'Australian disease' has entered its terminal phase

[Road_Warrior]

An interesting opinion peice on where we are headed now with car manufacturing being shown the exit.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-1...-phase/5251418

Australia consciously chose economic goals that left manufacturers in the cold, and with auto makers exiting and the mining boom ending, the chickens are coming home to roost, writes David Llewellyn-Smith.

It's official: Australia's car assembly industry is dead, with Toyota last night announcing that it will cease local operations in 2017, citing high costs, the elevated Australian dollar, and increasing competition from free trade agreements.

With the announced closure there will be 2,500 job losses from Toyota's assembly plant, which comes alongside the 1,200 job losses at Ford and 2,900 job losses at Holden by 2017. Total job losses across the economy will be much greater, however, with tens of thousands of job losses likely across component makers, let alone those indirectly reliant on the industry. Some estimate as many as 200,000 jobs are now in jeopardy.

There are three questions to answer today. Why has this happened? Does it matter? What does it mean for the future?

On the first, there is no need to look beyond the obvious of what all three manufacturers have told us: they can't compete from Australia. Business is about efficiency and it's cheaper and more profitable to make cars elsewhere and ship them to Australia. It's wages. It's the currency. It's many other input costs including, I'm sure, land costs.

Why is it so expensive to manufacture here? It's not because of some natural order of things. Nor is it because of the rise of cheaper emerging markets. It's a choice we've made for a dozen years and more to prioritise certain forms of growth. Across the millennium we chose to invest heavily in houses and consumption, we chose a tax regime that supported it, and established a higher inflation target band for the Reserve Bank than other countries. The result was predictable in a debt borrowing surge, consumption led growth via wealth effects, and high wages growth in non-tradable sectors.

For a while we were protected by a low currency as the world fixated on other things. But when luck turned our way, and the commodities boom arrived as our consumption boom departed in 2003, the inflationist path we had chosen began to bite with a higher currency. Our real effective exchange rate (REER), that which summarises all of a country's costs versus others, began to climb.

Competitiveness in all tradable goods sectors began to feel the pinch. But until 2008, our existing settings of inflating asset prices and consumption were boosted by our next choice, which was to recycle the benefit of the commodities boom into the local economy for immediate gratification. Rather than correct, we boomed!

Then came the global financial crisis, which pulled down all other Western economies with similar business models to our own, as the debt which underpinned growth became too expensive to service. Our luck held, however, and the commodities boom returned in an even bigger form, driven by emerging countries like China which stimulated building in their own desperate attempt to ward off the GFC.

All but one institution again chose to devour the raw proceeds of the boom. Any attempt to save some of the commodity revenues for the future or to slow it down were smashed by a self-satisfied political economy. The one exception was the Reserve Bank which chose to inflate our already high interest rate structure and currency to prevent inflation getting completely out of hand.

The result was a second leg up in the REER. And now any tradable business not bolted down by extreme competitive advantage was swept offshore, including car manufacturing, as well as an increasing number of other famous Australian manufacturing brands. So much for where we came from. Does it matter?

There are prior examples of similar episodes in other countries. The most infamous being The Netherlands and what is described as "Dutch Disease".

In the 1970s, The Netherlands enjoyed a North Sea gas boom. But the resulting macroeconomic impact of a rising real exchange rate meant that it also suffered a material decline in manufacturing output. At the time, The Economist magazine described this phenomenon as Dutch disease. It has since been described in various forms as the "resource curse" or in Australia as the "Gregory effect" after economist Bob Gregory.

What I call Australian disease has two key differences to the Dutch experience. The first is that even during its episode of tradable pressures, Dutch manufacturing never fell below 20 per cent of GDP in output terms and when the boom ended manufacturing output rose to new highs.

In Australia's case, manufacturing output is already down to 7 per cent of GDP, the lowest in the OECD and equal with Luxembourg. With cars gone that will shrink towards 5 per cent very quickly. So when one asks if it matters that we won't be making cars any longer, it's not an easy question to answer because no developed economy has ever tried to thrive without an industrial base. In relative terms, that's where we're headed. The falls in the total number of people employed in manufacturing and the sector's employment share are going to accelerate, and manufacturing capital expenditures (capex) will go the same way.

