With most people in the world living on $1 a day, these "Battlers" earning over $100 you speak of are doing okay for themselves in my mind.
Surely there is always the option if you’re struggling on 45K a year to downsize your house or upsize your income by getting a better job. After all is not the author an example of that? The Government should be a safety net not a venture capitalist.

Kenny,
I think it goes below US$1.20 per day is poverty level. But your point is valid.

Chris is pro union and as I've said before the first priority of any organizations is it's own survival...in his terms it means being able to provide increasing benefits for the 'battlers' as in potential members (better wealth distribution. In the Aussie context he neglected the homeless, pensioners etc.

I tend to agree that everyone in Western society excluding the latter two should learn to exist on less addiction to the false god Mindless Consumerism. Along with increasing both personal responsibility in the society we live but also on that of the world community.

While there are good people in Unions but like businesses they are in effect supporting the ultimate destruction of the world as we know it through Consumerism.

I guess my point is that consumerism in pursuit of ever more self indulgence is akin to gold embossed fluffy bathrobes for ALL passengers of the Titanic

Examinator.

It is amusing to be told that I am pro-union. I am just noting what I believe is mostly the case. It is unlikely that ordinary workers will get higher wages without them. I have seen workers still on the minimum wage after 25 years, and they are not hopeless workers.

While I would not view myself as a socialist, I do believe in a fair go for all. And it is getting harder for many. I am sorry I did not mention pensioners and the others, although I thought their plight spoke for itself.

I acknowledge your points about consumerism, but it will long drive the real world. And while it does, all Australians should expect a decent lifestyle rather than working just to pay rent, food and utility bills.

Point of article, was to highlight how things are getting harder for a growing minority

Chris your point would be better made, if you didn't exaggerate so much.

I was a house buyer in the late 50s, & early 60s, & I never saw any houses at anywhere near 3 times average income. My first, an old, almost 2 bed fibro, & timber box, in Fairfield {Sydney] was almost 4 times, & the next couple, in Liverpool, & Riverwood, [Sydney], in 62, & 65 wewe just on 5 times income.

I might mention the next 2 were ex housing commission houses, so not exactly Mc-Mansions.

What you missed, & what does make a really bid difference, was the interest rate, & the income tax rate.

Banks had to make housing loans at 4.25%, although on my first house, as a just 21 year old, I could not get a bank loan, & had to pay a little higher to an insurance company.

In 62, when I bought a better house, with a bank loan, I was paying just 7.5% income tax. This was possible as we were not expected to keep a couple of bludgers each, & old age pensioners were a much lower percentage of the population.

This meant we had a much greater percentage of our gross to pay those loans.

So, I agree with your point, it's much tougher today, for our kids, but they don't help themselves. None of my kids would live in my first house, & probably would not have been too interested in the second. The third house was probably good enough for them, but Riverwood they would not have found attractive by reputation, if not in fact.

If you think about that last statment, I guess that must be my fault, somehow.

Hasbeen

I suppose what was trying to say is: family of two ($900 disposable income) after paying rent (say $300 for cheap house in many cities), food (say $200), utilies and petrol (say $50), has $150 left at most to buy extras (including clothes) and save for house. And there are many such families. Golden days are indeed over and we all need to rethink what strategies can be adopted to make basic lifestyle still affordable.
A cheap house is say $300,000 if you are lucky

Chris expects an ongoing rise in the living standard, but doesn’t seem to understand that what causes it is a higher quota of capital per person. That is why people in Australia, including the poorest, are among the richest in the world.

Anything that retards the general process of capital accumulation, causes the poverty and disadvantage that Chris is trying to solve with more forced redistributions, but these actively cause or exacerbate the problem.

Underlying Chris’s belief in welfare and unions is the false assumption that the way to increase wealth is by decreasing production.

Chris says he believes in a fair go, but he doesn’t say what’s fair about some people working without receiving, so that others can receive without working.

He also does not acknowledge the role of government interventions in creating the most disadvantaged class.

For example, if you illegalise employing people, or penalise people for employing people, the result will be that it’s harder to get employment. This will most affect those with least literacy, experience, skills, capital and income – the people Chris is most concerned about.

People don’t employ someone unless the income he brings in is greater than the costs. Every on-cost the government adds makes marginal workers non-viable, thus adding to unemployment and disadvantage.

Yet look government illegalises employment with every on-cost it imposes: the employer must pay the income tax, must adminster the income tax, and pay super, and workers comp, and pay compulsory licensing fees, and often compulsory insurances as well, and comply with hundreds of regulations. These costs do not come out of profits: they come out of wages.

