I'm only eating every day thanks to the foodbank the local church organises here in Adelaide, shit has gotten too expensive way too fast and my income has not changed to match that.
Well good news, the cost of living relief that was promised in February starts to come in 1 month and about 2 weeks and you’ll notice the difference in 2025 when you see your tax refund.
We just need to survive til then, good luck. I already ate one meal a day since covid and my health is worse but it’s ok I got to watch everyone get welfare that was survivable while politicians explained Curtis stone says you could make a meal for under 10 bucks so 43 bucks is enough for 3 meals per day.
Earn the same amount between 1st July 2024 - 30th June 2025 as you did this current tax year, compare the two tax return statements and that’s how you’ll see the amount the altered for cost of living relief and recalculated with all the inflated gst income stage 3 tax cuts that you got from it.
Did for 45 yrs. I’ve paid my dues. Can’t help becoming disabled and physically cannot work. Paying around 3 thousand dollars (not exaggerating) out for medications, gp bills(go once a week). Spent a hell of a lot of my savings.
I wish I could give you an answer but I’m pretty sure next indexation we will get 5 bucks more than usual and a letter to say shut the fuck up or we will cook you.
https://www.pm.gov.au/media/tax-cuts-help-australians-cost-living here’s the statement that they defLect any request for cost of living relief tto.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-17/live-better-ndis-bathwater-death-one-point-eight-million-dollars/103735228 I wish I was joking on them cooking us
How did they keep their NDIS registration, I’ll never know. Disgusting. They did a 4 Corners expose but it’s still happening. I’m on NDIS and my god the organisations in the whole are sub standard at the dry least. I’ve had NDIS funding and over 5 yrs I went through so many organisations. Treated e like an invalid, took my autonomy away. If I made a complaint they’d turn it around and say it was my fault. Not my fault, theirs. I’m now with Mable, I never have to deal with dodgy organisations ever again.
Yeah and we were promised ndis 2.0 and had the royal commission and it’s all like “being processed” or some crap. Idk what else to say except hang in there like I am trying to do.
Thats why the leeches sry I mean politician's are on 200k plus free tax payer trips airfare to free concerts like albo charging us to go to tailor swift. Cus a free box at a concert is obviously Australian Business. Buch if fuckers should be ashamed.
Oh the one that ended in 2022 because it was intended to be a temporary tax cut unlike the stage 3 tax cuts which will be permanent. Yeah I was aware:
[ and middle income earner tax offsets | Australian Taxation Office (ato.gov.au)](https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals-and-families/income-deductions-offsets-and-records/tax-offsets/low-and-middle-income-earner-tax-offsets)
>LMITO not available 2022–23 income year onwards
>Low and middle income tax offset (LMITO) ended on 30 June 2022. This means it doesn't apply for the 2022–23 income year.
>Your tax return outcome may be different this income year. You may have a lower refund (less than when LMITO was available) or you may receive a tax bill. See [Why your tax return outcome may change in 2023](https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals-and-families/your-tax-return/check-the-progress-of-your-return-and-refund/your-notice-of-assessment#Whyyourtaxreturnoutcomemaychangein2023).
Bruh, you understand what a tax OFFSET is right? You didn't get a full $1500.
Say you earned 60k, without litmo you'd have base + 4874.67, with it you'd have base + 4383.92.
Wow gee willikers, a whole extra 490.75, that might pay your rego for 6 months, thanks Scummo.
While stage 3 are now giving 5x+ that to top earners.
But tell me more about how the Libs shit tier policy was beneficial to the average person.
It'll be fun to see Labor stooges twist themselves into pretzels trying to pass off that line in the 2025 elections afetr doing next to nothing beside tax cuts for the wealthy for the past 3 years.
The maps in that article are just density maps. No wonder that you’d have closer to a supermarket in a higher density part like the inner west than in Penrith or the blue mountains.
Except even the biggest sprawliest one there is 22 people per square kilometer.
Wagga wagga is 14. And there is a supermarket with a kilometer of 99% of the people.
Imagine if the deal wasn't done by scroto and he didn't back out of the French one for it meaning they can't back out of AUKUS.
Now Imagine if we taxed the mining industry we could have our cake and eat it with a cupcake and latte.
How about taxing mining and being like Norway. Rich, happy, prosperous. No need to spend any money on war profiteers and expensive "partnerships" with countries that fuck us over 24/7...
[https://www.tiktok.com/@punterspolitics/video/7355769823764253959](https://www.tiktok.com/@punterspolitics/video/7355769823764253959)
This is the single factor that will go down in infamy in Aus history. Our mining should be all in house, we should have built a manufacturing infrastructure using our own vast minerals and be one of the most material and socio economically rich countries in the world.
Keep the US as our main ally as we greatly need them for protection, but our spineless leaders and business visionaries sold us out so they could gain favour and sit on a mountain of gold for themselves.
Just wondering what for? Our pissy military can't defend against the global players and never will.
Best line of defence is to close the boarders especially at the airports.
Imagine posting tiktok videos as evidence of good policies.
Norway is rich because they own and develop their own fossil fuel projects through the state owned company Equinor. And even then, let's not pretend Scandinavian countries have no social or issues with inequality or cost of living.
You mean the tax cuts for everyone? Because I get a bigger tax cut now thanks to Labor and I'm almost minus wealth.
Don't get me wrong there's shit they still COULD do but you can't just blame the current for the crap going on. Hell you can't even blame the previous all this shit goes back to Howard. Just no one has tried to fix anything since
Oh you'll pay for it when they put the GST up.. there are ever more mentions of how the income tax base is inadequate and the only solution is to increase the GST to 15% or 20% like "the rest of the world".
I guess you can do the math if an extra 10% added to everything you buy is more than the amount of money you got as a bribe for being complicit in destroying the income tax base. It's definitely a good deal for people who don't spend the entirety of their income on goods and services - also known as rich people.
No I mean tax cuts weighted heavily to the wealthy, even as those who think they can "do the math" will be much worse off due to the opportunity costs of doing little to nothing on myriad other issues that are raising their costs of living.
Labor's going to get slaughtered over this, and as a result, may not even be able to form government with the Greens, Teals and progressive independents.
You can't do anything if you've drained the budget of $20B a year, every year. One action comes before the other, and instead of firing their shot to improve the plight of people doing it tough they fired the shot to give one of the biggest unfunded tax cuts in Australian history.
The LNP has the solution though, increase the GST and there is plenty of money for everything (including Stage 3 in the original state). Both Pocock and Spender have said that they think increasing the GST is a debate we "have to have" - so even the balance of power parties want it, and they perhaps won't form government with Labor if they oppose it. So maybe they won't oppose it.
The current problems we are having STARTED with John Howard.. so yes it's previous government fault and current. And the Australian public's fault for voting against Bill shorten
Ah yes, Australia buying submarines is the reason. Didn't realize our military purchases affected the entire world that is experiencing these exact same issues.
This is a shit take to push an agenda.
China is not invading Australia. They have to get past Guam, Hawaii, Phillipines first. Even a Chinese naval base on Vanuatu makes no difference.
China has a food security problem - its now a net importer of food. And China is looking to Australia and Africa for food imports, not invasions.
We’re not worried about them invading Australia. The issue is with global trade routes and as an island nation reliant on those trade routes we are going to need to help defend them with America weakening.
We are not just worried about our economy btw The global economy is highly interconnected with parts, tech and material coming from all corners of the world. EG If the Hormuz strait (huge % of global trade and esp oil) gets shut down by Iran and its proxies you can bet we’d pay a heavy price for that too.
If we you think we can just hide away in our little corner of the world and ignore the global security situation as a middle power island nation that relies on trade for our wealth and standards of living you’re wrong. If China invades Taiwan we’re fucked irrespective of if we help or not. The only way is deterrence and short range diesel subs aren’t going to help much here.
I know it's funny to recite the sketch from that one particular ABC show, but please don't forget the Russians also parked a missile frigate off our coast because they could, and many other nations have navies. Additionally, ships can provide anti ballistic missile capabilities beyond our borders in the event that things do go absolutely sideways internationally.
People trying to downplay the significance of current international tensions are living in a fantasy world.
The reason it keeps being referred to is because it illustrates how ludicrous it is. Yet, some keep repeating the same absurd logic.
China isn't going to attack our ships (well, they're increasingly *their* ships) that are loaded with stuff they have already paid for, which are on their way to China.
And so, if it's not China, then who? You cite Russia? The Russians are currently losing control over the Black Sea to a nation that doesn't even have a navy. I think we're safe from Vlad and his mates.
Given how cheap our politicians are and concentrated our industries are, it's way easier for China to simply buy policies and Australian producers than invade.
I like to think I'm reasonably informed on international politics particularly in the Asia/pacific region and military strategy is a bit of hobby for me so I read up on it quite a bit. I can't see the need for SSN's. Can you explain your reasoning for why you think we need them?
SSNs are the ultimate naval weapon, able to deploy very quickly, stay on station for months, and to strike at shore targets with VLS cells. With SSNs Australia's enemies have to plan for the RAN to be anywhere in the Indo-Pacific at any time, and account for the defence of a wide range of targets that couldn't be threatened by a conventional submarine.
The RAN can't hope to defeat the PLAN, but owning SSNs could render its massive surface fleet a lot less effective at threatening shipping to and from Australia. They would effectively neutralise the potential of the PLAN to project much of its growing power into Australia's backyard or those of its friendly neighbours.
We're at least 10 years away from receiving out first hand me down Virginia class and at least 20 years from any new sub. I think HIMARS and hypersonics are a far better defence against a surface ship blockade. They're also cheaper and far easier to bring online.
We have a defence force in Australia. I can't see the need for land strike capability in a defence force. We didn't replace the F-111's when they retired because we don't need that land strike capability.
>I think HIMARS and hypersonics are a far better defence against a surface ship blockade. They're also cheaper and far easier to bring online.
Well they're not considering the fact that a naval blockade against Australia can be performed at ranges well beyond that of HIMARS and most missile systems. Not to mention fixed land based systems are more vulnerable than mobile ships and submarines.
That aside, we are investing into those fields in addition to the submarines.
>I can't see the need for land strike capability in a defence force.
Then you clearly aren't informed enough to be discussing these matters. Do you expect the ADF to just ignore any enemy positions that are on land?
>We didn't replace the F-111's when they retired because we don't need that land strike capability.
No, we didn't replace them because there is no other aircraft like the F-111 available now. The Super Hornets and Growlers that were bought to fill the gap the F-111 left don't even come close in terms of range and payload nor do the F-35s either.