That brings us to the future and the second difference to the Dutch experience. Our commodities boom is thought to be more permanent. The gas, coal and iron ore deposits that underpin it have longer duration reserves and it is likely that global population pressures will keep commodity prices higher than before the rise of China. This is the deliberate gamble taken by Australian authorities in their management of this process. They reckon we'll be all right on the mining truck's back.

They may be right long term, but not the in the short and medium terms. One immediate impact of the closure of car manufacturing is that it is colliding with the end of the commodities boom. Australian business investment is headed off a historic cliff for the next three years as the boom winds down. The labour market will be under pressure for much of that period despite the steady rise in exports as projects move from construction to production because they need MANY fewer people to operate the plants than it took to build them.

Another hit to business investment and the labour market is the last thing the economy needs in the next three years, and Ford has already said if sales don't improve it will be leaving earlier than planned, meaning all three may follow in the heat of the worst of the mining capex cliff. That is an unhappy prospect.

Longer term, Australian authorities may be right but it's a punt without historic precedent and comes with a number of risks:

the huge supply response in commodities that Australia is a part of may be more effective than we bargain for. It always has been in the history of capitalism. Alternatively, demand for our commodities may be lower than we bargain on. China is already slowing more than Australian authorities reckoned and there are very strong arguments that it will have to slow much further and become far less resource intensive to become sustainable. If either of these are true then that will mean commodity prices fall much further than we hope, exposing our lack of alternatives for export growth;
second, manufacturing is the key sector that generates productivity gains in an economy. Without it, an economy may face peak productivity and that means decline;
third, a total reliance upon commodity exports, especially those that come from a very limited number of multi-national firms, risks unbalancing the political economy of the nation in favour of those firms. That is, it can undermine democracy and the economy as rent-seeking supersedes the commons. It also means you are implicitly eating you nation's future for those come after;
fourth, and more speculatively, if the world turns nasty, as it does occasionally, you are left without the people or intellectual property to defend yourself militarily.

These four are the symptoms of Australian disease. An economy struggling to grow at potential and unable to increase its efficiency. A political economy where miners rule the roost at the expense of every one else and future generations are ignored. An overly dependent ally that can't carry its own weight strategically.

Can anyone really say with a straight face that they see none of these symptoms in Australia's shaken frame?

This piece was originally published at MacroBusiness.

David Llewellyn-Smith writes as House and Holes at MacroBusiness, where he is editor-in-chief and publisher. View his full profile here.

I think this paragraph sums it up well:

In Australia's case, manufacturing output is already down to 7 per cent of GDP, the lowest in the OECD and equal with Luxembourg. With cars gone that will shrink towards 5 per cent very quickly. So when one asks if it matters that we won't be making cars any longer, it's not an easy question to answer because no developed economy has ever tried to thrive without an industrial base. In relative terms, that's where we're headed. The falls in the total number of people employed in manufacturing and the sector's employment share are going to accelerate, and manufacturing capital expenditures (capex) will go the same way.

[EDManual]

Its a disaster.

As far as I see, near everyone has a nothing job.

If you service anything apart from something that can be exported you are a cost to the country. Including myself...

If you are a building houses or buildings, if you work in health or are a cop, etc etc, they are nothing jobs that just service ourselves. It annoys me when Abbott says coles is going to ad 3500 jobs in Victoria, they are again not real jobs, just servicing ourselves.

Cant believe whats happening. :-(

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by EDManual

Its a disaster.

As far as I see, near everyone has a nothing job.

If you service anything apart from something that can be exported you are a cost to the country. Including myself...

If you are a building houses or buildings, if you work in health or are a cop, etc etc, they are nothing jobs that just service ourselves. It annoys me when Abbott says coles is going to ad 3500 jobs in Victoria, they are again not real jobs, just servicing ourselves.

Cant believe whats happening. :-(

There is nothing wrong with servicing yourself (pardon the pun)
In a closed economy you export to your neighbor. Of course you need to manufacture things in a closed economy. You need to provide your own services and infrastructure and stuff. But it can work, but we are not a closed or inward looking economy. we are trying to exploit the big bad global economy and failing.
JP

[b0son]

Originally Posted by EDManual

If you service anything apart from something that can be exported you are a cost to the country.

