I am wondering if there is a link between the rise of dysfunctional families and parents working during seven day weeks, most of which is caused by the greed of multi nationals performing well for their shareholders.

When you think about it, just how many kids don't get so spend time with their parents due to parents work commitments on weekends, late nights and public holidays.

We have always had shift work, so I doubt this applies.

I recon there are more industries working seven days than not.

There are many parents now working till 9pm weeknights, so, many of their kids would be left to fend for themselves, or at best, be cared for by an older sibling who is either trying to study, or play the play station in peace.

Either way, they to are kids and many of them are being deprived of their own childhood.

Is it all worth the cost in the long run, all in the name of returns for shareholders.

It must be worth the cost if it is happening. The people have spoken by their actions haven’t they.

Is it the workload or is it the dosh? Are we assuming they have to work and have no choice but to fulfill these work commitments or is the choice all about wanting more money to buy these playstations.

And seriously, a lot of people don’t particularly enjoy hanging out with kids. Parents with time off in the school holidays still send their kids off to school holiday programs and camps and keep the little ones in pre-school. Effectively the children can go years and never get a holiday.

There appears to be a fear of bored children slothing about the house complaining about having nothing to do, they must be entertained and organized at all times. Crazy stuff and I find that dysfunctional.

I’m gonna call it PMA: Perpetual Motion Abuse.

Check this out;

http://www.smh.com.au/money/injured-mums-to-be-insured-for-housework-20110427-1dvby.html
“The hard and often under-appreciated work that Australian mums do around the house each day can now be insured.”
“The carer would be paid if their doctor assessed them as being unable to perform two of five jobs including laundry, shopping, cooking, cleaning and child care.”

Vanna (to plagiarise Ammonite) will not be amused.

Ah Rectub, but we don't have 7 day trading in Western Australia.
So those evil places like Coles and Woolies stay shut.

Are the Eastern States more dysfunctional then WA? Well that
could well be the case :) But then we don't have the pokies
either, so that would make a difference.

rehctub, can we at least move beyond the 1950’s?

The term “shareholders” has long ago been replaced by “stakeholders”. This recognizes that businesses need other than just investors to exist. They need customers, suppliers, regulators, investors and employees. All of which create jobs, security and income.

We can assume you are speaking of the situation in Australia? So are the majority of the employees you describe employed by greedy “multi-nationals”? What on earth is one of those? Do you mean Australian multi-nationals or foreign multi-nationals? If so, which ones are “greedy”?

What do you mean by “dysfunctional?” And how is this assessed? How many of those employed by greedy multi-nationals fit within your definition? Does this include employees of the stakeholders? Who are these “many parents”, deprived children and what percentage of the population do they represent?

Do you have some article or research that has triggered this thread? If so, would you care to share that with us?

its an important topic
but im destracted at the moment

too busy to think
[hey i think thats what its all about]

a tired slave
dont got time to think

its about 24/7
as if you can spend more money in a shop
if its open for 8 hours or ten

it must be about re=educating the children
feeding then new age spin

i recall when kids could get paid to go to school
they became con-sumers ..a capitalist tool

next the work non-stop
fully in their education[educated debt]

must work to pay the rent..
work to pay for ever more expensive basic service

no time out
for even a smoke

they are shaping our mind-sets
cant you see the joke?

sleep in front of the tv
then eat and get back to work

everytime you see the flashing lights
during the news..or in adverts..you get hypnotised

its a pavlovian response they seek
now wake up..and get back to work

dont think
have a drink
now get back to work

all work and no play
a slave is a slave
do as i say..

or forgo your pay
we will make you pay...till your very last day

its the capital-ist way

We have zombie banks led by vampire squid...money changers
We have fiat....created at the whim of bankers
perpetual debt

We have at best crony capitalism
at worst government industry corporatism
which is by definition fascism.

Our government is not our government
but government by the bankers for the bankers and the industrial complexes(media..entertaintment war..banking,energy, military, medical) that have sprung up around the bankers

just the way Jefferson said they would.

We have a fee press.
The r for republic has been left out,

just pay your fee and you get press...
they'll print whatever you tell them.

govt lobby..and those who run the Federal Reserve Bank's of the world are the ones to blame.

they play class warfare pitting union against non union,the poor against the middle class, young against the old and the welfare dependent class against the working class.

It is time we stop sitting on the sidelines
watching the mobs march..by media pointing their fingers in the wrong direction.

We know who is to blame.
It is our duty to start planting seeds in the minds of the teachers and the students before they can be used as a political weapon against society.

When totalitarian regimes took over
was from the gutter up financed thugs
as a counter revolution after they started an uprising by conditions they*themselves beat up and then created.

This is how these oppressive regimes start.

