I wish to know thoughts on:

"....Entrenched (Poverty)....definition
Adjective...
(of an attitude, habit, or belief) firmly established and difficult or unlikely to change; ingrained.
‘an entrenched resistance to change’..."

Entrenched poverty and the broader community response.

Entrenched poverty and NGO response.

Entrenched poverty and Government response.

Entrenched poverty and personal responsibility of the poor themselves.

Entrenched poverty and its definition.

The avoidance of entrenched poverty.

And anything in additional thoughts on the subject.

diver dan,

Does this help?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_poverty

The other possible scenario is common enough to be instructive. Many here may come from families that were decimated, all men gone and the remainder severely disabled by two wars. The banks and suppliers still have to be paid.
That applied to my own family on both sides. Imagine trying to keep family and farms going, they had to care for their disabled, with the long droughts, poor prices and other problems of food production. They lived super-tight and did everything themselves. No medical treatment available either, just the Flying Doctor if you were seriously ill. But they survived and raised their families. I can give you dozens of similar stories from friends and others I have come across.

Whereas some never tried and still don't. Even despite the support they get.
But why not?

To become independent you must first think and act that way. It takes pride.
It takes years without any guarantee of getting anywhere.

Look closely enough and you will see choice at work. Most are what I call micro-choices, for example to get up, make the bed and move. But it all adds up.

Thanks LeoJ

So many threads from your post above, but best summarised under generational poverty.

The link is educational.

What prompted me to post this subject was observations in my own community, and my angry response to the blatant exploitation of the poor in it.

Real estate agents head the list of the “low-life” and the “unmerciful”.

I've watched while the town was “cleansed” of the poor, and substituted by the wealth of the road workers, constructing the new Pacific Hwy extensions.

This town is without a soul, and is thankfully beginning to devour itself with greed. The wealthy are now attacking the wealthy. That's a story in itself!

Here's a few more links that may help:

http://www.acoss.org.au/media_release/disadvantage-is-entrenched-and-structural-in-poorest-communities/

http://acoss.wpengine.com/inequality/

Some poor people are just unlucky. Many poor people are deeply flawed people. These flaws are largely the result of what is called "unresolved intergenerational trauma." Put simply, adults who had unhappy childhoods tend to become shonky parents, locking families in a cycle that is hard to escape. No one chooses to be a crap parent, but many people haven't had it modelled to them.

It takes several generations of people who just do a bit better than their own parents to fix the problem.

Did anyone watch "Q and A" on the ABC last night?
Jimmy Barnes opened up about his life and coming
back from the brink. This "Working Class Man,"
was truly inspirational. I'm now going to look into
getting hold of his latest book.

Here's the link that explains:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-17/q&a-jimmy-barnes-opens-up-on-coming-back-from-the-brink/9055870

The title of his book is - "Working Class Man."

Many lost homes in the Depression , made worse by Commonwealth bank.
"Entrenched poverty and Government response."
Old houses in cities were bought and sold by families as normal life-style with calm traffic . Blackouts , food-or-rent choice and road rage is our progress to where? Government-entrenched poverty-response is "earn more money" = " you are poor ".

With the commentariat now becoming available after being tied up for years on that other 'Progressive' crusade, maybe ex-Labor leader Mark Latham might finally get his wish for some interest in the 'Struggle Towns'?

"FORMER Labor leader Mark Latham has slammed his party’s “obsession” with gay marriage saying it should focus on the nation’s “Struggle Streets” instead.

He said the biggest social issue facing Austalia was unemployment, drug use and homelessness in suburbs such as Mt Druitt which was the focus of the SBS documentary, Struggle Street.
“If you are interested in equality and social justice in Australia then what was the really big event in the month of May,” he said. “We had the Struggle Street documentary which revealed that in the nation’s public housing estate, most notably in Mt Druit people live in conditions that you wouldn’t wish upon your dogs. Absolute chaos, despair and hopelessness in their lives.
“And surely, you would have expected a serious national response from the party of social justice?
“We didn’t hear anything.
“They’re obsessed, instead, by gay marriage.”
Mr Latham said legalising same-sex marriage would not “improve” anyone’s standard of living, nor would it improve their capacity to “function in society”.
“It’s a legal document,” he said. “It’s a piece of symbolism. It might make some people feel better to have a marriage document but it really is a low order priority.
“On the Richter scale of social justice Struggle Street is a 10, gay marriage is a point one."
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/former-labor-leader-mark-latham-slams-labor-over-gay-marriage/news-story/6c89f7077536bf321ee40c25946e6f0f

Nothing new there and Latham was aware of that, just forgotten while there was a perceived far higher priority, something to do with rainbows and unicorns the federal parliament, while elsewhere,
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/victorias-worst-struggletowns-revealed-in-dropping-off-the-edge-report/news-story/b9fc9b474177285e73c1690144b860bf

Hmmm, the commentariat have again found much more interesting things to occupy them and affecting some of their wealthy mates,

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/sydney-confidential/lisa-wilkinson-had-the-best-sleep-in-10-years/news-story/f15a4db1882fdeec7a0f075209482202

What job should Mark Latham be fired from next.
Here's some suggestions:

http://www.sbs.com.au.comedy/content/what-job-should-mark-latham-probably-be-fired-next-heres-some-suggestions

Is the Daily Telegraph a trusted and reputable newspaper
and does it really influence public opinion?

