How will Australia's younger generation get ahead?

[Sdajii]

Not sure where your from Sdajii, but jobs are very hard to get here at Frankston. As a member of the Australian Unemployed Workers Union, a retired policeman and now 72, I can say that compared to productive Australia a few years back there are just no jobs for the average young fellow today. The allowance they are expected to live on (if they can get through the red tape) is less than a packet of smokes.

Melbourne is my hometown. I am familiar with Frankston, which as it goes without saying, means I know it's a place I'd rather not be hanging out in, and if I was unfortunate enough to be there now, I'd be moving. Frankston is full of drugged up deadbeats who literally wouldn't take a job if you paid them.

I'm currently in Bangkok (next stop Vietnam, where things are even more challenging for locals). Here in Bangkok, many people have come to find work because it's about as easy as in Frankston, as opposed to their hometowns where it's literally impossible. Now, compare having a job here to there. Most people who work at a job are on 300 baht (about AU$12) per day, and while the cost of living here is a lot less than in Australia, it's nowhere near that much less, and I would literally struggle to even survive on that little money. The people here dream of living in a place where life is as easy as it is in Frankston.

As I said, people here will relocate to where the work is. If you're in Frankston and unemployed, what is wrong with you? For crying out loud, move, or, at least, commute! The last place I lived in Melbourne was a short drive from Frankston, I had a girlfriend at the time who had business there and I'd sometimes drive her there or pick her up. It was perhaps a 15 minute drive, and I can say that I'd have had no trouble finding work within a 15 minute commute of Frankston. If I was willing to wash dishes or some other menial work, I'd have had no trouble getting a job within a week, and compared to where I am right now, or where I'll be in a few days, or most places in the world, life on minimum wage would be absolute luxury.

I always find it funny when talking to Australians, all this whinging about no jobs, no work, it's impossible. When I travel around Australia and hang out with foreigners who are looking for work, they usually find it within a few days, never more than two weeks, and it's more difficult for them than locals!

If you're Australian and can't find work, there is literally something wrong with you, whether it's a forgivable disability you can't change, in which case I genuinely sympathise, or your attitude is pathetic, in which case, change it.

 

[SirRumpole]

Everyone understands by the time they a 6 years old the concept of having a job and earning money by contributing labour to the economy and that they should get a job to earn money.

Everyone earning a wage is an investor by default as part of their wage goes to superannuation which is invested in companies.

Most people don't want to get into the mechanics of investing in shares and the majority don't have the cash after paying the mortgage, rent and other expenses.

 

[Sdajii]

Yeah, more needs to be taught at schools about the basic's of investing.

Everyone understands by the time they a 6 years old the concept of having a job and earning money by contributing labour to the economy and that they should get a job to earn money.

However many adults don't seem to understand that investing their savings (capital) back into the economy is also a valid way (and much needed way) to earn money.

A lot of adults even look down on the idea that some one might earn their money by investing rather than working full time, and that a "worker" is some how morally superior to an "investor", this is simply because they don't understand the concept that the economy requires both labour and capital and rewards both, and even if you are a "worker" you should probably be saving some of your earnings and be an investor to.

I have actually had some one say that living off investment earnings is glorified dole bludging, what they don't understand is that their earnings as a "worker" are increased by the investment made by investors, and not all of their "production" is a result of strictly their labour, because most likely the output of their labour has been multiplied by the addition of investment capital, and those people suppling the capital deserve a slice of the much bigger pie they assisted creating.

Not that I hold anything against investors and am one myself, but what you're saying is garbage. A passive investor isn't doing anything to help the world, and someone actually working is. Big companies could still exist without being publicly owned, and the concept of having passive investors like us probably hurts the big picture rather than helps. It allows people like me to not bother working or contributing to the world, and just derive wealth from other people's work. By buying low and selling high I am not really helping anything, and by removing me from the workforce the world suffers.

I try to offset this by volunteering and doing what I can in other ways, but realistically, I probably don't put in as much as I should (it has been on my mind in recent times and I'm thinking about what I can do to contribute), and I certainly know plenty of people who don't even bother trying, or just give a token amount to charity to allow them to virtue signal.

The whole system we are playing in as investors is set up around greed, not to facilitate productivity.

Put it this way, if everyone was making their money by investing rather than working... well, you join those dots. We are not contributing to the world by investing, not really.

 

[Sdajii]

Most people don't want to get into the mechanics of investing in shares and the majority don't have the cash after paying the mortgage, rent and other expenses.