Socialist groups are now trying to recruit high school and middle school students as a weapon against society...

http://weaselzippers.us/2011/04/25/revolutionary-socialist-group-planning-to-recruit-children-in-junior-high-to-join-and-become-future-leader-in-the-movement/

the neo/natzie are the zionista
they are back on the rise

see how the tea party got highjacked
did you hear it on fox?

work you darn peasents
thus histry's lessons are lost

http://revolutionarypolitics.com/?p=5437
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/04/is-rogue-computer-virus-shutting-down.html
http://femen.livejournal.com/148551.html

http://revolutionarypolitics.com/?p=5437
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20057329-281.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw5Ij_RFJ1Q

heck read it yourself
http://whatreallyhappened.com/

As a dysfunctional Australian worker/unionist I worked mostly for the money.
Damn, did not want to say that it was not love of the job!
Such as brick yards oh, a host of things once started can not stop.
And shift work, permanent shift work is needed.
Now that always bought a premium, not penalty rates but a loading, the extra money bought to kids a few extras and some times a home was possible.
We are not a world committed to 8 hours days.
Shopping is 24 hours life is 24 hours , its good however to see one of my old Battle cry in use.
John Winston Howard, thought any penalty for all of us working weekends was wrong.
I went to the last weekend party.
Shut down the shopping malls if you wish but the people who do open will increase turnover, yabby one day WA will get weekend trading people want it ,it is not harming kids or family's.
If you want the extra money be prepared to earn it.
If you want to kill industry's that feed on our 24 hour lifestyle you waste your time,we arer now an international living country not the backward one we once had been.

There has always been shiftworkers the difference is that we have now become 'working families' and stay-at-home options are limited depending on your income. Many kids are in child care from babyhood and then become latch key kids from a young age.

We have also in recent times, handed over our retirement security to the private sector, making it even more difficult for people to stray beyond the one-size-fits-all mindset.

The reason we have seven day trading now is to support those cultural changes that sees more people at work now between Mon-Fri to allow time for shopping and other services that could once be accessed more easily during the week.

Times do change but not always for the better and the emphasis on consumerism, productivity and growth at the expense of other indicators of wellbeing is the problem IMO.

And yes the shareholder mentality is part of that mindset but much of it is illusion unless you are a major shareholder with only lip service paid to shareholder power including the fact that you can have your shares forcibly taken (Compulusory Acquisitions) during company buy outs once 90% of all other shares have been sold (even if by doing so you lose money).

Without digressing too much, rehctub the fact is we do live in a different world and as such things that used to be 'normal' are no longer thus, but I have lived in countries and other states where there was no 7-day trading and any cornerstores that opened were naturally more expensive to cover penalty rates as is only fair.

I was wondering if retail staff are known for having dysfunctional families or something. Does opening 7 days mean everyone usually works 7 days? Two parents working 7 days a week would make anyone wonder why they bothered having children.

If Malls are open does it mean each family shops 7 days a week? It did make it less stressful for many to get to the shops at less busy family time. 24 hour shops were even better.

Easter Monday was classic… people waiting for those shop doors to open. I guessed that was for supercheap easter eggs, I don’t know how they do it, if I saw any more chocolate come Monday I probably would have upchucked.

Do we still commonly have latchkey kids Pelican? It’s something I haven’t thought about in a long time.

I think Rechtubs view of a dysfunctional family would be different than mine.
My idea would be of mostly but not exclusively unemployed maybe those who over indulge in drink or drugs.
Do not scream at me, those who have both parents working are usually trying to get ahead and have good support in place for time with the kids.

A classical EG of what the system holds:) "dysfunctional families" I wonder what systems brought that about:) Winners and looser's......RIGHT!.........isn't that the norm?

Keep typing...........No rich and No poor is winning all the time.

:) FBI....I have my own words for that:)...S..F..BRIANS:)

LEAP

Is that why most kids between the ages of 15yrs - 25yrs pop pills most weekends prior to going out, in city night venues and concerts Belly or write themselves off most weekends, attacking police at any opportunity?

Why would kids feel the need to regularly pop pills on top of consuming alcohol weekly? Why do they feel the need to be spaced out or on a high every time they face a crowd?

Why the high rate of suicides over the past 20 years (with kids becoming younger and younger daily)taking their lives? Often over an issue such as 'breaking up' with a teenage girl or boy? Every city and town affected by someone they have known and the higher rate.

Many parents, particularly those working 7am - 7pm for most of their lives (both adults working those hours)with children they communicate with for only an hour daily, experience major problemos later with their teenagers and young adult children.

I have witnessed this in many families.

An odd weekend and/or four weeks annual leave do not 'make up' for all of those years/time lost while kids are growing up, never to be repeated.

Both "Professional" parents totally oblivious...

