This cannot be a 'considered' policy change that will be effective in maintaining employees in full employ across the full spectrum of industries in Australia. As an example, I started my working life as an apprentice electrical fitter in 1962 at the age of 16. This year, I turned 67.

In 1962, the electronics technology of the day included vacuum tubes (valves), gas tubes (Thyratrons) and selenium plate rectifiers. The common variable speed drive was the Ward-Leonard DC motor-generator system. We hadn't heard of any silicon semiconductors such as diodes, transistors or thyristors.

Microprocessors? Get real! If anyone had suggested that one day a small box the size of my lunch box would control a locomotive, elevator or a mining shovel and replace a control panel the size of a Toyota minibus, he would have been labelled a wa*ker!

How many employers today are looking for tradesmen with my grounding in those old technologies? None. We have experienced massive and rapid shifts in technology, so much so that our technical education system struggles to keep apace.

The old adage 'resistance to change is directly proportional to length of service' is so true and all employers know this. Any tradesman starting out in a technical role today, has to be cognisant that todays technology will rapidly disappear and be replaced with ever more complex systems. In my time, the changes were slow at first but rapidly accelerated during the 90's.

Today's tradesmen will not have the slow change I experienced to contend with and i suspect that by age 40, they will be struggling and find themselves resisting change due to brain saturation. Will they be kept fully employed to the age of 70? No way.

This policy proposal is simply a proposal to reduce Government expenditure.

This contribution was not submitted by Iphone, Ipad or Dalek (sorry, android) technology.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.