Dudd Vs Phony

So who collects the garbage, who stacks the supermarket shelves. It is fine for for you (maybe) and me. I am a professional, three degrees which I worked myself through uni to get, but not everyone can, or wants to, some want to sweep streets, why should they be at a disadvantage because they want to contribute at that level. By the way, most professionals DO NOT PAY FOR THEIR EDUCATION, mummy and daddy do.

That is the reason I gave up a 6 figure job, I wanted to be part of the solution, not the problem. At around $400 per week my super will see me out. No I couldn't have got here under a different system but that's OK, now I am here I am disgusted in myself in the past.

 

Actually that is wrong. We voted them in because we want to sustain it... You problem is that you cannot see the damage that is done....

Again it appears your superficial sight of the situation is wrong, but I will leave you in your ignorance about the boats. BUT I do wonder, how much welfare do you consider Australia can pay??? When you are totally ignorant of the exact amount of welfare in Australia, how do you know 0.5% increase in recipients is the correct number??? In fact do you know what the exact increase in welfare is???

What rot, sour grapes does not make your opinion any more relevant... Socially responsible government manages that responsibility to the advancement of the country. As the ALP clearly demonstrates year in they are unable to manage their social reforms, they are unable to balance their fiscal responsibility and are clearly unable to represent their own base support... No just sour grapes.

So it is you want to move away from the housing bubble and move to boat people and pretend that the ALP are so much better at managing the problem by being humane... Don't forget your PNG solution and the fact that 4% of people who got on a boat to get to Australia are no longer living on this planet...

I wonder what the outcry would be if 4% of the people living around you died from the neglect of you and government??? Would you just turn a blind eye to the problem then??? No sour grapes does not make your debate...

 

Garbage??? In Australia everybody is afforded the opportunity to become professionals... Like it or not... if they work hard. Why should those that choose to live the life of the care free be awarded the same as those who work hard??? With this comment I do wonder about your professionalism

Who does these jobs??? Those who want to live a life of fun rather than work as your previous example demonstrates.

As for who pays for their education... it is not the government is it??? Your simple obtuseness on this issue also demonstrates the problems you have...

It is simple to say such things and hard to disprove them... BUT I am suggesting that this is not what it seems... You work it out.

Your assumption that all should receive the same reward regardless of effort is classic welfare recipient thought pattern... I do wonder...

 

Actually it is far more ridiculous than that... How can a house costing some 100K to build be sold time and again creating some expenditure exceeding millions??? What can be done to deter such pressures??? For one, the government could stop subsidising the industry.

 

I was just thinking about this a while ago. If we tot up the cost of labour and materials it wouldn't get to $600k. The big variable is the land. And this is where my point about real estate becoming a commodity comes in.

A house is a collection of bits and pieces. Of itself it's a useful object, it gives shelter (as DV pointed out very colourfully). It's the land that is the real commodity though.

I do think that the house has become a commodity, again that has been illustrated by others in this thread, but the land is the big commodity.

A house is no longer for shelter, it is the instrument of individual capitalists in our capitalist economy. When you buy a house, no matter how much you owe the bank, you are a capitalist.

When we worry about a bubble in real estate we are seeing the well known problem in the wider capitalist economy, speculation. When a house was just shelter there was no worry about a real estate bubble, but housing is now a commodity and with it comes the speculation bubble. It's always a case of when and not if when it comes to speculation in capitalism and so it is with real estate. Foreclosures are like bankruptcies, someone gets overstretched and they lose.

 

Our public debt is apparently more concerning! I have always maintained that negative gearing and first home buyers grants would have a negative effect, running simultaneously! You didnt have to be an economist to see this! Both were pitted against each other, and unfortunately caused huge commitments from young people because they had to mix it with investors who were simply looking at making some quick money or opportunity to dodge taxes! First home buyers grants were sufficient by itself and would have kept houses from over inflating too much, while opening up existing rental homes, vacated by young people buying their first home! It was by far the worst piece of economic, open slather, dog eat dog policy our country has seen! It was a short term gain policy to make everybody feel good in the short term!

Another little mishap in the worlds economy and we will probably be up sh!t creek! Especially if the coalition maintain their austerity line!

 

There is a lot in what you say. As to housing affordability. High housing costs, begin with high land costs, and the quality of infrastructure like, public transport, roads, etc, etc. To begin on he land content issue, a general rule of thumb, is that you should spend three times the price of the land, on the house. To spend less, is to under capitalise. Government regulations, fees and conditions make development of residential land very expensive. Land developers come in all types and sizes, ranging from shifty little gutter rats, to less shifty, horse sized ones. The point here is, it`s not really the developer, who ends up lumbered with these costs, plus interest, plus margin, holding costs, etc, etc., it`s the buyer.

