Wealth Inequality

[Mrmagoo]

It may be yours.
In the real world, it is not even a definition of less affordable.
Explaining this would be futile.

If wage growth is less than house price growth by even a small amount, eventually housing becomes something which literally cannot be bought by wage earners.

No amount of saving will help if the houses grow faster than you can save. Exactly what we've seen in Melbourne and Sydney.

Seems to be making pretty good predictions thus far.

 

[againsthegrain]

A comment last night from a 24 yo female (my daughter) who has been reading this thread. No way would I date a fully paid up member of the Losers Club if they have an attitude like Mr Mrmagoo.

Thats a very strange comment, so this is saying a 24yo female is prepared to date a cashed up member of the losers club as long as the attitude is tamed?
This is a perfect example of the argument a today's 24yo female is looking to date cashed up sugar daddies.
But for her father to mention this... Lol

 

[luutzu]

... But people like you teach me the reason why socialism is a failure and why we need a more market orientated system if we're going to address inequality.

?? You mean corporate socialism? Corporate Welfare?

I think if you look into the major cause of inequality, it's not due to Socialism as exemplified by Medicare and Social Security benefits and affordable housing/gov't housing for the poor. Those are the few remaining socialist ideas keeping Australia going the way of the US "market" system where 16 million kids go to bed hungry and some law makers thought the best thing to solve that is to further cut their benefits - that'll motivate them to get a non-existent job or something.

So if that kind of market system is your solution, we're going to have it solve real smart so don't worry too much.

Seriously though, fair enough you think the world has it against the poor or those you know... Having a clear and thoughtful insight into its causes is needed to start solving the problems. You don't seem to know what's the cause, and as to the problem... that's just life and we all have our problems man.

So let say the Boomers have had it easy... so what? So the rich have it made... do they really? So the White male have it easier than the ethnic male with an accent and a funny name... maybe, if all else is equal.

In the end, you just have to work with what you have; and find contentment with what you've been able to make of it. Don't focus on how lucky someone else have it and if only you're them you'd be this and that... you're not going to get anywhere with that... mainly because you're not them and you won't have their stuff - that and they have their own problems and issues too, just might not be the same as yours; and more importantly, save such self pity to your mother or a very understanding father because the world doesn't owe you anything.

 

[DeepState]

If wage growth is less than house price growth by even a small amount, eventually housing becomes something which literally cannot be bought by wage earners.

If the low tide keeps going out, there will eventually be no ocean either.

Futile.

 

[Mrmagoo]

?? You mean corporate socialism? Corporate Welfare?

I think if you look into the major cause of inequality, it's not due to Socialism as exemplified by Medicare and Social Security benefits and affordable housing/gov't housing for the poor.

Absolutely and the key thing with Medicare is it is equally available to everyone as are other key social security benefits.

What I don't like is things like negative gearing, family tax benefits and a range of other socialist measures which are designed to benefit the well off...

Rather than having negative gearing... just build houses for the poor. If people wanna get rich, work hard.

There is a big difference in my mind between giving people the minimum they need for dignity and "sharing the wealth" around which really only creates exclusive groups of haves and have nots.

 

[Vixs]

Thats a very strange comment, so this is saying a 24yo female is prepared to date a cashed up member of the losers club as long as the attitude is tamed?
This is a perfect example of the argument a today's 24yo female is looking to date cashed up sugar daddies.
But for her father to mention this... Lol

Noone said anything about cashed up, sugar daddies or money at all. The term is "a paid up member", meaning they are a part of the group. The group the poster was referring to was the loser's club. I think it's a perfect example of the challenges in reading comprehension people face today. His daughter wouldn't want to date someone resigned to being a defeatist moaner.

Honestly, all this thread needs is this:
Sydney and Melbourne will continue to feel the heat of property prices that are out of touch with what self-funded young couples want to pay as they have become cities desirable to more than just those that were born there. Being the centre of many industries, and the headquarters of businesses who have not yet embraced telecommuting and are not expanding their footprint around the country fast enough, demand for places to live within reasonable commute times on existing public transport has only increased.

