# Wealth Inequality



## craft (24 February 2014)

• The *richest 85 people *in the world owns the same as the bottom *half of the world’s population*.

•Almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one precent of the population.

• The wealth of the one precent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion. That’s 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.

•The richest one precent increased their share of income in 24 out of 26 countries for which we have data between 1980 and 2012. (Australia was 2nd on the list)





http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp-working-for-few-political-capture-economic-inequality-200114-en.pdf

But its O.K because Hockey and the G20 are going to fix the problem by adopting a new higher growth target Trickle down will work - It just needs more head pressure - A bit more growth concentrated at the top and it will flow like a charm.


----------



## burglar (24 February 2014)

craft said:


> ...




I don't know what you're expecting here?! *feigned surprise*


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

The rich still only eat one breakfast a day.

Those numbers just show who owns the wealth, the wealth being the infrastructure and businesses that keep the global economy ticking. 

Generally wealth will accumulate with those who allocate capital efficiently in productive ways, who then reinvest the earnings again and again rather than consume their profit, and a growing portion of the super rich are choosing to give the majority of their wealth back to society. eg, Buffet and gates etc etc


----------



## craft (24 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> The rich still only eat one breakfast a day.
> 
> Those numbers just show who owns the wealth, the wealth being the infrastructure and businesses that keep the global economy ticking.
> 
> Generally wealth will accumulate with those who allocate capital efficiently in productive ways, who then reinvest the earnings again and again rather than consume their profit, and a growing portion of the super rich are choosing to give the majority of their wealth back to society. eg, Buffet and gates etc etc




Yeh Value Collector

The system works just fine - nothing too see here - just move on. What ever you do don't think about it or question it.


----------



## McLovin (24 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> The rich still only eat one breakfast a day.




What does that mean in the context of the thread?

The Walton's (Wal-Mart) wealth is equal to the poorest 100 million Americans. Meanwhile 50 million Americans don't have access to healthcare. The US has done a grand job of enriching a few at the expense of the majority, I don't think it's permanently broken and things will change. But to just pass it off as BAU is rather short sighted. History is full of examples of what happens when the rich control too much in the view of the majority. And to be honest, it's not the kind of place I want to live in.


----------



## darkhorse70 (24 February 2014)

No one ever said society was a good place. Maybe its kill or be killed. Maybe its survival of the fittest. Maybe were programmed like viruses to consume till we self destruct. Maybe we like to believe that we can over come our flaws and make earth a better place. All this stuff about fairness and equality might not even be applicable to humans. We just believe that were entitled to fairness and such because thats what our society tells us and we believe that we are intelligent enough. Anyhow first I gota help myself and my family then and only then will I try to help others. Who are we to say that the worlds richest people should give their money away. They played the game better than others (be it they were born into it or whatever). 

Just playing devils advocate here hahaha


----------



## McLovin (24 February 2014)

darkhorse70 said:


> Who are we to say that the worlds richest people should give their money away.




We're not. That's why we have tax.


----------



## burglar (24 February 2014)

McLovin said:


> We're not. That's why we have tax.




Buffett says he should pay more tax!!


----------



## Julia (24 February 2014)

craft said:


> Yeh Value Collector
> 
> The system works just fine - nothing too see here - just move on. What ever you do don't think about it or question it.



Perhaps you could outline how you believe the problem could be addressed?


----------



## Klogg (24 February 2014)

Julia said:


> Perhaps you could outline how you believe the problem could be addressed?




Correcting the huge mis-alignment of self interests, particularly in the US and Australia (I don't know enough of other countries) could be a start.

Think about the amount of wealth associated with the Republican party alone. It's in their interest, both at an individual and party level, to make available an entity structure that allows for lower tax rates (an example, but not the only one here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...es-via-loophole-cutting-mormon-donations.html)
I haven't given it sufficient time or thought to have an opinion on how to exactly change this, but surely you could fund part of a decent medicare system in the US through these alterations.

The same can apply in Australia - Discretionary trusts/holding companies allow people to allocate profits to minimise tax... And politicians from both major parties generally have a large enough asset pool to warrant such structures (most, not all). Knowing this, how can you let that same pool of people decide what the rules are?

We've already baked in the self-interests into the system, making the "how to change" far more difficult than the "what to change"...


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

craft said:


> Yeh Value Collector
> 
> The system works just fine - nothing too see here - just move on. What ever you do don't think about it or question it.
> 
> ...




remember our discussion about economic growth, and I said we still need global economic growth because millions of people are starving because they live outside of the developed economy? well the picture of the poor little girl is an example of someone living outside the developed economy.

If a wealthy person spent all their money on ships, they wouldn't be rich after a while, they get their toys by investing in assets and businesses that produce and contribute back into the economy.


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

McLovin said:


> What does that mean in the context of the thread?
> 
> The Walton's (Wal-Mart) wealth is equal to the poorest 100 million Americans. Meanwhile 50 million Americans don't have access to healthcare. The US has done a grand job of enriching a few at the expense of the majority, I don't think it's permanently broken and things will change. But to just pass it off as BAU is rather short sighted. History is full of examples of what happens when the rich control too much in the view of the majority. And to be honest, it's not the kind of place I want to live in.




I was basically commenting that there are not people starving because rich people consume to much.

ie, just because we have rich people doesn't mean the rest get less.

If person A goes to woollies and buys eggs and bacon for $6 and cooks it at home, and person B pays a personal chef $200 to cook eggs and bacon for him, they have both only consumed 2 eggs and 3 rashes of bacon.

The fact that person B spend an extra $193 doesn't mean he took more value out of the economy, especially if the reason he can afford the extra $193 is because he operates a factory producing 500,000 loaves of bread a day or invented a computer program that made the entire economy more productive.


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

McLovin said:


> We're not. That's why we have tax.






burglar said:


> Buffett says he should pay more tax!!




I totally agree in a fair rate of tax and think the highest earners should pay a higher amount. 

I don't think it should be more than 50% though, and I have trouble with the idea of increasing taxation, because I think the government already gets enough, and just needs to stop wasting it.


----------



## waimate01 (24 February 2014)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution


In other news, most people have heights that fall within very standard bands. But some few people are much, much taller than that. And some are much, much shorter. Outrageous.

Contemplate this: 80% of all health care costs go towards caring for 20% of all recipients. So if you take those 20% out and shoot them, guess what the landscape will look like afterwards. 80% of all health care costs will still go towards caring for 20% of recipients. The total spent will be less, but the skewing will be just the same.

Such is the nature of normal distribution curves. They are self-similar across scale. 

Doesn't mean you can't have empathy or choose to do something to help, but the characteristic is baked-into diverse populations of anything. 

Nature abhors flat curves.


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

waimate01 said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution
> 
> 
> In other news, most people have heights that fall within very standard bands. But some few people are much, much taller than that. And some are much, much shorter. Outrageous.
> ...




Nice point


----------



## craft (24 February 2014)

waimate01 said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution
> 
> 
> In other news, most people have heights that fall within very standard bands. But some few people are much, much taller than that. And some are much, much shorter. Outrageous.
> ...




Except wealth does not adhere to a normal distribution - its possibly one of the most skewed distributions you will  come across. There's nothing natural about it and hence why I believe its unsustainable.


----------



## burglar (24 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> ... If person A goes to woollies and buys eggs and bacon for $6 and cooks it at home, and person B pays a personal chef $200 to cook eggs and bacon for him, they have both only consumed 2 eggs and 3 rashes of bacon.
> 
> The fact that person B spend an extra $193 doesn't mean he took more value out of the economy, especially if the reason he can afford the extra $193 is because he operates a factory producing 500,000 loaves of bread a day or invented a computer program that made the entire economy more productive.




Where I shop the eggs come in six packs or dozens, the bacon rashers can be bought individually.
O.k. for sake of argument, I accept $6 is about right for 2 eggs and 3 rashes of bacon.

But I must question why $200 less $6 comes out to $193. 

What happened to the other dollar?


----------



## craft (24 February 2014)

darkhorse70 said:


> No one ever said society was a good place. Maybe its kill or be killed. Maybe its survival of the fittest. Maybe were programmed like viruses to consume till we self destruct. Maybe we like to believe that we can over come our flaws and make earth a better place. All this stuff about fairness and equality might not even be applicable to humans. We just believe that were entitled to fairness and such because thats what our society tells us and we believe that we are intelligent enough. Anyhow first I gota help myself and my family then and only then will I try to help others. Who are we to say that the worlds richest people should give their money away. They played the game better than others (be it they were born into it or whatever).
> 
> Just playing devils advocate here hahaha




I like your maybe thinking.

Maybe we get what we accept. Maybe we shouldn't just accept things we don't like. Maybe we don't know how to fix it but maybe we should still raise our objections. Maybe we can play hard within the rules whilst still agitating for change. Maybe if enough people don't accept the status quo we will work how to change those rules. Maybe winning can be defined differently. Maybe nature is more precious then money. Maybe the change can only happen at individual level. Maybe we can achieve it at a community level. Maybe the silent majority can be heard above the loudest.

Maybe - I like Maybes.


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

burglar said:


> But I must question why $200 less $6 comes out to $193.
> 
> What happened to the other dollar?




Lol, yeah i originally had the woolies price at $7, but changed it to $6 when i rewrote the analogy, but didnt update the bottom, you get the point though, spending lots doesn't mean your taking away from others.


----------



## craft (24 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> remember our discussion about economic growth, and I said we still need global economic growth because millions of people are starving because they live outside of the developed economy? well the picture of the poor little girl is an example of someone living outside the developed economy.
> 
> If a wealthy person spent all their money on ships, they wouldn't be rich after a while, they get their toys by investing in assets and businesses that produce and contribute back into the economy.




Once something has grown to it's natural limit (ie a child has matured) any further growth is just adding fat.

Humanity does not need more absolute growth - it needs to get fitter and by improving its circulatory system.

The pie is already big enough - it just needs to be shared more evenly. We don't need more indiscriminate growth where a super yatch is considered equal in GDP terms as educating and empowering millions of impoverished women that is know to be a major driver of lifting communities out of poverty.


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

I guess my main point is that the economy is not a cake where if i take a larger slice, you automatically get a smaller one. If i my company makes a million dollars, it's because i have delivered more than a million dollars of value back into the economy, I haven't stolen from anyone and nobody got less, we all got more.

My staff had more shifts available
My suppliers had greater sales
I paid more taxes
My customers had products they needed
And i made a profit, which i then reinvest the bulk of, or i spend generating more of the same benefits listed above for other businesses.


----------



## Wysiwyg (24 February 2014)

I see wealth inequality as a state of mind. Wealthy people have the thoughts of which they act upon that creates more monetary wealth than the majority of people. They use other people to get it such as employees and other peoples money such as banks or inherited wealth. Inequality will always be because individuals either don't want to be wealthy or don't know what to do to become wealthy.


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

Wysiwyg said:


> I see wealth inequality as a state of mind. Wealthy people have the thoughts of which they act upon that creates more monetary wealth than the majority of people. They use other people to get it such as employees and other peoples money such as banks or inherited wealth. Inequality will always be because individuals either don't want to be wealthy or don't know what to do to become wealthy.




agreed, if you take away the incentive to be wealthy, there is a lot of great developments that wouldn't have gotten done. In recent times look at fortescue metals, an infrastructure project on a vast scale, without twiggy seeking fortune and making it happen, it would never have gotten done, 

Say you made twiggy give up the entire fortune he has made and spread it throughout the global population, it would be less than $1 per person, and have zero affect on changing lives, but we would have cut the legs of a captain of industry with a track record of getting things done.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 February 2014)

I have no problem with the idea that those who succeed ought to gain a benefit from doing so. Otherwise we end up with classic socialism and after a while most stop bothering to make an effort if they're getting nothing in return. The poor don't get richer, but the rich end up as poor as everyone else.

On the other hand, I do see a definite problem when people have trouble getting access to medical treatment and so on in a "wealthy" country so there does need to be some balance in it.

Comparing now to, say, 30 years ago we've largely moved from a "mixed" economy to one that is far more capitalist / less socialist than it used to be. We had the balance about right in the past in my view, it's gone to far to one extreme in more recent times and that's not good for society as a whole.


----------



## Klogg (24 February 2014)

craft said:


> Except wealth does not adhere to a normal distribution - its possibly one of the most skewed distributions you will  come across. There's nothing natural about it and hence why I believe its unsustainable.




Funnily enough I just finished reading Taleb's "Black Swan"...


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> On the other hand, I do see a definite problem when people have trouble getting access to medical treatment and so on in a "wealthy" country so there does need to be some balance in it.




Totally agree, i don't think a rob from the rich policy is a good way of achieving it though, i reckon Australia's tax system is about right, we just need to not waste so much of the tax we earn, i think paying the current marginal rate + gst on money i take home as spending money and paying 30% on money i leave invested in my company is fine, thats plenty of tax in my opinion.

Not to mention all the indirect taxes,


----------



## CanOz (24 February 2014)

Nice distraction from religion Craft! 

I wonder what it would take to form and get a party elected with the "gift economy" as thier platform? Interesting to contemplate it.


----------



## So_Cynical (24 February 2014)

Wysiwyg said:


> I see wealth inequality as a state of mind. Wealthy people have the thoughts of which they act upon that creates more monetary wealth than the majority of people. They use other people to get it such as employees and other peoples money such as banks or inherited wealth. Inequality will always be because individuals either don't want to be wealthy or don't know what to do to become wealthy.




Really...living on a dollar a day is a state of mind? how do you obtain wealth on a dollar a day? work twice as long and get 2 dollars? considering that 99% of people want wealth we have to assume that at least 90% of them have no idea how to achieve it...based on your thinking.

Poverty isn't a choice and its certainly not a state of mind...well not in the third world anyway.


----------



## craft (24 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> agreed, if you take away the incentive to be wealthy, there is a lot of great developments that wouldn't have gotten done. In recent times look at fortescue metals, an infrastructure project on a vast scale, without twiggy seeking fortune and making it happen, it would never have gotten done,
> 
> Say you made twiggy give up the entire fortune he has made and spread it throughout the global population, it would be less than $1 per person, and have zero affect on changing lives, but we would have cut the legs of a captain of industry with a track record of getting things done.




Who is talking about taking away the incentive to be wealthy?

It’s the extreme inequality that needs attention. 



> The wealth of the *one precent richest people *in the world amounts to $110 trillion. *That’s 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population*.




That’s  a lot of cloth to cut before you would put the slightest dent in real incentives.

Besides, I suspect many of the wealthiest would prefer better equality and the social benefits it bring rather than more wealth – The system isn’t necessarily ideal for them either but perhaps they don’t know how to fix it either.  Even Buffett hasn't been successful in lobbying for the superrich to pay more (equal) tax.


----------



## Wysiwyg (24 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> i reckon Australia's tax system is about right, we just need to not waste so much of the tax we earn



Interestingly when we sign up to the "system" we agree to support people who we do not know. We agree to take responsibility for other peoples existence. This is good for the tribes existence but open to abuse as any government funded system is.


----------



## Wysiwyg (24 February 2014)

So_Cynical said:


> Poverty isn't a choice and its certainly not a state of mind...well not in the third world anyway.



I respectfully disagree and the reason is because poverty is in the "consciousness". The people breed their offspring into a place of lack. There is no fertile ground, there is no water, there is no education, there is no intelligence, there is no community structure, there is no thought of doing what it takes to break free. This is poverty consciousness handed down from generation to generation. 

See the cause and not the effect!


----------



## craft (24 February 2014)

CanOz said:


> Nice distraction from religion Craft!
> 
> I wonder what it would take to form and get a party elected with the "gift economy" as thier platform? Interesting to contemplate it.




Hi Canoz

Ah Religion and politics two ways of organising society and I’m afraid I despair about them both.

It is the darkest before the dawn.

Perhaps that both of us on either side of the world know about a concept such as gift economies says something about the power and potential of social interaction of the internet. Who knows what can/will eventuate.

I'm optimistic that humanity can do it better.


----------



## So_Cynical (24 February 2014)

Wysiwyg said:


> I respectfully disagree and the reason is because poverty is in the "consciousness". The people breed their offspring into a place of lack. There is no fertile ground, there is no water, there is no education, there is no intelligence, *there is no community structure*, there is no thought of doing what it takes to break free. This is poverty consciousness handed down from generation to generation.
> 
> See the cause and not the effect!




No

There is community in the third world, very strong community's..its how they survive extreme poverty, when good fortune smiles on one or a small group it is shared around, and expected to be...fertile ground is managed and worked, water a vital resource, intelligence is local and based on living to see tomorrow.

With respect: Anyone who spends more than 5 minutes close up and personal in the third world knows that...community is a vital part of staying alive, poverty is what they are trying to overcome and that's not easy when everyone is poor...the **** i have seen people do for a couple of dollars is amazing.


----------



## coolcup (24 February 2014)

Hundreds of years ago the type of skew in wealth that is being discussed was "institutionalised" in a sense. Monarchs and peasants, that sort of thing. Power and riches belonged to a few who directly ruled over the rest of the masses which basically starved or were close to starving. This balance remained acceptable for every hundred or so years until the peasants had enough and rose up to chop off some heads of the ruling class... only for another ruling class to emerge - rinse and repeat...

So at some point, we morphed into democracies where the masses elected the government of the day and had the right to kick them out every now and again. This meant a lot less head chopping and, theoretically, a lot less starving. The problem in a lot of developed countries is that the governments are basically controlled by the "new kings", the billionaires who own the media outlets, the major employers in the economy etc which shape so much of what the masses do and how they think. These billionaires are the new kings with the rest the peasants. The clever part, as has been pointed out, is that the peasants are not starving any more and where there is starvation the media shows the promise of democratisation and the "benefits" that come with, which keeps the peasants from rising up - therefore the kings have managed to maintain power while not having their heads lopped off through an unspoken social agreement with their followers.

Perhaps, over such a long period of time, this is just the way mass human populations behave. The majority as followers with a few leaders who enjoy concentrated power and resources??

I feel like I am rambling now. I offer no solutions, and can't really think of anything better than "democracy" as a concept. Not that we execute it that well anyway...


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

craft said:


> Who is talking about taking away the incentive to be wealthy?
> .




I thought that you were some how suggesting it was immoral that a person could amass large amounts of personal fortune when there are others in the world living in poverty.

I just don't think bringing in penalty rates of taxation would solve the problem, i think we have to grow the global economy to include them.

I mean until the third world has infrastructure, such as roads, power, water, telecommunications etc they will be in poverty, it will take many years but it will only be solved by growth. 

If your talking about poverty in the developed world sense, eg. A single mum on the welfare, i dont think that is that hard to escape from.


----------



## robusta (24 February 2014)

There is no doubt that the world has enough resources, capital and technology to give the opportunity of the basic necessities (clean water, food and shelter) to everyone. Corruption, greed and indifference seem to be the main reason's these resources don't flow to those in need.

Now here comes the uncomfortable questions.

Would first world countries willingly vote for a lower living standard to raise the living standards of people they haven't met?

Would there ever be the political and logistical will to ensure that resources would be allocated to those in need?

I wish the answers to those questions were different.


----------



## coolcup (24 February 2014)

robusta said:


> Now here comes the uncomfortable questions.
> 
> Would first world countries willingly vote for a lower living standard to raise the living standards of people they haven't met?
> 
> ...




Great points. The fact we are willing to buy $8 t-shirts from Kmart and be surprised when a factory in Bangladesh that produces them burns down is case in point.


----------



## Value Collector (24 February 2014)

robusta said:


> Now here comes the uncomfortable questions.
> 
> Would first world countries willingly vote for a lower living standard to raise the living standards of people they haven't met?
> 
> ...




I dont think we have to go without so they get some,  if they had the infrastructure to include themselves in the game of economic production there would be more for everybody, 

Its not a matter of allocating resources to them, its about enabling them to produce goods and services to trade with us.

Its a cliche, but i think the old adage of " Trade not Aid" is how you free people from poverty. Off course you give aid in the meantime though.


----------



## Wysiwyg (24 February 2014)

coolcup said:


> The clever part, as has been pointed out, is that the peasants are not starving any more and where there is starvation the media shows the promise of democratisation and the "benefits" that come with, which keeps the peasants from rising up - therefore the kings have managed to maintain power while not having their heads lopped off through an unspoken social agreement with their followers.



Uprisings by the people against their government is still happening around the world. Maybe the technological age and internet access has opened the minds of people to what is possible. Dare to dream a better standard of living in a democratic state.


----------



## Wysiwyg (25 February 2014)

robusta said:


> There is no doubt that the world has enough resources, capital and technology to give the opportunity of the basic necessities (clean water, food and shelter) to everyone. Corruption, greed and indifference seem to be the main reason's these resources don't flow to those in need.



Imagine how polluted the planet would be if every one in the world had the standard of living in Australia. As the so called developing countries progress they are going to create a lot of waste just like our developed countries have. Extinct animals and plants, polluted waterways, heated atmosphere etc. and all part of the meaningless (in a logical sense) evolution of human beings.


----------



## burglar (25 February 2014)

Manufacturing is running from first world countries to third world countries.

China and Thailand make our glass.
Soon they will be making our cars. (4 cylinder Commodores!)

The drift of manufacturing has already raised the likes of Japan and Taiwan, China and Thailand.

It will raise India, Brasil, Russia and eventually places like Pakistan.

And who knows, America may make a comeback!


----------



## waimate01 (25 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I guess my main point is that the economy is not a cake where if i take a larger slice, you automatically get a smaller one. If i my company makes a million dollars, it's because i have delivered more than a million dollars of value back into the economy, I haven't stolen from anyone and nobody got less, we all got more.
> 
> My staff had more shifts available
> My suppliers had greater sales
> ...




Nice post.

It's hard to believe, but there really are plenty of people in the world who passionately believe that if you do manage to get ahead in the manner you're describing, it *can only* be done at the expense of someone else. Bizarre, right? My theory is they hold this view mostly to make themselves feel better about never having pulled their finger out and had a crack themselves. A harmless enough delusion. But they vote. And breed


----------



## craft (25 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I thought that you were some how suggesting it was immoral that a person could amass large amounts of personal fortune when there are others in the world living in poverty.




You seem to spend a lot of time arguing against things you THOUGHT I was suggesting. So be it - I'm not here to argue.



So_Cynical said:


> No
> 
> There is community in the third world, very strong community's..its how they survive extreme poverty, when good fortune smiles on one or a small group it is shared around, and expected to be...fertile ground is managed and worked, water a vital resource, intelligence is local and based on living to see tomorrow.
> 
> With respect: Anyone who spends more than 5 minutes close up and personal in the third world knows that...community is a vital part of staying alive, poverty is what they are trying to overcome and that's not easy when everyone is poor...the **** i have seen people do for a couple of dollars is amazing.




If only more had this wider perspective and experience.




waimate01 said:


> Nice post.
> 
> It's hard to believe, but there really are plenty of people in the world who passionately believe that if you do manage to get ahead in the manner you're describing, it *can only* be done at the expense of someone else. Bizarre, right? My theory is they hold this view mostly to make themselves feel better about never having pulled their finger out and had a crack themselves. A harmless enough delusion. But they vote. And breed




Nice post - NOT.

That the current system requires growth in ABSOLUTE (overall) terms in an finite planet is legitimate grounds for concern. Its going to take a huge amount of non-closed thinking to deal with the environmental limitations we already know about at current levels of economic activity.

Even with the strongest belief in trickle down economics - surely a thinking/caring person would look at the global resources at hand and the current outcomes and question how well it is working _for everybody_.  Yet the only answer we seem to get is more growth - More of the same - Isn't the saying that,  doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.


----------



## burglar (25 February 2014)

craft said:


> ... insanity.




Hi craft,

You have hit on it.
insanity

What were Easter islanders thinking when they uprooted their last tree?
What am I thinking when I fuel my car?

Pure insanity!


----------



## craft (25 February 2014)

burglar said:


> What were Easter islanders thinking when they uprooted their last tree?
> What am I thinking when I fuel my car?
> 
> Pure insanity!




You have a very succinct way with words. Reminds me of an ancient American saying I first saw on a T-shirt. 



> When all the trees have been cut down, when all the animals have been hunted, when all the waters are polluted, when all the air is unsafe to breathe, only then will you discover you cannot eat money.
> ~ Cree Prophecy




Burglar inspiration t-shirts – put me down for a half dozen..


----------



## burglar (25 February 2014)

craft said:


> You have a very succinct way with words. Reminds me of an ancient American saying I first saw on a T-shirt ...




Musta been a big T-shirt! :

seriously craft, 

I like to think people will see the direction in which they travel is wrong.
I like to see us do a U-turn.


----------



## skc (25 February 2014)

I'd like to see more school organised trips to 3rd world countries. Get kids exposed to the bigger world picture from a young age. Plant a seed in their head so they understand there's such inequality in the world... and being there in person will no doubt leave a lasting impression. 

They will themselves decide wheher it is something that is unjust or acceptable, and whether they will do something about it. Do this kind of program well enough and we may begin to see fundamental changes in thinking over a few decades.


----------



## Klogg (25 February 2014)

skc said:


> I'd like to see more school organised trips to 3rd world countries. Get kids exposed to the bigger world picture from a young age.




I like the idea, but there are significant safety concerns that come with it. Most 3rd world countries have some form of travel alert on smarttraveller stating travel to the area should be limited, or something of the sort.

Try getting that passed the parents, most of which don't think about wealth inequality.


----------



## ftw129 (25 February 2014)

Craft,

What is the purpose of this thread? 

(This is not a rhetorical question)


----------



## burglar (25 February 2014)

ftw129 said:


> Craft,
> 
> What is the purpose of this thread?
> 
> (This is not a rhetorical question)




You can put 4 people in a field.
At day's end, one will be a feudal lord.
And three will be surfs.

Even when they go to drown their sorrows,
they will be in a tavern they built, 
drinking beer that they brewed,
and all of it owned by the lord.

Your mission should you choose to accept it:
Recreate the equality!


----------



## robusta (25 February 2014)

You crack me up burglar and make a good point.v


----------



## Julia (25 February 2014)

> I think all we should ‘teach’ our children is how to think independently. Then expose them to as much variety as possible and they will learn and learn far more than we can ever ‘teach’ them.




That is to assume the parents have the capacity to teach their children any such skill.  It is simply not the case in much of the population.
Many children are therefore dependent on rational offerings from the school curriculum.

Re an earlier suggestion that children should be taken as part of the school program to third world countries, perhaps consider that many parents in lower socioeconomic areas have trouble finding the money to fund a day excursion. never mind an overseas trip.
 Neither should schools take on the responsibility of keeping children safe in countries where safety is an issue, even for independent adults.

There seems to be an impression that no reference is made in schools to disadvantaged third world countries.
As part of a school mentoring program I've been in several classes, usually Grades 4 and 5, where a video has been shown depicting the lives of children scavenging in rubbish dumps.  The teacher has then led a quite astonishingly perceptive discussion comparing the lives of these children with those in the class, many of whom we middle class people would consider decidedly disadvantaged.

The remarks of the children would put many of the commentators on this thread to shame with their perception and purity, especially in the generosity of spirit they showed in not criticising anyone who disagreed with them.  

There's no shortage of disadvantaged people right here in Australia.  It might be good if some of the critics of western civilisations could look at doing something themselves as individuals before engaging in so much self-flagellation about the evils of our capitalist society.  Perhaps it's my own social milieu, but all around me I see people giving their time and skills to AusAid overseas and personally engaging in helping others, both in terms of time and money right in their own community.  
Seems more constructive to me than celebrating greater profits every year on a personal basis.


----------



## craft (25 February 2014)

ftw129 said:


> Craft,
> 
> What is the purpose of this thread?
> 
> (This is not a rhetorical question)




I don't know.

Am I supposed to assign it a purpose?


----------



## burglar (25 February 2014)

craft said:


> I don't know.
> 
> Am I supposed to assign it a purpose?




You've done well to start and guide the thread.
I am still not sure of the purpose.

Part of the fun ain't it? :


----------



## ftw129 (26 February 2014)

Julia said:


> There's no shortage of disadvantaged people right here in Australia.  It might be good if some of the critics of western civilisations could look at doing something themselves as individuals before engaging in so much self-flagellation about the evils of our capitalist society.  Perhaps it's my own social milieu, but all around me I see people giving their time and skills to AusAid overseas and personally engaging in helping others, both in terms of time and money right in their own community.
> Seems more constructive to me than celebrating greater profits every year on a personal basis.




Julia, I couldn't agree more.



craft said:


> I don't know.
> 
> Am I supposed to assign it a purpose?




That's a real shame. 

Such threads could actually be of real benefit if the participants (and creators) would be willing to share just what it is they actually do, in order to address the issues that they _seem_ to care so much about.

What do YOU personally do that demonstrates your concerns about the issues raised and what actions do you take on a regular basis that others can emulate? How do you lead by example? 

I'll tell you where you (anyone reading this) can start... 

Accept responsibility and take control of your own actions so that they reflect your beliefs. That is all that each and every single person on this planet can do.

The problem we have is that we're all too concerned about what everyone else is doing.


----------



## skc (26 February 2014)

Julia said:


> Re an earlier suggestion that children should be taken as part of the school program to third world countries, perhaps consider that many parents in lower socioeconomic areas have trouble finding the money to fund a day excursion. never mind an overseas trip.
> Neither should schools take on the responsibility of keeping children safe in countries where safety is an issue, even for independent adults.
> 
> There seems to be an impression that no reference is made in schools to disadvantaged third world countries.
> As part of a school mentoring program I've been in several classes, usually Grades 4 and 5, where a video has been shown depicting the lives of children scavenging in rubbish dumps.  The teacher has then led a quite astonishingly perceptive discussion comparing the lives of these children with those in the class, many of whom we middle class people would consider decidedly disadvantaged.




I made the comments about exposing school kids to world issues early without knowing what school kids are really being taught these days. I was simply making a suggestion from personal experience. 

When I was at school there were plenty of focus ski trips, but nothing to 3rd world country. Yes, not everyone can afford an overseas trip but at least the option is available to those who'd like to attend. And I have read or watched plenty of documentaries on 3rd world countries and issues etc, but the impact was a million times greater when I had the opportunities to travel there and experience it in person first hand. And hence my suggestion.

This is unlikely to be a solution to the inequality issue... but I'd imagine the issue cannot be solved with a single action anyway. It may need hundreds and thousands of smaller changes to eventually turn the tide very gradually.


----------



## craft (26 February 2014)

ftw129 said:


> That's a real shame.



Not really,

In the absence of me not assigning it a purpose you have been able to branch it down a certain path with your post.





ftw129 said:


> Such threads could actually be of real benefit if the participants (and creators) would be willing to share just what it is they actually do, in order to address the issues that they _seem_ to care so much about.



I don’t want to share what I do personally - Some people want to be acknowledged in the area some want to be anonymous.  If you want to share in such a way – go for it. The thread has no purpose no boundaries, share your hart out.

I feel sad that somehow I have given you cause to put 'seems' to care in italics. 



ftw129 said:


> What do YOU personally do that demonstrates your concerns about the issues raised and what actions do you take on a regular basis that others can emulate? How do you lead by example?




Again, for me this is private – not public forum content.  I don’t wish to lead anybody,  I’m happy to just try and provoke some thinking. But I’m more than happy for you to share what you do if you think that will have a benefit.



ftw129 said:


> I'll tell you where you (anyone reading this) can start...
> 
> Accept responsibility and take control of your own actions so that they reflect your beliefs. That is all that each and every single person on this planet can do.




I may be naÃ¯ve but I work under the premise that people do take actions that reflect their beliefs.  That’s why my posts to the thread only try to be thought provoking rather than telling people what to do.  Open minded personal thinking can change personal beliefs.



ftw129 said:


> The problem we have is that we're all too concerned about what everyone else is doing.




I made the initial post after hearing about the G20 growth target and the assertion that more growth would help the less fortunate without work for example in our country and without a lot more in other countries.  My observation (and I think it's as obvious as dogs balls)  is that money system is concentrating wealth at an extraordinary rate, rather then circulating benefits to where they are needed the most and more of the same isn’t going to fix that. That’s something I can’t fix personally, the best I could do was start this thread to provoke some thinking. I’m sorry I haven’t posted in a way that meets with your approval – but one thing I have learnt about forums is that I can’t please some people.


----------



## ftw129 (26 February 2014)

ftw129 said:


> Craft,
> 
> What is the purpose of this thread?
> 
> (This is not a rhetorical question)






craft said:


> I don't know.
> 
> Am I supposed to assign it a purpose?




Craft, do you mind if we start again?



ftw129 said:


> Craft,
> 
> What is the purpose of this thread?
> 
> (This is not a rhetorical question)







craft said:


> My observation (and I think it's as obvious as dogs balls) is that money system is concentrating wealth at an extraordinary rate, rather then circulating benefits to where they are needed the most and more of the same isn’t going to fix that. That’s something I can’t fix personally, the best I could do was start this thread to provoke some thinking.




The End.....(Meaning, no response from me)


----------



## craft (26 February 2014)

ftw129 said:


> Craft, do you mind if we start again?
> 
> The End.....(Meaning, no response from me)








> Last edited by ftw129; Today at 11:22 AM. Reason: *Punctuation makes all the difference*




Not to a near illiterate like me.

Maybe my 'reason' for starting the thread satisfies you 'purpose' question? I don't see reason and purpose as the same thing so may have misinterpreted your initial question.

Maybe you don't want to answer the questions you asked of me, so are looking for an out?

Maybe I'm to thick to even bother with?

Anyway -I'm confused, but that's a pretty normal state for me, so happy to let it be.


----------



## Julia (26 February 2014)

skc said:


> When I was at school there were plenty of focus ski trips, but nothing to 3rd world country. Yes, not everyone can afford an overseas trip but at least the option is available to those who'd like to attend. And I have read or watched plenty of documentaries on 3rd world countries and issues etc, but the impact was a million times greater when I had the opportunities to travel there and experience it in person first hand. And hence my suggestion.



I understand that, skc, and agree about the personal impact being greater in the reality.

However, there are many programs where volunteers are welcomed in several countries, often specially run in school holidays, so that young people can not only observe conditions far removed from most of Australia, but have the opportunity to make a contribution.   Individuals, and small groups, can pursue this sort of endeavour as they can afford, and they do, often instead of engaging in the drunken rioting that seems to constitute "Schoolies" at the end of the year.



> This is unlikely to be a solution to the inequality issue... but I'd imagine the issue cannot be solved with a single action anyway. It may need hundreds and thousands of smaller changes to eventually turn the tide very gradually.



Exactly, and that's why if we all adopt some of the many opportunities right here in Australia to address some of the disadvantage, then surely it's better than just being a critic.

This is a great country, despite those aspects which we all - with validity - complain about.  People are doing good things every day.  I genuinely worry about how we focus on what we can criticise, rather than what we might be proud of.


----------



## trainspotter (26 February 2014)

John Paul Warren said "Cream always rises to the top...so do good leaders" and Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, said, "We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, but we cannot have both."

"Let them eat cake" ... Marie Antoinette (allegedly)

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. 

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. 

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. 

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it! 

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the End of any nation IMO

(All of the above is plagiarised to HELL)


----------



## craft (26 February 2014)

trainspotter said:


> John Paul Warren said "Cream always rises to the top...so do good leaders" and Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, said, "We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, but we cannot have both."
> 
> "Let them eat cake" ... Marie Antoinette (allegedly)
> 
> ...




The argument that inequality at the bottom end should persist because eliminating it would eliminate the incentive to be wealthy is marginal. There’s not much loss of incentive in the utility between being mega-rich and super rich.

If incentives are tweaked to get more desired outcomes – then government intervention is no longer needed, so the government redistribution arguments don’t stand.

The incentives for absolute growth and the seeds for concentration are imbedded in positive interest rates on money.  Getting the incentives right for better outcomes lays somewhere within changes to the money system – possibly permanent negative interest rates – like a demurrage charge to make sure money keeps circulating through productive endeavours  whilst eliminating its ability to act as an artificial storage and concentrator of wealth.


----------



## Wysiwyg (26 February 2014)

skc said:


> And I have read or watched plenty of documentaries on 3rd world countries and issues etc, but the impact was a million times greater when I had the opportunities to travel there and experience it in person first hand. And hence my suggestion.



Ironically, television advertisements asking for donations present time are similar to ads. I watched 30 years ago. Tribal war, dictatorship and drought are the main contributors to the ongoing (comparative to Aus.) low quality of life. As history shows, so few cause the suffering of so many.


----------



## ftw129 (26 February 2014)

craft said:


> Maybe my 'reason' for starting the thread satisfies you 'purpose' question? I don't see reason and purpose as the same thing so may have misinterpreted your initial question.




Craft,

I wanted to know what you wanted to achieve by starting this thread.

Your original response being "I don't know" was somewhat, dare I say, disappointing?

Had you have originally just said:



craft said:


> My observation (and I think it's as obvious as dogs balls)  is that money system is concentrating wealth at an extraordinary rate, rather then circulating benefits to where they are needed the most and more of the same isn’t going to fix that. That’s something I can’t fix personally, the best I could do was start this thread to provoke some thinking. I’m sorry I haven’t posted in a way that meets with your approval – but one thing I have learnt about forums is that I can’t please some people.




I would have most likely had no reply at all to that as that's completely reasonable. However the impression that I got from you was that perhaps you are just a **** stirrer... That's what a lot of people like to do, most of which are all talk and no action.



craft said:


> Maybe you don't want to answer the questions you asked of me, so are looking for an out?




No, because the actual issue of wealth inequality is not what I want to get involved in here (however I will share with you that my line of thinking is similar to that of Wisywyg. Also, Julie's "balanced" input resonates well with me).

So many people are willing to "provoke" but only a fraction actually practice what they preach. Be it any issue whether it's wealth inequality or "The Future Of Australian Property Prices" where one of the antagonists in that thread has the audacity to label residential property investors as being "no better than pimps or drug dealers" or another poster that expresses his disapproval about buying residential property as an investment but admits that he will take advantage of a housing price collapse, should it occur (at least this one's honest).

Point being, so many people are willing to state the bleeding obvious about what's wrong with the world, point fingers and blame but actions speak louder than words. If you choose to get up in front of a group of people to present them with a problem and address them with a burning issue that you feel strongly about without a purpose, aim, reason etc that makes you no better than a tabloid. I'm using the word "you" but I'm not directing this at you Craft, so please don't take this as a personal attack. I mean this to everyone who will ever read this thread. You (Craft) did eventually establish that your reason, purpose, aim was to "provoke thought" and that you feel as though there is nothing that you can personally do to help... I accept that answer (and suspected that might be the case) and were it your original one, I would have added nothing more.

I was going to leave it at that however I can't help but ask yet another bleedingly obvious question, one that I can only assume I know the answer to but you never really know until you ask...

If 







craft said:


> That’s something I can’t fix personally



 is how you feel (keeping in mind that most likely the majority of people feel the same), then what is it that you are trying to achieve by "provoking thought" in others here? What would be the end result you would like to see from your own thread? 

If your answer is "nothing" OR "I don't know" OR "I haven't really thought that far ahead" OR "I've already told you, it's just to provoke thought, nothing more", then just say so.


----------



## Wysiwyg (26 February 2014)

Julia said:


> Exactly, and that's why if we all adopt some of the many opportunities right here in Australia to address some of the disadvantage, then surely it's better than just being a critic.



Physical and mental disadvantage can be assisted if one so desires. There should be no obligation to assist these people but the majority of self reliant people do assist in some way. If they did not before well the government is going to force them to soon. 

Self disadvantaged should not be assisted. The 'poor me' con and 'live off the nation's workers' attitude in Australia is not acceptable.


----------



## craft (26 February 2014)

ftw129 said:


> then what is it that you are trying to achieve by "provoking thought" in others here? What would be the end result you would like to see from your own thread?
> 
> If your answer is "nothing" OR "I don't know" OR "I haven't really thought that far ahead" OR "I've already told you, it's just to provoke thought, nothing more", then just say so.




I'm going to disappoint you again because provoking thought is all I want to do on this thread But I don't think that is un-worthwhile considering the exceptional calibre of some people that may read the thread. For those that think it's **** stirring then ignore it/me.


----------



## craft (26 February 2014)

ftw129 said:


> So many people are willing to "provoke" but only a fraction actually practice what they preach.




Its a big *assumption* to make that because somebody doesn’t lay out what they do within their personal sphere of control that they don’t practice what they preach. Must a person bare their private life to have any legitimacy to discuss issue bigger than their personal reach.


----------



## CanOz (26 February 2014)

FWIW Craft, i think its very interesting discussion and i don't think for a minute that anyone needs a purpose other than to DISCUSS it, after all this is a forum.

I think its time the entire free world start to analyse alternative forms of economy, before our traditional forms completely blow up.


----------



## ftw129 (26 February 2014)

craft said:


> Its a big *assumption* to make that because somebody doesn’t lay out what they do within their personal sphere of control that they don’t practice what they preach. Must a person bare their private life to have any legitimacy to discuss issue bigger than their personal reach.




I hoped that I was clear (which I clearly wasn't) that most of my response was not directed at you personally. If you say you practice what you preach on a public forum but choose not to share exactly what that is, then that's your decision but your credibility is no better than Alvin Purples. 



CanOz said:


> FWIW Craft, i think its very interesting discussion and i don't think for a minute that anyone needs a purpose other than to DISCUSS it, after all this is a forum.I think its time the entire free world start to analyse alternative forms of economy, before our traditional forms completely blow up.




Like I said, if the response to my original question was one like "just to cause discussion" I would not have made another post.

Maybe Craft is not one of them but it has been my experience that most people who bring up things like this to "discuss" or "provoke" are just purely **** stirrers that have no intention of doing anything about what it is they're on about. My closest friend since childhood is the master of stirring said **** and boy he stirs well. Pity he doesn't put his money where his mouth is. 

In this case, it appears that I may be wrong but I still question that (just quietly).

Think of me as just another **** stirrer but with a grander vision.


----------



## trainspotter (26 February 2014)

Some valid points here ...



