jim and adel

SA Power Networks is recruiting for Powerline and Electrical apprenticeships based in the Adelaide metropolitan area, and for Powerline apprenticeships based in Kingscote and Port Pirie, to commence in January 2017. An advertisement for the January 2017 intake will appear in Tomorrow’s Advertiser (Saturday 27 August). Online marketing will also commence, including advertising on SEEK, the SA Power Networks website and in social media. ______________________ This is a great opportunity for young South Australians and, as an equal opportunity employer, we encourage all people, including mature-aged, indigenous people and women, to take up the challenge of an apprenticeship with SA Power Networks. Apply online only at http://careers.sapowernetworks.com.au/cw/en/#/listing/ and close on Friday 9 September 2016 at 5.00pm. Applications cannot be accepted once closed. ______________________ I know no more than this, so please don't ask me for further details. Jim

Coffylosophy on Hutt St ... 'nuff said!

Ouch!: "From 1984-2014 about 80,477 Croweaters fled the state permanently. Most were in there 20s and 30s. On average, between 20-30,000 South Australians actually leave the state every year and mainly lesser skilled immigrants make up the shortfall. This has contributed to a raft of psychosocial problems, such as underwhelming leadership capabilities and the creation of regressive and under-performing organisations." http://indaily.com.au/opinion/2015/01/19/sas-unmentionable-problems/ Some very interesting views in the comments following the article.

Especially when this state already has the highest number of public servants per head of population in the country.

Thanks, but it was this bit I'd hoped to see some information about: very well aware of how many small businesses rely on tourism, and that's why I hoped for information about record numbers. Unfortunately, the links you've provided don't mention anything that could lead to the conclusion that SA tourism has record numbers or is experiencing a boom. The first is a government wish-list for the future where tourism "is expected to be one of South Australia’s great growth opportunities", yes, quite, but that's hardly the same as saying we're currently experiencing it. The second link shows growth in some categories and some shrinkage in others from the previous year, with the two rather neatly cancelling each other out - again, nothing that supports a claim of record numbers. Tourism is vital to SA's future; a lot of people - B&B owners, local tour operators etc earn a living from it, and the state government should spend more money helping tourism to get it right and operate professionally, not cutting its spend on tourism as it has over the last year. If there's any evidence that numbers are up, then great, I'd like to know because I'm involved peripherally in an industry pressure group. That's why I asked. From everything I've read, though (and there are plenty of links available), there aren't record numbers in tourism, and trends over several years are flat rather than booming. This is despite the Lonely Planet listing, paying for events that other states don't need to cough up for (such as the Rolling Stones appearance), tax payers funding the redevelopment of the oval etc. SA has a great deal to offer visitors - it's a fantastic place to holiday, Adelaide is a great convention venue - and getting this right could do more for the state that pretending to would-be migrants that jobs are in demand; we're quite a way off that point at the moment, though.

A link or some reference would be handy - that's a good news story if right, but at odds with ABS figures. I recall last year the state gov spruiking some tourism numbers and when challenged over them stating it had commissioned a report and would make this available to show how tourism was increasing ... when the report was finalised the gov changed its mind, didn't release it and hasn't (afaik) repeated its claim on numbers.