Minimum wage laws presuppose that a worker is better off unemployed on a lesser amount on the dole, than employed on a higher amount learning new skills. Sheer economic illiteracy.

If we were serious about helping the disadvantaged, we would make it much easier for them to earn money by abolishing some of the many restrictions on earning including income tax, GST, compulsory superannuation, minimum wage laws, occupational licensing, and compulsory insurances.

I don't know what ya whynging about, if ya can't make ends meet it's by your own doing. As for homeless people the same applies it's their decision. Don't you supposedly live to your means. If you have a whopping 900 [ i suppose thats a week ] Of disposable income, you should be living like a king, or else you are saving up a fortune.
I have never seen so many broke people around with 2 incomes in the house.
I owned my house long ago and with one income.
We didn't need everything all at once.
I had a wife, a real wife.
Take a good look at yourself, and position yourself accordingley.

Chris,
I think you need to define 'battlers' or dump the term altogether.
It seems to be a highly subjective term anyway.
Is battling a new Plasma each two years...a new sound system that produces a difference, all but the aurally superior can percieve the difference. Does it matter if next door has a new bloody Ford (more likely a symbol of their slavery) etc.?

As for consumerism being the driver, my son has a tee that reads "We're all going to HELL....and I'm driving the bus" it seem apt.

Think of it like this Just because China has a standing army of 2.5 million soldiers (give or take a regiment or two) doesn't mean we have to also. potential arms race and unnecessary consumption of finite resources.

Likewise there are different forms of Consumerism as there is Capitalism(or any other ism). My question is does it always have to be argued/ thought of in the extreme or immutable in it form and outcome?

I see no reason why we can't change the emphasis from false self gratification to practical altruism. It doesn't have to be a consequence of catastrophe. When it will probably too late. Ideology not required just lateral thinking.

By the tenor of some replies I think Australia needs a miserable gits association. How is it that a valid circumstance, the housing crisis, draws such venom? The usual vacuous blurts, blaming a penchant for smokes and tellys, and yes, throw in a comment about the poverty stricken elsewhere in the world to show the absurdity of Australian poverty.

The fact is the housing crisis is making things much harder for battlers. Are they smoking more? Are they spending more on tellys? Does the existence of some poverty stricken bugger elsewhere in the world ameliorate the worsening plight of battlers here? Why not make poverty stricken Aussies the benchmark instead of poverty stricken Bangladeshis? How do you think a political aspirant would fare were he to say to his constituents, "What are you whingeing about? There are plenty of Bangladeshis who would work all day for a dollar, and some would even sell you their kids for a few dollars more. This should be the new Australian standard."?

I think you have the wrong word, poverty , What is poverty, There's probably a lot of people that would like some extra income.
What makes you think that pensioners live in "poverty"
What you are referring to is lifestyle. Because they don't live your type of lifestyle, you say this is 'poverty'
Everybody is entitled to the dole or a pension.
Isn't it living to your means.
The word Battlers has had its run, everybody has an equal opertunity to work or soak up the sunshine. It's a lifestyle decision.
In the coming years there will be people that will not be able to live on a pension, because there lifestyle would not allow it, at 70 years of age they will be still paying off their mortgage.
Mortgages that consist of houses ,cars, tv's, holidays, it's another form of credit card.

Well said, Fester

People who have benefited from the growing gap between the top and bottom of the income distibution like to salve their consciences by comparing Australia's poor with starving African peasants. They forget that we don't have a world government. We (at least theoretically) have the power and responsibility to do something about abuses in our own society by social pressure, incentives, or, as a last resort, by getting laws passed to penalise the bad behaviour. We have no say at all about how the Africans or the Bangladeshis conduct their affairs.

I am curious as to how bad conditions have to be before Desmond would concede that someone is poor. How about pensioners who may have enough to eat under normal conditions, but are going blind or are in agony because they need cataract surgery, dental care, or a hip replacement that they can't afford? What about homeless schizophrenics living on the streets in our major cities?

*has $150 left at most to buy extras (including clothes) and save for house.*

Well it seems to me what has changed is expectations. If life is
not laid on a plate these days, people must be battling.

In the 70s, when most of my friends were buying houses, they would
come up with a plan, as things were not easy either. So for instance,
the smart ones would both work, bank one wage and live off the other.
Hey presto, within 4-5 years, they had a huge deposit together
and could think of making babies in relative comfort, without those
huge house payments.

Others bought a run down old shack and slowly did it up.

I built my own house, which took a couple of years to get to a
point of being livable, but that still meant concrete floors, no
kitchen, doors, or other finishings, for years.