That's a ridiculous statement. True, but ridiculous. Amusing that you include both rend and mortgage! But, the problem is that people spend too much. They choose rent *or* mortgage above an appropriate level, and spend too much on "other expenses". A better choice would be to rent or buy a cheaper place, live more frugally, and then, magically, they would indeed have money left over. Any working Australian (and most dole bludgers! I could live on the dole in Australia more comfortably than on a median full time wage in any of the other few most recent countries I've been to!) can afford to do this.

I could literally live on the dole in Australia more comfortably than most people in the world live, and save money! People who say their expenses are too high should simply lower their expenses. It's extremely simple and obvious.

 

[luutzu]

Not that I hold anything against investors and am one myself, but what you're saying is garbage. A passive investor isn't doing anything to help the world, and someone actually working is. Big companies could still exist without being publicly owned, and the concept of having passive investors like us probably hurts the big picture rather than helps. It allows people like me to not bother working or contributing to the world, and just derive wealth from other people's work. By buying low and selling high I am not really helping anything, and by removing me from the workforce the world suffers.

I try to offset this by volunteering and doing what I can in other ways, but realistically, I probably don't put in as much as I should (it has been on my mind in recent times and I'm thinking about what I can do to contribute), and I certainly know plenty of people who don't even bother trying, or just give a token amount to charity to allow them to virtue signal.

The whole system we are playing in as investors is set up around greed, not to facilitate productivity.

Put it this way, if everyone was making their money by investing rather than working... well, you join those dots. We are not contributing to the world by investing, not really.

Wait, are you a commie?

 

[Sdajii]

Wait, are you a commie?

Absolutely positively not.

 

[Triathlete]

The majority of negative gearing is on existing property and therefore does nothing for the building industry.

So all the new apartments going up everywhere are owner occupiers then..????

 

[SirRumpole]

So all the new apartments going up everywhere are owner occupiers then..????

Chinese money launderers.

 

[SirRumpole]

They choose rent *or* mortgage above an appropriate level, and spend too much on "other expenses". A better choice would be to rent or buy a cheaper place, live more frugally, and then, magically, they would indeed have money left over.

Are you trying to raise a family by any chance, or merely a single income earner who takes holidays ?

 

[Value Collector]

You you just proved my point , eg even alot of adults don't understand.

. A passive investor isn't doing anything to help the world, and someone actually working is. Big companies could still exist without being publicly owned,

They can survive without being publicly owned, but they can't survive without investors whether they be private or public holding capital in the company.

and the concept of having passive investors like us probably hurts the big picture rather than helps.

Why, our capital is working inside the business and multiplying the effect of the labour employed.

These two guys in the two different photos can be equally hard working, except one is going to produce 1000 times more due to an investor contributing $5 Million + to buy him a giant digger with air conditioning for him to sit in.

The guy shovelling by hand could work 365 days and struggle to move more than a few thousand tonnes.

But if an investor buys him a digger, he could produce 1000 times more, while earning triple the pay, and having better working conditions, and working 2 weeks one week off.

The investor earning 10% on the funds he used to buy the digger doesn't take away from the worker, they both will do good out of the deal.

 

[Value Collector]

Everyone earning a wage is an investor by default as part of their wage goes to superannuation which is invested in companies.

And a lot make dumb decisions with their super due to lack of understanding.

Most people don't want to get into the mechanics of investing

yeah, thats part of the problem.

 

[Sdajii]

Are you trying to raise a family by any chance, or merely a single income earner who takes holidays ?

In less than a month I'll have the fourth anniversary of setting out on what was going to be a two month holiday which I enjoyed so much that it hasn't yet stopped, but my own personal situation is irrelevant to the discussion. Actually, if I just say that you'll whinge, so I'll point out that before I left I was financially supporting people and not whinging; despite not working all that hard I managed to save a lot of money, primarily on the stock market I suppose, but even before then I was able to get by just fine by working. But again, my personal situation is irrelevant to the discussion.

People have never whinged so much, but life in Australia is easier now than ever before. My parents went to school in a time when going barefoot because your parents couldn't afford shoes wasn't unusual. My parents would have been familiar with bread and drippings for dinner. Most young people these days wouldn't know what bread and drippings is, and would be horrified at the prospect of it being a regular meal. Even I completely cringe at the thought. Sending your kid to school without shoes these days is probably some sort of jailable offense now that it's so easily affordable. Yet it's now, when things are so easy, that people ask 'how will young people get ahead?'. It's insane. It is literally easier than ever, the numbers don't lie.

