Slim Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Look at the GDP and employment figures...er not as much as they should. I see you are starting off this new year the same old cantacerous way you started last year - arguing with the bleeding obvious. Excuse me for having an opinion that differs from yours. Why do you post this guff if you can't handle it being questioned? I want you to qualify your statement, not clap like the dullard above has without question. How do you know what the government is doing? 2006/7 levels are fine, but have they grown or shrunk since 2005? Is there a quantifiable measure that shows the growth vs grants/assistance? Most of my family are in engineering, and I know there's been some considerable effort by the government to support them. Are you aware of any of it? Your figures for manufacturing might look a lot worse if the government had done nothing. It's easy to bleat Albert, you're very good at it. Just producing numbers and saying 'this could be better' is the bleeding obvious. It's not easy to attract this kind of business to an island with high energy and transport costs. How do you know the government isn't doing it's best with the available funds and resources? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Look at the GDP and employment figures...er not as much as they should. I see you are starting off this new year the same old cantacerous way you started last year - arguing with the bleeding obvious. Excuse me for having an opinion that differs from yours. Why do you post this guff if you can't handle it being questioned? I want you to qualify your statement, not clap like the dullard above has without question. How do you know what the government is doing? 2006/7 levels are fine, but have they grown or shrunk since 2005? Is there a quantifiable measure that shows the growth vs grants/assistance? Most of my family are in engineering, and I know there's been some considerable effort by the government to support them. Are you aware of any of it? Your figures for manufacturing might look a lot worse if the government had done nothing. It's easy to bleat Albert, you're very good at it. Just producing numbers and saying 'this could be better' is the bleeding obvious. It's not easy to attract this kind of business to an island with high energy and transport costs. How do you know the government isn't doing it's best with the available funds and resources? The clue's in the graph Einstein. Manufacturing has reduced from 10% of GDP to 7% in 10 years (1996 to 2006). In five years (2001 to 2006), employment in manufacturing dropped from 8.2% to 5.5% of the working population. Read the census reports if you still don't believe me - you know, that same government guff you seem to have so much faith in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 The clue's in the graph Einstein. Manufacturing has reduced from 10% of GDP to 7% in 10 years (1996 to 2006). In five years (2001 to 2006), employment in manufacturing dropped from 8.2% to 5.5% of the working population. Read the census reports if you still don't believe me - you know, that same government guff you seem to have so much faith in. You've missed my point. I'm not arguing that there hasn't been a decline in manufuaturing over the last 20 years. There has, and it's been happening in the UK too, but there's been recent growth too. There's been an increase in gdp contribution from manufacturing of 30% in the last three years for example. What I'm suggesting is that the government effort may have reduced the drop and encouraged recent growth, and I'm interested to know about your information, or lack of it, that makes you think the governments actions are insufficient. Take Jersey as an example, industry is 2% of their GDP, services 87%, agriculture 1%. Geurnsey it's about 8% industry. BVI about 5%, We're a lot more diverse than these eh? Are you sure we're doing nothing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 The clue's in the graph Einstein. Manufacturing has reduced from 10% of GDP to 7% in 10 years (1996 to 2006). In five years (2001 to 2006), employment in manufacturing dropped from 8.2% to 5.5% of the working population. Did the number of people actually employed in manufacturing decline or did the workforce grow overall - with more of the new jobs being in finance ? Has manufacturing actually contracted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 The clue's in the graph Einstein. Manufacturing has reduced from 10% of GDP to 7% in 10 years (1996 to 2006). In five years (2001 to 2006), employment in manufacturing dropped from 8.2% to 5.5% of the working population. Read the census reports if you still don't believe me - you know, that same government guff you seem to have so much faith in. You've missed my point. I'm not arguing that there hasn't been a decline in manufuaturing over the last 20 years. There has, and it's been happening in the UK too, but there's been recent growth too. There's been an increase in gdp contribution from manufacturing of 30% in the last three years for example. What I'm suggesting is that the government effort may have reduced the drop and encouraged recent growth, and I'm interested to know about your information, or lack of it, that makes you think the governments actions are insufficient. Take Jersey as an example, industry is 2% of their GDP, services 87%, agriculture 1%. Geurnsey it's about 8% industry. BVI about 