Category: economy

Australia’s high cost quandary

Is property the answer to keeping Australia’s high cost economy afloat?

“Around the world our towncars are usually 30% more expensive than taxis, in Sydney it’s 20% as the cabs are pretty expensive,” said Travis Kalanick on launching the Sydney version of Uber’s hire care booking service.

It’s not just hire cars which are expensive in Sydney – the soaring cost of living in Australia is bourne out by Expatistan, a web site that crowdsources the cost of living in various cities.

Expatisan’s comparisons find Sydney up with Tokyo and London as the most expensive towns on earth.

That conclusion means Australian businesses, governments and policy makers have some important decisions ahead of them.

Cholesterol in the veins

High property prices have been the norm for two decades in Australia, the middle class welfare state that both political parties support gives tax and social security concessions to property owners while the banking system requires most business lending to be secured by property.

As a consequence, generations of Australians see property as the only path to financial success. If Bill Gates, or any of today’s entrepreneurial wizz-kids, had been born in Australia, they’d be encouraged to get a safe job and buy property than to take the risk of starting a new business.

The property obsession has another perverse effect in that it creates a short term outlook for Aussie business owners who have to consider getting,  and paying off, a mortgage quickly to secure their financial foundations.

A few weeks ago a business owner was profiled in the Sydney Morning Herald, which some call the Sydney Morning Property Spruiker, who paid 1.1 million Aussie dollars (a million US) for a property in Redfern – which is Sydney’s Bronx.

That poor guy not only has a fat mortgage to pay off, but he has to pass those costs onto his customers. Just to pay the bank is a fat chunk out of his business before he pays his staff, landlord and the various other expenses before he can take his profits.

Having to pay the bank for living costs is the main reason why Aussie businesses don’t invest in capital equipment, which in turn makes  them less competitive than overseas competitors.

One of the myths in Australian business is that competitiveness is solely due to labor costs, what the ideologues preaching this miss is that even if Aussie workers were paid a bowl of rice a day, Chinese and Mexican factories would still be more productive due to the investment in modern equipment.

For the sake the argument, we won’t even discuss German, Japanese or Swiss manufacturers who are still competitive despite Australian level cost structures.

This last point is what’s missed in much of the discussion about Australia’s economic future – apologists for Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens and the self congratulatory Canberra monoculture say that the high Aussie dollar is here to stay and mining will be driving the economy.

Should the mining sector stall, which currently seems to be the case, then housing development will pick up the slack according to the policy-makers’ groupthink.

That housing development is going to come at a high price, with Australian land and homes already among the world’s highest. Given Australia’s private sector debt is among the highest in the world already, it’s hard to see where the money will come from to fuel further property speculation.

Right now Australia has a serious problem in determining what the future will be for the country.

If the future is a high cost economy underpinned by massive property property prices, then the future has to lie in high value added sectors.

The question is ‘what sectors’? Australian business, governments and society in general seem to think that property speculation is the future.

Property speculation turned out not to be the future for Spain and it looks like China’s speculative boom is meeting its obvious end.

Australians are going to have to hope that it really is different down under and that young people and immigrants are prepared to spend huge amounts of money to keep the economy afloat.

If the policy makers are wrong, then the worry is that there is no Plan B.

Similar posts:

Stumbing into recession

An obsession with surpluses and satisfying the ratings agencies is going to have harsh consequences for Australians

The Committee for Economic Development Australia (CEDA) today released its 2012 Big Issues survey looking at the responses of 7000 business people on the issues confronting Australian industry in 2012.

One of the notable results is that business people don’t care about government surpluses. A third are neutral on the question “do you believe maintaining a government surplus is important” while 35% disagree that it is a high priority.

Q10

Yet despite the electorate and business saying the deficit is not a priority, the politicians still obsess about maintaining their surplus.

Now Australia’s mining boom has come to an end – along with the blue sky economic assumptions that underlie both sides of politics’ spending plans – governments are desperately trying to fudge the books and continue the pretense that their budgets are in the black.

Driving this obsession with avoiding deficits is the religious belief among Australia’s political classes that Triple – A credit ratings from the discredited Wall Street ratings agencies is more important than educating the nation’s children, caring for the country’s sick or building the infrastructure to compete in the 21st Century.

