Peter, how we define poverty appears to be the nub of all this. I guess on one measure (global poverty) we are all in the Rockerfeller bracket and should be happy not to go hungry every night (tho I suspect alot of Australians do just that). Income seems to be the measure adopted by you and others. I wonder if housing affordability, access to dental care, decent schooling, a hospital bed when you need one or simply having some time to spend with your family and friends will ever get a look-in when it comes to determining how "well off" we are. Some people tell us we've never had it so good. I wonder "Is this as good as it gets?" If so, we are all the poorer.

The definition game (relative and absolute) is quite well known in economics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold

One thing is certain however; Peter Saunders suffers neither.

If we forget for a moment the definition of poverty and just look at what is happening in Australia at the moment. We are seeing a reduction in real wages for those at the lower end of the income spectrum due to WorkChoices, an increase in house repossessions, mortgage repayments which constitute a good portion of our take home pay and a record number of people seeking help from charities.

It is all very well to get tied up in defining poverty, but lets look at what is happening around us. Living in middle or upper class suburbia sometimes blurs and distorts our view of what is really happening in other parts of our communities.

Are there some people on disability pensions that could work? I am sure there are, but lets not make the rules so stringent that genuine cases are swept up in the quagmire. The recent case of the woman undergoing chemo for leukaemia and penalised for not turning up for an interview is just one example.

The number of carers has increased because of the lack of services for the disabled, the mentally ill and the aged - forcing more people to leave work to care for their loved ones on a meagre benefit. We may not like to think of it but there are people scraping by who do need some help and to waste time on definitions is superfluous, we all know that economic indicators are not worth the paper they are written on...I don't know anyone who really believes that CPI is a true reflection of the cost of living.

What a hate-filled article. I can tell you right now that a diability pensioner will live below anyone's definition of the poverty line. This will then include also all full-pension aged pensioners. Working off this alone and ignoring those that are on carer's pensions and sole-parent pension's (as they get FTB as well which all helps), using the author's figures and assuming that around 1/2 of the age pensioners are full receipients, then we have 700,000 + 1,000,000 = 1,700,000 people on poverty pensions. This equates to around 8.5% of the population, well above the estiamtes given by the author. Not to mention that diability pensioners and age pensioners generally dont get off their pensions.

Also, consider that the disparity highlighted by the author of the record-low unemployment levels, plus record high welfare dependancy really shows up how the unemployment figures have been manipulated by the changed reporting standards - more people have been moved off the unemployment registers and onto other welfare.

On the otherhand though, when we are looking at incomes, we should really be considering disposable incomes. Family tax benefit in particular is not taxable, so for most people that receive it, $5000 in benefit really equates to $7200 of "earned" money. Not that this makes a massive differencem but it all contributes, particularly when the benefit is being received for several children.

You would expect a spokesman for the Centre for Independent Studies to promote small government.

20% of Australians live in poverty. Most Australian workers would be plunged into poverty if they were not paid for 2 pay cycles, they wouldn't be able to make mortgage / rent payments, pay for their car loan.

Do we want to be like America where the fastest rising social class is the working poor, people who work multiple jobs and remain in poverty.

While we continue to have privatised job placement services which distort the market by rewarding agencies that place long term unemployed in short term positions we will fail to plan for future labour needs and fail to develop effective programs to address long term unemployment.

The only way that "real" incomes have risen "at all levels" is against inflation figures that are as arbitrary as the "poverty line".

When inflation models cars and consumer electronics but ignore basic foodstuffs and housing costs, it reflects a level of affluence that only some of us enjoy.

If you're in that bottom 11%, or even in the bottom 30%, it's a fair bet that all your income -- whether it's from the state or from your wages; these people don't have investment income -- goes on everyday basics: rent, food, transport, and supporting addictions. The wealthy barely notice those expenses, and enjoy the dividend of the high dollar by importing luxuries.

It *is* scandalous that two million working-age Australians depend on welfare. But not because they don't deserve assistance from the community. It's scandalous because the assistance provided does not sufficiently help them to help themselves. Welfare should create flexible employment opportunities for the disabled and home-carers, not pension them off. As things stand, unemployment benefits, parenting benefits, carers' benefits and the disability pension are direct payments of money (NT Aboriginal recipients now excepted, for no good reason), and impose a loss of income as the individuals concerned begin to earn a livable wage (or as their children reach school age). The welfare trap is real, and its teeth are sharp.

Welfare requires reform that springs the jaws of the trap and provides peoples' needs, including the need to participate in the social and economic life of the community, rather than just providing an income. People on full benefit in Australia are not profoundly cash-poor, but many are dependent, despondent and prone to dissipation.

Commentators have learned to decry "middle-class welfare", as though support from one's community is something to which only the very poorest are entitled, while at the same time begrudging the assistance given even to the most needy. Why not just bring back the poor-house, lock them up and force them to work for food?

All welfare should be middle-class welfare, because everyone deserves the rewards of belonging to the middle class.

Come and spend a week with me after my next pay day and see for yourself how the other half lives. I live in a crumbling and decaying high-density urban neighborhood, with little to show for my struggle and little hope either.

But then, the CIS are stooges for big business, they are funded by a number of Australian big businesses, either directly or through their "chinese wall" foundations.

He who pays the piper, calls the tune. Business would rather no welfare, no minimum wages or a minimum wage thats so uselessly inadequate that predatory employers could eat us for breakfast. It would then fatten up their bottom lines at our expense, with us as our beasts of burden.

Contrary to the author's implication, unemployment levels today are not at all comparable to those of the seventies. To qualify as being 'employed' today you only have to work one hour a week. Thousands of people are working far less hours than they need to to support themselves. If 'underemployment' was factored in the unemployment level would be closer to ten rather than four percent.

Besides a lot of the work these days is contract work which gives no financial security. For most unskilled and semi-skilled workers, having a job today gives no guarantee of having one tomorrow. As pointed out by another poster, the American trend of the working poor is also taking hold in Australia and will only increase as Workchoices drives down wages. Growing numbers of people will need two or three jobs just to survive.

As a working taxpayer, I am far less concerned at the level of taxes being spent on social welfare payments, than I am at the prices of products and the level of fees I am paying to furnish the million dollar pay packets of the growing ranks of corporate fat cats. They are the real drain on society.

No matter how often rightwing thinktank gurus like Peter Saunders try to convince us otherwise, the constant evidence we all see for ourselves and read of on a daily basis tells us that poverty and wealth disparity are very real and growing problems.

Let them eat cake.

I set the Author to the challenge of living on the poverty line the service groups ( which he seems to think is to high) for 40 days. Let him and his family find a place to stay and set it up. Get the kids off to school and what not. Let's see if he can do it, and still think they are not doing it tuff. We know the answer already he won't do it but he'll continue to open his mouth having never walked in their shoes.

This seems reminiscent of earlier an discussion in response to an article by Peter Saunders. The article was "Defining Poverty" on 8 August 2005 and the forum discussion is at: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3737#12173

Others may find it useful.

---

I think George Monbiot recently hit the nail on the head regarding right wing neo-liberal think tanks such as Saunders' Centre for Independent Studies when he wrote in the article "How did we get into this mess?" (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/08/28/how-did-we-get-into-this-mess/) of 28 August 2007 :

"Their purpose was to develop the ideas and the language which would mask the real intent of the programme - the restoration of the power of the elite - and package it as a proposal for the betterment of humankind.

My big question is what on earth do these people that promote extreme neoliberalism really hope to gain? Do they have no knowledge of history? Did they not study the French and Russian revolutions? Even the 1929 stock market crash and subsequent depression can be quite convincingly be linked to extreme concentrations of wealth and lack of a decent-sized middle class to act as a market for products and services provided by capitalists.

I'm not 100% convinced about Monbiot's theory - Hayek always comes across to me as a genuine believer in liberty above any other consideration - i.e., misguided, but not inherently plutocratical. But I don't doubt that many of the subsequent institutes that promote his ideas do so in the hope of preserving the status of the wealthy.
I also believe that as long as we have working democracy we will never truly see the repeat of the massive wealth disparities of the early 20th century (and before). Once enough voters realised they've been duped, they'll vote accordingly. And as long as the examples of the successful Scandinavian economies are there for all to see, there is an antidote for anyone who declares that "big government" or "socialism" are inherently evil ideas that will ruin us all.

This argument would have more credibility if it also advocated the abolition of business (tax deductibility) welfare and middle class welfare.
What was that? Sorry didn't catch that?
Ooooh that is respectable government subsidy. I see.

I am one of the few people i know that have gone from a life of scarcity to a life of abundance.

My mother has been welfare dependant all my life and thanks to centrelink i had food in my stomack for most days per fortnight as a kid.

We are a nation dependant on welfare, and many Australians are in the cycle of poverty that they cannot get out of. My mother was welfare dependant, and now so are all my siblings.

Centrelink takes away your self esteem, no matter who tells you otherwise. And the job networks that run off centrelink is nothing more than an inefficient profit orientated enterprise where they want to place as many people to jobs as they can, and the rest of the people fall through the cracks.

