Wealth Inequality

[Mrmagoo]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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".

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]

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]

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]

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...

Enjoy life!

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]

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]

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.

Plenty are reading and tech has posted....

 

[Mrmagoo]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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
100,000 is the highest of any country – eight times the world
average. With 1,783,000 people in the top 1% of global wealth
holders, Australia accounts for 3.8% of this wealthy group,
despite having just 0.4% of the world’s adult population.

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
after Norway. In part, it reflects a large endowment of land and
natural resources relative to population, but it is also a result of
high urban real estate prices.

 

[tech/a]

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.




Another interesting paragraph from that report to ponder.

Indeed the lucky country

 

[waterbottle]

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.




Another interesting paragraph from that report to ponder.

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]

Indeed the lucky country

Indeed for some.

 

[Mrmagoo]

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]

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]

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]

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.