I believe in WA it is 8% that are directly in mining, but it would take some googling to find where I read that.
The 4000 losses referenced in the previous article would not have been classed as employed "directly in mining". Nor will /are many of the losses in contractors that build things for mine sites. I am sure you have seen the significant reduction in capex expenditures expected over the next 5 years? From 250 billion this year to 50 billion in 2017. Of course production will continue at the majority of currently operating mines. However as you say much of te "boom" was in people indirectly employed, particularly to support capex developments. Those are the people currently being butchered via retrenchements, 4 days weeks, salary reductions, etc.
The companies that I am familiar with where layoffs have occurred have usually targeted 457 visa holders preferentially. These people are leaving WA as the job market in their fields is weak, most companies are laying off. So there goes the rental crisis, as you are seeing from weekly increases in vacancy rate.
I love how when mining is booming it is a positive for WA housing, but when mining is doing badly it won't have negative effects on WA housing. Beautiful!