Roughly 50% of the population owns property. Those that do enjoy the benefits of equity and the rising property market. This is the basis of wealth for almost every Australian, yet due to property prices, interest rates and the like it has become nothing more than a pipedream for the other half.

In 2007, without parents to help, or without some kind of windfall the next generation is finding it very tough to purchase property and to cross over into the 'haves' from the 'have nots'. Those that are centrelink dependant or that have high expenses may never get an opprtunity.

It is interesting that the suburbs with the highest centrelink dependance also have the highest gambling rates per capita. Gambling is the core revenue for a club, they put on a $6 dollar meal to attract their desired calss of clientele, and knwo they will get another $50 in the pokies shortly after.

We need to fix the way centrelink works, we need to get rid of the gambling prevalence and we need to convert as many people to home ownership as possible or the 2 tier society will only get worse, and this will effect Australian society in general.

"Those that do enjoy the benefits of equity and the rising property market. This is the basis of wealth for almost every Australian, yet due to property prices, interest rates and the like it has become nothing more than a pipedream for the other half."

Thank you realist (our backgrounds are not dissimilar) for pointing out a key cause of our nations relative impoverishment; we tax (punish) people for the production they engage in, rather than deriving income from the resources they use.

If we shifted the tax burden from those who work to those who collect land rents we'd all be better off. Even the current landlords who would surely benefit by redirecting their investments into something that provides employment, goods and services.

And I may as well go into some detail for this:

http://www.taxreform.com.au

Interesting that the IPA author, who probably all this, chooses to attack the poor rather than the cause of poverty. I could post a lot of rude words about that, but 100% of the posters here have already made their feelings known on the matter...

thankyou Lev for your coments, however this from you gets me sctratching my head:

"If we shifted the tax burden from those who work to those who collect land rents we'd all be better off. Even the current landlords who would surely benefit by redirecting their investments into something that provides employment, goods and services."

Land Rents? are you saying investors should foot the bill for a greater tax burdon?

That is robbing Peter to pay Paul. We would create a massive burden of the onus of providing public housing back on the state and combine that with the inability for baby boomers (who will emerge by 2026 as a massive welfare problem) to derive wealth for retirement through property if tax burdens made it unnattractive, that would be shooting ourselves in the foot.

Who would invest in property if you were so heavily taxed for doing so? Are you asking mums and dads to buy businesses or ostrich eggs rather than property? So rather than most doing well from investing (which property is a proven performer) they will play russian roulette with their lives? This would not be a viable option.

We need to:

A) Stop Gambling anywhere apart from casinos and some clubs.
B) Provide housing loans to those on the cusp with realistic repayments
C) Scrap everyone having to join a Job Network and scrap the current fortnightly form situation
D) Index welfare payments in line with cost of living, moreso than trying to catch up with it.
E) Free public transport for jobseekers
F) Free internet usage
G) Self esteem and self worth should be the most important things driven home to those on welfare. this is half the hurdle and the reason why there are long term unemployed or underemployed.

The author should try paying for rent/board, telephone and internet bills, electricity, water, transport/petrol costs, food - while on a pension - maybe it would give him a clearer idea what poverty really is. This is without considering whether or not there's anything left over for 'quality of life' matters: eating out occasionally, renting a DVD...

The cost of living is spiralling out of control. In Victoria there's the prospect of a private desalination plant sending the price of water through the roof... Then there's the effect of increased petrol costs flowing through to everyday consumables such as food.

And when a emissions trading system is implemented, who's going to pay for the increased cost of power? This is at the same time as an ageing population is going to send health and aged care expenses through the roof.

I invite the author to try and survive on $14,000/year or less - and find out what poverty really is.

Tristan

How can anyone contest the author's main point? The present support provisions are plenty enough to provide for the basic needs of most folk in unfortunate circumstances. Any kind of statistical formula, such as a half the average pay, is bound to throw up lots of people in poverty. Even if the average pay were a million a week, the percentage of those in poverty would remain the same.

The crucial question though is whether the support levels are adequate to maintain folk in some kind of adequate life and dignity.

We need to know and do more about how to provide help without also inducing a sense of dependence, obligation, and loss of worth.

We need to recognise that only a wealthy society can be generous to those who unfortunately have needs that can be met only from community support. There is no magic pudding.

Affluence, success, and prosperity seem to depend on several factors: ability, application, and luck. Luck includes stuff like not being born with a disability, not falling ill, not being made responsible for someone with a serious disability, inheriting a bit of property after price inflation, getting a mark of 51 instead of 49, and so on. A viable society has to protect or insure people against such vagaries of fortune. I think we should be exceedingly generous to those who cop these burdens. Ability too verges on the brink of luck. But let's face it, we are not all equal when it comes down to interpersonal skills or sheer intelligence. Some are brighter and more able than others. And we are not all equal in our willingness to work hard and delay gratification in pursuit of later advantages.

If we are to have a wealthy commonwealth we have to reward ability and effort, and lavishly, so that there is plenty to compensate those how have lost out in the lotteries of ability or circumstance.

"It finds that only 3 per cent of the population comes out as poor at any one time on this measure, and just 1 per cent remains poor over two successive years." Saunders uses an old ploy implying he is doing this on behalf of all the workers paying their taxes. He has nothing to say about the media barons paying taxes or paying no taxes. This is a right wing enemy of workers and is a mouthpiece for the press barons; a layer that have profited enormously (in the billions)over the last two decades. Courtesy of the Labor and Liberal governments. They certainly never earnt it. The right wing uses the big lie 1per cent remaining poor. But heres the rub we are told 700,000 on disability support, 600,000 on welfare, nearly half a million unemployed and two million aged pensioners, not to mention more than three million families claiming Family Tax Benefit. According to the 'big lie' all these people are not poor but well off. In reality, most workers today are called 'the working poor,' many with casual jobs, and not being able to live and plan their lives properly.
Workers should draw a sharp warning from this that the destruction of pensions and doles are in these peoples sights: in order, to carry through further attacks on wages and living standards. This is the layer that is presently putting the boot into the disabled to drive them downwards into substandard work and very cheap labour.

Fencepost,

you write, "The crucial question though is whether the support levels are adequate to maintain folk in some kind of adequate life and dignity."

Dignity is hard if you depend on handouts from a capricious government agency which requires you to jump through new hoops every few months. Some justify it to themselves on the basis that their time is spent doing something worthwhile for which they deserve to be paid, whether it earns them a wage or not and whoever pays them; others are resigned to dependence or see it as normal; many more are simply humiliated.

The fact that the dole *is* enough to live on -- in squalor -- merely draws tight the dependency trap.

And as for whether anyone can contest the author's basic point; the point he wants to make is that the government should spend less, not more, on welfare.

I disagree profoundly. Wherever people remain physically incapable or psychologically dependent, it would be cruel to reduce welfare payments. Material welfare, in the form of practical assistance to people who could support themseves in different circumstances, is hopelessly inadequate.

The only good way to reduce the total welfare budget is to reduce the number of people who need payments, not the amount the needy receive. And the only way I can see to achieve that involves a large short-term increase in ancillary spending.

Realist,

It's nice that housing is a proven performer for small investors without significant 'risk' capital. Unfortunately the incentives and tax breaks given to encourage investment in housing apply not only to small investors, but also to big ones, developers and speculators. As a result, housing is somewhat overvalued in comparison with truly productive investments; indeed there is quite a bubble which, while it may subside gradually, may burst at any time. Why should negative gearing apply to large-scale housing investments but not to sound business finance? Why should people earning $20,000 a year in wages pay income tax, when there are people who have that much and more in rental income that they write off against mortgage interest?

Fencepost, it is not true that the percentage of the population earning half the average income is necessarily greater than 0.
For example, take:

3000000 households earning $30000/yr
4000000 households earning $50000/yr
2000000 households earning $70000/yr
1000000 households earning $100000/yr
100000 households earning $500000/yr
10000 households earning $10000000/yr

Mean household income = ~$58000/yr. Number of households earning less than half of mean income = 0.

ECONOMIC SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT is something Australians don't understand but I DO sense the shock is that we are about to learn.

ie: Wheat Markets. To grow for food or grow fuel? GADS. Even if one could decide, WHERE do we plan to get the WATER?

Do we blame this on Climate Change, or do we blame it on the indices lacking in the national conversation?

We spend so much time bagging one another that we fail to hear the parts that might help us problem solve.

Childcare: Why is it that Europe and Asian communities understand the gift of lifestyle?

Schooling. Why do we blame the children and teachers for the erractic learning curves, the schoolyard bullying, the disconnected support links(shrinking) between community and schools.

Crime. Why don't we embrace the knowledge of those dealing with the problem. Household disturbance, drugs and the rest.

Welfare agencies - treated like idiots, stressed to the nines- expected to pick up the human pieces.

Woman. Equity urgently required. Our gender politics has gone backwards.

Share the Burden AUSTRALIA.

This show is not all about money, about whose got it and who has not. It is about our respect for eachother . We need to improve our inter-relationships.This is the real cultural and politcal poverty.

While we spend our time playing two-up, we will continue to undermine what we know about our national experience.

This is where the hard earned dollars are wasted.