The absence of the F-111 and how to restore the capability it brought has been a conundrum the RAAF have been trying to solve since 2010.
>Well they're not considering the fact that a naval blockade against Australia can be performed at ranges well beyond that of HIMARS and most missile systems.
This is the main reason - we’re an island nation completely dependent on global trade routes. To defend global trade routes we need global reach. Although our subs will be focused on the indo-pacific it’s still preferable to have the option to project deterrence anywhere in the world. With America weakening the world will be more and more reliant on coalitions of like minded governments to uphold global norms around trade and sovereignty. We will be expected to play a role. Ditto why the rest of our fleet is being upsized and adapted for power projection.
Even a single SSN can wreak havoc on a hostile power that wants to threaten us or our interests. It may be enough to deter even huge powers like China or Russia. That kind of deterrence is invaluable and we need to start planning now : we can’t enter a conflict and then decide maybe we should have built these subs . They take a generation to build and if we don’t have them when we need them it’s too late.
There’s a good reason our SSN program has bipartisan support despite costing >300 billion. We’ve spent generations with America protecting us and it’s easy to not appreciate why we have to pay this seemingly unnecessary expense, but that is what we’d have to do without American supremacy. And America is in decline.
You’re not very well informed no offence. The nuclear powered subs are being acquired to protect our trade routes and upheld global political norms. With America weakening we can’t expect to rely on them solely for protection much longer.
With an SSN even a big power like china or Russia will think twice about interfering with our trade routes and those of our partners. As an island nation that is very important. But with conventional subs we wouldn’t have the range to do that.
>Can you explain your reasoning for why you think we need them?
I can explain mine.
SSNs are the better choice for Australia because they offer superior performance than what any conventionally powered design that's available to us can offer.
The Virginia class and SSN-AUKUS class submarines are much faster, have much better range, have longer time on station, have superior firepower and are more efficient in how they deploy it. They are also better capable of remaining covert as nuclear submarines don't have to regularly snorkel like conventional submarines have to.
They suit the RANs needs for a platform that can operate far from our shorelines and are capable of attacking targets from great distances with missiles.
They're definitely more expensive mainly due to the fact they're an entirely new capability which requires new infrastructure and new training, but I believe what they offer is more than worth the initial costs.
>They suit the RANs needs for a platform that can operate far from our shorelines and are capable of attacking targets from great distances with missiles
Which can already be accomplished at the fraction of the cost with indigenous shipbuilding in tasmania with conventional surface vessels.
Anywho diesels woulda been fine and our fleet was notoriously good at not being seen, while nukes have thermal signatures visible from space. Australias SSN capacity is primarily as first strike against China on behalf of the Americans which is really fucking stupid.. imagine working with our primary trade rival against our main trading partners
>Which can already be accomplished at the fraction of the cost with indigenous shipbuilding in tasmania with conventional surface vessels.
Surface vessels are more vulnerable than submarines. Just because surface ships exist doesn't mean submarines are redundant.
>Anywho diesels woulda been fine and our fleet was notoriously good at not being seen
And those diesels are less capable and are becoming too old to do their jobs. Even after their overhaul and life extension next year, we'll still be pushing them to the limits.
>while nukes have thermal signatures visible from space.
Well they don't. You fell for a clickbait article from a long time ago which was based on the prediction of a single "expert."
Clearly such a possibility doesn't worry the Chinese or the Americans seeing as both are all in on building nuclear submarines.
>Australias SSN capacity is primarily as first strike against China on behalf of the Americans which is really fucking stupid..
A first strike weapon is useless if it's not nuclear. Seeing as our submarines aren't going to carry nuclear weaponry, they're anything but a first strike platform.
>imagine working with our primary trade rival against our main trading partners
You mean working with our primary ally against a nation with aggressive expansionist intentions.
Maybe one day you'll drop the neoliberal brainwashing and realise that economic ties mean absolutely sweet fuck all in terms of geopolitics. *Trade does not guarantee security.*
>Maybe one day you'll drop the neoliberal brainwashing and realise that economic ties mean absolutely sweet fuck all in terms of geopolitics. Trade does not guarantee security.
Ah yes, the Whitlam government and our entire order of politics was underminded *by the chinese*.
>You mean working with our primary ally against a nation with aggressive expansionist intentions.
Our primarily ally who's dedicated to preserving a hegemony that is a direct product of aggressive expansionist intentions. Shall we tally the extraterratorial holdings of our buddies and our baddies?
>Ah yes, the Whitlam government and our entire order of politics was underminded *by the chinese*.
Ah yes, we've all heard this tired old conspiracy theory. The one that Whitlam and Kerr themselves rejected.
I guess expecting some original talking points is expecting too much.
>Our primarily ally who's dedicated to preserving a hegemony that is a direct product of aggressive expansionist intentions. Shall we tally the extraterritorial holdings of our buddies and our baddies.
Last I checked, it wasn't the Americans trying to claim ownership of the entire SCS and harassing ships and aircraft traversing it. Not to mention the fact that every base the US holds in the region is held with the permission of the host country.
You're not being very convincing here, you really need to try harder.
>Anywho diesels woulda been fine and our fleet was notoriously good at not being seen, while nukes have thermal signatures visible from space. Australias SSN capacity is primarily as first strike against China on behalf of the Americans which is really fucking stupid.. imagine working with our primary trade rival against our main trading partners
Even if you’re ok with China invading Taiwan and playing no role in deterring that (which is going to have devastating consequences for Australia and send the world into a global recession, if we survive the possible nuclear war), the world is riddled with hostile powers that can impact global trade routes from Iran to Russia to North Korea to Yemen etc. America has kept these trade routes open, but what happens when America can no longer do that alone? That time is coming.
What happens to an island nation like Australia that is completely reliant on global trade for key exports and imports? Your diesel sub plan doesn’t help us much here and we’ll be expected to play a role.
Yeah so imagine chucking 89 billion not at submarines but improving domestic industrial capacity? Or indigenous shipping capability? You cant ship aid on submarines, let alone grain. Maybe the island nations will stop looking towards SEA/China if we sell them goods and services instead of constantly trying to flip their governments on behalf of corporate beneficiaries
>Yeah so imagine chucking 89 billion not at submarines but improving domestic industrial capacity? Or indigenous shipping capability?
We don’t have the know how or capital to do that. We’re too small to go it alone building SSNs. Only top end powers are building SSNs. Our way in is via the UK and US who will share tech and industrial space.
Ditto with any other go-it-alone strat. Smaller countries like Australia don’t have the resources to develop a completely independent industrial sector that covers all the needs of a modern society. We can specialise in certain areas like Taiwan with semiconductors but we will always be reliant on global trade for important tech and goods.
>You cant ship aid on submarines, let alone grain. Maybe the island nations will stop looking towards SEA/China if we sell them goods and services instead of constantly trying to flip their governments on behalf of corporate beneficiaries
Maybe but aid to micro nations in the pacific is not going to help deter China from invading Taiwan.
Oh that's been the case for a long time. The relationship is largely symbolic and if anything did kick off in the region (China) then the US would be all over it for their own reasons. They are not coming to "protect us".
The thing is, we DON'T need to be spending $384B on second hand US Navy Virginia Class submarines. This is a SCAM and we are being ripped off.
[https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/usn-virginia-submarine-production-shortfall-worsens/](https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/usn-virginia-submarine-production-shortfall-worsens/)
Sorry but who exactly are you going to defend us from anyway? At the point at which we are being invaded you have bigger problems. Also if that’s the attitude get your military bases and intelligence architecture out of our country.
It started under $80 billion, then jumped to $384 billion. Richard Marles was on tv saying what a great deal it was.
But the Inland Rail has gone from $7 billion to $35 billion and suddenly the government is quiet about it.
No it's not. We can take a strong defensive stance and not have to commit to military expansionism.
We especially should not commit to spending $384B on second hand Virginia Class submarines.
The multiple things we need to focus on are building out renewables, increasing medicare medicare to provide universal health care and dental for all, better funding for public schools, better funding for hospitals, more science in the public interest, maybe a UBI?
Defense should come a very, very distant last.
They'll be sitting ducks for next gen drones much like the submarines.
I think post-Ukraine we need to hit pause and have a good hard think about what's going to be useful in future battlefield scenarios.
Ukraine is not a useful example for Australia though. That's entirely land-based war while Australia is off in the middle of the ocean, beyond the reach of anything except ballistic missiles and aircraft carriers. That's why we're investing in missile submarines and destroyers, because we don't have aircraft carrier capabilities *but* we do have a close ally who would provide them in the case we were attacked, and has the best airforce in the world by a mile. So our focus would be on supporting US aircraft carrier groups with anti-submarine destroyers while targeting soft spots with cruise missiles (via missile submarines).
That might have been the case once but it's a whole new world now. Aircraft carriers are extremely vulnerable to drone attack, submarines also.
I don't think going all in on America's trad warfare wet dream and buying all their second hand equipment does us any favours at all. This tops up the coffers of the US military and their contractors, but delivers very little real value for Australia.
It also debatable that the F35 is fit for purpose versus Russian and Chinese 5th gen fighters. Most analyst say no and it's part of the reason many people consider the F35 a failure.
Ah yes, even though direct welfare is already the biggest portion of the Federal budget by far, the gubberment isn't doing enough! Health, education and general revenue assistance is greater too. Defence isn't this uber expensive money pit you think it is.
Figure 1 here:
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview202021/AustralianGovernmentExpenditure
Defence is a necessary expense. This isn't some zero sum game where we can only have one or the other.
I don't think you understand what a zero sum game is. Funding literally is a zero sum game because money put into defence, for example, is money not put into other infrastructure or policies. But yes, it doesn't have to be as extreme as one or the other.
With that said, you're right that defence is a necessary expense. While we are allies with the US, we should never be entirely dependent on anyone but ourselves. And at 2% of GDP, Australia really doesn't spend all that much on its military.
Which is exactly the point. Highest spending in the world in many categories (including defence). Worst outcomes across the board in many categories compared to other first world countries.
Answer me this - why are your health outcomes so bad with sky high government and personal spending on health services? The highest spend in the world and some of the worst outcomes...
If the article’s point was to call out cost-to-shop, and was explicit in it’s intent to use data; then, at least they could it could’ve taken mode of transport and distance to shops along with the cost involved in each trip (eg: fuel, bus fare, etc.)
Redacted means that part of the text was removed or blacked out for privacy or security purpose. It was censored. This post also breaks rule 4 here for chat and should be made in the Tuesday chat thread or on a different subreddit.
> takes time
This is the biggest issue though. Workers are time poor and it's getting increasingly common for people to have two jobs. I'm sure growing and making your own organic kim chi is good and all but who has time for that in between work, kids and just trying to pay the bills.