5%, We're a lot more diverse than these eh? Are you sure we're doing nothing? Did the number of people actually employed in manufacturing decline or did the workforce grow overall - with more of the new jobs being in finance ? Has manufacturing actually contracted? Census 2006: 2248 employed in manufacturing, Census 2001: 3185 employed in manufacturing. Plus the working population increased by 5% over the same years. I think that's a contraction. I know much seems to be going on, but how effective it is at bringing/starting manufacturing companies here is and increasing the skills base is another matter, and although changes have been happening in the last 3 years, the fact of the matter is that the government sat back and let manufacturing shrink over 20 years - and we are where we are now. Though also don't forget an IOM MTIC 30% 'growth' rise in manufacturing and engineering depends on what you are measuring and who it includes of course - everybody associated with technology seems to be an engineer these days. That is not to underestimate the efforts of some individuals though. True diversification would have been a targeted effort (a dedicated business team with a decent budget) to ensure from 1996 to 2006 e.g. 15% of the population were employed in a diversified manufacturing base, as well as a specific linked GDP target too. What has happened on the island is not diversification, it is the result of lazy economics, expanding jobs in services and bloating the civil service while times were good. Add spending money like water on many of the wrong things, bringing the wrong skill types of people here (and importing more pensioners), tax payers having to bail out banks, and personally I don't think we will escape this too well, especially if it goes into 2010. I already predict a fall in house values on the island by 10-15% toward the end of this year. 15% (wrt today's figures) of the working population means the manufacturing employment base needs to be doubled to achieve that. and I think that would have been an achievable target had they started properly with that target in mind 10 years ago, with a supporting immigration policy. We're talking about diversification remember, which is all about percentages of us and what we do, as well as what we are reliant on. In real terms between 2001 and 2006 we moved 3% of our total working population out of manufacturing and predominately into services, construction, plus the civil service further bloated. It is the employment figures that are more relevant to Joe Public than GDP in times of a recession in the financial services sector - and even more jobs in those years became reliant to a greater extent on the finance sector. The bulk of our income is derived from VAT (£300M), which is what people with jobs pay, along with income tax (£127M) - and over-reliance on employment associated with one sector facing a major recession, and possible additional regulation and operating restrictions, is likely to deeply impact those receipts. Maybe compared to other offshores we might seem to be better off, but that is irrelevant IMO to where we could have been and should have been by now in terms of job diversification. Comparing us with other offshores (that are worse off than we are) is like comparing two tramps, one who has two bottles of meths, the other only one bottle - and not seeing both are stuffed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moghrey Mie Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 There was an interesting prgramme on Radio 4 yesterday about creativity and innovation based in Toronto, Canada. They are try to use the natural creativity of more people to come up with new ideas to improve business. Maybe the IOM should join in their Creativity and Innovation Week in April to encourage people to come up with ideas for future developments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 True diversification would have been a targeted effort (a dedicated business team with a decent budget) to ensure from 1996 to 2006 e.g. 15% of the population were employed in a diversified manufacturing base, as well as a specific linked GDP target too. I'm sure we can always be doing more, and I agree on wasteful spending, but I don't think the governments been as lax as you make out. Diversity seems to be a key part of the strategy, the governments putting a lot of work into not only engineering but gaming, film making, tourism and agriculture. I don't think that's lazy economics at all, and I think looking at our gdp spread vs our competitors that we're not doing too badly. It's certainly going to be an interesting year. I'm keen to see how the banking deposits go, the pound might be a problem there. But for accounts managed here in other currency, our fees can be more competitive. Also services just got a lot cheaper sold into europe too, and a competative tax environment should do pretty well in a downturn where other countries are raising taxes. The CM should be cautiously positive until the figures say otherwise. I'd be unhappy with him undermining confidence by saying we're doomed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 the governments putting a lot of work into not only engineering but gaming, film making, tourism and agriculture. I don't believe that the island should be encouraging gaming (gambling). It's another industry which has a poor image and reputation. I believe that the association of gambling