> The socialist methods deployed to supposedly achieve a better world unleash an AVALANCHE of negative side effects that utterly dwarfs any of their original intentions, and brings more poverty, more inequality, more injustice, less prosperity, and more misery. This is because those methods go against an essence of human nature that cannot be changed even by people with the best of intentions. Yes, socialism exacerbates the very problems it claims to solve.
> 
> Disagree? Then read on!
> 
> ...




http://socialismdoesntwork.com/why-socialism-doesnt-work/

How about this for an idea? You earn it, you keep it. Distribute it where YOU want !


----------



## payday (26 February 2014)

Here is a link to a rather lengthy read on post scarcity economics Star Trek style. Thought provoking to me anyway.
https://medium.com/medium-long/29bab88d50


----------



## craft (26 February 2014)

ftw129 said:


> I hoped that I was clear (which I clearly wasn't) that most of my response was not directed at you personally. If you say you practice what you preach on a public forum but choose not to share exactly what that is, then that's your decision but your credibility is no better than Alvin Purples.



I haven’t said I practice what I preach – I haven’t said I don’t practice what I preach. Actually I don’t regard myself as preaching.




ftw129 said:


> Like I said, if the response to my original question was one like "just to cause discussion" I would not have made another post.



Your original question was.



> > What is the purpose of this thread?
> >
> > (This is not a rhetorical question)



I obviously misinterpreted what you were after. For I didn’t feel I, as one of many that may post on the subject had the right to define the purpose of the thread. So I said I don’t know.

If you had asked what was *my* purpose or reason for posting then you would have got the answer I gave once I understood it was my motivations you were after.



ftw129 said:


> Maybe Craft is not one of them but it has been my experience that most people who bring up things like this to "discuss" or "provoke" are just purely **** stirrers that have no intention of doing anything about what it is they're on about. My closest friend since childhood is the master of stirring said **** and boy he stirs well. Pity he doesn't put his money where his mouth is.
> 
> In this case, it appears that I may be wrong but I still question that (just quietly).
> 
> Think of me as just another **** stirrer but with a grander vision.




What vision? I think you are just **** stirring for personal pleasure and as I’m starting to get pissed off by it, it must be time for me to take a forum rest. Hopefully this thread will achieve its purpose “whatever that isâ without me.


----------



## craft (26 February 2014)

CanOz said:


> FWIW Craft, i think its very interesting discussion and i don't think for a minute that anyone needs a purpose other than to DISCUSS it, after all this is a forum.
> 
> I think its time the entire free world start to analyse alternative forms of economy, before our traditional forms completely blow up.






It's unfortunate that discussions on some subjects on ASF are so tiring.


----------



## Trembling Hand (26 February 2014)

ftw129 said:


> I hoped that I was clear (which I clearly wasn't) that most of my response was not directed at you personally. If you say you practice what you preach on a public forum but choose not to share exactly what that is, then that's your decision but your credibility is no better than Alvin Purples.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




God! Get over it.


----------



## burglar (26 February 2014)

craft said:


> It's unfortunate that discussions on some subjects on ASF are so tiring.




Jack Ford set the world to rights, before he skipped off to the US of A to make his fortune.
BBC TV "When the Boat Comes in"!

Just don't see why we should emulate him.


----------



## burglar (27 February 2014)

burglar said:


> Jack Ford set the world to rights, before he skipped off to the US of A to make his fortune.
> BBC TV "When the Boat Comes in"!
> 
> Just don't see why we should emulate him.




I meant to say:

I don't see why we need to set the world to rights, before we seek our fortune.

But afterwards ... different story!


----------



## coolcup (27 February 2014)

I found most of this thread interesting to read. It was great to see people discussing _about _the topic rather than _why _the topic was put up in the first place, which to me is somewhat irrelevant.

It's kind of like enjoying a mango but then asking why it tastes so good. Understanding the why doesn't make it taste any better or worse.


----------



## trainspotter (28 February 2014)

OK .. today I have decided I feel poor. Give all your money to me and there will be no more wealth inequality 

It's all a bit Robin Hoodesque if you ask me. If you work hard and become a success and accumulate your wealth  (driven and committed) only to be told that you have to give it to the less fortunate (read lazy b@stards) then what is the point? So what if 2% own 50% of the wealth? They did not get into that position by handouts from the government? Except maybe if they applied for grants and stuff to further their business etc. 

Example:- Warren Buffet worth 60 billion right? Let's take that off him and give ... let's say ... 1 million dollars each to nupties in the street. Like winning Lotto right? 

Well check this out http://www.wastedyourtime.com/rub-off/lostwinners.htm



> William "Bud" Post won $16.2 million in the Pennsylvania lottery in 1988 but now lives on his Social Security.
> "I wish it never happened. It was totally a nightmare," says Post.
> A former girlfriend successfully sued him for a share of his winnings. It wasn't his only lawsuit. A brother was arrested for hiring a hit man to kill him, hoping to inherit a share of the winnings. Other siblings pestered him until he agreed to invest in a car business and a restaurant in Sarasota, Fla., -- two ventures that brought no money back and further strained his relationship with his siblings.




Yep ... let's do this ... Rob the rich and give it to the poor.


----------



## burglar (28 February 2014)

trainspotter said:


> OK .. today I have decided I feel poor. Give all your money to me and there will be no more wealth inequality




So reminiscent of nun the wiser, ... I miss him!


A lil bit!


Sometimes!



:


----------



## burglar (28 February 2014)

coolcup said:


> I found most of this thread interesting to read. It was great to see people discussing _about _the topic rather than _why _the topic was put up in the first place, which to me is somewhat irrelevant.
> 
> It's kind of like enjoying a mango but then asking why it tastes so good. Understanding the why doesn't make it taste any better or worse.




Mango flavour compounds:

mango-flavour-compounds


----------



## coolcup (28 February 2014)

burglar said:


> Mango flavour compounds:
> 
> mango-flavour-compounds




I think I am meant to laugh but I don't get it? :1zhelp:


----------



## burglar (1 March 2014)

coolcup said:


> I think I am meant to laugh but I don't get it? :1zhelp:




Had to look it up (i have an enquiring mind).
Having found it, and finding it amazingly complex, I thought to share.

Like Professor Julius Sumner Miller, I like to share wonderment with great enthusiasm.

The professor aka "The Professor", once pointed out a dew drop on a blade of grass.
As it was a hot day and late afternoon, ... he was amazed at the beauty of it.

His guest failed to see the wonder of it and was asked to leave!?.


----------



## ftw129 (5 March 2014)

Hey Craft I'm sorry I pissed you off.


----------



## burglar (5 March 2014)

ftw129 said:


> Hey Craft I'm sorry I pissed you off.




So are we getting serious about the topic now, ... or no?!


If so, I would like to offer this:

During the GFC, I wondered if the Market would survive.
I don't know whether it has.
It's more of a three-ring circus than ever.

Superficially it has survived!
So I am assuming that the Market is needed (as a conduit of money?).


----------



## Wysiwyg (5 March 2014)

burglar said:


> Superficially it has survived!
> So I am assuming that the Market is needed (as a conduit of money?).



Wealth transferal is the name of the game. The largest casino in town.


----------



## piggybank (16 March 2014)

A record 9.63 million households had a net worth of $1 million or more last year, a 58 percent increase from 2008. The number of affluent households worth between $100,000 and $1 million also went up in 2013. There was a record 9.63 million households in the U.S. with a net worth of $1 million or more last year, according to new market research. The number of millionaire households surged 58 percent from a dip in 2008, when there were...

More can be read by clicking on this link:- http://time.com/23764/u-s-millionai..._content=643477&utm_campaign=Saturday&modapt=


----------



## brty (18 March 2014)

From the very first post by Craft....



> Almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one precent of the population.




That 1% of population is just over 70 million people. 

From  The Telegraph ,today.....



> A record-breaking 12 million people around the world were millionaires last year




So that means that if you have $1m in investable funds, you are not only in the top 1% of the worlds wealthiest, but in the top 20% OF the top 1%.

It seems to me that most of the people participating in this thread about the wealthiest, were in fact talking about themselves, and probably didn't realise it.

This is indeed the lucky country.


----------



## ROE (18 March 2014)

http://www.globalrichlist.com/


----------



## DeepState (31 March 2014)

Left unattended, the capitalist system will produce extreme Power-law style distributions as amply described and referenced.  Obviously some elements of capitalism were instrumental in increasing the efficiency of resource deployment or standards of living would not have risen so much relative to times when the concept was far less developed.  Aggregate wealth and wealth dispersion have grown simultaneously.

Within a Nation, the issue discussed here relates to problems of wealth dispersion.  Focusing only on the economics, FT reports in Luce E; 30 Mar 2014; "America's democracy is fit for the 1%" two views on productive impact:

1. Reduces growth because it undermines the middle class consumer engine.
2. Offers incentive to risk-takers to work on the next generation of technological breakthroughs.

For me, probably both are right.  Item 1 was partly overcome by massive growth in borrowing for consumption from the Clinton years onwards in the US.  Another link in the chain to the GFC.

But who sets up capitalism?  Government sets up the law and the market system operates within that law.  Hence part of the mechanism of the political economy is that, particularly in democracies or benevolent non-democracies, government should smooth extremes out if they become a problem.  It becomes a problem if it harms productive capacity or destroys social fabric.  So part of the answer lies in protecting and enhancing functional institutions.

Sling bows and arrows, but Australia is doing rather well.  The US is about to dismantle limits on corporate political donations, following decisions on Super-PACs and other matters, essentially completing the transition of plutocracy.  Perhaps self interest of the plutarchs may lead them to behave like Buffett and Gates, like the super-wealthy industrialists before them, and repay their societal dividend in some way.  Perhaps we'll see upheaval.  The American Dream was based on the belief that anyone can make it.  Not anymore.  When hope is lost, strange things happen.

Once you start looking at this on an international relations scale, there is no world government.  There are only norms and expectations associated with good global citizenship.  The LDCs are impoverished, but they don't vote in your country. Any gain that arises from aid is offset by ongoing population pressures in the LDCs due to high birth rates.  However, efforts to improve productive capacity and reduce birthrates in the LDCs are underway with varying degrees of success.  This is the greatest hope to narrow the gap in wealth but, more important than thinking in relative terms, lift countries and continents out of outright poverty.


----------



## orr (14 April 2014)

This is a link To Paul Krugmans Review of Thomas Piketty's 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century'.
A quote; 'This is a book that will change both the way we think about society and the way we do economics.'
From a Nobel laureate in the field.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/may/08/thomas-piketty-new-gilded-age/


----------



## sydboy007 (18 April 2014)

http://marketdailynews.com/2014/04/...ay-an-average-wage-of-less-than-35000-a-year/

_Overall, an astounding 59 percent of all American workers bring home less than $35,000 a year in wages.
So if you are going to make more than $35,000 this year, you are solidly in the upper half._

Retail salespersons, 4.48 million workers earning  $25,370 
Cashiers  3.34 million workers earning $20,420 
Food prep and serving staff, 3.02 million workers earning $18,880 
General office clerk, 2.83 million working earning $29,990 
Registered nurses, 2.66 million workers earning $68,910 
Waiters and waitresses, 2.40 million workers earnin g$20,880 
Customer service representatives, 2.39 million workers earning $33,370 
Laborers, and freight and material movers, 2.28 million workers earning $26,690 
Secretaries and admins (not legal or medical),  2.16 million workers earning $34,000 
Janitors and cleaners (not maids),  2.10 million workers earning, $25,140


----------



## sydboy007 (18 April 2014)

http://rwer.wordpress.com/2014/04/16/class-based-economics/

Buried somewhere in the pile of stuff I have accumulated as I think about inequality are these statistics:


Of all the income generated between 2009 and 2011 in the US 121% went to the top 1% of income earners
The top 1% owns just over half of all investment assets including 64.4% of all bonds
And, the bottom 90% incurs 72.5% of all debt

Is a modern day CEO really worth 354 times that of the average worker, whereas a 1980′s CEO was only worth 42 times? Of course not. Modern CEO’s are just much better at cheating and rigging the game. The economy hasn’t benefitted one bit from the spike in CEO incomes. So much for marginal productivity theory. It never was based much on reality, but it sure looked elegant, and sounded good. Especially if you wanted to defend inequality.


----------



## Wysiwyg (18 April 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> Is a modern day CEO really worth 354 times that of the average worker, whereas a 1980′s CEO was only worth 42 times? Of course not. Modern CEO’s are just much better at cheating and rigging the game.



 Shareholders vote for their higher salaries. Sometimes higher than 30% increase on previous year. What do they do? Cut the workforce (costly humans) back to bone, cut asset base back to bone, run assets for longer and harder, expect higher output from remaining employees. Instantly, profit increases and they look great. Three years as CEO on several million dollars per year and they are set for life while the costly humans dealt the unfortunate necessity of termination, compete with others in the same situation.

Paid too much at the expense of hundreds of lower life forms while large shareholders/investors seeking a return on other people's capital they invest (not blood. sweat and tears) care zip about the impact. It doesn't affect them directly.


----------



## Bill M (18 April 2014)

Wysiwyg said:


> Shareholders vote for their higher salaries. Sometimes higher than 30% increase on previous year. What do they do? Cut the workforce (costly humans) back to bone,




Unfortunately the system is stacked against us shareholders. There was I time when I took an active interest in voting for directors and CFO's. One particular time there was a problem with a blunder that a CFO did. I got onto the Shareholders Association website to see how we shareholders could vote this CFO out. Basically they showed us how to go about doing this. Guess what happened? The small shareholders did vote this CFO out, I was happy but at the directors meeting they said that they were not bound by the results of the vote and as such they decided to keep on that CFO and at a higher salary. Ever since then I do not vote or give sh*t about their "shareholder involvement" because they just do whatever they like anyway. What's the point asking us if they don't implement any way?


----------



## qldfrog (18 April 2014)

Wysiwyg said:


> Shareholders vote for their higher salaries. Sometimes higher than 30% increase on previous year. What do they do? Cut the workforce (costly humans) back to bone, cut asset base back to bone, run assets for longer and harder, expect higher output from remaining employees. Instantly, profit increases and they look great. Three years as CEO on several million dollars per year and they are set for life while the costly humans dealt the unfortunate necessity of termination, compete with others in the same situation.
> 
> Paid too much at the expense of hundreds of lower life forms while large shareholders/investors seeking a return on other people's capital they invest (not blood. sweat and tears) care zip about the impact. It doesn't affect them directly.



not shareholders, but a few select individuals belonging to the same circle who act on behalf of a few funds, funds which manage the mandatory super of the low life being exploited...
Thanks to both parties who set up that system: left or right they all belong to these circles once they retire (nicely paid) from their political seat.
We have what we deserve.....


----------



## orr (20 April 2014)

Wysiwyg said:


> Shareholders vote for their higher salaries. Sometimes higher than 30% increase on previous year. What do they do? Cut the workforce (costly humans) back to bone, cut asset base back to bone, run assets for longer and harder, expect higher output from remaining employees. Instantly, profit increases and they look great. Three years as CEO on several million dollars per year and they are set for life while the costly humans dealt the unfortunate necessity of termination, compete with others in the same situation.




If you add to this summary that the then devalued husk of what was a solid entity is then sold on by a private equity rapist whilst the brand name still has some 'cash'e' ... It's the story of Coates Transport, post it's sale by the founder.

Thomas Piketty takes aim at the over renumeration of upper Management and gives an explanation in 'Capital, in the Twenty-First Century', along with a couple of other things.
This review from the 'Financial Times'

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/0c6e9302-c3e2-11e3-a8e0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2zNHFxYJv


----------



## sydboy007 (22 April 2014)

http://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5620702/case-for-confiscatory-taxation

not sure I quite agree with a top rate of 90% taxation, but certainly something like 60-70% for the top 5% income earners might send the message that CEOs are not worth hundreds of times the pay their front line workers receive.

Some sort of inheritance / death tax would also be appropriate.  Something that stops the concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands.

Maybe easier to close off all the tax loopholes and tax expenditures that seem to favour the rich.

I see in today's SMH The Australia Institute has produced a report showing what a massive drain current superannuation tax expenditures are 0- growing at over 12%.  I quite like their universal non means tested pension payment, with the super tax concession removed.  tax free super has to go eventually too.  We hit the peak worker to dependent ratio in 2010 and it's a steep decline down till 2050.

Probably a snow balls chance, but with the budget deficit not going anywhere soon, it's these kinds of hard choices we'll eventually have to make.


----------



## sptrawler (22 April 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> [  I quite like their universal non means tested pension payment.




That is what we used to have, same as U.K.

Then it was incorperated into consolidated revenue, later when memories faded, it was means tested.

We could go around the same circle again, take everyones super into consolidated revenue and pay them a pension.

Then in 20 years time means test it again.lol


----------



## CanOz (22 April 2014)

ROE said:


> http://www.globalrichlist.com/




Thanks heaps for that ROE, must show my wife in hopes of getting her agreement on a new monthly charitable payment...amazing, and yet here you'd think we were really struggling sometimes...


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 April 2014)

CanOz said:


> Thanks heaps for that ROE, must show my wife in hopes of getting her agreement on a new monthly charitable payment...amazing, and yet here you'd think we were really struggling sometimes... http://www.globalrichlist.com/



I think they have left the important factor of living expenses out of the equation. I do not believe I am in the top 0.33% of worlds richest people by income with 75k net per year. A trolley of groceries averages $300/fortnight, fill up the car fuel tank is $110, mortgage $2900/month, various household bills $400/month as well as other one off stuff.


----------



## CanOz (22 April 2014)

Wysiwyg said:


> I think they have left the important factor of living expenses out of the equation. I do not believe I am in the top 0.33% of worlds richest people by income with 75k net per year. A trolley of groceries averages $300/fortnight, fill up the car fuel tank is $110, mortgage $2900/month, various household bills $400/month as well as other one off stuff.




Fair comment....Nor do most of the wealthy draw much of a salary, if they can bury it somewhere else and claim it as an expense...I think the asset one is a little more relevant.


----------



## orr (27 April 2014)

Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, and Steven Durlauf participated in a panel moderated by Branko Milanovic. Discuss
with "The French economist Thomas Piketty his new book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century at the Graduate Centre at the City University of New York

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heOVJM2JZxI


----------



## sydboy007 (27 April 2014)

http://bonddad.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/the-rental-affordability-crisis-is-real.html

Probably going to become relevant to Australia over the next few years as real wages at best stagnate and most likely for lower income earners turns negative as it has in the USA

_According to data from the U.S. Census, half of all renters, and 83 percent of renters with incomes under $20,000, paid more than 30 percent of their incomes in rent in 2011.

Instead, the greatest decline in affordability has occurred amongst low-to-middle income households. [For example, i]n Atlanta, the share of households with incomes between $20,000 and $35,000 in year 2010 dollars who paid at least 30 percent of their incomes in rent rose from about 20 percent in 1980 to more than 80 percent in 2012....Even households in the $35,000 to $50,000 real income tier have experienced declining affordability rates, albeit not to the same degree....However, the highest income groups in the data – households making $50,000 or more in real terms””have experienced little decrease in affordability.

A recently released study by the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies noted that "Between 2000 and 2012, real median rents rose nationwide by 6%.  However, over the same time period, the real median income of renters fell by 13%."_


----------



## sydboy007 (27 April 2014)

Some interesting reads

http://www.voxeu.org/article/human-capital-and-income-inequality

Personally I think while dividends and income producing assets provide higher growth than wages then inequality will only get worse.  Unless you have teh wages share of GDP increasing faster than business income there's really no easy way to stop the growth of income inequality.

http://www.theglobalist.com/want-to-fix-income-inequality-relink-wages-to-productivity/

Supposedly we already have this with enterprise bargaining?


----------



## DeepState (27 April 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> Some interesting reads
> 
> http://www.voxeu.org/article/human-capital-and-income-inequality
> 
> ...




Yep, and wages share has been precipitously declining.  Even if it were to rise, asset distribution is more extreme than incomes.  The rich own the most assets by proportions much greater than relative incomes. The relationship is positive.  Rich people with assets tend to be better paid.  Hence, even if wages share increases, it will have to increase a lot to offset the value of asset ownership already embedded.  Further, the distribution of wages will have to move to favour those with few assets for any realistic chance for this route to work.  My point: it's going to take more than lifting wages share to achieve decent equality because we need to consider distribution of asset ownership together with the distribution of current personal income.

Wages share will not be able to grow to 100% in a standard economy. Although that's a silly scenario given what goes on in GDP, if wages share gets too high, companies become less profitable...and the markets adjust.  This acts as material resistance to wage share getting beyond, say, 60%. 

History has examples of successful paths to re-equalizing wealth.  This include heavily progressive taxation policies. The US actually has the best examples of this. The more nasty scenarios where this is also achieved includes high inflation which erodes the value of assets, possibly rendering them nearly worthless and hence brings the equation back to current wages with nominal contribution from embedded assets.  Then we can get nuts and talk about communism and so forth which achieved it.  In the extreme, total confiscation of all assets and forcing labour for equal incomes would lead to the maximum attainable wages share of incomes and achieve equality.  But who'd actually want that?

Love ya work.


----------



## qldfrog (28 April 2014)

overall in agreement, but more than (or more exactly, on top of) low wages being smashed, the US example would addthe complete anihilation of the middle class.
Should this happen in australia, the wages of the current middle class would collapse and so the vast majority of IP owners might then need to release their assets -> decreasing IP values.
In australia, assets = real estate
the wealth inequality in Australia could very well decrease drastically leading to a leveling by the bottom: all poorer but for the few really rich 1% or so who are more diversified and able to access the international markets.
Taxation?
When people at 80k equivalent are taxed at 45%, seriously, this is not progressive taxation, this is punishing taxation.
In a nutshell, my view is we might see a rebalancing to the lowest target, with an overall decreasing or stagnating wealth with crashing of the middle class concept
This could also mean the end of the 6 figures income tradies and a few other australian anomalies


----------



## qldfrog (28 April 2014)

and on the overall subject of inequality and potential consequences
http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...a_s_liberals_fell_for_a_french_economist.html


----------



## sydboy007 (28 April 2014)

DeepState said:


> .....My point: it's going to take more than lifting wages share to achieve decent equality because we need to consider distribution of asset ownership together with the distribution of current personal income.




Personally I think a broadly based progressive land tax with pretty much no exemptions is one way forward.  In most countries a lot of wealth is stored in housing, especially land.  Wealthy people generally own land in high value areas, with the extremely wealthy fighting over the trophy properties in each city.  The current tax free status of the primary residence benefits the rich way more than the middle class, and the poor generally don't own property so miss out on this giant tax lurk.  The alternative is to tax imputed rent on the primary residence, but I think a land tax is far easier to administer.

broadening the GST would also help, as a lot of the GST free services are where wealthier people spend a greater share of their income on.

Getting rid of the half CGT, or at least making it a reasonable period of time to encourage long term investing rather than speculative activities would also be good.  I've yt to hear a reasonable explanation as to why a poor person who earns $200 in interest pays full tax on it, but a rich person who is able to restructure their finances / business and receive capital gains is able to halve their effective tax on it.  Shouldn't all sources of income be treated the same way?

We might also have to look at inheritance taxes.

All the above requires strong political and economic leadership, which is sadly lacking in Australia.


----------



## sydboy007 (28 April 2014)

qldfrog said:


> When people at 80k equivalent are taxed at 45%, seriously, this is not progressive taxation, this is punishing taxation.




Actually the 45c rate kicks in at $180K

To give you an idea of current income distribution in Australia.

People tend to over estimate the number of people in the middle income distribution and and underestimate at the lower and upper extremes, so while this misunderstanding is around it makes it hard for the public to actually grasp the issue.


----------



## qldfrog (28 April 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> Actually the 45c rate kicks in at $180K



I was taking our finance minister figures on bracket creep as to what we do not want to end up with 

even if you consider the super that you may never be allowed to touch and the 10% gst you pay on most of what you buy + medicare levy +forced membership in a private healthfund, I seriously believe a person on 80k in Australia is actually not far from the 50% actual taxation rate

I know neither my wife or I have any interest to slave under current taxation rate and as we can afford it, we both work part time aka slow move to "active pre" retirement.
In both case this is costing Australia but I have calculated interest in having a life and managing my assets.

Not to forget when throwing radical taxation "solutions"
I come from France and I saw the results of both debt and "tax the rich" attitude


----------



## DeepState (28 April 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> 1. Personally I think a broadly based progressive land tax with pretty much no exemptions is one way forward.
> 
> 2. We might also have to look at inheritance taxes.
> 
> 3. All the above requires strong political and economic leadership, which is sadly lacking in Australia.




1. Agreed.  And it's hard to take your house to an offshore tax haven. I guess there are concerns about getting independent values.  It's like my council. I am always puzzled by whatever valuation they place on my land and improvements for the purposes of rates.

2. Agreed again.  With stickiness of wealth across generations, perhaps this might be a way forward.  But these taxes tend to be readily circumvented.

3. Agree yet again.  Question for you....does the presence of inequality correlate with loss of political will to rectify it?

Best.


----------



## Wysiwyg (28 April 2014)

Wages in my experience are commensurate with experience, skill set, demand or hours worked. It can only be that the higher skilled, the greater experienced, the in-demand and the long hours worker get more money. The mining boom saw a large demand for both skilled and unskilled workers to work long hours. Most of these workers could double or triple their yearly income. 

Another issue here is that wealth is comparative (like most human issues - good v bad, beautiful v ugly) so rich is only so because poor exists. All comparative my friends, all comparative.


----------



## sydboy007 (29 April 2014)

DeepState said:


> 3. Agree yet again.  Question for you....does the presence of inequality correlate with loss of political will to rectify it?
> 
> Best.




I think it's partly due to the decreasing share that wages receives.  The post war years up to the 70s oil shocks were a bit unique in post industrial society where the share of wages increased for a lot of workers, which allowed the consumerist middle class to develop.

Now we're back to income from wages for most people barely keeping up with inflation, while those who hold assets and can extract economic rents are receiving an increasing share of the economic pie.

Globalisation would be one of the causes.  Every year there's more and wore workers available, and most of the extra workers can have decent lives on monthly wages that probably don't equal the taxes most of us pay each month.

The tax system is also geared to penalise hard work and thrift.  Incoem taxes are relatively high still, there's no tax sheltering for interest income.  Compare that to the tax free status of the family home, which leads to speculation and over investment in property, combined with NG at a persons' marginal tax rate, half CGT on sale of the asset.

How we makes changes that don't penalise entrepreneurs and true investment, but does stop the bias towards rewarding capital over labour I'm not too sure.  There's plenty of good stuff from the Henry Tax review that was never implemented, and by the sounds Hockey is making there'll be plenty of good recommendation in their commission of audit that will also be ignored.


----------



## sydboy007 (30 April 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/28/britain-plutocrats-landed-gentry-shotgun-owners

Not the full article but the parts that show what a plutocracy the UK is turning into.  We wont be far behind.

A few days after it was revealed that an NHS group is considering charging patients for the crutches, walking sticks and neck braces it issues, we discovered that David Cameron has intervened to keep the cost of gun licences frozen at £50: a price that hasn't changed since 2001.

The police are furious: it costs them £196 to conduct the background checks required to ensure shotguns are issued only to the kind of dangerous lunatics who use them for mowing down pheasants, rather than to the common or garden variety. As a result they – sorry, we – lose £17m a year, by subsidising the pursuits of the exceedingly rich.

Three days later – on Friday – the government announced it would raise the subsidy it provides for grouse moors from £30 per hectare to £56. Yes, you read that right: the British government subsidises grouse moors, which are owned by 1% of the 1% and used by people who are scarcely less rich.

Before examining the wider picture, let's stick with the shooting theme for a moment, and take a look at the remarkable shape-shifting properties of that emblem of Downton Abbey Britain: the pheasant. Through a series of magnificent legal manoeuvres it can become whatever the nation's wealthy want it to be.

When pheasants are reared, they are classed as livestock: that means the people who raise them are exempt from some payments of value added tax and certain forms of planning control, on the grounds that they are producing food.

But as soon as they're released they are classed as wild animals. Otherwise you wouldn't be allowed to shoot them. But if you want to re-capture the survivors at the end of the shooting season to use as breeding stock, they cease to be wild and become livestock again, because you aren't allowed to catch wild birds with nets.

If, however, pheasants cause damage to neighbouring gardens, or to cars, or to the people travelling in those cars, the person who released them bears no liability, because for this purpose they are classed as wild animals – even if, at the time, they are being rounded up as legal livestock.


----------



## burrow (30 April 2014)

http://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twent...443000X/ref=zg_bs_books_1/187-1023822-8489507


----------



## Huskar (30 April 2014)

qldfrog said:


> I come from France




Not exactly along the line of conversation here, but has anyone read / thought about Thomas Piketty's work? The French economist is all the rage atm..

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/19/books/thomas-piketty-tours-us-for-his-new-book.html

EDIT: Just read older posts!...


----------



## Huskar (30 April 2014)

Takeaway for me from Piketty is: be a capitalist not a wage earner as capital *always* (apart, apparently, from an "aberration" of ~20 years around WW2) increases faster than GDP..


----------



## craft (30 April 2014)

Huskar said:


> Takeaway for me from Piketty is: be a capitalist not a wage earner as capital *always* (apart, apparently, from an "aberration" of ~20 years around WW2) increases faster than GDP..




And the unescapable mathematical consequence of interest rates higher then economic growth is wealth concentration.

If you don’t want extreme wealth concentration in our society you either have to reform money as we currently know it, to work without a ‘positive’ interest rate component or accept growing redistribution of wealth via government/philanthropy etc  transfer system.


----------



## polpak (30 April 2014)

Nature is survival of the fittest.


Society is about co-operation, each playing their own role, raising our chance of surviving the challenges nature provides.


Modern society showing greater improvements as societies co-operation increases,  thus improving chances for more with opportunity achieving their longer term potential.

Retained is problem of individuals losing their focus resulting in short term gains reducing longer term benefits. 


Today in our society "extreme wealth concentration" is less problem than gap between bottom and top widening. 



Sooner or later, taxation is applied to reduce width this gap, ensure more -perhaps a majority, rest somewhere closer to centre.


----------



## Wysiwyg (30 April 2014)

polpak said:


> Today in our society "extreme wealth concentration" is less problem than *gap between bottom and top widening*.



Maybe a reason is the (employer?, Liberal government?) perception of someones worth.



> Sooner or later, taxation is applied to reduce width this gap, ensure more -perhaps a majority, rest somewhere closer to centre.



As I posted earlier and what people seem to not get is that everyone cannot be wealthy because far less would need to work and it is the millions upon millions of *comparatively* lower income workers that assist the wealthy (rents, low wage, consumption) and the country (TAXES, fees, charges, levies etc.).


----------



## craft (19 May 2014)

Inequality fuels Australian budget opposition



> According NATSEM modelling, families in the bottom 20 percent of the population will experience an average 5 percent cut in disposable income while those in the top 20 percent will suffer a cut of just 0.3 percent






> Real income for the bottom 90 percent rose by 34 percent between 1980 and 2010 while the top 1 percent experienced income growth of around 178 percent and the top 0.1 percent enjoyed an even greater return. Moreover, the gap is likely to have increased in the past four years.
> 
> Wealth data show the same trend. The top 20 percent of households have a net worth 68 times that of the bottom 20 percent, which account for just 1 percent of total household wealth.


----------



## Huskar (26 May 2014)

Has anyone seen the interesting dialogue with Financial Times and Piketty? FT poking into some of his assumptions and graphs and thinking that they don't really show any trend towards concentration at all!!

Amazing to think that if a few of his graphs don't add up then the whole thesis falls over.

Even if Piketty is wrong, still a convincing and interesting thesis to consider and conforms with the best method of knowledge accumulation as Karl Popper advises: hypothesise, then disprove; cf. build evidence then hypothesise...


----------



## qldfrog (26 May 2014)

yeap wanted to add a link yesterday:
but I agree an interesting concept
http://blogs.ft.com/money-supply/2014/05/23/data-problems-with-capital-in-the-21st-century/


----------



## piggybank (8 July 2014)

The Seven Richest Aussies Now Owning = As Much As The Bottom 20%
Reported by AAP

The combined wealth of Australia's seven richest people is greater than the poorest 1.73 million households, new figures show.

And the Australia Institute warns policies being adopted by the federal government are likely to widen the gap between the extremely wealthy and the nation's poorest. The institute's paper, Income and Wealth Inequality in Australia, reveals how a reduction over time of the top marginal income tax rate has helped the rich get richer and "widened the disparity between wealth and incomes in Australia", Fairfax Media reports.

The nation's seven richest people are Gina Rinehart whose wealth is estimated at $22 billion, Frank Lowy ($6.87 billion), James Packer ($6 billion), Anthony Pratt & Family ($5.95 billion), Ivan Glasenberg ($5.61 billion), Harry Triguboff ($4.95 billion) and Wing Mau Hui ($4.82 billion), for a total worth of $56.2 billion, figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show.

In comparison, the figures reveal the lowest 20 per cent of households own about $54 billion. In an attack on the Abbott government's proposed budget cuts targeting low-income families, the institute's report suggests the gap between rich and poor will grow if payments to low-income families are reduced further.

However, the institute's paper said tax cuts introduced by governments in the past eight years had contributed to the wealth divide, with the top 10 per cent of earners benefiting more than the bottom 80 per cent of taxpayers.

The article can be read here:- http://finance.ninemsn.com.au/newsbusiness/aap/8871219/seven-richest-aussies-equal-bottom-20


----------



## sydboy007 (4 August 2014)

I think we do need to start focusing on wealth as much as income.  I can see the OECD countries moving towards plutocracy and possibly rebellion if the wealth deivide continues to escalate as it has over the last few decades.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/tale-two-middle-classes

The group that did very well was much poorer than the group whose incomes stagnated. In effect, the first group – “the winners” of globalization – had incomes ranging between $3 and $8 international dollars, that is, dollars of equal purchasing power across the globe, per person per day, amounts so low that in western countries virtually no people subsist on so little or amounts that are barely in the territory of what, again using rich world’s standard, is considered the lower middle class.

Thus while many relatively poor people did well during this latest globalization episode, those somewhat richer may have more complaints. People around the 80th global percentile, with incomes ranging from $13 to $27 international dollars per day, saw few improvements. Their incomes were stagnant or barely increasing.
Nine out of ten people around the global median, the “winners” of globalization, are from “resurgent Asia.” They are people from rural China, including some 150 million who have seen their real incomes increase by a factor of 2.5; rural and urban Indonesia, 40 million people whose real incomes doubled; or urban India, 35 million people with increases in excess of 50 percent. There are also workers from Vietnam, Philippines and Thailand. These “winners” belong to the middle or upper parts of their own countries’ income distributions.

On the other hand, those who did not see much of a gain in income are predominantly from the advanced economies. Lower income groups from three big rich countries particularly stand out: the US, Germany and Japan.  The average real gain of the lower bottom half of US income distribution was 22 percent – that is, growth of less than 1 percent annually. For Germany it was a mere 4 percent, and Japan showed negative growth.  

Suppose that the gains of the Asian middle class and the stagnation of the rich world’s middle class incomes are somehow related – be it through trade that depresses wages or pushes low-skilled into unemployment, or through outsourcing to low-wage economies – then the comfort that accompanies news of globally good changes evaporates. People might accept lack of income growth for a noble cause or a reason so abstract that there is no recourse. But if the cause is relatively concrete and if losses are linked to others’ gains, even if these others are less well-off, the workers with stagnant wages are less willing to accept the outcome.

*This is not a zero-sum game though, because total global income increases, but the relative gains are unequally apportioned between the two middle classes.*

These classes of “globalization losers,” particularly in the United States, have had little political voice or influence, and perhaps this is why the backlash against globalization has been so muted. They have had little voice because the rich have come to control the political process. The rich, as can be seen by looking at the income gains of the global top 5 percent in Figure 1, have benefited immensely from globalization and they have keen interest in its continuation. But while their use of political power has enabled the continuation of globalization, it has also hollowed out national democracies and moved many countries closer to becoming plutocracies. Thus, the choice would seem either plutocracy and globalization – or populism and a halt to globalization. 

Another solution, one that involves neither populism nor plutocracy, would require enormous effort at the understanding of one’s own longer-term self-interest. It would imply more substantial redistribution policies in the rich world. Some of the gains of the top 5 percent could go toward alleviating the anger of the lower- and middle-class rich world’s “losers.” These need not nor should be mere transfers of money from one group to another. 

Instead, money should come in the form of investments in public education, local infrastructure, housing and preventive health care. But the history of the last quarter century during which the top classes in the rich world have continually piled up larger and larger gains, all the while socially and mentally separating themselves from fellow citizens, does not bode well for that alternative.


----------



## Mrmagoo (4 September 2014)

Only economic growth and job creation help ease inequality.


----------



## DeepState (4 September 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> Only economic growth and job creation help ease inequality.




Not really.  Economic growth is occurring in the US, as is job creation.  Yet inequality is getting worse.


----------



## Mrmagoo (22 September 2014)

Im certain the cause of inequality in the US is by deliberate design.


----------



## pixel (22 September 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> Im certain the cause of inequality in the US is by deliberate design.




Can you elaborate?
Who designed this? and why?
What do they stand to gain when the lesser equal can't even afford to consume anymore?


----------



## Mrmagoo (22 September 2014)

I think Americans prefer it that way and its their choice if it was like here where a burgerflipper geta more than a junior professional they would revolt.


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 September 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> Im certain the cause of inequality in the US is by deliberate design.




I'm not sure how deliberate (or otherwise) it is, but it's undoubtedly a consequence of policies in place. That is, a different set of policies would produce a different result, be it better or worse but it would be different.

A lot of it comes down to a broad shift in society toward a far greater emphasis on money and that goes for just about everything. There was a time not that long ago when a lot of things were measured in physical terms whereas now it's purely financial.


----------



## Mrmagoo (22 September 2014)

I think that inherently Australia is a lot less equal than we like to make out. The well off in this country hold their vanity as valuable as they do their money.

There are a long list of things which are not so equal in Australia which are promptly ignored in favor of referring exclusively to our supposed "universal healthcare" which is far from universal and very expensive and our slightly higher minimum wage laws which do not seem to benefit anyone - try raising a kid and paying rent  in Sydney on a MacDonald salary and the comparison to the US is not so different. 

There has been a worldwide trend in OECD countries to crap on the youth who are now approaching middle age so it will be interesting to see how that one pans out.

Look at Greece as a classic example, lifetime indexed pensions for baby boomers and 45% unemployment for the youth.


----------



## burglar (22 September 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> ... Look at Greece as a classic example, lifetime indexed pensions for baby boomers and 45% unemployment for the youth.




Q.) How much does a greek urn?
A.) Not as much as he used to!


----------



## Julia (22 September 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> I think that inherently Australia is a lot less equal than we like to make out. The well off in this country hold their vanity as valuable as they do their money.



In the eyes of many, you - at over $100K p.a. - would be considered one of these well off.
I don't imagine any amount of money would ever ameliorate your relentless negativity.


----------



## DeepState (22 September 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> I think that inherently Australia is a lot less equal than we like to make out. The well off in this country hold their vanity as valuable as they do their money.
> 
> There are a long list of things which are not so equal in Australia which are promptly ignored in favor of referring exclusively to our supposed "universal healthcare" which is far from universal and very expensive and our slightly higher minimum wage laws which do not seem to benefit anyone - try raising a kid and paying rent  in Sydney on a MacDonald salary and the comparison to the US is not so different.
> 
> ...




Australia's Gini coefficient for household incomes (3.2) is far less than for the US (World Bank 2014: 8.4):





Source: Hilda, 2014


Also, Australia's levels of outright, absolute, poverty are declining.  Definitions can vary, the direction of travel is downwards:



Source: Hilda


As to the issue of Greek youth unemployment, the figure is correct, but the meaning is often lost in fervent hand gestures.  The following shows the total population, labour force, employment and unemployment rate for the 15-19 year olds.  The same pattern applied for the 19-24 year old classification.  Unemployment shot up as a result of a very small proportionate fall in the number of employed relative to the total labour force.  Although the labour force also declined relative to the population due to things like pursuit of further study, the proportionate fall (which would have to be even more enormous in a relative sense to balance things) did not make up for the proportionate decline in employment.  In other words, the figures overstate the actual importance of this on a national policy basis.  Of the youth aged 15-19, most are not looking for a job.  Of the small proportion that are, a larger number are unemployed.  This is still a small fraction of the population of 15-19 year olds.

As for kids moving into middle age, even the 24 year old at the start of the crisis would only be celebrating their 30th birthday right now.  Oh the memories.



Source: National Statistical Service (Greece), FactSet


I would be interested as to your response to Pixel's about who designed/wants it this way.  The response offered related to "they" want it this way and referred to burger flippers.  I'm not sure about your position.  Are you implying that Americans generally want to live in an increasingly unequal CAPITALIST society in which 40% don't have any meaningful CAPITAL to their name at all, the middle 20% have enough to buy an SUV, insure it and maybe afford the garage to house it?  Surely not.



Source: US Census Bureau

Who are the "they"?


----------



## Mrmagoo (22 September 2014)

Julia said:


> In the eyes of many, you - at over $100K p.a. - would be considered one of these well off.
> I don't imagine any amount of money would ever ameliorate your relentless negativity.




The sad part is that is really not a lot of money. It just means I have kept a job for a while.

Because Australia has a class system and I am from the class which is required  to work, my income is irrelevant as it is small compared to the assets of the landed elite and the costs which the landed elite place on me so as to extract as much money as possible from me to prevent me from ever finding freedom.


----------



## Mrmagoo (22 September 2014)

DeepState said:


> Australia's Gini coefficient for household incomes (3.2) is far less than for the US (World Bank 2014: 8.4):
> 
> View attachment 59517
> 
> ...




If you read any of the reddit threads on the plight and fight on the burger flippers in the USA you'll see the vast majority of commentators do NOT support their cause.

Likewise the vast majority of Australians appear not to give a stuff that low income people who previously could get by with the bit of hard work and savings cannot survive any longer.

So I don't think we're all that different to the USA on that front.