The real danger with this deficit obsession is that there is a very high possibility that state and Federal governments are going to tip Australia into a recession driven by European style austerity. Already we see this developing as various states start slipping backwards according to the ABS’ latest accounts.

graph courtesy of Macrobusiness

Another interesting result from the CEDA report is how business’ view the Australia in the Asian Century report with nearly 80% of respondents saying the issue is important or critical.

It is questionable whether Australian business is prepared to face the realities of an Asian Century as David Llewellyn-Smith writes at the Macro Business Blog, Australia’s businesses are looking more at getting help from the government to cut domestic costs rather than sell into Asia. That inward focus of Australian business since the mid-1990s is the topic for another blog post.

The sad thing is that the government aspects of Asian Century report is stillborn as surplus obsessed politicians carve into skills training and innovation programs in a vain attempt to balance the books while failing to reform the tax system or address the middle class welfare that’s squandered most of the returns from the last decade of prosperity.

Australia’s politicians are very soon going to have to decide who they govern on behalf of, the corrupt and incomptent ratings agencies or the people who vote for them and pay the taxes which support them and their political parties. For some, this might be a tough choice.

Similar posts:

How the film industry cons governments

Do government incentives really build a sustainable movie industry?

“I would never make a movie where I didn’t get an incentive and I don’t ever intend to” states Michael Benaroya, producer of the movie Margin Call, in a New York Times story on movie studio subsidies.

While we focus on the cost of subsidies to motor manufacturing, one sector that beats all others for playing governments for suckers is the global film industry.

“Incentives” are a huge factor in determining where studios will film their latest blockbuster, Australia’s learning this the hard way as rent seekers looking for fat subsidies parade Hollywood stars in an effort to convince publicity hungry ministers that giving fat payments to the major production houses is good for jobs.

The problem with this is that these susbidies aren’t that great for employment – Accompanying the New York Times’ video is a story on how Michigan’s dream of building a film industry has foundered.

“Film is one of the few industries that’s really well subsidised and that’s a really attractive thing” Michael Benaroya says in the video.

Before Michael even made the movie, he sold the rights to the New York production subsidies to investors. Who says financial engineering is the purview of Wall Street?

The question for governments, taxpayers and those who want to build a sustainable movie industry in their city, state or country is do you want to attract “entrepreneurs” like Michael Benaroya who are shopping around the world for the best deal.

New York might be the flavour today, but tomorrow it might be Sydney, Toronto or Prague. If the incentives aren’t fat enough then the movie productions may not come back for decades.

In the meantime the crews, production assistants and catering companies who make up most of the employment on a major production move onto other jobs so the skills and industry infrastructure is lost.

The biggest challenge is for governments, it’s estimated that New York state gives away over $400 million in subsidies and it’s difficult to see how that sort of expenditure can be justified as politicians face cuts to basic spending in today’s austere times.

For the taxpayers, we need to be demanding fair value and real long term plans behind the subsidies doled out to the film, motor manufacturing and other industries.

During the good times it was easy for opportunist politicians to dole out money to rent seekers for a media opportunity or to boost votes in a key electorate, but today that spending has to be strategic with real value and outcomes.

As Michael Benroya shows, when an entire industry is based around government subsidies and incentives the leaders are those who know how to manage the bureaucracy and fill in the forms properly. Is that what we want our industries to become?

If the answer is ‘yes’, then the next question is ‘can we afford it?’

Similar posts:

Is Australia missing the Indonesian opportunity?

Mary Meeker’s state of the internet report emphasises the opportunities in South East Asian markets.

Mary Meeker’s annual State of the Internet Report looks at the trends driving the online economy. One area that should be of concern is that Australian entrepreneurs are overlooking one of the world’s biggest growth markets that is sitting right on the nation’s doorstep.

Early in Mary’s overview, on slides 5 and 7, she shows the growth of various markets. Indonesia is the second biggest growth market for internet users – 58% year on year to 55 million – and eighth in the world for smartphone growth with a 36% increase last year taking total users to 27 million.