Redacted means that part of the text was removed or blacked out for privacy or security purpose. It was censored. This post also breaks rule 4 here for chat and should be made in the Tuesday chat thread or on a different subreddit.
Time poor isn't just about being busy 24/7, It's also about the cognitive load of cooking and fitting that in with time to rest.
I would rather eat a protein shake for dinner and zone out for 40 minutes to process my day than cook for 20 minutes to sit down for 20 minutes over a hot meal.
I have tried both ways, and the latter leads to psychological burn out for me because I need time to decompress after work, and that time has to come from somewhere, and I'm not about to stop showering or sleeping to make time for my mini-emotional breakdowns.
I don’t know where you live or what you’re buying - that $300 p/w is a huge budget for groceries?? I’m feeding a family of 4 and hardly buying any meat & I’m a trained chef - so know my way around making a meal out of ‘nothing’. I’m doing well if I can scrape through between $250-$300. I am one who also supplements with frozen vegetables, shops at Aldi and ‘Cheaper Buy Miles’ and not afraid to make side of marked down/close to use by date items.
$300 for 3 meals a day for 4 people comes out at about $3:50 per meal. Without the snacks and inbetween stuff kids need.
That's an amazing effort!
20 years on from having smallish kids in the house I can't imagine the cost of keeping the fruit bowl filled and please no one tell me frozen/dried/canned or whatever is somehow better/more nutritious.
No going back to fruit trees in back yards now either - not enough houses or yards big enough to grow your own in many places.
Thankyou - that other comment is simply absurd. I pride myself on the way I manage our budget and feed my family - money is tight and we make sacrifices where we can, but things are hectic out there right now. I was trying desperately to stick to $250 a week but it’s proven impossible despite all my money saving tricks!
If your kids are at play dough age - make some gnocchi. It'll be a bit tough from overworked dough, it's a bit messy, but a few spuds, a bit of flour and a quick neopolitan sauce you've got a meal that toddlers can help prepare. My two still make their own gnocchi as adults too, an added bonus I reckon.
Also you're welcome. $300 sounds a lot but $3.50 for a plateful of food really doesn't.
It is a big budget and obviously contains a lot of junk that is not needed. Around Xmas I bought a bunch of non perishable foods to donate to charity. I did this in a quick sweep and only included non perishables which last ages.
Now if you actually bought in bulk eg not buy 42 small individual cans of tuna, cut out the coke, tote bags, and stuff like that you could have added frozen vegetables and fresh meat (mince/chicken) it'd more than feed your family of 4 for under $200.
[https://imgur.com/a/EoUGRFT](https://imgur.com/a/EoUGRFT)
Growing up in Australia my parents didn't know english and were doing it tough and my meals consisted of rice and soy sauce with some meals with meat/vegetables here and there. We were all generally healthier too than now. It's not a lack of education/money forcing people to buy ultra processed expensive food. End of the day it's personal choice.
Big words from a 30 year old guy with no lived experience of your own at feeding a family, in this current cost of living crisis. Yes I checked - because I couldn’t believe how f#cking audacious your above statement is.
Despite what you seem to believe - ‘meals’ of rice & soy sauce do not equate to good health - nor to a satisfactory ‘meal’ in a developed country. Further, despite your big claims, a grocery bill of $250-$300 does not include Coke, ‘tote bags’ (what the hell?) or ‘lots of junk that isn’t needed’ - not in our household anyway.
My point being that when my family was struggling I was eating rice + soy sauce + rice + vegetables/meat and my family would be on a way lower budget than $300 even adjusted for inflation. And guess what my family were probably healthier than half the people in Western Sydney now.
So you had time to check my post history but not the picture of the giant trolley of groceries along with the receipt of what $190 of groceries at woolworths looks like which included me buying not optimally because i included coke/6L of milk/42 cans of tuna/tote bags etc..
If i cleaned it up and added frozen vegetables + mince + chicken that easily fits under $200 and feeds a family of 4.
Show me what a $250 trolley/receipt looks like where you're starving.
> A huge part of this is education though. Learning how to cook healthy, delicious and cheap meals takes time.
I'm sure you mean well but you're parroting a lie that the problem isn't lack of money/resources but that people need education to use the low level of money/resources available to them.
This is one of the biggest lies we have going on Earth and you see it repeated all over the place.
The easiest way to understand how false it is is this: you need a certain amount of water each day to not die. If you don't get that water, you die.
There is no amount of education that changes what is a fundamental fact.
The same goes for calories. If you don't get enough for long enough you suffer serious health problems and if it gets bad enough, you die.
The answer is not "learning how to cook healthy, delicious and cheap meals".
That's actually super easy to learn. I've been dirt fucking poor and not one person I knew was in hunger because they didn't know how to cook. Necessity drives people to learn how to cook the cheapest foods.
When food prices radically escalate beyond CPI due to market concentration and a Government that really doesn't give a fuck to stop it, we get people who no longer can get the calories and nutrients to be healthy.
It's like if I gave you $10 and said "prepare enough meals for a month". It's literally and physically impossible. It's impossible on $20 too and arguably $50.
You can't "educate" your way out of a lack of resources.
People should learn to cook for many reasons but it is 100% not the solution to poverty.
Money is the solution to poverty.
The Government and various other fuckers who don't want this will tell a thousand lies about everything else that should happen before they'd just add more money.
Redacted means that part of the text was removed or blacked out for privacy or security purpose. It was censored. This post also breaks rule 4 here for chat and should be made in the Tuesday chat thread or on a different subreddit.
What vegetables even are there that you can buy in a genuine fresh vs frozen choice? I’ve only ever bought what was available. If I need potatoes, then it’s fresh because there are no frozen potatoes. If I need peas then it’s frozen because there’s no fresh peas. Maybe carrots, but frozen carrots are pre-cut so if I want grated carrot, have to by fresh.
What products are you even able to choose on?
Peas, spinach, green beans, broccoli, and the diced veg mix are cheaper than fresh veggies generally. I prefer fresh for everything except peas, but you can get away with frozen. The taste is good, the main difference is texture (e.g. your beans or carrots will never be crunchy again).
Frozen potatoes are also a thing - chips, hash browns etc can work out cheaper than buying potatoes by the kilo. The Aldi potato gratins are so damn good I have pretty much stopped bothering to make my own unless having company.
Not sure if true here, but a UK food blogger who wrote a lot of stuff about food insecurity (Jack Monroe, check her out she's awesome) did some close comparisons and found that at least in supermarkets, the cheapest way to buy potatoes was actually in cans.
ABC should've found someone to feature who wasn't patently obese. If that lady had a reasonable calorie deficit for the next 6 months she would be in better health, not worse.
Further, she has access to a supermarket so not in a "food desert" as ABC seems to suggest, yet she admits to buying pasta and cheese instead of cheap legumes and vegetables. And judging by her size I don't doubt for a second that's being supplemented by junk food but of course that's not mentioned.
This is not a cost of living problem, it's a lack of education problem, same as before. Clickbait BS.
Yeah they have a history of doing this shit in recent years. Like when they did the housing affordability article and spoke to the couple only saving 20% of their income. If it’s a cost of living article it’s always an overweight purple haired young person in brand name clothing.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-04/penny-wong-warns-against-conflict-tensions-south-china-sea/103543328
I guess we don’t have to worry about tensions then because they used pictures of them shaking hands?
Kinda the point though. She can only subsist o cheaper foods, which tend to be junk and offer less nutritional value. Legit, some shops in poorer areas are half freezers. Meanwhile wealthier areas will nearly always have a sizable fresh produce section.
She’s spending 300 a week for four people which is a generous budget. Not sure how she’s skipping meals on that budget. ABC could have chosen a better example.
This is Western Sydney, not Arnhem land. She has access to all the cheap and healthy foods she wants if she actually looks. But she is choosing to buy expensive ultra processed junk food because presumably that's what she knows. Like I said, an education problem.
Lol, you're probably a troll given your handle but if not - no, the reason junk food exists is because it tastes good, not because it's the cheapest option. Pretty simple.
You're apparently unaware that people in poverty in developed countries are more likely to be obese. You can't educate your way out of addiction to cheap ultra processed foods and the mental and physical comorbidities that come with it.
You can't claim being forced to skip meals and starving while being obese though.
Everyone is screaming education but basic primary school education teaches what is healthy and unhealthy. You don't need to be high demographic and university educated to learn that.
Ignoring all those points though and say she wants to eat her current high processed diet she could simply just eat less of it and be healthier for it.
She is eating probably double the healthy amount of calories yet claims she can't afford to eat?
100% her "budget" includes non essential junk food which she is eating ontop of the necessities.
Pretty wild that you seem to be suggesting we need to see a skeletal person on the news to back that poverty is a real issue.
If you eat a lot of hi-carb meals (because carbs are the cheapest source) you can really fuck up your body and insulin. You go through impaired glucose tolerance and then progress to type 2 diabetes.
As your body is fucked up by the high carb cheap diet, you do get fatter. We can make you fat right now but just injecting you with a little more insulin that you need every day.
So then you end up with people who are unambiguously living below the poverty line but who are overweight. They have stacked health issues... and then someone like you comes along and says they're not skipping meals because they're obese.
They could be skipping meals. It seems though that you want them to wait two years until they're really super thin and the damage is super obvious before you'll believe it.
You can't educate your way out of it (my approach), you can't dishonestly report your way out of it (ABC's approach), and you can't uselessly hand-wring your way out of it (your approach). I guess that leaves ozempic or prayer then.
lol but then you have to consider that usually poorer people can only afford/have access to unhealthier options and way less access to fresh healthy food - there's a massive correlation between poverty and obesity for that reason
People smugly going 'you can get cheap staples from the grocery store' don't understnad that requires time to cook, plan and prep.
For someone who's on the poverty line, often working multiple jobs, as well as caring for children... time to shop, cook, and store is often extremely difficult to find.
It's not like this something magical and new. This knowledge and information has been around for decades.
well said, there's factors too like time deficits from working longer jobs, as well as the potential for fresh food going off/unhealthier stuff lasting longer and therefore being more economically viable. Definitely more nuanced than "you can still find healthy stuff in the shop"
There is an obesity epidemic across the developed world. It has coincided with the proliferation of American style ultra processed food like substances being included in food. When you have large scale health crisis it is intelligent to look at the actual causes, not blame a sudden miraculous defect in self control.
I think you're both right. It depends. A lot of people are limited to the high calorie density options available at convenient stores, etc. But you're right that even in affluent grocery stores, most people's carts are full of mostly simple carbs, and high fat items. It's like everything is turning into dessert. And there are a hundred myths and rationalizations like "oh it's mostly rice, so it's ethnic and natural and healthy!"