30 years ago the 3 by 1 fibro of 13 squares was standard. Now its
a 25 square 4 by 2 and if they don't have it immediately, they
are seemingly doing it tough.

Yabby,

I agree that we all have to live within our means. I am also doing that as our family wage has declined some $40,000 as my partner stays home to look after our kid. That was our choice.

But please, spare a thought for the families (and others) that are struggling to pay for basic everyday needs. There numbers are rising and how we address them is a test for any advanced society.

As for other comments, I am not necessarily advocating higher wages and taxes, but ideas that can make a difference, as hard as it is when Australia also needs to remain competitive in economic terms.

Its a matter of economics, throwing more money will not fix the situation that is caused by not having the ability to be able to budget.
Those people need other services, including those that prefer to live on the streets. You have to have an annual budget to work out a weekly budget.
Every income day your utilities payments are direct debited, this includes m/bank private.
All of your other bills are calculated on an annual amount divided into income day amounts,
You then know how much you need to draw each income day.
Then you separate different lots of money into different bill paying envelopes. You then have left in cash, grocery money and pocket money.
Simple.
You then know if your income matches your expenditure.
Two persons on a pension in their own home, should have an excess of around $300/fn.

*There numbers are rising and how we address them is a test for any advanced society.*

Given that Australians are up there as the world's largest gamblers,
blowing something like 18 billion a year on that addiction, perhaps
they need to close down the pokies. Giving them more money won't
fix it.

Yabby,

It must really annoy you that Aust govts keep on adopting policies that help lower income earners. After all, you believe they are all losers and just gamble their money away. They should simply work and study harder.

What world are you living in? You sound very much like one of Reagan's speeches that the US was built on family values and hard work alone.

Keep dreaming. Maybe Aust will return to the relatively heartless society it was a hundred years ago when the wealthy paid little income tax and many more (as a proportion) lived in dire conditions.

But get used to it. Aust govts and Austs show few signs of abandoning a commitment to decency. Just look at Howard, a centre-right govt that knew that people needed greater assistance, although some will argue it was too much geared towards families.

What will happen in the future given our present economic woes? Hard to say, but higher taxes are emerging in the US.

*It must really annoy you that Aust govts keep on adopting policies that help lower income earners.*

Why should it annoy me if Govt helps low income earners help
themselves? I am all for it. OTOH I am also aware that there are
a whole lot of Australians who think people like you are idiots.
They will take every extra dollar that you pay, if all it takes
is a bit of a sob story. They are seemingly far smarter then you
are, for they know how to screw the taxpayer with impunity.

*You sound very much like one of Reagan's speeches that the US was built on family values and hard work alone.*

So because I point out that around 18 billion $ are being blown,
largely by the poor, to benefit the rich who own the gambling
joints, I must be like Ronnie Reagan? Chris, what on earth
is in that pipe you are smoking ?

Yabby

I will retract my comparison of you and Ronnie.

But have you ever thought of the similarity between gambling and housing. We all know that govts do the wrong thing by relying on gambling taxes, but is it also possible that govt by relying on a speculative housing boom also creates misery through much greater home unaffordability. Or is that alright if many make a profit from their second, third, and fourth houses, while others just look on and hope prices oen day come down without a major recession. Maybe govt should just let house prices go to 10-15 times average wages.

CL:

Your article accentuates the plight of Howard's " battlers " - fovourite eupherism he loved to evoke when referring to " mums-and-dads " of his generation. In the limited space OLO prescribes, it's a daunting task to encapsulate what Dr David Harmer, myriad consultants, Treasury boffins, bureaucrats from Family Services, 1800 personal submissions etc took four years to churn out. Result: Harmer's Pension Review Task Force 2009 Report.
Far from being perfect,with countless anomalies, it's being adopted in it's current form, regardless !

In a nut-shell, it puts paid to C L's multifarious conundrum.

Now, that our narcissist Wizard of Oz is strutting the World stage eulogising Climate change, and garnering support from World Leaders in the G20 summit talk-fest, in Pittsburgh, what other pinnacles is there to conquer ? Meantime, back home, it is very likely a double-dissolution will see his grandstanding abruptly stymied.

Despite the grandiose spiel about his Economic credentials, did the $ 43 billion stimulus bonanza really achieve scuttling the Recession ? For that matter, did Obama's trillion's put bread on the table,provide health care, and restore people's confidence, to where it was before the sub-prime debacle ? Forget Gordon Brown's fiscal indiscretions. One thing for sure, the pundit's will be debating the issues for the next five decades.

