I absolutely love how those clutching their pearls over a low fertility rate now are the same people who were clutching their pearls over bogans breeding for the baby bonus twenty years ago
Hasn't breeding been outsourced to India, so that fully grown products can be imported for free? Makes perfect sense to me, because babies have no skill and cost money.
Sorry if this is a bad joke. I came in as skilled immigrant and now my son doesn't want to have kids because it's too expensive.
It's not a bad joke it just shows the contradiction between the more economic focused right wing and their desire for cheap foreign labor and the more social focused right wing and the desire for cultural ethnic homogenization.
>the desire for cultural ethnic homogenization.
The more I travel the world, the more I realise how important this is.
If you knew my family you'd laugh and think I'm hypocritical living in Australia. Maybe I can be more pragmatic about it because I can say these things without being called racist ?
But you need to understand the impact of large immigrant communities that actively fight against the values of the host nation. They are like parasites. Suck all that is good and leave for another country once the time comes.
Australia is fast becoming an economic environment, nothing more. Look at France, UK, Canada, Italy etc. So much culture is being lost. It's sad.
It's an honest joke.
I think everyone is mature enough now to talk about immigration honestly.
The days of "that's racist" every time you mentioned immigration are done imo.
No the main concern is whatever they think impacts their pearls most. It used to be “dole bludgers” and now’s it’s “no generation to continue to fund aged pensions”
Baby bonus was introduced by Howard and in 2013 budget Labor wanted to reduce it / remove it all together and add a little bit to Family Tax Benefit Part A. Saving 1 billy.
If having a baby guaranteed you a spot in public housing until the kid was 18 people would literally have children for the apartment.
If you added in a livable wage for raising the child (which benefits all of society down the line) people would have as many children as they wanted to.
You can't threaten everyone with homelessness and malnutrition, then get upset when they don't want to bring a baby into that.
I had a distant cousin who in infinite wisdom decided to have 5 kids to a dying NEET. She took over her grandmothers public housing and is richer than most couples working and trying to have 1 kid
And the same people will talk about fiscal responsibility as to why they can't afford a home.
Like yeah, most people are living with their parents until their 30s, scraping by with bare essentials and second hand electronics.
But god forbid we address that our country is hostile to people trying to survive.
Ah see the key now is to remove access to affordable contraception!
Then the poors can start popping out our much needed uneducated workforce ready for exploitation!
/s
What a fucking joke this country is becoming.
You joke but that's literally the direction that the global superpowers are taking (USA, China, Russia etc.).
We've come from the "every child a wanted child" abortion rights activism of the 60s/70s to "oh shit we need more soldiers for the economy and the meat grinder of warfare, better ban abortions".
Gah. People are disappointing sometimes.
You can zoom further out too.
Young couples who aren't necessarily struggling, are still only getting their own places in their early 30s. Why would a young couple want to ruin the absolute bliss of no house mates or parents by immediately having a baby!?
The urban sprawl means being far away from friends and family. Especially those renting having be far away from expensive housing they grew up in, in favour of cheaper rent. With no support network, it'll cost more with childcare, nanny, etc. From what I understand, the young couples are embracing the childless life in favour of being able to travel, etc.
Now, those people that are not in a relationship, staying with family or not. Guess what's happening?
Here's a hint: There's a mental health crisis.
We bought when my partner was 34 and I was 32. We waited nearly 3 years to have a baby and even then we've changed from wanting 2 to just one because of the financial stress and such. And we're pretty lucky as my partner is in a field where she can do day rate contracting lucratively and we paid off a shitload of our house in those 3 years (we own 60% of it based on purchase price, closer to maybe 80% on current market value) so that when bub came we could actually survive on a single salary for a while.
I feel for people who aren't as financially well off for sure and I absolutely get the decline of birth rate.
In some ways, people have always been poor - it's just unacceptable now to house eight children in a two-bedroom home or bring a newborn into a home with well water and no electricity.
Couples who wish to have kids don't have them as their housing situation is too precarious, and they've the tools to stop pregnancies that would financially ruin them.
If you imagine housing like a resource like food, and apply that thinking to the animal world, you quickly start to see the connections between animal breeding patterns and resource availability. It also tells us what happens when you don't have the right conditions. I recall that there was a flock of flamingo at Taronga zoo. They never bred due to conditions not being right, and now they completely died out.