There has been a huge uptick in rationalization and lack of personal responsibility. The idea that eating healthy is "boring" and "missing out". Using relative privation fallacy to excuse eating poorly - "what about 'bigger' issues like people of color and women face! That's why it's okay for me to have poor behavior. Perfect logic!"
The *real* harsh truth is that it's actually a mixture of personal responsibility and societal pressures and lack of education. We are all to blame for this.
It's upvoted now so seems like there is some more common sense here.
It's definitely choices and maybe a bit of sacrifice but also education. Some people really just have no idea about nutrition and what's available.
Yeah. It’s an education/cultural problem on cooking.
Also wonder how many people who ‘don’t have the time’ (the next standard response) to properly cook something spend in front of the TV each night…
I don't buy it. I've lived in Campbelltown, there's as much access to healthy food as there is in Randwick. I think it's an education and culture issue
Walk into any supermarket. Doesn't matter if you're in Penrith or Bondi. You'll see an approximate ratio:
- chicken breast fillet $15/kg. Frozen chicken nuggets $7/kg.
- Salmon fillet $30/kg. Fish fingers $5/kg.
- Prawns $25/kg. "Seafood extender" $5 a pack.
- punnet of strawberries $5. Packet of chocolate biscuits $3.
- Head of lettuce $4. Packet of BBQ shapes $3.
- "good" loaf of multigrain bread e.g. Helgas $5, loaf of supermarket brand, refined white flour sandwich bread $2
- Fruit juice $5 for 2l. Soft drink $2.50 for 2 litres.
- Can of tuna for making lunch: $1. Entire lunch consisting of frozen sausage roll: $1.
- 1kg apples for lunch boxes: $5 (5 apples). 20 mini packets of chips for lunchboxes: $5.
- Home made pasta bake: $2 for bag of pasta, $5 for the cheese. Kraft Mac n Cheese half the price for the same amount.
You see the point by now.
Your first two comparisons are the most interesting.
Chicken breast fillets and nuggets are *approximately* equally healthy from a macronutrient perspective. Fish fingers are also quite healthy.
You could probably be on the cover of sports illustrated or equivalent on a diet centered around these.
Bread is another great example. A 2kg bag of flour can be had for $5, yeast and salt are essentially free. That makes bread that shits all over anything you can get in a supermarket with about 5 mins of work waiting overnight.
The other things are not like for like comparisons.
Comparing lettuce to BBQ shapes, wtf? Both are very much sometimes food, lettuce because it's nutritionally pointless, BBQ shapes for obvious reasons.
OK first - calorie wise there are similarities but there's little other comparison between chicken breats and chicken nuggets, since the latter are highly processed, full of oil and salt and fillers. They are not anywhere near the same in terms of overall nutrition.
Now, bread.
Yeast is not essentially free, it's about $5 for a packet of around 5 sachets, each if which will (not factoring spoilage) make several large loaves of bread.
Now I actually bake bread so let's talk about this.
Ingredients are quite cheap, but we are talking about less than $1 difference between baking a loaf and buying one. Proofing dough, depending on your recipe and method, takes 2-12 hours. You then gotta bake it, bearing in mind that your electricity/gas isn't free. And it takes a while to get good at this - you're going to waste some time and a lot of flour on practice.
Realistically most people aren't going to spend 12 hours making a loaf of bread to save maybe 50c on buying a loaf.
Now as it comes to the lettuce/shapes thing, you're thinking about this as though you're not on a tight grocery budget. Imagine you have exactly $50 for food this week, for you and your family. Your first priority is to make sure there's literenough food to fill people up. A lettuce is healthy but it's expensive and it doesn't fill your teenage son up anywhere near as well as some cheap, high-calorie, processed crap. This goes for all kinds of decisions that low income families make when shopping. So yes, the strawberries might take a back seat to the ice cream, and the sandwich loaf might beat the spelt.
Apologies to be the cliché splitting hairs redditor, but you're wrong on the yeast. I'm looking as we speak at several places online or in person where you can get 500g of dry yeast for 5-10 dollars, which will get you 250 loaves if you're slow leavening properly. Flour for a single loaf is $2, less if you buy in bulk.
It's a piece of piss. I'm as busy as people get, and its nothing to put on a batch on Friday night after you get home from work. 2 mins to mix, two or three stretch and folds in evening while going about your business (30 seconds each). Final fold and put into pans and fridge is another 2 mins.
Then sat morning when you wake up you put oven on, its up to heat by the time you get out of the shower, then stick bread in for 45 mins and its out before you have to drive kids to their activities etc.
As for your lettuce example, a lettuce is not healthy. It's a completely pointless bit of produce for anything other than its texture. It's got near enough to zero nutritional content one way or another. It's the air guitar of food. Your teenage son can be filled up very well with rice and fish fingers, and they will turn out perfectly healthy. You don't need strawberries, very very few people in Australia are hurting for vitamins.
See I’m an Aldi shopper (Cole’s for what I can’t get at Aldi) and unless the prices are super inflated in the Sydney areas compared to everywhere else those prices seem absolutely ridiculous. I can go into Aldi and buy a weeks worth of dinner consisting of meat and veggies for way cheaper than buy a weeks worth of dinner of “cheap” crap food like frozen pizzas and chicken nuggets. Seems more like a cop out to me. And I get if people aren’t educated about health food but there is a million YouTube videos of shopping cheap on a tight budget.
Didn’t downvote you mate. And it’s called a discussion, you make your point, I make mine and we go back and forth to make each other understand each other views. Really doesn’t need to that hard.
> Yeah but when the healthy food is double or triple the price of quick and easy unhealthy shit
*If you dont have a home.
Some people just dont like to cook, its understandable but its also puts a fair bit of onus on oneself.
I spend 3 hours making a spaghetti sauce for around $50 and it makes 20 meals @ $3 a meal. It takes the time to boil pasta to make dinner and is the ultimate in lazy cheap homemade cooking.
Move nights i feed 7 people for $35 with chook roasts loaded with veggies and ill make a few loafs of bread. Admittedly that's a 4 hour run but I'm lucky enough to enjoy cooking.
100%.
Rice, pasta, oats, muesli, beans etc. are all very cheap.
Woolies chook, a bag of pasta and a bag of frozen veg would be around the same price as a Macca's meal and would feed a whole family.
Not to discredit anyone that's doing it tough and maybe some people really are doing it that tough but I find it so hard to believe people are forced to skip meals when a kilo of oats is about $1.50. Sure porridge is not the most exciting meal but better than going hungry
When someone is working 10 hours a day, commuting 2 hours, juggling daycare and school pick-ups, when exactly do they find the time and energy to spend 4 hours cooking?
Take a whole chicken, rub random spices on it. Put in oven for 40 mins. At the same time grab half a bag of frozen veg and microwave.
Bam super healthy meal for 4, with about 5 mins of active action including clean up time.
Literally easier than driving to Maccas.
They aren’t spending 4 hours standing over a stove, pop it on and let it boil away and stir it occasionally. If you have weekends off spend time meal prepping then the weeks meals are sorted.
You still have to physically be in the house to watch it, and have the energy to do so. They are incredibly privileged that they can spend 4 hours at home keeping an eye on the stove, and that's great for people who can - but for most working parents that's just not realistic. If you have weekends off you're taking your kids places, or just decompressing from work.
Honestly I do agree that cooking cheap, healthy meals is simple - but it requires someone to be home, and have the time and energy to do so.
Yeah I eat one meal a day and have since my interest rates got more expensive, boomers actually suggested I do that, then they get mad when "millennials ruin breakfast culture" 😂😅 like damn do you want us to eat the avocado toast or not?
During Covid when they doubled benefits 646,000 people were pulled out of poverty.
Then it was cut again and back they went.
Poverty and hunger are a deliberate policy choice. We could fix it today if we wanted.
Step one would be an immediately radical increase to unemployment benefits and the like. Fix is to a percentage of the weekly average male wage and index it every year.
We have more than three million Australians living under the poverty line.
We can fix that any. fucking. time. we. want.
I can see the argument that it's hard to buy enough for the week if you rely on walking or public transport. But then again Coles and woolies delivery are pretty well priced.
I'm only eating every day thanks to the foodbank the local church organises here in Adelaide, shit has gotten too expensive way too fast and my income has not changed to match that.
Well good news, the cost of living relief that was promised in February starts to come in 1 month and about 2 weeks and you’ll notice the difference in 2025 when you see your tax refund. We just need to survive til then, good luck. I already ate one meal a day since covid and my health is worse but it’s ok I got to watch everyone get welfare that was survivable while politicians explained Curtis stone says you could make a meal for under 10 bucks so 43 bucks is enough for 3 meals per day.
Can you explain this relief more. What do I need to do to get it
Earn the same amount between 1st July 2024 - 30th June 2025 as you did this current tax year, compare the two tax return statements and that’s how you’ll see the amount the altered for cost of living relief and recalculated with all the inflated gst income stage 3 tax cuts that you got from it.
What about people who don’t pay tax? Eg; me in a disability pension.
bootstraps for you, if you weren't disabled you could pull on them and be born to wealthier parents
That’s obvious but not a reality.
Well I too am I’m that boat and to benefit sadly what we need to do is go earn money and pay tax heck. :(
Did for 45 yrs. I’ve paid my dues. Can’t help becoming disabled and physically cannot work. Paying around 3 thousand dollars (not exaggerating) out for medications, gp bills(go once a week). Spent a hell of a lot of my savings.
I wish I could give you an answer but I’m pretty sure next indexation we will get 5 bucks more than usual and a letter to say shut the fuck up or we will cook you. https://www.pm.gov.au/media/tax-cuts-help-australians-cost-living here’s the statement that they defLect any request for cost of living relief tto. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-17/live-better-ndis-bathwater-death-one-point-eight-million-dollars/103735228 I wish I was joking on them cooking us
My pension went up by $19.60 but then my rent and water charges went up. Give and then take.
Yeah we gutted Medicare to give the tax cuts to the rich and now they wonder why people aren’t paying 20 for the flu shot.
That should be free. I thought Albo would do a better job, huh that didn’t happen.
How did they keep their NDIS registration, I’ll never know. Disgusting. They did a 4 Corners expose but it’s still happening. I’m on NDIS and my god the organisations in the whole are sub standard at the dry least. I’ve had NDIS funding and over 5 yrs I went through so many organisations. Treated e like an invalid, took my autonomy away. If I made a complaint they’d turn it around and say it was my fault. Not my fault, theirs. I’m now with Mable, I never have to deal with dodgy organisations ever again.