----------



## DeepState (22 September 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> The sad part is that is really not a lot of money.
> 
> Because Australia has a class system and I am from the class which is required  to work, my income is irrelevant as it is small compared to the assets of the landed elite and the costs which the landed elite place on me so as to extract as much money as possible from me to prevent me from ever finding freedom.




!!


----------



## DeepState (23 September 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> If you read any of the reddit threads on the plight and fight on the burger flippers in the USA you'll see the vast majority of commentators do NOT support their cause.
> 
> Likewise the vast majority of Australians appear not to give a stuff that low income people who previously could get by with the bit of hard work and savings cannot survive any longer.
> 
> So I don't think we're all that different to the USA on that front.




The plight of flippers is more than evident.  You indicated that "I think Americans prefer it that way and its their choice".  Are you defining Americans to be "the vast majority of social commentators?" Like the unemployed 15-19 year olds in Greece, that's not exactly a representative sample.  Or are you just cherry picking, as it seems you are not referring to the populace more generally anymore?  I have not read many reddits on NSA intelligence practices, televangelists, special interest groups and government more generally.  I suspect they are not particularly well supported by Noam Chomsky, George Soros, John Stewert, Michael Moore or John Snowden - just to name a few social commentators that hit the news every now and then.  Pull it all down, the burger flippers, the corporate chieftans, the military complex, the medical system, corporate pensions...the list goes on. Let's pull down the whole edifice and start again. I guess the plight is a little wider and less discriminant than burger flippers might have it.  Is it only the burger flippers who are not universally supported?

As to whether great swathes of Australians could not give a stuff about low income, unwashed, people of the nation who...my gosh...voted in the last Federal election, here are the results of how people classify themselves (yes, self-classified class...you are what you think you are).  I suspect the working poor actually care about working and being poor.  Some of the middle class would understandably be concerned for slipping into the working poor category and would thus give a stuff too.  Some even have a self-destructive mentality and foreast that fate ahead of some actual development.  

Notice how the number of self-classified working poor has now declined to the levels of the prosperous years?  Amazingly, too, in any group where effort and outcome are differentiated, income dispersion occurs.  There will always be a dispersion and a self-assessed division on those lines. What actually is working class?  Who actually are oppressed....do you count those who actually earn upwards of 1.5x AWE and find it hard to drag their feet to work as oppressed?  Should the 70yr old living on a pension actually give a stuff?




Source: ANU


----------



## Mrmagoo (23 September 2014)

DeepState said:


> Australia's Gini coefficient for household incomes (3.2) is far less than for the US (World Bank 2014: 8.4):
> 
> View attachment 59517
> 
> ...




Income is mostly irrelevant as most of the inequality is from capital gains and most wealth is from existing assets. When a million dollar house goes up by 10% a year marginal differences in income start to not matter. 

A person in Australia working in a menial job cannot pay rent and survive when in the past they could. That is rising inequality.

30 is approaching middle age.  Middle aged goes from 35-55 it is just that there are so many old people in the country now that mentalities are starting to shift.


----------



## So_Cynical (23 September 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> I think Americans prefer it that way and its their choice if it was like here where a burgerflipper geta more than a junior professional they would revolt.




I spend  some time on another forum that is dominated by Americans and can support Mrmagoos thinking, there is a near hysterical fear among Americans that paying people more than $7 an hour will some how destroy the US economy and disadvantage the US somehow...somehow its all tied into the US College education system and its quite ok for semi professionals and alike to make big dollars while the less educated struggle away.


----------



## DeepState (23 September 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> Income is mostly irrelevant as most of the inequality is from capital gains and most wealth is from existing assets. When a million dollar house goes up by 10% a year marginal differences in income start to not matter.
> 
> A person in Australia working in a menial job cannot pay rent and survive when in the past they could. That is rising inequality.
> 
> 30 is approaching middle age.  Middle aged goes from 35-55 it is just that there are so many old people in the country now that mentalities are starting to shift.




I think you might just find that income and asset wealth have something in common for the vast bulk of people who are not born as trust fund babies.  However, the dispersion of asset wealth most definitely makes mobility of relative wealth much harder to overcome.  This has become larger in the US and the American Dream is fading into obscurity.  Who are the "they" who wants this to happen?  Are Americans singing to the same tune on desiring massive inequality nearing those of despotic Latin American regimes?  Why would they do this? Or, by Americans, do you mean some subset who wants it...because you can ask another subset which would not, and another which wants defense against alien invasion. 

The comment which I made in relation to inequality related to comparisons of between the US and Australia which you previously made.  If we revert to inequality measures based on wealth as opposed to income, you can turn up the volume on my prior statements to overdrive.  Australia has nothing like the inequality in income or assets that the US does.  Not everything in the world is leading to an extreme Feudal system.  What next?  Are we going to get stats on Prima Nocte in Australia vs the US?

If there is increasing inequality in Australia as measured by poverty, please outline where the Hilda studies are wrong when they show the opposite of what you are saying.  They are the definitive source for such matters because of the detailed longitudinal database which they have developed and any errors should be reported upwards.  Do you have contravening data? 

On middle age, in the Middle Ages being middle aged would cut in at around 15.  Should we use that definition, or the one which is slightly more relevant to the 21st century?


----------



## sptrawler (23 September 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> I think that inherently Australia is a lot less equal than we like to make out. The well off in this country hold their vanity as valuable as they do their money.
> 
> There are a long list of things which are not so equal in Australia which are promptly ignored in favor of referring exclusively to our supposed "universal healthcare" which is far from universal and very expensive and our slightly higher minimum wage laws which do not seem to benefit anyone - try raising a kid and paying rent  in Sydney on a MacDonald salary and the comparison to the US is not so different. .




Why does someone have to aspire to working in McDonalds and pay rent in Sydney?

Obviously there are McDonalds, in areas other than Sydney, that have far cheaper rent.

Then again maybe doing night school and attaining other qualifications, could open other work opportunities.

I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't move to the city untill my career and skill set were well developed and it was possible to obtain employment against stiff competition.
It is obvious everyone wants to live in the major cities, so it follows the competition for work is at a higher level than in remote areas.
It just seems crazy that someone would struggle away in Sydney, on a low paying job, when the obvious opportunities appear to be in more remote areas.


----------



## Mrmagoo (23 September 2014)

DeepState said:


> I think you might just find that income and asset wealth have something in common for the vast bulk of people who are not born as trust fund babies.




I disagree. I think wealth inequality is generational and designed that  way through the housing policy. It is a way of bribing the older generations to vote for the continued degradation of younger generations so that rich people can have more money and power.


----------



## Mrmagoo (23 September 2014)

DeepState said:


> The comment which I made in relation to inequality related to comparisons of between the US and Australia which you previously made.  If we revert to inequality measures based on wealth as opposed to income, you can turn up the volume on my prior statements to overdrive.  Australia has nothing like the inequality in income or assets that the US does.  Not everything in the world is leading to an extreme Feudal system.  What next?  Are we going to get stats on Prima Nocte in Australia vs the US?




We do if you compare it between generations ? The family home is the main asset of most people, many of the younger generations will never be able to own a home. 

If we calculated the life of a low income person say between 35-55 equivalent with the desire to own a home starting from a time born in the 1950s to their age 70 or 80s and did the same for a person born in the early 1990s and extrapolated the results we would most likely find that once retired the person born in the 1990s would not be able to pay rent. While the person born in the 1950s would own a 3 bedroom home in an outer suburb, possibly an investment property and have a sizable super accessible at a reasonable age. 

You can make up a bunch of stuff and say that person doesn't matter and only look at very aggregate results for a person that either doesn't exist or is even more limited and claim something from that which I think is pretty wrong  as the homeless elderly person from my example would still be homeless.

If that is not inequality then you're just playing around with a narrowly defined technical definition which doesn't mean anything beyond its own self contained definition.


----------



## Mrmagoo (23 September 2014)

sptrawler said:


> Why does someone have to aspire to working in McDonalds and pay rent in Sydney?
> 
> Obviously there are McDonalds, in areas other than Sydney, that have far cheaper rent.
> 
> ...




Are you suggesting people move to areas of lower employment because they're rural areas ? You have this back to front. Rural areas are infested with unemployment.

Some people don't want to get qualifications. Does that mean they should just live in tents ?

What about outer suburbs ? Are they not part of Sydney ? Many of us are born to parents with low incomes and are born in such areas which are also very expensive.  

That is a very narrow point of view. Sydney is a large metropolitan area and all of it, even the supposed low income areas are too expensive for a person working at McDonald's.

Secondly you shouldn't judge people who are working for low incomes as you do not know their circumstances or how they got there and furthermore, someone has to do it. 

This is what I mean by a class system. People think that just because you work at McDonald's that you should eat dirt. It is not right but the political debate in Australia is run by vain hypocrites who like to think of themselves as caring but do spit on low income earners regularly and will vote for the party which crushes them. Both ALP and the LNP are bad. I would say the LNP is better for low income people, just based on a comparison between the Howard years and the ALP years.

So to say we're somehow better than the US based on a Gini coefficient or a discussion of minimum wage earners is wrong. There are other reasons why we are better than them and it is do to with education, health and workplace rights, but minimum wage earning is not one of those areas anymore.


----------



## sptrawler (23 September 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> Are you suggesting people move to areas of lower employment because they're rural areas ? You have this back to front. Rural areas are infested with unemployment.
> 
> Some people don't want to get qualifications. Does that mean they should just live in tents ?
> 
> ...




Some people want to spend their megre earnings on smokes and take away food also, that is also their right, same as not wanting to get an education.

Nobody is saying that someone who works in McDonalds should eat dirt, but if McDonalds isn't paying enough for someone to afford living in Sydney, then that person needs to re assess their situation.

One of my sons ran off the rails and at 27 started an apprenticeship, after much self induced drama he finished it seven years later. 
He now works in a remote town, it was too expensive and competitive in Perth, so now he relocated to a country town, saving for a deposit on a house in Perth.
Also gaining experience in his work, which will help him get work back in Perth, when he relocates.
I really can't see any other way of getting ahead, other than expecting a lotto win or a handout.

When I mention remote areas, I am suggesting areas of low unemployment, this normally is associated with Northern Australia.
Not Southern Australia, where 95% of the population want to live, it's the other 70% of Australia where no one wants to go.
Plenty of opportunity up there, just not many want to go there.


----------



## Mrmagoo (23 September 2014)

sptrawler said:


> Some people want to spend their megre earnings on smokes and take away food also, that is also their right, same as not wanting to get an education.
> 
> Nobody is saying that someone who works in McDonalds should eat dirt, but if McDonalds isn't paying enough for someone to afford living in Sydney, then that person needs to re assess their situation.
> 
> ...




You have got it all wrong. THere are no jobs in the country. Most people are stuck in the cities they are born. Cities are not some magical luxury where all the rich people live. They're where most people are stuck.

The smokes and beer things is pretty similar to a racist attitude. Are you saying low income people should not be able to purchase basic luxuries ?

This is what I mean Aussies love the sound of equality as it flatters them but they don't like the reality of it as it means poor people can buy beer and smokes and live near where they were born and raised and be able to buy a house. The attitude of most Aussies is stuff them I am better than them I deserve everything and they deserve nothing.

i.e almost identical to americans


----------



## sptrawler (23 September 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> You have got it all wrong. THere are no jobs in the country. Most people are stuck in the cities they are born. Cities are not some magical luxury where all the rich people live. They're where most people are stuck.
> 
> The smokes and beer things is pretty similar to a racist attitude. Are you saying low income people should not be able to purchase basic luxuries ?
> 
> ...




From what you are saying, everyone should live in the city, expect to recieve a house and work if they feel like it.

Well put me down for some of that.


----------



## Mrmagoo (23 September 2014)

sptrawler said:


> From what you are saying, everyone should live in the city, expect to recieve a house and work if they feel like it.
> 
> Well put me down for some of that.




2/3 of ALL Australians live in Urban areas. 

Most of the problem with Australia is the lack of... you know what.... passs... yeah only rich people live in cities thumbs up mate ! Good one ! Those damned city folk !


----------



## Vixs (23 September 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> You have got it all wrong. THere are no jobs in the country. Most people are stuck in the cities they are born. Cities are not some magical luxury where all the rich people live. They're where most people are stuck.
> 
> The smokes and beer things is pretty similar to a racist attitude. Are you saying low income people should not be able to purchase basic luxuries ?
> 
> ...




Um, yeah Mrmagoo, low income people shouldn't be able to purchase 'basic luxuries' such as cigarettes and alcohol at the same time as trying to survive and get by. It's not discrimination, it's just recognition of their poor decision making. "Luxury - a state of great comfort or elegance, especially when involving great expense." I can't afford to drink and smoke, in fact I can hardly afford to go to the pub once a month to catch up with a few friends over a couple of pints. I am a full-time degree educated employee, with a full-time employed tertiary educated wife living in a capital city and trying to buy a house. We're sacrificing now so that we can get ahead, the same as our parents did.

I know people that came from the same background as me, got the same (lack of) help as me, spent the same amount of time in the workforce as me, and guess what? They're doing much better than I am financially. They've bought a home and an investment property. They're saving large portions of their income, and can afford dinner at the pub without checking the monthly cash flow before they decide to go out. Do you know why they can do that? It's because *I chose to drink and smoke, they chose to save and invest.*

They traded the grog, tobacco, drugs and trips to Europe and Bali that are a rite of passage for seemingly everyone not ready to grow up, leave home and join the real world, for a home deposit or capital for a business so that they could set themselves up financially.

Your endless moaning about woe is me, the system is out to get me, it's all terrible doom and gloom is almost physically painful to read. If you aren't happy where you are, move. I couldn't get professional work where I grew up and lived, so I left. I didn't want to stay pouring beers at a pub until I was 25. 

Hell, Brisbane has 2 bed townhouses 30 minute bus trip to the CBD door to door for 230k. That's a $14,000 or so deposit and a mortgage of ~$1,250 a month. Toowoomba has 4 bed houses for $300k, big backyard and all. There are 11 pages of ads on Seek for jobs paying over 60k in Toowoomba. There are some paying much more than that. 

Can't cut it in Sydney, Melbourne or Perth? Get over it. There is a whole other country out there and people go to work there every day. You don't automatically get the entitlement to buy a home in your suburb of choice just because you were born there.


----------



## sptrawler (23 September 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> 2/3 of ALL Australians live in Urban areas.
> 
> Most of the problem with Australia is the lack of... you know what.... passs... yeah only rich people live in cities thumbs up mate ! Good one ! Those damned city folk !




You have hit the nail on the head, lack of being prepared to get off their ar$e and go North, the place is full of 457 visa workers and backpackers.
Why?
Because lazy Aussies, want to sit on their ar$es in the cities, rather than live in an uncomfortable climate.

Just to clarify, I have lived and worked in the North and it was before airconditioning was available.

Which leads to an old saying, " you get out, what you put in".

So either, the world stops to let you catch up, or you re assess you're options to get on board.


----------



## Mrmagoo (23 September 2014)

Vixs said:


> Um, yeah Mrmagoo, low income people shouldn't be able to purchase 'basic luxuries' such as cigarettes and alcohol at the same time as trying to survive and get by.




As I said we are NOT an equal society.  Thank you for agreeing with me.


----------



## Mrmagoo (23 September 2014)

Vixs said:


> Um, yeah Mrmagoo, low income people shouldn't be able to purchase 'basic luxuries' such as cigarettes and alcohol at the same time as trying to survive and get by. It's not discrimination, it's just recognition of their poor decision making. "Luxury - a state of great comfort or elegance, especially when involving great expense." I can't afford to drink and smoke, in fact I can hardly afford to go to the pub once a month to catch up with a few friends over a couple of pints. I am a full-time degree educated employee, with a full-time employed tertiary educated wife living in a capital city and trying to buy a house. We're sacrificing now so that we can get ahead, the same as our parents did.
> 
> I know people that came from the same background as me, got the same (lack of) help as me, spent the same amount of time in the workforce as me, and guess what? They're doing much better than I am financially. They've bought a home and an investment property. They're saving large portions of their income, and can afford dinner at the pub without checking the monthly cash flow before they decide to go out. Do you know why they can do that? It's because *I chose to drink and smoke, they chose to save and invest.*
> 
> ...




My brain is in a minor meltdown after you mentioned you are a dual income professional couple with no kids. 

1) A dual income professional couple can't afford to go to the pub once a month ?????? Wow. This country is more rotten than I thought.

2) Working at a pub is a strong hold of employment for handsome people. Have you considered a career in sales (being serious here) ? I always suggest handsome people try their hand at sales. You can make a fortune from commission. 

3) A discussion of income inequality means that people on low incomes can't afford pretty basic stuff, when that happens society in unequal.

4) Our parents drank, smoked played around at whatever and some ever went to Europe and could still afford to purchase houses as the multiple was only 3 times average income. My old man spent most of his youth around race tracks losing all his money yet still bought a house. 

5) Like most political commentary you confuse an opinion different to your own with something evil. 

6) My life is pretty good. I am not struggling by any means. It is just I have done the sums and home ownership doesn't pass basic math without exceptional capital growth. Plus I can't really afford the $600 a week it would cost to pay off a relatively small mortgage over 30 years. The house will come if I ever get married. 

7) Number 6 doesn't really matter, because as a general discussion point, housing is expensive and poorer people spend a lot higher % of their income on housing. 

8) I don't really agree with anything you have said because it essentially amounts to you think that any amount of horribleness can be  worked around by simply working harder and your point of struggle is a dual income professional couple with no kids, which causes my mind to just about explode from the irony of it all. You can't just work hard and magically become well off, it doesn't work like that. Giving up basically everything just to be able to survive is the definition of a poor person. Dude, you're poor, you're not really sacrificing for anything. You're poor. We're all poor people. In our parents day no one saved 5 years as a dual income professional couple for a property. Very least they waited till the mid to late 90s and got a home loan with no deposit. Many people inherited and used the money as a deposit. Many got paid absurd union wages in the 80s and had a deposit after one months work. 

9) if you need to sacrifice as lot to get basic stuff, that means we've gone economically backwards and if someone else didn't have to work as hard to get it or sacrifice as much, that makes society unequal.


----------



## Mrmagoo (23 September 2014)

sptrawler said:


> You have hit the nail on the head, lack of being prepared to get off their ar$e and go North, the place is full of 457 visa workers and backpackers.
> Why?
> Because lazy Aussies, want to sit on their ar$es in the cities, rather than live in an uncomfortable climate.
> 
> ...




Yes I agree. People's inability to tolerate heat is exactly what is causing increased wealth inequality in Australia.


----------



## sptrawler (23 September 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> Yes I agree. People's inability to tolerate heat is exactly what is causing increased wealth inequality in Australia.




More people's inability to accept, that they are to some degree responsible for their own outcomes, rather than an intolerance to heat.
There are also opportunities at Antarctica.
The only way to get equality, is to not reward endeavour, then everyone goes to the lowest common denominator.


----------



## Mrmagoo (24 September 2014)

sptrawler said:


> More people's inability to accept, that they are to some degree responsible for their own outcomes, rather than an intolerance to heat.
> There are also opportunities at Antarctica.
> The only way to get equality, is to not reward endeavour, then everyone goes to the lowest common denominator.




No you clearly mentioned the heat.


----------



## sptrawler (24 September 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> No you clearly mentioned the heat.




O.K you aren't interested in the debate, looking for bigger fish?


----------



## DeepState (24 September 2014)

So_Cynical said:


> I spend  some time on another forum that is dominated by Americans and can support Mrmagoos thinking, there is a near hysterical fear among Americans that paying people more than $7 an hour will some how destroy the US economy and disadvantage the US somehow...somehow its all tied into the US College education system and its quite ok for semi professionals and alike to make big dollars while the less educated struggle away.




Might that forum have content which favors membership by social conservatives who care less about inequality than average by some reasonable margin, think the economy is stuffed beyond correction and hence favour low wages for the worker and prefer smaller government for social transfers of many kinds? If unsure, please whack up a question on atheists and homosexuality and report back on how fast your screen melted from abuse.  That would provide a reasonable gauge.


----------



## DeepState (24 September 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> We do if you compare it between generations ? The family home is the main asset of most people, many of the younger generations will never be able to own a home.
> 
> .....
> 
> ...




Without a basis of cross-sectional comparison, wherein some are wealthier or earn higher income than others, you cannot have inequalities.  It is a relative concept.  A single person cannot be poorer or more disadvantaged than themselves. You developed the concept further by making cross-sectional comparisons between current levels of inequality in the US and that of Australia.  Comparisons of comparisons.  If you want to talk about inter generational stuff in the way you have, you can say that inequality appears to have risen.  If you want to harp on about individual cases or concepts of absolute hardship for subgroups, then please start up another thread on Absolute Poverty. Alternatively, find yourself the correct definition of inequality. It's not a particularly technical concept that is narrowly applicable.


----------



## DeepState (24 September 2014)

> I think you might just find that income and asset wealth have something in common for the vast bulk of people who are not born as trust fund babies.






Mrmagoo said:


> I disagree. I think wealth inequality is generational and designed that  way through the housing policy. It is a way of bribing the older generations to vote for the continued degradation of younger generations so that rich people can have more money and power.




Is wealth related to assets? You disagree.  Do you have data to justify the hand-waving?  Here's some from the lead research body into inequality in the US to add to this:




The proportion of income from sources other than personal exertion has grown for the top 1%.  For everyone else, it has basically not changed.  In other words (or mine) 'for the vast bulk of people' there is a direct like between income and wealth.  To suggest otherwise requires some high altitude acrobatics...which I look forward to viewing. A direct link does not mean specific people who cannot afford rent or even specific dual income law partners no kids families living in LA.

Before we start going on about the Top 1% being unreachable, 273 of the Forbes 400 were self made...fighting against the tide of horrid parents keeping property away from them.  Of the rest, the assets were passed down..presumably by court order in each case from greedy parents with a one-eyed ambition to make them worse off than they had been and degrade them.  They are they're ones with the greatest assets, so for your thesis to be even be close to the mark, it would have to be apparent here.  Or maybe poorer families hate their kids more.

Do you have data?  It seems the They are now rich old folk who want to degrade their kids and do so via policy changes related to property.  At least we have an identity of some of the They.  Except their actions don't seem to align with the prognostication.  Acrobat away... Remember, we can't afford a social safety net.


----------



## Julia (24 September 2014)

Mrmagoo, I think you're right.  You genuinely are poor.   Your impoverishment of spirit, your self-absorbed feeding on your own bitterness makes you so.

It must be a miserable way to exist.   I'd suggest you try for a sense of proportion by getting involved in some community voluntary activity with people who really are disadvantaged.  But it wouldn't be fair to inflict you on them.

Meantime, hundreds of thousands of people fighting genuine disadvantage for a myriad of reasons, are able to continue to be optimistic, to make the most of what they have, and to be grateful for the support of their community.
And the community is supportive of those they see making the best contribution they can.  Often when we hear about a need for a special wheelchair for a disabled child, for example, the local community will get involved in fund raising so that child gets the chair.

All around you people are contributing to others, not for any reward, just because it's how communities function best.   

You incessantly whine about your situation.   How about someone who is unemployed, trying to exist on the dole, unable to meet rent payments, therefore becoming homeless?    For you to not see the relativity between your separate positions is a huge insult to the person with a real problem.


----------



## John Swift (24 September 2014)

Julia said:


> Mrmagoo, I think you're right.  You genuinely are poor.   Your impoverishment of spirit, your self-absorbed feeding on your own bitterness makes you so.




What Julia said... and also, according to Jack Ma, if you're poor, it's your own fault...

http://vulcanpost.com/7702/jack-ma-youre-still-poor-35-deserve/


----------



## Mrmagoo (24 September 2014)

It is not your own fault for being poor.

Julia.. a lot of those people you mention are the ones being hurt by the increase in inequality being driven by housing affordability issues. Which is funny, because you  don't get that. Which is a lot of my point.

Australians = like the idea of equality but hate the results of it.

Americans = don't even pretend to want equality.

That is the fundamental difference.

Over the last 10 or 15 yeas we have gone from being a fundamentally equal society in terms of opportunity to a fairly unequal one. 

I don't know how you could undertake any non-bias study of equality in Australia and not consider the housing market. 

We have a situation where the landed elite have developed and the next generation will consist of bonded peasantry who must pay an increasingly higher percentage of their income to the landed elite.

The landed elite, naturally support this arrangement.


----------



## Mrmagoo (24 September 2014)

Julia said:


> You incessantly whine about your situation.   How about someone who is unemployed, trying to exist on the dole, unable to meet rent payments, therefore becoming homeless?    For you to not see the relativity between your separate positions is a huge insult to the person with a real problem.




What do you think causes a person who is on the dole to end up homeless ? Hint : It is the same thing I've been pointing out is a big driver on inequality.

You are a classic example of an Australian who likes the idea of equality, but wouldn't see it put in practice.

That is your right in a democratic society just like it is the right of the Americans to decide a $7 an hour wage is fair and appropriate.


----------



## Mrmagoo (24 September 2014)

DeepState said:


> Is wealth related to assets? You disagree.  Do you have data to justify the hand-waving?  Here's some from the lead research body into inequality in the US to add to this:
> 
> View attachment 59543
> 
> ...




No wealth is related to assets. I was just trying to say there wold need to be some sort of adjustment for generational and house price impacts in societies such as Australia otherwise the results would mostly be meaningless.

For example a $1 million dollar family home in Sydney is owned by someone fully, and by others with a 100% mortgage 10-16% of that money was created in one year and advantages the person selling to the detriment of the buyer.


----------



## tech/a (24 September 2014)

*



			It is not your own fault for being poor.
		
Click to expand...


*
*Yes it is !* and let me prove it to you.

*ANYONE CAN BE A BUM*

There are 1000s of them.
You can be a bum
I can be a bum
Everyone here on this board can be a bum.

But very few will be in the top 1% and those who are will
make a choice at sometime in life to strive hard to get there.

When I was 18---a life time ago--I sat down with my then Girlfriend who became wife (1) and worked out our Budget.
We had $5 left for US.
Right there and then I/we knew I/we had to earn far more than we
needed to not have a concern financially.
I made a choice 
Now 42 Years later it was a *damned great choice.*

There are a few here that I KNOW have made their choice.
T/H
Sam C
PAV
Julia
Joe Blow
Retired Young
Sir O
SKC
Robusta
Can OZ

To name some obvious ones---sorry fellas to those I missed.

-----------------AND-------------

*YOU!*

Oh
I re sat year 11---so I'm no genius.


----------



## Mrmagoo (24 September 2014)

As I said. We are just the same as America.


----------



## tech/a (24 September 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> As I said. We are just the same as America.




Accept it
Embrace it
Take advantage of it.

Or go live in India
Or the Sudan
Or Mexico.

Yeh your life *IS* your choice.


----------



## Caveman (24 September 2014)

tech/a said:


> There are a few here that I KNOW have made their choice.
> T/H
> Sam C
> PAV
> ...




MATE! How could you forget GG!


----------



## fiftyeight (24 September 2014)

Tech/A I hope to join that list one day.

As someone who came from state housing and all that entails, there are SOME people in SOME situations who cannot make that CHOICE not to be a bum. I am not sure where I would of ended up if it was not for my mother (She broke the inter generational poverty not me)

So yes it may be YOUR fault but that does not imply you have control over it


----------



## tech/a (24 September 2014)

fiftyeight said:


> Tech/A I hope to join that list one day.
> 
> As someone who came from state housing and all that entails, there are SOME people in SOME situations who cannot make that CHOICE not to be a bum. I am not sure where I would of ended up if it was not for my mother (She broke the inter generational poverty not me)
> 
> So yes it may be YOUR fault but that does not imply you have control over it




GG of course how remiss

58 I think your on the list from what I've seen.
But if there wasn't a single person who was once a bum who
Became someone well above their expectations I'd agree with you.

I've been seriously close to Bankruptcy twice---I'm a slow learner.
I could have very easily settled for mediocrity. 

So while you may not have control as to getting there you
Have ALL the control to get out of it!


----------



## McLovin (24 September 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> As I said. We are just the same as America.




When were you last in America?


----------



## Mrmagoo (24 September 2014)

fiftyeight said:


> Tech/A I hope to join that list one day.
> 
> As someone who came from state housing and all that entails, there are SOME people in SOME situations who cannot make that CHOICE not to be a bum. I am not sure where I would of ended up if it was not for my mother (She broke the inter generational poverty not me)
> 
> So yes it may be YOUR fault but that does not imply you have control over it




Yeah mate, you got free housing as a kid, if certain people had their way I guess there would no public housing as those guys are "just bums".

You know there are a lot of families on struggle street these days who don't get public housing, they end up sleeping in their cars. That is your "equality" in Australia. That is what I mean by declining equality in this country. Some people own many houses and get assistance to own even more while the poor just end up homeless.

If that really big change in wealth has not been taken into account how can you possibly measure equality in Australia.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 September 2014)

sptrawler said:


> More people's inability to accept, that they are to some degree responsible for their own outcomes, rather than an intolerance to heat. There are also opportunities at Antarctica.




There are lots of decent opportunities, it's just that they aren't all in big cities.

There's a remote location in Tas where there's a constant problem trying to retain staff to work there. Not that they have to actually live there as such, it's a rotating roster for the on-call role, and it's only 2 hours drive from Hobart (and in a company car at that). But there's still a problem with retaining staff, despite it being reasonably well paid and as close as you'll get these days to a job for life with a "too big to fail" employer. Trouble is, everyone wants a job in a city....


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 September 2014)

McLovin said:


> When were you last in America?




Was there two years ago as a tourist. We're not the same, but we do seem to be slowly heading that way in many regards. You could walk the streets of any Australian city all day and not see as many people begging as you'll see in some US cities in an hour. Get away from the touristy areas and places like San Francisco are a sad sight after dark with homeless people practically everywhere.

The changes to the dole (or whatever it's officially called these days) concern me somewhat. Whilst I'm not keen on supporting those who just can't be bothered, the idea that someone has to wait an extended period before receiving assistance is going to far in my view. As a reasonably wealthy society, we ought to assist those who genuinely need help and do so without undue delay. That is the morally right thing to do, and I'm happy to pay taxes for this purpose.


----------



## Mrmagoo (24 September 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> Was there two years ago as a tourist. We're not the same, but we do seem to be slowly heading that way in many regards. You could walk the streets of any Australian city all day and not see as many people begging as you'll see in some US cities in an hour. Get away from the touristy areas and places like San Francisco are a sad sight after dark with homeless people practically everywhere.




It'll happen, working people won't be able to pay rent, they'll go from houses to their cars and all the problems associated with homelessness will lead to job losses and/or the lack of a permanent address means you can't get welfare or apply for others jobs.

Or simply they'll lose their jobs and be evicted as they won't be able to accumulate savings to miss a single pay packet.


----------



## Julia (24 September 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> What do you think causes a person who is on the dole to end up homeless ? Hint : It is the same thing I've been pointing out is a big driver on inequality.
> 
> You are a classic example of an Australian who likes the idea of equality, but wouldn't see it put in practice.
> 
> That is your right in a democratic society just like it is the right of the Americans to decide a $7 an hour wage is fair and appropriate.



Equality does not mean giving everyone equal amounts of everything.  It means offering equality of opportunity with supplementary care for people who for various good reasons are simply not able to compete.

You on more than $100K p.a., no dependants, no one other than yourself to support, do not fall into such a category.

You have got every opportunity to look for alternatives if you're not happy with your present existence.

The same cannot be said for a family trying to care for eg disabled or severely ill children, and/or demented parents, while they struggle on much less than you earn to either pay rent or a mortgage.

The suggestion has been made that you're a troll, just winding people up.  That may be true.  In which case we are all foolish for giving you an audience.  

We're living at a time when there are real problems to be dealt with.  You are not one of them.  As far as I'm concerned, I'll now relegate you to the status of someone to be ignored.   Thankfully there are few like you.


----------



## DeepState (24 September 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> No wealth is related to assets. I was just trying to say there wold need to be some sort of adjustment for generational and house price impacts in societies such as Australia otherwise the results would mostly be meaningless.
> 
> For example a $1 million dollar family home in Sydney is owned by someone fully, and by others with a 100% mortgage 10-16% of that money was created in one year and advantages the person selling to the detriment of the buyer.




Not sure I catch your drift.  People with more income and more assets are richer than those with less under most definitions.  Not much adjustment actually needs to be done to confirm their position on the inequality spectrum.  If you are arguing that the spectrum/balance is now too tilted how should wealth and income measures be adjusted to make them more meaningful to the core purpose of the debate on inequality?  If you are going to drift back into absolute poverty discussions again, please set up another post.

As to the $1m family home example, I must say that you are extremely inventive and well researched in all the ways to excuse (yourself for) underachievement.  It would seem a reasonable perspective and I'm sure many would see merit in it.  I do.  Then I looked some more.

If you are a gazillionaire because you got off your butt and did something with your life that led to commercial success, compound interest on your assets would lead to your relative wealth expanding against the populace if the rate of growth of assets exceeds that of incomes more generally and matches the general return of asset holdings by others.  Sure thing.

I am going to make an assumption that we are not talking about the kind of equality that talks about the richest man/woman since the dawn of time.  If I am wrong...please walk the tightrope again whilst juggling fire.  Instead, we are talking about movements around broader classifications.  

Strangely, people look into this stuff with heavy effort as opposed to anecdote.  One of these groups is the Australian Bureau of Statistics.  Here is the key take-out from the Aug 2013 report on Household Wealth and Wealth Distribution which surveyed a sample of 14,600 households.  I don't think they skewed it towards Republicans.  However, I disclose that the footnotes are silent on this.

Just for kicks, here are the stats for the income/wealth relationship for Australia:




A relationship clearly exists with the lowest income decile heavily representing retirees who naturally have low incomes and are beyond the maximum wealth accumulation phase of their lives.

So, let's march on to the $1m house etc.  Except let's look at stats rather than anecdote.  I know it generates less emotive response, but you present this in an apparently serious way rather than deliberately fantastical.  Here's the key table:




Some points to note:

+ Of the richest quintile, 92% of their total income comes from...working.  Not sucking the life out of some trust fund like a hungry baby.

+ The lowest quintile has a high proportion of households classified as "owner without a mortgage" at 50%.  This declines through the quintiles until, well golly gosh, the richest quintile has the lowest figure of 20%.  What?  Those poor rich people, who live in the family home (this group has the highest proportion of families with dependent children), and are mortgage slaves.  In fact the mortgages are so distasteful that 20% choose to rent!  Is that wildly below the average of 30%?  

+ As you move further down the wealth figures, the household sizes shrink.  Further, the number of people who work in those households shrinks as they move outside the workforce age group.  Presumably they don't actually need a 5br $1m house and would be fine with a $500k 3br house that isn't quite so close to the CBD office.  This somewhat narrows any mortgage burden issue that you want to rest on for a tide of woe.  How strange that, as you move through your career and build a family your wealth generally increases and, when moving to retirement, your income drops and with it your wealth.  Outrage!

+ As we move to the bottom quintile, 34% rent. Fifty percent own their homes outright and 12% have a residual mortgage.  Government support of some kind is received by 76% of this cohort. For 76%, this makes up more than half of their income.  This is a living supplement.  It is not intended to be a means to afford a $1m family home in Sydney.

+ Do you think we should socialize property? Sure worked for Gadaffi. Perhaps increase the transfers some more so that full fledged government pensioners can afford to pay-down a mortgage that they may have been able to afford whilst working?  Sure worked for Greece.

Next excuse please.


----------



## Mrmagoo (24 September 2014)

Julia said:


> Equality does not mean giving everyone equal amounts of everything.  It means offering equality of opportunity with supplementary care for people who for various good reasons are simply not able to compete.
> 
> You on more than $100K p.a., no dependants, no one other than yourself to support, do not fall into such a category.
> 
> ...




Stop with the personal attacks. You think high house prices don't affect low income earners too ?


----------



## Mrmagoo (24 September 2014)

DeepState said:


> Not sure I catch your drift.  People with more income and more assets are richer than those with less under most definitions.  Not much adjustment actually needs to be done to confirm their position on the inequality spectrum.  If you are arguing that the spectrum/balance is now too tilted how should wealth and income measures be adjusted to make them more meaningful to the core purpose of the debate on inequality?  If you are going to drift back into absolute poverty discussions again, please set up another post.
> 
> As to the $1m family home example, I must say that you are extremely inventive and well researched in all the ways to excuse (yourself for) underachievement.  It would seem a reasonable perspective and I'm sure many would see merit in it.  I do.  Then I looked some more.
> 
> ...




What if gen y largely fell into the category of having no home ownership and landed in the bottom quartile ?

Then there is a lot more going on than just what income and/or assets have been earned.

Those statistics are vastly more disturbing than I thought they would be, my income, say 2k a weekish places me into the a decent income quartile yet my assets don't come close to breaking teh 25% mark.

Every single person I know has not broken the 25% mark and we're all in our 30s.

Half of my friends are losers, true, but the other half have worked hard are in professional careers and are successful. 

The only thing that would put them close to 450k mark is appreciation in house prices.


----------



## Caveman (25 September 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> Those statistics are vastly more disturbing than I thought they would be, my income, say 2k a weekish places me into the a decent income quartile yet my assets don't come close to breaking teh 25% mark.



Your getting 2k a week for flipping burgers?WOW im impressed!


----------



## DeepState (25 September 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> 1. What if gen y largely fell into the category of having no home ownership and landed in the bottom quartile ?
> 
> 2. Then there is a lot more going on than just what income and/or assets have been earned.
> 
> ...





1. They don't.  

2. Then save.  Also, the general type of household has two income earners.  That makes it easier to save.  If you want to consume, you cannot invest.  If you cannot invest, all you have is personal income.  Pretty simple.  You want assets?  Save.

3. Everything which involves a sliver of differentiation seems to freak you.  At least you are consistent.

4. You need to get to know more people.  I suspect they may not be partnered and thus consume more of their income, making it hard to save.  The stats are at the household level.  Single breadwinner households in accumulation phase is being phased out. More common now is the two income household.  Stats on women enering the workforce are plentiful.  Don't give me a comeback on two incomes required to blah blah.  There are a ton of reversions.

5. Only half?  As for the rest, can they possibly consider that housing is only one type of wealth depository?  Might it be that it is actually a better investment decision to rent?  Where is my violin when I need one?

6. Before housing appreciation came a mortgage (well, for most).  Before a mortage came a deposit (well, for some).  Before a deposit came saving.  Before saving came some people who actually freakin worked and were single minded about getting that deposit.  A stack of billionaires did not get rich on residential property.  Warren Buffet's house is something your friends would regard as insufficiently chic.  

The less you whine, the more time you have to save and invest.  Hang out with losers and the nits jump across and infect you.  It's only time.  You seem infested.

Stop whinging.  You have means. You are destroying your financial position and the great opportunities that are present, whose value increases manifold with initiative.  No one says the world is fair.  For the most part, it is fair enough if you take the opportunities that come before us all.  Piss it away, plenty of others will collect it and you'll still be whinging about how some kid from the back blocks owns a mansion in Mosman and that you knew him when he was just a blah blah.  He doesn't even remember meeting you.



Mate, get off your @rse.  You are rich.  You just make yourself feel poor with this poison and spend your (pretty decent, I have to say) intellect against yourself.  Very nasty loop.  I do feel your pain.  However, it's not the system. It's not perfect, but the doors to mobility are not welded shut.  If there is a problem with your personal situation, it's you. You are rich.  Act/think like it. All this excuse-laden policy mumbo-jumbo is  waste of time. 

But do let me know if you take an effort to improve your situation.  Happy to help if you want to actually move forward.  Heaps of people here want others to succeed and put a lot of time into it.  Throw us a bone.  Please.

Until then...


----------



## qldfrog (25 September 2014)

+1:
[Mate, get off your @rse. You are rich. You just make yourself feel poor with this poison and spend your (pretty decent, I have to say) intellect against yourself. Very nasty loop. I do feel your pain. However, it's not the system. It's not perfect, but the doors to mobility are not welded shut. If there is a problem with your personal situation, it's you. You are rich. Act/think like it. All this excuse-laden policy mumbo-jumbo is waste of time. ]
Spent less time on the forum (unless for learning) and more getting a life;
I came 20y ago in this country with a backpack and knowing absolutely no-one;
I wish I had had all the advantages you have now;
In 20y I made it to the class you seem to envy/despise so much;
This was done with:

no silver spoon, inheritance or lotto win
usual boring work: half of that as a wage earner first and save and save again
no real estate gain: aka I never made a profit when switching houses (and morgage)  and my current RE assets are buy and forget
no hegative gearing!! yeap you read me right;  my IP both commercial and residential are positively geared and I pay taxes on the rent I get
look at the sky not the gutter, be positive and you will be amazed as what you can do with a bit of will/nerves
And this is coming of a very conservative investing wise guy, with a relatively pessimistic mind (but I am aware of it and I fight!)
There is much IMHO that you need to unlearnt otherwise, you will have endless pleasure  in being right in your gloomy prediction on your future.
If you are a real person, think about that and maybe discuss it with some friends;
remember also you will be who you associate with so choose well this friend.


----------



## Mrmagoo (25 September 2014)

I dont know what chic means.

So sad a discussion has turned to a series of bigotted personal attacks. All of which are nonsense. I save plenty but that has nothing to do with anything. You disagree with me so attack me personally rather than talking about society wide issues we are discussing.

This just proves my point even further about Australian society .


----------



## qldfrog (25 September 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> I dont know what chic means.
> 
> So sad a discussion has turned to a series of bigotted personal attacks. All of which are nonsense. I save plenty but that has nothing to do with anything. You disagree with me so attack me personally rather than talking about society wide issues we are discussing.
> 
> This just proves my point even further about Australian society .




Apologies if you find my comments a personal attack but i genuinely believe you need to change your state of mind for your own good.
I said all I wanted to in the above post so I close here.
We can go back to the core subject.


----------



## tech/a (25 September 2014)

So if we recognize that there is and always has been an inequality in wealth

What are you suggesting to re balance it? Mr Magoo ?


----------



## Mrmagoo (25 September 2014)

I dont think we can or should do anything it is upto voters at election time to decide what they want. If australians desire less and not more inequality then that will happen.