Belly, there was never any extra turnover to be had by extended hours shopping, Australians were already spending 100% of their income. It was always about redistributing the same number of dollars, not getting more.

I have always thought that the only ones to gain were the big two, who used it to put out of business, much of their competition. There was no profit in it, with all the extra costs in wages at penalty rates.

But Belly, your support of it made me think, & I realised that there were other winners.

The unions, not the members, but the organisation, picked up quite a bit, in both membership & dues, as the big 2 are unionised, unlike the small business that was displaced. All those casuals became unionists, many under protest.

But also the government gained a big boost it tax receipts. Every employee of the big 2 is a PAYE slave, it all goes through official channels, including the tax man.

Small business, on the other hand, is more likely to pay a part timer cash in hand. Many owners worked the extra hours themselves, & grabbed a few notes out of the till. There was a lot the tax man found hard to get his chunk out of.

Now many of those little people work for one of the big 2, after seeing their turnover dwindle, & closing down.

Yes the workers were mad to let it happen, to stuff up their life & leisure, but the unholy alliance of big business, big unions, & big government did real well.

Hasbeen sit with me and we will look again at your post.
Say 24/7 shops have as you said, just 100 units to sell.
That is the markets limit ok.
Why then, tell me do businesses open those extra hours.
Are they forced to be 24/7.
Or is it an understanding 110% is possible by trading when your opposition is not.
Now you will not believe it, you have an unchallenged ability to ignore truth, only a handful of such folk are Unionist.
Lets look at shift work,some time ago,big industry introduced 12 hour shifts.
Unions fought against it,but membership fought against the unions ,they wanted it.
Petrol refinery's steel making smelting even council street cleaners and rubbish removal are based on working 24'7.
Unions do notlike it, health alone says it is wrong.
But INDUSTRY MUST HAVE IT
WAU yes you see much like that but give me an alternative.
How do mums and dads pay the bills the house loan if one stays home?
Is housing only for the rich.
And your old job police officer just must be 24/7 too.
Base Hasbeen you opinions on unionism killing this country, you will be wrong, make claims workers are paid too much but consider honestly the subject.
In my last two jobs I worked some times 17 hour days,no extra pay,my commitment to the union and before the RTA was for one purpose, one shared by many, to get the job done once and right.

"Do we still commonly have latchkey kids Pelican? It’s something I haven’t thought about in a long time."

Jewely
I don't think about it too much now that my kids are older but yes it is common where I live. Many opt for latch-key instead of after-school care due to the cost, but decisions to leave kids alone may not only be related to cost.

http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fm/fm49ddv.pdf

Hey Pelican, Self/sibling Care sounds much nicer than latchkey. It doesn’t seem too extreme looking at numbers but I guess it only takes a moment for it all to go horribly wrong.

Support in the community seems important for the solo mums but income, or what race you are didn’t have much of an impact except the note saying higher income families were slightly more inclined to do it.

WAU:”An odd weekend and/or four weeks annual leave do not 'make up' for all of those years/time lost while kids are growing up, never to be repeated.”

Two working parent families are the ones kinda shaping up to be the ones that do have dysfunctional families so when does dysfunctional go from not being great at interacting with each other to a problem for everyone else – or do these kids and parents eventually sort themselves out over time?

I have no idea how industries chugging along 7 days a week relates.

Minus Intervention Jewely, some of the impacts upon society in general are an increase in arson (at a young age)to vehicles, homes schools and buildings damaged, a high rise in assaults, brazen home thefts and burglaries (with or without the occupants present), kids arriving at schools they do not attend, to assault staff and children during teaching hours, an evident lack of or loss of support, morals values and ethics present in quite a few teenagers that does impact directly upon their communities at large.

One instance, a group of teenagers of say 16yrs drinking on the streets in a suburb decide to burn out a few vehicles for fun, one parked out the front of a home, the other broken down.

A neighbour catches one of the arsonists while the remaining group (his mates) flee the area and allow their 'mate' to take the rap.

Q: If morals,values and consequences were instilled in these kids by some of their 'professional 12 hour working day parents" during their upbringing, would it not be fair to say, that if parents had spent a little more time around their kids, and supervise their teenage kids keeping them busier, that there may, just may be a reduction in arson, burglaries and theft in all its forms

I agree with every single word weareunique.
In a strange way your job and to a lessor degree mine bought us in contact with these things.
I twice was asked to visit homes to help in such matters.
I see in a country village in family's not considered dysfunctional, such children.
It comes some times as you say to kids left alone but it is often parents who never learned to be parents haveing children.
3 kids oldest 8 throw mud all over a car, parents under take to see it never happens again.
Next day it takes place again.
Victim asks what can we do about this.
Parents totally abusive its only a prank they scream.
What future those children.
By the way it started because victim said no kids fruit is not ready yet I will give you heaps after it is.
Afraid your old work mates may get involved,stop a breach of the peace, see next time I intend to throw a very big amount of mud all over the house, see if its only a prank then.
Not making lite of your view it needs addressing aware how you would but your head time and again but it is unacceptable.
A Sargent of police ,from near city,charged with youth and night problems would have been a big help but seems to no longer spend weekends here.