Credit goes to those who realise this is not a game. Politic's is about everyday life. Australia has a diverse population with a diverse knowledge base. We need to utilise all of it.

Our networks are breaking down, our communities are "shrinking". I believe our critical intelligence is being undermined by our own bias.

Are we just a bunch of hot air "whingers" or do we have a ear and a eye on the way things might be in the future?

Do we care?

http://www.miacat.com
.

In Australia there is no such thing as poor. The only thing that is poor is the choices that people make. The government system is not perfect, and true, some abuse it, but its fair none the less. Greed is ripping this world apart, and you know it. The rich are getting richer and the poor don't even get the picture anymore. In all, you can put it down to the food chain. We still have long way to go before we grow up. I am sure in some past post I said we are still in the dark ages. In universal terms, we think on the level of a five year old. Think about it! WE still throw tantrums, we still fight over crap, and paranoia is now the new disease. I guess I am alone with these thoughts, but I will tell you this! My world is in Peace. Maybe one-day, mankind will help all, instead of its singular self.

"I invite the author to try and survive on $14,000/year or less - and find out what poverty really is."

You miss the point Tristan. There are hard working people who trudge
to work every day for 6 months, for that kind of money. They do
their share, they pay their way.

Others on welfare, get it easy. No alarm clock, no rushing off to
work, pile 6 in a house and the rent becomes quite affordable.
The Morning Show waits on tv, life is a breeze.

Personally I'd rather see their payments cut back, so that those
who work for 6 months for similar money and pay their way, pay less tax and are not
lumbered with taxation by those who get it easy and don't appreciate
the fact

Bronwyn,

The definition of unemployment as being less than one hour’s work a week has not changed since 1960. It is not determined by the government, but by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in line with international definitions. Here is the ABS account of unemployment measures: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/RN/2006-07/07rn18.pd

Realist,

The purpose of land rents is to shift investment from land speculation
to buildings, services and goods. The real cost of actually building a
house has been stable for the past fifty years; the rising cost is in
land prices, which is largely dependent on surrounding infrastructure.

Shifting the tax burden from productive to unproductive investment means more jobs, more goods and services, better buildings and *less* tax. This is the considered advice of the world's best economists - and with bodies like the Housing Industry Association consistently providing empirical advice on the matter.

(There's some good material with an Australian context: http://www.lvrg.org.au/)

Fencepost,

The author's main point is simply that we should ditch relative poverty for evaluation and use absolute poverty instead. In other words, the barest minimum required to maintain life, which is probably less than 50 cents a day. I don't know about you, but I prefer a standard a little higher - the minimum amount required for a person to participate in society with dignity. On that basis the relative poverty model; 50% of average earnings - has been used in Australia for many decades. I don't think we should compete with Ethopia on how we define poverty.

Chris

While the methodology and definition of (un)employed may not have changed in a long time, it may be instructive to compare the proportions of full-time, part-time and casual workers over the period since 1960.

If, for example, the proportion of people employed for just a few hours a week has increased over the years then the use of a single figure for unemployment is not very helpful to our understanding of changes in the workforce and the consequent social impact.

(Incidentally your link isn't connecting.)

dnicholson.

Thank you for correcting my sloppy choice of average instead of median. I think I intended to argue something like there will always be 10% of the population in the bottom decile of income.

Fencepost.

Chris C

The method of measuring unemployment may not have changed but the nature of employment certainly has, and the way it is measured needs to be updated to reflect this change.

If a person worked one hour in 1960 there was a very high chance it meant they had a full time job. Today the measure means nothing. You could work one hour or you could work one hundred hours, both extremes are undesirable and not at all uncommon.

The government should not be allowed to milk these figures as they do and imply that most people have a job and work the hours they want to when this is clearly not the case.

Saunders' articles uses a lot of words simply to argue that:

1. working people should not be paying taxes to support people on welfare,

2. poverty should be defined in absolute term and not relative terms, and

3. that people who are temporarily on lower incomes don't suffer.

In regard to the $70 billion annual welfare bill, Saunders fails to ask how much of this money actaully reaches welfare recipients. I think both Saunders and Yabby should take account of this and the other massive inffeciencies in the largely privatised social welfare and job placement network before they attempt to fan the flames of resentment from taxpayers towards welfare recipients.

As one example, the rental supplement is, in fact, a subsidy to landlords and a factor which fuels Australia's runaway housing inflation. Had the original public housing arrangments been maintained, the costs to the taxpayer would have been considerabley less.

Much of the money is spent on bureacratic harassment of welfare recipients. An opinion put to me by one person who ran the job interview and resume writing training programs is that they were useless and simply intended to further deter people from applying for welfare payments it the first place.

Personally speaking, this has all had the desired effect. On at least two occasions in my life when I badly needed welfare payments, I instead did without, instead running down my own hard-earned savings, such was my dread of dealing with Centrelink.

---

My above point about the right wing think tanks is because I have noticed throughout the years how Saunders seems to give a very convincing impression of having the best interests of the poor at heart when he advocates measures which any intelligent person would have to know would be harmful to them:

* throwing people off welfare after six months, and

* the abolition of minimum wages

Clearly many, who should know better, have gained this impression, and even I can remember, myself, having fleetingly given him the benefit of the doubt in regard to his motivations on past occastions.

Yabby, cutting welfare to those earning less than $14000 (including nothing) is not to make any noticeable difference to how much tax those that do earn around $14000/yr will have to pay in order to keep the budget in balance. I really hope that is not your argument.

Yes, there are dole bludgers, and they'll always be with us. But better that than having them homeless, turning to crime or becoming a drain on the health system after winding up in hosptial suffering from malnutrition. After all, do you have any idea what tiny percentage of your own taxes goes towards supporting genuine serial employment-avoiders?
And for every dole bludger, there's almost certainly others on welfare who desperately want to break out of the poverty trap, but whose money, time and energy is completely used up just treading water. Cutting welfare payments is clearly not going to do them any good.

Perhaps Peter Saunders and Yabby would care to comment on the following post, recently posted to an earlier forum on "A crisis in housing affordability" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4834#98113 :

"Some of the comments made here are absolute BS. I am 25 too, I rent and it`s the worst it has been for decades. You are foolish to think 'It`s never been easier to buy....' Nearly every house in Perth is over 350000 dollars. And if you want a house in a good suburb your in the 600-1.5 million dollar mark. When my dad bought built his first few houses in really nice southern suburbs of perth it cost him 250-250km on the block built. We young people don`t have half a million so we have to rent, and then when you rent a place out you get kicked out so the owner can sell his house and make a fortune. It`s so unfair, as a young guy that`s engaged I want some stability and if i have to move out every 6 months. Nothing's getting done about it and quite frankly if they continue to do nothing whilst cutting off welfare benifets, you just watch all us young people, homeless out on the street and living in cars, while all the baby boomers sit back in their million dollar houses in the best suburbs knowing they paid 80 grand to buy it 10 years back, and then they rent out there 2nd 'investment house' out for $500/week and don't have to work. That's why there is a skills shortage, never has there been a time in Australian history when people have been so rich and been able to retire so early. I'm going to have to work my ass off to get somewhere in this greedy world. Down with all the lazy baby boomers who have wrecked it for us!"

---

Apparently, workers should resent having to pay taxes for social welfare, but apparently it's OK that millions of people in circumstances similar to that faced by OZZYRENTER have to sweat in order to support property speculators' lifestyles.

Here am i grumbling about the GST when i know pensioners struggling to keep a roof over their heads.Some pensioners hobble around delivering junk mail because the waiting list for govt housing is 5 or 6 years long.In the meantime $400 a fortnight off the top of their meager incomes is spent on accommodation.Would you believe,here in Qld the govt houses are being revamped and sold on the private market.Maybe the author should move to my district and look at the real world.Of course we have bludgers and wastrels but we also have a lot of genuinely needy people.How the elderly and infirm ever manage to exist on such a pittance eludes me.

Daggett, of course Perth real estate is booming! Everything else is booming too,
as people flood in, to take advantage of the mining boom. Demand is far
higher then supply.

You can still get a house built in Perth for 150k$. The problem is land and it’s the
State Govt which has not released enough of it. It’s the same old story, State Govt
officials wanting to avoid urban sprawl, limited land release, which now means
huge real estate prices. Last time I noticed, they sold off blocks for 300k$. State
treasury does well, but by the time somebody builds a house on that land, it will
still cost 450k$.

I don’t’ see why you blame it all on property speculators. Those houses are rented
out in the end, so creating a larger pool of rentals, at lower prices then would have
been otherwise. My young nephew rents a place with a couple of others his
age. They each pay 80$ and that covers the rent. Its not a flash house, but quite
liveable.

What seems to me to have changed is expectations. Back when I was 25, I certainly
can’t remember any of my friends even thinking of buying a home in a good suburb.
We paid a lot higher interest rates then is paid now, so the problem was virtually
as great as it is now. So we compromised and found solutions.

Some bought old run down places, then patched them up as they could, then upgraded
later in life. Others with smart partners, both worked fulltime, one salary was banked,
they lived off the other and owned their own places within a few years.
Some went up North, made a quid in mining there, then came South and paid cash
for their houses. I built my own house and lived in a half built house for years.
It took about 10 years until I finally could afford carpets!