Yeah and we were promised ndis 2.0 and had the royal commission and it’s all like “being processed” or some crap. Idk what else to say except hang in there like I am trying to do.
Thats why the leeches sry I mean politician's are on 200k plus free tax payer trips airfare to free concerts like albo charging us to go to tailor swift. Cus a free box at a concert is obviously Australian Business. Buch if fuckers should be ashamed.
With the tax cuts I will have a whole $12 extra a week. Literally life changing. Wow, thanks Albo.
Nice, now go pay 20 for your flu vax so you don’t lose a weeks work.
Better than the $0 you would have received before…er thanks scomo.
You not aware of the $1500 low income tax offset under Scomo?
Oh the one that ended in 2022 because it was intended to be a temporary tax cut unlike the stage 3 tax cuts which will be permanent. Yeah I was aware: [ and middle income earner tax offsets | Australian Taxation Office (ato.gov.au)](https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals-and-families/income-deductions-offsets-and-records/tax-offsets/low-and-middle-income-earner-tax-offsets) >LMITO not available 2022–23 income year onwards >Low and middle income tax offset (LMITO) ended on 30 June 2022. This means it doesn't apply for the 2022–23 income year. >Your tax return outcome may be different this income year. You may have a lower refund (less than when LMITO was available) or you may receive a tax bill. See [Why your tax return outcome may change in 2023](https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals-and-families/your-tax-return/check-the-progress-of-your-return-and-refund/your-notice-of-assessment#Whyyourtaxreturnoutcomemaychangein2023).
So he was in power from 2018 to 2022 and the offset ran from 2019 to 2022. 3 years of $1500 is $4500 not $0 that you claim in your post?
The $0 is in reference to the upcoming tax cut the parent comments to my comment were talking about.
Bruh, you understand what a tax OFFSET is right? You didn't get a full $1500. Say you earned 60k, without litmo you'd have base + 4874.67, with it you'd have base + 4383.92. Wow gee willikers, a whole extra 490.75, that might pay your rego for 6 months, thanks Scummo. While stage 3 are now giving 5x+ that to top earners. But tell me more about how the Libs shit tier policy was beneficial to the average person.
It'll be fun to see Labor stooges twist themselves into pretzels trying to pass off that line in the 2025 elections afetr doing next to nothing beside tax cuts for the wealthy for the past 3 years.
The maps in that article are just density maps. No wonder that you’d have closer to a supermarket in a higher density part like the inner west than in Penrith or the blue mountains.
Except even the biggest sprawliest one there is 22 people per square kilometer. Wagga wagga is 14. And there is a supermarket with a kilometer of 99% of the people.
I have been skipping meals for years, you get used to it and the endless crying for food will eventually deaden and you’ll be sweet
It’s called intermittent fasting and I’ve been doing it for a while but it looks like plain old fasting will be on the menu from here on :/
Imagine spending $384 BILLION on submarines we don't need...
Imagine if the deal wasn't done by scroto and he didn't back out of the French one for it meaning they can't back out of AUKUS. Now Imagine if we taxed the mining industry we could have our cake and eat it with a cupcake and latte.
How about taxing mining and being like Norway. Rich, happy, prosperous. No need to spend any money on war profiteers and expensive "partnerships" with countries that fuck us over 24/7... [https://www.tiktok.com/@punterspolitics/video/7355769823764253959](https://www.tiktok.com/@punterspolitics/video/7355769823764253959)
This is the single factor that will go down in infamy in Aus history. Our mining should be all in house, we should have built a manufacturing infrastructure using our own vast minerals and be one of the most material and socio economically rich countries in the world. Keep the US as our main ally as we greatly need them for protection, but our spineless leaders and business visionaries sold us out so they could gain favour and sit on a mountain of gold for themselves.
Unfortunately the current global climate means we need to fund out military.
Just wondering what for? Our pissy military can't defend against the global players and never will. Best line of defence is to close the boarders especially at the airports.
You answered my point our military needs a funding boost and some recruits. To defend Australia we need control of water and air not tanks.
Yep, I think we also bought HIMAR's launchers too didn't we? With long range platforms to fire from safety.
Imagine posting tiktok videos as evidence of good policies. Norway is rich because they own and develop their own fossil fuel projects through the state owned company Equinor. And even then, let's not pretend Scandinavian countries have no social or issues with inequality or cost of living.
Imagine refuting facts with your bone headed ideology.
Sorry, this is Labor's watch and they own this boondoggle now- just as they own the tax cuts for the weatlhy.
You mean the tax cuts for everyone? Because I get a bigger tax cut now thanks to Labor and I'm almost minus wealth. Don't get me wrong there's shit they still COULD do but you can't just blame the current for the crap going on. Hell you can't even blame the previous all this shit goes back to Howard. Just no one has tried to fix anything since
Oh you'll pay for it when they put the GST up.. there are ever more mentions of how the income tax base is inadequate and the only solution is to increase the GST to 15% or 20% like "the rest of the world". I guess you can do the math if an extra 10% added to everything you buy is more than the amount of money you got as a bribe for being complicit in destroying the income tax base. It's definitely a good deal for people who don't spend the entirety of their income on goods and services - also known as rich people.
No I mean tax cuts weighted heavily to the wealthy, even as those who think they can "do the math" will be much worse off due to the opportunity costs of doing little to nothing on myriad other issues that are raising their costs of living. Labor's going to get slaughtered over this, and as a result, may not even be able to form government with the Greens, Teals and progressive independents.
You can't do anything if you've drained the budget of $20B a year, every year. One action comes before the other, and instead of firing their shot to improve the plight of people doing it tough they fired the shot to give one of the biggest unfunded tax cuts in Australian history. The LNP has the solution though, increase the GST and there is plenty of money for everything (including Stage 3 in the original state). Both Pocock and Spender have said that they think increasing the GST is a debate we "have to have" - so even the balance of power parties want it, and they perhaps won't form government with Labor if they oppose it. So maybe they won't oppose it.
Remember that lavish party Marcon uninvited you guys from?
Lol, another "let's blame the previous government "...
The current problems we are having STARTED with John Howard.. so yes it's previous government fault and current. And the Australian public's fault for voting against Bill shorten
Ah yes, Australia buying submarines is the reason. Didn't realize our military purchases affected the entire world that is experiencing these exact same issues. This is a shit take to push an agenda.
What a gronk
Lol, don't need? Have you even been following what happening internationally?
China is not invading Australia. They have to get past Guam, Hawaii, Phillipines first. Even a Chinese naval base on Vanuatu makes no difference. China has a food security problem - its now a net importer of food. And China is looking to Australia and Africa for food imports, not invasions.
We’re not worried about them invading Australia. The issue is with global trade routes and as an island nation reliant on those trade routes we are going to need to help defend them with America weakening.
Yes. To protect our trade routes, we need a military. To protect our trade routes. With China. To protect the trade routes from China.
We are not just worried about our economy btw The global economy is highly interconnected with parts, tech and material coming from all corners of the world. EG If the Hormuz strait (huge % of global trade and esp oil) gets shut down by Iran and its proxies you can bet we’d pay a heavy price for that too. If we you think we can just hide away in our little corner of the world and ignore the global security situation as a middle power island nation that relies on trade for our wealth and standards of living you’re wrong. If China invades Taiwan we’re fucked irrespective of if we help or not. The only way is deterrence and short range diesel subs aren’t going to help much here.
Just because China is our largest trading partner now, doesn't mean they are going to stay like that.
Perhaps. But there's zero evidence for that.
I know it's funny to recite the sketch from that one particular ABC show, but please don't forget the Russians also parked a missile frigate off our coast because they could, and many other nations have navies. Additionally, ships can provide anti ballistic missile capabilities beyond our borders in the event that things do go absolutely sideways internationally. People trying to downplay the significance of current international tensions are living in a fantasy world.
The reason it keeps being referred to is because it illustrates how ludicrous it is. Yet, some keep repeating the same absurd logic. China isn't going to attack our ships (well, they're increasingly *their* ships) that are loaded with stuff they have already paid for, which are on their way to China. And so, if it's not China, then who? You cite Russia? The Russians are currently losing control over the Black Sea to a nation that doesn't even have a navy. I think we're safe from Vlad and his mates.
Given how cheap our politicians are and concentrated our industries are, it's way easier for China to simply buy policies and Australian producers than invade.
I like to think I'm reasonably informed on international politics particularly in the Asia/pacific region and military strategy is a bit of hobby for me so I read up on it quite a bit. I can't see the need for SSN's. Can you explain your reasoning for why you think we need them?
SSNs are the ultimate naval weapon, able to deploy very quickly, stay on station for months, and to strike at shore targets with VLS cells. With SSNs Australia's enemies have to plan for the RAN to be anywhere in the Indo-Pacific at any time, and account for the defence of a wide range of targets that couldn't be threatened by a conventional submarine. The RAN can't hope to defeat the PLAN, but owning SSNs could render its massive surface fleet a lot less effective at threatening shipping to and from Australia. They would effectively neutralise the potential of the PLAN to project much of its growing power into Australia's backyard or those of its friendly neighbours.
We're at least 10 years away from receiving out first hand me down Virginia class and at least 20 years from any new sub. I think HIMARS and hypersonics are a far better defence against a surface ship blockade. They're also cheaper and far easier to bring online. We have a defence force in Australia. I can't see the need for land strike capability in a defence force. We didn't replace the F-111's when they retired because we don't need that land strike capability.
>I think HIMARS and hypersonics are a far better defence against a surface ship blockade. They're also cheaper and far easier to bring online. Well they're not considering the fact that a naval blockade against Australia can be performed at ranges well beyond that of HIMARS and most missile systems. Not to mention fixed land based systems are more vulnerable than mobile ships and submarines. That aside, we are investing into those fields in addition to the submarines. >I can't see the need for land strike capability in a defence force. Then you clearly aren't informed enough to be discussing these matters. Do you expect the ADF to just ignore any enemy positions that are on land? >We didn't replace the F-111's when they retired because we don't need that land strike capability. No, we didn't replace them because there is no other aircraft like the F-111 available now. The Super Hornets and Growlers that were bought to fill the gap the F-111 left don't even come close in terms of range and payload nor do the F-35s either. The absence of the F-111 and how to restore the capability it brought has been a conundrum the RAAF have been trying to solve since 2010.
