans have been sold
(among many other things) that something like universal income is a handout.
I'm afraid we'll take the route that the UK is moving towards of being poorer
overall and reducing globalization out of spite without it actually benefiting
us.

I feel like as a liberal in America I live in a game of political jenga. Want
to stop abortions? We can only do it in a way that doesn't involve decent sex
ed or contraceptives (which leads to _personal responsibility_ ). Want to
prevent gun massacres? We can only do it in a way that doesn't restrict access
to guns at all and doesn't cost any money (which leads to more _personal
responsibility_ ). Want to help out those impacted by globalization or those
who have never been on sound economic footing? We can only do that in ways
that don't involve _wealth redistribution_ (which pretty much means _personal
responsibility_ of people to despite the fact that that already happens in
many ways (so we're left with more _personal responsibility_ and people like
Shannon are responsible for a late-in-life pivot to a new job with anemic
vocational assistance).

A lot of the people that have been hurt by globalization are the same people
that support the party in our system that has taken most of the solutions to
our problems totally of the table. We're in a straightjacket and could get out
any of 10 ways but those would involve tools, all of which are (claimed to be)
morally/philosophically unacceptable.

I know this was a rant but its been stewing since I read the first NYT article
and this one just compounds it.

~~~
avar
Don't take this the wrong way, but I think a more accurate description of your
politics might be something like "an economic nationalist" instead of a
liberal.

By any global metric you look at globalization is doing amazingly. "A U.N.
goal to halve the poverty rate in the developing world between 1990 and 2015
was nearly achieved twice over."[1].

The whole process of relaxing limitations on trade has been a huge boost for
developing countries who are currently on a runaway growth trajectory. E.g.
look at the GDP growth graphs for the developed v.s. developing world in
this[2] article.

Yes we could do better, but it's already great. Yes as some jobs move to
developing countries people in developed countries are temporarily displaced,
but there's no suggestion that we can't continually recover from that
situation.

After all our societies aren't overflowing with jobless ex-steelworkers, ex-
textile workers or any other industry you might want to name which has
predominantly moved abroad.

Instead we continue to lead the charge in economic development, but because of
globalization we're increasingly dragging the rest of the world with us.

1\. [https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2016/01/20/the-
globa...](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2016/01/20/the-global-
poverty-gap-is-falling-billionaires-could-help-close-it/)

2\. [https://oneinabillionblog.com/energy/energy-
policy/a-common-...](https://oneinabillionblog.com/energy/energy-
policy/a-common-fallacy-in-the-energy-and-climate-debate/)

~~~
okreallywtf
I might not have represented myself that well, I'm trying more to address the
people who are affected domestically. I'm not arguing against globalization at
all (with words or votes) but we're seeing an increasing gap between the haves
and have nots domestically and that divide is, I'm afraid, going to rip our
country apart (and others, since it seems to be happening everywhere to some
extent but the US has a weaker and weakening social safety net).

I don't see any way to micromanage the economy and to pull away from the world
and have it actually benefit us, I might not have made clear that I don't
consider that to be an actual option. I think its nuts that increasing taxes
on those who benefit massively from globalization is a total non-starter and
might lead us to disaster. In fact, we're about to potentially slash taxes on
those same people and cut services to the rest of the country, we're moving
totally backwards and the divide is just going to get larger.

So on the one hand, people losing their jobs is a shame but I wouldn't
reorient our entire economy just to make sure people can still have factory
jobs, but at the same time its up to us as a society whether or not simply
losing your job because of changes in the global marketplace is a life-
altering disaster or simply something we all deal with together.

------
dis-sys
Some facts not mentioned by the news article:

1\. Australian federal and state government spent billions to save the car
industry. AUD$2.7 billion tax payer's hard earned $ was spent between
2001-2013.

2\. Unions asked for huge pay rises every single year. For example, in 2011,
they forced car manufacturers to provide 18.3% pay rise in 3 years, that is 6%
a year non-stop for 3 years.

3\. Car makers were forced to continue to provide pay rises when they were
weighting the decision whether to shut down their production in Australia.