Given the penetration of both smartphones and the internet are low with only one quarter of Indonesians connected to the internet and less than one mobile phone in ten currently being a smartphone, there is massive potential for the savvy entrepreneur.

While there’s a steady stream of stream of Australian app developers and entrepreneurs heading to Silicon Valley, London and a few to Singapore there’s very few looking to their biggest neighbour.

This ignoring of Indonesia is one of the many omissions in the Australia in the Asian Century report; despite being one of Australia’s closest neighbours with the world’s fourth largest population and an economy growing at over 6% per year, both businesses and governments tend to overlook the nation.

For Australia, the tragedy is that Indonesia has a lot offer businesses that do more than just dig up coal and iron ore.

Perhaps now the mining boom is over, entrepreneurs and governments might start to take markets like Indonesia, and other South East Asian countries more seriously. It’s an omission that’s currently costing the country dearly.

Similar posts:

Bringing manufacturing home

How GE is reviving its American manufacturing operations

In the 1980s General Electric, like most US companies, sent most of its appliance manufacturing offshore.

Now its coming home.

The Atlantic Magazine looks at how General Electric is resuscitating manufacturing at Kentucky’s Appliance Park as management finds US workers are more skilled and productive than their equivalents in Mexico or China.

An important part of the article is how critcal supply chains are; manufacturing hubs rely upon having a community of skilled service providers and suppliers around the factories while being close to customers improves and simplifies logistics.

In the latter case, it now take hours or days to deliver products to customers’ stores or warehouses rather than the five weeks it takes from China.

The cost of those goods is lower too, the Kansas made GeoSpring heater sells for $1299 while the Chinese product sells for $1599.

What is most notable though is how designers and managers now have a better understanding of the manufacturing process; where under the oustourced model the difficulties in assembly were none of their business, now they are far more deeper and directly involved.

This really goes to the core of what an organisation does – in the 1980s it was fashionable to talk of the “virtual corportation” where everything the business did was outsourced except for the managers who were employed solely to pocket their bonuses.

In the 1990s and early 2000s that “virtual corporation” became a reality as manufacturing and customer support were offshored and logistics was outsourced.

One of the best examples was customer support where looking after the needs of those who buy the company’s products were secondary to the need to cut costs.

This focus on cost cutting over customer service hurt Dell badly in the 2000s and it continues to hurt many organisations – particularly telcos and banks – today.

The weakness in the “virtual corporation” model was the company ended up adding little more value than the brand name and eventually those offshored manufacturers and call centres took control of the business’ goodwill and intellectual property.

Eventually the hidden costs of offshoring became too obvious for even the most craven, KPI driven manager to ignore and suddenly manufacturing in the Western world became competitive again.

Sadly, the fixation on dirt cheap labour has damaged many industries beyond the point where they can be salvaged with too many skilled workers lost and the ecosystem of capable suppliers destroyed. These are costs where tomorrow’s managers will rue the short sighted actions of yesterday’s corporate leaders.

Similar posts:

Disrupting the disrupters

Silicon Valley’s investment models are changing as attention moves from the consumer to the enterprise.

Two days ago, iconic venture capital investor Fred Wilson, wrote about the changing nature of the tech industry’s VC investments.

Fred puts the changes down to three factors; maturing markets where big players increasingly dominate, the move to mobile which Cristina Cordova examines in more detail and the shift in focus from the consumer market to the enterprise sector.

The last factor bears more examination as consumer and enterprise are very different and there’s no guarantee that businesses built around thousands of people downloading apps or accessing websites can pivot into selling into corporations and government agencies.

Probably the biggest problem is the consumer or small business freemium model doesn’t cut it in the enterprises who are prepared to pay big sums for highly reliable and secure services.

Similarly the enterprise model of fat sales commissions paid for by big implementation costs and expensive support contracts doesn’t quite fly either for these start up business. There’s also a good argument that high margin enterprise model is doomed anyway as cloud services displace costly in-house installations.

In the transition from consumer to enterprise is difficult and most companies have struggled to make the jump, even Google Docs has been a hard sell into the corporate sector.

At the enterprise end, cloud services are cutting margins as IBM and Oracle are finding. Both companies are moving across to cloud products and now a lot of salespeople and consultants in those organisations are looking at a substantial drop in their standards of living.