Now, they are 25, they want everything easily and instantly. They blame everyone
and everything, even babyboomers it seems. We got off our butts, why can’t this
generation?

Bronwyn and Frank,

I agree that the current definition of one hour a week is inadequate. I simply want the debate to proceed on a factual basis. It seems that once upon a time someone somewhere blamed John Howard for changing the definition so others just keep repeating this initial untruth, while someone else somewhere blamed Paul Keating and others of a different political stripe keep repeating this untruth. It is similar to the way in which The Australian keeps claiming that the states have “squandered” their GST revenue, so credulous souls start to believe it even though it is not true. Any changes made to the method, as opposed to the definition, are made by the ABS.

I left the last letter off the link. I am sorry. Here it is again: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/RN/2006-07/07rn18.pdf

I'm not surprised to see that such an article of looking upon others comes from the CIS. Funny how someone who wants to get past the rhetoric of poverty is using nothing but.

Yes, unemployment figures are down but what the author ignored, is that majority of those on the dole are working casual hours which gives the false figure of unemployment. Were the true figure of unemployment shown, it would be past 20% which is very sad.

How sad that people can't get much past casual labour and need welfare to survive. Also, the fastest growing welfare sector is the middle class for were they to remove this welfare, there would be little middle class left in Australia and every political party would be the dog's breakfast.

Thank you Peter Saunders for your timely and accurate article.

As a former resident in a Housing Commision area I can personally confirm that there are hordes of professional welfare recipients to whom dole bludging is a serious lifestyle choice. But since the Howard government got serious about getting rid of dole bludgers ten years ago, then the figures quoted by you that indicate the degree of welfare dependence today is really frightening.

Could I submit that you missed something? To what degree is the ever spiralling welfare bill the direct result of importing welfare and crime dependent minorities. I once read in Sydney's "Sydeny Morning Herald" that the Muslim suburb of Ausburn had Australia's highest proportion of long term welfare recipients (ironically, right under an article slamming Pauline Hanson.)

Importing people into this country who can not speak English and who are even illeterate in their own language is to burden the Australian people to an unacceptable degree. No wonder our hospitals are at crisis point.

We are importing people who are a drain upon our society for "humanitarian" reasons while giving the finger to our own productive people who are in need, and who's taxes paid for the social services that are being denied them.

Redneck

'illeterate in their own language'

It's actually 'illiterate'... and further, Australia is not importing significant numbers of immigrants who are 'illiterate' in their own language.

You're peddling falsehoods.

Billie;"20% of Australians live in Poverty."I don't believe it.I see so many small contractors/handymen etc, demanding cash these days that I doubt that the tax office even knows that they exist.Many are also on the dole or collecting the DSP or single parent benefits.The housing commission dwellings just down the road from me can afford powerboats,cars,etc and enjoy a lot of leisure time.

We have to get back to making the individual more responsible for their survival,or Labor's nanny state will destroy us socially and economically.

You don't know what you're talking about Arjay

If someone can afford a boat, they're not on welfare. I'd say that that housing commision house you're talking about is no longer a housing commision house but someone's mortgaged address.

And lots of leisure time ... come on ... not much to leisure when there's no money to enjoy this time with.

Arjay,Their will always be people that rort the system and live in govt housing when they shouldn't.In Qld the govt is now telling people on higher incomes to get out of the houses and rent privately.Of course the power boat could have been bought with a windfall of some kind.Maybe a legacy or a win on the Lotto. Then again the tenant may be actually now buying the house.The govt houses near me are being sold We will never stop some people from taking what they don't rightfully deserve.I believe the majority of people are decent and that our elderly and infirm certainly deserve to be given enough money to live a satisfactory life.Why don't we have mandatory work for the dole schemes,maybe after cleaning a few public toilets or spending hours on the side of the road picking up others detritus some of the bludgers would actually look for a job.I am aware that all on the dole are not bludgers but i would bet my right arm we still have quite a few that are.

Doesn't everybody know people who choose to live in poverty, at least as it's defined by income? I know some who do just enough work to survive as they pursue artistic dreams, and others who work in charity, and still others who just want to go surfing. Then there are those who own their house who do just enough work to get by, and who are between careers or having a bit of a break.

I reckon I would know 30-35 such people; all who would appear as part of the 11% who live in poverty as defined by income.

Govts. role is to provide equality of opportunity primarily thru education; and a safety net for those who miss out. Govt. ensuring equality of outcome is impossible and undesirable.

Posters who are so critical of the govt. should remember Paul Keatings advice- the best form of welfare is a job". The current labour and skills shortage is real. There could be an opportunity here?

Agree totally with the poster above- let's end middle-class welfare.

Bravo to the author for a perceptive and accurate article. I was a state MP in WA for 8 years to 2005 and I saw virtually no absolute poverty in my electorate during that time. I saw people who were doing it tough, of course, but the number and types of support services available to help these people was significant, so that the only true poverty was self-induced, through drug taking, gambling or other personal decisions.

At election time, and in the lead-up to each state and federal budget, the people whose income depends on government jobs crank up the same old record and state the the level of poverty in our society is rising, that more people are living in the streets than in the past, etc, etc. The reality is quite different.

At a time of low unemployment, the welfare lobby should be talking more about how its shrinking clientele can help themselves to take advantage of the economic and personal opportunities that our strong economic conditions are currently providing.

This is an emotive topic, and many of the posts it has attracted have therefore been highly emotional. There are two standard jibes: (1) 'I bet Saunders hasn't ever lived on an income this low'; and (2) 'CIS is just a mouthpiece for the capitalist class.' Neither is true. More to the point neither adds anything to our understanding of the issue.
I can understand that some people believe that income inequality should be reduced. I think they are wrong, but I am happy to debate this proposition with them. But what is going on in the 'Australia Fair' report, and many other reports like it, is this egalitarian agenda is being disguised as an anti-poverty agenda. This is what my article is attacking. If you want to argue for more radical income redistribution, then have the guts to stand up and say it - don't try to smuggle your policies through on the pretence that 11% (or even 19%!) of the population is 'poor' when this claim is patently absurd.
To those who say I have never lived on an income below the half-median income poverty line, I certainly have, and I would imagine many others have too. This was a key point of the article - that the 'poverty' estimates are grossly inflated precisely because they include people like me! In my case, I was a graduate student with two young children living in a rented house on a very low income - but I always knew the situation would improve, which is why it never felt like 'poverty' and did not represent a 'social problem' for people like the Vinnies to get upset about.

It seems that what is lacking from Saunders' side of the argument is exactly how his ideas will help those that are in a tough spot. Or, is it a case that the CIS believes that being in a tough spot is character building and acts as a spur to better oneself?

We're in a Mexican stand-off situation where both sides are firing bullets at each other from their respective ideological bunkers. What's needed is some action that shows understanding of the other side along with a determination to bridge the gaps in society. This requires compromise on both sides.

Peter, look out further than your north shore office.

The longer one is poor, the poorer they get because they are unable to acquire stuff other than food. eg new clothing, decent furniture etc. As you said, Peter, your low-income condition was a temporarry one [being a grad student] and voluntarily chosen. It is not known about what resources you had acquired, before that time, that could carry you through.

We are at a fork in the road. We can return to a welfare system and labor market reguluation similar to Europe, or go on apeing America and see the consequences.

Only thing, the consequences will enrich the bottom lines of your benefactors and rip hope and opportunity out from the bottom, as little as there is anyway.

Yabby,

You have done here exactly what you always do.

You simply restate, over and over again the same assertions, without any regard to earlier arguments in response to those assertions. This serves no useful purpose other than to bloat the size of the discussion and waste the time of others who wish to seriously discuss the issue at hand (see, also, our argument on another forum discussion in response to "Why the Ruddslide?" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6685#100190).

As an example, in another forum in response to my article "Living standards and our material prosperity" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6326#92771, in which you participated, the following point was made:

"... 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."

It is hardly conceivable that this telling statistic could have escaped your notice and you could hardly have failed to grasp that this, rather than "changed expectations", is the principle cause of OZZYRENTER's acute distress.

This is why it is necessary these days for two, and sometimes three(*), incomes often over mortgage repayment periods extended to 30, 40 years and sometimes even longer are necessary. (Also, this makes complete nonsense of whatever statistics Saunders uses on page 5 of "The Welfare Habit" on which to base his claim that incomes have more than doubled since the 1960's.)

While their may be other factors, the principle cause is property speculators. They are the ones who have ceaselessly lobbied since the 1950's, at least, when Menzies began the process of privatisation of housing to have the Australian economy changed to serve themselves at everyone else's expense.

OZZYRENTER and millions more like him are now paying with their sweat for this policy.

The example of the Housing Trust of South Australia, which provided good quality housing to all layers of South Australian society and never cost taxpayers a cent, is absolute confirmation that the distress faced by OZZYRENTER was wholly avoidable.

---

* I know someone who works two full-time jobs and whose wife also works.

"While their may be other factors, the principle cause is property speculators"

Well so you claim Daggett, totally ignoring the rules of supply
and demand. Speculators generally only live in one house.
They rent out the others. If there were far more houses for rent
then is required by the market, then rents would crash through
the floor. People would be foolish to buy a house, it would make
far more sense to rent.

Fact is that due to migration, we have a major shortage of houses.
State Govts, with their high density planning agenda, have not
released enough land, as the chardonay set are obsessed with the
evils of urban sprawl. Consumers have decided otherwise, they
want houses and McMansions. Cheap interest rates mean that people
can borrow far more to achieve their dreams, so they do.

To build a 3 by 1 bedroom house without too much fancy fandangles
is in fact still dirt cheap. Land it the problem and all the
mod cons are the problem. If Govts insist on charging 300K$
for a small block of dirt, no wonder housing has become unaffordable.
Don't blame the Federal Govt.

Yabby, and you're somewhat ignoring the fact that speculators who buy multiple properties and rent them out need to collect enough rent to cover their mortgages.

I agree that migration is part of the issue, though more as an underlying fundamental than a direct cause (it's the reason speculators get into property, as this guarantees prices will rise).
But that the current taxation structure encourages investors with spare cash to invest, often speculatively (i.e. not adding to supply), into housing, which drives up the prices above what most younger families wanting to get into the housing market can afford.
Most people do not want to live on the suburban fringe, and many young families would be quite happy with a modest 3-BR house with a fairly basic set of appliances and perhaps a few small luxuries - but not even this is affordable in the current market. Our previous house, a small, aging 2-BR weatherboard on a main road, 15km from the city, is now for sale at $550,000, which just beggars belief.

On this basis, it doesn't surprise me in the least that many young families on good incomes feel "poor".

Poverty is more about lacking the wisdom to spend effectively what one has available, rather than simply how much one has available.

Using relative earnings to assess levels of “poverty” is like trying to perform surgery with a piece of 4-by-2. Whilst the result might suit the needs of the assessor, the impact on the subject could be described as less commendable.

Poverty is only partly influenced by income. Many folk spend to exceed their income, regardless of what level it is.

“Poverty of spirit” is as profound as economic poverty. Poverty of spirit commonly known as “depression” is like the great (economic) depression of 1929 and has a negative influence of peoples sense of personal wealth (aka self esteem).

I guess it all comes down to something like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

So many people trawl along at the base level, not even attempting to develop themselves soa s to move higher up the hierarchy, where material wealth/poverty is less significant. They only ever measure their personal worth in economic / monetary terms. These folk obviously include the movers and shakers of the welfare industry, who so clearly see these things in a limited (economic only) context.

I would suggest real “wealth” is the right to self determination and self sufficiency and real poverty is the denial or subordination of “self” (often in the name of the supposed common or collective good).

Real poverty is where the individual is denied personal discretion, denied personal choice and denied the reward for personal effort. Where the individual is forced, by punitive taxes and / or legislation to live in the mold as decreed by the dull and unimaginative.

Real poverty will always be with us, some people just do not "get it" (and "IT" has nothing to do with material wealth).

HI TO ALL THE FORGOTTEN AUSTRALIANS just reading some comments some interresting some not so good POVERTY well to me ive been on the povetry line for over 20 years ,and seem to just survive with little income as my faimly also since col rouge is back in this comment and never bothered to answer my questions about when he was a staff admin officer for corrective services why is it that you col rouge didn't have any heart in anwering my questions about the abuse and rapes that occurred in our states institutions you said you and faimly mebers worked in such departments why can you not tell the truth of seeing the bad things as well as the good things you your self know about the abuse a lot of children suffered while they were in the states institutions you avoided answering this in comments i have put to you before but you never came back on line after that so will you answer them now aye if you had a job as a wardden or in admiastration you would be aware of what we forgotten australians suffered or are you one of those employees who didn;t care one bit about another human being treatment as for poverty our faimly struggles every day but we manage and live on a tight budget their are some times i would like to give my children and grand children more but i can not due to living in the poverty of the country we get by but its not easy i beleave those who are rorting this ststem living in housing commissions with their 40to60 grand a year jobs need to give people like us their housing commission im paying dead rent and we have moved several times to owners selling the home we rented from them if and when now the new goverment of australia acknowledge us forgotten australians some of us will get out of the poverty we are living in, the scammers are the ones who should be on the streetand renting not people like us regards micheal

“Where the individual is forced, by punitive taxes and / or
legislation to live in the mold as decreed by the dull and unimaginative.”

Great post Col and very wise words!

Nic, if market rental prices alone determined house prices, houses would
be dirt cheap. Do the maths. I can rent plenty of houses in Perth for 200-300$
a week. Based on your claim of covering mortgages, at 8% interest that’s a max
of 200K$, then the rates, repairs, insurance still have to be paid. Fact is
that speculators are financing low rents, by covering the difference with negative
gearing. Without it, they would have to charge full whack, rentals would go through
the roof. Somebody has to own houses that people want to rent.

Who said that most people don’t want to live on the urban fringe? Offer them land
at 100k$ a block and see how many flock in. The problem that has arisen is that
State Govts now hit developers with infrastructure costs of up to 150K$ a block.
Add that to the land cost of 150k$ and you are back to 300k. Another 200k for the
house and you have a half million $ house, which many cannot afford.

You didn’t feel poor as a young family? I certainly did and so did most of my
friends. But we had our youth, our health and lots of dreams. We’d scrounge an
old couch off somebody, a table from somewhere, a bed from somewhere else.
What has changed is expectations. People now want the lot at 25 and it doesent
work like that.

How many people were in your city when you were young and how many now?
More people means more competition for houses closer to the city, no wonder
your old house is worth much more. Smart people buy run down cottages in
slum areas which are close to cities. Eventually they get redeveloped and
they earn handsomely.

If you want house prices to drop, raise interest rates or build more houses,
but for that you need land.

You may well be able to rent houses in Perth at $200 a week.
In Melbourne you would be lucky to find something for double that.
And yes, negative gearing allows speculators to charge lower rents than they would have to otherwise, but if the tax system was set up to reward investing in alternative markets instead (especially in building more housing stock) the resultant easing in house prices would almost certainly lead to much lower rents.

Land prices say that most people don't want to live on the urban fringe. At least in Melbourne, there are reasonable blocks of land to be found for $150K on the fringe, whereas anywhere else, $300K is a minimum. Common sense also dictates it - relatively few people want to be a long way from their families, their jobs, and the various opportunities and services available when living closer to the city.

And no, I personally have never felt poor, but that's because I've been extremely fortunate in my circumstances, upbringing and innate abilities (that happen to match up with well-paying employment opportunities). But we were also lucky enough to catch the housing market when it was at least within reason. Were we the same age today, looking for our first house, the situation would be very very different.

I should have clarified - by "our previous house" I meant the one my wife, myself and toddler lived in about a year ago, when we sold it for less than $400K. We had bought it for ~$200K in 2001. Even then we were lucky to be able to afford it, compared to many of my peers. In that time, the population density of the suburb we lived in hasn't changed one iota, the population of Melbourne as a whole has grown at most a few percent, inflation and salaries have grown by maybe 15%, so at most one might have expected the house price to lift by 30 or 40%, rather than ~170%. That sort of growth rate can pretty much only be explained by some sort of speculation-fuelled bubble.

Huffnpuff “never bothered to answer my questions about when he was a staff admin officer for corrective services”

I have never been a “staff admin officer for corrective services” and have never claimed to be such.

Not all people who are engaged to work within prisons are staff or admin either uniformed or casually dressed.

As for “why is it that you col rouge didn't have any heart in anwering my questions about the abuse and rapes that occurred in our states institutions”

I suggest you get over it

“you not tell the truth of seeing the bad things”

If or when I see bad things I am the first to make such events public.
Because the way I “work” I am not tied by loyalty or risk to pension rights which might deter others.

“rorting this ststem living in housing commissions with their 40to60 grand a year jobs”

I agree with you but despite the fiscal ravages of 2 divorces I own my own home. I choose not to comment on income, other than to say, all I earn is eligible to and suffers tax, none of it comes from any social welfare source.

“im paying dead rent and we have moved several times to owners selling the home”

The choice to rent or buy has always been up to you.
The home owner has the right to dispose of their asset without recourse to anyone else. Alternatives to this right would be dictatorial, inequitable and likely to reduce the available rental pool considerably, with a subsequent upward influence on rental rates

As for “the scammers are the ones who should be on the street.”

Whilst I agree with you, I would also observe, life is not fair. Never has been, never will be.
The consequences of attempting to make things “fair and equal” will only result in the “Real Poverty” which I wrote of in my previous post, where we are all forced “to live in the mold as decreed by the dull and unimaginative.”.

Yabby – thank you for your comment and agreement

Huffnpuff asks:

“why is it that you col rouge didn't have any heart in anwering my questions about the abuse and rapes that occurred in our states institutions”

Col Rouge replies: "I suggest you get over it".

I ask Col Rouge: What's the worst thing that would happen to you if you showed a bit of compassion to a human being in need?

