Are you short of money this week? Yes? Aren't we all?
Do you run a car? Take it to work? Could catch public transport but it is not really convenient? Bit of a hassle?
Did you have a couple of beers or a glass of wine? Did you buy your lunch instead of take it work? Buy a coffee or two or more? Did you buy 'fast food' to save cooking one night?
Do you smoke? Went to the footy right?
You turn the telly or the radio on as you walk through the door?
Turned on the heat instead of wearing another layer of clothing?
Bought your kid the expensive trainers rather than the cheap ones because that is what "everyone's wearing"?
Get the general picture? Are we really short of money or do we put ourselves in the position where we have less than we might because of the way we choose to live and the things we spend it on? Should we blame 'the government' for our lifestyle choices?

I think you'll find its mostly lifestyle choices. That said, there are some out there that are truly doing it hard and dont have any excesses. However, I have a family member on a disability pension who despite having no other income manages to keep up her private health insurance. Its a matter of what priority you place on things.

I remember in high school I applied for Austudy (now youth allowance), and had to fill in an actual means test form. Centrelink accused us of lying, because we had no money for entertainment, and only about $100 each for clothing for a 12 month period. But that's how we lived. We NEVER went out for dinner, had no VCR so didnt hire videos, didnt go to the movies (up to the time I left home, I went to the movies twice, so not exactly never, but not even once a year), lived in hand-me-downs and a few purchases from Vinnies (the $100 was mostly shoes and school uniforms), we killed our own meat and grew a lot of fruit and veg. The one luxury we had was sport. We were all allowed to play one sport a year, but it had to be the same sport (netball) and we had to line up training to all be on the same day. We lived as frugally as I imagine a lot of people growing up in the 60's and 70's did, except we grew up in the 90's. It can still be done, and doesnt really hurt kids at all.

communicat and country gal
i agree , people CAN make choices to be alot more considerate, if they only have a reason to try .(My grandmother lived through two world wars and my mother one, and the world is still at war all over the planet). Things do appear to be getting scarier and tighter in almost every aspect of our lives and people do already talk about the bad old days of waste and pollution like its in the distant past or something (NOT) the days when no one knew any better.....well i predict drastic changes,that we will make ourselves or the world will keep reacting to our waste and continue to shock us (as it is )with its own changes that we have precipitated
we have stimulated the earth through our lifestyle choices
so isnt it time to choose again

I agree its our choice not a governments I truly battled and went without to own a modest home paid for in cash.
Tore up the credit cards and was in no position to go out for years but it was worth it.
Yet the young are spending like they never have to pay and house repossessions are happening every day.
It will get worse, far worse but it is not the governments fault now and it will not be the fault of the incoming ALP one either.

I never thought you would agree Belly - but I do think that ALP policies could make matters worse as interests rates rise still further.

The effectiveness of your money-saving tips (or, for that matter, money-MAKING tips) depends on their not being generally followed. When any money-saving practice becomes the norm, the "advantage" conferred by it is competed away in prices and rents of housing. Moreover, as soon as any money-saving practice becomes prevalent enough to exert a demand-side influence on the housing market, it raises prices and rents, forcing other people to adopt the same practice in order to compete.

Example 1: As soon as it became socially acceptable to put off having children, it was only a matter of time before couples would NEED to put off having children in order to secure adequate housing.

Example 2: Ditto for wives and mothers seeking paid employment.

Example 3: In countries where child labour is officially or unofficially tolerated, market rents of housing are based on the assumption that the children of the household will work: if the children don't work, the parents can't afford the rent.

If the advocates of frugality are suggesting that Joe Bloggs would be better off if only Joe Bloggs followed their advice, they are right. But if they are suggesting that we would ALL be better off if we ALL followed their advice, they are wrong.

The only way to ease financial pressure on a large scale is to reduce the intensity of competition in the housing market -- by strengthening the bargaining position of tenants and buyers relative to landlords and sellers. That is a matter of public policy, not private virtue.

We don't all have CR cards but we all seem to be in the same boat. I am a widow and I have a son. A couple of years ago we were in supermarket and my son then 14 said "Hey Mum can we afford ice-cream this week?" before he put it in the basket. The lady standing beside me said "Did he just ask you what I think he did,? because my son would just put ice-cream in basket and would never ask, just take it as a normal thing, you are lucky your son thinks of such things" I thought NO I am not lucky at all, I have just bought him up to respect how far the dollar goes and the important things BEFORE nice things.

Liz - I reckon you must have done a fantastic job of bringing up your son - congratulations! (And I really mean that.)
I am not sure I agree with the idea that housing is the crux of the problem...what sort of housing? Two bedrooms, three or four? A unit or a quarter acre block? A lawn or a swimming pool? Carport or garage?
Do we want more than we need because we believe that what we want is what everyone else has?
Are we ever home to enjoy what we have or are we too busy working to pay for it?

Communicat wrote: "I am not sure I agree with the idea that housing is the crux of the problem...what sort of housing? Two bedrooms, three or four? A unit or a quarter acre block? A lawn or a swimming pool? Carport or garage?"

The component of "housing" whose cost is competed upward until it absorbs the market's capacity to pay (or further, as in the present "subprime" crisis) is not the bedrooms or swimming pool or carport/garage, but the part that cannot be produced by competitive effort. That part is the SPACE occupied by the dwelling -- a.k.a. the SITE, a.k.a. the LAND, a.k.a. LOCATION, LOCATION. The prices and rents of bedrooms, swimming pools, etc. are limited by the costs of building them. Not so the space in which they are built.

If we all decided to build less opulent houses, the savings would again be competed away in prices and rents of SITES.

Communicat I do agree because it is true, if you find my posts to be just thoughtless support for the ALP you are wrong.
That house it is the first thing a family needs and not a mac mansion in my view.
A country village home mine is no palace ,but no one could drive me to think of a home as a status symbol.
It may well be but it is no mansion, now that jib about interest rates, we both understand John broke his promises do we?
And the they are going to rise no matter who governs?
Kevin will have you siting at his feet in 12 months he will govern well, may let me down ,but most Australians will love him.
An outcome of spend spend spend will be pain pain pain for far too many, a self inflicted wound.

Nothing will ever pursuade me to vote ALP Belly - they broke more promises than anyone.
Howard has not actually broken his promise on interest rates - funny about that but true. He promised to keep them lower than they were under Labor and he has done that.
The problem is that they have gone up because the economy has been running well and the Reserve Bank is trying to keep the lid on inflation. One reason the economy is running well is that there are more people in work and they have more to spend so others are demanding they spend rather than save for the future.
Of course Howard has been blamed for this - much easier to blame someone else.
But Belly nowhere can anyone find evidence of Howard actually saying he will keep interest rates low and especially not at record lows... all he said was 'lower' and that he has done.
Rudd will end up being just another union puppet - he has to be or he will not keep his job - plenty of unionists on the front bench just waiting to take over.