----------



## burglar (25 September 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> I dont know what chic means ...




Warren Buffett can afford much that the rest of us cannot.
He says the only thing he does, which the rest of us cannot afford, is air travel.
Lots of air travel.
He loves air travel!

Chic, meaning "stylish" or "smart", is an element of fashion.
So his house is not chic.

 Bill Gates' house, on the other hand .....


----------



## tech/a (25 September 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> I dont think we can or should do anything it is upto voters at election time to decide what they want. If australians desire less and not more inequality then that will happen.




Your answer is consistent with your interaction with those here.

You are passionate in view and passive in ideas.

These are the traits of mediocrity.


----------



## Vixs (25 September 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> My brain is in a minor meltdown after you mentioned you are a dual income professional couple with no kids.
> 
> 1) A dual income professional couple can't afford to go to the pub once a month ?????? Wow. This country is more rotten than I thought.
> 
> ...




^^^


----------



## Mrmagoo (25 September 2014)

tech/a said:


> Your answer is consistent with your interaction with those here.
> 
> You are passionate in view and passive in ideas.
> 
> These are the traits of mediocrity.




Yes I am mediocre.


----------



## Mrmagoo (25 September 2014)

Vixs said:


> ^^^




I'm going to leave this with the assumption that you are just another young liberal.

I could go on about how you should just work harder to earn more money because if two of you even on graduate salaries can't afford to go to the pub one of you is probably doing something dodgy but I'm not that kind of a person.

Secondly, it is not the kind of Australia I want to see built where a dual income "graduate" couple cannot afford to go to the pub.

I don't see that as progress or anything to aspire to. You seem to think it is a good system, because it lets you crap on people who will be less fortunate than you one day.

I want society has a whole to become more wealthy. That means my grandchildren being able to buy their first home hopefully a lot easier than I did. I want the next generation to not have to struggle at all.

What about people who are NOT part of a dual income couple ? Should marriage be compulsory ? What about graduates without a partner to help support them ? What about people with normal jobs ? You seem to think all of Australia should be about low income persons struggling to survive so that in 20 years time they can be slightly less poor than others. Seems illogical to me.


----------



## Mrmagoo (25 September 2014)

burglar said:


> Warren Buffett can afford much that the rest of us cannot.
> He says the only thing he does, which the rest of us cannot afford, is air travel.
> Lots of air travel.
> He loves air travel!
> ...




Haha. Me chic. That is funny.

I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth.


----------



## tech/a (25 September 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> Yes I am mediocre.




So stop complaining and enjoy it.
Your not rich and not poor.
Your mediocre----perfect---for you.

We *ALL* rise to our level of incompetency!
And that is where we will stay!


----------



## Julia (25 September 2014)

> Secondly, it is not the kind of Australia I want to see built where a dual income "graduate" couple cannot afford to go to the pub.



Vixs did not say he cannot afford to go to the pub.  He is simply choosing different priorities in order to achieve his goals.  I have no doubt he will achieve his aspirations because he's realistic and has worked out what he needs to do to get where he wants to go.


----------



## DeepState (25 September 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> I dont know what chic means.
> 
> So sad a discussion has turned to a series of bigotted personal attacks. All of which are nonsense. I save plenty but that has nothing to do with anything. You disagree with me so attack me personally rather than talking about society wide issues we are discussing.
> 
> This just proves my point even further about Australian society .




You are actually very talented. I love it.  A genuine on-line method actor!!




Anyhow, no-one knows you.  You have come onto this site to take the piss.  So, if I am bigoted against that  - guilty as charged and then some, with impunity.

Australian society includes the character of larrikinism.  That's great.  Well done.  Not that it matters, but it also includes the proud concept of the Aussie Battler on one hand, balanced by the proud tradition of having a whinge.

Just for kicks, because I am interested in the concepts raised, although very disinterested in the responses received, here is what a theoretical Gen-Y Mr Magoo could have accumulated under the following conditions.  It's not really for you.  It's for other participants and readers of this thread.  

We were talking of inequity and difficulty with class transition.

A person/professional/Gen-Y starting out a savings and investment program at 24 earning 50k per annum in 2004 has the following characteristics:

+ Gross salary moves from 50k in 2004 to 95k in 2013 via 5k increments
+ Saves 10% of gross salary in 2004 and increments that savings rate by 2% per year
+ Given the gripe is about property running away, we invest in Australian shares at the end of each year.
+ We lever the portfolio 2:1, in comparison to a much more levered position with regards to property
+ we allow for Tax conservatively and interest charges

The accumulated value of investment net of all realization tax is $247,500 at mid 30s.  A couple in that situation (which is the average earning number per household) would be into the second highest quintile of household net wealth.  If one is part-time and all else is preserved, it would be third-quintile (as is typical for this cohort).  All this at age 34, well before peak earnings and asset accumulation.  Household wealth in these quintiles is largely driven by choices on workload rather than some door b!tch at the entrance of a path to higher wealth status saying "members and regulars" only. 

Whilst property has helped some increase their wealth, those who felt left out of the property market could have embarked on a simple savings program in the next most obvious investment - Australian shares - and done very well.       

Remember that the next time someone talks about malaise and stickiness in wealth class in Australia on a website calling themselves Mr Magoo.  The beliefs, like the character, are totally fictional.  It's been entertaining, but time to pull the curtain....


----------



## Vixs (25 September 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> I'm going to leave this with the assumption that you are just another young liberal.
> 
> I could go on about how you should just work harder to earn more money because if two of you even on graduate salaries can't afford to go to the pub one of you is probably doing something dodgy but I'm not that kind of a person.
> 
> ...




I wouldn't put my name to any political faction in the current environment. Whatever it seems I think to you, I don't think Australia should be all about low income people struggling to survive. I think that anyone on a low income that is unsatisfied with it in this country isn't using any of the many avenues available to increase it. I'm not going to apologise for not caring about their unfulfilled dreams and their whines about how unfair everything is. The first thing anyone needs to do to improve their lot in life is spend less than they earn, and if that means cutting out smokes and the pokies, or hotted up cars, oversears holidays that they have to pay for on credit, boo hoo.

The fact is you are doing just fine financially but are unsatisfied with, yet apathetic about how things work. I am happy with where I am because despite the fact that I have to choose to go without some things, I am years ahead financially as a result. This has been a big turnaround from being years behind the average having wasted my income for years.

You say you want the next generation to have it easier? They already have it easier. We already have it easier. Literally the entire world is our oyster - the opportunities are endless. You can go anywhere and do anything if you're willing to work on the required skills.


----------



## Mrmagoo (26 September 2014)

DeepState said:


> You are actually very talented. I love it.  A genuine on-line method actor!!
> 
> View attachment 59566
> 
> ...





Interesting how you arrived at that 24.7k a year in savings pro rata. You must be assuming some spectacular returns.

Either way for 10 years of dedicated hard work you barely break the 1st quartile on wealth.


----------



## DeepState (5 October 2014)

http://www.economist.com/node/21621908/print

Provides some interesting insights into the bulk causes of global inequality over more than a century.


----------



## KnowThePast (6 October 2014)

DeepState said:


> http://www.economist.com/node/21621908/print
> 
> Provides some interesting insights into the bulk causes of global inequality over more than a century.
> 
> View attachment 59695




Hi RY,

Have you read Mandelbrot and his views on bell shapes and income distribution? From "(Mis)behaviour of markets".

He was building on the research of Pareto, who analyzed wealth distribution in various countries at various times. Part of his quote in the book:

"Society was not a "social pyramid" with the proportion of rich to poor sloping gently from one class to the next. Indeed, it was more of a "social error" - very fat at the bottom where the mass of men live, and very thin at the top where sit the wealthy elite. Nor was this by chance, the data did not remotely fit a bell curve, as one would expect if wealth were distributed randomly. It is a social law, he wrote: something "in the nature of man".

Mandelbrot then expands further on why bell curve should not be assumed in many situations where they are currently routinely used.


----------



## DeepState (6 October 2014)

KnowThePast said:


> Hi RY,
> 
> Have you read Mandelbrot and his views on bell shapes and income distribution? From "(Mis)behaviour of markets".
> 
> ...




Thanks very much KTP.  Yes, I have read it and it was most interesting.  His work served as an input or base for subsequent fields that I think have a lot of merit.  Mandelbrot focused on chaos and associated self-similarity, but there is a related field called Complexity Theory which I think is an even more accurate description of interaction. Within that, there is agent-based modeling (you might dig it!), synchronisation (think credit explosion) and network theory (think inter-personal influence, Facebook, maybe Navitas). Taleb based a lot of his thinking on Mandelbrot, of course.  Wealth and many other things in human society and nature follow a log-log distribution (same deal with markets).  It is a hallmark of highly interactive systems that have the kinds of properties that matter to us. Ebola can be modeled this way, for example, using a combination of network theory and agent-based modeling.  I'm quite sure the disease models at CDC would have well tuned versions of this.

Often the gross features come through in the investment world, but the parameter estimation is super-tough/impossible.  So, for me, this is useful from the perspective of trying to understand what kind of situation we happen to find ourselves in.  If it is tightly nested, particularly with leverage, be especially vigilant and be aware that what you don't know is even more potent than might be imagined - I find it hard to imagine the course to tail events or their magnitude.  Ex-post, it's always so easy and so damned obvious as the coin flippers who got it right make the TV rounds. 

The simplest composite of all these ideas is by the late Per Bak.  It relates to sandcastles.  This guy is correct.  You can replicate his experiment in a sand box.  Add a bit of economics and a sense of people and you have a working model of geopolitics and financial markets.  Minsky brings it to life.

Thanks again KTP.  The world isn't normal in areas where interaction and adaptation occurs. It's setup makes that impossible. The concept of normality arose in an entirely different setting.


----------



## KnowThePast (6 October 2014)

DeepState said:


> Thanks very much KTP.  Yes, I have read it and it was most interesting.  His work served as an input or base for subsequent fields that I think have a lot of merit.  Mandelbrot focused on chaos and associated self-similarity, but there is a related field called Complexity Theory which I think is an even more accurate description of interaction. Within that, there is agent-based modeling (you might dig it!), synchronisation (think credit explosion) and network theory (think inter-personal influence, Facebook, maybe Navitas). Taleb based a lot of his thinking on Mandelbrot, of course.  Wealth and many other things in human society and nature follow a log-log distribution (same deal with markets).  It is a hallmark of highly interactive systems that have the kinds of properties that matter to us. Ebola can be modeled this way, for example, using a combination of network theory and agent-based modeling.  I'm quite sure the disease models at CDC would have well tuned versions of this.
> 
> Often the gross features come through in the investment world, but the parameter estimation is super-tough/impossible.  So, for me, this is useful from the perspective of trying to understand what kind of situation we happen to find ourselves in.  If it is tightly nested, particularly with leverage, be especially vigilant and be aware that what you don't know is even more potent than might be imagined - I find it hard to imagine the course to tail events or their magnitude.  Ex-post, it's always so easy and so damned obvious as the coin flippers who got it right make the TV rounds.
> 
> ...




Thanks for adding to my reading list!

Yes, I don't believe these models have much predictive power, but they help understand where we are and how we got there. So back to the topic of "me wants more money than them".

The world was never equal, from the Roman times to Medieval ages, to industrial revolution, it was a small elite with the rest closer to the bottom. Over the last century, the world got "fairer" than ever before, with more and more people moving to the middle. But is it the new norm? Or a statistical anomoly brought about by a tangled mess of random events? 

In other worlds, is the world getting less fair because it is regressing to mean? 

And are we making an assumption that a bell shape is the correct model that we are entitled to, despite data showing a different kind of distribution? The initial expectation is the biggest factor of how (un)happy one will be with the changes..


----------



## KnowThePast (6 October 2014)

KnowThePast said:


> "Society was not a "social pyramid" with the proportion of rich to poor sloping gently from one class to the next. Indeed, it was more of a "*social error*" - very fat at the bottom where the mass of men live, and very thin at the top where sit the wealthy elite. Nor was this by chance, the data did not remotely fit a bell curve, as one would expect if wealth were distributed randomly. It is a social law, he wrote: something "in the nature of man".




Apologies for the typo - should read "social arrow".


----------



## Mrmagoo (16 October 2014)

I bet in the 1800s all the old people were crapping on about how the youth don't work hard enough and how it is always been this unequal and what not and the rich folk had all sorts of clever justifications for why there immense wealth is just the natural order of things and therefore perfectly normal.

I believe the house price debate in Australia is defining as it is a test of if Australians will accept socially inequality in that one class of people becomes the landed elite, while another in condemned to a life of poverty.


----------



## qldfrog (16 October 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> I bet in the 1800s all the old people were crapping on about how the youth don't work hard enough and how it is always been this unequal and what not and the rich folk had all sorts of clever justifications for why there immense wealth is just the natural order of things and therefore perfectly normal.
> 
> I believe the house price debate in Australia is defining as it is a test of if Australians will accept socially inequality in that one class of people becomes the landed elite, while another in condemned to a life of poverty.



you just need a nice real estate crash and the above risk will dissappear


----------



## Mrmagoo (16 October 2014)

qldfrog said:


> you just need a nice real estate crash and the above risk will dissappear




Only a matter of time until they bring back indentureship.

It will be sold as a fantastic alternative to bankruptcy !

The left will vote for it as the left will as now consist of the rich who will be happy to own an indentured worker. 

They will quell resistance through the unions, giving pay rises to skilled workers who have organisation, representation and are organised as a cartel (i.e tradesmen, lawyers and doctors)  in exchange for selling their lesser skilled brethren into slavery.


----------



## orr (20 October 2014)

The Land of the Fair Go or No Go: Has Australia Lost its Soul? at Sydney Writers' Festival 2014

Tom Keneally Richard Flanagan Micheal Luenig Talk with Geradine Douge

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmrCkavCGfw


----------



## luutzu (20 October 2014)

I read a quote from Churchill a long while back regarding Socialism and Capitalism, it goes something like this:
Any person under 30 that is not a Socialist have no heart; Any person above 30 who is not a Capitalist have no brain.

I thought that was spot on, seeing how I was thinking of getting into finance and business... but the more I see and think about it, the more Churchill is dead wrong on that too. That a person with heart had always has it, capitalism or maturity got nothing to do with hit; that those without heart never has one, and tend to not use much of their brain as well.

I've seen kids from refugee parents who did well at school, then doing well at uni, got a well paid job and almost overnight they disrespect their parents and speak down to blue collar relatives and family friends; I've also seen former refugees whom, the moment they can, set about doing nothing with their income but help their parents, send money back to their relatives... then there are the blue-blooded rich in history who "betray" their class and help the poor (Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt say), then there are little rich people who think their little fortune was all due to their talent, charisma and hard work... not due to luck or opportunities, and those who are poor are lazy or stupid or both.

Most of the rich and their politicians always point to dole bludgers, the unemployed, the welfare cheats as the problem; then point to a handful of once-poor people who had made it big, point to a few more whose parents and teachers made all the sacrifices and with some luck and hard work got into the middle class... point to these and say, see, it's an equal society with equal opportunities for all and those who don't make it are lazy and cheats and want to steal from the rich so they can leach their lazy and unproductive lives on the hardworking, intelligent rich.

There is never a thought that maybe the poor doesn't want to be poor, does not want hand outs; maybe the poor would rather earn enough to feed their family and go on holidays and not be so poor and so underemployed or so underpaid that they have to live on Centrelink and maybe get an "illegal" job wherever they can. Maybe if there are more funding to university so that more than the usual 50 to 55% HS graduates that go to TAFE or flip burgers  can get a degree too; maybe those who went to uni and do not know friends in high places could easily find a job once they graduated.

The rich capitalists (as opposed to the rich socialists) are really dumb. They think they're smart by paying their employees as little as they can get away with, smart by lobbying powerful friends to reduce their taxes, control the minimum wage, reduce regulations... With lower tax income, roads and infrastructure are reduced or ill-repaired, social security programs and welfare are cut or reduced, education funding cuts... all leading to crumbling infrastructure, lower demand for goods and services, leading to overworked, under-educated, sick and unmotivated workforce who are increasingly angry and frustrated at the inequality they're experiencing.

Then with these extra cash they extract, most send it to the finance industry and began to speculate and crash the financial market and world economy every now and again.

So Churchill is wrong on this count, and Capitalists are too rich, too pampered and too dumb to realise that it was socialists programs like the US New Deal and Medicaid, Medicare, welfare and unemployment assistance, programs like the minimum living wage... all these socialist programs was the thing that saved capitalism when it was close to collapse and society either goes to Communism or Fascism.


----------



## sydboy007 (1 December 2014)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...etter-than-rich-kids-who-do-everything-wrong/



> Not a day seems to go by where we're not reminded that inequality is growing in America. But it's not just outcomes that matter; it's opportunity. Last month, we looked at startling new research that showed that poor kids who do what they need to do -- go to college -- make just about as much money later in life as wealthy kids who don't even graduate high school.


----------



## Mrmagoo (12 December 2014)

To the guy who was earlier insulting me and mis interpreting poor statistics it seems that the media has caught on rapidly to the inter generational wealth inequality in Australia. 


One of many articles published in recent weeks.


http://www.news.com.au/finance/is-i...eneration-to-pay/story-e6frfm1i-1227153878535


----------



## sptrawler (13 December 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> To the guy who was earlier insulting me and mis interpreting poor statistics it seems that the media has caught on rapidly to the inter generational wealth inequality in Australia.
> 
> 
> One of many articles published in recent weeks.
> ...




So, have you given half your wealth to charity?

Or are you just highlighting there are people less fortunate.


----------



## sptrawler (13 December 2014)

luutzu said:


> I read a quote from Churchill a long while back regarding Socialism and Capitalism, it goes something like this:
> Any person under 30 that is not a Socialist have no heart; Any person above 30 who is not a Capitalist have no brain.
> 
> I thought that was spot on, seeing how I was thinking of getting into finance and business... but the more I see and think about it, the more Churchill is dead wrong on that too. That a person with heart had always has it, capitalism or maturity got nothing to do with hit; that those without heart never has one, and tend to not use much of their brain as well.
> ...




So, if you don't have capitalists and people who work hard to earn extra money.

Who do you tax, to pay for those who can't afford to pay for the education?

Who pays the taxes, to pay the welfare cheques?

Who pays the taxes, to pay for the free healthcare?

Who pays the taxes, for the cheap public transport?

Who pays the taxes, for the subsidised housing, subsidised rates, subsidised power?

Who pays for disabilty pensions?

Who pays for people in gaol?

Who pays for single mothers pensions?

Who pays for vetran affairs pensions?

Who pays for public servants pensions?

I guess, those who are working, or anyone else who saved money, to pay their own way.


----------



## orr (13 December 2014)

sptrawler said:


> So, if you don't have capitalists and people who work hard to earn extra money.
> 
> Who do you tax,
> Who pays the taxes,
> ...




Thomas Piketty puts a couple of possibles out there, But your not going to like them(chapter 15). But consider the situation we are at. Business is programmed for growth, the dynamic that has now existed for the last forty years as Piketty explains(577pgs), is concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer hands. So the Capitalists market, the consumer, is less and less able to acquire capital. The Capitalists imperative is to grow profit, 'he' lowers his inputs, squeezing labour where ever possible, mechanisation. Which has the over all effect of lowering the buying power of the consumer, 'his' market.

So we have a situation where on a global view you can half fill a country town hall with Eighty people and they have the combined wealth of half the people on the planet. If you extrapolate that inequality, into and as it applies to societies/nations across the world; You ask your self *Who *would you tax.

In the meantime, go long on unemployment. And remember the whole 'Thing' is a human construct an we know how infallible they are.

As Steven Colbert commented at the end of his interview with Piketty 'We don't have to worry too much, at $75 to buy the book, the poor can't afford it any way'


----------



## Mrmagoo (13 December 2014)

sptrawler said:


> So, if you don't have capitalists and people who work hard to earn extra money.
> 
> Who do you tax, to pay for those who can't afford to pay for the education?
> 
> ...




We the people pay. Big business profits off the economic activity of the people. If the people have no money, there is no economy and that state has no tax revenue. The USA is currently finding out how very true this is. 

I've been reading a lot about the Romans and in the late 300 AD period they suffered a similar problem. The elite had split up society amongst their own and had spent their time devising laws to make themselves richer at the expense of the workers. Pushing small farmers and business owners from their business and homes to boost their own wealth. The result was that areas entered incredible economic decline and the empire ended up with no money.

In a sense this is happening in Australia. In days gone by if you worked you more or less had a right to a plot of land where you could usually build a home. The big builders and investors have already taken most of the land. In most cases you can no longer build a home because they're all standard kit homes if you could afford one. 

(Literally, look it up, they buy most of the land well in advance of the public and then drip feed it onto the market)

You need a good social fabric for an economy to function efficiently. Part of that is the desire of individuals to contribute and benefit from the economy so that they remain loyal to the system. Vast wealth inequality disenfranchises the masses and leaves us unable to contribute to the economy. Causing a huge economic loss that cannot be recovered by letting the rich get richer.


----------



## DeepState (13 December 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> To the guy who was earlier insulting me and mis interpreting poor statistics it seems that the media has caught on rapidly to the inter generational wealth inequality in Australia.
> 
> 
> One of many articles published in recent weeks.
> ...




Did this guy say that wealth was equal across generations or that the inequality across generations was shrinking with time or that transfers were not occurring between generations as the population hump ages? Or was it more along the lines that, it is possible to breach some/most of the gap if you got off your butt and did something more useful and created value for the society that you malign.

Just curious.  If you could supply direct extracts from the insulting posts to the effect of the above, that would be helpful.


----------



## luutzu (15 December 2014)

sptrawler said:


> So, if you don't have capitalists and people who work hard to earn extra money.
> 
> Who do you tax, to pay for those who can't afford to pay for the education?
> 
> ...





In a more equal society, people don't need to earn "extra" money... the normal money they earn for their work ought to be enough.

Most working-class people are so underpaid that it's not possible to live on one income anymore so the second spouse have to either find childcare or the grandparents and to then do some menial work. Then if they bought a house, it's not just two normal jobs they'd need, it's extra work on the sides and weekends to give them a bit of breathing space. 

But we're all spinned to believe that work is great, and more work is more great. 

It's a bit like a Communist slogan our dad used to repeat when he tell us to mow the lawn, clean the gutter and help fix the fence (all in one afternoon): "hard work is glorious".

------

The main point you're making, I think, is like ones I heard before from an American "captain of industry" (i think he's the son and current CEO of Forbes). He said that the gov't doesn't earn or make anything except taxation. That it is capitalists and corporations like his that create wealth and build the country and its economy.

From that, it follows:

1. Gov't are not only lazy and incompetent, they're just leeches and red-tape makers hindering progress.

2. That often, as the great Reagan said, gov't is not the solution but is the problem. And so gov't should get out of the way of entrepreneurs and wealth creating enterprises and its great captains.

3. By getting out of the way - ie. deregulation, lower tariffs and taxation, let the market do their thing etc. - the genius capitalists will innovate and create wealth and then not only will the country be enriched by their innovations and products, it's further enriched by lower (yet higher) tax revenues; the environment may be screwed but the products will brighten the days etc. etc.

In other words, gov't will go broke without capitalists to tax from; nations will be poor without capitalists to create wealth. ie. Who do you tax if capitalists are broke?


That premise is a big pile of horse manure. But a lot of people, including the working poor, believe it.

First, it's wrong because capitalists cannot have their capital without the gov't.

It is the gov't that first gave the capitalists their capital. 

Done at first by knocking some foreigners heads and grabbing their land, or fund explorers who got lost and "discover" some new land then declare the land terra nullius and send in the troops when some savages somehow make claim to uninhabited land the Crown clearly see as vacant.

Once these new land and its resources are given or sold cheaply... wealth was then transferred.

After its founding, gov't made possible capitalism by funding infrastructure, by providing security and national defense, by funding education and training, by providing hospitals and roads and water and power etc.etc... all so that property of the rich are not taken by the poor, property are not annexed by foreign powers etc. etc.

In other words, gov't not only give and protect capital and wealth of capitalists, it create and maintain the infrastructure and skilled workforce necessary for exploitation/employment by capitalists.

For that, the gov't want a cut... 

So it is not capitalists that are benign and benevolent and wealth creators... it is the gov't and the people.

But most politicians do not see it this way. They believe what they're told, and why not? Why fight it when if you go along with it you will get re-elected, and when you finished you get cushy jobs. 

So we have corporations and capitalists playing one gov't against another... seeing which one would give them the most benefits for them to create jobs in that jurisdiction. Like Tesla screwing Arizona out of $1.4B to get the honour of having its battery plant there - paying Tesla some $200k per citizen for a plant that may or may not get lift off the ground for decades, and paying mostly upfront too.


Don't know why gov't never really asks these capitalists how they'd sell their goods if the gov't doesn't set up trade agreements; or how they'd collect their money if the gov't doesn't have the armed forces and will send it to collect if necessary. 

But yea, the host become the guest and the guest becomes the master of the house.


----------



## sydboy007 (20 December 2014)

a quick read but rather intresting

http://qz.com/314720/heres-the-surprising-social-trait-that-the-english-and-chinese-have-in-common/



> Blaming this persistence of the same families in the elite on capitalism would be jumping to conclusions too rashly. For that, we should have a comparator country in a period in which it has not been capitalist. It happens to exist, and the two authors of the recently published paper (along with several other co-authors), have documented it. In fact, the paper mentioned above summarizes two chapters of a book they published earlier this year, The Son Also Rises: Surnames and the History of Social Mobility, Princeton University Press, 2014, available in Kindle. They studied the elite’s surnames’ behavior for eight countries and several centuries and found that in all of them the persistence of the elites was similar to modern England (which was similar to that of medieval England.)


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 December 2014)

luutzu said:


> Maybe if there are more funding to university so that more than the usual 50 to 55% HS graduates that go to TAFE or flip burgers  can get a degree too; maybe those who went to uni and do not know friends in high places could easily find a job once they graduated.




If we send everyone to uni then we're completely and absolutely stuffed as a society. Well, we are unless we're going to have degrees in plumbing, bus driving and so on which would make a mockery of the entire concept of universities.

If we don't have truck drivers, builders and so on then we don't have a functioning society. Those and many other jobs that don't require a university education are absolutely essential.


----------



## qldfrog (21 December 2014)

not at all:
you end up with unemployed legions of 5y university degrees owners having part time job at mc donald each with a quarter million debt  (HECS or other)
 and a few millions of underpaid immigrants doing the jobs the (Australian/American/European replace as per need) do not "want' to do;
welcome to 2014...
But eh, university are now "self funded" and IQ is not required for a degree...the great socialist dream merged with the capitalism one
Cynical but in that " OP results" time of a year, a bit sickenned by the Unis current wave of  misleading adds, not to mention our government campaign about "higher education"

Link to the wealth inequality?
Well, I truly believe  that today, education (as expressed by a degree) is not a way out of lower economic class anymore in the western world.(It used to be until the beginning of this century)


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 December 2014)

qldfrog said:


> Well, I truly believe  that today, education (as expressed by a degree) is not a way out of lower economic class anymore in the western world.(It used to be until the beginning of this century)




A lot of that comes down to supply and demand.

Looking at the past 30 or so years, the number of people holding a degree has greatly expanded whilst the availability of directly related employment has grown far more slowly.

It's economics 101 there, supply exceeds demand. Having a degree has become mainstream, to the point that those not choosing that path are viewed by some as failures. But we still need plumbers, bus drivers and so on, we don't actually need everyone to have a degree because in order to function, society needs many non-professional jobs filled by someone.

On the other side of the fence, the opposite has happened with the trades. Apprentice intakes have fallen, many of the better potential applicants have been deterred by parents and others and have gone to uni instead, training standards have fallen in the pursuit of profit, the end result being a contraction in the supply of tradesmen and an even greater decline in the supply of genuinely good ones. In 2014, the barrier to entry in the trades is higher than in most professions. Plenty of people can get themselves into uni and come out with a degree but getting an apprenticeship is incredibly difficult these days.

The effects then come down to basic economics. Supply has fallen in the trades, demand has moderately increased, government has introduced all sorts of regulations making the job harder = pay rates for many trades have increased faster than the overall average of the workforce and you can't find someone willing to do a minor job at your home because they've got more profitable (bigger) opportunities elsewhere. 

I'm very much in favour of training sensible numbers of people at uni in line with the demand for skills and I support the notion that wealth should not be a determinant of who can and cannot attend university. But we still need cleaners, chefs, hairdressers, electricians, builders, truck drivers and so on, none of which sensibly require a university education. 

Maybe I'm unusual here, but I have respect for bus drivers and cleaners just as I have respect for doctors and accountants. They're all necessary for society to function.


----------



## Julia (21 December 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> Maybe I'm unusual here, but I have respect for bus drivers and cleaners just as I have respect for doctors and accountants. They're all necessary for society to function.



I agree.  Within any occupation there will be people with all sorts of characteristics, good and bad.
Being a 'professional' is no guarantee of integrity.

I do agree with Qld Frog, though, about the way a degree these days doesn't carry the cache it used to, an inevitable result of lowered standards, sadly.


----------



## luutzu (21 December 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> If we send everyone to uni then we're completely and absolutely stuffed as a society. Well, we are unless we're going to have degrees in plumbing, bus driving and so on which would make a mockery of the entire concept of universities.
> 
> If we don't have truck drivers, builders and so on then we don't have a functioning society. Those and many other jobs that don't require a university education are absolutely essential.




The main objective of a higher education is not to get a job. 

I mean, we hope most uni grads will get a job and start repaying their HECS and pay taxes and all that... but if the main objective is just so they could work, you could do that cheaply through TAFE or trade apprenticeships. 

Beside medicine or advanced research, most "professional" jobs could be done just as well or better by those who learn from work experience or have a good mentor and work and do their own further studies on the subject they're doing.

The aim of higher education is to broaden graduates, and citizens', mind and learning... to give them confidence that they're just as talented as those so called "professionals" who too often have no good reason beside a piece of paper to look down on people.

This way, not only will you have a more worldly, more rounded citizenry who might not found a job right after graduation but whose confidence and mind are opened so they might invent or innovate in some area they happen to fall into just to feed the family. 

That and you have citizens who, instead of getting upset at refugees or immigrants they perceive as taking away their jobs (if a guy who couldn't speak proper English can take your job, chances are that job aren't that well paid)... that and you have citizens who understand bs when they see it and get upset at politicians giving tax breaks and friendly policies to big corporations and the wealthy.

When the people can't be spinned into believe rubbish like regulation is evil and in the way; minimum wage is bad for business and jobs; the rich are job creators and we better be extra nice and extra generous to them else they leave; blame yourself for being poor when you work two jobs... maybe then people will vote and demand policies that would enrich us all instead of the already ultra-rich - who for the life of me I don't know what they'd do with a few extra hundred millions let alone a few thousands in tax cuts.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 December 2014)

Just something from left field on this.

I've been very poor and I've been rich, not super-rich but don't have to worry about money.

My Happiness is no better now than when I was poor.

So don't discount Happiness when you discuss Wealth Inequality.

gg


----------



## Julia (21 December 2014)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I've been very poor



Me also, but only for a short time.



> and I've been rich, not super-rich but don't have to worry about money.
> 
> My Happiness is no better now than when I was poor.



My view is absolutely the opposite.
In the brief period after leaving a marriage when I was poor, it was brought home to me the intense disadvantage in all aspects of life.  Choices are minimal.  You just have to try to survive.  I'd never want to be in that position ever again.

Having enough money provides a sense of independence and security, gives choices in most areas of living, and confers a sense of freedom.

That probably only applies up to a certain point, however.  I will never understand the compulsion some people exhibit to go on making more and more money just for the sake of it.  Money only means to me what it can provide whether for myself or as a contribution to others with fewer choices.


----------



## DeepState (21 December 2014)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Just something from left field on this.
> 
> I've been very poor and I've been rich, not super-rich but don't have to worry about money.
> 
> ...






....though she doesn't actually say that rich made her happier.


Higher inequality does produce a lower level of satisfaction amongst the most disadvantaged, as would be expected.  Interestingly, it also drags down the satisfaction experience of the richest.  Perhaps we are at our best with some degree of inequality, but not too much.  There is a correlation between development and inequality which distorts this a little.  Perhaps the most unequal societies have a very small proportion of ultra rich, with the rest being varying shades of poor, and this impacts the top 10% result more than it would, say, for the top 1% result:




However, perhaps you were made to be happy.  Wealth may be increasingly sticky across generations, but it also seems that happiness is too.  An opportunity to thank your progenitors?



Final thought: A fair chunk of happiness comes from simply being grateful for whatever we've got.



Happy Holidays GG.  Money can't buy the kind of happiness you are so fortunate to have.


----------



## luutzu (22 December 2014)

DeepState said:


> View attachment 60844
> 
> ....though she doesn't actually say that rich made her happier.
> 
> ...




Yea, money can't buy happiness, or true love; But poverty can't buy it either


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 December 2014)

luutzu said:


> The aim of higher education is to broaden graduates, and citizens', mind and learning...



I see the point in a broader sense. 

But if the aim is for a broad general education, but I'd take a guess that probably 80% of the population is capable of successfully completing a non-specific "general education" degree. And if all 80% did so, then it has no real value in terms of reducing wealth inequality. We just end up with degree qualified sales assistants and painters. We can't all work in high income jobs, since there's a limit to how many lawyers or dentists we actually need and someone still has to drive the buses.

I won't claim to have a solution to the problem of wealth inequality. I will note however that much of the policy approach over recent decades has effectively benefited the "haves" whilst doing little if anything for those without. Globalisation and "user pays" are both examples of that. Some gain, some lose, the gap gets wider.


----------



## luutzu (22 December 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> I see the point in a broader sense.
> 
> But if the aim is for a broad general education, but I'd take a guess that probably 80% of the population is capable of successfully completing a non-specific "general education" degree. And if all 80% did so, then it has no real value in terms of reducing wealth inequality. We just end up with degree qualified sales assistants and painters. We can't all work in high income jobs, since there's a limit to how many lawyers or dentists we actually need and someone still has to drive the buses.
> 
> I won't claim to have a solution to the problem of wealth inequality. I will note however that much of the policy approach over recent decades has effectively benefited the "haves" whilst doing little if anything for those without. Globalisation and "user pays" are both examples of that. Some gain, some lose, the gap gets wider.




I think education/training ought to be balanced between expected demand in the economy and possibilities of the new industry and economy that may arise from better trained and more qualified graduates. If we simply train people for jobs we can see, we'd probably be stuck training better sheep or cattle raising methods; that and maybe learning Latin and Shakespeare.

A good documentary below: *Inequality for All*


----------



## Julia (22 December 2014)

DeepState said:


> Higher inequality does produce a lower level of satisfaction amongst the most disadvantaged, as would be expected.  Interestingly, it also drags down the satisfaction experience of the richest.  Perhaps we are at our best with some degree of inequality, but not too much.  There is a correlation between development and inequality which distorts this a little.  Perhaps the most unequal societies have a very small proportion of ultra rich, with the rest being varying shades of poor, and this impacts the top 10% result more than it would, say, for the top 1% result:



I've seen quite a bit of research which has suggested it is less the actual amount we earn/have than how this relates to those around us.   As long as we have as much or more, we're OK about it, but even being a bit poorer inspires disproportionate levels of dissatisfaction.



> However, perhaps you were made to be happy.  Wealth may be increasingly sticky across generations, but it also seems that happiness is too.  An opportunity to thank your progenitors?



In the figure, this is referred to as being genetic.  I wonder if it actually is in the same way that the colour of your eyes is, e.g., genetic?   Perhaps difficult to determine the nature/nurture balance here.

Families will have their own narratives which will largely dictate attitude to life.
Martin Seligman, in his book "Learned Optimism" discusses at length what he calls our explanatory styles, ie how we interpret similar events differently.  He makes a good case for a belief that we can choose our explanatory style, thus substantially influencing our capacity for happiness.



> Final thought: A fair chunk of happiness comes from simply being grateful for whatever we've got.



I strongly agree with this.   Even when the blackest events pervade our lives, it's possible to find several reasons for gratitude.  Such a simple, yet powerful message.


----------



## DeepState (22 December 2014)

Julia said:


> I've seen quite a bit of research which has suggested it is less the actual amount we earn/have than how this relates to those around us.   As long as we have as much or more, we're OK about it, but even being a bit poorer inspires disproportionate levels of dissatisfaction.





My favourite. From the Harvard School of Public Health.  Two-hundred and fifty seven faculty, staff and students were polled on the following alternatives:




Fifty percent chose A.

After meeting basic needs, we move to satisfying relative needs.  I guess this instinct, with associated misery/envy, helps move us forward in a way that tries to satisfy the insatiable.  Apparently it helps with economic progress.


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 December 2014)

luutzu said:


> I think education/training ought to be balanced between expected demand in the economy and possibilities of the new industry and economy that may arise from better trained and more qualified graduates.



Agreed.

Although as a society we have to accept that if we train people for what might happen tomorrow, then in the meantime they'll be flipping those proverbial burgers etc.


----------



## craft (22 December 2014)

luutzu said:


> A good documentary below: *Inequality for All*




Yes it was, thanks for posting.

Interesting the correlation between wealth inequality and political polarisation.


----------



## Bill M (23 December 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> I won't claim to have a solution to the problem of wealth inequality. I will note however that much of the policy approach over recent decades has effectively benefited the "haves" whilst doing little if anything for those without. Globalisation and "user pays" are both examples of that. Some gain, some lose, the gap gets wider.




Your comment is spot on and then luutzu posted that video which mentions exactly what you did.



luutzu said:


> A good documentary below: *Inequality for All*




The is a very interesting documentary. I think about that working lady's comment, her salary was being cut and her medical insurance downgraded and she said something like "why is it that when someone makes $10 Million or a company makes $20 billion in profits do they want to take away the very little I receive." Pretty sad but true and it is one of the reasons I believe in having unions to help you get that fair pay. Respect your workers, value them, reward them fairly and build a strong middle class. I might add that at least here in Australia we are doing it a bit better than the Americans.

I wish more people like the Robert Reich's of the world were actually in charge and changing the world for the better. Thanks for the video, I watched it all.


----------



## craft (23 December 2014)

The latest blog by Bill Mitchell on the topic.

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=29766



> n the Final Report, we learn that:
> ◾“Income inequality … has increased in Australia since the mid-1980s” as has wealth inequality.
> ◾Gini coefficients (closer to zero indicates increased equality) show that in the early 1980s, Australia recorded values around 0.27 to the current state of around 0.32.
> ◾The ABS data for 2011-12 (latest) shows that the mean household net worth was $728,000 while the median was $434,000, which tells you how skewed the distribution is. A “relatively small number of households had high net worth and a relatively large number had low net worth”.
> ...




and this was an earlier one that is relevant 

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=28688


----------



## sptrawler (23 December 2014)

The problems are compounding, as the economy is contracting. 
Companies are hoarding cash with the expectation of reduced sales, they are also cutting costs, including wages and staff numbers. They are also making less profit and paying less tax.

The population demographics are such, that more are moving into retirement and onto pensions, than are moving into the workforce. 
This in itself is causing a problem, because the ones leaving employment were on relatively high wages, therefore paid proportionally higher taxes. 
The ones joining the workforce and in existing jobs are earning less therefore are paying less tax.
Wealth inequality is going to widen, as the Government has less revenue to give away as welfare payments.
I suppose we could reintroduce death duties, like the U.K has, 40% on the deceased estate. Then use this to fund welfare and redistribution of wealth.
The options are limited, as more require welfare, the funding has to come from the taxable sector of the economy, or the wealth sector.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 December 2014)

sptrawler said:


> The population demographics are such, that more are moving into retirement and onto pensions, than are moving into the workforce.
> This in itself is causing a problem, because the ones leaving employment were on relatively high wages, therefore paid proportionally higher taxes.




As one example, the state public service in Tas has an actual program (not sure what it's called, there's an acronym for it) that basically seeks to downgrade positions. Eg someone employed at level 6 leaves, replaced with someone (quite likely an existing employee) at level 4 doing the same or slightly modified work. They're keen enough on it that the person leaving gets a redundancy payout of sorts.

So at the very least that's a drop in wages even if it doesn't result in an actual drop in staff numbers (though they're cutting numbers too).

I haven't heard of others doing it, but I can imagine the private sector taking a similar (likely less formal) approach. Someone earning $80K leaves, let's see if we can get the same work done by someone on $60K and save the rest. Good for profits and the bottom line, but it leaves less money circulating in the workforce overall. It's a slow but sure race to the bottom.


----------



## DeepState (23 December 2014)

Some thoughts.

What is the right Gini coefficient?  Is it too high now?  What was special about the 1980s base?
- Nothing was particularly special about the 1980s.  However, inequality is higher than in the post war period average.  What does that actually mean?  The composition of industry and sharpening of power entrusted into the few have changed dynamics.  Look at the movement from primary to secondary and tertiary industry for a start.  Would you yearn for an industry structure and a standard of living that comes with a 1980s equivalent?  More aggregate wealth...albeit, more inequitably distributed....has come about because of advancement.

What is the right labour share of income? Is it too low now? Is it too high now?
- Dunno.  For you to answer.

What is the right labour share of productivity growth? Shouldn't capital get some of it if capital expenditure made a chunk of that improvement and those expenditures are now coming on line?
- Prior capex is coming on stream in a big way.  It leads to at least some of the effects shown.  It also arises as the economy is going through the processes of adjusting to the end of intensive mining capex.

In the absence of political plays via special interest groups, how much inequality (increase) would be occurring anyway?  What is the natural level of inequality that would exist if democracy functioned as was intended?  What should it be, if different, to maximally benefit the populace as a whole (not necessarily pandering to the lowest common denominator)?
-  Inequality would be lower. Don't know by how much.  The power of special interest groups could be countered by a truly active voting population.  Education is one bit, but motivation is the greater. There is much scope for self education/elucidation by people so motivated to obtain it. Information is highly democratised. Perhaps we get the governments we deserve. Perhaps democracy doesn't work.