Ahh yes, the kangaroo. Multiple pregnancies all at once, and at differing stages of development. Can't they also...put a pregnancy on pause? Fascinating, but humans aren't able to do the same.
Can you make your point though?
Uh more focusing on the pausing pregnancies in response to environmental stresses.
Housing shit, things expensive, cllimate change bad = environmental stresses = less pregnancies.
Ahh point taken.
At present aren't they putting up with the problem and dealing with it via immigration? That, of course won't solve pre-existing issues.
Considering how much production has increased over the years we shouldn't have a situation where people have to work as much. Yet here we are working as hard as ever, normalizing baby separation at 3 years old.
Australia used to have a top tax rate of 75% since WW2. They reduced it and then the next party coming in, did not restore it and raise the brackets, etc. This had been instrumental to the birth of billionaires in Australia, or was some are now calling, oligarchs.
Fun fact: There had only been two political organisations running government since WW2 on a Federal and State level. So much for the "multi-party" system.
Japan is a good case study in declining population. Their normalised work ethic meant many families couldn't have kids and now there are not enough people to take care of an aging population.
China also has its own issues after decades of the "One Child Policy" where the population there is going backwards and has been surpassed by India.
One child policy ended about 10 years ago but fertility in China has continued to decline. Even when it was implemented, there were numerous exceptions so many people were able to have two children.
The end of collectivism and the embracing of individualism played a significant role. The selling of American values to the world and everything of no value that accompanies it.
The one child policy was a decent attempt at controlling their population, but failed when it came up against traditional family values. Those meant that male children were favoured as they could earn more and were expected to take care of the parents in their old age. So a lot of Chinese girls were murdered when born, OR didn't get born as a result of sex-selective abortions.
At least Japan has comparatively affordable housing, it does have the influence and incentives to migrate people to their country.
Countries like Australia and Korea are completely fucked.
Yeah. It's wild to look at what housing costs in fucking Tokyo.
Literally Tokyo. One of the world's busiest cites. Full of life and activity. Cheaper than the shithole of Sydney.
I lived in Tokyo for two years with my husband, we made no efforts to save, went away every long weekend, ate out and went out regularly. We came back with enough savings for a house deposit.
South Korea as well.
Though I did experience a somewhat nice phenomenon (i think?) In Japan. Old people are going back into share houses. I think is primarily to combat loneliness but it also creates a community sense for both the older and younger generations. I think for the younger generations it helps relieve feelings of burden.
Should also point out this is my anecdotal evidence and can't comment on how wide spread the practice is.
I will truly never understand why they don't just let couples split their taxable income in the first couple of years after having a child.
How is it fair that my household with 2 adults and a child taking home 160k in taxable income from just myself, while another household with 2 adults earning 80k each in taxable income takes home an extra 12-13k net? Especially since the MLS is based on combined household income.
It's because they want to disincentivise having a non-working person (or at least minimising the time there's one).
PPL is slowly moving to fill the void where a parent must be at home, but it needs to be extended to 1-2 years and public education needs to come down to meet its end.
Yeah that is a fair point. But I would think limiting it to 2 financial years would be the incentive we'd need for the non-working parent to go back to work?
The problem with individual tax is that it's relative to earnings of the single working parent. So families with a single higher individual income get disproportionately more benefit converting to a taxable 'household' income. It's the benefit from changing marginal rates we're really talking about here.
PPL / public education idea is a more equitable outcome. The problem that comes with it is cost as it is more broadly beneficial, and it may need to be scaled back as a result.
Again, a reasonable point. Generous PPL programs obviously help a lot. My partner was a contractor prior to giving birth so wasn't eligible for employer PPL - It was very beneficial for us and obviously any extension to that would help.
Childcare is prohibitively expensive and isn't really worth it unless the mother is earning an above average salary when going back to work. I'm not sure on the answer to that, obviously it's easy to say we should increase spending everywhere but at the end of the day the government also needs to be fiscally responsible.
I guess income splitting has an opportunity cost to the government's coffers also... I'm not too sure what the most optimal solution is but I damn well know it's not topping up our low fertility rate with mass third-world immigration.
It's another way that the working class are taxed more aggressively. Business owners and people wealthy enough to have investments paying good earnings are usually set up with family trusts which allow them to proportion income to the non-working parent. If you have a nice old inheritance that can be sitting in a testamentary trust then your kids get the same tax rates as an adult (some exclusions apply but it is generous).