As to infrastructure and services, Australia`s population, particularly in major cities, is growing at a faster rate than we can provide infrastructure for. While residential land on city outskirts may be cheaper, there are usually infrastructure disadvantages associated, particularly detrimental to young families.

 

Good points aussie - to which I can only add that "something has to be done about it!"

In all seriousness state governments need to get to grips with this because it's a time-bomb and we can't find the blue wire....

 

I agree with much of what has been said, but there is still a massive problem with banks controlling the housing bubble.

We all know people can buy house & land packages in some suburbs from $320K and upwards. They get a 550sq block and a 3 x 2 x 2 home for that money.

My point is this, the foreign owned banks come along and say the people now have to pay back double; $640K for that house & land package, and will usually take most people between 25 & 30 years to repay.

The housing bubble has been expanding at such a massive rate every 25 years, that peoples wages have had to increase also to keep pace, and that has forced employers and manufacturers to increase wages to the detrimental effect of their businesses NOT being able to sustain this level of wage growth, and simple cannot compete in the international manufacturing market due to high human labour costs.

Drop the extorted prices of homes and land in Australia and Australian wages will not have to be increased, and Australian manufacturing and Australian businesses will not have to move overseas due to high human labour costs.

The artificial housing bubble created by these foreign owned banks has destroyed Australian manufacturing, by forcing employers to increase wages to keep pace with home mortgages and bank interest rates.

 

If there is one thing Australia as got plenty of, it's land. A 600sq metre allotment in town should be worth no more than a few hundred dollars + service connection costs.

 

You could buy a block for a couple of hundred dollars out at Bourke. But out there you can't give it away in some specific locations. Quarterly rates are higher than the cost of land.

Councils hold the keys to land development! Despite some considering it just a simple protection of land values, I think the considerations are less colluding and controversial as some think.

 

I would like to see something similar to the following.

People here are correct, it's a scam. Land on the outskirts of my home town was reasonably cheap. Developers bought the land, had the cancel rezone it, and wow, it's suddenly worth a fortune.

IMHO, we should "give" each Australian a small block of land with a small cottage on it, once they reach 21 years of age. This would be paid for by a tax system similar to HECS, and for those on welfare, in lieu of rental assistance or public housing.

This would rip open the housing market. People would, if they wanted, work hard, save money and sell their home, through the government department, then purchase a bigger home of there choice.

Couples that married could sell the two homes back and buy a bigger place, or one home back and pay the other off.

Of course this is a rough idea and would need refining, but something along these lines.

People blabber on here about every person having the same opportunity but this is absolute garbage. There are the same opportunities for every person, but we are all different, different IQs, different birth rights, different upbringings, born in different places to different parents.

Go to a maternity ward and look at the babies. Some will go home to well to do homes, others will go home to working class homes, others still will go home to welfare homes. None of these babies has any choice as to who it's parents are or the circumstances they are in. They all deserve the same opportunity.

 

And who do you suppose would buy them??? Why would they buy them if you already have given them a house??? So if you work hard and save money you could only rip them down and build a bigger house on the same land...

Again to who???

Talk about socialist...

So due to the fact everybody is different you proclaim the opportunity is different??? No, everybody is Australia has the same opportunities but some need to work harder than others to achieve the same. Again, this puts your professionalism in question.

And they have it. You are just complaining because you believe one should have more opportunity than another due to their own personal circumstances. You would rather discriminate due to personal circumstances and would like to pretend that opportunities are different. Fact is, if people work hard to achieve certain goals (yes some harder than others) they have the ability to progress, which is how many people became rich, famous and political leaders. For an example... Rudd...

 

Developing land in this country is highly complex, and expensive. Builders also, bear heavy bureaucratic costs, and face litigation at every turn. These are systemic inefficiencies that need addressing. All fields of industry and endeavor in this country, are handicapped by over regulation, and we are all the poorer for it.

 

It's a huge conundrum - how to de-commodify housing in Australia. I suppose we have to work out how it happened before we can unwind it. The wealthy have always been able to build themselves splendid dwellings. I'm thinking historically here. But the wealthy weren't in the habit of flipping dwellings, they built a huge pile and lived in it, died in it, bequeathed it to nummber one son and so on. Yes some were sold but usually to the already wealthy, not to people who went into debt to purchase the dwelling. In Australia the same thing applied, I think. For the ordinary person it was sufficient to build a house, live in it, raise the family, die in it and bequeath the house to the kids. Somewhere between then and now the commodification thing happened. It just wasn't what ordinary people did.