Wages have only gone up, but the cost of living hasn't kept up. Basic household appliances used to cost around one to several days' wages. I broke up with a girl some years ago, and didn't get any stuff. I then set up a new house with a new girl (not too long before I set out on this little trip), and wondered how many visits to the ATM I would need to make to get this very costly experience completed. I was astonished not to have to make a single trip to the ATM, as the cash in my wallet covered an entire kitchen, vacuum cleaner, etc etc. Stuff is so cheap these days! Sure, I could have bought a $200 toaster and $2,000 dining set and completely wiped out my budget by the end of it all, and yeah, we bought a second hand fridge, but these are all possible things to do, and if you don't want to spend heaps of money, life in Australia can be really cheap. If I really wanted to, I could have set that house up on a fraction of the budget I did use, which was a fraction of the cost of what most people spend. As a homeless youth and later as a poor uni student I learned how to live cheaply, and by Australian standards I was brilliant at it, then travelling abroad, even in wealthy countries like Japan, I see people who make my 'frugality' look like extravagance, and I could do it even better now if I was a young fella starting again. And, I am not talking about skimping on anything important. You can still eat nutritious, delicious food and have all off life's necessities met, you just won't be impressing anyone or keeping up with the Joneseses while you're working on getting ahead.

And yes, you can raise families on that sort of budget. I've met plenty of people raising kids in housing commission on welfare, and they still go to school, love their parents, etc. I must admit, many of them don't get fed very well, but that's due to their parents not being good with nutrition/money... but let's face it, if you're in housing commission and on welfare you're probably not the smartest cookie in town. If it's possible on a welfare budget, it's certainly possible if you have an income. Whatever your situation, if you want to get ahead, simply lower your expenses so that they're below your income, and work your way up... or, whinge and sook about it being impossible, find excuses, etc.

 

[Sdajii]

Value collector: I understand the positives, but you are ignoring the negatives, and the alternative systems. I agree that the alternatives are unlikely to be possible to implement, and I'm not suggesting we ban the current system or anything, but a system which allows someone like me to spend most of his life on holiday without working is obviously not making the world a productive place compared to a system which forces or encourages me to actively work hands on. Having the money I do and using it to travel and enjoy myself, freeing myself of the necessity of working, has removed a productive person from the workforce, and allows him to chew up resources.

 

[luutzu]

So all the new apartments going up everywhere are owner occupiers then..????

Some are. Some were purchased by speculators. Some are being build or sitting empty waiting for speculators.

But let say that new housing are being financed by investors who want to both do good and make money. Are there no negative impact on these kind of investment incentive? Would there not be any investment in property if the investors don't stepped in and glut the crap out of the market?

If housing, or anything, are affordable for people.. they will buy it. They can want it and have that demand met by handing their cash over. There's no need for the kindness of investors.

In fact, without legislative incentives and tax minimisation... where the price of property meet the pocket of the owner/occupier... the market is more "free" and "capitalistic" then it is under the current welfare to the rich scheme.

I mean, why are high, or any, income earner be able to reduce their tax obligation to zero and beyond by going into a lost making investment? One that the taxpayers (those who haven't managed to afford a proper accoutnant) must pay for through lost of state revenue; and pay for again in higher property prices.

Have a level playing field. Then those who have a stable job, or stable income stream, can afford a house and have some left over to feed their family, maybe do a bit of rennovation or save a bit more to knock down and rebuild.

To have tax-minimised investments that drive up prices, glut the market then crashes it. It's just wrong on so many level.

It's not good for the young families and low-wage earners; not good for the long-term investors; or any sort of investor who want to put their extra savings into a second property. i.e. it's a lot safer to invest if you know that the potential buy and tenant aren't over their heads in debt.

The only people it really benefit are the builders and property speculators who buy to flip.

 

[SirRumpole]

But again, my personal situation is irrelevant to the discussion.

No it's not.

Being single and earning a good wage is a lot different to having a wife and three kids to support on an equivalent income.

 

[Value Collector]

Value collector: I understand the positives, but you are ignoring the negatives, and the alternative systems. I agree that the alternatives are unlikely to be possible to implement, and I'm not suggesting we ban the current system or anything, but a system which allows someone like me to spend most of his life on holiday without working is obviously not making the world a productive place compared to a system which forces or encourages me to actively work hands on. Having the money I do and using it to travel and enjoy myself, freeing myself of the necessity of working, has removed a productive person from the workforce, and allows him to chew up resources.

I disagree, we already have unemployed people looking for work, by you choosing not to work you aren't doing a bad thing, you are just freeing up a spot for some else who needs it to get a job.

