Financial Independence (Home Ownership, Super, Long Retirement) not possible for wage earners: What do we need and how do we get it?

[Value Collector]

And yet people like you are somehow convinced that continued immigration is a good thing..... I am sure it helps you as the properties you own become worth more.

Well with an aging population and a low birth rate, I can’t see any other way to keep the work force steady.

I would probably not have as much immigration as we have in recent years though, but a certain amount is rational, I would also probably encourage the population to spread out more, but that is a hard sell.

 

[Value Collector]

I doubt it is true when you look at basic food items with good quality (general food quality has gone down over time). Sure if you are talking about chocolate or supermarket bread its probably cheaper today but if you are trying to tell me grass fed steak or organic free range eggs (probably fairly equivalent in quality to what standard eggs and steak were like back in the day) are cheaper today then back in the day I doubt it.

In the nicer parts of Sydney any small independent bakery that has good quality (i.e. comparable to bakery in the old days) sells a loaf of bread from anywhere between $7 and $12 depending on the type of bread and the bakery. $10 for a loaf of bread compared to approximately $26 per hour for part time or full time award wage (varies by industry award of course). That is around 23 minutes of minimum wage to buy a loaf of bread.....

The average wage today will buy you basically 10 times the amount of food it would in 1960, I am not sure how much better 1kg of mince meat or a roast chicken has to be to be worth 10 times the amount of a workers time to earn.

 

[Value Collector]

I do not aspire to committing to live in a house if it like one of these.
.

View attachment 190970

Would you prefer this… those homes in the ponds are some people’s dream homes.

 

[divs4ever]

Well with an aging population and a low birth rate, I can’t see any other way to keep the work force steady.

I would probably not have as much immigration as we have in recent years though, but a certain amount is rational, I would also probably encourage the population to spread out more, but that is a hard sell.

encouraging the population to spread out more , seems to be against recent Government policy ( and i mean both major parties here )

i agree with your stance

but maybe if the younger adults were out working in ( adequately ) paying jobs they might consider planning for a family , earlier

 

[divs4ever]

Would you prefer this… those homes in the ponds are some people’s dream homes.

View attachment 190988

not my choice ( too many neighbours close ) , but better than a cardboard box ( or tent ) under a bridge

and 'home' is where you can feel comfortable , maybe this is as good as it gets for them

i had a buddy that found a Filipino girlfriend on-line and one of those flats/units would have been a veritable palace for that family

( the buddy returned with photos )

 

[againsthegrain]

- Anybody who is successful will look towards and associate with those more successful not those worse off, with this example I think we should not look at the 3rd world and say 90% live in mud huts, we can lower our standards, why not look at the other 10% and say we can do better.

- Immigration is good, under the right conditions. The right number, compatible immigration. I don't believe we meet either.
Too much and from non compatible hostile schools of thinking. No there is nothing racist or wrong with saying we shouldn't be taking in radical moslems who we know will not take on our values and add anything positive.
Taking example of France as a future reference and example of Japan how it is perfectly fine and in the interest of the country and population to do so.

- We can't all be business owners, landlords and investors. Somebody has to farm the land dig the holes and build the homes, if everybody buys bitcoin and refuses to go work it all stops.

- Food, shelter, survival are probably the best means to compare the cost of life from the past to the present. Useless luxuries are only that useless and only cherry pick a bias.

 

[Value Hunter]

Well with an aging population and a low birth rate, I can’t see any other way to keep the work force steady.

There are ways that a shrinking population can be managed and you can still have reasonable economic growth. Just look at Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania there populations have been shrinking for decades now but there economies are doing pretty much okay in comparison to the EU averages. They only started increasing their populations in the last 2 - 3 years with immigration but before that since 1990 they had shrinking populations but in terms of economic growth they outpaced the EU averages over time.

I would probably not have as much immigration as we have in recent years though, but a certain amount is rational, I would also probably encourage the population to spread out more, but that is a hard sell.

Spreading out the population more means that you have to build more infrastructure which is expensive (and the government has lagged behind in building infrastructure) and you lose efficiency in terms of infrastructure when population density goes down and transport times are greater, etc. Also do you expect everybody to drive 100km to go to work?

 

[Value Hunter]

The average wage today will buy you basically 10 times the amount of food it would in 1960,

Can you provide proof of this?

 

[farmerge]

not my choice ( too many neighbours close ) , but better than a cardboard box ( or tent ) under a bridge

and 'home' is where you can feel comfortable , maybe this is as good as it gets for them

i had a buddy that found a Filipino girlfriend on-line and one of those flats/units would have been a veritable palace for that family

( the buddy returned with photos )

I heard a quote many years ago from whom the grey matter refuses to recall.
"Home is where you hang your hat each day"
Pretty apt I reckon.

 

[Value Collector]

encouraging the population to spread out more , seems to be against recent Government policy ( and i mean both major parties here )

i agree with your stance

but maybe if the younger adults were out working in ( adequately ) paying jobs they might consider planning for a family , earlier

I think the reason for the Birth rate being below the maintenance level is that 2 kids is now considered enough by most, and some only want 1 and some none.

To maintain the population every male needs to produce two children that live till adulthood, as long as it’s less than 2 the population declines.

Unless we find a cure for aging.