If you find that question beyond your emotional range, try this one:

If, one dark night, you were bashed, robbed and left for dead, and someone like Huffnpuff came along while you lay bleeding, dazed and bewildered, what would you like them to do or say to you?

"Common sense also dictates it - relatively few people want to be a long way from their families, their jobs, etc"

Common sense dictates nothing of the sort. How many people work
in city central? Bankers, insurers, a few others. You have to see
suburbia as whole villages of people. Schools, stores, businesses,
doctors, etc, etc, all within that suburban village. Most day to
day things are right there next to you, if you look around. Clearly
it makes sense to have a house not far from where you work, but there
are more jobs in suburbia then in any city. Look at the tree change
sea change movement. Oldies moving out of cities everywhere!

I paid 18% interest on my first house, and yup I felt poor, but so
did nearly all my mates. Thats ok, we had dreams and we have lived them.
But many now want life on a plate, instantly.

Your example of one house in Melbourne, tells me about one house,
not the market. What was the average house price in Melbourne in
2000 and what is it now?

Yabby, have you actually spent any time in modern outer suburbia of Melbourne and Sydney? It is literally nothing but houses, houses and houses. There are no shops, no industry, no offices etc. etc. They are anything but self-contained "villages" or communities. I've worked in "suburban" jobs nearly all my professional life (and one that was in an old outer industrial zone), and none of them would be fun to get to if I lived in the new satellite suburbs that are realistically many younger families are forced to locate to give property prices (I tested some the routes when we were seriously considering it at one point). And jobs are just one consideration - there's also family (all of whom live within 10km of the city), and the myriad entertainment/cultural/retail options that are unavailable in the new outer suburbs.

The rise in our house price is not atypical of the area, or of any suburbs a similar distance from the city. Closer suburbs have seen far more dramatic rises (a small 3-br terrace house in a suburb ~7km from the city my dad bought for around $300K ~10 years ago was recently valued at 1.2 million: that's a 4 fourfold increase in 10 years).

Your point about 18% interest rates reflects what I've heard many times before: despite such rates, houses were infinitely more affordable 20 years ago. Plus you had the advantage that once rates came down, mortgage payments were even more manageable.
FWIW, I have no complaints about our own situation, but I recognise just how lucky we are, and know full well that most in my age group (and certainly those coming along 4 or 5 years later) have been basically locked out of any realistic option to own their own home for quite some time.

Wiz, nope, I base my knowledge on the city of Perth, which is a good mix of
retail, industrial and suburban in most areas. If that is not the case in Sydney and
Melbourne, no doubt its those Govt planners who got it wrong, yet once again :)

There are always two sides to these debates. Melbourne is growing at 4% population
a year, which is a change from when they were all heading for the Sunshine Coast.

Any major city that grows, there will be high income individuals who prefer living
close to the centre. Go to London to see the price of real estate there, for instance.

Supply and demand come in to it. A larger population of wealthy individuals and
properties in some locations will increase., like inner city areas.

There are of course many winners. Plenty of working class people bought their
houses years ago, for a fraction of their price today. Your dad would be smiling,
he can retire in comfort, without requiring a Govt pension. There are plenty like
him, good on them. I am always happy to see the battler get a break in life.

Houses were certainly not more affordable when interest rates were 18%. Today
most women work and with two salaries, one saved, its not that hard to raise
enough money, to put down a healthy deposit on a house. I was still stuck with
the old female mentality, that once married, women would stay home and drink
cups of tea with their friends. That made buying a home as well as financing
a business, virtually impossible. We certainly had it a lot tougher then today’s
youth, who seem to want the world on a plate, right now.

Interestingly, whilst you aspire to live closer to the city, take a look at every
second retired politician, CEO or movie star. They head for the country,
to escape the rat race. There are values far beyond city life, but it takes
wisdom and time to understand them.

I fully agree that much of modern suburbia is a classic example of failed government planning. Indeed, I'm not sure much planning went to its development at all.

FWIW my Dad was hardly ever a "battler" (except for perhaps his childhood) - and the suburb his house was in was hardly working class either.

Again, population growth is no doubt an underlying factor that supports the speculators' market, as it guarantees the long term growth in house prices. But a chart comparing population growth to property price inflation would, I'm sure, make it quite clear that the recent blow out in prices is an anomaly.

Your circumstances may have been different, but 20 years ago, in Melbourne, on a single good income, even with 18% interest rates it was quite possible to afford a 4-br house in a good suburb <10km from the city. Today, at 7%, with TWO good incomes that is not possible - those houses are now as much as 10 times the price they were back then.

Is it reasonable to suppose that because women are now more "prepared" to work and two incomes can be counted on, that affordability is less of a problem?
Both parents working full-time is a massive strain on a family, and it's often a decision made out of financial necessity.

Your last point is irrelevant. The affordability problem is primarily one for young families wanting to get into the housing market. There are lots of valid reasons why they wish to live within a reasonable distances of major cities, outlined previously. And suggesting that it takes "wisdom" to understand the need to escape the rat race is sheer arrogance: many young couples *like* the rat race, and it's certainly the most realistic way to realise the "dreams" you mentioned earlier.

Having said that, I think a good case could be made that an effort to attract people (especially new immigrants) into regional towns would significantly ease the housing affordability issue. The state government in Victoria have been attempting that to some degree, but it is a very difficult sell.

Nic, I just think its simplistic to blame it all on “speculators”. There are many
small reasons which make one large reason. For one, we’ve had 15 years of
good times and many young ones still believe things can only go up. The
Economist has said for ages, that houses are overpriced in Australia, based
on the fundamentals.

I certainly would not buy a house at present prices, but people learn the hard
way. An American friend of mine was convinced that house prices could only
go up, today she is wearing lots of egg on her face. :) Something similar
could well happen here, its an uncertain world that we live in.

http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10231806

To think that all this is not going to affect us, might well be kidding ones self.

Two incomes once again changes the laws of supply and demand. People place
high value on their houses, any profits are tax free too, so they invest. They will
mortgage their lives away to achieve their dreams, even if it takes two incomes.
If your family is on one income, you are competing with families on two incomes,
you stand far less of a chance in the market.

My last point might well have been irrelevant, it was simply a philophical
observation that I learnt at a young age, whilst living as a teenager in Paris.

They were all there for the glitz and the glamour, the culture and the action.
But deep down they nearly all realised how superficial, shallow and pretentious that
city life was, most had dreams of one day getting the hell out of the place.
That made me think fairly deeply as to what life is all about. Each to his own

I agree it would be very wrong to blame it *all* on speculators - clearly if young families unanimously decided to stop wanting to own their own homes, the market would look very different.
But if you are agreeing that houses are overpriced, then you are essentially agreeing that we are witnessing a speculative bubble. What other explanation is there? And yes, it will deflate eventually. I highly doubt it will deflate as rapidly and dramatically as it has in the U.S. - but the real estate bubble there was launched out of a recession, with interest rates cut to 1%, where predatory lending practices took grip in a way that fortunately we've mostly avoided here. My hope is that it will be a gradual decline as baby boomers start to retire and downsize - and of course that our own house doesn't end up being worth less than what we paid for it.

FWIW, we were managing our mortgage fine on just one income. However it didn't leave much opportunity for saving. My wife was actually perfectly happy to do part time work for modest pay, but couldn't find anything, hence is now being paid reasonably well in a full-time job, while we juggle child-care between ourselves, family and friends.

I don't think you can at all reasonably compare teenagers living in Paris with young families wanting to live close to their parents, jobs, and the other advantages that established suburbia gives. The new fringe subdivisions where many of them are often forced to move to out of financial necessity are largely soulless places that are hardly conducive to any deeper, more meaningful sort of existence. Having said that, our own suburb I find depressing at times partly because of the lack of younger families - the area was obviously developed 30 years ago as place for young families to raise kids, but the innumerable playgrounds around are mostly empty now, and I've yet once to see a family on our street with any kids of a similar age to our own.

hi to all the forgotten australians and hope we are all still doing the best we can question to col rouge check all the comments ive posted and start reading them page by page as you stated in one of those comments that you were employed by the goverment body of the corrective services so don't talk _hit , and lie , im fighting for justice not only for my self but that of the forgotten australians of which i tabled in the court case also that of my own past criminal history of which their is no stone unturned of my life as i have nothing to hide of my past not like the pedophiles that that of the goverment has been covering up for that worked for the goverment run institutions of australia , and i ask all of you that read what i write look back in those stories and you will see where col rouge says he worked for a goverment organization and that of some of his faimly , for you frank gol i am a person that would aid some one that needed help in todays life ,as i have made mistakes in my life of the past and have became a better person,and did my punisment ,yet don;t forget i was once placed in the juvenille justice institutional system at the age of ten ,at 14 i was repeatedly raped by two (2) pedophiles daruk boys home 1977/1978, now 45 been fighting for justice since 1997 ,im no longer being the silent person as the goverment of australia has been wanting us victims to be ,ive told the truth as to what happend to me as child and don't any of you bother telling me to get over it either,as that will happend when justice is given to all of us forgotten australians not just me ,thats poverty

FrankGol ”If, one dark night, you were bashed, robbed and left for dead, and someone like Huffnpuff came along while you lay bleeding, dazed and bewildered, what would you like them to do or say to you?”

