How will Australia's younger generation get ahead?

Value Collector said:

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.

Click to expand...

As I said, via superannuation, most are both workers and investors. We all realise the need for capital , as long as the tax system doesn't discriminate either positively or negatively for either.

sptrawler said:

If the capital gains tax exemptions are reduced, if the negative gearing tax incentives are reduced, if the franking credit rebates are reduced, how do young married couples build a nest egg for retirement?
I'm not being funny here, but without any investment advantage and with Bank lending standards due to tighten, how would a young working couple save for their retirement and be financially independent?
It is going to be really hard for a young couple, to do anything, other than pay off their own house.
Oh well, we end up just like the U.S.A and the U.K, no dream, no opportunity, no hope. lol

That was what I've always like about Australia, we were different, if you got of your arse took a risk, there was always opportunity.
Yes there was a tax advantage, but there was also a risk involved.
We are just going to make it that the rich speculate, because they have the money and the plebs stay the plebs because they have no leverage. LOL
The World is certainly becoming a level playing field, for the plebs. IMO

Click to expand...

I offloaded my negatively geared properties because I realised I could make much more money focusing my energy on sales with high margin.

I prefer to live a largesse lifestyle while I can enjoy it rather than a spartan only to habitually continue it into retirement.

How are the millenials going to cope with their itinerant working lifestyles = inherit wealth.

Triathlete said:

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.

Click to expand...

Increasing supply is the sales pitch. It's only true to the extend that it increases supply.

I know, just humouring you there.

If housing are affordable to people, they will buy. Their buying is a real demand. It is a safer, more assured demand than those from speculators.

Yes, the let the market run its natural course where only those who need housing would purchase one; or them and those who really like property investment would invest in one or two more... that does not produce as much housing as incentivise people to load up and negatively geared etc.

But why would you want over supply of houses? What's wrong with enough supply to meet demand?

To oversupply have a few negative consequences. I believe I've named some of them before.

But it's good for those who managed to lie their way into an investment loan, paid only the interests and in a couple of years get out. Good for developers who will make money on the way up and will again on the way down.

Not good for consumer spending and small time investor with massive debt in an oversupplied market.

SirRumpole said:

As I said, via superannuation, most are both workers and investors.

Click to expand...

The forced saving by super is a very good thing, But it represents the bare bones minimum people need to be doing, and as I said there is still alot of scope for people to screw themselves over in their super, while thinking they are doing smart things, simply because they don't know what they are doing, So yeah, alot of education needs to happen.

We all realise the need for capita

Click to expand...

As pointed out here today, there is people even here that don't seem to understand the link between Investors and the capital investments that multiply the effect of labour and generate larger returns for everyone involved (Workers, investors and the government) and give us the high standard of living that many underdeveloped nations wish they had.

Tisme said:

How are the millenials going to cope with their itinerant working lifestyles = inherit wealth.

Click to expand...

I was born in 1982, So I am one of the first millennials or generation Y (depending on whose definition you use).

I am no longer in the full time Army, however I am in the Army reserve, so I work with a lot of younger guys 18 - 35, and I must say I am impressed by the younger generation as a group.

I think a lot of the negativity you older guys feel about the millennials is misplaced, I am pretty confident they are going to be a hugely productive generation. I am not worried at all.

Value Collector said:

I am no longer in the full time Army, however I am in the Army reserve, so I work with a lot of younger guys 18 - 35, and I must say I am impressed by the younger generation as a group.

Click to expand...

You don't think that perhaps you are coming into contact with a fairly select group who have the gumption to join the Reserves whereas the "average" of the younger generation may be different ?

Value Collector said:

I was born in 1982, So I am one of the first millennials or generation Y (depending on whose definition you use).

I am no longer in the full time Army, however I am in the Army reserve, so I work with a lot of younger guys 18 - 35, and I must say I am impressed by the younger generation as a group.

I think a lot of the negativity you older guys feel about the millennials is misplaced, I am pretty confident they are going to be a hugely productive generation. I am not worried at all.

Click to expand...

I hope you're right. I don't feel a negativity, moreso an observation that they may not have the drive/stamina to make buggy whips (metaphor) when they are needed.