If you flatten the income distribution, what does that mean for the permanence of the wealth distribution? 
- You entrench wealth and it creates bad tidings when the hurdle is then raised to join the class of elites.

Is the extent of inequality at present somehow unusual in a long history sense?
- Doubt it.  Things were massively unequal in agrarian societies.  How about during the industrial revolution? I suspect that we are positively egalitarian by comparison. Still, doesn't make it right. However...what is right for today?

Kind of funny.  This is a site ostensibly dedicated to those purportedly interested in the process of money making through securities trading of various stripes.  The rise of financial services to an increasingly central position in the economy together with the massive inequity that arises from within this industry and because of the economic activity that it elicits has led to a pretty major chunk of inequality that has arisen in the last 20 years.  And, yet,...we want less?


----------



## DeepState (23 December 2014)

A worthwhile perspective from Montier (GMO):

https://www.gmo.com/America/CMSAtta...v67VQg/NVUMWsYvi3A2/L+S28A7Pthjp7LmOfLYQfHMJc




The world's dumbest idea is shareholder value maximisation....rampant capitalism.  The type that causes huge inequality via many channels and was a source of scorn from Reich in his last book, Supercapitalism.





Everyone's lesson +1.  Easy to say.


----------



## luutzu (23 December 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Although as a society we have to accept that if we train people for what might happen tomorrow, then in the meantime they'll be flipping those proverbial burgers etc.




"Great ship takes the longest to build" - (from Tao Te Ching)

From what I see, it seems all countries plan their educational/training policies around short-term/immediate needs. This seems logical and rational at first but it both hinder progress (or grow at a much lower rate than could otherwise), and in the long term, it costs the country much much more.

So we start out with a simple premise of demand: Need plumbers, tradies, technicians, street cleaners and burger flippers at x% each; GPs, dentists, lawyers live forever so don't need that many to replace them... Look at the budget and allocate fundings according to demand/budget - maybe fund a few extra places for competition and lowering of wages.

What could be wrong with that? We can only spend what we can afford and only on what we need.

First, higher education (uni/tertiary) is a fixed cost operation so it really cost next to nothing to train additional students. You would need to increase a fixed number of places by a lot to really need a new lecture hall or additional classroom... and teachers are fairly cheap.

Second, the costs to gov't in loss income tax for the 3 years or so... how much tax is it really from a low-paid job?

So while there's a costs it's quite insignificant.

What are the benefits?

A well trained tradesman from TAFE earn a pretty decent living. A White Collar professional also earn a decent living.

What about the blue collar technician in factories/manufacturing?
Traditional manufacturing is on its way out of Australia if not already. And those jobs that do not... an average working life will be some 50 years... a heck of a lot have changed in the last 50 and the next 50 will be, in all likelihood, changed much more rapidly.

So chances are very likely that most manufacturing or labour intensive jobs will either be made redundant by technologies and new industries. And for those who worked in it most of their life, too young to retire and too old for new tricks... they will suffer and the gov't will lost both the tax from their income as well as the social security payments they're entitled to.

What I'm saying is simplistic, sure... but if people are trained, are learned, they can go very far and able to adapt much better to changing economic and other adverse development. 

If we have a well trained and highly qualified workforce, the skills are the same but wages can be lowered and so we could be both competitive and attractive to employers here and around the world. What's better than a stable political system and a well trained workforce? We might even create new industries or maintain existing ones instead of our leadership saying they couldn't trust us to build a canoe.

And if we have highly qualified burger flippers... they will start asking serious questions regarding gov't policies and incentives.


----------



## luutzu (24 December 2014)

Bill M said:


> Your comment is spot on and then luutzu posted that video which mentions exactly what you did.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It's be great if our leadership are made up of people like Reiche. Though it seems that people like him rarely get to the very top - those jobs tend to go to the politicians who are good looking, friendly and speaks well. And when they're genuinely good, the political side of them tend to compromise the means to get to a prefered end, and as Reich said in one of his other interviews... too often the means then become an end or the end fades and be forgotten.

Yea, I think Australians are better of than Americans... but I think we're heading their way.
Social Security, Medicare, affordable education... it's going to be cut and privatised and we'll be told that there's just too many lazy bums or we have to live within our means.

Not sure if it's in that doco but Reiche said that with the onset of the Great Depression, every American advisors told FDR to turn Communist because Capitalism was finished and the only other option was Fascism. People were starving and lining the streets, there are riots in their MidWest; in Europe the Nazi was rising and the old capitalists were crumbling... 

This was predicted by Marx where he said that the nature of capitalists is they're only after money and so will exploit people and gov't for more money, and with more money they will influence politics and so become richer and richer while the masses get poorer and poorer until they won't take it anymore and rises up etc.

The Czars were gone, Hitler planning to rule most of Europe and the British Empire was on the brink. 

What saved Democracy wasn't Capitalism... it was the New Deal: Social Security, minimum wages, regulations, gov't policies and investments (Socialism?). These were the things that kept the last great Democracy in place and build those "arsenal of democracy" and all that.

Then after WW2, capitalism didn't finance free or affordable higher education, or invest in roads and bridges... 

But these things, apparently since Reagan and Thatcher came to power in the late 70s... are forgotten and we're at it again... with a poorer middle class, less opportunities, and the rich are getting richer and big corporations' profits are privatised while risks and losses are paid for by the public. 

Let's hope we don't have to have another world war to learn what we've learnt.


----------



## luutzu (24 December 2014)

DeepState said:


> A worthwhile perspective from Montier (GMO):
> 
> https://www.gmo.com/America/CMSAtta...v67VQg/NVUMWsYvi3A2/L+S28A7Pthjp7LmOfLYQfHMJc
> 
> ...




The way it is measured, yea, that make it a dumb idea: measuring quarter by quarter, expecting ever rising sales and earnings every 12 months without missing a beat... yea that led to managerial short sightedness and bad policies. But I don't think his suggested solution works either.

True that good businesses create values for all its stakeholders and not just shareholders, but aside from owners/investors taking a slightly longer view than a year or a quarter... how else do we measure the benefits of social/employee policies? 

I think we ought to trust that businesses would create value for their customers, and this is done by treating employees well etc.... but ultimately, if a business can continue to be profitable without these niceties (which I don't think they can for long) then it's not shareholders' job to really push for it. It's the job of gov't.

Regulate so that at the minimum workers and standards are so and so, tax fairly so the community as well as investors benefits...

anyway, easier said than done.


----------



## DeepState (24 December 2014)

luutzu said:


> ... But I don't think his suggested solution works either.
> 
> True that good businesses create values for all its stakeholders and not just shareholders, but aside from owners/investors taking a slightly longer view than a year or a quarter... how else do we measure the benefits of social/employee policies?
> 
> ...




His solution called for advocates for customers (think Consumer Affairs, product standards, ACCC), employees (think unions, labour standards, social security), tax payers (think budgets, tax policy) as well as for shareholders.  He could have mentioned climate and other public goods as well.  In combination they produce a balancing set of forces to what would transpire in the event of pure capitalism.  That's what he was on about and it would not happen if the shareholder was an absolute monarch.  If it were, it would be a social disaster of greater proportion than currently discussed. In the event, these forces do exist but their power is too weak relative to the cult of capitalism to produce good societal outcomes in the longer term - at least as he perceives it whilst benefiting from and adding to burgeoning inequality each year whilst pumping this stuff out.  That's his point and achieving a balance of forces is his 'solution'.  I find it hard to understand why such a prescription could not work in some form.  Further, it's a job that requires more than government.  There is more to life than government although it does set the boundaries if these are respected and enforceable.  What happens within that is very important.  We aren't in a totalitarian state, last I looked. We have choices and our choices count.

He did not, however, offer any direct advice on how this would be achieved.  I'm quite sure he has a well thought out view, but we'll have to await another entertaining and insightful book to arise after his retirement.

Measurement is interesting.  You can measure SV in some ways.  You seem to imply that lack of ability to measure this stuff adequately then subverts the balance of forces argument and shackles the responsibility back on the corporate and the government.  This dyad is what is causing the misery detailed all over this thread.  If there is truth to the inequality argument, then this set-up doesn't work.  Reich's argument was all about how this set-up fails and has failed.  In the long term, so the argument goes, employees will be so heavily marginalised that those who are employed will be earning cents in the dollar and the world economy will collapse in social upheaval at some stage as the workers won't be able to buy anything and government budgets implode under the weight of lower personal and corporate taxation and higher social benefits.  Probably true...but that does not seem to be restraining the capitalist steam train back at HQ.  The incentives point in the opposite direction.  Your assumption of some self-correcting system at the level of the corporate requires serious reconsideration and is at odds with much of what you have espoused previously.  This is why SVM is the dumbest idea going.  Left unconstrained, it kills the society that feeds it.

There are heaps of measures of social welfare.  Tonnes more than appear as items in a three-way account with 100 pages of notes.  In combination, we can observe the health of a society and a nation.  It's up to the joint effort and each element individually to decide what is relevant and what is desirable for each setting.  Poverty, for example, would probably be a variable you'd like to keep lower - all things equal.  You can measure it.  Social fabric via health, job security, unemployment, children born, dispersion of household composition, dependence on social security, form received....and on and on it goes.  It's not that you cannot measure it accurately enough to understand what is going on (and you can always get more stuff), it is a matter of deciding what want and getting to it efficiently, taking into account competing requirements.

Not easy.  Worthwhile nonetheless.  The question, for me, is why is it that many of the balancing forces are so weak today when there is so much inequality?  It is surprising unless the special interest groups argument is alive and well.  If so, the democratic process is supposed to ultimately constrain this.  Why isn't it?  Is it because the populace which is suffering most can't get its act together enough to even realise that it has a vote, realise and understand the choices available and that it actually means something?  

Lesser inequality existed when education levels were much lower than today....and much less egalitarian than they are now...  By the way, universities and other educational institutions are not high fixed cost low variable cost entities as you assume them to be.  Quite the opposite, actually.  Check the data. I have. How does that change your calculus?  How will you measure the benefit to society of having 10k more PhD qualified burger flippers specialising in astronomy and medieval history? A hundred thousand students essentially trained to become philosphers and renaissance men and women without actual apparent demand for these skills in a direct sense.  We do not lack for these skills in the workforce broadly. However, there is a certain dead weight cost to providing this education.  It is nowhere near as small as has been stated....not that I disagree with the concept.  The economics in the train of argument is missing some vital elements.  Still, it's a question of extent and the detail of how the cost is determined, spread and applied.  We do have liberal arts degrees, for example.  Society must be very rich indeed to suggest that everyone is entitled to a tertiary education for the sake of more informed political debate.  It would also lead to a heavy burden on current society unless it is fully debt funded (!!!) for gains that will not really become apparent for a generation or two..and which would be worth less to them in that event (if this whole thing is even correct - which is not even close to proven).  Isn't that inequality?


----------



## luutzu (24 December 2014)

DeepState said:


> His solution called for advocates for customers (think Consumer Affairs, product standards, ACCC), employees (think unions, labour standards, social security), tax payers (think budgets, tax policy) as well as for shareholders.  He could have mentioned climate and other public goods as well.  In combination they produce a balancing set of forces to what would transpire in the event of pure capitalism.  That's what he was on about and it would not happen if the shareholder was an absolute monarch.  If it were, it would be a social disaster of greater proportion than currently discussed. In the event, these forces do exist but their power is too weak relative to the cult of capitalism to produce good societal outcomes in the longer term - at least as he perceives it whilst benefiting from and adding to burgeoning inequality each year whilst pumping this stuff out.  That's his point and achieving a balance of forces is his 'solution'.  I find it hard to understand why such a prescription could not work in some form.  Further, it's a job that requires more than government.  There is more to life than government although it does set the boundaries if these are respected and enforceable.  What happens within that is very important.  We aren't in a totalitarian state, last I looked. We have choices and our choices count.



From the image you posted, the guy's solution seem to have already been adopted by all major corporations - at least it appear so in their annual reports. 

There's always a couple of paragraphs and a few charts and pages on safety and how it's important; there's some community donations or programmes they're involved in or donated to etc. Then there might be some talk about the value and cost savings the company brings to its customers.

What I'm saying is that companies recognise that these might bring value to all stakeholders, might benefit themselves and their own shareholders... but how balanced are these? Do they care as much for the community and the environment as much as to their shareholders (if they care that much to their shareholders all that much), do they make sure they pay their employees fairly, help the retrenched or help fund further trainings? Not really. And that's not their job.

I agree that a good long term business brings value to their customers, bring value to the community it operates in, pay benefits and rewards their employees fairly to motivate them better etc.... But profit can be, and often are, attained by simple lip service to caring for employees and the environment and other stakeholders.

So maybe a more thoughtful solution is, one, to assume that in general most corporations think long term and make decisions that would generally benefit all stakeholders; but more importantly, to also assume that that is not their job, that is the job of gov't - to make sure that employees are taken care of, taxes are paid, and corporations and its shareholders does not profit at the expense of other stakeholders.

In other words, while we would hope that what's good for GM or BHP or RIO is also good for their country; we ought to not leave it at that. Wishing it doesn't make it true.




DeepState said:


> He did not, however, offer any direct advice on how this would be achieved.  I'm quite sure he has a well thought out view, but we'll have to await another entertaining and insightful book to arise after his retirement.
> 
> Measurement is interesting.  You can measure SV in some ways.  You seem to imply that lack of ability to measure this stuff adequately then subverts the balance of forces argument and shackles the responsibility back on the corporate and the government.  This dyad is what is causing the misery detailed all over this thread.  If there is truth to the inequality argument, then this set-up doesn't work.  Reich's argument was all about how this set-up fails and has failed.  In the long term, so the argument goes, employees will be so heavily marginalised that those who are employed will be earning cents in the dollar and the world economy will collapse in social upheaval at some stage as the workers won't be able to buy anything and government budgets implode under the weight of lower personal and corporate taxation and higher social benefits.  Probably true...but that does not seem to be restraining the capitalist steam train back at HQ.  The incentives point in the opposite direction.  Your assumption of some self-correcting system at the level of the corporate requires serious reconsideration and is at odds with much of what you have espoused previously.  This is why SVM is the dumbest idea going.  Left unconstrained, it kills the society that feeds it.




Maybe it was late but I thought I agreed with you. That yes, SVM is a dumb idea and if left unconstrained will harm society... BUT, how do we or the gov't/regulators tell corporations to be nice and benefit all stakeholders? Unless we want to try Communist's style and centralised/command the economy (which will lead to a bigger disaster), we would have to see that corporations are greedy, self-interested "people" who only care for themselves and will do anything they can get away with to make a buck... then seeing that, make certain regulations so that the benefits, if not done voluntarily or directly, will at least benefit all stakeholders through gov't wealth re-distribution/taxation etc.

We really don't want to be like Alan Greenspan and assume that corporations and people are intelligent and self-interested and so will always do what's best for them, and what's best for them also mean what's best for society and employees etc. and so no regulations are needed as the market is its own regulators... and then the GFC happen and oopppsss.




DeepState said:


> There are heaps of measures of social welfare.  Tonnes more than appear as items in a three-way account with 100 pages of notes.  In combination, we can observe the health of a society and a nation.  It's up to the joint effort and each element individually to decide what is relevant and what is desirable for each setting.  Poverty, for example, would probably be a variable you'd like to keep lower - all things equal.  You can measure it.  Social fabric via health, job security, unemployment, children born, dispersion of household composition, dependence on social security, form received....and on and on it goes.  It's not that you cannot measure it accurately enough to understand what is going on (and you can always get more stuff), it is a matter of deciding what want and getting to it efficiently, taking into account competing requirements.
> 
> Not easy.  Worthwhile nonetheless.  The question, for me, is why is it that many of the balancing forces are so weak today when there is so much inequality?  It is surprising unless the special interest groups argument is alive and well.  If so, the democratic process is supposed to ultimately constrain this.  Why isn't it?  Is it because the populace which is suffering most can't get its act together enough to even realise that it has a vote, realise and understand the choices available and that it actually means something?




Easy, the poor can't afford lobbyists.

The only lobbyists they can afford are the free ones - their representatives in Parliament. But those representatives got their own job to worry about, got their own masters.

As Chomsky said, we're not living in a democracy... we're living in a farce of a democracy. A real democracy, Chomsky goes on, would be one where the people would draft up policies and their representatives would implement it. Here we have policies being written for us, and they get debated in parliament and deals are made behind closed doors between MPs and Senators etc... and they're passed.

So it's not that the people doesn't know or vote against their interests, it's just they know too much and understand that politics and policies are for the masters and they will just have to get a job or two to hopefully put a roof over their heads and food on the table.

So what's the difference between Labor and the ALP Coalition? Or Democrat and Republicans in the US? Not that much. So what choices?

When did Tony or Johnny Howard visit my place? Or yours? I've seen Howard dropping by Kerry Packer's and I'm pretty sure Tony is only a phone call away for the Murdochs.

For the rest of us, we might get to meet them if it's election season and we're at Westfields and have a cute baby they could kiss.





DeepState said:


> Lesser inequality existed when education levels were much lower than today....and much less egalitarian than they are now...  By the way, universities and other educational institutions are not high fixed cost low variable cost entities as you assume them to be.  Quite the opposite, actually.  Check the data. I have. How does that change your calculus?  How will you measure the benefit to society of having 10k more PhD qualified burger flippers specialising in astronomy and medieval history? A hundred thousand students essentially trained to become philosphers and renaissance men and women without actual apparent demand for these skills in a direct sense.  We do not lack for these skills in the workforce broadly. However, there is a certain dead weight cost to providing this education.  It is nowhere near as small as has been stated....not that I disagree with the concept.  The economics in the train of argument is missing some vital elements.  Still, it's a question of extent and the detail of how the cost is determined, spread and applied.  We do have liberal arts degrees, for example.  Society must be very rich indeed to suggest that everyone is entitled to a tertiary education for the sake of more informed political debate.  It would also lead to a heavy burden on current society unless it is fully debt funded (!!!) for gains that will not really become apparent for a generation or two..and which would be worth less to them in that event (if this whole thing is even correct - which is not even close to proven).  Isn't that inequality?




Inequality to a lot of people, myself included, does not mean that if I earn $100k and the CEO earns $10M I'm still not happy. Does not mean that CEO or rich people must not be too much richer than me.

Inequality is when people work hard but can't afford a house, work two jobs, barely see their kids and at the end of the week have $20 in their bank account; work hard and earns $50K a year but pays 30% in taxes while a guy that, also work hard, earns $10M and pays 15% in taxes.

Why not show us the data on university cost structure.

If I have a class, how much does it cost me extra to have another seat for an extra student? The same or nearly as much? So I'm not saying how much the university charges the gov't... But if we're going to privatise higher education that's what we'll get.

Sine when does uni education means a liberal arts degree? Train more engineers, more researchers, train more liberal art students and let them enlighten the masses with something other than reality tv and gossip newspapers.

Mate, I'm sure you'd spend anything to put your kids through school and university... Why can't the gov't do that if that's what people want? Not cost effective?

Education is an investment. 

It's not made so we have interesting burger flippers or know-it all cab drivers or shoe shine boys debating politics. Education should be invested in so that graduates/citizens are better trained, more competitive and adaptive to future challenges; and in that training they might read a few books and learn a few other things and start to think and question gov't policies...

Having an educated populace is not for trivial matters - it help lift and redefine your workforce, and it enlightened and inform the masses to know their rights and to demand policies that favour them and their community more than big end of town. 

But these are just dreams anyway... An educated and informed populace, as Chomsky quoted some Think Tank in the US, would be considered a "crisis of democracy".


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 December 2014)

luutzu said:


> Having an educated populace is not for trivial matters - it help lift and redefine your workforce, and it enlightened and inform the masses to know their rights and to demand policies that favour them and their community more than big end of town.



Agreed in principle, though I'm not sure it's really working in practice.

Go back 20 or 30 years and there was a lot more real public debate surrounding "hard" issues than there is today.

When the GST was first proposed (1993 from memory) there was a huge amount of public debate surrounding it. It's hard to imagine that occurring today over practically anything. Sure, we get the odd protest about this, that or something else but they are largely ignored by most these days and nothing like they once were. The masses have, it seems, largely switched off and "outsourced" their thinking to others.

The recent fuss about the federal budget is a case in point. Plenty of opposition and a lot of words spoken, but not much in terms of serious public debate about the nation's finances, what the options are, and what ought to be done. It pretty much degenerated right from the start into an anti-Coalition stance devoid of any real thought. That's not to defend the government, they handled it incredibly poorly in my view, but the opposition, media and general public haven't done too well either. At best, we have calls for government to come up with something better but few if any willing to do so themselves.

Whilst I haven't always agreed with their views, I've always admired the Greens / environmentalists in general for their ability to get things done with limited resources and the odds very firmly stacked against them. I'm certainly not the only one to have have that view, there's plenty of people who didn't like their ideas but who were in awe of their abilities to turn their ideas into reality. It really was the mouse versus the lion with a lot of the early environmental debates, and within a few years the mouse was winning pretty consistently whilst the lion wondered what the hell had just happened. But in 2014, even the environmental movement has largely lost that enthusiasm and is little more than another noise in the background.

I agree that education ought to lift the standard of debate as a general principle. But the decline in the standard of media reporting, and of politics itself, has undone the increase in education levels so far as public debate over serious issues is concerned.


----------



## luutzu (26 December 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> Agreed in principle, though I'm not sure it's really working in practice.
> 
> Go back 20 or 30 years and there was a lot more real public debate surrounding "hard" issues than there is today.
> 
> ...




Yea I guess that's what we get when you put too much emphasis on specialisation and technical, practicality in education.

So we have "educated" professionals and "less educated" tradespeople who know and have little interest to know anything else outside their specialty, and then you have the masters of men who work politics and gov't and move the world like it's their own chess board. And then you have the Murdochs feeding sponsored "news" to inform the population whenever they thought they might like to check things out a little.

I think most of us do not read history or philosophy or learn critical thinking until we're near or already are in retirement... we're too busy putting food on the table and all that so fair enough... But I think High School would be the best place for these subjects as it would familiarise students on the subject and they might get to learning it as they enter the wider world.

More useful to have some insight into how the world works when you're about to enter it, when you're at an age where you could affect the most change than when you're in retirement, I think.

But then that would cause a crisis in democracy. It's very tough to scaremongering people who votes into things when they know that that's one of your tools in trade.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 December 2014)

luutzu said:


> Yea I guess that's what we get when you put too much emphasis on specialisation and technical, practicality in education.




Primary school - broad based but nothing too serious by its' very nature. That said, I'm sure there's something more worthwhile to teach about than doing dinosaurs year after year.  

High school - starts to become a bit more focused on "technical" things and there's a lot of wasted opportunities there in my opinion. I recall a lot of time spent analysing fiction books and learning and re-learning once again about the First Fleet but not too much on real-world politics etc. 

Anything post-high school - for most people it's about getting a job at that point. If someone studies medicine or engineering then in most cases that's with the intent of working in a related field. They're not doing it just to broaden their knowledge.

Born, early years, school, uni / TAFE, work, personal relationships, children, retire, die. That's pretty much the mainstream life cycle for which the education system seems to be largely set up for. It doesn't teach anyone to start a revolution or otherwise challenge the system.

Finance is a case in point that's relevant to this forum. People finish school with no idea how to manage money in many cases, and yet it's a real world, practical skill far more important than anything to do with dinosaurs. But then, if you teach everyone how to manage money, well that doesn't really suit the current economic system too well as it relies on people ending up in debt. Cynical perhaps, but I think that's fairly true.


----------



## burglar (26 December 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> ... Cynical perhaps, but I think that's fairly true.




In Europe they have Railway school !!
You grow up learning Schedules and Resource Management.


----------



## luutzu (27 December 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> Primary school - broad based but nothing too serious by its' very nature. That said, I'm sure there's something more worthwhile to teach about than doing dinosaurs year after year.
> 
> High school - starts to become a bit more focused on "technical" things and there's a lot of wasted opportunities there in my opinion. I recall a lot of time spent analysing fiction books and learning and re-learning once again about the First Fleet but not too much on real-world politics etc.
> 
> ...




I think that when we really look at politics and gov't policies, sounding cynical and coming out of it a bit sick to our stomach is heading in the right direction. 

I mean, who is the worst most evil, most deceitful, most conniving person in history (before Hitler)? Nicolo Machiavelli. Why? Because he wrote The Prince (and most probably don't read his Discourses). But the Prince is merely a (summarised) study of statecraft and the lessons that can be drawn from the deeds of princes and statesmen as described in the first ten books of Livy's the History of Rome.

Imagine writing a great and honest book, telling things as they are and have you name becoming an adjective for all that is bad and evil.

A good summary on purpose of education by Chomsky below. Just don't show it to your grade school kids else they might end up too smart and be unemployed and unmarried.


----------



## DeepState (27 December 2014)

luutzu said:


> From the image you posted, the guy's solution seem to have already been adopted by all major corporations - at least it appear so in their annual reports.



Are hoping to be taken seriously with that extrapolation?


luutzu said:


> I agree that a good long term business brings value to their customers, bring value to the community it operates in, pay benefits and rewards their employees fairly to motivate them better etc.... But profit can be, and often are, attained by simple lip service to caring for employees and the environment and other stakeholders.
> 
> So maybe a more thoughtful solution is, one, to assume that in general most corporations think long term and make decisions that would generally benefit all stakeholders; but more importantly, to also assume that that is not their job, that is the job of gov't - to make sure that employees are taken care of, taxes are paid, and corporations and its shareholders does not profit at the expense of other stakeholders.
> 
> In other words, while we would hope that what's good for GM or BHP or RIO is also good for their country; we ought to not leave it at that. Wishing it doesn't make it true.




You might be interested in the concept of Universal Ownership which is catching hold.  It takes corporate governance to the next level.  It is heavily backed and, I think, something very hopeful in that direction.   I genuinely would be interested in your critique of it.  Future Fund and other monster funds are active in this area.



luutzu said:


> Maybe it was late but I thought I agreed with you. That yes, SVM is a dumb idea and if left unconstrained will harm society... BUT, how do we or the gov't/regulators tell corporations to be nice and benefit all stakeholders? Unless we want to try Communist's style and centralised/command the economy (which will lead to a bigger disaster), we would have to see that corporations are greedy, self-interested "people" who only care for themselves and will do anything they can get away with to make a buck... then seeing that, make certain regulations so that the benefits, if not done voluntarily or directly, will at least benefit all stakeholders through gov't wealth re-distribution/taxation etc.
> 
> We really don't want to be like Alan Greenspan and assume that corporations and people are intelligent and self-interested and so will always do what's best for them, and what's best for them also mean what's best for society and employees etc. and so no regulations are needed as the market is its own regulators... and then the GFC happen and oopppsss.




The article was all about how to contain what you have mentioned above.  We obviously did not agree.



luutzu said:


> Easy, the poor can't afford lobbyists.
> 
> The only lobbyists they can afford are the free ones - their representatives in Parliament. But those representatives got their own job to worry about, got their own masters.
> 
> As Chomsky said, we're not living in a democracy... we're living in a farce of a democracy. A real democracy, Chomsky goes on, would be one where the people would draft up policies and their representatives would implement it. Here we have policies being written for us, and they get debated in parliament and deals are made behind closed doors between MPs and Senators etc... and they're passed.




We are moving more to a plutocracy.  That doesn't make it a plutocracy.  You can draft your own law and pass it to your member for further action.  Give it a go.  Show me the law against it if you think it exists.
You can present yourself to election and serve the people who elected you as well, if you like.  Choosing them instead of the dollars as your masters.  The superannuation plan is truly outstanding and your service would be well rewarded.  Independents do get elected.  Minor parties do as well.  It’s not all about connections to those who do not have you on auto-dial or would hang up on you if you called.

Your parents brought you to Australia.  In between rubbishing stuff and flagellating some notion of a system stacked against you, you seem to think it is a good place to be.  Here you have a chance.  Make the difference if you think the system is broken.  A female, gay, foreign born Chinese Asian descendent is Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.  Got it?  Whinging is in excess supply, that's why the price is zero.  The value approximates the price.  Is this just entertainment style outrage?  Fine if so – it’s good stuff.  But if you really really want to make a difference, you can.



luutzu said:


> So it's not that the people doesn't know or vote against their interests, it's just they know too much and understand that politics and policies are for the masters and they will just have to get a job or two to hopefully put a roof over their heads and food on the table.



So now the people know how to vote and about their interests.  Too much, as a matter of fact.  No need for additional education then.  You do shift even strident and central arguments on a dime. No additional facts are even required.



luutzu said:


> So what choices?



If the domestic situation doesn’t provide you with enough examples of what choice does to the Senate, then look to Europe to see what choice brings.  



luutzu said:


> When did Tony or Johnny Howard visit my place? Or yours? I've seen Howard dropping by Kerry Packer's and I'm pretty sure Tony is only a phone call away for the Murdochs.
> 
> For the rest of us, we might get to meet them if it's election season and we're at Westfields and have a cute baby they could kiss.




Are you actually serious about making change or just venting your lack of contacts, unacceptable life circumstances and severe lack of influence at the current time?
How old was the girl that just won the Nobel Freaking Peace Prize?  Did she have the phone numbers to any of those people?  Do something special….they will call you.  There was a time when no one took their calls either.  It’s a very lame and transparent excuse for mediocrity and you know it.  Before you write it, “It’s not what you know, it’s who you know”.  Yes.  Make yourself worth knowing.  Penny Wong.




luutzu said:


> Inequality to a lot of people, myself included, does not mean that if I earn $100k and the CEO earns $10M I'm still not happy. Does not mean that CEO or rich people must not be too much richer than me.
> 
> Inequality is when people work hard but can't afford a house, work two jobs, barely see their kids and at the end of the week have $20 in their bank account; work hard and earns $50K a year but pays 30% in taxes while a guy that, also work hard, earns $10M and pays 15% in taxes.




Then you are not even talking about inequality.  By the way, much of what has been written up to this point was about tyranny against the rich with talk of plutocracy and not having access to the rich and powerful (who are just slaves to the rich, anyway, apparently).  

You are now referring to absolute poverty.  That is very different to inequality in and of itself.  You would do well not to mix one with the other. You might also do well to limit vicarious association with others with your viewpoints without their permission on matters of outright definition.
----
To this point we have now established that our populace is aware of their vote, can discern the argument and actually knows too well about the matter.  This contrasts to prior arguments about needing to be educated up to make smarter political calls.  Further, we are now made aware that it is not inequality you are concerned about because the rich can get richer and that would be fine.  It is about absolute poverty. All the tirade against lack of power and influence only matters to the extent that it relates to absolute poverty.  That is a substantively different position to what has been proposed previously.
----



luutzu said:


> Why not show us the data on university cost structure.
> 
> If I have a class, how much does it cost me extra to have another seat for an extra student? The same or nearly as much? So I'm not saying how much the university charges the gov't... But if we're going to privatise higher education that's what we'll get.




Why not obtain it for yourself?  You know I have the data and have done the work.  Apparently you were formally educated to conduct similar, critical, analysis?  Before flaying many billions around fixing an apparent educational deficit, please confirm that what we have is even worth it.




luutzu said:


> Sine when does uni education means a liberal arts degree? Train more engineers, more researchers, train more liberal art students and let them enlighten the masses with something other than reality tv and gossip newspapers.
> 
> Mate, I'm sure you'd spend anything to put your kids through school and university... Why can't the gov't do that if that's what people want? Not cost effective?




You are arguing for additional critical thinking skills via formal education.  You do not need to be an orthodontist to think critically.  You are arguing for preparedness for adaptability for an unknown future.  There is no point training to be an orthodontist if you want to prepare for industries and situations yet unknown.  Liberal arts degrees are an effort to these ends.

Last I looked a liberal arts degree from a university was a uni education.  Did I somehow imply that liberal arts degrees were all that unis pump out?  Are you so callous with tax-payer assets - ie. mine - that you would spray it all over the place irrespective of actual vocational demand whilst preparing for an unknown future (now that we have moved past the point of requiring it for political debate)?  No thanks.  Give me someone who understands economics.  If they screw up as much as they have in history (which has brought us from the Dark Ages to an apparent cesspit of a social system today), it will be at a slower pace than this proposal.
It’s not cost effective.  Your economics is way off plantation.  I do agree that there needs to be some education, a minimum.  The proposal is well into the ultra-luxury range.  You don’t need a Piaget watch to tell the time.  
I also want to live a cancer free life and live to see my great-grand children get married to the loves of their lives.  Why doesn’t the government do whatever it takes to do that given people might want it too?  Not cost effective?
Wanting is not a sufficient argument.  We want lots of things.  It’s nice to dream…and I agree with this element. It’s just not grounded in reality.



luutzu said:


> Education is an investment.
> 
> It's not made so we have interesting burger flippers or know-it all cab drivers or shoe shine boys debating politics. Education should be invested in so that graduates/citizens are better trained, more competitive and adaptive to future challenges; and in that training they might read a few books and learn a few other things and start to think and question gov't policies...
> 
> ...



In posts all over this site, you have admonished every thought about 'paying for the future'.  No sensible valuation could allow for any concept of upside because the future could not be divined definitively.  We are to assume zero growth for earnings. And now, we are being told to throw a stack of cash and productive resources well above what could possibly be supported in the absence of major intervention to transform our society from democracy/plutocracy/capitalism and more towards educationalism.

So it's fine to spend my money (probably in somewhat greater portion than yours) on an investment in the future which may or may not grow the flexibility of a nation in a way which can definitely respond to a future that cannot be known.... but it's stupid to the bone to do that for a simple company for your own money?  The rationale: “Education is an investment”. For what return on investment? Both are investments.  I am not comfortable with the proposal to deploy my capital under those premises in either situation. Overinvestment leads to an inevitable correction which is possibly systemic in nature….I am referring to the proposal, not China.  GFC style credit risk costs are actually small compared to this.

Democracy has a problem. Democracy is only a system of trade-offs. Farce is one of them.


----------



## burglar (27 December 2014)

luutzu said:


> ... then you have the masters of men who work politics and gov't and move the world like it's their own chess board ...




In Russia, they have the Botvinnik School of Chess!


----------



## luutzu (27 December 2014)

DeepState said:


> Are hoping to be taken seriously with that extrapolation?
> 
> You might be interested in the concept of Universal Ownership which is catching hold.  It takes corporate governance to the next level.  It is heavily backed and, I think, something very hopeful in that direction.   I genuinely would be interested in your critique of it.  Future Fund and other monster funds are active in this area.
> 
> The article was all about how to contain what you have mentioned above.  We obviously did not agree.



Yea, universal ownership... awesome. Just leave corporations alone, they'd do the right thing because they figured pure capitalism isn't good for them after all. Christmas is over, back to the real world now.




DeepState said:


> We are moving more to a plutocracy.  That doesn't make it a plutocracy.  You can draft your own law and pass it to your member for further action.  Give it a go.  Show me the law against it if you think it exists.
> You can present yourself to election and serve the people who elected you as well, if you like.  Choosing them instead of the dollars as your masters.  The superannuation plan is truly outstanding and your service would be well rewarded.  Independents do get elected.  Minor parties do as well.  It’s not all about connections to those who do not have you on auto-dial or would hang up on you if you called.




Actually, I did propose a law - well, some amendment or some possible solutions. I went to Chris Bowen's office in Fairfield when Labor was in power some 6 or 7 years ago. Bowen was deputy Finance Minister then. I never get to see him though, so I wrote a long letter of issues regarding financial fraud and ask if there's a way we can fix it, left it with his staff, I even follow it up with an email. 

Never heard from him or his staff.

So yea, while you might think that politicians are all ears whenever you or your friends drop by... for most of us it might be quite different.

And no, I wasn't surprised or upset that my member of parliament doesn't have time for me. I was naive but not that silly.




DeepState said:


> Your parents brought you to Australia.  In between rubbishing stuff and flagellating some notion of a system stacked against you, you seem to think it is a good place to be.  Here you have a chance.  Make the difference if you think the system is broken.  A female, gay, foreign born Chinese Asian descendent is Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.  Got it?  Whinging is in excess supply, that's why the price is zero.  The value approximates the price.  Is this just entertainment style outrage?  Fine if so – it’s good stuff.  But if you really really want to make a difference, you can.




What made you think the system is stacked against me? I might be doing very very well for all you know. Not as well as you obviously, but probably much better than most Australians.

To think, as you obviously do, that anyone who can see how tough it is for most working people are just whining whingers... you must either be born with a silver spoon up your behind or delusional you think all have the same opportunity and those who made it are obviously hardworking and those who failed are just lazy and those who think the system is unfair and not everyone have an equal opportunity... well they're just mediocre whingers, whingers like Rhode Scholar Reich.

I've met quite a few people like you, they're quite sad. They're also a bit of an a hole, you know, thinking that they got where they are because they're just brilliant and the labourer... well, they labour in the ditches instead of sipping latte in offices because they're not as smart.




DeepState said:


> So now the people know how to vote and about their interests.  Too much, as a matter of fact.  No need for additional education then.  You do shift even strident and central arguments on a dime. No additional facts are even required.
> 
> If the domestic situation doesn’t provide you with enough examples of what choice does to the Senate, then look to Europe to see what choice brings.




You think voters don't know? They know who the politicians and the law favours, they know their place in the world... and most accept it as a fact of life. They're all thinking, as you do, that ey... even though we're poor and the politicians only pay lip service to our needs, at least they're paying lip service and not send in the police. Why, we're living in practically a paradise compare to conditions some hundred or two hundred years ago.

Didn't you post some news or database clipping earlier in the year where it said Abbott's latest budget favours the rich more? Big surprise. How do poor people know that since they can't access databases and analysis of impact on them... they might not know by living it I guess.




DeepState said:


> Are you actually serious about making change or just venting your lack of contacts, unacceptable life circumstances and severe lack of influence at the current time?
> How old was the girl that just won the Nobel Freaking Peace Prize?  Did she have the phone numbers to any of those people?  Do something special….they will call you.  There was a time when no one took their calls either.  It’s a very lame and transparent excuse for mediocrity and you know it.  Before you write it, “It’s not what you know, it’s who you know”.  Yes.  Make yourself worth knowing.  Penny Wong.




Why do you think I care for contacts? I know it'd be easier, as you surely do know... but contacts are a dime a dozen... why I could just google people I want to sell something to, and unlike well connected people I might have to wait a bit while their secretary confirms, but that's about it if what I sell is worthwhile. So yea, they might even call me.

I might change your industry one day and make your comeback unnecessary. 

Not to belittle Malala's Nobel Peace Prize, but didn't Obama got one for just getting elected? Or Henry Kissinger another for, ohhh for bringing peace to Vietnam?

There's a lot of people, and I know some of them, who volunteer and donate and do canned food drives during winters, who goes to Laos and Cambodia during their annual leave to set up schools and help fund and dig water wells... you think a Nobel prize would make them more admirable?

Maybe they need to so you and your friends would call them up and invite them to dinners... oh, fundraisers.




DeepState said:


> Then you are not even talking about inequality.  By the way, much of what has been written up to this point was about tyranny against the rich with talk of plutocracy and not having access to the rich and powerful (who are just slaves to the rich, anyway, apparently).
> 
> You are now referring to absolute poverty.  That is very different to inequality in and of itself.  You would do well not to mix one with the other. You might also do well to limit vicarious association with others with your viewpoints without their permission on matters of outright definition.




WOW, working two jobs, maybe even three, but barely being able to feed or house your family... that, while the lucky few work 7.5 hours but literally don't know what to do with all that money.. .that to you is not about inequality, it's just poverty.

Mate, no poor person cares how much the rich make. They don't look up their database or even google up how much the Packers or the Murdoch or the Youngs earn or have relative to them... they don't get envious that for Christmas they share a couple of beers with friends and family in their little yard while the rich must be drinking whatever it is that's expensive on a yacht or some fancy place. 

No worker sit their and calculate the average ratio or CEOs to workers and say that's unfair and unequal and wish it'd be 7 times instead of 300 times.

Most poor, and most sane people, would be happy to earn $100K and does not mind either way how much others earn - unlike half the Harvard professors and students in the survey you cited.

People would see it as unfair, unequal, only when they work just as hard and can't get ahead of the bills. They'd see it as unfair when they contribute more at work, are more productive, and yet get less and less pay and their job are less and less secure. Any sensible person would agree that that's unfair... only an idiot would look at the ratios and think it's unfair because it's high and the only solution is class warfare and bringing the rich down.




DeepState said:


> ----
> To this point we have now established that our populace is aware of their vote, can discern the argument and actually knows too well about the matter.  This contrasts to prior arguments about needing to be educated up to make smarter political calls.  Further, we are now made aware that it is not inequality you are concerned about because the rich can get richer and that would be fine.  It is about absolute poverty. All the tirade against lack of power and influence only matters to the extent that it relates to absolute poverty.  That is a substantively different position to what has been proposed previously.
> ----




You just have no clue.

Why am I on this forum? I have an interests in stocks right? I want to be a capitalist right? I want to be rich right?

Nobody, not the poor I can assure you (even though your uncle Murdoch's papers might not) want the rich to be poor. As Reich said in that doco, the rich can get richer, and we're all talking about inequality and wanting a more equal society NOT so that the rich can be poorer, but so that the rich can ALSO get richer.

How? If the poor and the middle class are paid more, have more opportunities, more education where their skills are valued more... they could earn more, and in earning more they'd spend more, and in spending more they'd create demand and create jobs.... and so the rich capitalists can (then create jobs) and sell stuff and so make more money and yes, get richer.

How's your stock portfolio when employment or retail sales figure are low? It must be bad but that's because the companies create jobs even though there's weak or no demand right? Out of their patriotic and universal love and ownership.

---
Don't know about you but it doesn't take much (education or brainpower) to know when policies are not for you and your kind. You think poor voters turned up because they believe Labor or the Coalition will make their lives better? That the laws on the table is for them? What if they turn up because they can't afford a fine, and turning up knowing full well these laws are for the masters and hoping that maybe if the masters are richer better crumbs may trickle down?