Are these the children of overworked (even if by choice) parents doing this stuff WAU? I don’t wanna go pointing finger when the bad behaviour could be the result of other things.

We started with “dysfunctional” families and now I think we’ve moved into maybe child neglect and delinquency.

68 depressed patients were subdivided according to their family's level of family functioning into functional and dysfunctional groups. Patients from dysfunctional families did not differ from those of functional families on measures of severity of depression, chronicity of depression, depression subtypes, other nonaffective psychiatric diagnoses, history of depression, or neuroendocrine functioning.

So from dysfunctional families did have significantly higher levels of neuroticism. A 12-mo follow-up of these patients indicated that depressed patients with dysfunctional families had significantly poorer course of illness, as manifested by higher levels of depression, lower levels of overall adjustment, and a lower proportion of recovered patients. Thus, impaired family functioning appears to be an important prognostic factor in major depression.

" and as populations spirals out of control, expect to see more and more. The demands on all humans in the 21 century, is abuse in its self, but more greed,selfishness, and the obsequies is needed in mad and most certainly, A society thats showing true signs of collapsibility.

"Who has time for families now days" was one of the comments I heard, as two women in there business suits were discussing, while trying to avoid the costs of child-care.

Yes its all about the attention or lack of it.

LEA

The demands on all humans in the 21 century, is abuse in its self!

No comments on that? well....bottmcfungas@hotmail.com

LEAP

Hi Jewely, in relation to parents of teenagers and young adults who are repeat offenders, I believe that if parents or one parent had spent more 'quality time' with their kids at a younger age instilling morals, values, ethics, teaching right from wrong and the consequences of being dishonest, there would be far fewer criminal incidents committed by teenagers.

Lets face it, day care 'Carers', after school Carers, or being left at home without guidance through primary school is not 'child raising'.

Belly, we are saying similar things and in response to your comment earlier.

I sacrificed my career while my kids were attending primary school, instilling morals, values and ethics in them both by words and actions while working casually to pay bills. During their high school years, i did not work permanently, choosing contract hours instead, in order to be around. I always sat down daily with each of them, asking how their day had gone, gently opening up their minds and hearts to discuss any issues, problems and resolving issues. This is fact as opposed to 'ego/boasting/I am the best parent rubbish' as there will never be any 'perfect parents'.

However, what is more important Belly?

Acquiring the best of assets, capital to travel extensively, wealth and greed, working continous long hours over 30 years, while ignoring and missing out on developing close relationships with one's children, raising them with morals values and ethics, OR having a parent(s) to spend 'average/normal time/hours' over the years with their children, particularly their primary years, teaching and following up on their morals values and ethics?

A comment from a young fellow now a Builder at 23 yrs of age recently.

"My mother, after Dad left us, sacrificed her career, returning to it 13 years later, while my younger brother and I were in primary school and high school, so that she was around to guide us in all the 'right' ways and ensure our safety during those years". Words to that effect. She never invited men in and out of the home, placing us first".

If a single mother is able to 'do without' all of the materialistic items and wealth for half her life raising children, then I am positive, that many couples earning $140,000+ between them, with all of their joint superannuation and long service leave accummulated over 30-40 year careers, are able to take time out over the years to 'raise' their children Belly.

I agree that there is a correlation, but its the entire economy that needs to be looked at, not just the 24/7 work cycle. I think was UOG who said it in an earlier post - we are all slaves of the capitalist system and finally we are starting to ask questions - bring it on!

The average child in this day and age will have both parents working, not just to pay for the little treats, but just to keep a house over their heads and food in their bellies. Houses are now 8-10 the average annual wage and food, power and other essentials just keep going up. There are few families for whom its a choice to have one parent at home.

It's the children who are suffering and the blame lies at the feet, not of any political party or leader, or even greedy corporates, the whole system is corrupt and needs to be understood for what it is - a great big ponzi scheme.

Well I have been in business throughout my kids entire lives.

They were fortunate enough to have their mum as a 'stay home mum' for all but the last few years of that.

My kids are now 22 and almost 20 and they are true jems. Sorry, a proud dads talk.

There is no doubt that they have gained from their experience.

Now belly, you say that small shops have the option to shut.

Well, that's where you are wrong.

You see, retail is a very tough industry as we are fighting for the bit that's left after the bills are paid, and that is forever decreaing.

Now of that we need to secure and hold our ever decreasing share and not being open will not help.