Ford didn't export. Holden exported bugger all, and what little they did was at a loss. Toyota exported, but again, at a loss.

For all intents and purposes, our car industry was also a self-service industry. Exports need to bring money into the country, not send it out.

[tezxr8man]

Originally Posted by b0son

Ford didn't export. Holden exported bugger all, and what little they did was at a loss. Toyota exported, but again, at a loss.

For all intents and purposes, our car industry was also a self-service industry. Exports need to bring money into the country, not send it out.

I would rather look at servicing ourselves, including making products to service our country rather than just selling everyone elses stuff, there is no reason that the manufacturing industry should be on the death bead, but it will always need protection from the outside

[99AUXR]

They really did **** up.

[BroadyFord]

Rest assured that we won't be servicing ourselves exclusively, but rather ourselves and all the tourists who will come to marvel at our beaches and national parks!

I also don't buy this whole "lets replace our manufacturing with big transport infrastructure projects". What's the point of new freeways and tunnels when there is less traffic on the road as less people have jobs to get to?

[Adamz Ghia]

If the government wants out if manufacturing then that's fine. But they don't seem to have a Plan B. They've tossed out an entire industry but have nothing to replace it with. Apparently we're the food bowl of Asia but they're happy to let SPC fold. What's that being replaced with...?

I fully agree with their principal that companies should be able to fund themselves, but a the same time they need an environment that is sustainable and competitive on a global scale. We don't currently have that. The red and green tape we have in this country is a joke (our council considered requiring permits to play a radio in the workplace).

This is going to sound red neck, but I strongly believe we employ far too many people behind desks in this country with nothing better to do all day than to think up new crap to make life harder. If half of them were sacked the ones left might actually have to work a little harder and things would work a little more in our favour.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Adamz Ghia

They've tossed out an entire industry

They did no such thing. We gave Holden $275mil in 2012. Holden promised to stay for another decade. Barely 18mths later and they broke that promise, no doubt because VF sales didn't meet expectations.

If we truly wanted a local industry, we'd have bought the local product. Governments at all levels for a number of years (not just the current LNP) can be thanked for not insisting on locally-sourced fleets.

[Adamz Ghia]

Originally Posted by b0son

They did no such thing. We gave Holden $275mil in 2012. Holden promised to stay for another decade. Barely 18mths later and they broke that promise, no doubt because VF sales didn't meet expectations.

If we truly wanted a local industry, we'd have bought the local product. Governments at all levels for a number of years (not just the current LNP) can be thanked for not insisting on locally-sourced fleets.

You've missed my point. It's fine for the govt to say 'support yourself' but they need a replacement industry which they haven't got.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by BroadyFord

I also don't buy this whole "lets replace our manufacturing with big transport infrastructure projects". What's the point of new freeways and tunnels when there is less traffic on the road as less people have jobs to get to?

Transporting our resources and agricultural products to port.

There's a very good reason why so many foreign multinationals are buying into local agriculture. There's a buck to be made. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but soon. Populations are growing, available land is reducing, at some point we'll be in an excellent position to profit.

We poured $30bn into cars over the last decade, and for what? Imagine we had done the same for the agriculture sector.

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by b0son

Transporting our resources and agricultural products to port.

There's a very good reason why so many foreign multinationals are buying into local agriculture. There's a buck to be made. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but soon. Populations are growing, available land is reducing, at some point we'll be in an excellent position to profit.

We poured $30bn into cars over the last decade, and for what? Imagine we had done the same for the agriculture sector.

You seem to add a zero every time you quote a number, it was 2 billion over the last decade which generated 210 billion in economic activity. The Government spends roughly the same on advertising.

To put it further in perspective, the Government spent $17billion on the ABC over the same period of time.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Brazen

You seem to add a zero every time you quote a number, it was 2 billion over the last decade which generated 210 billion in economic activity. The Government spends roughly the same on advertising.

sorry, it was $30bn in the last 15 years, not 10.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/au...dustry-2013-12

[cheap]

Originally Posted by b0son

sorry, it was $30bn in the last 15 years, not 10.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/au...dustry-2013-12

Numbers are numbers, mostly based on bullshit analysis. The real question is where do we want Australia to be in 10, 20 and 50 years time. The Socialist notion of government taxing it's citizens so that an industry which would otherwise not be able to exist is what delivered the Ford/GMH/Toyota disaster.