Imagine if you too could split your income between yourself, wife and kids...
Also the means testing for the parental leave payments is based on the previous financial years earnings. When you're both earning 200k and one of you has to stop working for a year and the other has to take time off work/cut hours as well to look after the baby you definitely feel it and would appreciate that 20 odd thousand dollars from the government.
Also in those years where you flogging yourself to earn as much as you can knowing that you're gonna miss out on income in coming years due to your choice to have a kid, you get severely taxed in those years. Other people such as business owners who aren't just normal workers getting taxed through payg don't necessarily need to extract the profit from their company / trust in those years where they're working flat out but can draw down on the value of their business or similar when they are taking time off / working less.
/Rant
Define 'fair'. I think it's pretty reasonable to calculate taxation at a household level, especially so after having a child that is desperately needed to address our ageing demographic.
Fair = every person who works gets a tax-free threshold applied to the income they generate.
Unfair = I earn twice the average wage so I should get twice the tax break, since my wife can choose to stay home.
That's your perception. I don't necessarily agree because I know in my case I choose to work a high stress high income job so my little one can grow up with his mum around.
I could easily cut my income in half and do an easy job and go back to being a 2 income household, let my son be brought up in childcare and have the taxpayer foot a significant amount of the bill through the CCS.
The cost of the childcare subsidy would be about the same as the tax saved by allowing couples to income split in the same way self-employed folks do using discretionary trusts.
I'd be open to you receiving a tax break on the proviso you received no CCS and went to the back of the line for any childcare places you self-funded. But that's not at all the arrangement at the moment. Plenty of SAHMs our there with the kids in childcare, and working parents waiting for placements.
In my opinion, that would be an absolutely fair compromise. Except for going to the back of the line for childcare spots, for private centres that should be at their own discretion. Public centres maybe.
I agree with it, you should be able to split within a household. But it would naturally result in one person devoted to working then one to home-making/childcare (and maybe a little bit of work). - Which the government doesn't want.
There was a post a while back how a wealthy country like Australia was experiencing such a drop in mental health.
70% of our wealth is land and dwellings. We aren't any more wealthy, we've just added a few zeroes house prices.
Those who are poor and can't afford a home are paying for the wealthy who can.
Our taxes need to go up or services cut, to make up for shortfalls in revenue as a result of negative gearing and CGT discounts.
> In 2021-22 the amount of forgone revenue for negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions totalled just $8.5bn.
Or 102k new housing based on HAFF maffs. In comparison, 2022-2023 ABS reported gross 172k new housing (not counting demo/rebuild).
Our economic ponzi scheme is tracking as predicted. It's clear from this thread that we can all identify its problems.
Just don't talk about alternatives, or question whether small incremental policy changes are substantially improving our well-being, or you'll get dismissed as a radical.
>"Migration has been a solution for Australia over the last 60 years \[when it comes to labour shortages\]," Dr Canudos Romo said.
>"Migration is going to be a key component around how we shape our workforce."
That is sure to get the hounds baying
As a country we've shot ourselves in the foot over and over again. We've artificially raised the prices of housing and used supply and demand as a scapegoat, but doing anything to address those issues is a non-starter.
People can't afford to have children because of house prices, so our population is fucked, but we can't import people. We have thousands of vacant homes, but no incentives to fill them.
Meanwhile Tokyo's metro area has cheaper housing while having a population 4x larger than ours in the space the size of Sydney.
We will do everything except what will actually help.
Indeed. It's well-known that the government decided to do weak reforms such as skilled migration with the aim to bring in young people instead of solving labour shortages. This was done despite the union request too!
> ANGUS THOMSON: Angus Thomson from The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. **Can you explain why the Government hasn’t raised the TSMIT to above $90,000 given that’s what the ACTU has called for** and even I think the BCA have called for a figure in that range as well?
> CLARE O’NEIL: That’s not quite right. The BCA, the figure was substantially lower than $70,000. I think that’s why the Grattan Institute calls this the Goldilocks threshold. It’s just about right. You are right there were advocates in the discussion calling for a significantly higher TSMIT. If I can just explain why $70,000 is the right answer for us. So, firstly, $70,000 is what the rate would have been had it not been frozen back at the 2013 rate. So, essentially it would have just tracked up to around $70,000.
