Cool thanks for bringing me into this.... I did choose not to participate in this debate but for some reason we have been implicated. Firstly Henry Carter and Owen & James are not great examples as our sales wouldn't move the dial of any listed retailer here in Australia. We would be the equivalent of a comparison to a sole trader opening a shop in a small town. Id like to think that the reason that we exist is to offer Australian consumers something that is differentiated from what is already available in stores and offer something better than the big guys can offer. Sure if we grow, we will employ people that's how it works for any business that grows. Here is some food for thought. 1) the internet is changing the game whether these guys like it or not 2) Just like a shift in sales from B&M to online, there are a shift of jobs and costs involved. Take the Iconic as an example. They sell as much as one large physical department store and employ just as many people as they would to staff a store (on a FTE basis). They pay a lease albeit a warehouse and they also pay more people i.e. Australia post, the courier, a photography team, their audit team etc etc. 3) This is not a socialist economy. Evolution and development of skill sets has always been key. Where technology has exposed inefficiencies it has opened a plethora of opportunities for those who adapt. 4) If noone used the self-scan checkouts then they wouldnt exist. Just like if noone wanted to shop online it wouldnt exist. In fact this whole debate wouldnt even be taking place if the population chose to act differently. To say that online has taken away Australian jobs is a comment just as ignorant as the comments that Gerry himself has made. If you actually analyse the financial metrics of any online business you will see their cost structure is IDENTICAL in dollars as a brick and mortars retailer. It is just allocated differently within the economy.