help needed to save our manufacturing.

No I didn't say anything about 30% extra cost, or was it to murky for you?:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frantic

Let's wait and see the contracts,
for about 10,000 tons of specialty steel ,
in 2020!
No it's not an "untold amount of work, it's been told, 2800 jobs at a cost of about $ 20,000,000 each that's twenty million. Or if you believe reports the extra cost of building them here is 30% or $15 billion.
This is to provide 2800 jobs yet the same people who approve this cannot agree to spend 2% of that amount to keep 100,000 jobs safe across the steel production and associated manufacturing industries!
There is already talk that neither the French or German tenders would agree to divulge the specialty grade for the subs production, and at around 10,000 tons it is equal to 1 weeks production by current steel levels.
At the same time in the uk , who make roughly 50% more steel than us (7.5mtpa compared to us at about 5mtpa)and employ directly about 50,000 the Tory govt has offered to nationalise 25% of the steel industry at a cost of AUD$1-3.5 billion to ensure it stays open and keeps people employed as they have realised its in the nations best strategic interest.
Turnbull pledge casts doubt | Illawarra Mercury
Nocookies | The Australian
Here's an interesting story.
Submarine Matters: Arrium - Pyne's Submarine Steel Claims Don't Stack Up

P.s pickles your comparison to the snowy hydro scheme is ridROFLiculous ! Snowy started in 1949, employed over 100,000 and cost only 850 million this costs over 50times as much but only employs 1/33 the number!

---

Now why would I be doubtful? We can't afford to help a car industry that cost a few hundred million but employs tens of thousands,we can't afford to help a steel industry for maybe a cost of 100-200 million that also employs tens of thousands , yet we are going to pay an extra $15billion to employ 2800 locally ,and here's the BUT of that joke , we don't sign the contract until AFTER THE ELECTIONS!
But nobody "never ever "backs out of election promises do they?

...go straight to the soapbox.....do not pass go.....do not collect $200.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramblingboy42

...go straight to the soapbox.....do not pass go.....do not collect $200.

---

Well he does have a point and his Job is on the line. I know how he feels. I haven't had job security for over a decade. As soon as one threat is dealt with another takes it's place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frantic

No I didn't say anything about 30% extra cost, or was it to murky for you?:D



Now why would I be doubtful? We can't afford to help a car industry that cost a few hundred million but employs tens of thousands,we can't afford to help a steel industry for maybe a cost of 100-200 million that also employs tens of thousands , yet we are going to pay an extra $15billion to employ 2800 locally ,and here's the BUT of that joke , we don't sign the contract until AFTER THE ELECTIONS!
But nobody "never ever "backs out of election promises do they?

---

Just more of the same Frantic, just more negativity.
"Backs out of Election Promise"?..What do you mean by that, specifically relative to the Sub contract, relative to the upcoming election?
IN THIS THREAD, I didn't bring politics into it, I simply said from the start, "THIS IS GOOD FOR AUSSIE"......but I have yet to hear any similar sentiments from you, and now you're insinuating that this may not go ahead?....So you're saying that if Shorten wins, He might reneg?...I don't think so. Everyone, from all "sides" have applauded the Sub announcement, that is everyone except you, my friend.
Mate, I just think the Sub deal is great, with all the doom & gloom that is around (unfortunately for real reasons), it's good to have something that is NOT doom & gloom,..that is why I think it's good, I see the S.A. Premier has already been to Paris, I think building the facilities, arranging infrastructure, creating around 3000 (some say a lot more)jobs is ALL positive. Regards, Pickles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pickles2

Just more of the same Frantic, just more negativity.
"Backs out of Election Promise"?..What do you mean by that, specifically relative to the Sub contract, relative to the upcoming election? Selective quoting, you forgot the highlighted "never ever".
IN THIS THREAD, I didn't bring politics into it,actually you did in post 130 " relative the government and bailing businesses out" I said from the start, "THIS IS GOOD FOR AUSSIE"......but I have yet to hear any similar sentiments from you, and now you're insinuating that this may not go ahead?....So you're saying that if Shorten wins, He might reneg?...I don't think so. Everyone, from all "sides" have applauded the Sub announcement, that is everyone except you, my friend.
Mate, I just think the Sub deal is great, with all the doom & gloom that is around (unfortunately for real reasons), it's good to have something that is NOT doom & gloom,..that is why I think it's good, I see the S.A. Premier has already been to Paris, I think building the facilities, arranging infrastructure, creating around 3000 (some say a lot more)jobs is ALL positive. Regards, Pickles.

---

I've said it will be good, when it's signed off.
Now if both sides TRULY support it why isn't it in black and white with a deposit down?:twisted:

Pickles. I don't think frantic said it wasn't good. What he is saying is that a lot more good could be done for a lot less. Which is true. Then he asked why isn't it? Which is bloody good question.
Now I ask why are you so adamant that he unequivocally and unreservedly say that the Sub Contract is good thing that has no negative aspect, if not for political reasons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frantic

I've said it will be good, when it's signed off.
Now if both sides TRULY support it why isn't it in black and white with a deposit down?:twisted:

---

that requires a very political answer.........

I could answer it for you but I'm not doing it here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppabillytea

Pickles. I don't think frantic said it wasn't good. What he is saying is that a lot more good could be done for a lot less. Which is true. Then he asked why isn't it? Which is bloody good question.
Now I ask why are you so adamant that he unequivocally and unreservedly say that the Sub Contract is good thing that has no negative aspect, if not for political reasons?

---

"A lot more could be done for a lot less"?...what do you mean?
If you've read Frantic's posts & you don't know what I mean, then there's not much more I can say.
Pickles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pickles2

"1: A lot more could be done for a lot less"?...what do you mean?
If you've read Frantic's posts & you don't know what I mean, 2: then there's not much more I can say.
Pickles.

---

1: I've said it 3 times 1/50th the extra (15 billion)cost of building subs here as a motor industry incentive, saves 20-30times the jobs the subs create. 1/100th that cost and a few laws similar or same to our free trade partners saves 30times the jobs in steel/ manufacturing, but we supposedly can't afford those ?
2: Really, honestly?:twisted:

I don't know how old you are Frantic but I know that by the time the first one is built I'll be probably too old to even go to Adelaide to even look at one.

Maybe one of my young nephews in Adelaide will get a good job there building them.....someones nephews certainly will along with many thousands of others.

I think I worked out what you are trying to say about the motor industry , but it's too late to extrapolate on those matters.

The decision has been made , regardless of costs , it's a good one for Australia (I still don't know if we really need subs), it's a good one for France , it's a real good one for South Australia , it's a real good one for those that successfully gain the employment and it's going to give a substantial boost to the new advanced technology right across our defence forces which is happening almost simultaneously......which will flow on for many years to come.