Tristan, you quote from an opinion piece that has holes you can drive a bus through.

>>The average Australian family can no longer afford to buy the average Australian home<<

Oh, please.

There are thousands of house sales a month. Therefore thousands must be able to afford it.

The fact that we are able to dedicate an increasing percentage of our income to house purchase is an indicator of material prosperity, not the reverse.

Incidentally, the "deficiency in residential stock" in the article you quote was in relation to the underlying demand, and its impact on prices, not homelessness.

And what about them there homeless?

"About 100,000 people a night are homeless, including 10,000 children under age 12 who are forced to sleep outside or in crisis accommodation, boarding houses or with family and friends."

Note very carefully the context here, and refer yourself also to the ABS definitions of the degrees of homelessness.

The gross figure includes what they term "voluntary" homeless people, who would have a place to stay - e.g. a family home - if they chose to do so.

This is not to diminish the problem. If I was thrown out of the family home, say, because I beat my daughter (hi Boaz) I'd be categorized a "voluntary" homeless person too.

"the biggest cause of homelessness is domestic violence, and other causes include mental health problems, drug abuse, unemployment, family breakdown and rising rents."

Is it the government's job to find me a house to live in, or to provide temporary shelter while I sort myself out?

"Mr Rudd said Labor would fulfil its election pledge to spend $150 million on new places in crisis shelters and will use the white paper to fund further policies aimed at prevention, such as tackling mental health and education problems."

See. Kev and I say "no houses".

You say:

>>Increasing supply would drive prices down - and provide desperately needed shelter for vulnerable Australians.<<

I say:

Decreasing demand will drive prices down. Providing desperately needed shelter for vulnerable Australians is a totally separate issue.

Pericles

As to the state, stalinism et al I suggest you read Tony Cliff's State Capitalism in Russia. Conspiracy? No. Marxist analysis? Yes.

Marx was about workers smashing the capitalist state, and predicted the workers' state withering away as class withered away and plenty replaced want.

On another issue, one solution to address the homelessness of many would be to mandate the openning up of vacant rooms in hotels and motels (plus free meals) and in the richer suburbs.

Passy,

"On another issue, one solution to address the homelessness of many would be to mandate the openning up of vacant rooms in hotels and motels (plus free meals) and in the richer suburbs."

Apparently private property rights do not exist in your world. If I own a small bedsit or small hotel, why should I be forced to give that accomodation away? If I've sacrificed to pay for it, why should I be forced to do anything with it?

This is one aspect of the far left that I find very unappealing - the complete disregard for private property rights. Tell me Passy, why shouldn't I just lob on your front door and expect you to put me up and feed me ad infinitum? If private property rights have no meaning for you, then that shouldn't be a problem.

Countrygirl:

"... but if your arguement is fairness to small business, then you should acknowledge that an activity that can level the playing fields between corporates and small business would be a good thing"

Sure, I think that things that help small business are a very good thing. However I am yet to see any example of pattern bargaining being in anyway a boost to small business. If you have an example, I'd love to hear it

There is a reason why none of the political parties holds pattern bargaining as part of its IR policies - it's bad for business, it's bad for the economy (look at the 70s/80s wage spiral) and it's rife for abuse because it's forcing an employer to pay for a rise which is in no way related to the performance of the workers for that business. Employment is a 2 way street.

AWAs and individual agreements have a place in the workforce. I wish in my last one that I had've had the opportunity to cash in my LSL entitlements: as someone whose longest stint with an employer is 3 years, LSL is of no inerest to me and would love to cash them out.

We live in a world of private property, BN. That or communalised private property.

I fail to see why you feel threatened by forcing the major hotels to provide free lodgings to the homeless. An out might be for those hotels etc which charge less than $50 per person.

And if private property (which is the legal expression of wage slavery) prevents the homeless having adequate shelter, then private property is a problem. Huge houses on the North Shore with few people in them are unused homes and could easiy be made available without threat to anyone for the homeless.

An alternative to trading in LSL might be to have a universal and portable scheme. LSL was won to help workers get a break from the grind of work and bring them back refreshed after a few months off. Frankly, it is not yours to sell. Why should an individual have the right to trade off soemthing the collective action of workers over the years has won?

"I fail to see why you feel threatened by forcing the major hotels to provide free lodgings to the homeless"

It's your thorough lack of disregard for the hotel owners private property rights which astonish me. I'll repeat my question from my previous comment:

Why shouldn't I just lob on your front door and expect you to put me up and feed me ad infinitum?

Because it's an impingement on your private property rights. I have no right to impose on you (unless you invite me in) and neither do you have a right to "expect" business to open their doors for free.

"Why should an individual have the right to trade off soemthing the collective action of workers over the years has won?"

So, what are you saying here? That the only legitimate changes to working conditions are those won by collective action?

I see the race to mediocricy is live and kicking with you Passy. Why would a high performer chose to work under those conditions? There are plenty of employees out there who will happily trade conditions for either other conditions or money. Why should someone like me who chooses not to have kids retain maternity/paternity conditions? Why would someone like me want LSL conditions when I change employers all the time?

"An alternative to trading in LSL might be to have a universal and portable scheme"

Yeah right. Like an employer is going to take on an average employee with a lot of "banked" LSL. You're consigning people to the scrapheap with a statement like that.

Yes, the race to mediocricy is live and kicking in the uber-left. Thankfully Rudd has distanced himself from them

Thanks BN.

Property rights are regulated in all sorts of ways. Society can and does impose restricitons on the property rights of business as it sees fit.

The development of caplitalism saw the destruction of the rights of the many to property in the name of the few. We in our democratic society can redress that by feeding and sheltering the poor (surely an aim of a so-called Christian society, or has Christ's love they neighbour dictum been abolished under capitlaism too, in the name of property rights for the super rich)?

John McCain and his family have seven houses. Why not open up some of them for the poor fleeing New Orleans?

Some neo-conseervatives argue that tax itself is an attack on private property rights. Do you agree, BN?

The left is leading the race to mediocrity? What if the way we currently organise society encourages medicority? Those who rise to the top are those who sole idea of betterment is individual greed and aggrandisement. Eddie Groves, Adler, Wheatley, George W are hardly shining examples of outstanding leaders. In fact the list goes on and on and on...

There is a more fundamental question. Who elected these busines leaders? Who elected Packer, Murdoch, etc. No one. Why is there no democracy in the conomic sphere. Way can't we as a society decide what is invested and where, for the common good? (And as an aside often these "non-mediocrities" are powerful because their dads were.)

Your previous dismissal of my comment about the bank's gouging looks pretty lame in light of Wizard's annoucement that it would cut home loan rates today since the cost of borrowing cash is now below the RBA rate.

If the RBA cuts by 25 basis points, banks should cut home loan rates by more than that.

As to trading off conditions, if an indivdual can do that in the long run it undermines those conditions. If you can trade off LSL then LSL is under threat for other workers. By individualising entitlements you weaken the ability to defend them in the best way - collectively.