So let's get back to basics, for industry we need an abundance of cheap reliable clean fresh water, ultra cheap electricity and transportation. We need government to invest in water, road and power infrastructure. We also need a fair and equitable tax system and minimise red/green tape. The unions also need to readjust and reset their expectations as fewer and fewer people belong to unions. We need less lawyers, a lot less accedemics/greenies/social conscience warriors and we need to withdraw from a raft of international treaties which do not assist Australia in the slightest. The services industry is a mirage, so called local skills have easily been shifted to Bangalore and Madras. We need to be building stuff just like China is. Just a few of the things needed...

[Dr Smith]

Originally Posted by b0son

Transporting our resources and agricultural products to port.

There's a very good reason why so many foreign multinationals are buying into local agriculture. There's a buck to be made. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but soon. Populations are growing, available land is reducing, at some point we'll be in an excellent position to profit.

We poured $30bn into cars over the last decade, and for what? Imagine we had done the same for the agriculture sector.

Sure it's perfectly reasonable to argue the level of support given to the car industry but the car manufacturers didn't just pocket it and send it back Overseas, they spent it locally and more importantly put in multiple amounts more themselves. Remember, what they were given had to always be matched by 2-3 times their own. The Aust. mining sector makes profits no-one else apart from our banks matches, so why do they need fuel subsidies?

[Bill M]

Originally Posted by b0son

Transporting our resources and agricultural products to port.

There's a very good reason why so many foreign multinationals are buying into local agriculture. There's a buck to be made. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but soon. Populations are growing, available land is reducing, at some point we'll be in an excellent position to profit.

We poured $30bn into cars over the last decade, and for what? Imagine we had done the same for the agriculture sector.

Ahh yes the commodities boom and bust cycle.
What an uplifting future to aspire to. Clearly you have no idea on the cross spread of skills both trade and tertiary based permeates through the non auto manufacturing sectors.

One must ask, why should I then have my tax dollars subsidise those on the land in their bad times? According to your grand plan I would be still paying to bail out foreign corporations who are investing in our farmland.

[ryeman]

Originally Posted by Bill M

Ahh yes the commodities boom and bust cycle.
What an uplifting future to aspire to. Clearly you have no idea on the cross spread of skills both trade and tertiary based permeates through the non auto manufacturing sectors.

One must ask, why should I then have my tax dollars subsidise those on the land in their bad times? According to your grand plan I would be still paying to bail out foreign corporations who are investing in our farmland.

Not to mention the defence force maintenance implications or the high tech R&D investment in manufacturing partnerships.
Fundamentalist ideologues are experimenting with this nation.

[ryeman]

Originally Posted by BroadyFord

Rest assured that we won't be servicing ourselves exclusively, but rather ourselves and all the tourists who will come to marvel at our beaches and national parks!

I also don't buy this whole "lets replace our manufacturing with big transport infrastructure projects". What's the point of new freeways and tunnels when there is less traffic on the road as less people have jobs to get to?

.........
I wonder how many politicians realise to what extent those foreign tourist come and spend a large potion of their money at 'their' foreign owned airline, hotel, tourist shops and travel companies often employing their own and then exporting the 'profit' back home.
So much for tourism.

[ryeman]

And
Yet another Sydney centric federal govt handing it out to the 'Mexicans' .

[Trump]

One thought that has been going through my head since the Toyota announcement has been about profit. Were they really losing money or were the books cooked to make it appear as though they were?

I have been involved with mediun sized companies that moved all production overseas with creative accounting. They were making consistent profits year in year out but someone in the managerial foodchain wanted more. So the beancounters began writing crap off, the net result of which is paper losses and enough fuel to pull the trigger on a local shutdown.

Have such dodgy moves contributed to the demise of Australian manufacturing, hell yes. Have they contributed to the Australia Disease, they sure have.

[TheSneakiness]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

One thought that has been going through my head since the Toyota announcement has been about profit. Were they really losing money or were the books cooked to make it appear as though they were?