The other capitals are experiencing a completely different situation where lower commute times and reasonable housing are very much on offer, however they lack the breadth of employers of NSW and VIC and as a result career options are more limited and demand is lower. Perth has even experienced falls in prices as mining comes off the boil and cooler heads prevail about the immediate future.

Public transport at a national level is not being invested in fast enough and high speed rail and other rapid transit, or the lack thereof, also weighs on the demand for inner ring suburbs, as outer ring suburbs just take to long to commute to.

Older Australians that have watched their city expand around them and the streets they raised their kids on redevelop into higher density inner city hubs are now living where the jobs are, despite no longer working. Many have not yet downsized and are not moving to allow infill development. Until either their homes are included in the pension asset test and they are provided the incentive to sell, downsize and fund their own retirement, the only change will come as they drop off their perches. Thanks to modern medicine this is taking longer and longer and costing taxpayers more and more.

Without the ability to redevelop into true high density living spaces and no high speed transport options to make commutes more manageable, the value of what is put up for sale near our cities will continue to increase.

In the era of the internet and with the widespread embracing of technology and hopefully soon telecommuting, cities will become less necessary and more optional for the lifestyle. This may emerge as something that slows capital city growth soon, but people will likely still prize proximity to the established schools and areas they know and be willing to pay a premium.

There is still opportunity, all you need is an income. If you want to buy a house, you might need two incomes. If you want to buy on your own you can buy a 1 or 2 bed unit, something older. If you want something bigger, you'll need to rent out the extra rooms. If you want a nice big house for kids, you'll both need to work. If you don't like it because your parents didn't need to do it, move somewhere with the population density of what it was like when your parents started out. It's cheaper.

That's the future of aussie property prices - up, eventually. If you don't like what you see in Sydney and Melbourne, it's time to discover the rest of the country.

Edit: all that typed on the tablet andit wasn't even the property thread. Oh well. Guess my reading comprehension sucks too.

 

[SmokeyGhost]

Noone said anything about cashed up, sugar daddies or money at all. The term is "a paid up member", meaning they are a part of the group. The group the poster was referring to was the loser's club. I think it's a perfect example of the challenges in reading comprehension people face today. His daughter wouldn't want to date someone resigned to being a defeatist moaner...........

Yep, that is what she meant. Strives for independence, didn't wish for any assistance from me for university tuition even though she knows I can (all my kids are like that fortunately), works a couple of jobs, as does her sister with whom she shares a flat (not mine) and prefers not to hang around those with a positive outlook. It's a nice attitude I feel.

 

[Mrmagoo]

Noone said anything about cashed up, sugar daddies or money at all. The term is "a paid up member", meaning they are a part of the group. The group the poster was referring to was the loser's club. I think it's a perfect example of the challenges in reading comprehension people face today. His daughter wouldn't want to date someone resigned to being a defeatist moaner.

Honestly, all this thread needs is this:
Sydney and Melbourne will continue to feel the heat of property prices that are out of touch with what self-funded young couples want to pay as they have become cities desirable to more than just those that were born there. Being the centre of many industries, and the headquarters of businesses who have not yet embraced telecommuting and are not expanding their footprint around the country fast enough, demand for places to live within reasonable commute times on existing public transport has only increased.

I don't know where you get that idea from. If there was thriving industry in Melbourne and Sydney then prices wouldn't be out of whack with wages. You have an early 2000s approach. Things changed since then.

 

[Mrmagoo]

Yep, that is what she meant. Strives for independence, didn't wish for any assistance from me for university tuition even though she knows I can (all my kids are like that fortunately), works a couple of jobs, as does her sister with whom she shares a flat (not mine) and prefers not to hang around those with a positive outlook. It's a nice attitude I feel.

I think I'm going to throw up.