For sure there are many who are smart workers, some who are hard yakka workers, but I'd be interested to know how many are effectively 0.6 workers who are enjoying 1.0 wages/welfare/topup in an economy of limited means. Eventually wealth must redistribute to productivity rather than logistics and service oriented jobs and that is when we will see hipsters doing it tough financially IMO.

Tisme said:

I hope you're right. I don't feel a negativity, moreso an observation that they may not have the drive/stamina to make buggy whips (metaphor) when they are needed.

For sure there are many who are smart workers, some who are hard yakka workers, but I'd be interested to know how many are effectively 0.6 workers who are enjoying 1.0 wages/welfare/topup in an economy of limited means. Eventually wealth must redistribute to productivity rather than logistics and service oriented jobs and that is when we will see hipsters doing it tough financially IMO.

Click to expand...

Hi Tisme,

Can you provide some of your wisdom and knowledge to help me understand in simple terms, what the hell you are talking about. It does sound impressive but I lack the intelligence to decipher it.

The old saying, keep it simple and sweet if you want the masses to understand. I am simple but hardly sweet.

To help : 0.6 workers who are enjoying 1.0wages/welfare/topup ???????

I full respect your mastery of the English language but often wondering if it misses the basic requirement of language, to communicate effectively a message that 95% of the audience can understand and not just the 10% who are of high intelligence or perceived intelligence to the rest of us.

A flow chart might be helpful

Value Collector said:

I think a lot of the negativity you older guys feel about the millennials is misplaced, I am pretty confident they are going to be a hugely productive generation. I am not worried at all.

Click to expand...

I fully agree, it is just that the older generation don't understand how the millennials are producing productive outcomes for our communities and society. All generations provided a different insight in how we should live, each was both right and wrong. The new generation have challenges to be faced that the previous generation did not, but they also don't have to deal with the same issues as the previous generation.

All in all, we should embrace all generations for their thoughts and beliefs. To me it is so old school thinking one generation is better than the next, times change and we must all adapt.

The one thing that hasn't change of centuries, is being positive will always generate better outcomes for the individual and the community at large.

I suggest there are significant differences between particular generations in terms of the hand they have been dealt by circumstances.

For example People born from 1890-1910 faced WW1, the aftermath of badly hurt soldiers, The Depression in the 1930's and if they survived this, WW2 and it's consequences. Truly you would have to have been extremely fortunate to retire with any sort of health and security after that run. And frankly only a few actually did. (But the well off probably did)

If you were born from 1910-1925 you scored The Depression and WW2. And your parents were recovering from WW1 by the way. Again not a great situation to get on in life.

Baby Boomers have had an exceptionally fortuitous life time. Born from 1946-1960 they entered a long period of economic expansion. No significant wars, no real economic hardships. There were always plenty of full time and generally secure jobs ( except for say 1961 -2) .

It was a time when any person on a wage could realistically buy a house for their family with a couple of years saving for a deposit and do it on one income. If you were a factory worker the house would be more modest than a professional but it was still totally doable.

This is a fairy tale for todays generation. Buying a house for a 20-25 year old is completly beyond reach UNLESS
1) The Bank of Mum and Dad has deep pockets
2) You live in some rural areas (and still get a decent wage which is unlikely)
3) You are in the 1-5 % of people who are making $120-150k + a year.

And of course if you went to Uni you start your working life with 20-40-100k plus HECS debt which is always growing and the payments come out of your wages when you earn over 50k.

And the job market today ? A gig economy. Lots of internships. Many part time jobs with expectations. of full time committment. I think of teaching in 2018 where getting a permanet position is a dream because the Department has reams of teachers on year to year contracts with absolutely no certainty of employment.

And on top of this, it seems the only way people can pull together the capacity for some dog box of a flat is having both partners working fulltime and actually making a decent wage. How does that compare to the relative luxury of 1965-1975 ?

I think the reality is it is very tough for young people to make a go of our society on their own in 2018.

"And on top of this, it seems the only way people can pull together the capacity for some dog box of a flat is having both partners working fulltime and actually making a decent wage. How does that compare to the relative luxury of 1965-1975 ?