Take a look at the following The Australian article, you'd probably feel happy
that you don't have such unions screwing local economy in your country.

[http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/pay-
rises-a...](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/pay-rises-at-
stressed-holden/news-story/d3cb0cba03b227ef28ce35ac0bbcfae0)

Australian is an unique country, a ticket inspector makes $100k AUD a year
($80K USD) from his/her unskilled job. With such background in mind, it is not
hard to imagine how much you need to pay those workers to build cars.

------
jaimex2
Fun fact: The Chevy Bolt was designed at the Holden plant, kind of poetic that
they designed an EV as the industry here came to a close.

~~~
ClassyJacket
And it was never sold in Australia :(

------
bingobob
Holden (GM) killed themself by building cars no one wanted anymore as the
Australian iconic car has 6-cylinder engines and some maybe 8 cylinder.

Australian government couldn't subsidise cars that where losing sales year on
year to smaller cheaper to run cars.

GM just wanted the handouts to keep it running when that dry up they pull the
pin

John Cadogan is a bloke that called the end of the Australian Car
Manufacturing many years ago and has a great video on why it died here.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uFYW5tMoeg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uFYW5tMoeg)

------
duncan_bayne
Not all Australians. I'm glad my taxes won't be used to prop up yet another
company that's "too big to fail".

------
yitchelle
Just remember that at its height, Australia had at least 5 car manufacturer.
We had Nissan, Chrysler, Mitsubishi, Ford, Toyota and Ford. Now we have
nothing.

I was with a Tier 1 supplier in Australia before transferring to Germany, the
market place is so different. Looking back, it's a wonder that it actually
lasted this long.

------
Overtonwindow
I've always wanted a Holden Ute. Shame they couldn't find a way to keep it in
Australia.

~~~
dzhiurgis
> Ute

oh god why?

------
yuhong
What is fun is how if there is an oversupply of say lithium, the demand for
electric cars can restore demand. If the dollar collapses though for example,
it will take until car loans are restored before there are any demand.

------
georgeecollins
The Chevy SS is a great car for the price, but most people in the US would
mistake it for an Impala. In California I think the reputation of a car is
more important than the actual performance.

~~~
nradov
Which is logical, because traffic here is so bad that regardless of how
powerful your car is you can't drive any faster than the jerk hogging the road
in front of you. So why pay more for a Chevy SS?

~~~
cag_ii
Where is "here" for you? California is a big state, and outside some major
cities traffic is not the issue you make it out to be. CA also has world class
roads for enthusiasts.

~~~
vinay427
Along with mostly great weather that doesn't rust cars and regulations that
allow lane splitting for motorcycles.

------
aaron695
Interesting to see how much was expensive energy costs.

Australia has tonnes of gas but unlike USA has not transformed that to cheap
energy and the industries that come with it.

------
Ice_cream_suit
They were just seriously bad cars with a poor reputation and worse resale
value.

It got to the stage where when buying cars, people I knew would check the VINs
to ensure that they were not made in Australia.

Fords made in Australia were particularly bad. Toyotas made in Australia were
not up to the standards of the Japanese built Toyotas, but were far better
than the pieces of rubbish turned out by the Australian subsidaries of
American firms.

Driving one of the US branded cars, was like having a big sign saying " I am a
bogan _"

_ Australian slang for chav / redneck

------
dariusjs
A changing taste, competition from European cars and more disposable income is
what killed this off. They’re really fun cars I will miss them.

------
chadcmulligan
> said it was the workers over 50 that were particularly struggling to find
> new employment

I always think it should say - there are some workers who've been cruising for
30 or so years and picking up a pay packet without reskilling. They probably
won't be able to get a job without spending a bit of time learning some
marketable skills

------
verytrivial
Can we at least get a [paywall] tag on these posts?

Edit: Down votes. Really? I give up.

~~~
amyjess
Right click, 'Copy link address', ctrl-shift-N, ctrl-L, ctrl-V, enter.

Make sure to ctrl-W when you're done.

~~~
verytrivial
Thanks.