And a point another has raised. You can only spend your money once.

I would guarantee that if all shopping centres shut at noon Saturday and all public holidays, 1. everyone would learn to cope and 2. families would be better off for it.

You talk about greedy multinationals seeking profits for their shareholders as if it is a bad thing.

The managers of these businesses are employees. The shareholders are owners. In many cases, there are several million owners (those of us who have superannuation, for example, are likely to be indirect shareholders in both of the 'big two' [whose status as 'multinationals, by the way, is debatable]). What business owner in his right mind would employ people who did NOT seek to make a profit? What business owner in his right mind would employ people who sought to make 'a bit of a profit' but didn't endeavour to make the biggest profit he/she could? How is the 'greed' of the big business shareholders any more reprehensible than the 'greed' of a small business owner?

That said, I understand and agree with your point that work demands have led to much dysfunction in families. I don't know that this is caused by seven day trading - most of the rich kids who waste their lives away on drugs and alcohol are the kids of five-day-a-week professionals. The poor kids who waste their lives away on drugs and alcohol did so even in times when parents would be home by 5:00.

First I want to challenge in the strongest terms we are living in a giant ponzi scheme.
And that capitalism is a fraud.
Humanity is not perfect, never can be, OUG judges us from the eyes of a God that never existed.
Men of true greatness wrote his and every Gods books proof we can be great.
To come from the caves to living in big numbers shoulder to should our world in places is held together by sticky tape.
The fact it is held together is amazing.
Without capitalism,without reward for effort, with our reason to try harder we are going to fail.
Weareunique,I look back even just months ago and know I failed.
Far too fixed on my jobs my ability to one day own this home I worked too often too hard, 5 children I helped raise did not see enought of me.
But they got much from my hard work and I got the home.
Do not be too hard on ourselves that need to make the top of our hills is instinctive, it comes with self defense and flight instinct.
Maybe failure to love and understand children's the gift they are,, drives bad parentage too.
Rechtub some like me rarely had the money as kids to buy from you,we got to buy half a sugar bag of corned mutton flaps now and again.
We did not however get instructions to be lessor people my parents near chanted this mantra at us all.
Get a job work hard buy a block build a home .

My mum was a stay at home mum.

The time I broke both my arms, falling out of a tree on my way home from school, I had to go find her at the mid week tennis.

The day I almost cut a thumb off, she had not got home yet from shopping. The shops were over a mile away, which she walked pulling a little trolley behind her, in Townsville heat.

The day a couple of us were gathered up by the cops, for playing with bits of wood, in the water flowing across a fairly busy road, she was not yet home from playing bowls.

Stay at home mums are great, but can get it wrong sometimes too.

Challenge accepted!

Capitalism in itself is/was not such a bad idea, as Belly said, it is reward for effort. However, what it's not, is "fair" reward for effort.

Instead, capitalism relies on the goodwill of those further up the pyramid to share the benefits around, either through providing employees with a fair share of income through adequate wages, or by paying appropriate levels of taxation.

The current cost of living pressures tend to indicate that although workers are making greater and greater profits for companies, workers aren't getting their fair share back. They get paid as low as possible wages, which are usually directed back to corporates via increased prices anyway. Not to mention that potential profits (and therefore, taxation) are diluted by exorbitant executive salaries, add in low corporate tax rates and the great majority of the population is not benefitting.

I take the point about us all being potential shareholders through super funds - but in any case what use does that serve us if we cannot access that potential wealth to care for our families, to raise our children and to provide them with a step up in life so maybe one day they can get ahead of the game.

It's all well and good if you got in early and are further up the pyramid, but a lot aren't - and its those people that they are the dysfunctional families who can't afford to buy a home, where both parents have to work just to get along, whose children are being raised by child care workers and teachers. and its those people who are making the ones further up the pyramid more money. And they do it because they buy into the myth that someday they might be the ones at the top (or at least a little further up) - sure, some of the probably will be the ones at the top - but not all of them can be, and that is not necessarily going to be from lack of effort.

How is that not a giant ponzi scheme?

Just in case you think that last post was typical Gen X/Y whingeing - to all you boomers out there who think you have escaped the wrath of the capitalist monster...

Exactly how is that working out for you? Are your super funds increasing in value at the same rate as cost of living? From what the news is telling me you are having to retire later and live more frugally - so just exactly how have you benefitted from the capitalist machine?

Oh hang on, that's right, you have all those shares tied up with your super, so of course they'll continue to grow us long as the younger generation continue to be good boys and girls and feed the great big ponzi scheme. But what happens when wake up to the deception?

Yes indeed Saorise, today there are far more wealthy Australians
then ever before, most of them in the boomer age.

What has changed is expectations. We now have the young ones, with
much higher expectations, wanting everything now, for little effort.

