-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
We've entered bizzaro land!
Now if they stay United (pun) and block Uni deregulation, and pretty much anything that the Libs try to push through until the next election that would be absolutely wonderful!
The party that isn't Liberal just has to undo the NBN changes and bring back FTTP - even with extra delay it's far, far better than FTTN.
I doubt that will happen, even Jason Clare has come out and said they won't be able to do that now. But they still believe in FTTP, so that's something I guess.
Dastardly Jerks
Banned
Throw in the Pauline Hanson resurrection with that and PUP biting it's own arm.
Today is laughcry awesome.
How? If you could stop FTTP rollout and switch to FTTN switching back isn't too much of an issue. Even if they started rolling out FTTN you just can go back and do the last mile in fibre afterwards.
Sad thing is that if she gets a seat, and Lambert gets a seat that's two seats - in the Senate which can make a lot of difference depending on the final layout after the election.
Bahaha. Pyne was a fuckstick from the get-go, but wow. I realised this government was a shambles, but had no idea just how much.
Also Jack Thompson wot? Crazy.
He has realised he needs to be re-elected by people in the eastern suburbs who like the ABC and know people that work there. Silly local electorate getting in the way of fucking up the country.
Indeed.
bobnowhere
Member
I don't know, even Andrew Bolt is getting a little grumpy now.
Of course he had to throw in a evil left wing media conspiracy into the mix!
Feels like he's trying to make the ABC look like the bad guys in this scenario.
Oh, he definitely is. But he's being too subversive about it. He thinks that by him tweeting about the closure, it's the management making the wrong decision and that the funds should go from elsewhere.
Surely he should've expected this reaction? What a self-righteous dipshit.
shanshan310
Member
hahahahahahaha what a beautiful day.
Jessie said:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/11/19/australian-news/when-young-abandon-australia
This makes me hate the politicians, the bankers and central bankers all the more.
LOL NIMB
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
Yay. Seems like Muir showing everyone he's his own man and Lambie going into "oppose everything until the armed services get a pay rise" mode could break the pattern we were seeing where PUP would make a fuss for the government only to pass legislation after extracting some minor concessions. Good Peter Martin piece on the issue from a while back: FOFA. How Palmer was conned. The rotten underbelly of Australia's financial advice industry.
Speaking as someone living in a rural area, the Nationals have got to be one of the most frustrating political parties in existence. As far as I can tell the main reason Barnaby is a member of the Coalition is because he was an accountant and he thinks that if Labor are in power the government will end up having to take out a second mortgage on Australia from the Reserve Bank or agist it to the Chinese or something.
Interesting to compare this to response to the budget. When criticised for their unpopular budget measures the government claims that not only are they necessary but that they're the best and fairest ways of achieving their goal. When the ABC is forced into making unpopular decisions due to the government's broken promise it's all "this is totally their own choice and they mustn't be working hard enough to reduce inefficiencies and they can't do this please don't cut jobs in my electorate please you've got to help me stop them."
The funny thing is that the ABC's budget is probably a darn sight more effective and targeted than this government's.
Fuck, that's not a bad idea. Pinball machines are cheaper overseas, too.
Isn't that what they're doing though? From the sample at least.
Let's not forget the cuts to science, either.
We have no plans or desire to become slaves to the baby boomer generation and for them to suggest to us that we 'sacrifice more' when we already have to retire later, have rising interest rates to look forward too, having to use TWO incomes at 40-50% to buy a house. On top of FALLING real incomes.
ConstructMe
Banned
So where are the good countries to move to? Other than asia.
They will be slaves to the baby boomer generation without it necessarily being the baby boomers fault. It's the fault of the boomers that support and implement policies that lead to that situation, but not the fault of all of them.
Its the system, not the 'baby boomers'. Its not the baby boomers supporting this alone. They want their homes to improve in value. Everyone does. Do you think that if we acheieve housing affordability, the 'next generation' will all of a sudden give up on that and be willing to sell homes for less?
Off the top of my head, Sweden and Germany.
shanshan310
Member
Hmmm, job prospects after graduation certainly do worry me. Mostly because it looks difficult to be picky with location. I don't mind moving states or even overseas but finding a job in a similar location to wherever my partner finds a job sounds almost impossible :s As exciting as working full time doing something I love sounds, I'm not looking forward to graduating. Plus job searching is absolutely soul sucking.