The way I've been reading things Akio Toyoda thinks his Australian workforce is lazy and takes advantage of all conidtions while costing his company money. I made mention in another thread about a quote of his where on Australia Day 2012 that he had a business meeting and thought things were on the up and pride was being restored, only for 30% of the factory floor not showing up the day after and opting instead for a 4 day weekend.

Out of 2500 workers at the Altona plant 750 decided to chuck a sickie.

Is it that friggin important to think about you and your celebrations for nothing and drinking alcohol is more important rather than "maybe my actions now will cost me in the long run?"

I'm sorry however alot of you need to realise your demands now have been met with detrimental consequences. A sickie can cost you your position.

Welcome to the rest of us, where conditions are far less favourable for the average worker. Where you don't get paid overtime, where you don't get leave loading, where you don't get RDOs, where you don't get paid to give blood. Where you DEAL with what you get.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by Rapid_Axe

The way I've been reading things Akio Toyoda thinks his Australian workforce is lazy and takes advantage of all conidtions while costing his company money. I made mention in another thread about a quote of his where on Australia Day 2012 that he had a business meeting and thought things were on the up and pride was being restored, only for 30% of the factory floor not showing up the day after and opting instead for a 4 day weekend.

Out of 2500 workers at the Altona plant 750 decided to chuck a sickie.

Is it that friggin important to think about you and your celebrations for nothing and drinking alcohol is more important rather than "maybe my actions now will cost me in the long run?"

I'm sorry however alot of you need to realise your demands now have been met with detrimental consequences. A sickie can cost you your position.

Welcome to the rest of us, where conditions are far less favourable for the average worker. Where you don't get paid overtime, where you don't get leave loading, where you don't get RDOs, where you don't get paid to give blood. Where you DEAL with what you get.

This comes up a bit and is a fair issue you have raised and I have heard about the 30% which doesn't portray a great picture of the Australian worker. However, 30% is still a minority (but a figure we should not accept, meaning that is way too high and people need to pull their heads in) I do wonder what the figure was for the supply chain as I believe it would be much less and there conditions are also a lot less. So I do feel for the 70% and also those in the supply chain, as I am sure many would have accepted different conditions etc

Ideally Toyota should have been able to manage the 30% (many discourage the process from happening) but I suspect bureaucracy prevents that from occurring.

I still maintain Australia was far better with an Automotive industry than without, and I also believe our governments must protect employment and industries. Otherwise we will end up like a lot of other countries with high unemployment, social economic issues and a larger divide between the have and the have nots.

Edit: would also like to know where the government thinks its revenue will come from in a few years, with industry reducing and therefore revenue from tax reducing. The Automotive industry contributed a lot to the Australian Economy, hence the reason why the world fights to protect there industry

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by SB076

Edit: would also like to know where the government thinks its revenue will come from in a few years, with industry reducing and therefore revenue from tax reducing. The Automotive industry contributed a lot to the Australian Economy, hence the reason why the world fights to protect there industry

Don’t confuse manufacturing and industry. Twenty years ago, manufacturing provided one in every seven Australian jobs, about 13.5 per cent. Today it's 8 per cent.
The vast majority of our 'industry' is service based for better or for worse. Not all service based industry is internal and self servicing.
My service based business exports globally.

However based on what I have read today I am not sure the service or agriculture industry will be able to absorb the displaced manufacturers as they also face automation and significant generational job reductions.

Your point is valid however. Who pays for the goods machines make? and do th emachines pay enough tax to provide welfare to humans?
JP

[SB076]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Don’t confuse manufacturing and industry. Twenty years ago, manufacturing provided one in every seven Australian jobs, about 13.5 per cent. Today it's 8 per cent.
The vast majority of our 'industry' is service based for better or for worse. Not all service based industry is internal and self servicing.
My service based business exports globally.

However based on what I have read today I am not sure the service or agriculture industry will be able to absorb the displaced manufacturers as they also face automation and significant generational job reductions.

Your point is valid however. Who pays for the goods machines make? and do th emachines pay enough tax to provide welfare to humans?
JP

I don't think the service industry is immune to what is happening. For instance how do you think you would fare competing against a similar qualified personal to yourself, but based overseas?

I know a few large companies that have outsourced the entire accounting department off shore.

Manufacturing is an important industry (before anyone starts all industry is important) Studies have been done that show every one manufacturing job spins off 5 other jobs.

