Anthony Albanese - How long? -2-

Remove this Banner Ad

Her interviewing technique was horrendous (as it was last year) but the essence of what she was asking was legitimate. She asked Chalmers how putting more money in people's pockets would lower demand (and hence inflation) and all he did was defer to Treasury without actually giving an answer to the question.
Tbh if someone complains about cost of living pressure and then on the next breath complains that any rebate/ tax cut/ supplement is inflationary - these people need to be hit hard with a baseball bat as they are useless oxygen thieves.
Many economists would be on that hit list. Bitch and moan but offer nothing useful.
 
City rentals are not cheaper. Find me a 3 bedroom place in the city for $600 pw.

Median wage is for a single person. Households typically include 2 people, so that's $1400 pw per couple.
you're the only one talking about 3 bedders

and plenty of households are single income

and again I quoted the median wage which means half the people working are below that number
 
we used to have this thing called public housing that we mostly stopped building in the 90s, that wasn't free to live in, its still not free to live in, its just that rent prices are controlled and linked to your income

we've got a few issues currently

a shortage of public housing due to decades of neglect, they didnt keep up with population growth like they used to

they used to build public housing stock as a percentage of population growth

a growing percentage of housing stock being bought up by investors, pushing up the prices and meaning more people need to rent

the percentage of people renting isn't growing because people don't want to own

its that more people are priced out of owning and have no choice but to rent

the other issue is unlimited rent increase people can charge more in rent as a percentage of tenants income than banks can charge people with a mortgage

there is nothing linking rent to any income testing outside of public housing

community housing can do this but more commonly its set as a percentage of the local market, which means when the area goes up unchecked due to greed the social housing gets more expensive as well
Add in that it appears a lot of what might otherwise have been social housing has been repurposed for NDIS supported independent living, and many of these clients are high needs and so cannot share homes (I could be biased from seeing the highest need subset)
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Both things can be right, you know. One of the risks of being a landlord is your tenants are going to hate you if you kick them out of their homes.

I've been there many times. It sucks.
My one experience of being a landlord I had 3 awesome tenants and sold when property was vacant; not getting back into it as I doubt I will have that luck ever again.
 
No mate, you have not addressed my question. You have simply pointed and asked me to "look over there."

You said that nobody should own investment property. Let's stick with that for now because I have told you why this is not possible. Unless of course you support state ownership of properties that cater for all tastes and budgets.
I thought he did say something similar (state owned rent controlled properties)
 
But cities cannot ultimately work like that. Not every job in the city can earn $300/400/500k - but the city cannot survive without the people who do all the crappy work and don't earn anywhere near than much.

I have not studied or read anything about this, but I suspect a huge part of the nurse/paramedic/cleaner/whatever labour shortage is simply people cannot afford to live anywhere near the Royal Melbourne or Alfred so they do move to the suburbs or the regions as you say and do something else.
Those tertiaries still don’t struggle to get staff - supported by prestige so nurses quite happy/willing to schlep themselves there as opposed to my (not prestigious) outer metro hospital; worse in rural as there are often no houses at all.
 
I thought he did say something similar (state owned rent controlled properties)

Mate, I am not delving back into that particular conversation. Gralin has his views and they seem clear, unambiguous and not open to challenge. Mine are a little more in the grey (a more robust social housing program being core but I stop short of saying that nobody should be able to own a property that they rent out) and I am happy to discuss them on their own merits.
 
I earn enough that it is irrelevant
Pay Day Money GIF by HRejterzy


Sorry, had to do it.
 
This sounds a bit like Tony Abbott what the housewives of Australia need to understand while they do the ironing style economics.
Don't forget that Hass avocados are cheap this time of year, so there should be plenty of wiggle room for rent/house buying in the young un's budget
 
Add in that it appears a lot of what might otherwise have been social housing has been repurposed for NDIS supported independent living, and many of these clients are high needs and so cannot share homes (I could be biased from seeing the highest need subset)
in the last 50 years housing stock has more than doubled and public housing stock has gone up by less than 50%

so the % of social housing compared to the entire market has dropped
A lot of uninformed commentary about the private property market and the role it plays in the housing market generally - particularly in the rental market. And making references to the public housing policies that are now more than 50 years old and part of immigration and industry attraction policies, started by state governments after WW2 is less than useful.

The 21st century housing crisis is a global issue that did not start two years ago but has been building for well over a decade.

This week's UK based Guardian magazine had a feature article which started with this paragraph:

'Spiralling rents and sky-high property prices risk becoming a key battleground of European politics as far-right and populist parties start to exploit growing public anger over the continent's housing crisis, experts have said'


Sound familiar?

But back to Australia.

You could build a decent sized residential estate from the public money spent on all the expert analyses and reports to tell us what needs to be done in a public policy sense to start changing the out of control dynamics of our housing market. So it's not as if the answer isn't known, at least by the people who know wtf they're talking about.

The issue is of course, governments at all levels just tinkering at the edges. Too afraid to do anything that comes close to turning the Titanic-like course of the housing market spiral around. Because of the political consequences of voters accepting the crap stories they hear and read in the mainstream media and see repeated in social media platforms Everyone yelling about governments 'doing nothing' while at the same time wanting nothing to be done that remotely risks changing anything for themselves.

I honestly can't see change happening on the scale needed in the current political environment. The people who are hurting the most don't have the political power needed to affect the required change in political attitudes.....yet.
I think what we stopped doing 50 years ago is part of how we got here

50 years ago is when neoliberal free market thinking came to the fore

governments stopped doing stuff and encouraged the market to do it and the market laughed and went about making as much money as possible

its a global issue in western democracies because they've largely gone down the same path for decades

Australia has also been in a race to largely emulate the US which is pretty much the absolute worst model to follow for anything other than corporate profits

in some cases we've gone much worse than the US with market concentration like the supermarket Duopoly

and you are 100% correct that the people impacted don't have the political power to do anything about it, but the number of people impacted is growing

Whether that translates to change for the better or more authoritarian governments accelerating the decline is currently leaning towards the second unfortunately
 


And of course there's this impacting on the supply of long term rentals in the private market as well:

1715913055622.png

Seems to me that some carefully coordinated regulation in the private rental market (a state issue under the Constitution) is sorely needed to enhance supply and pricing and could be easily done if there was the political will.
 
Last edited:
I think they have to sleep somewhere when they are in parliament. I think if the entire arrangement was more transparent, some people would have less problem with it.

What if we paid each MP $40,000 more a year (at a guess what they'd be costing in allowances for being in Canberra) and said "you have to take care of your own accommodation when in Canberra?" Probably exactly the same result, probably without the conceit of putting it in someone else's name, and less public furore.

You want to pay these already high earners an additional amount that is higher than the jobseeker rate?

Let me guess, you are an aspiring politician?
 
You want to pay these already high earners an additional amount that is higher than the jobseeker rate?

Let me guess, you are an aspiring politician?
Reckon they should put them in dorms
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I think they have to sleep somewhere when they are in parliament. I think if the entire arrangement was more transparent, some people would have less problem with it.

What if we paid each MP $40,000 more a year (at a guess what they'd be costing in allowances for being in Canberra) and said "you have to take care of your own accommodation when in Canberra?" Probably exactly the same result, probably without the conceit of putting it in someone else's name, and less public furore.
why not treat them like other public servants - if you own a property, no entitlement - if you don't government pays the bill to a properly contracted hotel/apartment not cash to the member.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Parking at stations is a waste of time. You could have a 1000 car spaces. Given most a single occupant vehicles that's barely a train load

Proper buses to the station are better.

Then we're screwed , because , apart from price, busses are horrible.
Do i want to take 40 minutes to get to the station instead of a 15m car drive . NO .
And we don't buy good busses, we buy shitty noisy shaky ones, probably designed for 3rd world countries, we light them with horrible UV lights so the druggies can't find their veins.

Trains already have a stigma attached, they simply aren't good enough for some people , and needing to use a bus makes it worse.

Q: If they drive into the city , where do they park the car?
If the answer is in a carpark, why not have that carpark in the burbs near a stations.

In the olden days they built railways and stations.
The suburban stations were pretty much within walking distance from each other so that people could usually walk to a station.
Cleverly the stations always ended up right next to a main road . ( Meaning we later had to do the big build ).

Now that Melbourne is one of the biggest city area's in the world, the model breaks down.
Even the limited expresses take a long time to get to the city from out your way. Stopping at so many stations.

The Northern line in Perth works really well with car parking at the Stations. They have relatively few Stations and you get into the CBD from the furthest out suburbs much quicker than a car would.
 


And of course there's this impacting on the supply of long term rentals in the private market as well:

View attachment 1991265

Seems to me that some carefully coordinated regulation in the private rental market (a state issue under the Constitution) is sorely needed to enhance supply and pricing and could be easily done if there was the political will.


So...Because they can.
 
Tbh if someone complains about cost of living pressure and then on the next breath complains that any rebate/ tax cut/ supplement is inflationary - these people need to be hit hard with a baseball bat as they are useless oxygen thieves.
Many economists would be on that hit list. Bitch and moan but offer nothing useful.
It is a perfectly legitimate question. If the policy is going to make existing problems worse long term then the treasurer should explain himself.
 