could actually harm the reputation of the island with respect to serious business, finance etc. It will end up making the island seem dodgy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Diversity seems to be a key part of the strategy, the governments putting a lot of work into not only engineering but gaming, film making, tourism and agriculture. Gaming is one exception - but that is already being hit by external regulation, and even arrests, and who knows what external pressures could be put on us with regards that this year. The govt tend to make headlines on things that employ handfuls of people and focus on GDP, which is important of course, but listing the little things we do that employ only handfuls of people is not really diversification. They need to think more strategically in terms of employment numbers in these sectors, especially manufacturing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Take Jersey as an example, industry is 2% of their GDP, services 87%, agriculture 1%. Geurnsey it's about 8% industry. BVI about 5%, We're a lot more diverse than these eh? Difficult one Slim. Jersey's percentage of GDP from finance is extremely high because of the sheer number of institutions. They have hundreds of small banks with massive amounts on deposit, and that is just for starters. Jersey actually has a good number of people in agriculture and fisheries but it does not add a large amount to the GPD percentage wise compared to finance. However, I dare say that Jersey's A&F contribution of 1% is comparable in financial terms to IOM's A&F contribution to total GDP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Cambon, the actual numbers don't matter a jot in a conversation about diversity eh? I don't believe that the island should be encouraging gaming (gambling). It's another industry which has a poor image and reputation. I believe that the association of gambling could actually harm the reputation of the island with respect to serious business, finance etc. It will end up making the island seem dodgy. Interesting. Why do you think gaming is any different from, say, investment schemes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Cambon, the actual numbers don't matter a jot in a conversation about diversity eh? They do, really. When you have a situation as Jersey, where the amount of GDP from the finance sector is so disproportionately high by comparison to the number of people who work in the sector. Thousands of people work in the agriculture and fisheries sector of Jersey (and Guernsey) and they have a thriving export business (Jersey Royal potato, Jersey butter, cream, flowers by post, herbs, etc. before you get onto the meat and seafood), it is very lucrative. It is just that it is dwarfed by the sheer size of the income from finance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 They do, really. When you have a situation as Jersey, where the amount of GDP from the finance sector is so disproportionately high by comparison to the number of people who work in the sector. Thousands of people work in the agriculture and fisheries sector of Jersey (and Guernsey) and they have a thriving export business (Jersey Royal potato, Jersey butter, cream, flowers by post, herbs, etc. before you get onto the meat and seafood), it is very lucrative. It is just that it is dwarfed by the sheer size of the income from finance. If the other industries are dwarfed by the size and income from finance, the economy isn't economically diverse. The actual numbers don't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 If the other industries are dwarfed by the size and income from finance, the economy isn't economically diverse. The actual numbers don't matter. That statement is true. However, the point is that size of the finance industry in Jersey is not that big when you look at the number of employees in that sector. But, the rest of the economy is actually quite buoyant. They even have a tourist industry . I am not saying that if the finance industry bubble burst that they would not be in trouble, but it would be a lot less of a problem than here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocketman Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Your missing one crucial point with regard to Manufacturing growth. Manufacturing technology ! If you comparing jobs over a 5 year or longer period then the island has indeed grown by around 30% however advances in manufacturing technologies ( machines, processes, lean etc) result in less people needed to produce the goods. Without this capital intensive approach to manufacturing there would be no industry in the UK never mind the IOM as countries with low wage rates would take over. Indeed, thats waht happened for a while until the "we" got smarter and employed technology and process to manufacture and not pairs of hands. We did lose the mass production, low intellectual property products to low cost sources but have managed to retain and grow the high tech, high value, home grown IP side of manufacturing. Thats the story behind the figures, the evolution of modern manufacturing. We dont make Slippers anymore but we do even more Aero engine components/assemblies, actuators, valves, optics and designs ! So not as many production line jobs but more high skill, better paid, better prospect skilled manufacturing jobs are now available - new datum please ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.