According to ABS stats, Mar 2009, Oz population reached 21,779,000. An increase of 439,100 from 2008. Migration accounted for 63% and 160,000 or 37 % were neonatal births. Since the arrival of the Baby Bonus, on average have exceeded 200,000 annually.

For those of us who weathered the storm,kept our jobs, took the measly handouts, and blissfully await the next " manna-from-canberra "gratuity, one can only wish there was more in the offering ! As for his kudos, and popularity, his sheer vanity repels me completely. I've seen better at the Woolloomooloo, Sydney wharfs.

Wishful dreaming aside, the battlers are going to have to forego a few more McDonald's burghers, since the CPI rise of 1.5% Jun 2009. Auto fuel rose 36 %. Rent's 1.3 %.Furniture 3.7 %. Home purchase 1.3 %.Veges, fruit and

cont

housing deposits & Loans fell 4.3 %, and overseas holiday travel, a staggering 4.5 %. Hellelujah !!

Despite Julia Gillard's effusive Educational reforms and billions injected into a fractious system, Qld children rated 6/7 in numeric and literacy skills, even with endless coaching, and some fudging, failing to improve the status quo. Truancy, and dropout's continue to plague an organisation-in-disarray. Long term, none of these kids are ever going to gain meaningful employment. Decidely worst,I can assure you,it takes more then the Baby Bonus to rear a pet, let alone a child to adulthood.
It will be a National catastrophy just waiting to happen.

With Govt obsequious connivance on Benefits, Youth allowances, etc and a burgeoning rate of 5.8 % unemployment, taxpayers will ultimately service an untenable inequity. The legions of bludgers keep getting worse, often with three generations of battlers living on welfare,Govt housing,and surviving on Rudd's expansive generosity.
In 15 years time, our welfare burden will be inexorably without precedent, given the maturing aged, baby-boomers etc vying for a diminutive commodity. In this unsustainable scenario, not even ebullent Ken Henry's bravado, Reserve Bank and Treasury have the intestinal fortitude to readilly address this serendipity.

Interesting, what do we for an encore Kevin ?

*Or is that alright if many make a profit from their second, third, and fourth houses, while others just look on and hope prices oen day come down without a major recession*

CL, I think you are misdiagnosing the problem. Those who invest
in houses in fact do us a service, for somebody has to put up the
money, for those who prefer to rent a house and there are many.

I agree that Australian house values are too high, but if you take
note, you'll find that the lower end of the housing market held
its value, many other areas dropped, as first home buyers armed
with 21'000$ of taxpayer money, pushed up the market.

Last year we also had a record number of migrants. Combined with these
you are competing with twin income couples etc, for the same houses.

If too many houses were being bought by speculators, there would be
a surplus of rental housing, rents would drop, that is not the case.

Fact is that for many years, states like NSW were adding around
100k$ onto the cost of building a house, with various fees and charges, so less were built.

The Federal Govt already spends 110 billion$ on welfare, how much
more do you want?

Owning a house was never easy, I certainly could not have afforded
to buy a house, as well as feed a wife and kids, all on one income.
That was in the 70s.

As I pointed out to you, smart couples bank one wage and live
off the other. In just a few short years, they will just about
be able to pay for a house, perhaps then have babies. We are still
responsible for our actions.

IMHO what has happened, is that our generation made a huge mistake,
by giving their kids life on a plate. Now they expect life on a
plate and think they are doing it tough, at the slightest
adversity.

Yabby

I agree with a lot of what you say with your last post. I do acknowledge the important role played by home investors and know there are limitations on how much we can spend on welfare. I also agree that current immigration levels is not helping.

I just hope that we can devise a system that again ensures that homes are affordable for most of the population because many are going to struggle in coming years whether through high house prices or rents. Even .

I don't know how we are going to do it, but it is a question I believe needs asking. Perhaps only a serious recession will force house prices to drop, but that wil also cause much suffering.

The Australian Property Monitors site indicates that the median rental for houses and units as of March 2009 was $450 and $410 in Sydney, $350 and $320 in Melbourne, $360 and $340 in Brisbane, $300 and $250 in Adelaide, $370 and $350 in Perth, $300 and $240 in Hobart, $500 and $400 in Darwin, $410 and $400 in Canberra, $300 and $240 in Newcastle, $420 and $350 on the Gold Coast, and $395 and $320 on the Sunshine Coast.

By June 2009, the average house and unit price were $547,000 and $381,000 in Sydney, $465,000 and $345,000 in Melbourne, $421,000 and $339,000 in Brisbane, $417,000 and $268,000 in Adelaide, $476,000 and $336,000 in Perth, $302,000 and $246,000 in Hobart, $549,000 and $375,000 in Darwin, and $488,000 and $364,000 in Canberra.