I remember a few years ago speaking to a man who built, with his own hands, a house in Parkside, Adelaide. He built it when he was first married and lived in it for the rest of his life. As he told me around him the suburb was changing from working class to gentrified. House prices were going up but he had no wish to sell, he built it, he lived in it, he raised his family in it and he was determined to live in it for the rest of his life. Which is in fact what he did.


I don't know when the commodification started. Perhaps in the 1960s? But what has happened now is that, as I said before, housing is what makes us all capitalists now. The ordinary person is a capitalist if they own their own home. They can increase their capital by going into debt to buy a better home using the proceeds from the first home. The whole concept of "first home buyer" is an invitation by the real estate industry to people to hop on the hamster wheel, go into debt, scrimp, save, worry about interest rates and thereby cause governments to focus their attention on "ordinary Australians" or "working families" or whatever handy little demographic label fits at the time because the numbers in the electorate are in favour of the housing capitalists. Who benefits?


It can't unwind until there is a massive crisis. Not a bubble, they happen all the time in capitalist economies, but a huge crisis which makes people wake up to what has happened in the last fifty, sixty years or whatever it is, in the commodification of housing.

 

Population increase, has created a large portion of the recent, high demand. Up until around the the 1970`s, for a working family wasn`t really an "Australian thing", harder working, smarter immigrants, often uneducated, found a profitable way of investing their surplus earnings. Furthermore, remember when a family could live well on one wage, pay off a house, have annual holidays?

 

Good points, there has definitely been an increase in demand due to population growth. I'm not all that familiar with details interstate but here in SA we've seen the outer metro area of Adelaide, which is a north-south area topographically, extend way out north and south. Now we're seeing inner metro areas being redeveloped because it seems the limits of how far people will live from the CBD are being reached. I understand that that issue links to planning and development and our state government is at least doing its bit by trying to make it easier for lower-income people to get into their own housing:

http://www.homestart.com.au/home

http://www.affordablehomes.sa.gov.a...2&MenuItemID=103916&subject=About_the_program

So that appears to be an effort to help out. An interesting side-note is that much of the areas in inner metro Adelaide are formerly Housing Trust areas (public/community housing) which are very desirable because of their proximity to the CBD and to various services like schools, hospitals, public transport and so on.

 

Yes I do, it wasn't a hundred years ago either.

 

I believe that we should be more careful regarding population growth, and we need to be more selective of the culture mix we import, but that`s another subject. I can`t see any good reason to rush toward a "Big Australia", the risks far outweigh the short term benefits. Most of the best Australians I`ve ever known, have been immigrants, but how quickly should we grow? Should we grow our population at all? Why rush into the global population explosion?

- - - Updated - - -

I believe that we should be more careful regarding population growth, and we need to be more selective of the culture mix we import, but that`s another subject. I can`t see any good reason to rush toward a "Big Australia", the risks far outweigh the short term benefits. Most of the best Australians I`ve ever known, have been immigrants, but how quickly should we grow? Should we grow our population at all? Why rush into the global population explosion?

 

Again, fair points, reasonable points. Looking back for just a moment we can see how Australia's immigration policy has been all over the place. "Populate or perish!" which was meant for British Australians of course. Then the waves of skilled migrants from Britain and then from Europe, along with the Displaced Persons from post-war Europe and then the second wave of refugees from Indo-China. It's been a mix of programmed immigration as well as humanitarian immigration. But the numbers have never been such that the country's ability to sustain a target population was seriously under threat. What has happened though is that our biggest cities are on the way to becoming almost uninhabitable due to spread. It's a shame that the Whitlam government's regional policy was never allowed to flourish. If it had then we would not have largest cities bursting at the seams, with ridiculous real estate prices and no end of social problems. And by now we would have been rid of the curse of state governments. All in all a big fail.

 

They would only allow people who could read to sell their homes back, as I assume it would be written on the documentation,just as I wrote it in my post. But for the dummies, back to the government department at an agreed profit margin. Something along those lines, it is just an idea....oh I forgot, you're a LNP supporter... an idea is something that normal people have.

Who me, why thank you, that's the nicest thing you have said to me. Yes I am a Socialist, Capitalism has nothing for humans about it, it is purely a way of doing business, it lets the dollar rule, it's about maximising profit pure and simple, absolutely no humanitarian thoughts. Why in the world would I want to be a part of that?