I am not against global population decline, but Australia should atleast maintain its population,

 

[Value Collector]

There are ways that a shrinking population can be managed and you can still have reasonable economic growth. Just look at Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania there populations have been shrinking for decades now but there economies are doing pretty much okay in comparison to the EU averages. They only started increasing their populations in the last 2 - 3 years with immigration but before that since 1990 they had shrinking populations but in terms of economic growth they outpaced the EU averages over time.


Spreading out the population more means that you have to build more infrastructure which is expensive (and the government has lagged behind in building infrastructure) and you lose efficiency in terms of infrastructure when population density goes down and transport times are greater, etc. Also do you expect everybody to drive 100km to go to work?

I am not against a slow global population decline over time, I think we could half the global population and it would be good, but Australia being the large size we are should probably atleast maintain its population, allowing the global population to spread out.

Yeah spreading out would require spending on infrastructure, but so does trying to increase the density level of existing cities.

 

[Value Collector]

Can you provide proof of this?

Yep, two nights ago I went and did the math.

Look up what the average wage was in 1960 (it’s in pounds and shillings) and compare that to how much meat, bread, coke, etc etc was at the time.

Work out how much mince meat for example the average weekly wage could buy vs now, you will find it’s about 10 times more now.

———————-

My point is simply that so much is now cheaper than it way 60 or 70 years ago, and there are so many new services that we now buy, but yes some things cost more like housing.

Also some things are more expensive than they were 10 years ago, and that gives the impression that things are getting worse, but that’s probably just a fluctuating of a long term trend that is positive.

 

[Value Collector]

- Anybody who is successful will look towards and associate with those more successful not those worse off, with this example I think we should not look at the 3rd world and say 90% live in mud huts, we can lower our standards, why not look at the other 10% and say we can do better.

If we are just talking about those houses in the ponds, which countries are doing better?

I mean it’s subjective, but I have been to European countries and seen the tiny little apartments people live in, and I think those houses in the ponds might be better for a family to live in.

 

[Value Collector]

- We can't all be business owners, landlords and investors. Somebody has to farm the land dig the holes and build the homes.

Sure we can, just because you are a worker doesn’t mean you can’t also be an investor.

Farmers are business people, as are most of the people in the building industry, and they all rely on external capital sources from other investors either directly through loans or by funding their projects.

Everyone involved in providing labour into the economy should also be pool putting in capital and growing their non labour business

 

[Value Hunter]

My point is simply that so much is now cheaper than it way 60 or 70 years ago, and there are so many new services that we now buy, but yes some things cost more like housing.

There are a few things that are cheaper but most are more expensive when properly adjusting for quality.

Once upon a time people could buy German made workbooks or military boots that lasted for 30 years. Now you buy new workboots practically every year if you work in a manual labour job full time. Planned obsolescence has made things a lot more expensive when you work out the annual cost of durable goods. A the structure of heritage double brick house will last hundreds of years (albeit the interior will need periodic renovations) whereas new kit homes will have to be demolished after 50 years.

Back in the day a family would buy a washing machine and use it for a lifetime, these days it tends to last around 10 years if you fork out cash for a decent quality one. The same logic applies to many appliances. If you properly adjust for annual expenditure on a consumer good in most cases its not cheaper now thanks to planned obsolescence. One pair of shoes that costs $400 but lasts for 10 years is much cheaper than a $150 pair of shoes that you have to replace every 12 months. Even clothing, a lot of new shirts these days will start having holes in them within a few years if worn regularly. I have certain shirts that I have worn regularly for more than 20 years that don't have any holes in them. Shirts made today will likely have holes after 2 or 3 years of regular usage.

In terms of food quality has gone way downhill. Apples are refrigerated in cold storage for 6 months, many foods are genetically modified, everything is full of chemicals and seed oils, pesticides, hormones, preservatives, etc so you need to adjust for degradation in quality when comparing prices. Once upon a time McDonalds used to fry its french fries in tallow, these days it uses seed oils such as Canola.

If you want proper food instead of mass produced garbage sold in supermarkets it costs a fortune. If you do all of your shopping from a local weekend organic market it would cost you $800 - $1500 per week to feed a family of four. If you are trying to tell me that it would have been 10 times more expensive (i.e. the equivalent of $8000 per week back in the day its simply ludicrous). Like I said before if you buy a loaf of bread in Sydney or Melbourne from an artisan bakery in the nicer suburbs it will cost anywhere from $7 - $12 for a loaf. Are trying to tell me it would have cost the equivalent of $70 - $120 back in the day? Organic grass-fed steak costs anywhere from $60 - $120 per kilo depending on the cut, the quality and where you buy it from. Would that have cost the equivalent of $600 back in the day?

Also if everything is getting cheaper how come when measured against real money (i.e. gold) our wages have dropped over 75% since 1971? A gold coin is still exactly the same as it was in 1971. You can say whatever nonsense you want but the gold price speaks volumes and you have no response for this.

 

[Value Hunter]

I mean it’s subjective, but I have been to European countries and seen the tiny little apartments people live in, and I think those houses in the ponds might be better for a family to live in.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Those tiny apartments in Europe are not in the middle of nowhere like those houses in the ponds are.

They are in dense urban areas. You have to compare a tiny apartment in the centre of Berlin to a tiny apartment in the centre of Sydney. The difference in Europe is for example somebody can live in a small town 40 minutes drive from the centre of Berlin or Prague and pay a quarter of the price that the house in the ponds would cost and it would be a proper community and many of the houses would be quality heritage houses, etc.