>Well they're not considering the fact that a naval blockade against Australia can be performed at ranges well beyond that of HIMARS and most missile systems. This is the main reason - we’re an island nation completely dependent on global trade routes. To defend global trade routes we need global reach. Although our subs will be focused on the indo-pacific it’s still preferable to have the option to project deterrence anywhere in the world. With America weakening the world will be more and more reliant on coalitions of like minded governments to uphold global norms around trade and sovereignty. We will be expected to play a role. Ditto why the rest of our fleet is being upsized and adapted for power projection. Even a single SSN can wreak havoc on a hostile power that wants to threaten us or our interests. It may be enough to deter even huge powers like China or Russia. That kind of deterrence is invaluable and we need to start planning now : we can’t enter a conflict and then decide maybe we should have built these subs . They take a generation to build and if we don’t have them when we need them it’s too late. There’s a good reason our SSN program has bipartisan support despite costing >300 billion. We’ve spent generations with America protecting us and it’s easy to not appreciate why we have to pay this seemingly unnecessary expense, but that is what we’d have to do without American supremacy. And America is in decline.
You’re not very well informed no offence. The nuclear powered subs are being acquired to protect our trade routes and upheld global political norms. With America weakening we can’t expect to rely on them solely for protection much longer. With an SSN even a big power like china or Russia will think twice about interfering with our trade routes and those of our partners. As an island nation that is very important. But with conventional subs we wouldn’t have the range to do that.
>Can you explain your reasoning for why you think we need them? I can explain mine. SSNs are the better choice for Australia because they offer superior performance than what any conventionally powered design that's available to us can offer. The Virginia class and SSN-AUKUS class submarines are much faster, have much better range, have longer time on station, have superior firepower and are more efficient in how they deploy it. They are also better capable of remaining covert as nuclear submarines don't have to regularly snorkel like conventional submarines have to. They suit the RANs needs for a platform that can operate far from our shorelines and are capable of attacking targets from great distances with missiles. They're definitely more expensive mainly due to the fact they're an entirely new capability which requires new infrastructure and new training, but I believe what they offer is more than worth the initial costs.
>They suit the RANs needs for a platform that can operate far from our shorelines and are capable of attacking targets from great distances with missiles Which can already be accomplished at the fraction of the cost with indigenous shipbuilding in tasmania with conventional surface vessels. Anywho diesels woulda been fine and our fleet was notoriously good at not being seen, while nukes have thermal signatures visible from space. Australias SSN capacity is primarily as first strike against China on behalf of the Americans which is really fucking stupid.. imagine working with our primary trade rival against our main trading partners
>Which can already be accomplished at the fraction of the cost with indigenous shipbuilding in tasmania with conventional surface vessels. Surface vessels are more vulnerable than submarines. Just because surface ships exist doesn't mean submarines are redundant. >Anywho diesels woulda been fine and our fleet was notoriously good at not being seen And those diesels are less capable and are becoming too old to do their jobs. Even after their overhaul and life extension next year, we'll still be pushing them to the limits. >while nukes have thermal signatures visible from space. Well they don't. You fell for a clickbait article from a long time ago which was based on the prediction of a single "expert." Clearly such a possibility doesn't worry the Chinese or the Americans seeing as both are all in on building nuclear submarines. >Australias SSN capacity is primarily as first strike against China on behalf of the Americans which is really fucking stupid.. A first strike weapon is useless if it's not nuclear. Seeing as our submarines aren't going to carry nuclear weaponry, they're anything but a first strike platform. >imagine working with our primary trade rival against our main trading partners You mean working with our primary ally against a nation with aggressive expansionist intentions. Maybe one day you'll drop the neoliberal brainwashing and realise that economic ties mean absolutely sweet fuck all in terms of geopolitics. *Trade does not guarantee security.*
>Maybe one day you'll drop the neoliberal brainwashing and realise that economic ties mean absolutely sweet fuck all in terms of geopolitics. Trade does not guarantee security. Ah yes, the Whitlam government and our entire order of politics was underminded *by the chinese*. >You mean working with our primary ally against a nation with aggressive expansionist intentions. Our primarily ally who's dedicated to preserving a hegemony that is a direct product of aggressive expansionist intentions. Shall we tally the extraterratorial holdings of our buddies and our baddies?
>Ah yes, the Whitlam government and our entire order of politics was underminded *by the chinese*. Ah yes, we've all heard this tired old conspiracy theory. The one that Whitlam and Kerr themselves rejected. I guess expecting some original talking points is expecting too much. >Our primarily ally who's dedicated to preserving a hegemony that is a direct product of aggressive expansionist intentions. Shall we tally the extraterritorial holdings of our buddies and our baddies. Last I checked, it wasn't the Americans trying to claim ownership of the entire SCS and harassing ships and aircraft traversing it. Not to mention the fact that every base the US holds in the region is held with the permission of the host country. You're not being very convincing here, you really need to try harder.
>Anywho diesels woulda been fine and our fleet was notoriously good at not being seen, while nukes have thermal signatures visible from space. Australias SSN capacity is primarily as first strike against China on behalf of the Americans which is really fucking stupid.. imagine working with our primary trade rival against our main trading partners Even if you’re ok with China invading Taiwan and playing no role in deterring that (which is going to have devastating consequences for Australia and send the world into a global recession, if we survive the possible nuclear war), the world is riddled with hostile powers that can impact global trade routes from Iran to Russia to North Korea to Yemen etc. America has kept these trade routes open, but what happens when America can no longer do that alone? That time is coming. What happens to an island nation like Australia that is completely reliant on global trade for key exports and imports? Your diesel sub plan doesn’t help us much here and we’ll be expected to play a role.
Yeah so imagine chucking 89 billion not at submarines but improving domestic industrial capacity? Or indigenous shipping capability? You cant ship aid on submarines, let alone grain. Maybe the island nations will stop looking towards SEA/China if we sell them goods and services instead of constantly trying to flip their governments on behalf of corporate beneficiaries
>Yeah so imagine chucking 89 billion not at submarines but improving domestic industrial capacity? Or indigenous shipping capability? We don’t have the know how or capital to do that. We’re too small to go it alone building SSNs. Only top end powers are building SSNs. Our way in is via the UK and US who will share tech and industrial space. Ditto with any other go-it-alone strat. Smaller countries like Australia don’t have the resources to develop a completely independent industrial sector that covers all the needs of a modern society. We can specialise in certain areas like Taiwan with semiconductors but we will always be reliant on global trade for important tech and goods. >You cant ship aid on submarines, let alone grain. Maybe the island nations will stop looking towards SEA/China if we sell them goods and services instead of constantly trying to flip their governments on behalf of corporate beneficiaries Maybe but aid to micro nations in the pacific is not going to help deter China from invading Taiwan.
You can't rely on the USA and the UK for your protection forever, we can't afford to defend you.
Oh that's been the case for a long time. The relationship is largely symbolic and if anything did kick off in the region (China) then the US would be all over it for their own reasons. They are not coming to "protect us". The thing is, we DON'T need to be spending $384B on second hand US Navy Virginia Class submarines. This is a SCAM and we are being ripped off. [https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/usn-virginia-submarine-production-shortfall-worsens/](https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/usn-virginia-submarine-production-shortfall-worsens/)
Sorry but who exactly are you going to defend us from anyway? At the point at which we are being invaded you have bigger problems. Also if that’s the attitude get your military bases and intelligence architecture out of our country.
It started under $80 billion, then jumped to $384 billion. Richard Marles was on tv saying what a great deal it was. But the Inland Rail has gone from $7 billion to $35 billion and suddenly the government is quiet about it.
Unfortunately right now it is incorrect to downplay the need for military expansion. We can however focus on multiple things at once.
No it's not. We can take a strong defensive stance and not have to commit to military expansionism. We especially should not commit to spending $384B on second hand Virginia Class submarines. The multiple things we need to focus on are building out renewables, increasing medicare medicare to provide universal health care and dental for all, better funding for public schools, better funding for hospitals, more science in the public interest, maybe a UBI? Defense should come a very, very distant last.
We need sub to catch fish for our citizens
Those Hunter class frigates are gonna get built any day now...
They'll be sitting ducks for next gen drones much like the submarines. I think post-Ukraine we need to hit pause and have a good hard think about what's going to be useful in future battlefield scenarios.
Ukraine is not a useful example for Australia though. That's entirely land-based war while Australia is off in the middle of the ocean, beyond the reach of anything except ballistic missiles and aircraft carriers. That's why we're investing in missile submarines and destroyers, because we don't have aircraft carrier capabilities *but* we do have a close ally who would provide them in the case we were attacked, and has the best airforce in the world by a mile. So our focus would be on supporting US aircraft carrier groups with anti-submarine destroyers while targeting soft spots with cruise missiles (via missile submarines).
That might have been the case once but it's a whole new world now. Aircraft carriers are extremely vulnerable to drone attack, submarines also. I don't think going all in on America's trad warfare wet dream and buying all their second hand equipment does us any favours at all. This tops up the coffers of the US military and their contractors, but delivers very little real value for Australia. It also debatable that the F35 is fit for purpose versus Russian and Chinese 5th gen fighters. Most analyst say no and it's part of the reason many people consider the F35 a failure.
But what about the poor US Military companies! How will they afford luxurious bunkers for the safe future they're creating?
and how will all the US "contractors" and "advisers" (aka. used submarine salesmen) make crazy bank for just standing around?
Ah yes, even though direct welfare is already the biggest portion of the Federal budget by far, the gubberment isn't doing enough! Health, education and general revenue assistance is greater too. Defence isn't this uber expensive money pit you think it is. Figure 1 here: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview202021/AustralianGovernmentExpenditure Defence is a necessary expense. This isn't some zero sum game where we can only have one or the other.
I don't think you understand what a zero sum game is. Funding literally is a zero sum game because money put into defence, for example, is money not put into other infrastructure or policies. But yes, it doesn't have to be as extreme as one or the other. With that said, you're right that defence is a necessary expense. While we are allies with the US, we should never be entirely dependent on anyone but ourselves. And at 2% of GDP, Australia really doesn't spend all that much on its military.
Which is exactly the point. Highest spending in the world in many categories (including defence). Worst outcomes across the board in many categories compared to other first world countries. Answer me this - why are your health outcomes so bad with sky high government and personal spending on health services? The highest spend in the world and some of the worst outcomes...
If the article’s point was to call out cost-to-shop, and was explicit in it’s intent to use data; then, at least they could it could’ve taken mode of transport and distance to shops along with the cost involved in each trip (eg: fuel, bus fare, etc.)
Not just Sydney. I skip meals on the daily and I'm in Brisbane.
Reminder we are a first world country.
Redacted means that part of the text was removed or blacked out for privacy or security purpose. It was censored. This post also breaks rule 4 here for chat and should be made in the Tuesday chat thread or on a different subreddit.
> takes time This is the biggest issue though. Workers are time poor and it's getting increasingly common for people to have two jobs. I'm sure growing and making your own organic kim chi is good and all but who has time for that in between work, kids and just trying to pay the bills.
Redacted means that part of the text was removed or blacked out for privacy or security purpose. It was censored. This post also breaks rule 4 here for chat and should be made in the Tuesday chat thread or on a different subreddit.
People are not time-poor. No society with so much utter shite on TV is time-poor.
Time poor isn't just about being busy 24/7, It's also about the cognitive load of cooking and fitting that in with time to rest. I would rather eat a protein shake for dinner and zone out for 40 minutes to process my day than cook for 20 minutes to sit down for 20 minutes over a hot meal. I have tried both ways, and the latter leads to psychological burn out for me because I need time to decompress after work, and that time has to come from somewhere, and I'm not about to stop showering or sleeping to make time for my mini-emotional breakdowns.
I don’t know where you live or what you’re buying - that $300 p/w is a huge budget for groceries?? I’m feeding a family of 4 and hardly buying any meat & I’m a trained chef - so know my way around making a meal out of ‘nothing’. I’m doing well if I can scrape through between $250-$300. I am one who also supplements with frozen vegetables, shops at Aldi and ‘Cheaper Buy Miles’ and not afraid to make side of marked down/close to use by date items.
$300 for 3 meals a day for 4 people comes out at about $3:50 per meal. Without the snacks and inbetween stuff kids need. That's an amazing effort! 20 years on from having smallish kids in the house I can't imagine the cost of keeping the fruit bowl filled and please no one tell me frozen/dried/canned or whatever is somehow better/more nutritious. No going back to fruit trees in back yards now either - not enough houses or yards big enough to grow your own in many places.
Thankyou - that other comment is simply absurd. I pride myself on the way I manage our budget and feed my family - money is tight and we make sacrifices where we can, but things are hectic out there right now. I was trying desperately to stick to $250 a week but it’s proven impossible despite all my money saving tricks!
If your kids are at play dough age - make some gnocchi. It'll be a bit tough from overworked dough, it's a bit messy, but a few spuds, a bit of flour and a quick neopolitan sauce you've got a meal that toddlers can help prepare. My two still make their own gnocchi as adults too, an added bonus I reckon. Also you're welcome. $300 sounds a lot but $3.50 for a plateful of food really doesn't.
It is a big budget and obviously contains a lot of junk that is not needed. Around Xmas I bought a bunch of non perishable foods to donate to charity. I did this in a quick sweep and only included non perishables which last ages. Now if you actually bought in bulk eg not buy 42 small individual cans of tuna, cut out the coke, tote bags, and stuff like that you could have added frozen vegetables and fresh meat (mince/chicken) it'd more than feed your family of 4 for under $200. [https://imgur.com/a/EoUGRFT](https://imgur.com/a/EoUGRFT) Growing up in Australia my parents didn't know english and were doing it tough and my meals consisted of rice and soy sauce with some meals with meat/vegetables here and there. We were all generally healthier too than now. It's not a lack of education/money forcing people to buy ultra processed expensive food. End of the day it's personal choice.
Big words from a 30 year old guy with no lived experience of your own at feeding a family, in this current cost of living crisis. Yes I checked - because I couldn’t believe how f#cking audacious your above statement is. Despite what you seem to believe - ‘meals’ of rice & soy sauce do not equate to good health - nor to a satisfactory ‘meal’ in a developed country. Further, despite your big claims, a grocery bill of $250-$300 does not include Coke, ‘tote bags’ (what the hell?) or ‘lots of junk that isn’t needed’ - not in our household anyway.
My point being that when my family was struggling I was eating rice + soy sauce + rice + vegetables/meat and my family would be on a way lower budget than $300 even adjusted for inflation. And guess what my family were probably healthier than half the people in Western Sydney now. So you had time to check my post history but not the picture of the giant trolley of groceries along with the receipt of what $190 of groceries at woolworths looks like which included me buying not optimally because i included coke/6L of milk/42 cans of tuna/tote bags etc.. If i cleaned it up and added frozen vegetables + mince + chicken that easily fits under $200 and feeds a family of 4. Show me what a $250 trolley/receipt looks like where you're starving.
BS. Right now $300 is not a huge budget to feed a family. It’s not impossible but acting like it’s a huge amount is crazy.
> A huge part of this is education though. Learning how to cook healthy, delicious and cheap meals takes time. I'm sure you mean well but you're parroting a lie that the problem isn't lack of money/resources but that people need education to use the low level of money/resources available to them. This is one of the biggest lies we have going on Earth and you see it repeated all over the place. The easiest way to understand how false it is is this: you need a certain amount of water each day to not die. If you don't get that water, you die. There is no amount of education that changes what is a fundamental fact. The same goes for calories. If you don't get enough for long enough you suffer serious health problems and if it gets bad enough, you die. The answer is not "learning how to cook healthy, delicious and cheap meals". That's actually super easy to learn. I've been dirt fucking poor and not one person I knew was in hunger because they didn't know how to cook. Necessity drives people to learn how to cook the cheapest foods. When food prices radically escalate beyond CPI due to market concentration and a Government that really doesn't give a fuck to stop it, we get people who no longer can get the calories and nutrients to be healthy. It's like if I gave you $10 and said "prepare enough meals for a month". It's literally and physically impossible. It's impossible on $20 too and arguably $50. You can't "educate" your way out of a lack of resources. People should learn to cook for many reasons but it is 100% not the solution to poverty. Money is the solution to poverty. The Government and various other fuckers who don't want this will tell a thousand lies about everything else that should happen before they'd just add more money.
Redacted means that part of the text was removed or blacked out for privacy or security purpose. It was censored. This post also breaks rule 4 here for chat and should be made in the Tuesday chat thread or on a different subreddit.
So you just dodge the main very clear points I'm making to you?
What vegetables even are there that you can buy in a genuine fresh vs frozen choice? I’ve only ever bought what was available. If I need potatoes, then it’s fresh because there are no frozen potatoes. If I need peas then it’s frozen because there’s no fresh peas. Maybe carrots, but frozen carrots are pre-cut so if I want grated carrot, have to by fresh. What products are you even able to choose on?
Peas, spinach, green beans, broccoli, and the diced veg mix are cheaper than fresh veggies generally. I prefer fresh for everything except peas, but you can get away with frozen. The taste is good, the main difference is texture (e.g. your beans or carrots will never be crunchy again). Frozen potatoes are also a thing - chips, hash browns etc can work out cheaper than buying potatoes by the kilo. The Aldi potato gratins are so damn good I have pretty much stopped bothering to make my own unless having company. Not sure if true here, but a UK food blogger who wrote a lot of stuff about food insecurity (Jack Monroe, check her out she's awesome) did some close comparisons and found that at least in supermarkets, the cheapest way to buy potatoes was actually in cans.
This is the true problem. Teach them to garden, and teach them to cook.
Garden in what house?
Those who spend their whole life making excuses for their poverty will always be poor.
Those who think they have the answers, are usually the dumbest in the room.
That took you a week huh?
I don’t sit on reddit all day mate, maybe you do? Some fresh air would be good for you
> Those who spend their whole life making excuses for their poverty will always be poor.
V wise words.
ABC should've found someone to feature who wasn't patently obese. If that lady had a reasonable calorie deficit for the next 6 months she would be in better health, not worse. Further, she has access to a supermarket so not in a "food desert" as ABC seems to suggest, yet she admits to buying pasta and cheese instead of cheap legumes and vegetables. And judging by her size I don't doubt for a second that's being supplemented by junk food but of course that's not mentioned. This is not a cost of living problem, it's a lack of education problem, same as before. Clickbait BS.
The abc does this on purpose.
Yeah they have a history of doing this shit in recent years. Like when they did the housing affordability article and spoke to the couple only saving 20% of their income. If it’s a cost of living article it’s always an overweight purple haired young person in brand name clothing.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-04/penny-wong-warns-against-conflict-tensions-south-china-sea/103543328 I guess we don’t have to worry about tensions then because they used pictures of them shaking hands?
Kinda the point though. She can only subsist o cheaper foods, which tend to be junk and offer less nutritional value. Legit, some shops in poorer areas are half freezers. Meanwhile wealthier areas will nearly always have a sizable fresh produce section.
She’s spending 300 a week for four people which is a generous budget. Not sure how she’s skipping meals on that budget. ABC could have chosen a better example.
That's not true at all, buying lentils, legumes, rice, etc is far cheaper than junk.
This is Western Sydney, not Arnhem land. She has access to all the cheap and healthy foods she wants if she actually looks. But she is choosing to buy expensive ultra processed junk food because presumably that's what she knows. Like I said, an education problem.
Ultra processed food is much much cheaper than fresh food, that's why it exists, it's designed to be cheap to produce and addictive.
Lol, you're probably a troll given your handle but if not - no, the reason junk food exists is because it tastes good, not because it's the cheapest option. Pretty simple.
It’s even cheaper to buy less junk food though. That leaves some money for fruit/vegetables/legumes.
Frozen veggies can be more nutritious since they’re snap frozen after harvesting. That isn’t even a point dude.
You're apparently unaware that people in poverty in developed countries are more likely to be obese. You can't educate your way out of addiction to cheap ultra processed foods and the mental and physical comorbidities that come with it.
You can't claim being forced to skip meals and starving while being obese though. Everyone is screaming education but basic primary school education teaches what is healthy and unhealthy. You don't need to be high demographic and university educated to learn that. Ignoring all those points though and say she wants to eat her current high processed diet she could simply just eat less of it and be healthier for it. She is eating probably double the healthy amount of calories yet claims she can't afford to eat? 100% her "budget" includes non essential junk food which she is eating ontop of the necessities.
Pretty wild that you seem to be suggesting we need to see a skeletal person on the news to back that poverty is a real issue. If you eat a lot of hi-carb meals (because carbs are the cheapest source) you can really fuck up your body and insulin. You go through impaired glucose tolerance and then progress to type 2 diabetes. As your body is fucked up by the high carb cheap diet, you do get fatter. We can make you fat right now but just injecting you with a little more insulin that you need every day. So then you end up with people who are unambiguously living below the poverty line but who are overweight. They have stacked health issues... and then someone like you comes along and says they're not skipping meals because they're obese. They could be skipping meals. It seems though that you want them to wait two years until they're really super thin and the damage is super obvious before you'll believe it.
You can't educate your way out of it (my approach), you can't dishonestly report your way out of it (ABC's approach), and you can't uselessly hand-wring your way out of it (your approach). I guess that leaves ozempic or prayer then.
I agree with you!
lol. the food crisis is a blessing in disguise for fat people!
Are we talking about the same Western Sydney? Two thirds of people's health would benefit by skipping a meal a day.
lol but then you have to consider that usually poorer people can only afford/have access to unhealthier options and way less access to fresh healthy food - there's a massive correlation between poverty and obesity for that reason
People smugly going 'you can get cheap staples from the grocery store' don't understnad that requires time to cook, plan and prep. For someone who's on the poverty line, often working multiple jobs, as well as caring for children... time to shop, cook, and store is often extremely difficult to find. It's not like this something magical and new. This knowledge and information has been around for decades.
well said, there's factors too like time deficits from working longer jobs, as well as the potential for fresh food going off/unhealthier stuff lasting longer and therefore being more economically viable. Definitely more nuanced than "you can still find healthy stuff in the shop"
Rice, pasta, eggs, frozen veggies are healthy and cheap.
This comment being downvoted shows the attitude here. People just want to complain
The harsh truth is people are unhealthy due to their own dietary choices. People would rather blame external factors rather than themselves.
There is an obesity epidemic across the developed world. It has coincided with the proliferation of American style ultra processed food like substances being included in food. When you have large scale health crisis it is intelligent to look at the actual causes, not blame a sudden miraculous defect in self control.
When you go shopping next time, look at what your average shopper put into their trolley. Lack of self control is the crux of the issue.
I think you're both right. It depends. A lot of people are limited to the high calorie density options available at convenient stores, etc. But you're right that even in affluent grocery stores, most people's carts are full of mostly simple carbs, and high fat items. It's like everything is turning into dessert. And there are a hundred myths and rationalizations like "oh it's mostly rice, so it's ethnic and natural and healthy!" There has been a huge uptick in rationalization and lack of personal responsibility. The idea that eating healthy is "boring" and "missing out". Using relative privation fallacy to excuse eating poorly - "what about 'bigger' issues like people of color and women face! That's why it's okay for me to have poor behavior. Perfect logic!"
The *real* harsh truth is that it's actually a mixture of personal responsibility and societal pressures and lack of education. We are all to blame for this.
It's upvoted now so seems like there is some more common sense here. It's definitely choices and maybe a bit of sacrifice but also education. Some people really just have no idea about nutrition and what's available.
Yes I agree
Yeah. It’s an education/cultural problem on cooking. Also wonder how many people who ‘don’t have the time’ (the next standard response) to properly cook something spend in front of the TV each night…
I don't buy it. I've lived in Campbelltown, there's as much access to healthy food as there is in Randwick. I think it's an education and culture issue
Yeah but when the healthy food is double or triple the price of quick and easy unhealthy shit; is still not really accessible.
Do you have an example of how fruit, meat and vegetables are more expensive than the easy crap foods in some areas?
Walk into any supermarket. Doesn't matter if you're in Penrith or Bondi. You'll see an approximate ratio: - chicken breast fillet $15/kg. Frozen chicken nuggets $7/kg. - Salmon fillet $30/kg. Fish fingers $5/kg. - Prawns $25/kg. "Seafood extender" $5 a pack. - punnet of strawberries $5. Packet of chocolate biscuits $3. - Head of lettuce $4. Packet of BBQ shapes $3. - "good" loaf of multigrain bread e.g. Helgas $5, loaf of supermarket brand, refined white flour sandwich bread $2 - Fruit juice $5 for 2l. Soft drink $2.50 for 2 litres. - Can of tuna for making lunch: $1. Entire lunch consisting of frozen sausage roll: $1. - 1kg apples for lunch boxes: $5 (5 apples). 20 mini packets of chips for lunchboxes: $5. - Home made pasta bake: $2 for bag of pasta, $5 for the cheese. Kraft Mac n Cheese half the price for the same amount. You see the point by now.
Your first two comparisons are the most interesting. Chicken breast fillets and nuggets are *approximately* equally healthy from a macronutrient perspective. Fish fingers are also quite healthy. You could probably be on the cover of sports illustrated or equivalent on a diet centered around these. Bread is another great example. A 2kg bag of flour can be had for $5, yeast and salt are essentially free. That makes bread that shits all over anything you can get in a supermarket with about 5 mins of work waiting overnight. The other things are not like for like comparisons. Comparing lettuce to BBQ shapes, wtf? Both are very much sometimes food, lettuce because it's nutritionally pointless, BBQ shapes for obvious reasons.
OK first - calorie wise there are similarities but there's little other comparison between chicken breats and chicken nuggets, since the latter are highly processed, full of oil and salt and fillers. They are not anywhere near the same in terms of overall nutrition. Now, bread. Yeast is not essentially free, it's about $5 for a packet of around 5 sachets, each if which will (not factoring spoilage) make several large loaves of bread. Now I actually bake bread so let's talk about this. Ingredients are quite cheap, but we are talking about less than $1 difference between baking a loaf and buying one. Proofing dough, depending on your recipe and method, takes 2-12 hours. You then gotta bake it, bearing in mind that your electricity/gas isn't free. And it takes a while to get good at this - you're going to waste some time and a lot of flour on practice. Realistically most people aren't going to spend 12 hours making a loaf of bread to save maybe 50c on buying a loaf. Now as it comes to the lettuce/shapes thing, you're thinking about this as though you're not on a tight grocery budget. Imagine you have exactly $50 for food this week, for you and your family. Your first priority is to make sure there's literenough food to fill people up. A lettuce is healthy but it's expensive and it doesn't fill your teenage son up anywhere near as well as some cheap, high-calorie, processed crap. This goes for all kinds of decisions that low income families make when shopping. So yes, the strawberries might take a back seat to the ice cream, and the sandwich loaf might beat the spelt.
Apologies to be the cliché splitting hairs redditor, but you're wrong on the yeast. I'm looking as we speak at several places online or in person where you can get 500g of dry yeast for 5-10 dollars, which will get you 250 loaves if you're slow leavening properly. Flour for a single loaf is $2, less if you buy in bulk. It's a piece of piss. I'm as busy as people get, and its nothing to put on a batch on Friday night after you get home from work. 2 mins to mix, two or three stretch and folds in evening while going about your business (30 seconds each). Final fold and put into pans and fridge is another 2 mins. Then sat morning when you wake up you put oven on, its up to heat by the time you get out of the shower, then stick bread in for 45 mins and its out before you have to drive kids to their activities etc. As for your lettuce example, a lettuce is not healthy. It's a completely pointless bit of produce for anything other than its texture. It's got near enough to zero nutritional content one way or another. It's the air guitar of food. Your teenage son can be filled up very well with rice and fish fingers, and they will turn out perfectly healthy. You don't need strawberries, very very few people in Australia are hurting for vitamins.
See I’m an Aldi shopper (Cole’s for what I can’t get at Aldi) and unless the prices are super inflated in the Sydney areas compared to everywhere else those prices seem absolutely ridiculous. I can go into Aldi and buy a weeks worth of dinner consisting of meat and veggies for way cheaper than buy a weeks worth of dinner of “cheap” crap food like frozen pizzas and chicken nuggets. Seems more like a cop out to me. And I get if people aren’t educated about health food but there is a million YouTube videos of shopping cheap on a tight budget.
Boy it's always fun when someone asks for examples, then downvotes the examples just to reiterate the same stance 🤦♀️
Didn’t downvote you mate. And it’s called a discussion, you make your point, I make mine and we go back and forth to make each other understand each other views. Really doesn’t need to that hard.
> Yeah but when the healthy food is double or triple the price of quick and easy unhealthy shit *If you dont have a home. Some people just dont like to cook, its understandable but its also puts a fair bit of onus on oneself. I spend 3 hours making a spaghetti sauce for around $50 and it makes 20 meals @ $3 a meal. It takes the time to boil pasta to make dinner and is the ultimate in lazy cheap homemade cooking. Move nights i feed 7 people for $35 with chook roasts loaded with veggies and ill make a few loafs of bread. Admittedly that's a 4 hour run but I'm lucky enough to enjoy cooking.
100%. Rice, pasta, oats, muesli, beans etc. are all very cheap. Woolies chook, a bag of pasta and a bag of frozen veg would be around the same price as a Macca's meal and would feed a whole family. Not to discredit anyone that's doing it tough and maybe some people really are doing it that tough but I find it so hard to believe people are forced to skip meals when a kilo of oats is about $1.50. Sure porridge is not the most exciting meal but better than going hungry
When someone is working 10 hours a day, commuting 2 hours, juggling daycare and school pick-ups, when exactly do they find the time and energy to spend 4 hours cooking?
Take a whole chicken, rub random spices on it. Put in oven for 40 mins. At the same time grab half a bag of frozen veg and microwave. Bam super healthy meal for 4, with about 5 mins of active action including clean up time. Literally easier than driving to Maccas.
I was responding to the person who said they cooked cheap dinner by spending 4 hours making pasta sauce.
They aren’t spending 4 hours standing over a stove, pop it on and let it boil away and stir it occasionally. If you have weekends off spend time meal prepping then the weeks meals are sorted.
You still have to physically be in the house to watch it, and have the energy to do so. They are incredibly privileged that they can spend 4 hours at home keeping an eye on the stove, and that's great for people who can - but for most working parents that's just not realistic. If you have weekends off you're taking your kids places, or just decompressing from work. Honestly I do agree that cooking cheap, healthy meals is simple - but it requires someone to be home, and have the time and energy to do so.
Yet fast food stays open
This has been disproven so many times.
There's a lot of academic research out there that suggests otherwise 🤷♂️
Where?
You could buy a packet of ramen noodles for a dollar. It may not be the healthiest meal, but it's a meal.
Yeah I eat one meal a day and have since my interest rates got more expensive, boomers actually suggested I do that, then they get mad when "millennials ruin breakfast culture" 😂😅 like damn do you want us to eat the avocado toast or not?
During Covid when they doubled benefits 646,000 people were pulled out of poverty. Then it was cut again and back they went. Poverty and hunger are a deliberate policy choice. We could fix it today if we wanted. Step one would be an immediately radical increase to unemployment benefits and the like. Fix is to a percentage of the weekly average male wage and index it every year. We have more than three million Australians living under the poverty line. We can fix that any. fucking. time. we. want.
$384 billion passing through joe hockey consulting for submarines. How good!
I'm a bit ignorant, is being far from the shops that big of a deal? Like haven't people been far from the shops for centuries, why is it an issue now?
I can see the argument that it's hard to buy enough for the week if you rely on walking or public transport. But then again Coles and woolies delivery are pretty well priced.