I was lucky to go overseas last year and see what governments were doing to entice business (provide jobs) I think as we got through the GFC better than most we are a bit more complacent (in our policies etc)

[b0son]

Originally Posted by SB076

Ideally Toyota should have been able to manage the 30% (many discourage the process from happening) but I suspect bureaucracy prevents that from occurring.

Toyota's dismissal procedure (concocted by the union AFAIK) takes over 2 years IIRC.

[DanielXR8]

Originally Posted by Rapid_Axe

The way I've been reading things Akio Toyoda thinks his Australian workforce is lazy and takes advantage of all conidtions while costing his company money. I made mention in another thread about a quote of his where on Australia Day 2012 that he had a business meeting and thought things were on the up and pride was being restored, only for 30% of the factory floor not showing up the day after and opting instead for a 4 day weekend.

Out of 2500 workers at the Altona plant 750 decided to chuck a sickie.

Is it that friggin important to think about you and your celebrations for nothing and drinking alcohol is more important rather than "maybe my actions now will cost me in the long run?"

I'm sorry however alot of you need to realise your demands now have been met with detrimental consequences. A sickie can cost you your position.

Welcome to the rest of us, where conditions are far less favourable for the average worker. Where you don't get paid overtime, where you don't get leave loading, where you don't get RDOs, where you don't get paid to give blood. Where you DEAL with what you get.

A truly aspirational future for us all you have painted there. Perhaps we deserve better. Perhaps two generations of Australian fought for something better, than giving the boss a great life, while everyone else competes to see whose life is crappiest as we mindlessly follow the American vision.

[TheSneakiness]

Originally Posted by DanielXR8

A truly aspirational future for us all you have painted there. Perhaps we deserve better. Perhaps two generations of Australian fought for something better, than giving the boss a great life, while everyone else competes to see whose life is crappiest as we mindlessly follow the American vision.

Yes, and so you should realise that because sooner rather than later you post will be fact. Are you ready for it? I'm betting not.

Unions may have fought for something better and now have lost. Everyone else lives by their day to day mindless job as you so put it because simply and bluntly put they have to. I would rather be a mindless drone than a white trash bogan living on $400 a fortnight.

[fte50]

Originally Posted by Rapid_Axe

I'm sorry however alot of you need to realise your demands now have been met with detrimental consequences. A sickie can cost you your position.

Welcome to the rest of us, where conditions are far less favourable for the average worker. Where you don't get paid overtime, where you don't get leave loading, where you don't get RDOs, where you don't get paid to give blood. Where you DEAL with what you get.

By the rest of us do you refer to the self employed ??
Yes, they don't get paid overtime, but can bag undeclared cash on a weekly basis.
Don't get paid to give blood, but claim expenses on their wifes car.
Don't get leave loading, but claim and receive a hefty tax return.
And the list goes on ..Give it up champ.

I do totally agree with your points on some peoples lack of work ethic though.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by fte50

By the rest of us do you refer to the self employed ??
Yes, they don't get paid overtime, but can bag undeclared cash on a weekly basis.
Don't get paid to give blood, but claim expenses on their wifes car.
Don't get leave loading, but claim and receive a hefty tax return.
And the list goes on ..Give it up champ.

I do totally agree with your points on some peoples lack of work ethic though.

Plenty of non self employed people on salaries that match the description.

[TheSneakiness]

Originally Posted by fte50

By the rest of us do you refer to the self employed ??
Yes, they don't get paid overtime, but can bag undeclared cash on a weekly basis.
Don't get paid to give blood, but claim expenses on their wifes car.
Don't get leave loading, but claim and receive a hefty tax return.
And the list goes on ..Give it up champ.

I do totally agree with your points on some peoples lack of work ethic though.

Yes and no, I feel sorry for self employed people because they have to deal with the likes of the workers at Toyota if they even need those people at all.

As a mindless drone in a truly global company my conditions are as follows

- 4 weeks leave a year
- 10 sick days (two consecutive day must be accompanied by a doctors cert)
- Super as per Aust Government guidelines

That's it. None of this leave loading, overtime bonus, RDO, etc etc.

This is why I cannot stand reading about other workers who complain about their positions despite being far better off than other workers.