What I might like them to do would be “speculative”.

I cannot control what huffnpuff would or should do.

I can only “control” what I would do, if the roles were reversed.

I would initially offer comfort, then determine what medical assistance was needed. I would use my mobile phone to call 000 and stay until all the emergency services required were attending / managing the situation.

I always find it easier to state what I would do, rather than speculate or presume the actions of others.

Huffnpuff “that you were employed by the goverment body of the corrective services so don't talk _hit , and lie ,”

I was - but not as the “administrative staff” which you labelled me.

I would comment, I am not responsible for any of the bad acts which you seem to presume I have knowledge of. Nor I am responsible for any acts, good or bad, which have been done by my family members who are also familiar with the prison system.

Btw my family members include some who work in “uniform”, some who work in prison but not in “uniform” and some who were “locked in” at night.

I accept no responsibility for the meanness and wrongful actions of others, just as I accept no credit for the generosity and graciousness of others.

As for “im no longer being the silent person”

I too would never be silent, should I have been so unfortunate as to have walked in your shoes.

However, ultimately, whatever you seek from government will never replace or repair the damage done to you by the assaults you claim were enacted upon you.

The only thing which will ultimately resolve that will be when you have climbed Maslow’s hierarchy sufficiently to be able to forgive or forget those who perpetrated the wrongful acts against you.

That is real “wealth”.

Col Rouge

I notice how you've deflected your answer - again. You can't say how you would like someone else to treat you - because you can't speculate about others, but only say what you would do.

This solipsism is a fatal flaw in your thinking. When you go to hospital, you don't ask the staff to take due care in their treatment? Most of us would presume it and be really annoyed if we were let down.

You don't support laws that require a duty of care to others? You wouldn't expect the police to tell you what the charges are against you if they arrested you? You can only say what you would do and have no presumption about how others would or should act?

Why do you correspond on OLO if you can't influence other people's opinions?

Clearly you exhibit a contradiction between what you say you do and what you actually do. For example, you presume to tell Huffnpuff to aspire higher up Maslow's ladder of needs so that he can be able to forgive or forget those who perpetrated the wrongful acts against him.

I think your emotional hard macho line is a giant self-deception. You just can't face the prospect that people will think you care. Compassion for others is not all that frightening.

FrankGol “When you go to hospital, you don't ask the staff to take due care in their treatment”

There is a contractual duty of care when I enter hospital, there is no basis for a duty of care with a passerby only the compassion of the individual and I cannot speculate on that.

As for “solipsism”

I could hardly suffer such condition and write here – only to answer myself.

Your attempt to predict and judge the actions of others is a significantly deeper “solipsistic” indulgence.

I am sure whatever mental twists I might be capable of, my "solipsitic imagination" could not extend to inventing you.

“I think your emotional hard macho line is a giant self-deception.”

More speculaton of how I think to myself. Either remarkable insight or mysticism or plain old judgmentalism (I think the latter).

“You just can't face the prospect that people will think you care. Compassion for others is not all that frightening.”

Compassion is a virtue, so is modesty (I try to deploy both equally) and so is honesty.

Honesty means “telling it how it is”. To say less is almost as bad as lying.

Without pretending to be a psychologist, I can guarantee, Huffnpuff will find no peace or real resolution in pursuing his court case. His injury is not the sort of thing which can ever be resolved, repaired or compensated for by law or statute.

The monkey he carries on his back was placed there by the people who abused him.

In his post he cries out to be relieved of that burden but he is seeking resolution along the wrong course. A court, even if he wins, will not lift the monkey off his back.

Only Huffnpuff can let the monkey go. That does not mean forgetting about it but it does mean resolving how to “deal with it” emotionally.

I would suggest a good grief or similar counsellor will do more than any court of law. I say this because they have worked for me in the past.

Col Rouge

Yes I am indeed speculating on how you think. And you are probably right to say that it's "plain old judgmentalism".

So what kind of statement is this of yours: "...I can guarantee, Huffnpuff will find no peace or real resolution in pursuing his court case. His injury is not the sort of thing which can ever be resolved, repaired or compensated for by law or statute"?

Not "plain old judgmentalism", I hope?

Perhaps "remarkable insight" or "mysticism"?

Col Rouge wrote:

"The only thing which will ultimately resolve that will be when you have climbed Maslow’s hierarchy sufficiently to be able to forgive or forget those who perpetrated the wrongful acts against you.

"That is real 'wealth'."

In fact, that is, unfortunately how all too many who do succeed in climbing Maslow's hierarchy seem to behave, that is to 'forgive' and 'forget' past unconscionable acts against themselves whilst the perpetrators are left to do the same to others.

If, instead, a few more were to turn around and help the victims stand up to the same people who bullied them in the past we would have a considerably better society.

---

Peter Saunders, as usual, has made only a cursory pretence of responding to his critics whilst ignoring the abundant evidence which shoots gaping holes in his central argument.

I am not sure if I would have stated my objection to the CIS with the words that Saunders has put in my mouth: the 'CIS is just a mouthpiece for the capitalist class.'

However, to learn of the insidious role that think tanks like the CIS, have played since their intellectual founder Milton Friedman worked with the murderous Pinochet dictatorship to impose upon on the defenceless Chilean people the same political program that Saunders would impose on Australia, I suggest that others read Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" (RRP $AU32.95) which is hard to praise too highly (see http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/reviews http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2204).

In this we learn, amongst almost countless other unconscionable acts, of the last act in Friedman's appalling career, that was to exploit the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina to impose his neo-liberal program of privatisation of the education system and public housing on its victims (see http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2007/10/29/monday-message-board-93/#comment-199501).

In 1980, when President Reagan began to implement the polices that Saunders advocates, CEOs earned 43 times what the average worker earned. By 2005 it was 411 times (p444).

That is why the CIS is so well funded by powerful business interests and why Saunders is paid to churn out deceptive nonsense such as this article.

FrankGol “So what kind of statement is this of yours: ….."?

Not "plain old judgmentalism", I hope?”

I would suggest - it is simply “the voice of experience”.

Daggett “In fact, that is, unfortunately how all too many who do succeed in climbing Maslow's hierarchy seem to behave, that is to 'forgive' and 'forget' past unconscionable acts against themselves whilst the perpetrators are left to do the same to others.”

And I fear that is the sort of statement which someone who has still to consider taking even the first of Maslow’s steps would make.

However, it does not alter the truth of what I said.

Whilst extracting some monetary consideration from the public purse might seem like a good idea, the reality is, money will never resolve the injury done.

Public expose of the perpetrators might help.

(I would personally opt for meeting the perpetrator on a dark night and telling him how he is forgiven, whilst I repeatedly hit him in the groin with a pickaxe handle – I guess not all of me has climbed “Maslow”)

But I repeat, only when huffnpuff decides to seek direct counselling to help him “let the monkey go” will he feel any relief from the burden it presently places upon him.

I know someone whose son was recently murdered by someone experiencing what was mildly called “a psychotic episode”.

As is the law in this state, the family of a murder victim are eligible to apply for compensation, an amount of around $100,000 being divided among the relatives and dependents at the discretion of a presiding magistrate.

This money was awarded however,
This money made no difference to the loss of a son.
Not even knowing the killer was “locked up” for predictably 25 years makes any difference.
The sympathy and support of friends and the killers family makes little difference.

The only thing which is making a difference in really dealing with that loss is the counseling which has been undertaken.

COL ROUGE YOU HAVE A SHORT FUSE IN YOUR BRAIN THE MONKEY ON MY BACK IS THE GOVERMENT OF AUSTRALIA WHO EMPLOYED THESE PEDOPHILES AND AS FOR COUNSILLING WELL OVER ONE HUNDRED APPIONTMENTS TO PROBERLY _RICKS LIKE YOU ,WE SIT AND TALK THEY LISTEN IF THATS COUNCILLING ,GIVE ME THE GUN , ANYWAY YOU ALSO DON'T KNOW THE TRUE FACTS ABOUT COMPENSATION FOR YOUR FRIENDS FAMILY ,ONLY IF THE PERSON HAVE SEEN OR BEEN APART OF THE CRIME AS A VICTIM THEY ARE THEN ALLOWED TO APPLY FOR COMPENSATION IF THEY WERE NO WHERE NEAR THE CRIME THEY HAVE NO CLAIM , AND I CAN NOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU SEEM TO DEFEND THESE TYPE OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE THE THINGS TO THE FORGOTTEN AUSTRALIAS, TRUE AS YOU SAID YOU WOULD USE A PICK AXE ,WELL IF I WENT AND DID WHAT I REALLY WANT TO DO I WOULD BE JUST LOWERING MY SELF TO THEIR STANDARDS SO I WILL LET THE COURT SYSTEM DEAL WITH IT EVEN THOUGH THE COURTS ARE PROTECTING THESE PEDOPHILES THAT WORKED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF WELFARE IN THE STATES RUN INSTITUTIONS ,THE GOVERMENT IS STILL COVERING UP THE CRIMES TODAY ALSO ,D.O.C.S. ARE THE ONES WHO CONTROLLED US AND THAT OF THE COMMUNITY AND LOOK WHAT IS HAPPENING ,ONLY THE OTHER DAY LITTLE BABY DIES AT BIRTH ,OF WHICH THOSE PERSONS WERE KNOWN TO D.O..C.S AS IT STATES IN TODAYS TELEGRAPH, FRANK I THANK YOU FOR TRYING TO GET THIS _UCKHEAD TO UNDERSTAND US VICTIMS YET YOU JUST CAN ONT GET THROUGH TO HIM ,MAYBE IN HIS NEXT LIVE GOD MIGHT BE KIND AND GIVE HIM A HEART REGARDS MICHEAL

No, Col Rouge, yours is not not the 'voice of experience' but the voice of a sanctimonious hypocrite.