You might not be aware of it, but the boomers commonly worked their
little butts off to make things easier for their kids. Sadly many
of them have turned out to be spoiled brats who want it all now
and think they are hard done by, if they don't have it all now.

But even the young ones know that the boomers can't take it with
them, so given that every single one is bound to die, the next
generation will inherit far more wealth then any generation before
them

Yabby, I dont think expectations have changed that much... I just want to buy a home to raise my children in - I'm not expecting anyone else to contribute to that - and i'm certainly not relying on my parents to help me get there.

But the problem is that we've been sold on the idea that Gen X/Y are not willing to work hard and pay for it. We are all apparently out buying plasma TVs!

But let's do the math... Average home now costs 8-10 times annual wage. If it cost 3-4 times annual wage (as it did when my parents bought their house) then i could easily subsume at 17-20% interest rate within my wage - but we're not talking about 17-20%, we're talking about 37.5-40% on wages alone, plus the bank rates.

It's divide and conquer - pit us against each other so we dont realise who the real culprits are.

Saoirse, I agree with you, houses have become too expensive, but they
have also doubled in size, in the last 30 years or so. No longer
the 3 by 1 fibros that were so common 30 years ago.

But then 30 years ago, I was paying up to 18% for borrowed money.
Things were not so easy, as you seem to think.

At that time, women only begrudgingly went to work, once they were
married. What alot of my smart friends did, was shack up
together and live cheap. Bank one wage and live off the other.
After 3-4 years, they had a sizeable deposit together, to at
least buy a cheap house. Only then did they think of making
rugrats. The same principle still works today.

I would say you have forgotten something, or you are too young to know. Fifty and sixty years ago, the top tax was 66.6%, and this kept down the high salaries, which kept down the prices of goods and services and allowed seven days jobs if needed. If you could get a look at the wages, prices, rental and costs of mortgages and homes, you would be wanting a higher top tax also. The improvement today would be to have the 65% or 70% top tax on the $450,000 and no tax on the first $30,000, which would just about balance the 30% of GDP that the treasurers have aimed for, or supposed to. You can judge for yourself whether they are fair dinkum or not or are they just too ignorant or corrupt. The women were either working in clothing factories or at home, looking after their children and doing the house work, washing the clothing or doing cooking, the workers were getting enough with their wages to cope with those things. Unfortunately the treasurers ( except for Paul Keating and Kevin Rudd, the rest of the Prime Ministers and Treasurers were/are Lawyers, that may mean something, maybe mathematicians could do the job better) don't seem to understand reality, and can't work out that a 30% of GDP can still be achieved with a 66% or 70% top tax if they increase the amount of no tax ie zero tax on the first $30,000 or whatever was needed.

I understand what you're saying, Yabby, and to a certain extent I agree. However, it's not just the McMansions that are selling for ridiculous prices.

I remember when my parents finally managed to build our first house. We had moved from the unaffordable Sydney to sleepy little Perth in 1991. There, they built quite a modest house for $120,000. It was a three bedder with the bare essentials in trimmings. We only got around to floor coverings when we were about to relocate a year and a bit later, and I we never quite got around to turfing the backyard. My dad and I paved the patio ourselves (well, my dad paved it and I'd like to think I helped, but I was only 9 so was probably more of a hindrance than anything). It wasn't much, but it was ours and we were proud. My parents had worked long and hard for it. We sold it for $120,000. Most recently, it sold for somewhere in the range of $450,000. Even as an alleged high income earner, I cannot afford my old family home.

This isn't a complaint, really. Back then, we got by with far fewer 'necessities' (luxuries, really) than we have today. The internet wasn't a mainstream idea. Few people had mobile phones. We didn't take holidays, either overseas or in Australia. I see it as a trade-off. If I want a house of my own (and I'm quite happy to settle for fibro), I have to reassess what I need in my life and economise the old-fashioned way. I think the real problem is that very few people of my generation and only a few more from the previous generation (bear in mind that the McMansion craze was launched by my parents' generation, drawing much scorn from my folks) are willing to do this. This is why so many work so hard to earn money without taking time out to enjoy it and to be with their families.

Saoirse, in answer to your question, 'how will we survive', it really is quite simple.

We will be spending your inheritance.

Why?

Because you Gen-Y's (generalising) are to busy spending every penny you earn to even consider settling down and buying a house for yourself.

You see, unlike Gen-Y, we worked four, five, even six days a week, often holding second jobs, all so we could provide for our families.

RDO's, sickies and flexi time were not herd of.

So, instead of asking us how we will fair, you had better ask yourself that question, as once we are gone, along with 'your inheritance' you can no longer hold on to the 'apron strings' as you will be left to defend for yourselves.

Good luck!