The benefits of general migration, for both the migrant and the receiving country, aren't at issue. The point the author argues is that the state sponsorship aspect of migration should be halted until the economy picks up. Personally, I don't think it should, but the massive deception that's attached to it - no less than a rort - certainly should stop, and not temporarily. That deception is that there are job shortages in all those categories, where the reality is vastly different. Unfortunately, the article is rather clumsy and has the typical spin of InDaily - Malcolm King gave a better account of this on the radio. Of course some people voluntarily move into different careers than what they were sponsored for, but to suggest that's what the average migrant intends to do at the time of applying is nonsense. Many simply have no choice because they can't get an opening in their chosen field. For many others, they weren't aware that the skills and qualifications they'd had assessed would count for little when they arrived, and this coupled with the lack of vacancies mean they might as well retrain in a different field as retrain in their own occupation. Also, if migrants are being sponsored by the state to fill jobs in demand and the migrant could get a job in that field but decides to drive a taxi or clean windows instead, then that isn't tackling in any way the skills shortage and makes a mockery of state sponsorship. This state owes more money than when the state bank collapsed. It hasn't yet started to pay back the cost of some of its biggest infrastructure projects - such as the new hospital, the repayments of which don't begin until next year. Financially it's on the bones of its arse. No doubt it will eventually find away out of the mess, but in the meantime it's skint. Migrants bring in cash, help to stimulate the economy and lessen the effects of the ageing population; the likelihood of the state government doing anything to reduce migrants by coming clean on the 'skills shortage' is so small it's laughable. The problem is, many migrants don't stay here because they can't get work (or even where they can, the rhetoric in glossy brochures and slick ads isn't matched by the reality - last year Westpac reported that only a quarter of migrants earn above the average wage - given that most are here via the 'skilled' route, this isn't a good stat) and the state government doesn't feel the frustration and heartache of those broken dreams. It isn't the state government that spends all its cash uprooting families from one end of the world to the other on a false promise. Most of us on this site have it relatively good, so to trot out our personal victories might be praiseworthy (though occasionally it seems no better than an exercise in ego massaging) but it's not representative; most migrants these days aren't from the UK. For many, they aren't entering a place with a culture very similar to what they've left behind only with better weather and a more parochial attitude. They're coming to a very different landscape, often where they've passed an English test but with spoken and written English that stands out as awkward. In a time of genuine skills shortages, having no local knowledge or experience and an 'interesting' English dialect might not put a migrant at a major disadvantage, but in the present climate, with many applicants for each vacancy, such things do. For many of these migrants moving here is a very big throw of the dice with everything riding on it - the 'if you don't like it you can always go back' attitude might well not be an option - and it's only fair that the process doesn't falsely raise expectations. For some migrants, it was always the intention to come here and then move on elsewhere (although if state sponsored this again doesn't help tackle skills shortages) but the high number of migrants who leave SA to try their luck in other states suggests this place isn't matching expectations. In that regard, state sponsorship is failing the migrant and failing those who are already here and struggling to find work. Getting migrants here under false pretences also damages the SA brand long term, because the reality eventually finds its way back to originating countries - not that anyone in state gov politics is bothered about the long term.

He was on the radio yesterday and read out some of the occupations from the list supposedly in demand in SA ... some of them don't even exist here! (I suppose you could argue that's a sort of demand!)

If the OP is in Saudi, I should think they're used to high temps!

All the info you need in order to determine the type of visa you could apply for, and to carry out skills assessment, lodge the application etc should you choose to 'go it alone', is online. If I were you, my starting point would be the DIPB site: http://www.immi.gov.au/Pages/Welcome.aspx Many migration agents offer a first meeting for free, and there are plenty of online 'tests' to help determine your likely eligibility. We did it ourselves, partly because of conflicting advice from migration agents (which rather put us off using them) and partly because it didn't appear difficult (and in our case wasn't). For us, it was money saved. It also meant we were fully aware of the criteria of our visa - we weren't about to give up jobs and a nice home in the UK and move to the other end of the world without fully knowing the ins and outs of our visa and its conditions.