Learn a bit of history will you. How many revolutions throughout human history were led by the poor? Or even started by the poor? Just about all, or all that I know of, were led by a few educated opportunists who saw and seizes the voice of the masses. I think Reich call them demi-gods, in history they're the likes of Mao, Napoleon, Julius Caesar... in the US in the 60s they're the Civil Rights leaders and peace protesters. Some leaders led the people to peace and the mountain top, others use it and made themselves emperors.

So the uneducated poor, while knowing too much, knowing full well the reality of politics... does not know enough its mechanisms, not enough to formulate their conditions or enough to organised effectively. And so, in knowing which way the game is tilted to, don't know what to do about it until it's too broken.

Add to that rubbish like it's a fair go country where sick or poor people are lazy, where those who think the world could be fairer are whingers or communists... Hell, Warren Buffett is pointed out as a communist.




DeepState said:


> Why not obtain it for yourself?  You know I have the data and have done the work.  Apparently you were formally educated to conduct similar, critical, analysis?  Before flaying many billions around fixing an apparent educational deficit, please confirm that what we have is even worth it.




That's rich from a man who thought spending $500 millions (estimated for 1 year) against ISIS is peanuts.

But why fix what is broken right? 




DeepState said:


> You are arguing for additional critical thinking skills via formal education.  You do not need to be an orthodontist to think critically.  You are arguing for preparedness for adaptability for an unknown future.  There is no point training to be an orthodontist if you want to prepare for industries and situations yet unknown.  Liberal arts degrees are an effort to these ends.
> 
> Last I looked a liberal arts degree from a university was a uni education.  Did I somehow imply that liberal arts degrees were all that unis pump out?  Are you so callous with tax-payer assets - ie. mine - that you would spray it all over the place irrespective of actual vocational demand whilst preparing for an unknown future (now that we have moved past the point of requiring it for political debate)?  No thanks.  Give me someone who understands economics.  If they screw up as much as they have in history (which has brought us from the Dark Ages to an apparent cesspit of a social system today), it will be at a slower pace than this proposal.
> It’s not cost effective.  Your economics is way off plantation.  I do agree that there needs to be some education, a minimum.  The proposal is well into the ultra-luxury range.  You don’t need a Piaget watch to tell the time.
> ...




So education is a luxury and we have to live within our means right?

For those who doesn't have friends or uncles in high places, getting a start in a field different from their parents needs formal qualifications with exceptionally good grades. That's how most who came from the working poor does it. Not all, most.

So yea, while they could go to the library or the internet and learn and maybe even know more thoroughly any subject than most trained professionals, they can't get a job putting YouTube on the resume' can they?

You did imply that sending too much people to uni and we'd end up with liberal arts, overqualified burger flippers. So might as well let them be just qualified burger flippers... more cost effective, the world cannot afford to send them to tertiary education where the skills they'd learn may lead them to life-long learning and so better prepare them for the future.

Who's saying our society is like the Dark Ages? Or like it was during the Great Depression? 
By your definition, progress is fine as long as we're better than the Middle Ages.

You can use economic modelling and statistics in your thinking if you want, I'd prefer to use history and common sense as a guide to general strategic planning.

How did the West got out of the Dark Ages? How did the Renaissance got started?
By some idiot sitting in some castle or monastery and thought ey, let's only train skills we need - good, practical skills like recognising witches, hanging and burning witches, torturers and of course grave diggers.

Didn't it start with the translations of classical Greek philosophies (back from Arabic translations), then the Guttenberg printing press with people learning to read through just reading the King James Bible, then move on to (now) more affordable printed books. From these small first steps, from sharing of knowledge, from a better education... the West got out of its dark ages?

How does Australian or American farmers became engineers and scientists?

But yea, wanting it is not enough people, what do you think this is? A democracy?




DeepState said:


> In posts all over this site, you have admonished every thought about 'paying for the future'.  No sensible valuation could allow for any concept of upside because the future could not be divined definitively.  We are to assume zero growth for earnings. And now, we are being told to throw a stack of cash and productive resources well above what could possibly be supported in the absence of major intervention to transform our society from democracy/plutocracy/capitalism and more towards educationalism.
> 
> So it's fine to spend my money (probably in somewhat greater portion than yours) on an investment in the future which may or may not grow the flexibility of a nation in a way which can definitely respond to a future that cannot be known.... but it's stupid to the bone to do that for a simple company for your own money?  The rationale: “Education is an investment”. For what return on investment? Both are investments.  I am not comfortable with the proposal to deploy my capital under those premises in either situation. Overinvestment leads to an inevitable correction which is possibly systemic in nature….I am referring to the proposal, not China.  GFC style credit risk costs are actually small compared to this.
> 
> Democracy has a problem. Democracy is only a system of trade-offs. Farce is one of them.




Yea, I'd invest in a company when I see it has no future. And when I see that once I own it and it then makes more money, I should definitely pay a higher price right now for that future prosperity when and if it happen.

I might be wrong but I'd definitely be a smarter investor in not paying for future possibilities.

Oh wait, you define investment in education and society as a capitalist investor would.

Do you do a discounted cash flow model for your kids education or weekly allowances too? I truly hope all will be well for your kids, but as parents we don't do that kind of calculations do we? We send them to the best schools we can afford, buy them the safest cars and set them up as best we could without much thinking about costs and profits, don't we?

Can't do that for the general population because... because education has proven to only make idiots out of workers and citizens? Who in the world earns more money and contributed more in technical innovations and in taxation simply through higher training. I mean, look at Germany's or Japan's skilled engineers, why they each only get about 30% cut from every iPhone while China's about 3.6%.

But then when it comes to your kids education, or when it comes to tax incentives and tax cuts for the rich and corporations.. .that's investments for the future. When it's funding public education... too much, can't afford it. Let's not overinvest because who's going to sweep my streets and clean my toilet and guard my borders and police my wealth if they're better paid and educated.



You seriously should stop making guesses at people's income or employment. It's a bit rude, and you are way off base.

Remember your own words that it's a democracy and people do rise up from nothing but their own bootstrap. So money can take you so far, but faith in yourself, hard work and respect for the common masses may take a person further. Especially one with access to Google and YouTube.


----------



## Mrmagoo (27 December 2014)

Education is ruined because of the leftist feminist assault on men. They were doing it when I was at school and it was maddening. A complete lack of technical subjects but endless droning about how all men are evil, Australians are all racists and how people without a degree in basket weaving are destined to die in the gutter.


----------



## burglar (27 December 2014)

Mrmagoo said:


> ... the leftist feminist assault on men ...


----------



## sydboy007 (27 December 2014)

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...oach-to-breaking-the-cycle-of-poverty/384029/



> That’s why a foundation is sponsoring a new approach to breaking the cycle of poverty just a few blocks from where Davis and I spoke. It tries to give children access to high-quality, early-childhood education while helping parents get better jobs and build stronger families. It’s called the two-generation approach, and has been found to be one of the best bets in helping families escape poverty.






> "This two-generation approach aims to create opportunities for families by simultaneously equipping parents and kids with the tools they need to thrive while removing the obstacles in their way," the foundation wrote, in a report about its work released this fall.


----------



## Mrmagoo (1 January 2015)

luutzu said:


> Let's hope we don't have to have another world war to learn what we've learnt.




haha if someone tried to start a world war china would simply say " we do not allow this " and would pull funding.


----------



## luutzu (1 January 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> haha if someone tried to start a world war china would simply say " we do not allow this " and would pull funding.




Na, they're not that nice.

If it's against them, say the Asian Tigers Alliance backed by the US, China would "benefit" by really putting their people and manufacturing to work; reduce their own population and maybe pick up a couple new colonies.

If it's between the other major powers, they'd fund both, sit back and watch for a while then come in and mop up. 

They even have a name for this in their 36 Strategies: "Stealing from a burning house". It did the US pretty well during and after WW2 and the US had only about 100 years experience before that compare to theirs 3000 years of annexing all other states to become the central kingdom.


----------



## DeepState (3 January 2015)

luutzu said:


> Yea, universal ownership... awesome. Just leave corporations alone, they'd do the right thing because they figured pure capitalism isn't good for them after all.



It is interesting how this concept is dismissed before any understanding of what is being dismissed was obtained. Here is a snippet of what universal ownership is: 
“Universal owners are asset owners who recognize that their portfolios, well diversified across multiple industries and asset classes, are a slice of the whole economy. The long-term interests of the universal owner, therefore, are linked more to the overall economic performance than to the individual performance of a given asset or industry within the portfolio. Universal owners are adapting their investment strategy to these circumstances”
“In most cases, the work in the area of universal ownership emphasizes on active ownership and engagement strategies”
-	universalowner.com
Not quite leaving the corporations alone.



luutzu said:


> Actually, I did propose a law …
> Never heard from him or his staff.



So, despite the above, you were happy to use the cloak of Chomsky to declare democracy a farce despite being expressly able to do what he said could not be done. Perhaps you were witnessing a functional democracy in action which knows a bit about optimal resource deployment.  To know this and put up an argument pretending that democracy does not exist because such rights are not available is disingenuous, misleading and clearly… farcical. 
---


luutzu said:


> What made you think the system is stacked against me?



Stuff like 


luutzu said:


> ... then you have the masters of men who work politics and gov't and move the world like it's their own chess board ...



And, then, when you can’t get hold of these masters of men whether they are government or the puppets of the plutarchs:


luutzu said:


> When did Tony or Johnny Howard visit my place? Or yours? I've seen Howard dropping by Kerry Packer's and I'm pretty sure Tony is only a phone call away for the Murdochs.
> 
> For the rest of us, we might get to meet them if it's election season and we're at Westfields and have a cute baby they could kiss.



Maybe the above is meant to convey that the system is stacked in your favour?
---


luutzu said:


> I might be doing very very well for all you know. Not as well as you obviously, but probably much better than most Australians.



Did I say anything about you not doing well in terms of economic welfare?  Have I suggested that you might not be doing better than the average member of the population?  Anywhere?  



luutzu said:


> To think, as you obviously do, that anyone who can see how tough it is for most working people are just whining whingers... you must either be born with a silver spoon up your behind or delusional you think all have the same opportunity and those who made it are obviously hardworking and those who failed are just lazy and those who think the system is unfair and not everyone have an equal opportunity... well they're just mediocre whingers, whingers like Rhode Scholar Reich.



If I have stated that everyone who can see difficulty for a portion of the populace is a whining whinger, post it.  If not, admit fabrication. I do not think that. 
If I have stated that the all outcomes are deterministic based on talent alone, post it or admit barefaced fabrication. 
Further, if I have stated that all who are doing it tough are lazy, mediocre, whingers, post it. 
Is there a war going on here or something?  Truth is the first casualty of war and its total absence here has me wondering for its welfare.



luutzu said:


> I've met quite a few people like you, they're quite sad. They're also a bit of an a hole, you know, thinking that they got where they are because they're just brilliant and the labourer... well, they labour in the ditches instead of sipping latte in offices because they're not as smart.



You’ve met people like me?  Quite a few? I very seriously doubt it. You know how people like me think even though people like me would never think what you seem to think we think?
Quite sad? It might have been because you were looking at my/our smile/s whilst upside down.  Actually, I am in the Northern Hemisphere right now, so you might actually have a valid excuse for this oversight.  
These incredible leaps of logic (big picture strategic thinking?) should be ditched.  They are not smart. 

---


luutzu said:


> You think voters don't know?



What are you talking about now?  It was your original position that voters needed to be better educated to make better decisions:


luutzu said:


> And if we have highly qualified burger flippers... they will start asking serious questions regarding gov't policies and incentives



…then you changed it to they already know.  And now it is they already know and don’t do anything about it.  Are you arguing against yourself?  You aren’t arguing my viewpoints, that’s for sure.
---


luutzu said:


> Didn't you post some news or database clipping earlier in the year where it said Abbott's latest budget favours the rich more? Big surprise. How do poor people know that since they can't access databases and analysis of impact on them... they might not know by living it I guess.



Anyone with access to a freely available internet terminal at a local public library which has Google/Firefox/Explorer on it could access it down to very minute detail.  I know this because that’s how I got it for that example. Was this a big surprise?




luutzu said:


> Why do you think I care for contacts? I know it'd be easier, as you surely do know... but contacts are a dime a dozen... why I could just google people I want to sell something to, and unlike well connected people I might have to wait a bit while their secretary confirms, but that's about it if what I sell is worthwhile. So yea, they might even call me.



Contacts, like names in Yellow Pages, are dime a dozen for a specific purpose. Actually, I wouldn’t even pay a dime for a dozen.  Good contacts aren’t common.  One day, you might come to be able to contrast that.  It is absolutely obvious you cannot distinguish this at this time.  You didn’t even get past Bowen.  Actually, you might not have even gotten past the people who work for Bowen – and they are theoretically working for you at a local level.



luutzu said:


> I might change your industry one day and make your comeback unnecessary.



Actually, the opposite. If you do get the opportunity to change the fabric of finance on a grand scale, I might actually have to return to work - like everyone else. Firstly by reskilling at a tertiary level in geology. Then, when I graduate, I will be licensed to bang flint rocks together to create fire.  At least unemployment will be zero and the participation rate 100%.  Maximum utilisation of the societal resources. Mission accomplished.



luutzu said:


> Not to belittle Malala's Nobel Peace Prize, but didn't Obama got one for just getting elected? Or Henry Kissinger another for, ohhh for bringing peace to Vietnam?



So why are you belittling her recognition for her contribution to humanity with this nonsense?  In any case, the point was that she did incredible things without access to powerful people.  You have twisted this simple point into an abomination about the award process of the Nobel Committee.  What a tangent.



luutzu said:


> There's a lot of people, and I know some of them, who volunteer and donate and do canned food drives during winters, who goes to Laos and Cambodia during their annual leave to set up schools and help fund and dig water wells... you think a Nobel prize would make them more admirable?
> Maybe they need to so you and your friends would call them up and invite them to dinners... oh, fundraisers.



How low does this odious cesspit of non-sequitors, tangents, obfuscations and ridiculousness go? 




luutzu said:


> WOW, working two jobs, maybe even three, but barely being able to feed or house your family... that, while the lucky few work 7.5 hours but literally don't know what to do with all that money.. .that to you is not about inequality, it's just poverty.



Inequality (Cambridge): unfair situation in society when some people have more opportunities, money, etc. than other people
Absolute poverty (Wikipedia): a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. 
I didn’t make these definitions up any more than I made up the definition for cat.  I describe a cat as a cat when I see one.  Obviously, nothing compels you to do likewise and you are demonstrating your freedom to partake in adding to complexity of the genetic pool of the English language. Still I’d like to point out that what you called a rhino was actually a cat.



luutzu said:


> Mate, no poor person cares how much the rich make.
> …
> People would see it as unfair, unequal, only when they work just as hard and can't get ahead of the bills. They'd see it as unfair when they contribute more at work, are more productive, and yet get less and less pay and their job are less and less secure. Any sensible person would agree that that's unfair... only an idiot would look at the ratios and think it's unfair because it's high and the only solution is class warfare and bringing the rich down.



So, now, what are we talking about?  Are we now moving to ‘unfair’ without having concluded on ‘inequality’, let alone ‘absolute poverty’ and suggesting that those experiencing ‘poverty’ don’t care what the rich make even just a little?  Class warfare?  I hope you’ll acknowledge that I haven’t even raised those issues in this exchange.  Your mind reading should tell you that I would not have those ‘idiotic’ views.
Referring to your comments, apparently all revolutions that you can recall may not have been started by the poor.  However, as you say, they involved the poor for who else are the demi-gods stirring up as fodder?  Revolutions tend to take down at least some of the elite.  Perhaps, the poor did get just a little upset making it easier for the revisionists to stir up a little fervour? Maybe one was a little upset that King Louis de Vuitton was making out like a bandit when the rest were working harder and doing it tougher…wanting to change the order of things a little, get some payback? 
Maybe no-one who was poor turned up to protest at the Occupy Movements around various parts of the world post GFC.  “We are the 99%” slogans actually meant that part of the bottom 99% who are not poor.  So something like “We are the middle 80%”, or something like it, would have been more correct and reflect the truth as you see it.  I have my doubts.  Someone out there must know stats and would have posted a placard along those lines if that’s what they actually meant. Being outside of the 1% doesn’t make you unable to understand or use stats, or even decide for themselves whether they are poor or not, at all. No more so than saying they are all stupid or sheeple.  So unless they are all stupid and/or liars operating in a cartel, the observations are apart from your assertions.  Alternatively, the “99%” concept was unrelated to wealth of income.



luutzu said:


> You just have no clue.



Were you inspired by the reflection in the screen as you wrote that?  Can you define clue for me? Did you mean cue? Have you changed your mind to favour glue instead of clue since writing this?   Are all people with glue that you have met, like me, drivers of Ferraris who splash puddles on the destitute because we think they might be thirsty and deserve to be wet even if not thirsty?  That people who are wet or thirsty are therefore stupid? 



luutzu said:


> Why am I on this forum? I have an interests in stocks right? I want to be a capitalist right? I want to be rich right?
> 
> Don't know about you but it doesn't take much (education or brainpower) to know when policies are not for you and your kind.



…hence no particular pressing need for education levels to be raised for political debate.  Learn a little bit of history on this thread for the last couple of days by reviewing just what you authored alone.  What the heck are you disagreeing with?  You are disagreeing with yourself again.



luutzu said:


> Who's saying our society is like the Dark Ages? Or like it was during the Great Depression?



Don’t know. Who said it? Anyone? Put your hand up!



luutzu said:


> By your definition, progress is fine as long as we're better than the Middle Ages.



Definitions in dictionaries are not exactly a strong point.  When you add mind reading, you get sparks.  We have made progress to get from the Middle Ages to present circumstances. Because I have now made this statement, you might choose to disagree. In any case, the direction of progress at any given time may not be optimal.  Were it for different choices, for example, our progress might have been much greater – depending on whatever is important to society.  Most certainly, progress will not always be fine despite historical gains made.



luutzu said:


> You can use economic modelling and statistics in your thinking if you want, I'd prefer to use history and common sense as a guide to general strategic planning.



With history as your guide but not even basic statistics and an understanding of economic relationships with that when operating within the field of economics and finance?  Driving by looking backwards with the foggy rear view mirror in a car not suited for terrain with only and common sense to guide you with what will happen next?  Common sense dictates that you don’t even turn the ignition. That sentiment should really be reflected in the first sentence of the strategic plan.



luutzu said:


> Oh wait, you define investment in education and society as a capitalist investor would.
> 
> Do you do a discounted cash flow model for your kids education or weekly allowances too? I truly hope all will be well for your kids, but as parents we don't do that kind of calculations do we? We send them to the best schools we can afford, buy them the safest cars and set them up as best we could without much thinking about costs and profits, don't we?



So, what are you saying about a family earning $100kpa but chooses to send their kid to the local public school?  Less caring, less worthy, parents,…than another family in an otherwise identical situation who sends their kid to a high performance private school? Did you talk to these parents to get their view on this?  They might have something else in mind.
Or, at some price, education costs exceed benefits?  I baulked at doing an E/MBA.  I had the means, it just wasn’t worth it. I wouldn’t pay $10m to send my kid to the Institute of Herbal Tea Appreciation for a Masters qualification either.  I get the sense that paying more than something is worth is stupid. I’d rather just give them the cash. 
As a society, if you proceed along these lines universal tertiary education irrespective of immediate vocational demand, you are asking me/others to pay for ‘your’ kid to be educated and taking money out of my pocket to do so. Whilst you may be super-generous to your kids and myself too, the moment transfers occur, the idea of giving anything you can weakens even further and economics of a more terrestrial form re-asserts itself over the Draghi-like whatever-it-takes viewpoint.  You are asking me to pay for some burger flipper to become an orthodontist to make society more flexible for an unknown future.  No way.



luutzu said:


> Can't do that for the general population because... because education has proven to only make idiots out of workers and citizens? Who in the world earns more money and contributed more in technical innovations and in taxation simply through higher training. I mean, look at Germany's or Japan's skilled engineers, why they each only get about 30% cut from every iPhone while China's about 3.6%.



Other than you, did someone say that education only made idiots out of workers and citizenry? 



luutzu said:


> But then when it comes to your kids education, or when it comes to tax incentives and tax cuts for the rich and corporations.. .that's investments for the future. When it's funding public education... too much, can't afford it. Let's not overinvest because who's going to sweep my streets and clean my toilet and guard my borders and police my wealth if they're better paid and educated.



So, the money that goes into a freeway or building homes is somehow different to the money that is used to fund the educational renaissance which defies economic rationale?  Have you found a new form of QE?  I could not find a balance sheet item in any monetary program that segregated educational development money from other types of money.  Apparently, even the money printers think they are the same thing – and they are creating money from nothing. Hence the use of money needs to be considered in the context of prices and perceived value for goods and services…kind of like capitalism.



luutzu said:


> You seriously should stop making guesses at people's income or employment. It's a bit rude, and you are way off base.



Seriously? I was guessing as to anyone specific when I said something about astronomers, orthodontists or medieval historians?  Who was I assigning these guesses to, exactly? Name them. Perhaps I was guessing that Know-the-Past is a medieval history lecturer? Nope, don’t think so. 
If you could tell me where I made estimates of your income or that of others in specific terms, other than for the purposes of an example in the absence of concrete alternative fact, that would be good. Same thing with the state or nature of employment. 
It’s tedious and rude to have words and implications made up and argued against over and over again in your name. This observation, of wanton fabrication, is not specific to me either. Not by a long shot. 
If I am way off base, it is because I made no attempt to be on base, deliberately, on this matter.  Thanks for getting that bit right, at least.



luutzu said:


> Remember your own words that it's a democracy and people do rise up from nothing but their own bootstrap. So money can take you so far, but faith in yourself, hard work and respect for the common masses may take a person further. Especially one with access to Google and YouTube.



The first sentence is an accurate reflection of what I have said and believe.  As for the rest, go for gold.


----------



## So_Cynical (3 January 2015)

luutzu said:


> A good documentary below: *Inequality for All*



\

Thanks, Great Doco - sums it all up perfectly...no further discussion needed.


----------



## DeepState (3 January 2015)

So_Cynical said:


> ...no further discussion needed.




If you say so.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 January 2015)

DeepState said:


> So, what are you saying about a family earning $100kpa but chooses to send their kid to the local public school?  Less caring, less worthy, parents,…than another family in an otherwise identical situation who sends their kid to a high performance private school?




There are good private schools and there are duds. Same with public schools, there are good ones and there are duds.

The notion that private schools are automatically better than public is false in my view. They blatantly skew results via forcing students into certain subjects or even outright rejecting those likely to fail. In contrast, the public system takes the lot, thus dragging down the average of any academic benchmark. 

If the student is reasonably bright then they'll be able to achieve good results in either system in my view.


----------



## luutzu (3 January 2015)

DeepState said:


> It is interesting how this concept is dismissed before any understanding of what is being dismissed was obtained. Here is a snippet of what universal ownership is:
> “Universal owners are asset owners who recognize that their portfolios, well diversified across multiple industries and asset classes, are a slice of the whole economy. The long-term interests of the universal owner, therefore, are linked more to the overall economic performance than to the individual performance of a given asset or industry within the portfolio. Universal owners are adapting their investment strategy to these circumstances”
> “In most cases, the work in the area of universal ownership emphasizes on active ownership and engagement strategies”
> -	universalowner.com
> Not quite leaving the corporations alone.




From your James Montier post, what were you, through Montier, advocate? "Stakeholder capitalism", right? We (investors/shareholders) shouldn't focus on shareholder value but on stakeholder value because what's good for the world will ultimately be good for us but what's good for us alone would lead to disaster... something like that?

Yea, I agree with that and so does the entire world but how is it going to be done? As I've said before on the subject... these stakeholder, community welfare, employees safety and benefits... all have been said years ago. It's not new, is it? How's workers' wages and environmental concerns going?

I heard the Great Barrier Reef will be fine when however many millions of tonnes of dredging will be dump on it instead of a safer, more costly, but ultimately more beneficial to the fishes and the corals and maybe the tourists and the economy if they'd just go further out to sea and dump those... but that'd cost more money right? So stakeholders interests? She'd be fine mate.

"universal ownership"... sounds a lot like Communism... .and like Communism, doesn't work very well for the vast majority does it?



DeepState said:


> So, despite the above, you were happy to use the cloak of Chomsky to declare democracy a farce despite being expressly able to do what he said could not be done. Perhaps you were witnessing a functional democracy in action which knows a bit about optimal resource deployment.  To know this and put up an argument pretending that democracy does not exist because such rights are not available is disingenuous, misleading and clearly… farcical.




How was I NOT meeting my "employee", not meeting my representative in Parliament, show that democracy works and Chomsky is wrong?

I wrote up a long letter; point form the issues; made suggestions... and... and I got through the door and meet his secretary behind the counter. I could do the exact same if I want to meet Murdoch or Packer or the CEO of BigFriendlyCorporation Ltd.

They all claim to want to serve the common people like me - universal ownership, democracy and all that; just I was young and foolish and thought politicians would actually sit down and listen to their voters.





DeepState said:


> ---
> 
> Stuff like
> 
> ...



The context was you suggesting I'm broke or not doing well, not doing something worthwhile... maybe I failed and so I was whinging about the system. So my reply was how do you know I'm not doing well?

Context, like money, I important. It makes an idiot look smart and put a seemingly contradictory statement into its proper place.




DeepState said:


> Did I say anything about you not doing well in terms of economic welfare?  Have I suggested that you might not be doing better than the average member of the population?  Anywhere?




Yes you have. Anyone who follow the threads see it.
e.g. In talking about higher education and its funding, you said something like me wanting to use your (larger) tax to pay for these luxuries.

People could read between the line... here, they're right on the line.




DeepState said:


> If I have stated that everyone who can see difficulty for a portion of the populace is a whining whinger, post it.  If not, admit fabrication. I do not think that.
> 
> If I have stated that the all outcomes are deterministic based on talent alone, post it or admit barefaced fabrication.
> Further, if I have stated that all who are doing it tough are lazy, mediocre, whingers, post it.
> Is there a war going on here or something?  Truth is the first casualty of war and its total absence here has me wondering for its welfare.




What's my line of argument? Along Reich's right? That people have it tough, that for most people, the system makes it hard for them to earn enough even though they work two or three jobs...

And what did you say of me? Stop whinging; I should go and make change, do something because Penny Wong and Malala did and they didn't know any rich or have any contact but they made it because they're just good.

So was that directed at me specifically or at people in general?

Do I really need to go back and tell you what you actually said?




DeepState said:


> You’ve met people like me?  Quite a few? I very seriously doubt it. You know how people like me think even though people like me would never think what you seem to think we think?
> Quite sad? It might have been because you were looking at my/our smile/s whilst upside down.  Actually, I am in the Northern Hemisphere right now, so you might actually have a valid excuse for this oversight.
> These incredible leaps of logic (big picture strategic thinking?) should be ditched.  They are not smart.
> 
> ---



Depends on how you define yourself. If you think you are just rich and cool and awesome because you know rich, richer and richest people... Well I haven't met those. But if you're as what your previous posting indicate - a well to do a hole who reckons they got where they are out of their pure genius and hardwork alone... yea, I've met people like you.

What made you think I or others do not know what the rich think? The rich are just like all of us - there are good and generous rich people as well as prickly rich people; same as the poor. The only difference between these "classes" of people is their bank balance... Or am I wrong to assume that rich people like yourself are just superior and actually think differently?




DeepState said:


> What are you talking about now?  It was your original position that voters needed to be better educated to make better decisions:
> 
> …then you changed it to they already know.  And now it is they already know and don’t do anything about it.  Are you arguing against yourself?  You aren’t arguing my viewpoints, that’s for sure.
> ---




Let me repeat the point, phrasing it in a different way so you could understand.

Everybody know that earning more money would be good for them; every idiot knows a bank balance of $20 million is better than one with $20 dollars.

Do you know anyone above grade 1 who doesn't know that?

How, key word, HOW, do you make it feasible for most people to earn more good money? Earn millions?

Education right? Let them learn a skill or a profession and they would have a better chance at realising, making possible, the earning of a higher income. If you just let people dig ditches and clean toilets and they learn nothing else, chances are they won't earn much even though they know earning much more is better. Right?

So to voters.
They know who the policies benefits; they know they get the crumbs. What and how are they going to do about it?

But if they're not educated, what are they going to do about it? They'd just accept that that's how the world is; they just accept their place in it and teach their children to do well at school, do well at uni and one day they too could be PM or a billionaire, right? If not the children, then the grandchildren or a few generations later.





DeepState said:


> Anyone with access to a freely available internet terminal at a local public library which has Google/Firefox/Explorer on it could access it down to very minute detail.  I know this because that’s how I got it for that example. Was this a big surprise?




Google was referred to as a search engine... their internet browser is Chrome, or Google Chrome... not Google.

Point was, yea people know, and poor people live, the fact that gov't policies favour the rich and cut welfare and social services... the know... what are they going to do about it? Not vote and pay a fine?

They probably just want to get rich as well... but in the mean time, they'd just want to not die.




DeepState said:


> Contacts, like names in Yellow Pages, are dime a dozen for a specific purpose. Actually, I wouldn’t even pay a dime for a dozen.  Good contacts aren’t common.  One day, you might come to be able to contrast that.  It is absolutely obvious you cannot distinguish this at this time.  You didn’t even get past Bowen.  Actually, you might not have even gotten past the people who work for Bowen – and they are theoretically working for you at a local level.




Yea, I know it helps if RY call up ahead... Bowen might have come out and see me. Heck, Murdoch might even answer his phone if RY let him know... wait, maybe not since I'm a distant cousin of Wendy.

So that's all good and fine... but in the mean time, keeping RY as a contact and I'd have to put up with his crab all year. Cost/Benefit... na

Yea mate, having good contact is rare... as rare and beneficial as having a good product or services people could profit or find value from?

Don't know, when I search for stuff on eBay... if I find something I value I would message the seller even though I and none of my friends know them. Rich people don't do that?





DeepState said:


> Actually, the opposite. If you do get the opportunity to change the fabric of finance on a grand scale, I might actually have to return to work - like everyone else. Firstly by reskilling at a tertiary level in geology. Then, when I graduate, I will be licensed to bang flint rocks together to create fire.  At least unemployment will be zero and the participation rate 100%.  Maximum utilisation of the societal resources. Mission accomplished.




Haha... 
I didn't say I would or could change finance. Your industry is in finance, it's not finance, it's something else.
And how could I crash it anyway? Don't have any Nobel Prize in Finance and do not work in the industry... we all know you got to work in it to really know how to crash it like the last one or ten times - who's counting right?




DeepState said:


> So why are you belittling her recognition for her contribution to humanity with this nonsense?  In any case, the point was that she did incredible things without access to powerful people.  You have twisted this simple point into an abomination about the award process of the Nobel Committee.  What a tangent.
> 
> How low does this odious cesspit of non-sequitors, tangents, obfuscations and ridiculousness go?




How was I belittling her? I said that she has fellow laureates like Kissinger; and Obama who "won" it for... for being elected president of the US? That's no small task but a peace maker?

Point was, not all Nobel Laureates got awarded for the same reason or achievements right? 




DeepState said:


> Inequality (Cambridge): unfair situation in society when some people have more opportunities, money, etc. than other people
> Absolute poverty (Wikipedia): a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information.
> I didn’t make these definitions up any more than I made up the definition for cat.  I describe a cat as a cat when I see one.  Obviously, nothing compels you to do likewise and you are demonstrating your freedom to partake in adding to complexity of the genetic pool of the English language. Still I’d like to point out that what you called a rhino was actually a cat.




"unfair situation in society when some people have more opportunities, money, etc. than other people"... That's not what I've been saying? Reich said the same, from memory.




DeepState said:


> So, now, what are we talking about?  Are we now moving to ‘unfair’ without having concluded on ‘inequality’, let alone ‘absolute poverty’ and suggesting that those experiencing ‘poverty’ don’t care what the rich make even just a little?  Class warfare?  I hope you’ll acknowledge that I haven’t even raised those issues in this exchange.  Your mind reading should tell you that I would not have those ‘idiotic’ views.
> 
> Referring to your comments, apparently all revolutions that you can recall may not have been started by the poor.  However, as you say, they involved the poor for who else are the demi-gods stirring up as fodder?  Revolutions tend to take down at least some of the elite.  Perhaps, the poor did get just a little upset making it easier for the revisionists to stir up a little fervour? Maybe one was a little upset that King Louis de Vuitton was making out like a bandit when the rest were working harder and doing it tougher…wanting to change the order of things a little, get some payback?




I grew up among poor people... I never heard them, or us, or me, blaming the rich. We're all too busy making ends meet, the further the ends are apart, the harder we work to make them meet. The rich or envious of the rich plays no role in our lives. If they play a role it more as a motivation to work hard, study hard so we could have a shot at getting richer too... envy?

But we're not at starvation level, yet, are we? There's still opportunities for a handful of exceptionally talented kids from working families... 

That and there's this thing call Social Security in Australia.... but don't worry, that's going to be cut and skinned and eventually removed and we're back to a capitalist paradise like it was in England during the Industrial Revolutions, like it was before WW2 and the West was crumbling and Democracy and Capitalism was on its way out because people who can't feed their family love it too much.





DeepState said:


> Maybe no-one who was poor turned up to protest at the Occupy Movements around various parts of the world post GFC.  “We are the 99%” slogans actually meant that part of the bottom 99% who are not poor.  So something like “We are the middle 80%”, or something like it, would have been more correct and reflect the truth as you see it.  I have my doubts.  Someone out there must know stats and would have posted a placard along those lines if that’s what they actually meant. Being outside of the 1% doesn’t make you unable to understand or use stats, or even decide for themselves whether they are poor or not, at all. No more so than saying they are all stupid or sheeple.  So unless they are all stupid and/or liars operating in a cartel, the observations are apart from your assertions.  Alternatively, the “99%” concept was unrelated to wealth of income.




??



DeepState said:


> Were you inspired by the reflection in the screen as you wrote that?  Can you define clue for me? Did you mean cue? Have you changed your mind to favour glue instead of clue since writing this?   Are all people with glue that you have met, like me, drivers of Ferraris who splash puddles on the destitute because we think they might be thirsty and deserve to be wet even if not thirsty?  That people who are wet or thirsty are therefore stupid?
> 
> …hence no particular pressing need for education levels to be raised for political debate.  Learn a little bit of history on this thread for the last couple of days by reviewing just what you authored alone.  What the heck are you disagreeing with?  You are disagreeing with yourself again.
> 
> Don’t know. Who said it? Anyone? Put your hand up!




You didn't say that by comparison to the middle ages, our society is basically an egalitarian paradise? Not direct quote, but something like that? No? It's up there for those interested.






DeepState said:


> Definitions in dictionaries are not exactly a strong point.  When you add mind reading, you get sparks.  We have made progress to get from the Middle Ages to present circumstances. Because I have now made this statement, you might choose to disagree. In any case, the direction of progress at any given time may not be optimal.  Were it for different choices, for example, our progress might have been much greater – depending on whatever is important to society.  Most certainly, progress will not always be fine despite historical gains made.




Yea, quoting you, happiness is being "grateful" for what we have.
Yup, it could be worst... we could be in prison, could starve to death... could be stuck in the "third world"... so better be grateful for there lies happiness.

Some years back, a tiler my age, probably from seeing a tiny tin shed I call my home, feels sorry for me and said that it's OK, when he starts out he had nothing either and he now have a house and a family and is going to build a granny flat so he could rent it out to help pay the mortgage... So happiness is knowing when it's enough because if you don't think it's enough, enough is never enough.

You're no tiler are you? You're the "be grateful for what you have, you a hole" kinda guy yea?


Mind reading... I've been accused of that a lot. Maybe I'm just smart and know what people are thinking without them saying it directly.




DeepState said:


> With history as your guide but not even basic statistics and an understanding of economic relationships with that when operating within the field of economics and finance?  Driving by looking backwards with the foggy rear view mirror in a car not suited for terrain with only and common sense to guide you with what will happen next?  Common sense dictates that you don’t even turn the ignition. That sentiment should really be reflected in the first sentence of the strategic plan.




haha... rearview mirror.

Funding higher/public education is rearview mirror planning? It worked again and again before, history have shown that the better trained, the more educated the population, the richer the society become... But who can be sure it will work again in the future.

Aren't you from the generation of Australians who got a free or almost free university degree if they wanted to? Didn't do you any good right? 

How about lending some money to the later generations and see if that'd do them any good.





DeepState said:


> So, what are you saying about a family earning $100kpa but chooses to send their kid to the local public school?  Less caring, less worthy, parents,…than another family in an otherwise identical situation who sends their kid to a high performance private school? Did you talk to these parents to get their view on this?  They might have something else in mind.
> Or, at some price, education costs exceed benefits?  I baulked at doing an E/MBA.  I had the means, it just wasn’t worth it. I wouldn’t pay $10m to send my kid to the Institute of Herbal Tea Appreciation for a Masters qualification either.  I get the sense that paying more than something is worth is stupid. I’d rather just give them the cash.
> As a society, if you proceed along these lines universal tertiary education irrespective of immediate vocational demand, you are asking me/others to pay for ‘your’ kid to be educated and taking money out of my pocket to do so. Whilst you may be super-generous to your kids and myself too, the moment transfers occur, the idea of giving anything you can weakens even further and economics of a more terrestrial form re-asserts itself over the Draghi-like whatever-it-takes viewpoint.  You are asking me to pay for some burger flipper to become an orthodontist to make society more flexible for an unknown future.  No way.




What? If that burger flipper got a tertiary education, and if all burger flippers already have or are studying to get a tertiary qualification... will they still remain burger flippers?

Or will they be replaced by younger students who's filliping burger to gain some extra cash to help their parents or something?

Nooo... let them flip burgers, for the rest of their lives. 

People got to know their place, got to know that in this great democracy of ours, if they messed up their HSC, if they got sick or if their family and personal crisis take them off the game for a while... they're screwed, for life! That or swim against the current and if they don't drown, they'll be held up as the kind of achievements our fair land and generous society make happen, all the time.

How do you speak out of both sides of your mouth like that?

On the one hand, can't be "generous" and fund higher education.... why? because it's wasteful and we all need burger flippers and we all know the longer they've been at burger flipping, the better it tastes.  Then on the other side of your mouth, it's a great democracy where people decide, where politicians work and make policies that benefits not the rich but the common people...

Just it doesn't work so well, and you and your tax dollars won't have it, if the common people want to send their kids to university. 

Funny, I thought all parents, and just about all the kids in my grades, wanted to go to university. Can't have that people. Pick something else, like... like having your kids fight it out for a limited number of places and the rest will be deemed failures and idiots and go flip burgers... for the rest of their lives - well, maybe they can, if they work really hard at it, get to fry chips and maybe even serve sundaes.


Wow, sending kids to higher education, to get trained and specialised in a profession - to have a good chance to life themselves and their siblings/parents out of poverty... that's comparable to spending $10M to send your kids to herbal tea appreciation.

Did I put that in your mouth?  





DeepState said:


> Other than you, did someone say that education only made idiots out of workers and citizenry?




Don't you imply that in stating that education is worthless for the proverbial burger flippers anyway?
That if "we" send them to uni, why they'd just be back flipping burgers... what a waste! Why not let them flip burgers and save a few bucks.




DeepState said:


> So, the money that goes into a freeway or building homes is somehow different to the money that is used to fund the educational renaissance which defies economic rationale?  Have you found a new form of QE?  I could not find a balance sheet item in any monetary program that segregated educational development money from other types of money.  Apparently, even the money printers think they are the same thing – and they are creating money from nothing. Hence the use of money needs to be considered in the context of prices and perceived value for goods and services…kind of like capitalism.




$500 million (estimate) for "a year" to bomb and "liberate" people from an evil cult thousands of miles away is small change... putting kids through uni... woohhhh... what are we? made of money? 

A typical degree is how much? $50 000?   500 000 000 / 50 000 = 10,000 educated citizens... too costly.

What in the world does 10,000 educated people, who become educated parent, who become educated uncles and aunties... what good have that ever done to the family, to society...

But if we use that cash, and more if needed, and bomb the evil doers... why that's, that'll keep us safe... and enrich all our lives.





DeepState said:


> Seriously? I was guessing as to anyone specific when I said something about astronomers, orthodontists or medieval historians?  Who was I assigning these guesses to, exactly? Name them. Perhaps I was guessing that Know-the-Past is a medieval history lecturer? Nope, don’t think so.
> If you could tell me where I made estimates of your income or that of others in specific terms, other than for the purposes of an example in the absence of concrete alternative fact, that would be good. Same thing with the state or nature of employment.
> It’s tedious and rude to have words and implications made up and argued against over and over again in your name. This observation, of wanton fabrication, is not specific to me either. Not by a long shot.
> If I am way off base, it is because I made no attempt to be on base, deliberately, on this matter.  Thanks for getting that bit right, at least.




You said it previously, and just said it again above... that funding too many uni places is being "disproportionately" generous with "your" bigger tax bill. 

Didn't you also suggest that I was unemployed in other threads? How I couldn't find work at Moodys or something or couldn't work, and how it's not much of a change?

Add those and your name droppings and stuff... I can't do fancy maths and addition is OK.




DeepState said:


> The first sentence is an accurate reflection of what I have said and believe.  As for the rest, go for gold.




You said it, but you don't believe it.

If you believe it, you'd want more funding to higher education, you'd want more opportunities so people can lift themselves - through education and community support - out of the working-poor class.

If you really believe that anyone could better themselves if given the chance, you would be "generous", like you are with your kids. Why? Because it's be pretty screwed to believe that if someone else's kids could do as well if they're better educated and given a shot but then thought the cost is not worth it since they will be back flipping burgers anyway.

How in the world could you think that a tiler or a plumber could also be an engineer or a doctor or any specialised profession they chooses if given the chance... and at the same time deemed it unnecessary and wasteful to fund that opportunity?


And that's not me reading your mind, it's just the kind of tools I learn from a course at uni I now use and unpack rubbish like your arguments for what it is.

In me thinking that anyone could be taught to think and improve themselves if given the chance... that I support higher education for all those who want it. Not deeming some are just not worth the cost, not worth the luxury.


