Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralTraveller
Well, someone is going to mention the budget, then some troll will flame the thread and then the mods will have to shut it down. But before that happens perhaps us scientific type might be interested in the response of the Australian Academy of Sciences response to the budget (attached).
One nasty little surprise is the introduction of tuition fees for post-grads. These people have typically worked bl**dy hard for 4+ years on not-enough money and the financial strain is already showing when they start. Presenting them with a 'get a job or get more debt' option is not really bright when you remember that they are the engine room of Australia's research. The people in the labs with the gloves on are mostly (at least in the university sector) PhD candidates along with a few post-docs and only very few academics. While it's true that the students hope to get a good job when qualified, and so some would say they should be charged, if you were to pay wages for the work they do the cost would be at least 4 times greater. Hopefully it will be 'only' an increase in their HECS debt and not 'up front'. Never-the less it sends a poor message about the countries priorities. It also makes it harder for students from lower socio-economic backgrounds to rise to the top and so contributes to the stratification of society.
Cheers, and let's keep it civil.
|
Yes, I can see that measure being very rough on PhD types, particularly those in obscure fields, where jobs don't open up very often (I'm thinking of the son of my wife's friend whose doctorate was in the field of study involving dinosaurs - took him quite a while to get a good job in his field).
However, I think they are unintended victims. I can think of several people I know who would have had a better life, had someone forced them into the workforce rather than letting them wallow away on the dole.
It will be interesting to see what the situation will be in 2040 and 2050. On the one hand, the poor sods will have to work till 70. On the other hand, heaps of baby boomers will be dying off and there will be a massive transfer of wealth to the next generation. By 2060, pretty much all the boomers will be dead - probably leaving the living as the richest people on the planet by a long shot, given that on a median basis, according to last year's Credit Swisse Wealth Report, Australians are currently the wealthiest people on the planet.
Personally, I don't think Mr. Hockey cut as hard as he could have. I just remember that back in 1999, when the Eurozone was formed, there weren't that many basket cases in Europe. But in a mere 10 years of over borrowing, many did themselves in. For six years we've been on that path, though we started from a much better starting point. And the slogans put out by his opponents - that current debt is only 12% of GDP, and so we are much better off than other countries - is misleading. Because most other countries don't have our federal system, we'd have to add the States' debts to the Federal debt to make a valid comparison. And that nearly doubles the debt percentage. We're still better off than most other countries, but not by the very comfortable margin that the 12% figure implies.
Regards,
Renato