What do you suggest? I am always looking for ideas.

My article may have been a bit simplistic, but was merely an attempt to express my concern that life may be about to get a lot tougher for a significant number of Australians. Heaven help those who have just bought a house with a $250,000 loan if interest rates go again to 10%.
This would mean an extra $12,500 annual interest payments if the prciniple remains the same.

Anyway, good sparring with you in verbal terms. The more debate the better

*What do you suggest? I am always looking for ideas.*

Well Chris, you asked, so I will tell you :)

If I was in what I understand to be your position, I certainly
would not buy a home, for you are correct, interest rates are
only heading upwards, so there will be many a sad story.

I'd try and come up with ideas, for your partner to stay at
home with the kid, but still make a few bob. Depending on what
she enjoys and her aptitude, there are all sorts of things she
could do. In the internet age, more and more people are working
from home and fitting it around their family commitments.

I'd have one goal in mind, to accumulate cash. For when
the day comes, when interest rates rise and people have to
sell their houses, you'll be in a prime position to act.

But patience is a virtue, just one little step at a time however,
will eventually get there. Life is a journey and enjoying
the trip is far more important then arriving at the destination :)

Thinking back some of my really happy times were in fact when
I was stony broke and had lots of dreams, but I am a stubborn
bugger and persistance does eventually pay off, even if it sometimes
seems like it takes forever.

Thanks for an interesting article, I didn't realise that 1 in 8 working age adults relied on social security payments.

I am very concerned that sick people are now put on Newstart rather than sickness benefits because Newstart pays $220 per week and Disability pays $330 per week, plus Disability pensioners have access to health care card and subsidised drugs. I know of people with double vision who were on Newstart, hmmm how can you type or read when you can't see.

I have watched older Australians go hungry as they try to survive on Newstart payments.

Will the plight of Aussie battlers get worse? If this forum is any indication, the answer is yes as society doesn't recognise that there is a problem and are still determined to blame and punish the individual for their predicament.

Government intervention in this country has been an epic failure. 1 in 8 rely on welfare yet we still have, with the other anglo countries, the highest poverty rates in the OECD even though we have the most generous and progressive tax system in the world (http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/ASPC2005/papers/Paper7.pdf).
Welfare keeps people in poverty because it pays people to remain poor. And it is too hard to get a job because of high award wages and unfair dismissal laws. What minimum wages actually say is that if your skills don't justify a wage rate of that minimum, you don't deserve to have a job at all.
Unions are not the answer to higher wages. Wages rise over time from productivity and competition for labour. Living standards for the poorest parts of society rose just as fast when unions comprised only a fraction of the workforce. The effect unions have on other workers is basically supply and demand. They push people out of heavily unionised industries by restricting entry, thereby lifting the wages for their members. (That is why doctors lobby for such restrictive entry into their occupation. It has nothing to do with what is good for the community) That is also why unions want unfair dismissal laws and high award wages; to protect their members from competition. The people who get pushed out of the unionised industries have to line up in dole queues or take lower paid jobs. Unions are only special interest groups which protect their members at the expense of other workers. the one in ten children in Australia who live in a household where no one works can tell you that.

The big question is, "What has changed?". Are battlers more feckless than they were in past times? Do they smoke or drink more? Do they spend more on consumer items like televisions? Are wages today higher or lower relative to productivity?

One thing that is beyond question is that the cost of housing has increased markedly. Another thing beyond question is that the regulation and restriction on landowners with respect to developing their land is now far greater than it was. The former is a direct result of the latter. Easing the restrictions, for example by allowing landowners within 15 km of the cbd to subdivide blocks without all the red tape, would at least relieve the housing shortage.

Perhaps instead of bashing the battlers for making poor decisions (Why else would they be battlers?), there could be a little more discussion as to whether government policy (e.g. development restriction, high immigration) is making the plight of battlers easier or harder?

This sentence from your article was the most mind-blowing to me:
'...with the proportion of the working age population relying mostly on welfare increasing from 3 to 16 per cent since 1965 (Peter Saunders, Sydney Morning Herald, February 21, 2009...

If, as you say, approximately 20 percent of Australian households are reliant on government handouts, then I would say 'Yes, the plight of the Australian battler will get worse'.

the government makes its way by taxing the absolute limit out of its long-suffering productive component, and yet it still has trouble meeting its self-appointed responsibilities.

Thank the heavens for inflation and bracket creep, hey, Mr Rudd?