Newspapers as we've seen on the TV program "Yes Minister,"
will always pander to their reader's prejudices. Social and
political leanings dictate who reads what. So, even if we
see people reading a newspaper we're rather dubious about,
or quoting from one online, we should remember not to
judge them too harshly.

Here's a link that explains which newspapers most influence
public opinion in Australia:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-29/catsaras-which-newspapers-most-influence-public-opinion/6653778

Foxy,

Your 'expert' describes himself as a 'strategic marketing consultant'.

Now, back to those Struggle Streets. They do exist and more are being added by the overheads of that Ponzi mass immigration. When is it their turn?

Your doing well LeoJ and foxy. I find your comments interesting. And links.
It's easy to force people into poverty, but more difficult to force them out of it. It's a team effort.

Poverty is the generator of true inequality. Justice through the courts is compromised by lack of personal resources. Money deals a better outcome by far, in the justice system. The poor do prison terms the wealthy can avoid. The cost for a reasonable outcome in the District court, could start at $40k if all goes well; appeals are $10k extra. Without those resources, you do prison time as penalty; almost certainly.

Yes indeed Andrew Catsaras is a strategic marketing
consultant who's crunched the data and marked the
"Influence index" of Australia's major newspapers.
Because there's no doubt newspapers influence public
opinion.

diver dan,

Loss of housing, shelter, is what you should be focussing on. That is the start of the one-way downward spiral. There are many more people, new cohorts of poverty stricken, facing that prospect. What's worse, they are people who have been reliably independent and providing for themselves for donkeys years in many cases, eg the aged.

Taking the old as an example, the relentless increases in taxes, direct and indirect (eg user pays) to provide for infrastructure for mass migration, the rising cost of homes because of the (over)population increase and the competition through foreign investment in housing (Chinese particularly) have put a dual pressure on aged pensioners, Centrelink and self funded. They cannot afford housing. They cannot afford the rents or the costs of keeping the asset if they won it. Secondly, policy-makers are deliberately coercing them out of housing so that it can be acquired by greedy young professionals who want to live in closer suburbs.

It has nothing to do with negative gearing which was the whipping boy of the smarties who know better.

Do the analysis for (say) low income earners or mentally handicapped and it is the same with slight wrinkles. For instance, the last mentioned had their facilities removed, sold off, by both sides of government years ago, back in Keating's and Howard's time.

Shelter is the crucial aspect. It has only been in recent decades that the negative consequences of over-optimistic mass immigration on the resident population become so obvious. It isn't so very long ago that the elderly, with some budgeting, could see out their days in the family home. Now they are lucky to last several years past retirement from work, or loss of the spouse. Rents? Check Brisbane and the Gold Coast for example and one will find that rental accommodation for singles is priced out of their reach.

Guess what happens then? -From having no mail address for starters...

Just a few quick thoughts.

Should be, "They cannot afford the rents or the costs of keeping the asset if they OWN it."

Leoj

Oh for sure, housing is a “y” node along the way to poverty. But irrespective of housing, poverty exists. Meaning, it is still possible to be “ relatively” poor and own a property.

Not owning, or being in the unenviable position of facing unaffordable rents, is a unique path to poverty, with very mean outcomes. Homelessness is an end game.
My post above, re; eviction of renters for profit, by estate agents should be a criminal offence. NSW is the least protected state in this regard.

Sure, NSW has a rent tribunal at which grievances can be aired, but a tribunal is only as useful as the laws it must uphold: in “that” it's weakened. Just another facade for pretended Government services.

So many Government services have become ostensibly, self serving NGO organisations. EG. Meals on wheels, where for a short period are supplied free.
There would be a brow-beating response on these pages, to the idea of free meals to the aged poor. But I come across this situation often, where, after rents and medical services are paid for, no money remains for food. Nil.

I was hoping this subject may waffle on for a while, giving it time to address the numerous issues confronting the poor in our communities, which will not necessarily be prioritised; such as a simple focus on housing outcomes seems to do. Housing is not the beginning and end problem at all. It's simply a major one of a myriad of factors, on the slippery slope to ruin and poverty.

So you want to rail against property managers, whose expensive services and staff turnover reflect the complication and tenant-slant of the regulations?