Also, automation is making industry less labour intensive and more capital intensive all the time.

--------------

My original point is valid, whether that $5 Million dollar digger is owned by a single capitalist or it is owned by 1000 people that invested $5000 each and sometimes trade the parcels of capital we call "shares" doesn't matter, that capital is employed and working and generating a return.

Put it this way, if everyone was making their money by investing rather than working... well, you join those dots. We are not contributing to the world by investing, not really.

Same goes for if everyone was working and no one was investing.

we would all be hunter gatherers still.

That miner can't haul 1 Million tonnes a year unless someone invests.

Sure we could all work as subsistence farmers with no investment, but everyones standard of living would be lower, even the workers.

 

[SirRumpole]

Also, automation is making industry less labour intensive and more capital intensive all the time.

Yep, it's good in some ways but needs to be managed properly so everyone benefits.

This is where we get back to a UBI and how we are going to finance it.

 

[Value Collector]

Yep, it's good in some ways but needs to be managed properly so everyone benefits.

This is where we get back to a UBI and how we are going to finance it.

As discussed I am fine with the concept of UBI being brought in eventually.

But my point here is that earning money via investing isn't morally inferior to working, the economy needs both labour and capital, and the earnings capital owners make on their funds doesn't subtract from the economy, its a net plus.

A productive economy can't exist without Labour and capital together, So its silly to demonise capital owners just as it would be silly to demonise workers.

If anything, it is the providers of labour that are going to be diminishing in relevance over time, which makes it all the more important for people to know about investing and to be capital owners not just workers living pay check to pay check.

 

[Sdajii]

No it's not.

Being single and earning a good wage is a lot different to having a wife and three kids to support on an equivalent income.

I could be a useless dole bludger or a CEO and it would make no difference to how easy it is for 'Australia's younger generation' to get ahead. But, since I was 21 years old, homeless, penniless, uneducated, and dragged myself out of it, without working especially hard, and simply by living within my means. If anything, my situation seems to suggest it isn't too difficult. But my own personal results are only representative of me. To answer the question you need to look at the big situation, to which my situation has no relevance.

How old are you and what's your situation like, by the way?

Value Collector: If I wasn't to be gaining money by investing I would be back to actively running a business of some sort of another, creating wealth and contributing, and possibly employing others. If I simply handed my money to someone else and ceased to exist, the economy would be better off. I don't see how you can say I'm contributing, other than by fudging the figures, which you clearly are.

Even if I was to simply make floor mats by hand and sell them at a low price, or pick up rubbish from the street, or go pick caterpillars off crops or something, I would be doing something positive for the world, but flying around to different countries eating food and staying in hotels and running around having fun isn't doing anything to help the world, I'm really just being a parasite. People working in the fashion industry, insurance industry, etc etc etc are just as useless and destructive, but at least I enjoy what I do

 

[Triathlete]

Some are. Some were purchased by speculators. Some are being build or sitting empty waiting for speculators.

But let say that new housing are being financed by investors who want to both do good and make money. Are there no negative impact on these kind of investment incentive? Would there not be any investment in property if the investors don't stepped in and glut the crap out of the market?

If housing, or anything, are affordable for people.. they will buy it. They can want it and have that demand met by handing their cash over. There's no need for the kindness of investors.

In fact, without legislative incentives and tax minimisation... where the price of property meet the pocket of the owner/occupier... the market is more "free" and "capitalistic" then it is under the current welfare to the rich scheme.

I mean, why are high, or any, income earner be able to reduce their tax obligation to zero and beyond by going into a lost making investment? One that the taxpayers (those who haven't managed to afford a proper accoutnant) must pay for through lost of state revenue; and pay for again in higher property prices.

Have a level playing field. Then those who have a stable job, or stable income stream, can afford a house and have some left over to feed their family, maybe do a bit of rennovation or save a bit more to knock down and rebuild.

To have tax-minimised investments that drive up prices, glut the market then crashes it. It's just wrong on so many level.

It's not good for the young families and low-wage earners; not good for the long-term investors; or any sort of investor who want to put their extra savings into a second property. i.e. it's a lot safer to invest if you know that the potential buy and tenant aren't over their heads in debt.

The only people it really benefit are the builders and property speculators who buy to flip.

The reason for negative gearing was to entice investors into the housing market so that they could provide for those looking to rent and needing more places where the governments were not able to provide sufficient housing .......if you do not think it will slow down the market construction and slow job growth in that area remove it and let us all see what happens....but I do believe it will cost the governments revenue and they will need to get it from somewhere else.