Glad you threw the word 'generalising' in there, rehctub. I and most of the Y-Genners with whom I spend my time work extremely hard to achieve those same goals our parents worked for. Interestingly, I and most of my friends are those same uni graduates who have been demonised by individual and others on this forum for sitting around lazily, thinking the world owes us a living because we're so smart. I suspect that there are bludgers in every generation. The difference with Gen-Y, I believe (and as I said in my last post) is that many of us have a warped view of what we NEED and what we WANT in life. Life for much of Gen-Y is so unaffordable because we are so attached to 'things' and 'conveniences' that we struggle to take a step back and remember what it's all about.

I've been down that path - I remember sitting down with my mother to work out a budget when I got my first post-uni job. I added in so many expenses and had a great big sook when I saw how little I had left over. It took a while for the words 'discretionary spending' to enter my vocabulary. Nowadays, I can see that most of my small-ticket spending is discretionary and that I can achieve my goals by cutting that spending. Who needs to go and hang out with drunk Australians in Bali when we have plenty of drunk Australians right here in ... well ... Australia? I don't know. I think it is a matter of maturity, not a matter of generation. The wall street yuppies breeding mass consumption in the 1980s weren't part of my generation, but they gave us some pretty exciting, if ill-informed ideas.

That is a broad generalisation as you acknowledge. Gen Y is certainly a different culture in some respects, but unlike my generation many Gen Y are sadly all too intent on thinking about buying a house, paying off their HECS debts and working out how to raise children without the option of one partner staying home.

From my memory many in my baby boomer generation did not think about such things until we married and decided to have children. We travelled, got involved in politics, or sport and started work without the same pressures as exist now. Mortgage repayments were not such a big bite out of your income.

It is just a reality that Gen Y will have to deal with a different world than the one us older folk experienced. Ditto for our parents generation, establishing themselves after the war.

I heard an interesting quote the other day in relation to housing affordabillity.

Gen-Y wants to start off where the baby boomers finnished, not back where they started.

Pretty much sums it up hey.

Afraid it doesn’t Rehctub, just goes to show your prejudices. And I'm sorry this series of comments deteriorated into GenX-Y versus Boomers when in fact i had hoped to illustrate that it was the system that divides us not inter-generational differences.

And i'm sorry i left it so long between comments, but i'm afraid i was out working my 70hour a week job and commuting 3+ hours a day because the only place i could afford to buy a house was at least 1 hour out of the city (usually longer on workdays when the trains run late). Though i suppose i have to give you the fact that I have been on one overseas holiday, after i finished uni (worked my way through uni BTW (no Austudy for me), and, if it makes you feel any better, it was a working holiday too).

So whilst I do get upset about inter-generational stereotyping, my original point was - the way the system is set up we don’t actually get a choice about what we consider is valuable to our society, the capitalist system doesn’t allow it. We just have to put up with it because that's just the way it works - no use asking questions, you'll just be told that you're selfish and want everything now when everyone else had to work hard for it.

Meanwhile our children are suffering because their parents aren't around to actually parent them, Mum doesn’t get home from work till at least 6:30pm (by the time she picks them up from after school care), Dad's only around on Sundays because he has to work 6 days a week and the kids are in bed by the time he gets home on work nights.

It’s not a choice – it’s a necessity if one wants to own a home. I know that it wasn’t easy for previous generations, but it would take a lot to convince me that it was the norm then as it is now

Don't get me wrong - i do it - but i'm not happy about it and i really don’t see any reason why anyone should be. Of course the ones who came before and have already worked their way further up are reluctant to let go of any of their hard earned capital or benefits. Spend my inheritance, I don’t care, I’m not expecting one anyhow. But what I am worried about the world I am leaving for my children and I am going to fight to make sure that they actually have a sustainable economy to inherit.

I’m one of the ones on the battlefield at the moment, and the battlefield just isn’t the same as it was 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago. My parents raised 5 children on a primary school teacher’s salary. Just tell me how it’s possible to do this today because I must be doing something wrong...

And it’s not that I take too many overseas holidays or buy too many iGadgets – oh hang on, I do have that prepaid mobile... And I’ve got a microwave – they weren’t around to waste money on in previous generations... Crikey, do I have to declare that electric toothbrush too? I do have a DVD player (but seeing as I don’t own a VCR we can call it even can’t we?). And what if I have a flat screen TV (which I don’t), but wouldn’t your parents have looked down on you for buying a colour TV (or buying a TV at all!).

I’m not intentionally trying to be facetious, but I honestly believe that the world is a very different place than it was just 10-20 years ago and there is no use denying it. I don’t blame previous generations. Instead, I blame the capitalist system and unless we stand up to be counted, it’s only going to get worse and the big boys at the top are only going to get richer at the expense of our children and the things that we as a society we should value above money.