More importantly for the startup and VC communities, the “greater fool” model doesn’t work in the enterprise space. Hyping a business which has barely made a cent in revenue but does have a million users is very different to building a stable corporate platform.

It may well be the move to the enterprise by Silicon Valley is because the consumer model has run out of “greater fools” who’ll buy overhyped photo sharing apps or social media platforms of dubious value.

This change in investment behaviour also has lessons for governments trying to copy Silicon Valley. The puck moves fast in the investment community while governments, by definition, are slow.

By the time governments have setup their programs, the markets have moved on and many of the hot technologies of two years prior are now old hat. This is exactly what we’re seeing in the apps world.

We often hear about technology causing disruption, often though we forget that those disruptive technologies can be ephemeral as they are disrupted themselves.

As these industries evolve, we’ll see how well the disrupters deal with being disrupted.

Similar posts:

Newly normal in the English Midlands

The new normal will be different to the old normal – is the English Midlands a vision of the future?

On their metal, a story from BBC Radio’s In Business program looked at how the English Midlands is dealing with the toughest economic conditions the beleaguered region has suffered for decades.

Once the centre of the industrial revolution, The Midlands have had a tough time of the last fifty years as the region caught the brunt of Britain’s de-industrialisation and the loss of thousands of engineering jobs.

Today, the surviving engineering companies are struggling to find new markets as orders from Europe dry up and many Midlands workers find they are confronting the ‘New Normal’.

The ‘New Normal’ for British industry is described by Mark Smith, Regional Chairman, Price Waterhouse Coopers Birmingham who points out that UK industries have to sell to the fast growing economies.

Interestingly this is similar, but very different in practice, to the Australian belief – where the Asian Century report sees Australia continuing being a price-taking quarry for Asia rather than selling much of real value – the Brits see some virtue in adding value to what they sell to Asia’s growing economies.

The British experience though shows the realities of the ‘New Normal’ for Western economies – the cafe owner featured in story now offers no dish over £3 and the idea of overpriced five quid tapas are long gone. The customers can’t afford it.

Part of this is because of the casualisation of the workforce as people find salaried jobs are no longer available and become freelancers or self-employed. One could argue this is the prime reason why unemployment hasn’t soared in the UK and US since the global financial crisis.

That ‘new normal’ features the precariat – the modern army of informal white and blue collar workers who have more in common with their grandparents who worked for day wages at the docks and factories in the 1930s than their parents who had safe, stable jobs through the 1950s and 60s.

For the precariat, the idea of sick leave, paid holidays or a stable career started to vanish after the 1970s oil shock and accelerated in the 1990s. The new normal is the old normal for them, there just happens to be more of them after the 2008 crash.

With a workforce increasingly working for casual wages without security of income, the 1980s consumerist business model built around ever increasing consumption starts to look damaged.

The same too applies to the banking industry which grew fat on providing the credit that unpinned the late 20th Century consumer binge.

When the 2008 financial crisis signalled the end of the 20th Century credit binge, the banks were caught out. Which is why governments had to step in to help the financial system rebuild its reserves.

The effects of that reserve building also affected businesses as bank credit dried up. Early in the BBC program Stuart Fell, the Chairman of Birmingham’s Metal Assemblies Ltd described how his bank decided to cut his line of credit from £800,000 to £300,000 which forced the management to find half a million pounds in a hurry.

That experience has been repeated across the world as banks have used their government support and easy money policies to recapitalise their damaged accounts rather than lend money to entrepreneurial customers to build businesses.

Businesses are now looking at other sources to find capital from organisations like the Black Country Reinvestment Society which is profiled in the story that raises money from local investors to provide small businesses with working capital.

Communities helping themselves and each other is the real ‘New Normal’ – waiting for the banks to lend money or hoping that surplus obsessed governments will save businesses or provide adequate safety will only end in disappointment as the real austerity of our era starts to be felt.

The New Normal is declining income for most people in the Western world and we need to think of how we can help our neighbours as most of us can be sure we’re going to need their help.

Just as the English Midlands lead the world into the industrial revolution, it may be that the region is giving us a view of what much of the Western world will be like for the next fifty years.

Similar posts: