The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Is poverty increasing, or are we getting wealthier? > Comments

Is poverty increasing, or are we getting wealthier? : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 13/11/2014

I wouldn't be at all surprised if those without smart phones aren't considered 'poor', and indeed handicapped in all sorts of ways.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Well that depends on your perspective and or actual experience.
Not too many of us now live in tin shanties, with dirt floors, trying to survive on just one meal a day, if we're lucky!
What I consider poor is an income that simply doesn't cover real needs or the essential repairs/maintenance or rent! i.e., a Sydney bedsit costing more than a single pension.
And widowed mums who sacrificed their income earning years, to the task of raising a family, are just not your (ivory tower dweller) put down (can't afford a mobile phone) absolutely ludicrous idea of a "victim"!
In a global context, the top 10% own at least 50% of all the available wealth!
Whereas in the USA. the top 1% own more than 30% of it?
And for 30 odd years the minimum wage just never moved up off the $5.00 an hour floor!
Strangely conservatives always seem to equate increased indebtedness to increased wealth!
And billionaire Buffet was surprised he claimed, when he discovered his secretary paid twice as much tax, relative to her income, as he did!
What what was missing both there and I'm all right jack, articles like this, is any real idea of inherent fairness!?
Perhaps that's why for every dollar of debt the US now creates just 0.03 dollars worth of economic growth!
Contrast that with the Keynesian approach, which created 2.4 dollars worth or economic growth for every dollar of debt, and in the process created an unprecedented period of UNIVERSAL prosperity.
We in this so called rich county, have over 100,000 homeless!
Now I don't why that's so, but I'll warrant people able to obfuscate around the problem with do nothing essays, are a very big part of, I'm all right jack; ignore it and maybe it'll go away, problem?
Rhrosty
Posted by Rhrosty, Thursday, 13 November 2014 10:48:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said as usual Don, & yes far too many today expect a cosy comfortable living, no matter how little effort they put into attaining it. It is perhaps an expected entitlement in today's world.

However I can not agree with you on your suggestion that we are better educated. I would like to know what gives you that belief. Is it that more kids go on to senior high school? Is it that more attend a university, & leave there with some kind degree? How does this compare with the claim that the kids coming into university know little, & require much remedial work, before any real learning can commence?

In my day, less than 10% went past intermediate school level. However kids coming from 3Rd year, with a reasonable pass in the intermediate, could go to tech college, & had the necessary math to do an electrical, or other apprenticeship without trouble. Today even those with very high achiever passes at matriculation, [year 12], have to be given remedial math classes to be able to handle most apprenticeships.

I recently asked eight 20 something above average educated young folk, six with degrees, to mark the Oz capitals, & the Murray Darling river system on a blank map of Oz. Only one even got close, the rest had no idea. It was a great laugh, but we should have been crying.

So sorry, but I can see education going backwards at an accelerating rate. Yes they can mostly one finger type on their mobile, but their understanding of even simple things & how the world works is slipping quickly.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 13 November 2014 1:04:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<The IPA supports the free market of ideas, the free flow of capital, a limited and efficient
< government, evidence-based public policy, the rule of law, and representative
<democracy. Again, it's hard to see anyone likely to be opposed to all that.

What a load of double speak.

"The free flow of capital"

Lets not have any trades restrictions, and allow us to shift our profits abroad to lower taxing countries.

"a limited and efficient government"

Lets not a have a government that puts into place things like OH & S regulations, lets have a government that rubber stamps approvals the minute they are presented.
Lets not have a government that puts into place legal protections for the masses.

"Evidence based policy"

Sounds good, but typically the evidence can easily be manipulated.

"The rule of law"

Lets consider that the financial (Banking) sector is trying it's hardest to get this Liberal government to change the laws meant to protect investors from corrupt practises.

NoW lets go and pull the other leg.
Posted by Wolly B, Thursday, 13 November 2014 2:15:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The point about these two reports, coincidentally appearing in the same week, is that they are both correct. Yes, Australia has done remarkably well over the last century, and so have the great majority of Australians. But inside that success there are still 'victims', people who need help. "

Exactly.

At last an article that recognises both the great improvements in our living standards in recent years, and also the obligation to look after those in need. Poverty is both a relative and an absolute concept. Most analysis I've seen emphasises one and downplays the other.
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 13 November 2014 5:08:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
far greater spiritual poverty than natural poverty in this country. Many industries have been set up around victimhood which demands heaps of money and at times contributes to poverty. Unless spiritual issues are dealt with the fatherless, the hungry, the abuse, the suicides will increase. Many more will complete counselling degrees, social welfare degrees and other studies that will never touch on the real issues leading to poverty. The mantra of discrimination, disenchantment etc will keep many in tax payer funded jobs but do little to alleviate poverty.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 13 November 2014 5:27:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner, you sound like the world is coming to an end. Far from it. The Indian Government has viewed its situation of birth control and you might of seen it, the "smart" move about overpopulation in their case as with most counties, is to reduce the ability to breed in the first place. Dumping billions of dollars into the problem will not fix what's needed to be done. I know your a religious man, but there comes a time to see the real answers to the worlds problems when our very survival depends on it more than ever.

Tally
Posted by Tally, Thursday, 13 November 2014 5:55:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Left data, right data?
Posted by JF Aus, Thursday, 13 November 2014 8:45:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For most of the 20th century, a family could live well on one salary.
Now even two salaries are not enough to survive on and as a result, a much higher proportion of people are in debt. The average work hours (plus commute hours) keep increasing as well.