If you honestly think every Australian has the same opportunity then there is no use arguing because you don't get out enough to see reality.

No, I am complaining because I believe one should have the same opportunity regardless of their own personal circumstances.

There is still oodles of room for people with drive, who want to work hard, to buy a bigger better home, a bigger better car, to take bigger and better holidays, whats your gripe?

 

LOL... So in other words, just give the people the money to buy their houses and then buy them back... Funny enough that is even worse than the welfare mentality Australia has now...

Actually your wrong on the LNP idea, but if giving money to everybody for nothing is a normal IDEA, I am guessing the normality of your NORMAL people around you is challenge to sanity... But hey, nothing wrong with the welfare mentality, as long as the free money keeps flowing your way.

Actually you demonstrate you want to pick and choose the best of both worlds according to your idea of how things should be done. However, Your spot on with capitalism but I wonder if you really understand the greatest problem with capitalism, as you obviously have not learnt the socialist problems.

If you believe the opportunity should be handed to everybody then obviously your right. People who sit on their average effort will not be afforded the same opportunity, BUT if they want to work and pursue that opportunity, then they have the very same chance of gaining that opportunity. So, I gather Rudd was something special as a product of public education, from rural background from a family unit that was not independently wealthy, but hey, being the PM is not an opportunity. I wonder how many of those ALP members are of a public background holding professional qualifications such as Rudd that did not have that supposed equal opportunity???

Not from your previous comments,

This suggests that should one person have lower IQ or live in a lower class home they should be provided with more opportunity because you consider that it is not the same. Fact is they have the very same opportunity to achieve and these are PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES which have nothing to do with opportunity. In fact, if you think about it, these people have more opportunity as they have support of welfare that the people you complain about are unable to gain. So if you want the same opportunity make all equal and not simply what you envisage is equal. If they achieve the same scores, same work ethic, same ambition, they have the same opportunity to achieve the same outcome. With one big difference, most have been subsidised by the welfare system you consider is a right.

What is my gripe??? You seem to be the one with the gripe. You complain about people who have those bigger houses, cars, holidays and easier work. You complain about those who work hard and risk everything to create jobs and thus wealth for the non-achievers and you complain about anybody who wants to spend their hard earned money because you think everybody should have a cut of others hard work...

ME? I am just showing how that welfare mentality you seem to have is destroying this country and how you are willing to ignorantly complain that you have not got your share of others efforts.

 

Once again you show the LNP typical inability to understand something simple and fair. You want to make it appear I am the one who is not looking at things in the correct way. Why not try to debate me, rather than misquote what I say, strawmen are not a viable argument.

 

That is funny... You say the government is to buy them back and I am misquoting.

Just to demonstrate your attempt at being indignant.

So you change that to be purchased by the government and I am creating a strawman??? Sorry that would be you.

Ok for dummies... Give everybody a house (something for nothing) buy the house back for a profit (more something for nothing) and expect that those houses will be purchased by somebody else (who already has a government granted house) So in other words Money for nothing... AND expect that a free commodity could be sold... AND YOU WONDER WHY AUSTRALIANS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE STUPID.

No you assumed incorrectly...

Stupid answer and superficial at the least... But I'll take your proclaimed professionalism as your assumption.

So in were would be the incentive to work???

Sorry but you now assume that removing any incentive to achieve, any incentive to work or grow that Australians will not need charity or government aid is flawed. As very few will work for future as you assume the government should pay for everything these costs will grow far beyond the ability to pay... Which is the current problem now.

everything to do with it...

first of all, your proclamation of your life is irrelevant dribble as it assumes I and everybody else here believes your words. You cannot prove them and due to the fact you proclaim yourself to be “brainy” you would be aware of this. Fact is that you clearly demonstrate this to be questionable.
Drive and enthusiasm is not a gift, it is a mental state which can be achieved by most people. In fact most disable people show greater drive and enthusiasm.
When given something for nothing generally it is treated without respect for that opportunity. BUT Hey, you claim the same opportunity is not there, but your former PM demonstrates this to be lacking.

Yes they are, showing something entirely different to what you claimed.

You words betray you, you claimed personal circumstances mean the opportunity is not the same.

So what is this??? Another misquote???

 

How about, we just take all the money off people who work the hardest, take risks to develop business and industry (cash cows), and give it all to the ones who do nothing constructive. We`ll obviously to introduce some new regulations, like making it illegal for the cash cows to take their business overseas, retire, commit suicide, etc.