Tristan said;
want *waste* try this: Because of Telstra's privatisation the current
Government has had to pay about $7 BILLION just to access Telstra pits
and wires for the NBN!

And why do think they paid that ?
Because they could not get ducts and pits cheaper anywhere else !

Simple isn't it ?

All this sounds like a great argument to invest in public housing.

Though as I said some areas involve inflexible demand even if wages rise. Shopping Centres, for instance , need cleaners. If their pay goes up by $5/hour it will mean a great deal to the cleaners - and the difference will be 'passed on' to other consumers. The price we pay for fairness.

Of course that could affect other low income workers as well. Which is why we restructure the tax mix and invest in the social wage.

Its also why we invest in social goods and services, including social insurance, so people on low incomes know they can depend on (much more efficient) public health insurance system rather than fork out for private health insurance they know they cannot afford.

Same applies for state school education.

For people in jobs with less-flexible demand - where viability depends on relatively low wages - a couple of responses.

a) areas not providing an important service or important goods may just be let go IF industry policy can replace those jobs with something better which makes use of existing skill sets - or skills sets which reasonably could be upgraded to...

b) Again you can intervene via the structure of the tax mix, and through provision of the social wage. Making free public transport part of the social wage could make a big difference for instance.

BTW the dilemma you raise is raised by Lyons and McAuley in 'Governomics' as well. People 'drop out' of the public system because it is underfunded - whether we speak of health, education, whatever. This narrows the demographic base supporting the public system. You end up with 'two tiers' and a class-divided system. The only answer is a big public investment in health, education etc. Make the public system the better choice, and the rational choice.

Bazz yes you're right they couldn't get cheaper pits etc elsewhere. But that's not the point. The point is they had to pay for all that AGAIN because of privatisation! The point is that privatisation was wasteful because the government had to come back several years later and pay a very steep price for the infrastructure it should have held on to in the first place....

rehctub, although there is little doubt the proposed NG changes, if implemented, would have some negative effect on used housing, there's overwhelming doubt the impact would be huge. Your predictions remind me of the former opposition's "hundred dollar roast" scaremongering. They're just plain dumb!

A much more likely would just set house prices back to where they were a year ago and they would soon resume their upward trend. People would still have plenty of equity in their homes to fund a lifestyle.

Your "kill the dreams" claim is particularly stupid. First home buyers do not have to restrict themselves to new houses, so they'd generally be better off. At most any disadvantage would depend on state government legislation (the First home Owners Grant) which can easily be changed and often is.

Government incompetence doesn't correspond with which which party's in power. But since we gained unlimited credit (when the dollar was floated) there has never been a good reason to sell assets for much less than they're worth, yet that's frequently happened.

Despite a lot of what the poor buy being GST exempt, GST still impacts them harder than it does the rich.

In southern Australia at least, $2 milk is not killing dairy farmers. And if they want more money they should produce a more valuable product, like A2 milk.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,

Those economists who understand sectoral balances knew from the start that at this stage of the economic cycle austerity will only harm the economy, and interest rates can't be set low enough to overcome that. Unfortunately they're not the ones who get the most media attention.

The drop in Woodside's profit is not because cheap energy has ended, it's because cheap energy has returned, so their product is less profitable.

Tristan,
they had already sold the pipes & pits so they had the money
to buy them back. A variation in value probably but that was a time
difference and it was probably a sellers market.

The so called experts on the NBN had no idea how much it was going to
cost to provide pipes & pits. That is why the nodes to the corner
system was so much cheaper. A lot of rot was talked about the decrepit
copper installations.
I had a look at the cable in my former street that was installed 50+
years ago and it is in perfect condition as it is plastic sheathed
and the wires have PTFE insulation. It will still be good in 100 years time.
Don't believe the BS around it all.

No Aiden,
the major oil companies are not worried about the present low prices.
They know they will not last. It is the $Trillions they have been
investing in search & development, the return they see on that
investment they now realise will be too low to be viable.
It is the Golilocks effect, the price the economy can afford is lower
than the price the majors can get for their new product.
There is no just right price.

Hence Shell realised that deep sea drilling in Alaska could never pay
so the pulled their rig back from Alaska.

The current low prices will remove the expensive drillers, tight sale,
out of the business,1600 down to 548 rigs in one year.
Bankruptcies everywhere.
All this volatility was predicted in the 1990s for after peak oil in 2006.
A few cycles of low & high prices then finish, permanent high prices.

Aden you have been sucked in with the $2 milk I see. You see farmers get the same premium price for their premium milk, its just that they don't sell as much so most of what they produce gets downgraded to meet the demand for generic milk.

To increase the cleaners wage by five dollars means another seven dollars to the business and consumers won't pay the price, online shopping is proof.

Besides, increasing the min wage by five dollars means you must increase the doctors wage accordingly, otherwise who wants to be a doctor.

If cleaners and the like want more money then work more hours its really that simple.

As for housing, this proposal will decimate the used housing market because the investors will leave that market.

How do people upgrade when the buyers for their existing homes have gone!

First home buyer grant is restricted to new homes btw.

Who is going to build units without the aid of Ng! Nobody!