Having electronic gadgets, which are much cheaper today, is not an advantage but more often a demand of the work-place or study-place without which one can no longer gain employment. These artificially seem to lower the CPI, thus the rate of inflation, while food prices keep doubling and tripling, forcing more people to compromise their diet and eat junk. And when we buy household goods and cars, they only last half as long, at best.

If this is not poverty, then what is?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 13 November 2014 9:24:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said Yuyutsu!
Rhrosty
Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 14 November 2014 8:39:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is one claim I just can't take seriously Yuyutsu.

In my experience it is cheaper to but reasonable quality fresh food, & prepare it at home, than but fast food.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 14 November 2014 9:37:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That should have been buy of course.

As for food getting dearer, that is a bit doubtful too.

A dairy milking 70 cows used to be able to support 3 families. Now one milking 140 cows giving 3 times the milk can't support 2 families. This applies to most primary production.

The price for most things at the farm gate is little increased in over 25 years. The problem is what people, even those who live on handouts, expect.

How you can say people with TVs, CD players, mobile phones, cars & washing machines are living in poverty is a mystery to me.

They are living monetarily richer lives than my parents could ever manage. They may not be that well off compared to what 2 public servants or a couple of plumbers might be, but they are perhaps too comfortable for the good of the country.

Time for a more realistic definition of poverty me thinks.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 14 November 2014 12:03:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,

"This is one claim I just can't take seriously Yuyutsu.

In my experience it is cheaper to but reasonable quality fresh food, & prepare it at home, than but fast food."

Why can't you take it seriously?

According to the account you gave in this thread that you started, you are mortally frustrated because cooking times and temperatures for various fast food offerings don't correlate.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6612
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 14 November 2014 12:13:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Was there any point whatsoever to this article? Except for a little swipe at the ABC, which added zip, but Aitken got his dislike for the ABC across, what was the point?

The message I think I got is, which resonated with the conservative 'you're not good like me' people hating mob, is that poor people in Australia are lucky they're not in Africa and if they have a smart-phone they aren't poor at all.

Oh, and if only we cut more regulations, houses are miraculously going to become more affordable. Weird. That's not going to be good for the negative gearing house portfolio future millionaires.
Posted by yvonne, Friday, 14 November 2014 2:29:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyustu

A family can still live extremely well on one salary, if by “living well” you mean a living standard comparable to that typical of, say, the 1950s – no overseas holidays, TV, CD player, computer, phone, or air conditioning; walk, cycle or bus to work and school.

Between 1950 and 2013 the consumer price index rose by 2,266% but the average male wage has risen from $19.55 a week to $1325.20 a week, or by 6,817%. So wages have nearly tripled in “real” terms.

In 1966 (the earliest data I could find) full-time male employees worked an average of 42.1 hours a week. In 2014, it is 37.6. For all employees (male and female, full- and part-time) average hours have fallen from 39.1 to 33.3 a week.

If families don’t think they can “live well” on one average salary today, it’s because we have vastly changed our definition of what it is to “live well”.
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 14 November 2014 2:56:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot your dishonesty is overwhelming, but then we are used to it.

You know that thread was about party food for a bunch of kids, not real food. Surely any useful comment would have been on the cost of various foods, but you don't do useful do you.

You do sometimes appear to have the intellect for a serious discussion. Why you content yourself with nasty sniping I can only imagine. Something must have been very traumatic for you, to have reduced you to such a disposition.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 14 November 2014 3:12:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,

You're the one who told Yuyutsu you couldn't take seriously his idea that poorer people gravitate towards fast food because it's cheaper.

"This is one claim I just can't take seriously Yuyutsu.

In my experience it is cheaper to but reasonable quality fresh food, & prepare it at home, than but fast food."

I was merely pointing out that you apparently had a stock of fast foods on hand with which to feed the kids.

As in:

"I had a couple of grand kids & their friends here yesterday. It was not planned, so I did not have anything special for them for lunch, but after some time running around the bottom paddock, & the river bank with the dogs, they were starving.

I did have a range of those "home cook" bung in the oven, fast foods in the freezer...."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6612

So fast/junk food makes it's way into most homes because it's not only "cheaper", but obviously - as in your scenario - "convenient".
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 14 November 2014 4:33:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What i believe is money is going in the wrong hands. the richer becomes more wealthier well the poor is not improving.
Posted by thatintopen, Friday, 14 November 2014 7:37:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
" The ABC told us about the ACOSS study, but was silent, at least when I was listening, about the one from the IPA. No doubt if some had asked why, the answer would have been that ACOSS is a reputable non-government organisation, while the IPA is a right-wing think-tank. In fact, both are non-government organisations, and both are think-tanks, one is to the left and one to the right."

It is the dead hand of the informal editorial policy of the ABC and SBS at work.
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 16 November 2014 11:15:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Come off it thatintopen, I was 11 years old before my family could afford a 25 year old motor car, & my father was managing a retail store with 15 employees.

Today the youngest, just out of school, shop assistant can easily afford a car, & one much younger than that.

Just look at the average home 50 years ago. A small fibro 3 bedroom box, lined with hardboard, offering shelter, but not much more. Look at the average McMansion today. Hell the kids today would refuse to live in my first home, & I was bloody well proud of it.

If you eliminated the cost of essentials like the net, mobile contract, Foxtel, a car, gym, personal trainer & such, the average kid would have more disposable income than the average family in the 50s.
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 16 November 2014 12:47:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy