Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
It is not what she said. You are perpetuating the error, undoubtedly for your own narrow political purposes.
Exactly.
if that is an accurate quote of a BBC World Newsreader, then BBC World is failing to report accurately. They have deliberately misconstrued what she said.
It is not what she said. You are perpetuating the error, undoubtedly for your own narrow political purposes.Where is your problem, Bellenuit? That's what she said
Exactly.Except it is not what she said. I am referring to the fact that the quote above used the words "Gina Rinehart said". If they are quoting her, then they don't need to summarise. They should use the exact words she said.
Guess how the others started
Stephen Koukoulas@TheKouk
In 2012, Australia's GDP will be about $360 billion larger than in 2007. Just an observation of 5 great years for the economy, including GFC
Wil Anderson@Wil_Anderson
Gina Rinehart is right. I don't think most average Australians are really trying hard enough to be born the daughter of a billionaire...
I'm sure the question must be rhetorical. I can't believe you don't understand that Australian miners are competing for customers with miners in e.g. Africa where their costs are much lower so quite obviously they can offer the final product at a cheaper price. This is Ms Rinehart's point, fergawdsake!What relevance has Africans working for $2 a day got to do with Australia?
Stephen Koukoulas@TheKouk
In 2012, Australia's GDP will be about $360 billion larger than in 2007. Just an observation of 5 great years for the economy, including GFC
moXJO, great graph, poss to know the names of all the countries on that ?
I'm sure the question must be rhetorical. I can't believe you don't understand that Australian miners are competing for customers with miners in e.g. Africa where their costs are much lower so quite obviously they can offer the final product at a cheaper price. This is Ms Rinehart's point, fergawdsake!
Macquack, I don't believe you are actually as stupid as you are suggesting here.You are missing the point Julia, Gina Rinehart's mines are in Australia, NOT AFRICA.
If Gina Rinehart wants to pay workers at her mines $2 a day, then she had better move her iron ore deposits to Africa.
Macquack, I don't believe you are actually as stupid as you are suggesting here.
It is a question of international competitiveness when competing for international customers.
Ahem .....
Joules, you'll find the original, together with a great deal of other useful information, here: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...ary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook43p/nationaldebt
I can see it's time for English 101: quote marks are used when you report a person's exact words. When you are summarising or using your own words to report the person's view, you do not use quote matks. There is no point in bleating about a "misquote" when the article in question does not in fact contain any quote at. Not only no point, no sense.
^ Bahhh - what did you expect? The whole world reported Rinehart's gaffe in much the same sort of language as was quoted above. It was a great story, just the sort of thing newspapers have always loved since the days when they were printed on stone tablets, and quite rare in its way - most ruthless, greedy billionaires keep a low profile and have smart PR people who advise them to make any public statements as inoffensive as possible. An own-goal as prominent as this one is always going to get a lot of air time. Honestly, as a news editor, how could you resist it?
+1. Let's hope Tannin doesn't aspire to a position of media editorship.Not quite.
When you use quotes, you must quote the exact words used. When you use So and So said, but don't put what was said in quotes because it is too long or doesn't need to be quoted, then you must summarise or convey in a manner that reflects accurately what So and So actually said. Rinehart was drawing attention to the competitive situation in Africa (and the Gulf of Mexico), indicating what Australia must compete against. She did not say that Australian workers ought to be paid the same as African workers. BBC World tried to convey that that is what she said, by misleadingly implying she used words to the effect that "Australia should look to Africa, where they pay people on average $2 a day". "Look to" in the context they used implies "follow as an example", and that meaning in particular is emphasised when they prefixed it with (in relation to Gina Rinehart) "who's said to earn around $2 million an hour".
Personally I do not hold Gina Rinehart in much regard. But I do expect my news sources to act professionally and report facts, not what might make good newsbytes.
She wont hire a PR person because she wont be told what to do.
Is it a bad thing that we can see the person without the spin
Mining is a capital-intensive industry. As a determinant of production costs, wages are a fairly minor factor for most mining operations. The key factors are quality of the resource (Australia good, Africa good), political stability and safety (Australia excellent, Africa poor to very poor), soverign risk (Australia nil, Africa substantial), availability of skilled labour (Australia excellent, Africa poor), transport infrastructure (Australia good, Africa variable). Taxes and wage levels come after all those other factors. Wage levels in particular are a minor factor - In Australia, although mining accounts for 30% of corporate profits, it accounts for a piddly 3% of employment. Yep: 3%. Even on sky-high mining wages, 3% isn't going to hurt much.
How big is the mining industry?
One of the easiest and most relevant ways to look at the size of an industry is by employment. The Mining industry in WA employed 68,800 people in 2009/10. Another 15,000 or so were employed in the manufacturing of base metals, coal and petroleum – ie. refineries. Together, this represents just 7.2% of all Western Australia’s employment (5.9% for mining, and 1.3% for mining-associated manufacturing). This doesn’t seem like a lot, for it to be considered the powerhouse of the economy. Look at the change over time though, and you see that mining employment has increased by 144% in just 10 years (since 2000), at a time when total employment in WA increased by 34%. So it certainly has been booming.
Looking at Full-Time Equivalent employment boosts mining quite a bit – up to 7.3% of total employment and another 2.0% for mining-associated manufacturing – they work longer hours in these industries. Still, this means that over 90% of all hours worked in the West are NOT in the mining industry.
What does mining contribute to the economy?
The other key method of looking at the size of an industry is its “value-add” – ie. what is the output of the industry worth to the economy when you remove the costs of its inputs. When you look at this, it shows how mining gets its reputation as the powerhouse of the economy.
In value-added terms, the mining industry is worth a whopping $56.9 billion in 2009/10, or 34.2% of WA’s total value-add. Mining-associated manufacturing makes up another $2.3 billion or 1.2%.
This disparity between employment and value-add is the highest of any industry. The chart below shows this very clearly. Retail trade employs more workers (even on an FTE basis) in WA than mining, but has a value-add only about one-tenth as as large.
ECONOMY
• The mining and petroleum industry is vital to the continued development and sustainability of Western Australia’s economy. In 2008, the mining and petroleum industry was worth $71.8 billion to the State. The industry accounts for 89 per cent of WA’s income from Merchandise Exports.
In 2007/2008 it contributed 29 per cent of Western Australian Gross State Product (GSP).
• In 2008 the State Government also received $2.9 billion in Royalties, which are collected from the mining companies in exchange for use of the State’s resources.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?