----------



## luutzu (3 January 2015)

Smurf1976 said:


> There are good private schools and there are duds. Same with public schools, there are good ones and there are duds.
> 
> The notion that private schools are automatically better than public is false in my view. They blatantly skew results via forcing students into certain subjects or even outright rejecting those likely to fail. In contrast, the public system takes the lot, thus dragging down the average of any academic benchmark.
> 
> If the student is reasonably bright then they'll be able to achieve good results in either system in my view.




Exactly.

My cousin was looking to enrol with a popular HSC math tutor to improve his Maths. The tutor look at his reports and rejected him, saying his grades and his maths are not good enough.

My cousin thinks a bit and thought, if I'm very good at it why would I need you to teach me? If you're a good tutor as they say you are, you'd want to teach people who aren't good yet.


----------



## sydboy007 (3 January 2015)

Smurf1976 said:


> There are good private schools and there are duds. Same with public schools, there are good ones and there are duds.
> 
> The notion that private schools are automatically better than public is false in my view. They blatantly skew results via forcing students into certain subjects or even outright rejecting those likely to fail. In contrast, the public system takes the lot, thus dragging down the average of any academic benchmark.
> 
> If the student is reasonably bright then they'll be able to achieve good results in either system in my view.




I read a few years back that private school kids are more likely to get into uni, but public school kids are more likely to graduate.


----------



## Mrmagoo (14 January 2015)

lmao... university is just a  con job they use to take students money and then cast them aside ?

23 and no fulltime work experience but 40k debt for training in a field you've never worked ? 

bwhahahaha


----------



## McLovin (14 January 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> lmao... university is just a  con job they use to take students money and then cast them aside ?
> 
> 23 and no fulltime work experience but 40k debt for training in a field you've never worked ?
> 
> bwhahahaha




But probably more productive than having a whinge on the internet.


----------



## tech/a (14 January 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> lmao... university is just a  con job they use to take students money and then cast them aside ?
> 
> 23 and no fulltime work experience but 40k debt for training in a field you've never worked ?
> 
> bwhahahaha




Become an Expert
It doesn matter much what you become an expert in
But once an EXPERT people will beat a path to your door.
Your the best at pessimist I've ever seen


----------



## orr (17 June 2015)

tech/a said:


> Become an Expert
> It doesn matter much what you become an expert in
> But once an EXPERT people will beat a path to your door.




The Economist takes a similar slant.  And points out that if your parents were experts at something, and  _'at being born in the right time and place'_ as well, things look a whole lot better.

http://www.economist.com/node/21601...id/display-LA/BR-FT/BRPII/none/subs/AU/BR-LIT


----------



## tech/a (17 June 2015)

Many are expert Dole bludgers and Alcoholics.

Seems the observation covers a broad spectrum.
"Wrong time wrong place' is just as powerful


----------



## Mrmagoo (18 June 2015)

McLovin said:


> But probably more productive than having a whinge on the internet.




The problem with Australians is that they assume you either accept them or go off on some amazing tangent.

For most working class young MEN a degree is about the worst thing you could suggest.

At age 18 or 19 you could be on between 75-90k and on the path to your first home.  Or you can be competing with little girls for the handful of part timer jobs available to students.

Then you end up competing with 22 year old girls for jobs as well as international students. After all that there is no guarantee of a job. Instead of working at some ****ty petrol station on weekends for living expenses you could be on $1400 a week and having a beer with the boys down the pub and never be out of work. A degree ruins so many lives it is unbelievable that anyone would still suggest it to a working class teenager. 

If you go the trade route you effectively start work a decade earlier and end up not having to compete with virtually half of the population for work. That is something so many people do not consider when they look over a trade.

There are exceptions and I'm sure someone will post "but a degree worked out for me !" and I'm going to ignore you like I always do because you're the exception.


----------



## Mrmagoo (18 June 2015)

tech/a said:


> Become an Expert
> It doesn matter much what you become an expert in
> But once an EXPERT people will beat a path to your door.
> Your the best at pessimist I've ever seen




You left school early a got a trade. You're the biggest hypocrite I've ever seen.


----------



## Mrmagoo (18 June 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> I read a few years back that private school kids are more likely to get into uni, but public school kids are more likely to graduate.




Where did you read that ? No doubt lies that they tell public school kids to trick them into feeding the education industry more money. For an industry that feeds on the tears of young people, they do a good job on inspiring false hope. They fed us the same bull stories. Luckily for many of the young men they were aware of the kinds of pay packets tradesmen were able to earn (even back then) and called the teachers on their nonsense.


----------



## sptrawler (18 June 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> Where did you read that ? No doubt lies that they tell public school kids to trick them into feeding the education industry more money. For an industry that feeds on the tears of young people, they do a good job on inspiring false hope. They fed us the same bull stories. Luckily for many of the young men they were aware of the kinds of pay packets tradesmen were able to earn (even back then) and called the teachers on their nonsense.




For once I agree with you, making kids stay in school, while they have limited academic ability is terrible.

All it does is strip young adults, of any self respect they have, by making them compete in an arena, that they are destined to fail in.

Why we left the old system of filtering, is beyond me.

All it has done is stuff more kids into an overloaded education system, to support wage claims for teachers.IMO

Now we have, all the tradies that come to your house, can't speak English.

Why, because we want everyone to go to University, whether it is useful or not.

I have never seen a dumber education system, brought about by political clout of self interested morons.IMO


----------



## get better (18 June 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> For most working class young MEN a degree is about the worst thing you could suggest.




To rephrase this, getting "any degree" is the worst thing anyone could suggest. BUT there are some degrees that have very good job prospects/other great indirect benefits (i.e. medicine, engineering, law etc) and as long as you do a degree in something you love/have a passion for, you'll succeed.


----------



## Mrmagoo (18 June 2015)

get better said:


> To rephrase this, getting "any degree" is the worst thing anyone could suggest. BUT there are some degrees that have very good job prospects/other great indirect benefits (i.e. medicine, engineering, law etc) and as long as you do a degree in something you love/have a passion for, you'll succeed.




Medicine has good prospects the rest don't. Most of those engineering students would be better off getting a trade. 

Doing something which pays money will make you succeed. Passion is meaningless. Unless you have a rich husband or wife to support you while you go for your passion.

Get a trade and you're set for life. Always employable on good money. Can work in any where in Australia and usually in any country you want.


----------



## get better (18 June 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> Medicine has good prospects the rest don't. Most of those engineering students would be better off getting a trade.
> 
> Doing something which pays money will make you succeed. Passion is meaningless. Unless you have a rich husband or wife to support you while you go for your passion.
> 
> Get a trade and you're set for life. Always employable on good money. Can work in any where in Australia and usually in any country you want.




I graduated as an Engineer 5 years ago. 95% of my cohort found engineering or other jobs that have turned into a career (i.e. down the finance path). The remaining 5% couldn't find anything but that was because they were duds (non-employable people in general).

Personally, I think it has more to do with the person than the degree. There will always be jobs for those that have drive and continually improve themselves to become better.

Also, it's not as black and white as you make it out to be. 

I used to think that I should have just done a trade straight out of high school but thinking back, that would have been silly of me. The soft skills I have gained from doing the university degree has proved extremely valuable, problem solving, critical thinking, analytical etc - these are skills I would not have had a chance to refine if I went straight to the trade route. I can also apply these skills to other aspects of my life, such as investing/trading etc.

Also, if you ever work in the mines, a lot of tradies make heaps of $$$ but end up spending it all on expensive toys/booze. There are pros and cons to both sides, it really depends on the person and their situation.


----------



## sptrawler (18 June 2015)

get better said:


> I graduated as an Engineer 5 years ago. 95% of my cohort found engineering or other jobs that have turned into a career (i.e. down the finance path). The remaining 5% couldn't find anything but that was because they were duds (non-employable people in general).
> 
> Personally, I think it has more to do with the person than the degree. There will always be jobs for those that have drive and continually improve themselves to become better.
> 
> ...




That just proves, you were one of the people that would have obtained a degree and a career, anyway.

Which is the way it should be.

But I bet you still call in a plumber when you need one.


----------



## satanoperca (18 June 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> Passion is meaningless. Unless you have a rich husband or wife to support you while you go for your passion.




Mr I need help as I am f---kd in the head. Mate, I feel so sorry for you, I wish Australia could provide greater support to people like you. It is so sad that this country has let you down.

In my many years of reading this forum and all the people that have come and gone, you are the best, well up in the top 10.

Life without passion is not worth living, it is the essence of living. Don't care what it is, but without it you might as well be you.

My apologies, you have passion, just directed in the wrong direction. Go out and smell the roses.

As for the debate on trades or degree, mate we need both to have a functioning society, both are just as important as each other. You need to remove that chip, actually massive rock off your shoulder. Life is not about just making money, it is about living. 

Getting a degree doesn't not guarantee success, it is up to the individual, but from someone who has both a degree and a trade, for me it was all about passion and wanting to learn, live and laugh, should try it some time.

Reading your diatribe has even further confirmed that I took the right path and crap, I am passionate and successful.

So while I cannot really be bothered entertaining your ideologies, if everyone did a trade, who would you go to when you a medically unwell, who would build the roads, the computer system we are dependent upon, do the research to one day cure cancer, teach are children. All I can assume is that you feel begrudge at the world as you expected more out of you life without working for it.

What is even sadder is that my 9 year old son has a better grip on reality than you. Maybe you need to go back to school and get educated. LOL.

If you really want to debate wealth inequality, try looking outside your very small box to other countries. All countries suffer from wealth inequality, but from someone who is widely travelled, Australia has the smallest gap.

Flame away as I am made of liquid


----------



## skyQuake (18 June 2015)

satanoperca said:


> Life without passion is not worth living, it is the essence of living. Don't care what it is, but without it you might as well be you.
> 
> My apologies, you have passion, just directed in the wrong direction. Go out and smell the roses.




Hear hear!


________________________________

MrMagoo that much negativity should be used to run a firm like Muddy Waters. Then you can post negativity about companies to your heart's content and make billions shorting.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 June 2015)

I qualified to go to uni but chose not to and did a trade instead.

So far it has worked for me just fine, but then I'm one of those "expert" people who gets called to a site to find a solution when everyone else is scratching their heads. So in practice I do far more analysis and thinking than actual work with tools these days. As for the $, well let's just say that I'm not complaining....


----------



## Mrmagoo (19 June 2015)

satanoperca said:


> If you really want to debate wealth inequality, try looking outside your very small box to other countries. All countries suffer from wealth inequality, but from someone who is widely travelled, Australia has the smallest gap.
> 
> Flame away as I am made of liquid




Aside I said before and you flamed me Australia is actually pretty crap compared to proper, developed, modern and industrialised countries. Especially if you are a professional.

So yes I have looked outside my little box just not into Africa, because ... you know what ... I'm not going to even attempt to argue the insanity of that one.

You know you could also have been born a tree. Think about that ? What if we were all trees ?


----------



## tech/a (20 June 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> You know you could also have been born a tree. Think about that ? What if we were all trees ?




Or a DUCK

Talk about in equality
Swans are a protected species-----swanning around ----un touchable everytnings back or white in their world.

Could be worse could be a chicken
Bred to be eaten.

Or a cartoon character----you'd know about that Magoo.
Everyone laughing----even Rabbits run the ship.
That Bugs me!


----------



## Mrmagoo (20 June 2015)

tech/a said:


> Or a DUCK
> 
> Talk about in equality
> Swans are a protected species-----swanning around ----un touchable everytnings back or white in their world.
> ...




These days Australia is the kind of country built and stomping on the feet of the poor as they try and claw their way out of the gutter.

As soon as you hit a reasonable income bracket you get taxed, amazingly. Housing is not affordable in the inner ring, but to get a high paying job you need to work in the inner ring. So you live in the outer ring and commute. But transport infrastructure is very inadequate and they're only making it worse.

If you follow the prescribed path in Australia you won't succeed. The system is designed to keep you down, to make sure you're no better than your peers.

Over the last 20 years this country has done everything it can to crap on professionals living in the outer suburbs. Especially if you're a single person looking to get established before having a family. Those inner city people just don't want you being successful. 

As a tradesman you can work and live in  the outer areas and have a very high wage. Usually higher than inner city workers.

It is the only way to get rich. Otherwise you're just chasing your tail and performing much worse than you would had you gone at gotten a trade. Australia is not the place to be if you want to better yourself.

If you want to be a tradesman and invest in real estate.  Then it is pretty good. If you're a rich boomer.  Then it is excellent.

Yet these working class people continue to vote for socialist idiots who do everything and anything to make sure their hard work in never rewarded. What we need in this country is a proper conservative, free market government that will end the squabbling and say to the voters "you will get to keep that which you have earned - nothing more. If you cannot earn anything we'll provide you with welfare but we're not going to carry middle class people".


----------



## Nortorious (20 June 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> These days Australia is the kind of country built and stomping on the feet of the poor as they try and claw their way out of the gutter.
> 
> As soon as you hit a reasonable income bracket you get taxed, amazingly. Housing is not affordable in the inner ring, but to get a high paying job you need to work in the inner ring. So you live in the outer ring and commute. But transport infrastructure is very inadequate and they're only making it worse.
> 
> ...




Interesting debate going on here...

I don't agree with everything being said but I do welcome everyone's opinion (whether it be informed or uninformed).

I do disagree with some of what you have said MrMagoo and that is purely through my own experience.

I'm 29, went to a public high school in the country predominantly geared towards learning a trade (out of 70 year 12 students, only 9 went to uni). I was one of the 9 that went to uni and studied a Business degree and then moved to Melbourne to do Honours (and through hard work was good enough to earn a scholarship.... remember I didn't come from an academically rich high school).

My study was full-time and took up 3 days of classes and then most nights with studying/writing essays/research etc. The other 4 days I spent working retail as a casual store assistant. I did this not by choice but by necessity as I got no handouts from my parents and I was ineligible for any assistance from the government as I had not earned enough to be classified as independent...

From uni, I struggled to find work as it was just prior to the GFC and everyone was pulling their grad programs before the downturn and any entry level job applications were unsuccessful as "you lack experience". I could have sat there and complained about how unfair life was but instead I drove from Victoria to Qld to take up a vacation student placement with an organisation 6 hours North of Brisbane. 

After finishing up there and coming back to Melbourne with experience, my honours degree and plenty of skills and experience gained (from working since I was 14 and 9 months), I worked in a number of professional capacities. I won't go into too much detail but I was afforded opportunities because when I was in a job, I didn't watch the clock and I did whatever was required to achieve outcomes...

Now, as a 29 year old, living in the outer suburbs, commuting into the CBD (over an hour each way), I earn over $125,000 a year and this will continue to increase as my output and outcomes continue to increase for my organisation. Is it a 9 to 5 job? No. But if you want a 9 to 5 job, then forget about being rich and wealthy...

In addition to having a successful professional career in progress, I have spent most nights and weekends for the past ten years learning about wealth creation, investment, trading etc and have a strategy that has seen me producing a +10% profit this year already on my total portfolio. The first seven years were highly unprofitable but I learnt a lot through my mistakes and errors and have come full circle to the point where I have a system and strategy that works...

Why am I explaining all this? Well I think we live in an "age of entitlement" where people think you are just going to be handed the life you want. I could not disagree more. If you want the life you desire, you need to be focused, work your butt off but most of all, know that you are going to need to make sacrifices along the way... I have sacrificed a lot to get to where I am today.

You can have anything you want, you just can't have everything you want.... especially when you are in your main income generating years. 

Taking up a profession has a longer shelf life than a trade (depending on what that is obviously). My brain will last much longer than my body and that was advice that came from my Dad (who has been in a trade since he was 16 and had to move into the office after his back gave in at 40...). 

People say work hard and you'll get what you want. Yes and I subscribe to this to, but if you work hard and work smart, then you can really accelerate your success.

Australia is a great country, full of opportunity if you desire what you want enough to make it happen.... The macro environment makes it tough and that's what throws people. If it was easy, everyone would be successful.

Think of golf, the course can be extremely hard and many golfers will have terrible scores yet some will think the course was easy. Do they blame the course or their clubs? Some may, but at the end of the day, they are all playing under the same conditions (same course).... it's their ability that makes the difference (which comes from working hard and working smart).

I'll leave you with this - E + R = O

E = event/s
R = response/s
O = outcome/s

Events happen (you can't change macro events) so the only thing you can change in the equation is your response in order to influence the outcome/s you get.

Enjoy life!


----------



## tech/a (20 June 2015)

Well done Notorious.

But this isn't about you or I or most anyone on this site.

Its about Magoo!

He cant get ahead and anyone who can shouldn't have
and shouldn't be allowed to.

Ill take street smarts over Degrees/Trades any day.
Who's smarter and generally wealthier.

*Those with a degree/trade or those who employ those with a degree/trade.*

Oh Magoo

I don't have a trade.
I repeated Leaving (At night school)
Yet I have a builders licence and am involved in
projects worth many Millions.
To top it off I'm a Duck!


----------



## Mrmagoo (21 June 2015)

Ridiculous tech/a you should know better.

There are far more jobs out there for people with trades. Having a trade adds value, so even when the market is flooded you'll get a better wage due the premium a skilled worker can demand.

There will only ever be a handful of 29 year old business graduates on 125k. That is not a model on which to build an education system. Unfortunately, it has been and lots and lots of very limited people are sitting around with degrees they will never use.


----------



## Mrmagoo (21 June 2015)

Nortorious said:


> Interesting debate going on here...
> 
> 
> My study was full-time and took up 3 days of classes and then most nights with studying/writing essays/research etc. The other 4 days I spent working retail as a casual store assistant. I did this not by choice but by necessity as I got no handouts from my parents and I was ineligible for any assistance from the government as I had not earned enough to be classified as independent...
> ...




Your story is very a common story and I get tired of hearing them over and over again. There are a lot of people who did the above who are still working in retail.  And will probably be working in retail for the rest of their lives.

Beyond academic results, there is an entire spectrum of qualities which help determine if you will be a success.  People need to be aware of this and make a decision based on as much information as possible. 

The other problem is that Australian employers are racist and discriminatory.  If you don't fit the image of what they want you won't get employed, regardless of skills. If they want a handsome mid 30s white man. That is who will hire. Doesn't matter if you are an expert and wrote the bloody software they're using, they'll hire based on image.  God help you if you fall into the wrong ethnic group. If you look working class, you're just as screwed. 

Having an employable skill which employers need regardless of "who you are" is essential in Australia. No one cares if their electrician is handsome and wears the right brand of clothes to an interview.

Graduate programs are for pretty little rich kids and people pretty little rich kids consider "cool" that the company thinks will be able to network. Everyone else is better off just getting a job and working their way up. Experience and employable skills get you a higher salary, not stupid useless degrees.  

There are exceptions to all of this and lot of degrees do provide a technical skill employers will want, but so many kids go off and do degrees that are never going to help them.

At 29 - had you follow the tradesman path and been equally hard working and ambitious you'd be a millionaire by now, probably a few times over. No doubt about it at all. If you'd invested it in real estate. You'd be retired or running a multi-million dollar business. People who just went off and got a trade are in the same situation as you and have done minimal work above what was required.


----------



## orr (21 June 2015)

Life opportunity and choices  happen within a societal  economic dynamic. Todays dynamic is shifting the bulk of wealth to a smaller and smaller group of families and individuals. The middle class generally defined by its tertiary level of education is under as much or more systemic pressure as the working class, in terms of what it has to lose.

As individuals make what you can in your working life time, if you can kick goals like a Gates, Carnegie,( name your star); Hats off to you. 

But do you do it on the back of a growing underclass? And are you happy to?


http://www.milkeninstitute.org/even...ence/global-conference-2015/panel-detail/5420
_
'A widening gap between haves and have-nots is shrinking the American middle class and making it tougher than ever to move up the economic ladder. The U.S. problem reflects a *worldwide* concentration of wealth. The top 1 percent control 48 percent of the world's assets, up from 44 percent in 2009. Disparate voices ranging from Pope Francis to IMF Director Christine Lagarde warn that the gulf between rich and poor diminishes hope and raises serious political and economic issues. Some companies are listening. Late last year, Walmart Stores pledged to end minimum-wage pay by raising the hourly rate of 500,000 workers. Other companies followed with similar increases for their lowest-paid workers. Will their announcements spur broader efforts to reduce income equality? What else can be done to lift the standard of living for the working poor? This panel will examine the challenges posed by income disparity and discuss strategies for closing the gap.'_


I'll hazard a guess no one from the 1 percent is posting hear.


----------



## CanOz (21 June 2015)

orr said:


> Life opportunity and choices  happen within a societal  economic dynamic. Todays dynamic is shifting the bulk of wealth to a smaller and smaller group of families and individuals. The middle class generally defined by its tertiary level of education is under as much or more systemic pressure as the working class, in terms of what it has to lose.
> 
> As individuals make what you can in your working life time, if you can kick goals like a Gates, Carnegie,( name your star); Hats off to you.
> 
> ...




Plenty are reading and tech has posted....


----------



## Mrmagoo (21 June 2015)

orr said:


> Life opportunity and choices  happen within a societal  economic dynamic. Todays dynamic is shifting the bulk of wealth to a smaller and smaller group of families and individuals. The middle class generally defined by its tertiary level of education is under as much or more systemic pressure as the working class, in terms of what it has to lose.
> 
> As individuals make what you can in your working life time, if you can kick goals like a Gates, Carnegie,( name your star); Hats off to you.
> 
> ...




Absolutely not on the back of a growing underclass. A skilled and education artisan class is essential to having a middle class. That is why we need to put more kids through trade school (or equivalent) as those skills add value to the economy rather than seeking to manage the underclass.

We also need to solve this soviet style allocation of resources that is our housing sector.


----------



## waterbottle (21 June 2015)

Interesting discussion.

Why *should* income equality exist?

Humans, like any other animal on earth, live in a hierarchy so it isn't unreasonable to have a similar hierarchy when it comes to "net worth". 
How many times in human history have we actually ever had wealthy equality? I'm no historian, but I am sure that ancient Egypt or middle history Europe would have had wealth inequality.


----------



## craft (21 June 2015)

waterbottle said:


> Why *should* income equality exist?




The ‘extent’ of inequality was the basis of the original post in this thread. The problem with too much inequality is that it destabilises society.

[video]http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson#t-128628[/video] 


Not sure anybody is arguing for ‘equality’, but haven’t kept up with the thread either. Hope they are not because that argument would undermine the real issue of ‘extent’ of inequality.


----------



## craft (21 June 2015)

orr said:


> I'll hazard a guess no one from the 1 percent is posting hear.




According to credit Suisse's global wealth report 1,783,000 Australians (that's about 10% of the adult population) are in the top 1% of global wealth holders. 




> Only 6% of Australians have net worth below USD 10,000,
> which can be compared to 29% in the USA and 70% for the
> world as a whole. Average debt amounts to 20% of gross
> assets. The proportion of those with wealth above USD
> ...




Another interesting paragraph from that report to ponder.



> Interestingly, the composition of household wealth in
> Australia is heavily skewed towards real assets, which averaged
> USD 319,700 and form 60% of gross household assets. This
> average level of real assets is the second highest in the world
> ...


----------



## tech/a (21 June 2015)

craft said:


> According to credit Suisse's global wealth report 1,783,000 Australians (that's about 10% of the adult population) are in the top 1% of global wealth holders.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Indeed the lucky country


----------



## waterbottle (21 June 2015)

craft said:


> According to credit Suisse's global wealth report 1,783,000 Australians (that's about 10% of the adult population) are in the top 1% of global wealth holders.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes that paragraph is indeed interesting.

It's also interesting that the number of Australians considered to be in the top %1 is similar to that of the number of negative gearers (1.26 million in 2012-13 according to the ABC). Does the report take into account net wealth or gross wealth?

Regardless, the last quoted paragraph is telling as to what is driving Australian "wealth": Real estate prices.


----------



## Mrmagoo (21 June 2015)

tech/a said:


> Indeed the lucky country




Indeed for some.


----------



## Mrmagoo (21 June 2015)

waterbottle said:


> Yes that paragraph is indeed interesting.
> 
> It's also interesting that the number of Australians considered to be in the top %1 is similar to that of the number of negative gearers (1.26 million in 2012-13 according to the ABC). Does the report take into account net wealth or gross wealth?
> 
> Regardless, the last quoted paragraph is telling as to what is driving Australian "wealth": Real estate prices.




Which makes the younger generations much poorer, kind of an illusion really.


----------



## Vixs (21 June 2015)

I honestly can't believe people still engage in debate with Mrmagoo assuming he is going to come to some moment of recognition that it's not so bad. He could win a million bucks at lunchtime tomorrow and be on here by 5pm complaining that he's still never going to be as rich as the top end and that is isn't fair, that the odds are stacked against him, that the universe has it in for him, he should've been a truck driver in the mines/offshore welder/bricklayer/plumber or ice cream man and all of his problems would be solved.

Meanwhile, the rest of us get on with life and bettering ourselves.


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 June 2015)

waterbottle said:


> Does the report take into account net wealth or gross wealth?



Yes I wonder what the stats. would look like with debt deducted from asset valuations.


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 June 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> Indeed for some.



The social system rarely lets you run to wealth but over a lifetime, greater wealth is achievable. So when retirement comes around you can be wealthier.  Although the system tries to keep the majority around the same as much as possible, there are a few that break away to greater wealth. These people are self motivated with a support group and a relentless drive to succeed.


----------



## Mrmagoo (21 June 2015)

Vixs said:


> I honestly can't believe people still engage in debate with Mrmagoo assuming he is going to come to some moment of recognition that it's not so bad. He could win a million bucks at lunchtime tomorrow and be on here by 5pm complaining that he's still never going to be as rich as the top end and that is isn't fair, that the odds are stacked against him, that the universe has it in for him, he should've been a truck driver in the mines/offshore welder/bricklayer/plumber or ice cream man and all of his problems would be solved.
> 
> Meanwhile, the rest of us get on with life and bettering ourselves.




They argue because they know I am right and that angers them.


----------



## craft (21 June 2015)

waterbottle said:


> Does the report take into account net wealth or gross wealth?




Net Wealth.

https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=60931FDE-A2D2-F568-B041B58C5EA591A4




> Only 6% of Australians have *net* worth below USD 10,000,
> which can be compared to 29% in the USA and 70% for the
> world as a whole. Average debt amounts to 20% of gross
> assets. The proportion of those with wealth above USD
> ...


----------



## tech/a (21 June 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> They argue because they know I am right and that angers them.




 Magoo
That's it

Psychology your a natural.


----------



## againsthegrain (21 June 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> They argue because they know I am right and that angers them.




Good posts Magoo,  always enjoy reading your unbiased opinion from the other side of the coin,  keep up the good work mate


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 June 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> They argue because they know I am right and that angers them.



You are right. For the majority they will plug away at their machines for 40 years, pay off the house and have some super. at the other end.


----------



## craft (21 June 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> They argue because they know I am right and that angers them.




Maybe you are conversing with people who don’t want to acknowledge luck in outcomes for fear of what it might infer.  

Or maybe people are trying to help you overcome what comes across as a self defeating attitude.

Who knows?

Unfortunately your points, many of which I find interesting and informative, get lost in the subsequent tit for tat.  What Interests me is whether your disgruntlement is isolated and related only to your personality or wide spread and symptomatic of the economic inequity discussed in the thread.


----------



## luutzu (21 June 2015)

A good lecture from Nobel laureate for economics Joe Stiglitz regarding wealth and income inequality.

It is real, the poor do have the odds stacked against them... and while I still believe Australia and the West is the best place for social/wealth mobility, there's no denying that luck, money and connections does play a heck of a lot in any one's successes.

Add to that globalization and cheap labour the gen X and after have to compete with. Then the cutting of training and increasing costs of higher education; the growing influence and social acceptance of this neo-con love for the market, that it knows best; the invisible hand that we all ought to look out for number one because it will be good for all other numbers... might need a Third World War to correct it like the last time it swing this much for the rich.


A couple of funny jokes from Stiglitz' other lectures:

He was invited to a dinner party organised by some wealthy New York socialite because she was concerned about wealth inequality. One of the guests inherited a few billions and goes on and on about how the poor are lazy and always feel they're entitled. Then move on about where's the better tax-haven. But there's one thing the upper 1% do worry about is the guillotine and their neck beneath it - because they do realize there's so few of them and way too many poor serfs.


----------



## luutzu (22 June 2015)

Looks to be an interesting doco.


----------



## tech/a (22 June 2015)

> Maybe you are conversing with people who don’t want to acknowledge luck in outcomes for fear of what it might infer.




There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that luck plays a massive part.
(1) You could be born in a third world company.
(2) You could be born in a first world country but in the lower socio economic end.
(3) You may not be able to take advantage of opportunity---even if you recognise it.




> Although the system tries to keep the majority around the same as much as possible, there are a few that break away to greater wealth.




This is a very true statement.
Even the wealthy are always being reigned in.

There always has been and there always will be a gap.
I think that gap was far wider 100/200 years ago than now.
At least there is a middle class and even emerging ones in some
third world countries.


----------



## qldfrog (22 June 2015)

tech/a said:


> There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that luck plays a massive part.
> (1) You could be born in a third world company.
> (2) You could be born in a first world country but in the lower socio economic end.
> (3) You may not be able to take advantage of opportunity---even if you recognise it.
> ...



True but I believe also that a new phenomenom is the actual crushing of the middle class in places like Australia/the US.
It is ok for me, was here at the right time, managed to buy place and nearly finish raising my child riding the wave, but i would not be able to reproduce that starting today.
As many have told mr magoo, you can create your own luck: i have tried many ventures/investments/jobs which have lead to nowhere but was always able to rely on a non world competitive market place then unique skills so my salaries initially kept pace with the trademen and the grocery purchase;
this is over: the white collar, efficient and gifted professionnal is now expected to compete with india [and the world] while being taxed at 50% (mor including GST) and paying a trady 100$ just for him to come and provide a quote;
this will soon change and some people will soon realise what the absence of education means and what the real value of a trade knowledge means in a world where 6 billions can easily be carpenter/bricklayers etc.
so as dr Maggoo says: yes the tradie rules, even our last pathetic budget is a tradie paradise but believe me mr magoo, we will talk again in ten years and things will have changed with the unlimited open gate we have with migration;
When this happens, you will be happy to have at least something more in your knowledge bag than the plumber next door;
we will all be universally poor and taxed to the brink
in the meantime: take your chances..and if it fails try again.


----------



## craft (22 June 2015)

qldfrog said:


> True but I believe also that a new phenomenom is the actual crushing of the middle class in places like Australia/the US.




It’s the squeezing of the middle class down which concerns me most. Despite a lot of peoples best efforts plenty are transitioning to working poor rather than going the other way. Obviously not all and Australia still has reasonable upward class mobility for some but not the majority.


We are on the same path as USA – but they are much further advanced. As far as I’m concerned social impacts of rising relative inequality are already glaringly obvious over there even though by global standards the country is the richest and their capital markets are cracking along at highs again.

I see the current political/economic system as pumping air into a balloon where the majority is collared and can’t expand. Make it to that un-collard bit and everything is expanding beautifully for you, for now – BUT it ain’t no way to durably blow up a balloon to its fullest extent, the constriction of the collar will pop the balloon early. That means we should all have an interest in reducing in-equality.  Achieving it without destroying incentives is the challenge.


ps

love this.



qldfrog said:


> in the meantime: take your chances..and if it fails try again.


----------



## tech/a (22 June 2015)

> this is over: the white collar, *efficient and gifted professionnal *is now expected to compete with india [and the world] while being taxed at 50% (mor including GST) and paying a trady 100$ just for him to come and provide a quote;




Are we talking Engineers/Doctors/Solicitors/Dentists or those with B/A's
What exactly do these professionals do?



> this will soon change and some people will soon realise what the absence of education means and what the real value of a trade knowledge means in a world where 6 billions can easily be carpenter/bricklayers etc.




There are 1st world tradies and third world tradies.---not everyone can be a tradie
Most charge the $100 an Hr as they are small businesses not PAYE.



> so as dr Maggoo says: yes the tradie rules, even our last pathetic budget is a tradie paradise but believe me mr magoo, we will talk again in ten years and things will have changed with the unlimited open gate we have with migration;




There has always been immigration. There has to be to fill the demand both in White and Blue collar work force.
As for the budget being a tradies paradise---The emphasis on small business encompasses many more fields than tradesmen. The run off even helps larger business and creates opportunity for those to work in small and larger business.

*What could Magoo do.*

(1) Understand the power of compounding---not just money but, Contacts, Ideas, Earning Capacity/Capability.
(2) Train yourself to think differently to the majority.
(3) Learn how to quantify opportunity and how to take advantage of all or some of it.
(4) Think outside the square.
(5) Start today and never finish.
(6) Embrace and enjoy the challenge---the world--- needs innovators.

*Let me give you an example.*

My Sister Teaches English in Vietnam (Hanoi). So does her Daughter and Son.
I was chatting with her a while ago (couple of years).
She mentioned that she taught 6-10pm every day and all day Saturday and Sunday.
What do you do the rest of the time?---what ever I want.---which consisted of nothing really!
Why aren't you working at something else?

Now pay in Vietnam isn't like AUST around $33K US a year for her and a part time Bar job isn't going to cut it.

My immediate thought--as I travel a lot.
Why don't you do Ex Pat Guided tours during the week.
Took a few months and it sank in.
$80US a day---fellow Aussi's and English/and Americans love expats to show them around.
$80US is big money in Vietnam. She can and does ferret it away.

Not only that but she has built a small network of Aussi guides and she takes a cut. (Compounding Earning Capacity). Its growing.
Look its not Flight Center but it is innovative ---fills a demand and makes life interesting and more comfortable.


----------



## qldfrog (22 June 2015)

Are we talking Engineers/Doctors/Solicitors/Dentists or those with B/A's
What exactly do these professionals do?
-> any of the above I am an engineer/IT so affected first, the next to be hit were accountants etc
move of back offices O/S
Medecine will be hit then as per US-> online consultation with bangalore, O/S medical treatment or surgery
Lawyers will be last

 =====

There are 1st world tradies and third world tradies.---not everyone can be a tradie
no but believbe me the average australian tradie is well below par, and when they are good: some are, what they ask is outrageous
===
Most charge the $100 an Hr as they are small businesses not PAYE.
---yeap mexican in the US will ask $10 for the same sure no tax but most here in Oz do not either
Cash economy



There has always been immigration. There has to be to fill the demand both in White and Blue collar work force.
With due respect this is full BS the only reason in 2013/14 we got 500k new migrants in was to sustain our housing bubble
There are no jobs: a project manager in Brisbane can be asked to work for 80k in 2015, that is 50h weeks for a top level not only academic but experience to prove it white collars
that same role would have gone for 110/120k pa 3 years ago

As for the budget being a tradies paradise---The emphasis on small business encompasses many more fields than tradesmen. The run off even helps larger business and creates opportunity for those to work in small and larger business.
yes and no;
I have my own business so well aware but only tradies have cash and prospects to actually invest 20k in assets;
i will not even upgrade a laptop this year
----------
agree with all the below:
---

*What could Magoo do.*

(1) Understand the power of compounding---not just money but, Contacts, Ideas, Earning Capacity/Capability.
(2) Train yourself to think differently to the majority.
(3) Learn how to quantify opportunity and how to take advantage of all or some of it.
(4) Think outside the square.
(5) Start today and never finish.
(6) Embrace and enjoy the challenge---the world--- needs innovators.

*Let me give you an example.*
...
---

T/A we do agree on what the individual can do, but have a different persception of what is the current reality
once again I see that from Brisbane where we must be so lucky as house prices have fallen 1.5% last year....
That definitively shows the state of our local economy
But i like the exchange 
mr Magoo should really take a more positive view;
**** does happen, usually hammering you again and again in a sequence; but a positive attitude definitively helps


----------



## Junior (22 June 2015)

qldfrog said:


> -> any of the above I am an engineer/IT so affected first, the next to be hit were accountants etc
> move of back offices O/S
> Medecine will be hit then as per US-> online consultation with bangalore, O/S medical treatment or surgery
> Lawyers will be last




I'd be interested if you could expand on the above?  

I have friends/relatives in all of those industries, they are all well paid with secure jobs and no shortage of work.


----------



## luutzu (22 June 2015)

Doesn't it all boils down to the reality that it's every man for himself.

That it's expected of you to pay your taxes, pay your bills - but if you're injured or out of work, you might expect society to kinda help you out but society laughs and tell you to get a job or suck a lemon;

If you work hard, tries your best and succeed - people will line up and ask for your wisdom (and money); But if you tries and fail they will call you a try hard and you line up at centrelink (until the next brilliant idea);

If you succeed and have lots of money, people expect you to pay higher taxes and not use that money for greater political and social advancement; they'd expect you to fairly and honestly earn that and more through innovation and value-creation but you figured you could earn that and more through political donation and suppression of market and competition and so give society your middle finger and spoil your kids with the inheritance.

If you inherit the wealth and through no effort get to live in a nice house(s) in a nice neighbourhood and move among polite society, you'd figured you're quite special because you got all that without much effort at all - so imagine how much more you could achieve with some effort on your part!

In the end, you can't please everyone, and you cannot hope for anyone to help you.

It is too much to ask that a lawyer who bill by the hour and have no problem showing poor clients the door... too much to ask that once these people got elected they would suddenly think and care for other people and not themselves. It's nice if they do, but it's also nice to win the jack pot and the plebs dream of an enlightened ruler... well, advanced society does not build its institution around such people. Since it build its institutions around not trusting anyone, of check and balances, you as individuals better have money... and with money, you may or may not help others, but don't expect others to help you.


----------



## qldfrog (22 June 2015)

Junior said:


> I'd be interested if you could expand on the above?
> 
> I have friends/relatives in all of those industries, they are all well paid with secure jobs and no shortage of work.



Sure IT engineering:
if you are out of uni today: you will not find any job: direct import from india or elsewhere on 457 visa wiull be used;
accounting/marketing etc :
do not consider moving into big multinational jobs-> one after the other the back office is moved as much as possible O/S as per IT within a few years, in the absence of training  and regeneration, the local knowledge vanishes and you will end up with no other choice than importing your brains from O/S;
usually not even as 457 visa but just "visiting" consultant working for multinationals not paying a cent in tax as corporates and using O/S workforces (as per IT) who do not pay tax in australia

the next on the lines are medical profession:
the lobby tries to restrict thequota of new degrees but that is not enough in my opinion;
already major dental work or non urgent surgery can be performed O/S and you got a fortnight of relaxation on the thai beaches as a reward included in your cost;
BTW pretty good surgeon and services there
optometry is fully outsourced via web;
doctor on line and so on are starting here;
you will have a couple of australian degrees doctors used for the facade and to please the regulators but most of the work will be done abroad

law back office will be next;
commercial law, retail conveyancing etc;
just a matter of time;
only a collapse of the AUD and a full halt to open gate immigration will stop that;
as for the hundreds of thousands of so called BA/IT prod imported in the last few years it will not take them long to get a sparky licence, a carpenter/builder one and soon give a bit of competition to our local workforce;
wait and see


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 June 2015)

qldfrog said:


> it will not take them long to get a sparky licence, a carpenter/builder one and soon give a bit of competition to our local workforce




Good luck to anyone wanting to do a trade and get themselves an electrical license. I say "good luck" because with the lack of apprenticeships around these days you'll certainly need a lot of luck to get a foot in the door.

Interestingly, it's the white collar economic types who have created that situation in their never ending desire to focus on the short term and cut costs to the bone today regardless of what happens tomorrow. Suffice to say that I've come across very few tradesmen who agree with that few and I've never come across a union rep who doesn't support the idea of more apprenticeships.

So there's a shortage which keeps prices high. Thank the usual suspects for that one as it's something that not too many who actually do trades work agree with. The big blunder which has cost practically everyone a fortune was, of course, "outsourcing" especially in government where huge numbers of apprentices used to be trained - today it's close to zero and the private sector hasn't come anywhere near close to picking up the slack.


----------



## tech/a (23 June 2015)

Smurf1976 said:


> Good luck to anyone wanting to do a trade and get themselves an electrical license. I say "good luck" because with the lack of apprenticeships around these days you'll certainly need a lot of luck to get a foot in the door.
> 
> Interestingly, it's the white collar economic types who have created that situation in their never ending desire to focus on the short term and cut costs to the bone today regardless of what happens tomorrow. Suffice to say that I've come across very few tradesmen who agree with that few and I've never come across a union rep who doesn't support the idea of more apprenticeships.
> 
> So there's a shortage which keeps prices high. Thank the usual suspects for that one as it's something that not too many who actually do trades work agree with. The big blunder which has cost practically everyone a fortune was, of course, "outsourcing" especially in government where huge numbers of apprentices used to be trained - today it's close to zero and the private sector hasn't come anywhere near close to picking up the slack.





Great points Smurfy
Not to be glossed over---as it has been


----------



## qldfrog (23 June 2015)

true smurf and t/a; and very same reason for engineering/IT:
outsourcing to big corporatation or recruitment groups who bring in ready to use and cheap manpower from overseas or send the job there
no taking of out of unis young peoples anywhere
The trend is maturing for IT (where this started) with now absence of local skills altogether so "justifying" more import outsourcing.
So it is not a wealth inequality issue anymore, we assist with a wealth distribution across nation;
as long as the average aussie income is above the cheapest world income, if nothing is done, you will see this going and governments lamenting they lose revenue


----------



## Wysiwyg (23 June 2015)

Smurf1976 said:


> Good luck to anyone wanting to do a trade and get themselves an electrical license. I say "good luck" because with the lack of apprenticeships around these days you'll certainly need a lot of luck to get a foot in the door.



 Adding to that in the sector I work in, our company has adopted a more females approach this year with the apprentice intake. That is more females than males. I am for equal rights but based on genuine desire to be a tradesperson and not 'because I can'. On top of that physical strength and endurance is needed. I believe for some it is the money lure. My cousin has already shown the 'because I can' thinking by completing her apprenticeship and then leaving the trade. I verbally expressed my annoyance being that a young boy who wanted to work in a trade for their life was done out of an opportunity. 