What are the chances of those ridiculous laws about young people not getting the dole for six months going through? Because that is really terrifying.
I'm not quite sure what that stands for ><
What are the chances of those ridiculous laws about young people not getting the dole for six months going through? Because that is really terrifying.
I'm not quite sure what that stands for ><
shanshan310
Member
D.Lo
Member
We have no plans or desire to become slaves to the baby boomer generation and for them to suggest to us that we 'sacrifice more' when we already have to retire later, have rising interest rates to look forward too, having to use TWO incomes at 40-50% to buy a house.
D.Lo
Member
That's not blaming them at all, just describing the situation.
You sell what the market will pay. That's not gouging. Boomers aren't the only property investors either, it's pointless to refer to them. Much more helpful to make this an issue of class as that helps open eyes to inequality generally rather than just getting mad at old people.
Oh please.
They werent gouging, they said they were selling for 600k+, they sold to the highest offer.
This was their 'perfect' house. Well fuck you, you dont always get what you want.
Imagine a couple, who had 605k, who saw the same house, wanted it desperately, and these assholes offered 25k more.
You cant play the system then cry that people have more money then you. People will always have more money then you.
You want to live near the center of Sydney with a school near by an a good neighborhood? Guess what, all those things up the price.
The Australia that exists now is completely different to the one the baby boomers bought into. 40-50 years ago Sydney and Melbourne were completely different, they were mostly backwaters.
And its not pedantic, just read its description of the elderly couple, economic slaves to them? No. You are a slave to the current economic system, housing prices or no.
Stop being so entitled. And stop hating on people who are selling homes as they retire and simply want the best price possible for. And stop pretending you wont be the same when you get your hands on your home.
I think that housing is a problem. But their portrayal of the problem is utterly moronic. I am meant to feel sorry for them? Screw them.
We have huge problems. Loads. But not getting your perfect property? Welcome to life. House prices are way to high, wages are screwy, the economy has been stunted by conservative policies since the 80's. This is the affect, not of wage rises, but of completely inequal wage rises. Fewer can afford more.
They werent gouging, they said they were selling for 600k+, they sold to the highest offer.
This was their 'perfect' house. Well fuck you, you dont always get what you want.
Imagine a couple, who had 605k, who saw the same house, wanted it desperately, and these assholes offered 25k more.
You cant play the system then cry that people have more money then you. People will always have more money then you.
You want to live near the center of Sydney with a school near by an a good neighborhood? Guess what, all those things up the price.
The Australia that exists now is completely different to the one the baby boomers bought into. 40-50 years ago Sydney and Melbourne were completely different, they were mostly backwaters.
And its not pedantic, just read its description of the elderly couple, economic slaves to them? No. You are a slave to the current economic system, housing prices or no.
Stop being so entitled. And stop hating on people who are selling homes as they retire and simply want the best price possible for. And stop pretending you wont be the same when you get your hands on your home.
I think that housing is a problem. But their portrayal of the problem is utterly moronic. I am meant to feel sorry for them? Screw them.
We have huge problems. Loads. But not getting your perfect property? Welcome to life. House prices are way to high, wages are screwy, the economy has been stunted by conservative policies since the 80's. This is the affect, not of wage rises, but of completely inequal wage rises. Fewer can afford more.
Why is it exactly that you always need to make a pithy comment about something and then get poked on it before you break out the actual reasoning?
I don't disagree with anything you just said, now that you've said it instead of just harrumphing. But you framed it pretty weirdly initially.
I don't disagree with anything you just said, now that you've said it instead of just harrumphing. But you framed it pretty weirdly initially.
I thought the point of the article was that from the buyer's perspective it's going to cost them less than 600k and make a profit in the long run. The person is quite clearly mad at the system, which is heavily stacked towards already wealthy people buying up property for cheap and renting it back to people who actually need it.
D.Lo
Member
Yep, and though many policies by federal and state governments, such as negative gearing, concessionally taxed superannuation, Immigration, middle class welfare, exemption of home from asset test for welfare...
The last 20 years of government have conspired to make a generation rich, at the expense of the next.
The housing price situation is effectively a giant scheme to transfer wealth from the productive young to the less productive old.
And again we have you turning this into some sort of generational warfare.
Its not what is the problem here.
