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?