runner

You are correct when you say "Poverty in this country is more about social problems rather than economic conditions".

But what has our Govt. done to solve these social problems, once again this is the point of the article, we live in a society not an economy.

Or are you blaming people for the social problems? The I'm all right jack, blame the bludgers argument is lost.

Face it the economic miracle is a myth.

Runner,

You know very well that using the term 'Howard haters' is going to set people on edge. You should also know by now that it marks you as someone who will stick up for Howard no matter what he does, whether it's right or wrong.

Surely someone of your particular convictions should be able to weigh issues up on their merits, and not according to whether one man's name is attached to them or not.

What will you do if Howard resigns, is voted out, has a heart attack or is otherwise unable to represent you? You put yourself in a precarious position by identifying so closely with a single politician who is, like all of them, only a politician.

I wonder whether some people have elevated Howard to a position beyond mere man, politician man at that, to the point where they're prepared to defend him as though he were some other type of being - higher than man?

People want. Wants cost. People want big pay packets. So do the people supplying or manufacturing the wants. People wanting drives the economy and material prosperity. It also drives raw resource costs, material and manufacturing costs, and wage costs, and it also drives waste costs due to over production to lower unit prices. Once everyone is all wearing the same 'in' shirt and owns the latest model car, and there's a plasma in every living room. Throw it all out kids. Your a decade behind as of yesterday and the Jones are again taking the lead. More waste in feeding the ego's. Your living standard and materialism is built on wasted material resources. It got so bad a whole new industry of recycling came into being just to keep up. Before people buy anything they should discover for themselves exactly how much of that items purchase price goes to the advertisement that got them to say oooooh, I want. I found a site on the web that did a search by country on chocolate adverts and the expenditure varied from 200millions to 800millions. How much are you paying for a bar of chocolate?

ruawake, who else is there but the people to blame for social problems?

'We' choose to surround ourselves with the latest gadgets, 'we' in-debt ourselves, John Howard hasn't twisted anybody's arm. This same argument was a factor in the 96 election too. Remember the debt truck?

Governments left and right encourage a dependant populace, its called pork barrelling and buying our vote.

It's the middle-class welfare that's most lamentable.

Ruawake

Your argument makes no sense for many of the welfare measures I describe - educational attainment, life expectancy etc. Or do you think most people are dying younger while a privileged few live to 340?

It is in theory possible that real median earnings or household income are falling while the averages are rising, but neither you nor the author presents any evidence to support of that.

The ABS earnings data actually show median earnings growth slightly ahead of average earnings growth between 1997 and 2006 (1997 data aren't out yet, and there’s no 1996 survey for a neat 10-year comparison), and both increasing much faster than inflation:

all employees median earnings
Aug-97 $499
Aug-06 $750
increase 50%

all employees average earnings
Aug-97 $585
Aug-06 $862
increase 47%

full time median earnings
Aug-97 $578
Aug-06 $900
increase 56%

full time average earnings
Aug-97 $703
Aug-06 $1051
increase 50%

Consumer price index
Q3 1997 119.7
Q3 2006 155.7
increase 30%

ABS household distribution data suggest real growth in household income and expenditure across all household types, not just the affluent.

On working time, the people working the longest average hours are managers, in short those least likely to be forced to by desperate economic conditions:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/17/1055828328673.html

Overall, average full time hours worked have been pretty flat, and average hours worked by all employees have trended downwards over the past 15 years (the first column shows average weekly hours of all employees, the second of full time employees)


1991-92 __ 34.7 __ 40.6
1992-93 __ 34.4 __ 40.3
1993-94 __ 34.6 __ 40.7
1994-95 __ 34.7 __ 40.9
1995-96 __ 34.2 __ 40.5
1996-97 __ 34.5 __ 41.0
1997-98 __ 34.5 __ 41.2
1998-99 __ 34.4 __ 41.1
1999-00 __ 34.6 __ 41.4
2000-01 __ 33.9 __ 40.6
2001-02 __ 33.7 __ 40.7
2002-03 __ 33.9 __ 41.0
2003-04 __ 33.4 __ 40.3
2004-05 __ 33.7 __ 40.6
2005-06 __ 33.2 __ 40.0
2006-07 __ 32.7 __ 39.4

Data can be verified on the ABS website http://www.abs.gov.au
If we're going to argue stats, maybe you could supply data or sources too?

Rhian,

You don't consider how average house prices have gone up, from 3.3 times the median wage in 1970 to 7.4 times in 2005. This must be a major stress on any budget. See

http://www.findem.com.au/factsheets/housingfactsheet.pdf

Most of the increase is driven by the increasing cost of land, even though block sizes have been getting smaller, so this isn't primarily due to people just choosing to pay extra to have a mansion.

According to a Greens document issued in September 2006 by Dr. Richard Denniss (google his name plus "Let Them Eat Cake"), the CPI includes the cost of building a house, but not the cost of the land the house is built on. Nor does it include the cost of buying an established house or of interest payments. Denniss does not discuss rents, so these may be included, but investors have, at least until recently, been prepared to accept relatively low returns on rental properties, with the main interest being in the capital gain.

Some goods, such as cars and electrical goods have gotten cheaper in real terms, but many staples have gone up, as Denniss' graphs show.