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.