Some Debates We Should Have

There are literally billions of people on the face of the globe whose very existence depends on having some form of remuneration with which they can purchase the necessary goods and services that enable them to stay alive.

It is thus essential that businesses which employ people should not only stay in business, but actually expand their domains so that their shareholders (where they exist) or their owners can continue to employ the staff they have and continue to return at least a break even situation for themselves, if not a profit.

The facts; that we live on a planet with finite resources; that are being used up at an increasingly faster rate and that with human population growth; we are adding more pollutants to the biosphere than ever before, is simply a "necessary" by product of this ‘development’. The fact that some of the ecosystems, without which we will be unable to survive at all, are being damaged in the process, is not something that has been seriously discussed in mainstream discussions until relatively recently.

At present we have multiple instances of situations in which what we are doing as the human race is actually counter-intuitive to our survival on one hand, but seemingly very logical from a completely different perspective – assuming that you accept the premises which underpin the arguments.

Let’s explore a few:

We have a reality around the developed world at least that there was a huge expansionary bubble of human beings which came into being at the end of the 2nd World War. We all know this group as the ‘baby boomers’. They are currently reaching retirement age and thus are about to leave the work force.

This has multiple consequences – some of which are:

1. overall they will lose a considerable amount of spending power by being on reduced or fixed incomes;
2. there is a likelihood of a vacuum of expertise and skills coming into being within organisations as groups of these people leave at a time;
3. the living and spending patterns of these people will change as their needs change, causing a ripple effect among goods and service providers;
4. their needs for medical and ancillary services will skyrocket as they age and their bodies are no longer as viable as they were in their youth;
5. the tax base will shrink as they leave the work force.

Assuming that this is likely to be the case, there is a need to invest heavily now in retaining the skills and the productive power of these people and to ensure their continuing involvement in the development and management of society, rather than permitting them the ‘luxury’ of settling into their retirement and enjoying the twilight years of their lives.

At present we see rhetoric which points in this direction, but very little action. We see greater emphasis on training up the young to fill the roles in a hurry. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this approach, if you accept the fact that training alone will be a substitute for seasoning, experience and judgement. However if you do not accept this premise then we may have a problem.

The decision makers of today are people that are "baby boomers", they have a conflict of interest in making decisions about things that will affect their life styles. If you were a politician; looking forward to the golden handshake of your retirement pension plan and contemplating what you could do with it now that you have ‘earned’ it, would you seriously abandon this and keep working in a high pressure and unforgiving and insecure working environment? I would suggest that most would not. Having worked hard all of your life; raised a family; deprived yourself of heaps of selfish ambitions and wishes – this is the time you would want to continue to work?

As many people as there are on this planet there will be at least that many answers to these questions.

What remains though are some conundrums.

The cities in which most Australians live are getting to be at least 100+ years old. The infrastructures on which they depend are getting older by the day and more expensive to both maintain and/or to renew. With a decreasing tax base and a decreasingly skilled labour force where are we going to find the money and the resources to do the work which will be required?

We are just beginning to see that the water supply around Australia is being stretched to the limit just to supply our needs today – what are we doing about the future?

We currently have policies for outsourcing many if not all of what used to be public utilities to private enterprise organisations. These organisations are not motivated or driven by any concern for the ‘public good’ they are driven solely by the profit motive and providing a return to their shareholders and/or owners.

As one example, there is no longer preventative maintenance on our electricity supplies merely a "risk management" approach to maintenance. In short, if the expected life of a component is a certain period of time then you use a "Just in Time" management approach and replace the component at the very time it is expected to fail. A good approach in theory, assuming that there is a 100% accuracy about your predictions. The situation in New Zealand recently where there were simultaneous failures of redundant systems which brought Auckland to its knees in minutes is merely one case in point where things can go drastically wrong. Another, is the sudden black-out of most of the eastern seaboard of the USA, right up to Canada, as integrated systems failed.

The consumers in these cases, simply had to cope. There was no mention of compensation and there was no discussion about how, as we become increasingly dependent on service providers, we actually manage to keep our lives going when their service delivery fails.

Perhaps this is a debate someone should start.

We have also seen the recent spate of corporate collapses many of which are related to personal greed, a lapse in audit controls, lack of adequate record keeping and generally a focus on the 'main chance' for personal profit by the CEO at the expense of shareholders or consumers.

The livelihoods and investments of many of the ageing generation are vested in such large corporations and they expect at least a sound level of due diligence from those who are in charge of the businesses in which they invest. The regulators and their powers need to be extended and the penalties for infringements need to reflect a Mikado principle - namely - "let the punishment fit the crime". If the individuals involved lost their personal fortunes completely to repay what they had misused, if they spent time in gaol and had their assets sequestered, to give as much restitution as possible, then I would feel comfortable about some level of equity having been applied.

There is really very little that I can do about this as an individual. However by voicing my concerns and providing an opportunity for public comment there is an opportunity to at least attempt to influence outcomes.

Then there is the issue of health care costs - but that's another story!