It is a perfectly legitimate question. If the policy is going to make existing problems worse long term then the treasurer should explain himself.
ok so prove its a problem and then ask the question
 
Then we're screwed , because , apart from price, busses are horrible.
Do i want to take 40 minutes to get to the station instead of a 15m car drive . NO .
And we don't buy good busses, we buy shitty noisy shaky ones, probably designed for 3rd world countries, we light them with horrible UV lights so the druggies can't find their veins.

Trains already have a stigma attached, they simply aren't good enough for some people , and needing to use a bus makes it worse.

Q: If they drive into the city , where do they park the car?
If the answer is in a carpark, why not have that carpark in the burbs near a stations.

In the olden days they built railways and stations.
The suburban stations were pretty much within walking distance from each other so that people could usually walk to a station.
Cleverly the stations always ended up right next to a main road . ( Meaning we later had to do the big build ).

Now that Melbourne is one of the biggest city area's in the world, the model breaks down.
Even the limited expresses take a long time to get to the city from out your way. Stopping at so many stations.

The Northern line in Perth works really well with car parking at the Stations. They have relatively few Stations and you get into the CBD from the furthest out suburbs much quicker than a car would.
Looking for a place in Perf atm one of my non negs is for it to be less than a 1km walk from a train station.
 
Then we're screwed , because , apart from price, busses are horrible.
Do i want to take 40 minutes to get to the station instead of a 15m car drive . NO .
And we don't buy good busses, we buy shitty noisy shaky ones, probably designed for 3rd world countries, we light them with horrible UV lights so the druggies can't find their veins.

Trains already have a stigma attached, they simply aren't good enough for some people , and needing to use a bus makes it worse.

Q: If they drive into the city , where do they park the car?
If the answer is in a carpark, why not have that carpark in the burbs near a stations.

In the olden days they built railways and stations.
The suburban stations were pretty much within walking distance from each other so that people could usually walk to a station.
Cleverly the stations always ended up right next to a main road . ( Meaning we later had to do the big build ).

Now that Melbourne is one of the biggest city area's in the world, the model breaks down.
Even the limited expresses take a long time to get to the city from out your way. Stopping at so many stations.

The Northern line in Perth works really well with car parking at the Stations. They have relatively few Stations and you get into the CBD from the furthest out suburbs much quicker than a car would.
So often I see these giant people movers with one or two people in them. Replace them with the smaller school bus style of bus, fitting maybe 40 people, which navigate the streets much quicker, and send two in the same time it would take one big bus. Or split the route between two or three of these smaller buses. The aim should be to move people from their homes to the train station in about 10 mins, then train into the city.
 
Dutton’s scheme to allow first home buyers to take $50k out of their super is almost the dumbest idea he has come up with yet.

I’d be 100% for it, providing you had to pay back + interest.
So effectively you are borrowing from your own super..
Which industry do you think would be against that? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
 
Last edited:
Then we're screwed , because , apart from price, busses are horrible.
Do i want to take 40 minutes to get to the station instead of a 15m car drive . NO .
And we don't buy good busses, we buy shitty noisy shaky ones, probably designed for 3rd world countries, we light them with horrible UV lights so the druggies can't find their veins.

Trains already have a stigma attached, they simply aren't good enough for some people , and needing to use a bus makes it worse.

Q: If they drive into the city , where do they park the car?
If the answer is in a carpark, why not have that carpark in the burbs near a stations.

In the olden days they built railways and stations.
The suburban stations were pretty much within walking distance from each other so that people could usually walk to a station.
Cleverly the stations always ended up right next to a main road . ( Meaning we later had to do the big build ).

Now that Melbourne is one of the biggest city area's in the world, the model breaks down.
Even the limited expresses take a long time to get to the city from out your way. Stopping at so many stations.

The Northern line in Perth works really well with car parking at the Stations. They have relatively few Stations and you get into the CBD from the furthest out suburbs much quicker than a car would.
Parking just doesn't work. Berwick station has a multi story carpark. 661 spaces.
Parking costs about 20k per space.


Clearly you haven't been on a bus lately.
That's a modern Melbourne bus.
Chassis mostly from Europe with the body built in Victoria. No blue uv lights on them.

The biggest issue with buses is frequency.

You bring up Perth and the Joondalup line. It's actually a great example of doing it properly. Most of the stations have large bus interchanges with frequent buses connecting to trains.
 
I’d be 100% for it, providing you had to pay back + interest.
So effectively you are borrowing from your own super..
Which industry do you think would be against that? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Drives inflation of housing prices
 
So often I see these giant people movers with one or two people in them. Replace them with the smaller school bus style of bus, fitting maybe 40 people, which navigate the streets much quicker, and send two in the same time it would take one big bus. Or split the route between two or three of these smaller buses. The aim should be to move people from their homes to the train station in about 10 mins, then train into the city.
Busses are for people like Mantis, no thanks.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top