 

[againsthegrain]

Yep, that is what she meant. Strives for independence, didn't wish for any assistance from me for university tuition even though she knows I can (all my kids are like that fortunately), works a couple of jobs, as does her sister with whom she shares a flat (not mine) and prefers not to hang around those with a positive outlook. It's a nice attitude I feel.

Sounds like a nice kid, but she doesn't like to hang around people with a positive outlook? Anyway at 24 she should have a mortgage in her name otherwise its a bit late for a 60yr loan

 

[sptrawler]

Gen Y are not necessarily young. Many of my friends are having their second child and having insane difficulty upgrading their homes without going into significant debt.

You're wrong. If housing has outstripped wages that is that not definition of unaffordable ?

Also, keep your nonsense assumptions about me to yourself. I do just fine. But people like you teach me the reason why socialism is a failure and why we need a more market orientated system if we're going to address inequality.

If your friends are having their second child, and having trouble upgrading their home, that is the norm they are doing o.k.

 

[sptrawler]

Sounds like a nice kid, but she doesn't like to hang around people with a positive outlook? Anyway at 24 she should have a mortgage in her name otherwise its a bit late for a 60yr loan

Maybe she doesn't want to live in Sydney, Melbourne CBD, then she may only have a 5 year loan. Not everyone has to have house/location envy.

 

[luutzu]

Absolutely and the key thing with Medicare is it is equally available to everyone as are other key social security benefits.

What I don't like is things like negative gearing, family tax benefits and a range of other socialist measures which are designed to benefit the well off...

Rather than having negative gearing... just build houses for the poor. If people wanna get rich, work hard.

There is a big difference in my mind between giving people the minimum they need for dignity and "sharing the wealth" around which really only creates exclusive groups of haves and have nots.

I think you might be mixing up Socialism and capitalism. I don't even think the kind of capitalism that's in favour at the moment are actually capitalism/free market stuff, but anyway.

I can see where you're coming from. I have heard parents who came here as refugees worrying about their kids, kids who were born and raised in Australia... these parents are worried that their kids couldn't afford a place to live.

That's a bit messed up when you think about it. Refugees having nothing, knowing no English, working at menial jobs and they managed to raise a family and have a house. Now their kids, the ones I know are actually earning some $50 to $60K a year so it's nothing to brag but nothing to sneeze at either... kids with no language problem, grew up in the country and have qualification and they're priced out.

But that's life man. Not meant to be easy.

If having an apartment or a house is that important to you, and it is important... but if you must have it and that 9 to 5 job isn't gonna do it... maybe start your own business or take up extra work or higher training/qualification.

That might sound unfair since those before, or some among us, don't have to do that... but ey, those days, if they ever existed, are long gone. And the way technology and these free trade agreements and globalisation are going... wages will just stagnant or shipped overseas.

 

[mullokintyre]

• The richest 85 people in the world owns the same as the bottom half of the world’s population.

•Almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one precent of the population.

• The wealth of the one precent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion. That’s 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.

•The richest one precent increased their share of income in 24 out of 26 countries for which we have data between 1980 and 2012. (Australia was 2nd on the list)

View attachment 56931


http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfa...cal-capture-economic-inequality-200114-en.pdf

But its O.K because Hockey and the G20 are going to fix the problem by adopting a new higher growth target Trickle down will work - It just needs more head pressure - A bit more growth concentrated at the top and it will flow like a charm.

I looked at this post and a few subsequent ones from nearly 10 years ago.
Not a lot has changed.
From Evil Murdoch press

Australia is just a mirror of the rest of the world.
The orignal comment that started this thread quoted an OXFAM article.
Heres is another OXFAM from ten years down the track

I doubt it will change anytime soon.
Mick

 

[sptrawler]

Wealth inequality is on steroids at the moment nd you want politicians with properties to sort it, as if.
Get over it, if you are young and smart, get into politics.
It obviously isn't a great gig, but it where the decisions are made.