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.

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”.

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.

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".

What i believe is money is going in the wrong hands. the richer becomes more wealthier well the poor is not improving.

" 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.