Yes the boom here is largely commodity driven, but at times of non boom Australia tends to hold it's place amongst world nations. There has been a very large change in the per capita rakings in the last 12 months as shown in this article. Currently this country is moving up the ranks compared to other nations.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22971594-2,00.html

The savings held in Superannuation are creating new wealth in this country.

All the more reason for me to return home, since UK pension plans don't seem to be worth the paper they're written on.

Take me back to my super, please!

WA has built a desal plant and is building another - part of $4billion in water investment.
$5billion+ is being invested in the power grid in WA. New power stations, substations (50 132kV subs), power lines.
We have new rail, port and road projects being built or planned.

Infrastructure investment could be better but it is happening.

Victoria is about to start the building the biggest Desalination plant in the Southern Hemp... costing 3.1 billion dollars. The first stage starts in the next few weeks.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...19/1955634.htm

Wouldn't be quite so sure on that one Bix. Victoria can access it's water if necessary from the average wettest part of Australia at a cost of course. The wettest part of Australia isn't the tropics, but in fact Mt. Read in Western tasmania (near Zeehan, Rosebery and Queenstown) Last calendar year it had 4.700mm of rain. In difference to North Queensland it rains often continuously for month, in the tropics all the rain comes down in short bursts., hence the average wettest place is Western Tasmania. The average for Lake Margaret in Western Tasmania is consistently 250 days of rain per year.

One 2.5 metre Gravity fed pipe line to the lowest reserve catchment, in Victoria (under Bass strait .... damn (lol) expensive) and then modifying the current irrigation water grid between here and NSW and SA. Then using the funds that the sales of this water brings in to finance further mechanical pump water from the West Coast of Tassie.

Which scenario do you think is more likely a Mass exodus to the north, or 4 States contributing to this Dam and pipeline ?

There has been background talk on the possibility of this for years now, the more the South dries up the more likely it will be that this project will happen. The was a discussion on 3AW about this very topic last week.

Even if that doesnt happen, there would be plenty of people like myself, that would prefer the temperate climate of Tassie to the forever present heat of the North. IE: there would be plenty of people that move south... A bit like the many native Qlanders that move to Victoria...

I have the solution Ozzi.
We can all up sticks and make a beeline to NZ.
Plenty of water, plenty of room and plenty of sheep

Depends if you count digging stuff out of the ground as manufacturing. Have a look at the last graph in http://www.rba.gov.au/PublicationsAn.../bu_0402_1.pdf

50% of exports are from mining. The manufacturing sector is now suffering from the high dollar caused by the commodities.

The compulsory super is preparing Australia for the ageing population better than most nations. 9% is still not enough.

There is little difference between a UK personal pension plan and super. At least the UK plan is transportable overseas. The real winners in both countries are those still on final salary/defined benefits schemes. Those are fast disappearing in both the UK and here. The big losers are those in the UK with no pension plan whatsoever.

My main point is that Australia is now more entrenched in the Asian economy and the next economic crisis there will hit harder. I hope it happens after the current US recession has blown over to minmise the impact.

Depends on how you look at it.

With super your employer contributes and amount equal to 9% of your salary (with 15% of that going to the tax man). With UK private pension you pay out of your salary (albeit before tax). The 12.8%* employer contribution in the UK goes into a common pot from which you will get a fixed pension unrelated to the size of the contribution.

I think there's a big difference. Super is much better (despite having a transportability restriction).

* over the threshold.

When you negotiate a package here super is included. The main thing is in the UK you must take into account what you need for a pension when negotiating a salary. Here the company takes into account the super when working out your package cost which pushes the wage down by the amount of super.

I am a fan of compulsory super. In the UK you just have a choice but unfortunately too many chose to have no pension fund.

That's true for some. I would say that people in run of the mill jobs don't have that option. I can see that Aus employers often include the 9% in deals to make their offers look more attractive but Aus employees are also more interested because the money goes into their pocket (albeit at some future date). Very few UK employees are even aware of the employer's contribution and I think that this is because it goes into the common pot.

What's bizarre about this is that a lot of UK bods that come here see the super contributions as a tax (when it is not) and are unaware that the UK equivalent (which is a tax) exists.

A desal plant is being built in Sydney but it is not enough. Recycling would be enough but the governments are too scared to do it. There is going to be a recalculation of federal distribution of GST to the states and it is more likely to be along population so maybe NSW will get some more cash now that we are the state that decided the last election.

Electricity is going to be privatised (if the unions do not block it) and the hope is that will raise enough to boost the grid.

What matters is that value add of the goods you produce. If the commodities have a good value add then great. Compared to pumping out subsidised junky Holdens and Fords it is far more preferable. The obsession with the unsustainable elements of manufacturing holds back economies.