I think the reality is it is very tough for young people to make a go of our society on their own in 2018."

This I have to agree with 100%, and also to think of the children, both parents working full time, how are they to grow up, but all things change, and one must adapt to the change.

And this is the new economy. Such an attractive set of conditions.

Food delivery riders protest against ‘wage theft’ by Deliveroo, Foodora and UberEats
Riders say Fair Work Commission must protect them after dramatic drop in wages

Australian Associated Press

Wed 16 May 2018 05.33 BST Last modified on Wed 16 May 2018 09.05 BST

Shares
87



Delivery riders for Deliveroo, Foodora and UberEats, and the Transport Workers Union, are appearing at the Fair Work Commission’s review of award wages. Photograph: Dan Himbrechts/AAP
A food delivery rider has told a Sydney protest his wages have dropped significantly over the two-and-a-half years he has been riding for one of the major delivery companies in Australia.

Wednesday’s protest was held before riders and the Transport Workers Union appeared at the Fair Work Commission’s annual review of award wages.

“When I started two-and-a-half years ago, the standard contract was $14 an hour and $5 dollars a delivery,” rider Matt told reporters. “Those are now looked at as the golden old days. I now know riders that are doing $7 a delivery and zero dollars an hour – these guys are making $14, $7 or zero dollars an hour.”

The TWU national secretary, Tony Sheldon, said the major food delivery companies were practising “wage theft” and said he wanted the Fair Work Commission to protect riders.

“We need to make sure we have a system in this country that works for everybody,” Sheldon told reporters. “Deliveroo, Foodora and UberEats are really carrying out wage theft.

“They’re stealing from hardworking people, who are delivering to our homes right around our country, by underpaying them.”

A spokeswoman for Foodora told Fairfax Media its riders were engaged as “contractors” as part of the gig economy where flexibility and an autonomous workforce made it “unique, functional and appealing to workers”.

“There are no guarantees in terms of hourly wage, they have the freedom to work when and where they want, as much as they want,” she said. “They have ability to accept and reject delivery orders as they wish. Furthermore, Foodora contractors are not precluded from engaging with other operators simultaneously.”

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-wage-theft-by-deliveroo-foodora-and-ubereats

satanoperca said:

Hi Tisme,

Can you provide some of your wisdom and knowledge to help me understand in simple terms, what the hell you are talking about. It does sound impressive but I lack the intelligence to decipher it.

The old saying, keep it simple and sweet if you want the masses to understand. I am simple but hardly sweet.

To help : 0.6 workers who are enjoying 1.0wages/welfare/topup ???????

I full respect your mastery of the English language but often wondering if it misses the basic requirement of language, to communicate effectively a message that 95% of the audience can understand and not just the 10% who are of high intelligence or perceived intelligence to the rest of us.

A flow chart might be helpful

Click to expand...

No you obviously don't have the capacity to understand modern employment jargon.

Normally I would entertain your nonsense, but Joe has made it quite clear in his post recently that I must not feed trolls and hystericals.

basilio said:

I

Baby Boomers have had an exceptionally fortuitous life time. Born from 1946-1960 they entered a long period of economic expansion. No significant wars, no real economic hardships. There were always plenty of full time and generally secure jobs ( except for say 1961 -2) .

.

Click to expand...

Disagree. Baby Boomers took risks. Some were fortunate to ride the public service gravy train, but many of us worked long hours, turned up for work, didn't have flexi time and put in really long fulltime job related hours while also attending TAFE and University. There was no money from parents for house deposits and we started out with modest houses and worked up from there, while footing the bills for our children's higher education and major deposits on their children's houses/flats.

We never asked for or expected assistance from our parents for anything, mainly because it would be impudent and there was nothing there to ask for anyway. We recycled old clothes, had a small wardrobe and didn't feel we were owed anything.

Interesting perspective from Tisme on how the last 50 years years have rolled for us baby boomers. I have to say that I'm confident the basics of my observations are quite sound.

It was a fact that any fulltime worker in the 60's could scape together a deposit for a house, and depending on relative income become a house owner in various parts of Melb, Sydney wherever.