But you don't want to discuss the causes of expensive housing, which is indisputably driven by successive federal governments and their Ponzie mass immigration scheme that has been criticised by State Premiers for decades?

Or the foreigners buying up real estate that also has been going on for many years? One country is responsible for taking a massive 8% of good stock. Have you any idea how that affects prices?

You don't want to discuss either the impact on housing of the diversification of government taxes and ramping them up to and past inflation?

Most wanting to invest in tenanted property haven't done the due diligence and financial stress-testing of the investment. S/he is wasting his/her and family's precious years of life and running very real risks of a shorter, troubled life through the introduced chaos and stress.

Sorry diver dan, you are very wrong when you say, "Not owning, or being in the unenviable position of facing unaffordable rents, is a unique path to poverty, with very mean outcomes. Homelessness is an end game.
My post above, re; eviction of renters for profit, by estate agents should be a criminal offence. NSW is the least protected state in this regard".

It is not the responsibility of the owners of residential property to supply housing for those who have done poorly in life. Very many of them are depending on the income from their hard earned property to fund their own retirement.

If you want to subsidise housing, that is a tax payer function, not a house owner function. Individual property owners are entitled to earn market rates for their property at all times.

diver dan,

Government, the State, has been burned too many times and freely admits it is pushing its responsibility for welfare housing onto the private sector.

I believe that the tampering in housing by feckless government, the federal government especially, risks a flight of small investors away from rental property and once that happens it will turn into a mass movement that will not be stopped or turned.

BTW, those foreign investors, especially Asian, buy long. Which means that even your great-grandchildren will never see those well placed properties, housing and farms, on the market again.

LeoJ
*…risks a flight of small investors away from rental property and once that happens it will turn into a mass movement that will not be stopped or turned…*

It is difficult to accurately predict, but easy to invent scenarios of outcomes. A renter in Australia lives a very tenuous existence.

Investment housing in Australia will always have a market value, and an owner. Either the Bank will repossess or the owner will find a way to retain possession. It will not evaporate. So conceivable, a tenant will retain a roof over their head, if it is possible to pay the asking price rent.

No hasbeen, renters should not be subject to profiteering by anybody or any organisation.
And if it happened to you, you would loudly object, trust me. You show very little empathy towards others in this regard. It is one thing to be comfortably ensconced in your own property, but it's quite another, to be smug and insensitive.
You should follow my example. The land value alone of my house, is two million dollars,
So I should go well when a chinaman arrives on the doorstep with a suitcase of laundered money, don't you think? I have concern for how this country is sliding off the edge.

The increasing casualty rate, evidenced by those Australians left behind to be mercilessly plundered for profit by real estate agents, sickens me!

Still totally wrong DD.

I would never consider domestic housing rental as a business proposition, there is too much risk, & not enough prospect for profit. If you want to earn money from rental, commercial is so much safer & so much more profitable, I consider only a fool should ever consider domestic. Still I consider any rental prospect available to the small investor to be a pretty poor choice.

Domestic rents are far too low to be worth the risk of expensive damage & high costs. They need to increase by at least 50% to make any sort of business sense.

In Oz today it is such a bad investment I am surprised anyone does it. In the US you can buy a domestic rental property on 20% deposit, & the rent will cover all costs, including repayments easily. Of course their housing prices are much more sensible than ours, making this possible.

Hasbeen…

I agree that domestic rental in today's climate is huge and risky for the investor.
There was a time when it was a leader of the pack investment medium…those days are long gone.
The only sensible people in the property investment market, are the old hands: The ones who have already made a “motza” , and can afford to ride out the bad cycles, such as we are in.
My gripe about corrupt estate agents, is their complicity in driving prices up, all aspects of it, which brings me to this thread. The poor left to the mercy of estate agents. There is no mercy!

LeoJ has been focused on immigration and over population, as the root cause of increasing poverty in Australia. It can't be denied. This country is a lottery. Very few big winners, and very many losers.

If rents continue to escalate, blind Freddy will be acutely aware of the pitfalls to the economy. Disposable income restrictions and its consequences. The poor will not win a revolt against glaring inequality. When even the term inequality has been castigated by the political class, to mean only applicable to homosexuals and high flying female executives.

Dan rents must reflect the cost of acquiring & maintaining a rental property. This in fact they do not do today. It is such a bad investment that it is only the overhang of those not used to investing still wanting to see bricks & mortar for their money that keeps it going.

Housing prices need to come way down. However if it does, current investors loose hugely, & run away for ever. If it continues to rise rents will necessarily become so high that they will become totally unaffordable for most.

The only answer is to stop immigration now, & for a damn long time, cross our fingers & hope for a soft landing. Currently we are heading for a collapse, & the greens will have got their wishes fulfilled.