> Interestingly, it's the white collar economic types who have created that situation in their never ending desire to focus on the short term and cut costs to the bone today regardless of what happens tomorrow.



Oh yes the human component is easy to assess and the shareholders are the reason why restructuring is an ongoing process. Interestingly when you're at the top you give yourself a +30% remuneration increase (shareholder approved for expectant ROI no doubt) and cut the workforce back at the same time was an easy fix. I would have to work 60 years to make what the CEO makes in 1 year and I grossed 109k this year. Fact!



> The big blunder which has cost practically everyone a fortune was, of course, "outsourcing" especially in government where huge numbers of apprentices used to be trained - today it's close to zero and the private sector hasn't come anywhere near close to picking up the slack.



The winner of this years major steel fabrication contract is ....... China.


----------



## sydboy007 (11 July 2015)

Would the fact Australia came in fourth for attrracting millionaires to emmigrate help or hinder wealth inequality

http://qz.com/449621/the-worlds-super-rich-are-seeking-second-citizenship-in-these-eight-countries/


----------



## notting (11 July 2015)

It brings wealth into the country, problem is if it is Chinese and they start getting into our political system we are stuffed. Head for Canada or New Zealand if the pricks start to corrupt everything.


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 July 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Would the fact Australia came in fourth for attrracting millionaires to emmigrate help or hinder wealth inequality




Interesting that the UK stands out as well ahead of anyone else, more than double the next highest (USA).

I wonder if that's because it's easier to move there? Or some other reason?


----------



## McLovin (11 July 2015)

Smurf1976 said:


> Interesting that the UK stands out as well ahead of anyone else, more than double the next highest (USA).
> 
> I wonder if that's because it's easier to move there? Or some other reason?




South-eastern England is exceedingly wealthy. That part of the UK attracts millionaires. The Maastricht Treaty and the tax light structure that non-dom status affords means the UK is a pretty good place for millionaires who like a place that never snows and is never sunny and doesn't tax them too much. About six years ago I had to sell my grandparents second home in Belgravia, in London, I remember as a kid going there  (late 80s early/mid90s) and it was a wealthy community but it was a community, now it's just apartments and houses owned by non-resident owners who need to get their money out of whatever country they're from; the streets are deserted.


----------



## sydboy007 (12 July 2015)

Smurf1976 said:


> Interesting that the UK stands out as well ahead of anyone else, more than double the next highest (USA).
> 
> I wonder if that's because it's easier to move there? Or some other reason?




I believe it revolves around the UK targeting wealthy foreigners.  I watched a doco on how the UK used the non dom tax structure to attract the super rich to the UK.  It was supposed to benefit the country via trickle down economics.

now as a super rich millionaire of billionaire I bet the below sounds a very tempting tax offer.

http://www.rosebank-uk.com/worldwide-location/uk-non-dom-rules/



> The United Kingdom offers an attractive tax regime for those individuals who are resident in the UK but do not have UK domicile, such individuals are often referred to as ‘resident non-doms’.
> 
> An individual who fulfils the criteria, and who has foreign income and/or foreign capital gains, can elect to be taxed in the UK on the advantageous remittance basis of taxation. Under this scheme the individual can elect to pay a fixed annual charge, currently £30,000 or £50,000, known as the remittance basis charge.




All it seems to have done it made London property a target for money of questionable origins.

Likely happening in Sydney too now, and maybe Melbourne to a degree.


----------



## sydboy007 (12 July 2015)

helps to put into perspective just how good the majority of us have it in Australia

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/07/08/the_rise_of_the_global_middle_class.html



> The Pew Research Center is out with a new report on the growth of the global middle class that, if you're not the sort of person who lives to ponder foreign development or how to sell sneakers in China, is mostly interesting because of how it puts America's incredibly high standards of living into a bit of perspective. Here's the stat that jumped out at me most: *As of 2011, only 16 percent of the world lived on the equivalent of at least $20 a day, the cutoff for "upper-middle income."* In the United States, Pew notes, the poverty line works out to just under $16 per day for each member of the household.


----------



## Mrmagoo (12 July 2015)

Fact is Australia is no longer a western country, we are an Asian country now and with that comes the wealth inequality and corruption of Asia. I won't be surprised if in a few decades white Australians are mostly confined to ghettos suburbs on the cities fringe and in rural areas. They'll be much poorer than the Asian/Indian city workers who have access to Asian education and work experience, so they'll come over here with experience and education that locals cannot access.

The question of Australians as an interest group will be referred to as "those people who live outside the city" and won't be given much of a thought. We'll be a minority group to the international Asian community who use Australia for various purposes.


----------



## Sir Burr (12 July 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> "those people who live outside the city"




Like those indigenous?


----------



## sydboy007 (12 July 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> Fact is Australia is no longer a western country, we are an Asian country now and with that comes the wealth inequality and corruption of Asia. I won't be surprised if in a few decades white Australians are mostly confined to ghettos suburbs on the cities fringe and in rural areas. They'll be much poorer than the Asian/Indian city workers who have access to Asian education and work experience, so they'll come over here with experience and education that locals cannot access.
> 
> The question of Australians as an interest group will be referred to as "those people who live outside the city" and won't be given much of a thought. We'll be a minority group to the international Asian community who use Australia for various purposes.




But the big Australia policy supported by both major parties is for our own good.  The fact that they're not willing to fund the infrastructure required to house a new Brisvegas of population every 3 to 4 years is nothing to be worried about.  Crushed on trains during peak times, sitting in traffic most of the time, faced with expensive tolls if you need to get somewhere in a reasonable time frame.

prob the best thing of the economic slow down we're approaching is that imported pop growth is going to slow, and if we're lucky might go negative for awhile.


----------



## againsthegrain (12 July 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> Fact is Australia is no longer a western country, we are an Asian country now and with that comes the wealth inequality and corruption of Asia. I won't be surprised if in a few decades white Australians are mostly confined to ghettos suburbs on the cities fringe and in rural areas. They'll be much poorer than the Asian/Indian city workers who have access to Asian education and work experience, so they'll come over here with experience and education that locals cannot access.
> 
> The question of Australians as an interest group will be referred to as "those people who live outside the city" and won't be given much of a thought. We'll be a minority group to the international Asian community who use Australia for various purposes.




Good post Magoo,  thats exactly how it's folding out


----------



## Mrmagoo (12 July 2015)

Sir Burr said:


> Like those indigenous?




I wouldn't know. I've never done anything to any indigenous person, in fact coming from a foreigner, that is actually a very racist argument. I could talk about the atrocities committed by many immigrant races, but I do not, as that would be racist.


----------



## sptrawler (13 July 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> Fact is Australia is no longer a western country, we are an Asian country now and with that comes the wealth inequality and corruption of Asia. I won't be surprised if in a few decades white Australians are mostly confined to ghettos suburbs on the cities fringe and in rural areas. They'll be much poorer than the Asian/Indian city workers who have access to Asian education and work experience, so they'll come over here with experience and education that locals cannot access.
> 
> The question of Australians as an interest group will be referred to as "those people who live outside the city" and won't be given much of a thought. We'll be a minority group to the international Asian community who use Australia for various purposes.




Sadly, I think you are probably right, unless some other western super power wants to champion our cause.

But I haven't seen any indication of that.


----------



## luutzu (13 July 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> I wouldn't know. I've never done anything to any indigenous person, in fact coming from a foreigner, that is actually a very racist argument. I could talk about the atrocities committed by many immigrant races, but I do not, as that would be racist.




Seriously White people... I know a large part of you guys are neglected and doesn't seem to get the life and hope the previous generation seem to have... But it's not the fault of the immigrants, Asian or otherwise. 

The only reason no recent immigrant complaint about Australia is because no matter how bad they have it, no matter how many hours they have to work to make ends meet, it's paradise compare to where they came from. They're not, not complaining because they took all the welfare and feed off of society and grow fat and rich. 

Take a look at the tax policies each year... read up a couple of "indepth" analysis and see who it always benefit more - you or the guy with a few millions or couple hundred millions? You think new immigrants working at Seven-11 could afford a $20,000 fundraising plate? You seriously think a bunch of, mostly White guys, in Parliament have more in common and more sympathy for non-White poor people? If they'd care for anyone more, you'd have a better chance they'd care for White poor people more for no other reason than ey, blood is thicker than... 

And man, do you seriously think a multi-millionaire Asian from, say China, would have anything in common with a common Aussie Asian serving them at some city restaurant? They might like the same food, but one can afford it and the other might have to do with instant noodle after work.

Not saying rich people are bad and poor are good. Just that race have little to do with it and money have a lot to do with a lot of things - including sending your kids to what school and what friends they make.


----------



## Mrmagoo (5 August 2015)

luutzu said:


> Seriously White people... I know a large part of you guys are neglected and doesn't seem to get the life and hope the previous generation seem to have... But it's not the fault of the immigrants, Asian or otherwise.
> 
> The only reason no recent immigrant complaint about Australia is because no matter how bad they have it, no matter how many hours they have to work to make ends meet, it's paradise compare to where they came from. They're not, not complaining because they took all the welfare and feed off of society and grow fat and rich.
> 
> ...




You don't know history. Most Australians descend from the scum of England, where workers were oppressed by the middle class and came to places like Australia and the USA and made for themselves a better life than the horrors of the British Isles.

This is not some magical fairy land of entitlement. Australia is the way Australia is because of a series of decisions made by people in our early history who came from the old world and didn't want Australia to turn out just like that.

Middle class people are pricks. They're the main political force that  call for the crushing of the working class. The ruling elite would never have the numbers in a democracy to do that.


----------



## luutzu (6 August 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> You don't know history. Most Australians descend from the scum of England, where workers were oppressed by the middle class and came to places like Australia and the USA and made for themselves a better life than the horrors of the British Isles.
> 
> This is not some magical fairy land of entitlement. Australia is the way Australia is because of a series of decisions made by people in our early history who came from the old world and didn't want Australia to turn out just like that.
> 
> Middle class people are pricks. They're the main political force that  call for the crushing of the working class. The ruling elite would never have the numbers in a democracy to do that.




Na man, the scums of England would have been hung in England. The convicts that got sent over to Australia were small time crooks whose crime were not enough to hang... and with the American colonies rebelling and the French, the Dutch and the Spanairds taking control of Asia/Pacific, England must establish its footprint here in Australia and later on up through Malaysia, Burma, India etc.

But true that I don't know much about Australia after the First Fleet... but pretty sure they did not escape or ran away to Oz the way the Pilgrims and what not as commonly portrayed in American history.


But more to the point... 

First, the "Middle Class" as defined by economists and politicians are not really the elite or the industrialists. From memory they're those earning 20 to 25% on either side of the median wage - so in Australia the Middle Class would include those earning $50k to maybe $100k...

Oh, just google and apparently:
"According to the ATO’s tax statistics, if you earned $248 192 or more in 2008-09, you were part of the top 1%. The average income for an individual in the top 1% of taxpayers was $554 185. The median income for that year was $45 200, so the average income for someone in the top 1% was more than 12 times the median."


So anyway, the Middle Class is a political term for the Working Class - the Blue collars... just it's a lot nicer to call put them in the Middle, which is somewhat technically true, but seriously man, how many fund raisers can you attend on salary of $100k?

So the Middle Class you're referring to would be the 1% of the 1% - those with multi-million dollars income and hundreds of millions and over in assets. Those are the people whose voices are heard and whose demand will be met, those are the people all these laws and politicians and state apparatus are there to protect and perpetuate their wealth. The rest can go on dreaming and blaming immigrants and refugees and Muslims or something.

That's how it has always been, and what else do we expect? If you have money, if I have money, we'd do the same as they do... create jobs and set standards and etiquette, haha.

----

True that they don't have the numbers, but they do have the money... and with money you buy numbers and you buy services. Why do you work? Why do any of us work? For money. To put food on the table. To use the kind of house, the kind of food, the kind of toys we have as a measure of our success... So those few with so much have plenty of that cash to get people who will do their bidding.

Free and open society as we know it today - elections and politicians talking down to us and kiss our babies; where we can make fun and crack jokes at politicians and thinking that they work for us... all these are very very very recent. 

All these modern democratic and equality stuff only happen since maybe after WW2 - some 70 years ago. And of that 70 years, the past 40 years have seen its systematic undoing.

So democracy and equal rights for the plebs didn't start in Greece, didn't start with Magna Carta some 800 years ago, didn't start with the American colonies or its Rebellion against Britain, and didn't start with Australian Federation where the British monarch is still our head of state.

It kind of got handed to the common people only after WW2 because the people demanded it and the monarch of Europe were almost completely destroyed and the elite in the US and other surviving Western states were frightened seeing how not sharing a bit of their wealth ended for them in Russia and most of Europe.

---

With that small window of opportunity... women get to vote, the coloured folks eventually became "equal" under the law; and old and sick and the orphan got some Social Security payment so they can eat and see a doctor and go to school and have clean air and water around their part of the country too...

Just about all the economists, historians, political scientists I've listened to have said that the last 40 years have seen the undoing of all these civil rights and equality and democratic values. So we're going back to how the world has always been run for thousands of years... only difference is, this time the people have certain laws, most can read and can organised and all grew up with fairy tales about how great their system and their culture is...

How do they fix that? Can't lock the people up for protesting or peacefully demonstrating - freedom and liberty and stuff. So one way is to dumb them down, burden them with huge debt and obligations, make policies that further weaken their job and financial security - you're not going to worry too much about the world when you can't feed or house your family, can you?... Then point the fingers at some weak and convenient target... and to top it off you create boogeymen and terrorists everywhere so they'd rather be safe than sorry and let you do what you need to do... and give them enough food and enough hope.

So the plebs in western democracies are in better place, for sure... but we must know our place and be grateful that so much effort goes into controlling us. In most other countries they just send in the troops or send in hired gangsters or troops dressed as gangsters and start cracking heads. 

So if we want change, want a gov't that work for the people... the system and the laws are there if we know how to use it. Otherwise, others will... and they have.

Reminds me of, I think it was an introduction to his Animal Farm, George Orwell observed how a farmer was able to control a couple of oxens with just a little whip. The ox didn't realise how much more powerful they are than the man, and how much damage they can wreck or how much the entire farm depends on their labour to survive.


----------



## McLovin (6 August 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> You don't know history. Most Australians descend from the scum of England, where workers were oppressed by the middle class and came to places like Australia and the USA and made for themselves a better life than the horrors of the British Isles.
> 
> This is not some magical fairy land of entitlement. Australia is the way Australia is because of a series of decisions made by people in our early history who came from the old world and didn't want Australia to turn out just like that.
> 
> Middle class people are pricks. They're the main political force that  call for the crushing of the working class. The ruling elite would never have the numbers in a democracy to do that.




There was no middle class in Britain at that time.


----------



## Mrmagoo (6 August 2015)

McLovin said:


> There was no middle class in Britain at that time.




Complete horse****. The tradesmen, business owners and skilled workers of the time kept the young down. Who were forced to sell themselves into slavery in places like the USA and also in Canada and the UK too.

The only reason the UK never had a brutal revolution past the civil war was exactly because the middle class liked things the way they were.

Exactly like in Australia right now. The middle class are evil. When there are revolutions i, they usually got burned and hanged right along side the rich. 

The establishment of today does everything and anything to hide from us this period in history of white slavery. Mostly of young people from poor backgrounds.

Exactly like 200 years ago the young have an increasingly smaller path to apprenticeships, becoming skilled workers  or home owners. And who is leading this charge ? the middle class of course.


----------



## McLovin (6 August 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> Complete horse****. The tradesman business owners and skilled workers of the time kept the young down. They were forced to sell themselves into slavery in places like the USA and also in Canada and the UK too.




You think tradesmen in the 18th century came close to being middle class by any modern definition? That's hilariously ignorant of history. They would've been lucky to own a small single room cottage, they certainly wouldn't have qualified to vote as forty shilling freeholders. Life was difficult for them and they lived more or less hand to mouth. 



Mrmagoo said:


> The only reason the UK never had a brutal revolution past the civil war was exactly because the middle class liked things the way they were.




What middle class? Go find it. Britain was still overwhelmingly agrarian in the 18th and early 19th century. The middle class is a post industrial revolution phenomenon.


----------



## Mrmagoo (6 August 2015)

They were forced to leave their farming communities for cities where there were no jobs. They hide such information in books.


----------



## Mrmagoo (6 August 2015)

The problem is that the privileged aussies are so rich and spolied that nothing is comparably wealthy and they cant even see that those around them are not as well off and dont have the same easy ride. Some people's houses have gone up more than they have earned over the last 10 years before taxes on their income. They dont understand what this country is like for others.


----------



## DeepState (6 August 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> They were forced to leave their farming communities for cities where there were no jobs. They hide such information in books.




Have you checked the fiction section of the library?


----------



## Mrmagoo (9 August 2015)

DeepState said:


> Have you checked the fiction section of the library?




There almost certainly were white slaves. Any amount of research into the topic would reveal the extent to which poor white people were treated almost as slaves in the UK. Particularly the Irish. 

The English middle class (those who owned at least one servant) were my definition more than complicit in the oppression of the working class. 

The modern definition of the middle class has been distorted to mean workers who have a living wage. Your middle  class people are your lawyers, your property infestors, tradesmen with a business on 200k a year ect.. those are the same lot, who today are more than happy to drive up housing costs and drive wages lower.


----------



## nioka (9 August 2015)

This is the way I see wealth inequality in Australia.

1. The top level. This includes those that have "made it themselves", those that inherited wealth, and some that have been in a position of influence to direct wealth in their direction.
2. Overpaid top business executives often in a position to use companies as "cash cows" to milk their company.:bad:
3. Overpaid workers that have been in a position to "blackmail" their employer into continual wage increases. These are a large number in Australian society. They insist on "Australian" rates of pay but insist on consuming low price products from companies based overseas and using very poorly paid labour. To me they are the "middle class", often employed by government or semi government jobs.
4. Juniors. Overpaid in proportion to their needs. Overpaid to the extent that a large percentage will never find a job where they have to justify their rate of pay. This group expects to buy a new car, go on overseas holidays and party continuously immediately they start work.:bad:
5. These are the real Aussie battlers. Often self employed, working just to make ends meet as they raise a family where the kids expect to get all the things that "other kids", whose parents are in group 2 & 3, get. 
6. This is a group supported by welfare and divided into 2 sub groups. The first are able to milk the system for additional benefits not available to all those on welfare. These are the "poor me" in society, often aboriginal or refugees.
7. Those on genuine welfare such as the aged and disabled.
8. The genuine unemployed who desperately want to work but cant find a job.:
9. The homeless, often through no fault of their own.:1zhelp:


----------



## McLovin (9 August 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> There almost certainly were white slaves. Any amount of research into the topic would reveal the extent to which poor white people were treated almost as slaves in the UK. Particularly the Irish.




Any amount of research would reveal the extent of this? I thought it was hidden?

You're all over the place. You pick a narrative and then try and contort history to fit into that narrative.

Case in point...



Mrmagoo said:


> The modern definition of the middle class has been distorted to mean workers who have a living wage.




Definition doesn't fit in with my argument so I'll argue the definition is wrong.


----------



## Mrmagoo (9 August 2015)

McLovin said:


> Any amount of research would reveal the extent of this? I thought it was hidden?
> 
> You're all over the place. You pick a narrative and then try and contort history to fit into that narrative.
> 
> ...




No, I'm arguing with facts. There was a middle class in England in the 1800s and they did buy and sell the working class as slaves/servants. The main reason this system was maintained for so long was simply because of the strong middle class and just how much they benefited from the suffering and death and torture of others.


----------



## Mrmagoo (9 August 2015)

nioka said:


> This is the way I see wealth inequality in Australia.
> 
> 1. The top level. This includes those that have "made it themselves", those that inherited wealth, and some that have been in a position of influence to direct wealth in their direction.
> 2. Overpaid top business executives often in a position to use companies as "cash cows" to milk their company.:bad:
> ...




Old people logic = my $39 brand name pair of socks are okay. As are my expensive queensland holidays.  !!!! WHAT AN OUTRAGE !!!!

The sad part is that a European holiday is probably cheaper than going to QLD. Most of these boomers fly Qantas (3 times the price of virgin) and only stay in 4 star hotels/eat at restaurants every day.

Gen Y on holiday in europe = stay in a hostel and eat 1-3 euro meals.

No one can spend like a baby boomer.


----------



## sptrawler (9 August 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> Old people logic = my $39 brand name pair of socks are okay. As are my expensive queensland holidays.  !!!! WHAT AN OUTRAGE !!!!
> 
> The sad part is that a European holiday is probably cheaper than going to QLD. Most of these boomers fly Qantas (3 times the price of virgin) and only stay in 4 star hotels/eat at restaurants every day.
> 
> ...




So, when you retire, you will go to europe and stay in a hostel? You're funny.

I'm a baby boomer, self funded, I never went overseas untill I was in my 50's.

Spent most of my 20's and 30's and 40's bringing up kids, taking them on camping holidays, in a Mitsubishi Express.

There wasn't any chance of affording an overseas holiday. You're a hoot, telling everyone how hard it is to afford your overseas holidays.

Then you tell us how you can't afford a house, buy an old house and get it jinkered onto a block out of town, fix it up and sell it for a profit.

That's what I did, but you say "it's all too hard", you need to grow up and get on with it. Or keep buying lotto tickets. 

But I do enjoy your tales of woe and self pity, they're good reading.


----------



## Mrmagoo (9 August 2015)

sptrawler said:


> So, when you retire, you will go to europe and stay in a hostel? You're funny.
> 
> I'm a baby boomer, self funded, I never went overseas untill I was in my 50's.
> 
> ...




I know you're just teasing. Trying to get me bad because no one can be as ignorant as what that post suggests.

But thanks for proving my point. Look, okay. I went to Europe. It probably set me back about 3.3k. I figured at the time with such cheap flights and the dollar up around 70 cents I'd be stupid not to. I must be a massive **** for taking a holiday. Especially since I was approaching 30, had been to university for 4 years and working for 7.

Tell you what I'll give you 3.3k and you give me one of your houses at 1980s house price to average income multiples ? Then everything is fair. Okay ?

Aside from the fact that not buying a house is my own personal choice and doesn't change the fact that they're over priced.... Baby Boomers really are the generations humans in history.


----------



## sptrawler (10 August 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> I know you're just teasing. Trying to get me bad because no one can be as ignorant as what that post suggests.
> 
> But thanks for proving my point. Look, okay. I went to Europe. It probably set me back about 3.3k. I figured at the time with such cheap flights and the dollar up around 70 cents I'd be stupid not to. I must be a massive **** for taking a holiday. Especially since I was approaching 30, had been to university for 4 years and working for 7.
> 
> ...




I can't give you one of my houses, I don't own it, I've sold part equity to fund my retirement.

Never went to uni, worked from when I was 15, brought up four kids. Sorry your life is so tough.

As I said cheap houses are available, and with work you can add value.
What your problem is, you want the easy way, well most people have to work to get what they want. Build equity and add value, grow up.


----------



## luutzu (10 August 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> No, I'm arguing with facts. There was a middle class in England in the 1800s and they did buy and sell the working class as slaves/servants. The main reason this system was maintained for so long was simply because of the strong middle class and just how much they benefited from the suffering and death and torture of others.




I don't think we should blame the middle class. I don't even think we ought to blame the plutocrats either - the ultra, uber rich needs love too.

There are good and civic minded people in all classes and economic strata; there are also pure exploiters and corrupt/abusive people who are poor too. In general though, most people just want to better themselves and take care of their family... and they will use whatever means is available to them to pursue that. 

So as long as they do not break the current law, can we really blame them? 

Not saying that the law and the legal system is moral; not saying that what is legal is morally acceptable... But as long as we live under a legal system, that's how it is and we'd all do the same stuff we're complaining about if we have the means.

I don't think you would think too much about buying a $5 quality shirt or a $25 pair of jeans. Does that mean you don't care about the exploited workers in poor countries? You'd probably think how badly the other poor have it, how exploited they are... but at the end of the day, you'd wish you could pay more if it would do a lot of good etc. etc.  I think we're all like that.


So really, the only people you could blame for your and society's woes are the elected leadership. Other citizens' job is to get a job and pay the required taxes... politician's jobs is to look after the people they are supposed to represent. If policies do not achieve that, if people can't afford a home or find a job... it's the leadership that's to blame.

The CEO that push wages down, the big fat cats that lobbies and buy politicians, the middle class and baby boomers that own properties and drive it up or whatever... they're doing what they're supposed to do. We'd wish they would think more and care more for society, but that's not their job.


So if you want change or think the world is unfair, get into politics or organise rallies; expecting the world to be more caring is too much; blaming people who work hard or not work at all to get ahead is not right, and not that useful to you either.

Some smart guy once advised us to be the change we want to be. So if you want a more caring world, start caring more; want a fairer dealing world, start dealing fairly with others... you may find you'd get screwed now and then, may find the road a lonely one... but that's the price for doing what you think is right. 

Then when you gain wealth honestly and fairly, you may help those in need like you yourself once needed help... and lecture and write books or have books written about your integrity and honesty and hardword... and then all people will come to listen and ask how you to make all that money, haha.


----------



## Mrmagoo (10 August 2015)

sptrawler said:


> I can't give you one of my houses, I don't own it, I've sold part equity to fund my retirement.
> 
> Never went to uni, worked from when I was 15, brought up four kids. Sorry your life is so tough.
> 
> ...




You had it easy. You didn't work hard. Maybe you did both, who cares, the point is it was easy for you. You had it all set up for you by people with a social conscience. The generation before you set everything up because many came from a war ravaged society and wanted to make life better for their kids.

Just like my generation or the one's a bit younger. When the greedy boomers are dead and gone we're going to set things up for our generations kids, because many people in their 30s and 40s are very worried about what kind of future their children are going to have.  I would hate to be 20 today it would be an absolute crap shoot. Unaffordable education, no jobs, hugely expensive housing and you've got a consumer force full of cranky old entitled boomers.


----------



## Mrmagoo (10 August 2015)

luutzu said:


> I don't think we should blame the middle class. I don't even think we ought to blame the plutocrats either - the ultra, uber rich needs love too.
> 
> There are good and civic minded people in all classes and economic strata; there are also pure exploiters and corrupt/abusive people who are poor too. In general though, most people just want to better themselves and take care of their family... and they will use whatever means is available to them to pursue that.
> 
> ...




I don't care about other countries.


----------



## Klogg (10 August 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> You had it easy. You didn't work hard. Maybe you did both, who cares, the point is it was easy for you. You had it all set up for you by people with a social conscience. The generation before you set everything up because many came from a war ravaged society and wanted to make life better for their kids.
> 
> Just like my generation or the one's a bit younger. When the greedy boomers are dead and gone we're going to set things up for our generations kids, because many people in their 30s and 40s are very worried about what kind of future their children are going to have.  I would hate to be 20 today it would be an absolute crap shoot. Unaffordable education, no jobs, hugely expensive housing and you've got a consumer force full of cranky old entitled boomers.




I'm 28 and I've been given many opportunities. This idea that it's a huge struggle is crap. Obviously it's not easy, but life is much better overall than it would have been 50 years ago.

If you think housing is too expensive, don't buy it. There are other asset classes that offer better returns, so if finances are your concern, I'd suggest going there. Just takes a bit of self-education and hard work, but it's doable.


Truth is, we can complain all we like, but we're better off learning about the situation we're in, identifying the opportunities and proceeding accordingly. 

And for what it's worth, it's not just the boomers with the entitlement attitude - everyone has it.


----------



## sptrawler (10 August 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> You had it easy. You didn't work hard. Maybe you did both, who cares, the point is it was easy for you. You had it all set up for you by people with a social conscience. The generation before you set everything up because many came from a war ravaged society and wanted to make life better for their kids.
> 
> Just like my generation or the one's a bit younger. When the greedy boomers are dead and gone we're going to set things up for our generations kids, because many people in their 30s and 40s are very worried about what kind of future their children are going to have.  I would hate to be 20 today it would be an absolute crap shoot. Unaffordable education, no jobs, hugely expensive housing and you've got a consumer force full of cranky old entitled boomers.




That is just nonsense, our parents had nothing, wages didn't start improving untill the 70's.
 A car was three years wages, now the price of a car is about half the average yearly wage. The same goes for most consumables like electronics, furniture, holidays etc.
Housing has outstripped wages, but it doesn't mean people can't afford them, they just may not be able to afford the McMansion.

Which the baby boomers couldn't afford either, when they were younger. Life is always about choices, you've obviously made yours, as my kids have.

Some are getting on with it, some are mopiing and complaining, I hope it works for you.


----------



## SmokeyGhost (10 August 2015)

A comment last night from a 24 yo female (my daughter) who has been reading this thread.  No way would I date a fully paid up member of the Losers Club if they have an attitude like Mr Mrmagoo.


----------



## Mrmagoo (10 August 2015)

Klogg said:


> I'm 28 and I've been given many opportunities. This idea that it's a huge struggle is crap. Obviously it's not easy, but life is much better overall than it would have been 50 years ago.
> 
> If you think housing is too expensive, don't buy it. There are other asset classes that offer better returns, so if finances are your concern, I'd suggest going there. Just takes a bit of self-education and hard work, but it's doable.
> 
> ...




50 years ago the boomers were in their childhood or very early 20s. Since then things grew exponentially. Whatever we benefited from like wage growth, they got the same benefit from only in greater numbers.

There are a huge number of boomers who have enormous salaries just because they happened to be around with experience right when things were starting to take off. 

What you're really trying to refer to are our grandparents, who did have it a lot harder. I won't doubt that. And any benefits of rising wages and house prices happened right as they were leaving the workforce. So not only did they deal with WW2 and the great depression, they missed out on most of the benefits. They would have been laid off in the 1970s and 1980s and been replaced by the baby boomers. That also happened. Many of the silent generation were literally forced out of their jobs by baby boomers.

You can call me a loser for speaking the truth if you want. It is very far from the truth and an almost laughable personal attack with no basis.


----------



## Mrmagoo (10 August 2015)

SmokeyGhost said:


> A comment last night from a 24 yo female (my daughter) who has been reading this thread.  No way would I date a fully paid up member of the Losers Club if they have an attitude like Mr Mrmagoo.




I don't even know what kind of a person would use their daughter in that sort of a context.


----------



## Mrmagoo (10 August 2015)

sptrawler said:


> That is just nonsense, our parents had nothing, wages didn't start improving untill the 70's.
> A car was three years wages, now the price of a car is about half the average yearly wage. The same goes for most consumables like electronics, furniture, holidays etc.
> Housing has outstripped wages, but it doesn't mean people can't afford them, they just may not be able to afford the McMansion.
> 
> ...




Gen Y are not necessarily young. Many of my friends are having their second child and having insane difficulty upgrading their homes without going into significant debt.

You're wrong. If housing has outstripped wages that is that not definition of unaffordable ?

Also, keep your nonsense assumptions about me to yourself. I do just fine. But people like you teach me the reason why socialism is a failure and why we need a more market orientated system if we're going to address inequality.


----------



## Klogg (10 August 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> You can call me a loser for speaking the truth if you want. It is very far from the truth and an almost laughable personal attack with no basis.




Wow, slow down. I never called anyone a loser, nor did I make any personal attacks. I just think that there are plenty of opportunities, and that you're better off playing the hand you're dealt, rather than arguing someone else got a better deal.


----------



## DeepState (10 August 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> .
> 
> If housing has outstripped wages that is that not definition of unaffordable ?




It may be yours.  
In the real world, it is not even a definition of less affordable.
Explaining this would be futile.


----------



## Mrmagoo (10 August 2015)

DeepState said:


> It may be yours.
> In the real world, it is not even a definition of less affordable.
> Explaining this would be futile.




If wage growth is less than house price growth by even a small amount, eventually housing becomes something which literally cannot be bought by wage earners.

No amount of saving will help if the houses grow faster than you can save. Exactly what we've seen in Melbourne and Sydney.

Seems to be making pretty good predictions thus far.


----------



## againsthegrain (10 August 2015)

SmokeyGhost said:


> A comment last night from a 24 yo female (my daughter) who has been reading this thread.  No way would I date a fully paid up member of the Losers Club if they have an attitude like Mr Mrmagoo.




Thats a very strange comment,  so this is saying a 24yo female is prepared to date a cashed up member of the losers club as long as the attitude is tamed? 
This is a perfect example of the argument a today's 24yo female is looking to date cashed up sugar daddies. 
But for her father to mention this... Lol


----------



## luutzu (10 August 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> ... But people like you teach me the reason why socialism is a failure and why we need a more market orientated system if we're going to address inequality.




??  You mean corporate socialism? Corporate Welfare?

I think if you look into the major cause of inequality, it's not due to Socialism as exemplified by Medicare and Social Security benefits and affordable housing/gov't housing for the poor. Those are the few remaining socialist ideas keeping Australia going the way of the US "market" system where 16 million kids go to bed hungry and some law makers thought the best thing to solve that is to further cut their benefits - that'll motivate them to get a non-existent job or something.

So if that kind of market system is your solution, we're going to have it solve real smart so don't worry too much.

Seriously though, fair enough you think the world has it against the poor or those you know... Having a clear and thoughtful insight into its causes is needed to start solving the problems. You don't seem to know what's the cause, and as to the problem... that's just life and we all have our problems man.

So let say the Boomers have had it easy... so what? So the rich have it made... do they really? So the White male have it easier than the ethnic male with an accent and a funny name... maybe, if all else is equal.

In the end, you just have to work with what you have; and find contentment with what you've been able to make of it. Don't focus on how lucky someone else have it and if only you're them you'd be this and that... you're not going to get anywhere with that... mainly because you're not them and you won't have their stuff - that and they have their own problems and issues too, just might not be the same as yours; and more importantly, save such self pity to your mother or a very understanding father because the world doesn't owe you anything.


----------



## DeepState (10 August 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> If wage growth is less than house price growth by even a small amount, eventually housing becomes something which literally cannot be bought by wage earners.




If the low tide keeps going out, there will eventually be no ocean either. 

Futile.


----------



## Mrmagoo (10 August 2015)

luutzu said:


> ??  You mean corporate socialism? Corporate Welfare?
> 
> I think if you look into the major cause of inequality, it's not due to Socialism as exemplified by Medicare and Social Security benefits and affordable housing/gov't housing for the poor.




Absolutely and the key thing with Medicare is it is equally available to everyone as are other key social security benefits.

What I don't like is things like negative gearing, family tax benefits and a range of other socialist measures which are designed to benefit the well off...

Rather than having negative gearing... just build houses for the poor. If people wanna get rich, work hard. 

There is a big difference in my mind between giving people the minimum they need for dignity and "sharing the wealth" around which really only creates exclusive groups of haves and have nots.


----------



## Vixs (10 August 2015)

againsthegrain said:


> Thats a very strange comment,  so this is saying a 24yo female is prepared to date a cashed up member of the losers club as long as the attitude is tamed?
> This is a perfect example of the argument a today's 24yo female is looking to date cashed up sugar daddies.
> But for her father to mention this... Lol




Noone said anything about cashed up, sugar daddies or money at all. The term is "a paid up member", meaning they are a part of the group. The group the poster was referring to was the loser's club. I think it's a perfect example of the challenges in reading comprehension people face today. His daughter wouldn't want to date someone resigned to being a defeatist moaner. 

Honestly, all this thread needs is this:
Sydney and Melbourne will continue to feel the heat of property prices that are out of touch with what self-funded young couples want to pay as they have become cities desirable to more than just those that were born there. Being the centre of many industries, and the headquarters of businesses who have not yet embraced telecommuting and are not expanding their footprint around the country fast enough, demand for places to live within reasonable commute times on existing public transport has only increased.

The other capitals are experiencing a completely different situation where lower commute times and reasonable housing are very much on offer, however they lack the breadth of employers of NSW and VIC and as a result career options are more limited and demand is lower. Perth has even experienced falls in prices as mining comes off the boil and cooler heads prevail about the immediate future.

Public transport at a national level is not being invested in fast enough and high speed rail and other rapid transit, or the lack thereof, also weighs on the demand for inner ring suburbs, as outer ring suburbs just take to long to commute to.

Older Australians that have watched their city expand around them and the streets they raised their kids on redevelop into higher density inner city hubs are now living where the jobs are, despite no longer working. Many have not yet downsized and are not moving to allow infill development. Until either their homes are included in the pension asset test and they are provided the incentive to sell, downsize and fund their own retirement, the only change will come as they drop off their perches. Thanks to modern medicine this is taking longer and longer and  costing taxpayers more and more. 

Without the ability to redevelop into true high density living spaces and no high speed transport options to make commutes more manageable, the value of what is put up for sale near our cities will continue to increase.

In the era of the internet and with the widespread embracing of technology and hopefully soon telecommuting, cities will become less necessary and more optional for the lifestyle. This may emerge as something that slows capital city growth soon, but people will likely still prize proximity to the established schools and areas they know and be willing to pay a premium.

There is still opportunity, all you need is an income. If you want to buy a house, you might need two incomes. If you want to buy on your own you can buy a 1 or 2 bed unit,  something older. If you want something bigger, you'll need to rent out the extra rooms. If you want a nice big house for kids, you'll both need to work. If you don't like it because your parents didn't need to do it, move somewhere with the population density of what it was like when your parents started out. It's cheaper.

That's the future of aussie property prices - up, eventually. If you don't like what you see in Sydney and Melbourne, it's time to discover the rest of the country.

Edit: all that typed on the tablet andit wasn't even the property thread. Oh well. Guess my reading comprehension sucks too.


----------



## SmokeyGhost (10 August 2015)

Vixs said:


> Noone said anything about cashed up, sugar daddies or money at all. The term is "a paid up member", meaning they are a part of the group. The group the poster was referring to was the loser's club. I think it's a perfect example of the challenges in reading comprehension people face today. His daughter wouldn't want to date someone resigned to being a defeatist moaner...........




Yep, that is what she meant.  Strives for independence, didn't wish for any assistance from me for university tuition even though she knows I can (all my kids are like that fortunately), works a couple of jobs, as does her sister with whom she shares a flat (not mine) and prefers not to hang around those with a positive outlook.  It's a nice attitude I feel.


----------



## Mrmagoo (10 August 2015)

Vixs said:


> Noone said anything about cashed up, sugar daddies or money at all. The term is "a paid up member", meaning they are a part of the group. The group the poster was referring to was the loser's club. I think it's a perfect example of the challenges in reading comprehension people face today. His daughter wouldn't want to date someone resigned to being a defeatist moaner.
> 
> Honestly, all this thread needs is this:
> Sydney and Melbourne will continue to feel the heat of property prices that are out of touch with what self-funded young couples want to pay as they have become cities desirable to more than just those that were born there. Being the centre of many industries, and the headquarters of businesses who have not yet embraced telecommuting and are not expanding their footprint around the country fast enough, demand for places to live within reasonable commute times on existing public transport has only increased.




I don't know where you get that idea from. If there was thriving industry in Melbourne and Sydney then prices wouldn't be out of whack with wages. You have an early 2000s approach. Things changed since then.


----------



## Mrmagoo (10 August 2015)

SmokeyGhost said:


> Yep, that is what she meant.  Strives for independence, didn't wish for any assistance from me for university tuition even though she knows I can (all my kids are like that fortunately), works a couple of jobs, as does her sister with whom she shares a flat (not mine) and prefers not to hang around those with a positive outlook.  It's a nice attitude I feel.




I think I'm going to throw up.


----------



## againsthegrain (10 August 2015)

SmokeyGhost said:


> Yep, that is what she meant.  Strives for independence, didn't wish for any assistance from me for university tuition even though she knows I can (all my kids are like that fortunately), works a couple of jobs, as does her sister with whom she shares a flat (not mine) and prefers not to hang around those with a positive outlook.  It's a nice attitude I feel.




Sounds like a nice kid,  but she doesn't like to hang around people with a positive outlook?  Anyway at 24 she should have a mortgage in her name otherwise its a bit late for a 60yr loan


----------



## sptrawler (10 August 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> Gen Y are not necessarily young. Many of my friends are having their second child and having insane difficulty upgrading their homes without going into significant debt.
> 
> You're wrong. If housing has outstripped wages that is that not definition of unaffordable ?
> 
> Also, keep your nonsense assumptions about me to yourself. I do just fine. But people like you teach me the reason why socialism is a failure and why we need a more market orientated system if we're going to address inequality.




If your friends are having their second child, and having trouble upgrading their home, that is the norm they are doing o.k.


----------



## sptrawler (10 August 2015)

againsthegrain said:


> Sounds like a nice kid,  but she doesn't like to hang around people with a positive outlook?  Anyway at 24 she should have a mortgage in her name otherwise its a bit late for a 60yr loan




Maybe she doesn't want to live in Sydney, Melbourne CBD, then she may only have a 5 year loan. Not everyone has to have house/location  envy.


----------



## luutzu (11 August 2015)

Mrmagoo said:


> Absolutely and the key thing with Medicare is it is equally available to everyone as are other key social security benefits.
> 
> What I don't like is things like negative gearing, family tax benefits and a range of other socialist measures which are designed to benefit the well off...
> 
> ...




I think you might be mixing up Socialism and capitalism. I don't even think the kind of capitalism that's in favour at the moment are actually capitalism/free market stuff, but anyway.

I can see where you're coming from. I have heard parents who came here as refugees worrying about their kids, kids who were born and raised in Australia... these parents are worried that their kids couldn't afford a place to live.

That's a bit messed up when you think about it. Refugees having nothing, knowing no English, working at menial jobs and they managed to raise a family and have a house. Now their kids, the ones I know are actually earning some $50 to $60K a year so it's nothing to brag but nothing to sneeze at either... kids with no language problem, grew up in the country and have qualification and they're priced out.

But that's life man. Not meant to be easy. 

If having an apartment or a house is that important to you, and it is important... but if you must have it and that 9 to 5 job isn't gonna do it... maybe start your own business or take up extra work or higher training/qualification. 

That might sound unfair since those before, or some among us, don't have to do that... but ey, those days, if they ever existed, are long gone. And the way technology and these free trade agreements and globalisation are going... wages will just stagnant or shipped overseas.


----------