*I blame the capitalist system*

You are free to do so Saorise, but I think you are wrong, because
I think its the political system that is the problem, not capitalism.

Yes, we have some of the most expensive houses on the planet,
whilst it does not cost a fortune to build them. Yes I agree, for
young people its difficult to buy homes at their present price.

But it was politicians who set up our tax system as it is, it
is politicians who control land release etc, it is urban planners
who wanted to force people into high density living in apartments.

Interest rates are higher then they need be, because thats the
way politicians set it up, people simply responded to the realities
of the market place enforced on them.

Australians don't save enough in terms of bank deposits, because
it does not pay them to, given the tax structure that we have.
Inflation takes half the interest paid, no allowance is made for that.
Tax takes the other half, so its hardly worth having too much cash
in the bank. So our banks have to borrow half of their funds
from overseas, meaning higher interest rates.

More migration without enough new land release for building, results
in even higher real estate costs. Huge charges on developers, add
to the problem.

But it pays people to borrow to buy an investment home, due to the
tax structure. So that is what they do.

All this has zilch to do with capitalism, everything to do with
politics

Saoirse>> working my 70hour a week job and commuting 3+ hours a day because the only place i could afford to buy a house was at least 1 hour out of the city

Nice try, and while some out there may fall for this, I am sorry but I don't.

Now you lead us to assume you are a professional (Post uni comment), so, considering you would be on at the very least $30 per hour, how then can't you afford a home closer when you must be earning at least two grand a week or more, as surely someone with your academic ability is not being sucked in to working some 30+ hours per week for zilch!

Now as for owning a home. Well back in the early 80's when I bought my first home, it was simply a waste of time talking with the bank unless you had at least 30% as a cash deposit. Even then it was not always a given.

>> But what I am worried about the world I am leaving for my children and I am going to fight to make sure that they actually have a sustainable economy to inherit.

Good luck! Especially with these fools running the place. Someone needs to explain to them that they can only spend (waste) money once.

>>Just tell me how it’s possible to do this today because I must be doing something wrong...

More importantly, tell me what you do with all that money you earn, or, if you don't earn your 70+ hours worth, why the hell do you work there when we have, as madam PM pretends, 'full employment'.

Cont

The type of money being earned out there today is amazing, to say the least.

Even traffic controllers, after having done a three day course are fetching a grand a week plus, yet they still can't buy a house.

Gen-Y simply has a 'spending crisis' and it is this reckless spending of their dollars that has made home ownership more of a dream than a reality.

Even where I live you can buy a neat 3 BR house for around $350K.

Trouble is, it's not 'the house' and that is where the problem starts.

The bars clubs and pubs are packed every weekend with hundreds of thousands being washed away. I know, I have two gen-y's myself.

Priorities is the key.

Save for a year or two, get your loan, pay the mortgage, pay the bills and then, if you have some money left, spend it, but not before.

Try it, it will work, but you may have to change your group of friends as they may well be caught in the 'party trap' that so many Gen-Y's are in.

All to often they have a social life, then work around it, which often means finding a job that suits.

Luckily, it sounds to me your not one of those.

I agree with you Yabby, except that i reckon our political leaders are heavily influenced by money, and the ones who have it (got to keep them onside in order to get elected or re-elected), thus its a crisis of the system as a whole, underpinned by capitalist greed and propped up by stupid pollies.

I've told my story and i'm obviously not going to convince you rehctub as it apparently suits you to prefer to think all Gen X/Y are lazy, spendthrift and apparently drunken (though i would posit that perhaps they've woken up to the fact that there's no way they can get ahead in this world so they might as well have a bit of fun with their money).

But for the record, i earn nothing near $2000 a week and i live in the outer Northern suburbs of Brisbane. My problem is that I have never followed the money, instead, I choose to use my tertiary education to help others in my community and chose a house within my means. Unfortunately, I would have been better off being a traffic controller as you suggest.

But i suppose that's my stupid fault for not being greedy enough - i just tend to value some things higher than the almighty dollar - silly me.

*underpinned by capitalist greed*

It's not capitalism that is greedy, Saoirse, its a whole lot of people. For some reason a good bulk of them, always want more.
Personally I am in favour of capitalism, as I think I know what is
best for me, rather then the Govt. Under any other system, its
Govt officials who become the greedy pigs, at the expense of all
the rest.

Politicians generally do what gets them over the line at the next
elections. Given that most people already own a house or two,
there are no votes in changing the economic system, to lower house
prices and reduce interest rates, so it doesen't happen. So you are
outvoted by the majority.

People get the politicians that they deserve and in our case, its
not the smartest, alot of the time.

Perhaps you could move to the country. Cheaper houses, friendlier
people, grow your own stuff and worry less about money.