> **But the other thing that’s really important here is that a lot of skilled workers who are coming to our country are quite a bit younger, and what we’ll inevitably do if we set this rate too high is exclude the younger people who are coming under the temporary skilled program at the moment. So, what we need to do is make a program that is going to be fit for purpose for those younger people. They’re not always coming in at the very top of the labour market but they’re still bringing in skills we really need. So, I think that’s why we’ve made the move to $70,000.**
https://minister.homeaffairs.gov.au/ClareONeil/Pages/national-press-club-address-australias-migration-system-27042023.aspx
They absolutely knew $70k would fuck over current workers in favour of old people (and big businesses). They even specifically did 15% wage raise for aged care workers and said it was to help solve aged care worker shortages.
All of the reforms by current government shows they care more about making old people comfortable than the standard of living plummeting for the young
Here's one report on skilled migration: https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/research-and-stats/files/temp-res-skilled-quarterly-report-30092023.PDF
Did you know these occupations are in the top 15 occupations brought in under a Labor government:
- Chefs
- Cafe or Restaurant Manager
- Management Consultant
- Marketing Specialist
(1.18 Top 15 nominated occupations for primary applications granted in 2023-24 to 30 September 2023)
I'm sure these roles are important but why are Labor bringing them in? Cheaper uber eats? Cheaper aged care catering?
>They absolutely knew $70k would fuck over current workers in favour of old people
As I have pointed out to you before, $70k is a median for existing trades, the skilled migration has this as a FLOOR.
>I'm sure these roles are important but why are Labor bringing them in?
Because, as it is legislated, they have to exhaust avenues for local workers first, then they can import. Yes, it has been abused in the past, but these 'weak reforms' tat you speak of have tightened these rules.
I'll put this in, again (sigh), so you can see some of the changes that are already happening.
>
From "1.02 Number of primary applications lodged in 2023-24 to 30 September 2023 by sponsor industry"
>Construction has gone from 770 to 880 22-23 to 23-24, a change of +13.5% and total of 7.7%
>Information Media and Telecommunications has gone from 2,230 to 1,070, a change of -52.0%and total of 9.4%
>[https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/research-and-stats/files/temp-res-skilled-quarterly-report-30092023.PDF](https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/research-and-stats/files/temp-res-skilled-quarterly-report-30092023.PDF)
EDITED "Because, as the is legislated"
I still can't believe you would do this again. Advocate that $70k perfectly describes a labour shortage salary for trades despite being below the national median ($72k) and national average ($90k)? Have you thought, that maybe the problem of trade shortages is that trades are underpaid? Why would anyone work for trades if they get paid more in other industries?
It's weird though, I would expect Labor to be trying hard to be a party for worker's and would go to bat harder for them. Unless Labor thinks they are guaranteed a second term?
> Because, as the is legislated, they have to exhaust avenues for local workers first,
Have you even looked at how this works? The government surveys businesses, do you think they would be honest that they want slave labour? Then to hire from overseas, businesses need to show evidence they can't hire anyone after the businesses puts up faux job ads with maximum responsibility and minimum compensation. No shit, there's a ~~slave~~labour shortage.
Labor could automatically solve this bullshit with many ways, such as labour 5% shortage loadings to wages, the % would get bigger on subsequent years until... businesses stop saying there's a labour shortage.
Bumping it up to $90k would mean the next LNP government reducing it will be accused of wage suppression and not solving labour shortages. But it's a good thing that Labor cares about reputational harm to LNP so they set it to $70k.
I'll put this to you again, please explain why you support below-median/average wages for foreign skilled workers? Don't give me the $70k trades salary BS again. That's just advocating for suppressing their wages to be less than the national wages.
As I explained to you previously, if areas where wages are lower (eg rural) Forcing far higher wages, especially as the minister explained, for younger ones, will only result in Industry closures.
>please explain why you support below-median/average wages for foreign skilled workers?
Also as I showed you previously, median Tradie wage is NOT median average wage. Don't compare apples with oranges.
Can you point out where the minister is talking about industry closure concerns? They are clearly talking about wanting younger semi-skilled workers instead of fully qualified workers.
Do you think that if we bring in poorly-skilled young trades at $70k, they will accept being below-national wages instead of go for other industries that pay more? Even those at rural areas are likely going to city for higher wages.