The problem is that houses have become 'an invesment' even for home owners. They all want good returns 'on their investment'. Houses generally, the real estate market as we see it, is a new phenomenon for most of the populace. 100 years ago the majoity of the populace didnt own their own homes. After ww2 there was a huge boom in property, the cities came to life.
People still want to live in the cities, the prices of those properties goes up. People leave the towns, houses of properties in the cities go up. People immigrate, move to the cities, prices go up.
Lets look at it realistically. People dont want to live 'in whoop whoop'. They want to live within a certain radius of major cities. Australia has fewer major cities generally then most countries. Our cities were based on the classic suburban home, big house, big block, big yard. I think Australia has like one of the biggest average property sizes in the world.
What can the government do? Release more land in the sticks? They do that, the prices are generally lower, they are generally populate by lower income people who cant afford better. We get urban sprawl. We get worse traffic. What happens? All of a sudden the price of inner city houses has gone up more because of these factors.
Its the market. They can scrap negative gearing, but is there any evidence that would fix the property market to a large degree? many nations have had pretty big price increases in the last 30 years without negative gearing.
I dont think the government could do anything, outside of generally drastically remodelling the major cities. First of all we need higher density homing in cities. (People dont want this, they still want the suburban dream) Second of all we need better urban planning, generally we have an ad hoc approach to the whole thing, add an extra highway, another train, get rid of another, add some tolls.... etc....
Im jealous of my parents generation, but Australia was a different country then. Land wasnt scarce in the major cities. It is now. Australia developed in a 'wild west' fashion, but now its turning into a London and co situation in the cities.
D.Lo
Member
Look I agree it's about class more than generational warfare overall.
And no, canning negative gearing won't fix everything by itself (though anything that benefits investors over someone who just wants a place to live... smh).
But policies over the last 20 years, including those in housing, HAVE passed wealth to the old.
Pro-rising property prices policies (several of which I listed above) appeal to the old outright home owners, and the medium-old mortgage holders, which constitute roughly 2/3 of the electorate (NOT of the population mind you, since under 18s and temporary workers etc can't vote).
So Howard in particular preferred these policies, because they won elections. Anyone who's been under 18 in the last 20 years, had no voice in that part of their future at any point they were. Boomers an Xers saw rising house prices as good for their family, and paid no attention to the needs of the next generation as a whole. High immigration (despite pretending to be anti-immigration) boosted the economy and pushed house prices up even further, to the benefit of those who already had wealth.
We have to live in cities, because that's where the work is for the middle classes. I work in technology, there are no offices in regional/suburban areas, like there were factories for my dad to work in in the 60s to 90s.
And no, canning negative gearing won't fix everything by itself (though anything that benefits investors over someone who just wants a place to live... smh).
But policies over the last 20 years, including those in housing, HAVE passed wealth to the old.
Pro-rising property prices policies (several of which I listed above) appeal to the old outright home owners, and the medium-old mortgage holders, which constitute roughly 2/3 of the electorate (NOT of the population mind you, since under 18s and temporary workers etc can't vote).
So Howard in particular preferred these policies, because they won elections. Anyone who's been under 18 in the last 20 years, had no voice in that part of their future at any point they were. Boomers an Xers saw rising house prices as good for their family, and paid no attention to the needs of the next generation as a whole. High immigration (despite pretending to be anti-immigration) boosted the economy and pushed house prices up even further, to the benefit of those who already had wealth.
We have to live in cities, because that's where the work is for the middle classes. I work in technology, there are no offices in regional/suburban areas, like there were factories for my dad to work in in the 60s to 90s.
Ruthless_Barbarian
Member
What's a baby boomer?
Post-WWII generation, there was a huge surge in people having babies...1946-1970 or so I guess...
My grandparents on my mum's side were ten pound poms, and all seven of their children are middle class and successful; they elevated themselves through a glut of opportunity through the 70s and 80s. I don't think our generation has the same good fortune, but it's not (directly) their fault.
D.Lo
Member
Well, many of them voted for governments and policies that created the current situation.
Anyone who ever voted for Howard gets my scorn, and it's his government above any others that is responsible. Yes Keating started it, but it was at that point part of kickstarting a declining economy. Howard just rode his 'battlers' while pushing wealth to the upper-class. They were side beneficiaries, but beneficiaries nonetheless, of the taking of the future for the sake of the present (see also: selling Telstra, selling Sydney Airport, building no infrastructure for a decade, wasting a mining boom, lowering income taxes, middle class welfare etc).
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked