Well with an aging population and a low birth rate, I can’t see any other way to keep the work force steady.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.
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.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.....
encouraging the population to spread out more , seems to be against recent Government policy ( and i mean both major parties here )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.
not my choice ( too many neighbours close ) , but better than a cardboard box ( or tent ) under a bridgeWould you prefer this… those homes in the ponds are some people’s dream homes.
View attachment 190988
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.Well with an aging population and a low birth rate, I can’t see any other way to keep the work force steady.
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 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.
Can you provide proof of this?The average wage today will buy you basically 10 times the amount of food it would in 1960,
I heard a quote many years ago from whom the grey matter refuses to recall.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 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.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 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.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?
Yep, two nights ago I went and did the math.Can you provide proof of this?
If we are just talking about those houses in the ponds, which countries are doing better?- 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.
- We can't all be business owners, landlords and investors. Somebody has to farm the land dig the holes and build the homes.
There are a few things that are cheaper but most are more expensive when properly adjusting for quality.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.
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.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 clutching at straws mate, 30 years for boots that are used daily??? You are dreaming, however things like modern LED light bulbs will last 30 times longer and use 90% less electricity than the ones available in the 60’s.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.
Some of the apartments I am talking about are in the middle of no where, in tiny towns they still have tiny apartments.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.
I see both sides.Yet the majority will whinge and whine and the few will take advantage of what a first world country can only make possible .
We are all born naked and penniless
So it’s tougher
Toughen up and find a way bring others with you
Make your circle one worth having
Find solutions don’t create problems
If you don’t want to be financially independent don’t carry on about how opportunities aren’t like they were when the oldies were kids woe is me.
If you are committed you’ll find a way .
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?