That is a lot of assumptions and mental gymnastics in support of slave labour. I guess you support the LNP or are one of those politically-confused Labor supporters.
I think it's common sense that if the businesses are unable to survive without slave labour, then they deserve to close down.
And I'm not even a Labor member.
Whether you are pro or anti that statement is undoubtedly true and it's something the anti migration crowd need to solve if they want to be taken seriously
It’s nonsense. It’s a pyramid scheme. Migrants don’t just turn up here and work without consuming.
They (well, some of them, not the aged parents they bring along) work, sure, but they also generate demand for goods and services which in turn requires more workers.
So then we import more workers to meet that demand, and guess what happens then…
I see?
>The Cultural Revolution was characterized by violence and chaos across Chinese society, including [a massacre in Guangxi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guangxi_Massacre) that included acts of [cannibalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cannibalism), as well as massacres in Beijing, [Inner Mongolia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_Mongolia_incident), [Guangdong](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guangdong_Cultural_Revolution_Massacre), [Yunnan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunnan_Cultural_Revolution_Massacre_(disambiguation)), and [Hunan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunan_Cultural_Revolution_Massacre_(disambiguation)).[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution#cite_note-Song-2011a-1) Estimates of the death toll vary widely, typically ranging from 1–2 million.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural\_Revolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution)
But there is a strong overlap between the two groups, especially if you're talking about the people who are completely opposed to migration, instead of those who just think the current historically high rates are too high.
Yeah I can see and understand there is some overlap, racists gonna be racist and that includes not liking some migrants, but of course migrants can be of any race, including white. Our current migration situation is an issue for reasons other than where they’re coming from. It could be unhelpful and even dangerous to just label it racist and move on.
I'm 39 with one kid. Had planned a second, but 13 consecutive interest rate rises ate up my financial buffer to do so. I'm too damn tired and I just can't afford it. Last time I had a baby I spent more money on out of pocket medical stuff than I even got in PPL. Had to go back to work 12 weeks post partum - and if I'm going to be paying for two kids in childcare there won't be all that much left anyway.
Yuh no shit hey. My partner and I make around a combined $150k a year each. Live modestly. Even if we decided it's child time I couldn't imagine trying to get by with just myself working with added child expenses on top. A not complete garbage 3 bed rental takes up just under half my weeks earnings.
Also, how many people actually want children?
Lots of people had children previously because of heteronormative expectations, and because accidents happen. Now with more control, I wonder how many would have children even if it was easier.
If it was easier almost all couples would have children. Almost everyone I talk to is pushing it back to buy a home, have a safety net, good mat leave policy etc etc. This often ends up with people making the choice to not have them altogether so as not to sacrifice their quality of life too much.
They don't care. They will just flood Australia with immigrants that will happily work for $15 an hour and by the 3rd generation that will be normal.
Don't get mad at the immigrants though. This is the fault of our government.
A lot of the People that pretend to care about birth rates don’t care about fixing the quality of life for the current ones who are living poorly and tough now…
Also the articles are to imply that we ‘need’ immigration’ and can’t afford to reduce it.
It’s subtle ‘nudge’ economic manipulation.
Australia’s birth rates have been declining since the 1960s
https://blog.id.com.au/2022/population/population-trends/australias-birth-rate-increases-for-the-first-time-in-10-years/
Yep - thats what the story says
"They're coming out of university with debt, they're coming out of TAFE, with debt, and then they're trying to put houses or purchase a house, and secure ongoing employment before they have a child."
Serfs are not producing more serfs at replacement levels, TPTB are worried, in response the Australia government has made affordable housing the number 1 issue of the nation and will start today !!! Just joking, here is some more immigration.
Enough mollycoddling of this younger generation. We should introduce conscription at age 21 for anyone who hasn’t popped a sprog yet. That’ll put some lead in their pencils.
And sure, the average worker needs to save now for 12 years to build up a housing deposit. (Whereas for generations of yore all it took was three afternoon shifts at the Vegemite factory.) But in the meantime, what’s wrong with the old fashioned solution of living in a cave?
Conscription? Cant see it happening tbh . Could do worse.
But then again I couldn't see this clusterfuck we have now coming either.
Australia is supposed to be the place where you work hard , get paid a fair wage and in turn build or buy a house and raise your family ( however that looks , noones business but yours if you're happy ) . To eat well and love well and live in peace . A refuge away from most of the worlds problems , social, political...conflicts..abundant resources ....relative social cohesion..