notpom, I don't have an axe to grind, and you're as entitled to your views as the next person. Partly because of this I don't make a habit of responding to your posts - also partly because, to be frank, from what I've read your point of view seems inconsistent from response to response, making it hard to know what you actually mean. The reason I responded to this thread is because it would likely be of interest to those making the move, and their eyes would likely light up on learning that a three bed home could be built for $65k, which unfortunately isn't the case. Of course a transportable house can be clad, but as Tyke has pointed out, it will still be a transportable house. Cladding it won't make the walls any more substantial (you mention Rivergum - the last time we were in the vicinity of Victor Harbor we took a look at their transportable display homes and noted how the toilet roll holders had come away from the walls leaving large holes, and this is in display homes where the facilities aren't used. Try hanging a picture on one of those walls ...) You state that once it's cladded, a transportable is the same as any other house. Totally incorrect. At any re-sale, it would be a liability, not an asset, and priced down accordingly (it's not unknown for land with a transportable home on it to sell for less than it would had it been vacant, because of removal costs). Transportable homes suit some people, and I'm pleased for anyone who's decided that's what's right for them, but they're not the option most of us choose. Also, dressing one up to look like any other house comes at a cost - not just the material. Roofing, guttering and windows are sized for the original build and have to be altered/refitted if adding a course of bricks - that's not cheap. A transportable home clad to look like a real home will look just like a transportable home that's been clad. It won't add value. Many developments won't even allow transportable homes - there's a reason for that. On one line you write 'pay peanuts - get monkeys' and then later you tell us about free driveways and air con from builders - do you ever think of applying your principles to your own opinions? Anyone who thinks they're getting anything free from a builder hasn't got a track record as an investor, regardless of what they claim. A $1500 air con unit and DIY laminate would go really well with the hebel clad transportable home ... Transportables don't need much in the way of footings, which is why some are like walking on a trampoline. With real houses, though, it's not just about the slope (and no land is billiard table flat; all require some work which extends well beyond the garden rake). The biggest cost affecting the slab is likely to be soil type. Builders' prices assume low reactive soil and no rock, and most tests show higher reactivity and often rock - anyone who's actually built in SA will be aware of this ... You mention somewhere about someone regretting buying because their fence was a foot away from the neighbour's toilet window, yet you're showing land for sale that's all of 220m2 - how far away do you think the neighbours would be with this block? It's an incredible statement that land isn't sold by the m2 and that Perth doesn't have a property market. Such views make me question your 'investor' credentials. Land is always sold by area; there's no other way to sell it. Many costs associated with owning a home are based on land value (it seems ridiculous to have to state these things). WA has been hit by the end the mining boom, no doubt about it. The thing is, that boom has already paid for many of the infrastructure projects which that state (and Perth in particular) needed, which is why all those shiny new trains run on shiny new tracks and the tax payer doesn't have to dig ever deeper into their pockets to fund them. Despite the end of the mining boom, WA's economy continues to out perform the rest of the country by, well, a country mile (growing at 5.5% and with more people moving there than any other city in Aus). To state - I assume seriously - that Perth 'is over' simply boggles the mind. Even if it were true, I could have chosen Brisbane or Sydney and vacant land in those cities is still roughly half the price of what land goes for in Adelaide (but I assume the reason for this is that those two cities are also 'over'!) Finally, in amongst your views you weave in statements about it being incorrect that 'double digit' interest rates are close ... I'm not sure where you get the idea that people think that's what will happen. It's certainly not something I come across. We arrived here at the back end of '07 and all the talk since then has been about 'how low can they go?' You're not telling people something they haven't already figured out for themselves when you point out that the economy is flat; most people can see clearly the state things are in and the direction that's being travelled, which is all the more reason why they should spend their money wisely and not on over-inflated tiny blocks and cladding transportable sheds in the hope they'll look like real houses. Anyway, no response I could make will have any impact on your views, I get that, so I'll not rise to anything further. I just hope that those who aren't here yet take what you say with a pinch of the proverbial - you could cost someone a lot of money with such ill formed views. Jim

Very misleading to put the idea in people's minds - especially those not yet over here who might just actually believe you - that a three bed home can be built for $65k. Utter nonsense. Rivergum do have transportable homes that start around the $80k mark, though, but people need to understand that's what they are - transportable. Something a bit like a cross between a shed and a static caravan (but without some of the features of new caravans unless you bump up the inclusions). We were enticed by the potential price to stick one on a block near Victor for a holiday home until we spent a night in one ... no thanks! Even then, there are many other costs associated with building (or transporting!) that would add considerably to the overall price. Finally, and at the risk of offending people (which isn't my intention), I can't help but think that a price range of $220-240k for a 220m2 block in Port Noarlunga South is taking the piss. Vacant land in Perth (with the reputation of the most expensive vacant land of any Aus capital city) averages $630 per square metre.

Not seen a thread like this for many a year! Obviously depends on house expectations and where you're willing to live, but these days it's not often that someone faces the situation where moving to a different house in the UK means mortgaging themselves up, and moving to a bigger house in Adelaide means being virtually mortgage free.

Can't really add anything to the airlines but with laptops (and other devices) ensure they have enough charge in case security decide to check them.

A year ago you posted two similar threads (where you told us how brainwashed Aussies are about capitalism etc) and claimed you'd already been living here for a year. On that basis, you should be able to answer your own question through your direct experience. Jim