It was a fact that we had largely full employment in the 50's and 60's ( and that meant almost everyone with a pulse) that most of the jobs were full time, many were secure and if you didn't like it you could find another one relatively easy.

True we (largely) didn't get handouts from our parents. But to be fair that wasn't as necessary as today.

Other peoples thoughts ?

Tisme said:

No you obviously don't have the capacity to understand modern employment jargon.

Normally I would entertain your nonsense, but Joe has made it quite clear in his post recently that I must not feed trolls and hystericals.

Click to expand...

Bit rough ol boy..
Is that the insult you give when your not giving an insult ?

Tisme said:

No you obviously don't have the capacity to understand modern employment jargon.

Normally I would entertain your nonsense, but Joe has made it quite clear in his post recently that I must not feed trolls and hystericals.

Click to expand...

Maybe it didn't make it simple enough for you to understand, instead of insults and name calling, which even I gave you more credit for, I ask if you could explain what you where trying to say.

If that is being a troll or hysterical then that is what it is, sorry I am not up to date with modern jargon, as I clearly stated I am a simple person and look for simple and clear explanations to problems/issues and discussions.

As you cannot or are not willing to provide then it is you my friend who is being a hysterical.

basilio said:

Interesting perspective from Tisme on how the last 50 years years have rolled for us baby boomers. I have to say that I'm confident the basics of my observations are quite sound.

It was a fact that any fulltime worker in the 60's could scape together a deposit for a house, and depending on relative income become a house owner in various parts of Melb, Sydney wherever.

It was a fact that we had largely full employment in the 50's and 60's ( and that meant almost everyone with a pulse) that most of the jobs were full time, many were secure and if you didn't like it you could find another one relatively easy.

True we (largely) didn't get handouts from our parents. But to be fair that wasn't as necessary as today.

Other peoples thoughts ?

Click to expand...

If you're a baby boomer you might remember when the interest rates were deregulated and went up to around 17% when the music stopped and some people lost their houses. State banks going insolvent - unemployment going double figures - a recession we had to have.

At that time I had to make a choice between sleeping in the car or eating more than one meal a day.

Makes today look like a free ride IMO. If I started all over again where I live in Mt Druitt I could do unskilled factory work and pay off a cheap flat in 10 years today and that's without any handouts.

Today's housing prices are reflected by people's capacity to buy.

PZ99 said:

If you're a baby boomer you might remember when the interest rates were deregulated and went up to around 17% when the music stopped and some people lost their houses. State banks going insolvent - unemployment going double figures - a recession we had to have.

At that time I had to make a choice between sleeping in the car or eating more than one meal a day.

Makes today look like a free ride IMO. If I started all over again where I live in Mt Druitt I could do unskilled factory work and pay off a cheap flat in 10 years today and that's without any handouts.

Today's housing prices are reflected by people's capacity to buy.

Click to expand...

Or capacity to borrow. From the banks through the always helpful brokers... and that bank of mum and dad (and uncles, aunties, brothers, sisters).

I heard the family and relatives lending to young home buyers would make them the 8th largest lender in Australia.

I'm guessingn that some do it through by putting their name on the title deed; some have to signed a statement saying it's a gift and not a loan... Either way, if this housing market fall, it wouldn't just take away newbies houses, it might even take those of their beloved too.

Tisme said:

Disagree. Baby Boomers took risks. Some were fortunate to ride the public service gravy train, but many of us worked long hours, turned up for work, didn't have flexi time and put in really long fulltime job related hours while also attending TAFE and University. There was no money from parents for house deposits and we started out with modest houses and worked up from there, while footing the bills for our children's higher education and major deposits on their children's houses/flats.

We never asked for or expected assistance from our parents for anything, mainly because it would be impudent and there was nothing there to ask for anyway. We recycled old clothes, had a small wardrobe and didn't feel we were owed anything.

Click to expand...

How long did it take you to pay off all those HECS/HELP loans?
How much did you pay for that first home?

Not saying that life was easier then but impossible now. But the statistics, the change in policies... to say that today's kids are having it easy and if they can't buy a house or keep a job it's just them and their laziness... That's just old people talk.