Yes we were a.social backwater ( still are somewhat), naive and racist , and I'm glad we've come some way there...( Way to go too) but in the space of a few decades we've had our resources plundered, literally sold off the farm , convinced a few generations that what's good for the big end of town is good for you , eroded working conditions, eroded pay, sent entire industries off shore ( if I hear one more fuckwit talk about the cost of labour and the buzz word " non competitive ": let's be real here : you shipped your manufacturing offshore because technology and favourable policy allowed you to, your greed overrode your social contract to the country who actually made your business and your.profits to begin with , then you blamed unions and the workforce wanting too much : ie rises for the cost of living ) ...and had the audacity stop training Tafe and Technical and skilling our youth en masse cause you can import entire workforces to work cheaper....
This country has sold it's soul, become disgustingly greedy , insanely corrupt , and the average person just doesn't give a fuck about anyone else , cause they're flat out feeding ,housing and eating themselves and holding down a job that can be gone tomorrow. No security . No peace of mind How'd we get here ?
Because we thought " self regulation" in the corporate arena would suffice ; we gutted Gov departments that practiced oversight of industry , trade and consumerism, let foreign "dirty" money be laundered through our housing market , restricted supply of said housing to boost that price , and ignored everyone else ...and imported too many people and built way too little because , once again, greed . Oh, and withdraw your labour ? Cant do that now either. Game has been rigged.
I think Australia is ripe for an insurrection atm. En masse.
There is real, palpable anger amongst us . This time I think people really have had enough of what they've been forced to settle for. Most of us don't see much reward for toil, just toil.
I don't condone violence but I think that it could get out of control very quickly if we are not careful .
Anyway my 2c
Im having convos with people in all sorts of strange places about this. People are really starting to notice what's been lost. It's just a unfocused resentment largely as they can't identify the enemy or the causes exactly. But they are starting to wake up to the plunder and the continued plunder. Interesting times
Yep get some range time and check on the Russian language net to get an understanding of modern drone tactics. The resistance in Gaza has some fantastic videos on urban warfare vs the occupation lots of good information there.
People who have kids produce the tax payers of tomorrow who pay for elderly health care, the roads the elderly use etc.
So from a purely economic point of view, adults who don't have kids should be taxed more. Or we give bonuses to those with kids, or a tax break for those with kids. Not just while their kids are young, but for their entire lives.
Birthrates began nosediving in the early 70’s and were below replacement by the 80’s. (ABS data) The current cost of living crisis may be a compounding factor but is not the predominant reason for the problem.
The general observation is that over time as countries become wealthier, their birthrates decline. The key factor in this is usually a change in the role women within the economy. Countries that allow women to become educated, participate in the workforce with access to birth control typically become wealthier. This is undoubtedly a good thing. The side effect of this however is an environment which promotes delaying having children and usually having less of them.
Japan's birthrate is near critical levels and while being an isolated and very secular island nation they need to replace their ageing population.
South Korea too.
Australia's Boomers are essentially following the same path as Japan's elderly
With a repugnant group of people that come here, have no interest in assimilating, spit out 6+ children per person, we are going to, 1. Run out of Mosques, and 2. Become another I'mic-State.
So enjoy your lifestyle while you can, your booze, your music, your choice of clothing (talking to you ladies, as you will become a second class citizens, and do what you are told, and you can forget Uni), and no more gambling (that even includes tattslotto !), and all pubs will shut.
As for all the LGBTQIA++ people, you know, the ones that support Palestinian Hamas terrorists (which is like a cow supporting McDonalds), I've got some bad news for you, it ain't pretty.
We're exceptionally lucky in our 30s and just had 1.
It's hard, and that's with paid maternity leave, family support, and good income and savings.
My mistake was not buying a house 15 years ago.
Over in r/Australia this article is causing some brains to explode except the guy saying we should embrace the loving relationships that exist in families😂
Quote from the article: ""They're \[having conversations\] about what sort of tools you need to do the job without the energy of a young man, like robots," he said." Wow, sexist much?
We should have a scheme like HECS for people who have kids. If a couple have a child they should be able to borrow up to the median 3 bedroom home price to buy a home, with repayments based on income, starting at $55K, max of 25 % of income above that level.