On Friday he tells us about the bad behaviour of poor people: "Poverty is only partly influenced by income. Many folk spend to exceed their income, regardless of what level it is."

On Monday, when challenged, he tells us that: "I always find it easier to state what I would do, rather than speculate or presume the actions of others."

By Thursday he has given up his vow of humility and is back to telling people how they should behave:"But I repeat, only when huffnpuff decides to seek direct counselling to help him 'let the monkey go' will he feel any relief from the burden it presently places upon him."

Humbug!

hi to all the forgotten australians ,thank you for your quick responce , as for col rouge well as he said months ago in some replys he said that he worked for the goverment deparments now says he didn't write such a thing ,as i said read everypost page of all articles ive responderd too as he states in his own words and one sure hippercric , only time for him is the toilet ,and yes frank humbug you maybe correct , i wounder if col will reply to me again or he has lost his guilt at last , anyway i say i hope all the forgotten australians a merry xmass and a happy new year even though we will all still be struggling and thank you for your surpurt frank least some one who knows what they are talking about not like some others who don't care about us forgotten australians kind regards micheal

A story in yesterday's Australian confirms the intention behind the claims made by Saunders in this article, that is, to make cuts in wages paid to unskilled workers more acceptable to public opinion:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22877840-5013871,00.html

PAY CUT URGED FOR THE UNSKILLED

"INCREASING training and extending schooling will not help people with low abilities find a job, says an independent think tank that calls for a cut to the minimum wage instead.

The Centre for Independent Studies' call to shred the employment policies of both sides of politics came as new minister Brendan O'Connor promised a shakeup of measures to help the jobless break free from welfare and into work.

...

... CIS economist Peter Saunders gives this short shrift, saying rather than pushing those on benefits or the bottom end of our students to complete vocational courses, government should work with business to create more low-skill jobs in areas such as aged care and childcare.

...

(Saunders said) "The best way to help those with low abilities is to increase the demand for unskilled labour they offer. This means looking at our high minimum wage, which is deterring employers from taking them on."

If Saunders had read Australian journalist Elisabeth Wynhausen's "Dirt Cheap" or US journalist Barbara Erhenrich's "Nickel and Dimed", about the experiences of unskilled workers he would know that what he has argued above and in this article is fiercely challenged.

It's inconceivable that Saunders would not have heard of these book nor be unaware of their relevance to his field of supposed expertise, yet it seems that he has never acknowledged the evidence presented in these books. In an earlier forum, I made the challenge to Saunders:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3737#12173
"I would therefore suggest that .. poverty is real and getting much worse in Australia today, both for welfare recipients and for many workers. Again, I ask him to tell us why the conclusions, of Elisabeth Wynhausen's account of what it was like to try to live as a low wage worker in 'Dirt Cheap', are wrong."

Saunders has never taken up this challenge as far as I can tell.

Huffnpuff “YOU HAVE A SHORT FUSE IN YOUR BRAIN”

Hardly, bearing in mind the last several posts stem from a claim you made that I ignored you, I have patiently described what I think might help.

That what I think might help I would offer to say, my daughters and did suggest to my partner, when she faced a crisis. Advise which has been repeated by her son, based on genuine love and concern for the persons welfare and well being.

That you seem to consider that as an indicator of “a short fuse” is up to you.

Re “WE SIT AND TALK THEY LISTEN IF THATS COUNCILLING”

Simply having a talk fest will help no one.

My experience of counselling was where the counsellor, who helped me, ASKED the questions (not just listened) which I would not ask myself and required me to do test / exercises which I would not have done without such prompting. That process helped me understand and deal with an issue which was at the time, “on my back” but which I have since discarded.

Not all counselling is the same, I guess I have had a more positive experience than you but the counsellor was recommended by a friend had used that counsellor himself and who also knew me.

I sincerely hope you find what you seek but I can assure you, “government” is a not a person. Government it is an unaccountable process, populated by professional buck-passers.

That I why I support small government, rather than the politics of the “interfering meddlers” who pretend to “care” when all they really want is to “control”.

FrankGol “voice of a sanctimonious hypocrite”

Oh, the embittered reposte of the failed.

Call me what you will Frank, it is as relevant as you and thus, beneath consideration.

Hi huffnpuff

A merry Xmas and a happy new year to you, Michael, and to all those Forgotten Australian who had to suffer joyless Xmases in institutions.

I wouldn’t take too much time worrying about people like Col Rouge. He is the sort of person who would have enjoyed watching incarcerated children being ill-treated so that in later life they could tell them to ‘get over it’.

From what he tells us, I think he’s probably a deeply unhappy person and it makes him feel better when he can tell other people to get over their tragic lives

FrankGol “other people to get over their tragic lives”

That Freudian slip of a statement discloses the real “FrankGol”

It illustrates exactly where your real thoughts lay, Frank.

Huffnpuff – Frank think you have a “tragic life”.

I don’t.

I think you have experienced “tragedy” in your life, just like me and most of the rest of the world.

Like making mistakes, “we grow through adversity”.

The “tragic” life is the life unlived, the life suppressed by conforming to social convention or political despotism. The sort of life the socialists would lead us to.

If I could give huffnpuff an xmas gift it would be for him to be able to cast of his burden of anger with the wrongs of the past and live that life he has to his full potential.

Your “life” is what you make it huffnpuff, not what some abuser did to you as a kid.

It is not “tragic”.

It can be great and glorious and boundless as you care to make it but I leave it to you to decide.

Oh and Frank, me “deeply unhappy”…. Ha ha … please don’t go into counseling, your ability to misread people ensures you would not help anyone.

Huffnpuff and FrankGol,

Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Col Rouge tells me that my 'ability to misread people ensures you would not help anyone.'

Mind you, he's just posted this, claiming that I wrote it:

'FrankGol “other people to get over their tragic lives”' when what I actually wrote was:
'...it makes him [Col Rouge] feel better when he can tell other people to get over their tragic lives.'

I'll take full responsibility if I am mistaken in how I interpret you, Col.

Will you take any responsibility for deliberately distorting what I say?

No I thought not.

Daggett, a Merry Xmas and a Happy New year to you. And to all OLO posters.

HO' HO' HO' MERRY XMASS FORGOTTEN AUSTRALIANS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR , WHAT WILL BECOME OF THAT YEAR WHO KNOWS , MERRY XMASS FRANK, DAGGET THANKS. YES EVEN THOUGH YOU STILL HIPERCRICE ME COL ROUGE MERRY XMASS AND ENJOY YOUR NEW YEAR WHAT WAY YOU FEEL IT FIT FOR YOUR SELF ,-- ,I KNOW ALL US FORGOTTEN AUSTRALIANS WILL HAVE A XMASS THOUGH IT WONT BE A WEALTHY ONE BUT LEAST WE ARE WITH PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT US , NOT SO MUCH THE GOVERMENT OF AUSTRALIA IF THEIR WERE ONLY SO MANY OTHER PEOPLE OUT THEIR WITH A HEART WE WOULD BE BETTER OFF, IVE GOT NO NEED FOR WORRING ABOUT ANY MORE NEGITIVE RESPONSES FROM ANY ONE AS TO GETTING OVER IT AND MOVING ON WELL IM MOVING ON BUT IM NOT LETTING THE JUSTICE SYSTEM WALK US UNDER THE TABLE OR THROW OUR CASES OUT SO THAT TELLS YOU COL ROUGE EVEN THOUGH IM MOVING ON WITH EACH DAY I WILL STILL FIGHT FOR MYSELF AND THAT OF THE FORGOTTEN AUSTRALIANS AND FRANK I HAVE TO SEND A XMASS CHERRY HO TO ALL WHO HAVE BEEN HELPING ME ON THE OLO , HAYGIRL ALL MY BEST TO YOU FROM MY FAIMLY TO YOURS I HOPE YOUR XMASS WILL BE HAPPY AND MERRY AND THAT YOUR NEW YEAR BE THE BEST IT CAN BE ,AND TO ALL THOSE UNDERMINDED HIPPERCRITTS AND THE SICK PREDATORS THAT ROAM OUT ON THIS SITE AND IN OUR COMMUNITY DIE THE MOST WAY WORST POSSABLE WAY AS YOUR KIND ARE NOT WANTED ON THIS PLANET EARTH , KIND REGARDS MICHEAL