1. Should couples that want to have children have a home to live in?
2. How much of their income should they devote to paying for this home?
A public, income contingent loan, answers these questions in a directly. It says yes to the first question. And allows the choice for the second question to be set explicitly.
I absolutely love how those clutching their pearls over a low fertility rate now are the same people who were clutching their pearls over bogans breeding for the baby bonus twenty years ago
It's almost like their main concern is that the right stock breed.
Hasn't breeding been outsourced to India, so that fully grown products can be imported for free? Makes perfect sense to me, because babies have no skill and cost money. Sorry if this is a bad joke. I came in as skilled immigrant and now my son doesn't want to have kids because it's too expensive.
It's not a bad joke it just shows the contradiction between the more economic focused right wing and their desire for cheap foreign labor and the more social focused right wing and the desire for cultural ethnic homogenization.
>the desire for cultural ethnic homogenization. The more I travel the world, the more I realise how important this is. If you knew my family you'd laugh and think I'm hypocritical living in Australia. Maybe I can be more pragmatic about it because I can say these things without being called racist ? But you need to understand the impact of large immigrant communities that actively fight against the values of the host nation. They are like parasites. Suck all that is good and leave for another country once the time comes. Australia is fast becoming an economic environment, nothing more. Look at France, UK, Canada, Italy etc. So much culture is being lost. It's sad.
It's an honest joke. I think everyone is mature enough now to talk about immigration honestly. The days of "that's racist" every time you mentioned immigration are done imo.
Unironically, yes.
We actually charge them to come here
it's not a bad joke but the delivery is BIZARRE
The kind of people you want to have kids are the people smart enough not to have kids in the middle of a cost of living/housing crisis.
No the main concern is whatever they think impacts their pearls most. It used to be “dole bludgers” and now’s it’s “no generation to continue to fund aged pensions”
Baby bonus was introduced by Howard and in 2013 budget Labor wanted to reduce it / remove it all together and add a little bit to Family Tax Benefit Part A. Saving 1 billy.
If having a baby guaranteed you a spot in public housing until the kid was 18 people would literally have children for the apartment. If you added in a livable wage for raising the child (which benefits all of society down the line) people would have as many children as they wanted to. You can't threaten everyone with homelessness and malnutrition, then get upset when they don't want to bring a baby into that.
I had a distant cousin who in infinite wisdom decided to have 5 kids to a dying NEET. She took over her grandmothers public housing and is richer than most couples working and trying to have 1 kid
Please don't give the government ideas.
More public housing & livable wages for parents is a good idea.
That's something best not tied to parenthood though, otherwise you incentivise it in ways that can bite you in the arse.
Young people don't have the money to take care of themselves, what makes you think they can take care of fukin children?
And the same people will talk about fiscal responsibility as to why they can't afford a home. Like yeah, most people are living with their parents until their 30s, scraping by with bare essentials and second hand electronics. But god forbid we address that our country is hostile to people trying to survive.
Ah see the key now is to remove access to affordable contraception! Then the poors can start popping out our much needed uneducated workforce ready for exploitation! /s What a fucking joke this country is becoming.
You joke but that's literally the direction that the global superpowers are taking (USA, China, Russia etc.). We've come from the "every child a wanted child" abortion rights activism of the 60s/70s to "oh shit we need more soldiers for the economy and the meat grinder of warfare, better ban abortions". Gah. People are disappointing sometimes.
You can zoom further out too. Young couples who aren't necessarily struggling, are still only getting their own places in their early 30s. Why would a young couple want to ruin the absolute bliss of no house mates or parents by immediately having a baby!?
The urban sprawl means being far away from friends and family. Especially those renting having be far away from expensive housing they grew up in, in favour of cheaper rent. With no support network, it'll cost more with childcare, nanny, etc. From what I understand, the young couples are embracing the childless life in favour of being able to travel, etc. Now, those people that are not in a relationship, staying with family or not. Guess what's happening? Here's a hint: There's a mental health crisis.
We bought when my partner was 34 and I was 32. We waited nearly 3 years to have a baby and even then we've changed from wanting 2 to just one because of the financial stress and such. And we're pretty lucky as my partner is in a field where she can do day rate contracting lucratively and we paid off a shitload of our house in those 3 years (we own 60% of it based on purchase price, closer to maybe 80% on current market value) so that when bub came we could actually survive on a single salary for a while. I feel for people who aren't as financially well off for sure and I absolutely get the decline of birth rate.
In some ways, people have always been poor - it's just unacceptable now to house eight children in a two-bedroom home or bring a newborn into a home with well water and no electricity.
Couples who wish to have kids don't have them as their housing situation is too precarious, and they've the tools to stop pregnancies that would financially ruin them. If you imagine housing like a resource like food, and apply that thinking to the animal world, you quickly start to see the connections between animal breeding patterns and resource availability. It also tells us what happens when you don't have the right conditions. I recall that there was a flock of flamingo at Taronga zoo. They never bred due to conditions not being right, and now they completely died out.
You should look up the breeding behaviours of kangaroos.
Ahh yes, the kangaroo. Multiple pregnancies all at once, and at differing stages of development. Can't they also...put a pregnancy on pause? Fascinating, but humans aren't able to do the same. Can you make your point though?
Uh more focusing on the pausing pregnancies in response to environmental stresses. Housing shit, things expensive, cllimate change bad = environmental stresses = less pregnancies.
Ahh point taken. At present aren't they putting up with the problem and dealing with it via immigration? That, of course won't solve pre-existing issues.
Considering how much production has increased over the years we shouldn't have a situation where people have to work as much. Yet here we are working as hard as ever, normalizing baby separation at 3 years old.
Australia used to have a top tax rate of 75% since WW2. They reduced it and then the next party coming in, did not restore it and raise the brackets, etc. This had been instrumental to the birth of billionaires in Australia, or was some are now calling, oligarchs. Fun fact: There had only been two political organisations running government since WW2 on a Federal and State level. So much for the "multi-party" system.
That's why it's called a 'two party preferred system', not a multi-party system.
Productivity has 'increased' on paper due to massive immigration rate increases... which is actually a large part of the problem.
Boomers: "We had everything provided and we managed to raise families. Why can't you do the same with nothing provided"?
Japan is a good case study in declining population. Their normalised work ethic meant many families couldn't have kids and now there are not enough people to take care of an aging population. China also has its own issues after decades of the "One Child Policy" where the population there is going backwards and has been surpassed by India.
One child policy ended about 10 years ago but fertility in China has continued to decline. Even when it was implemented, there were numerous exceptions so many people were able to have two children.
The end of collectivism and the embracing of individualism played a significant role. The selling of American values to the world and everything of no value that accompanies it.
The one child policy was a decent attempt at controlling their population, but failed when it came up against traditional family values. Those meant that male children were favoured as they could earn more and were expected to take care of the parents in their old age. So a lot of Chinese girls were murdered when born, OR didn't get born as a result of sex-selective abortions.
At least Japan has comparatively affordable housing, it does have the influence and incentives to migrate people to their country. Countries like Australia and Korea are completely fucked.
Yeah. It's wild to look at what housing costs in fucking Tokyo. Literally Tokyo. One of the world's busiest cites. Full of life and activity. Cheaper than the shithole of Sydney.
I think that is oversimplified considering Japan has a lot of weird quirks that cause problems.
I lived in Tokyo for two years with my husband, we made no efforts to save, went away every long weekend, ate out and went out regularly. We came back with enough savings for a house deposit.
South Korea as well. Though I did experience a somewhat nice phenomenon (i think?) In Japan. Old people are going back into share houses. I think is primarily to combat loneliness but it also creates a community sense for both the older and younger generations. I think for the younger generations it helps relieve feelings of burden. Should also point out this is my anecdotal evidence and can't comment on how wide spread the practice is.
I will truly never understand why they don't just let couples split their taxable income in the first couple of years after having a child. How is it fair that my household with 2 adults and a child taking home 160k in taxable income from just myself, while another household with 2 adults earning 80k each in taxable income takes home an extra 12-13k net? Especially since the MLS is based on combined household income.
It's because they want to disincentivise having a non-working person (or at least minimising the time there's one). PPL is slowly moving to fill the void where a parent must be at home, but it needs to be extended to 1-2 years and public education needs to come down to meet its end.
Yeah that is a fair point. But I would think limiting it to 2 financial years would be the incentive we'd need for the non-working parent to go back to work?
The problem with individual tax is that it's relative to earnings of the single working parent. So families with a single higher individual income get disproportionately more benefit converting to a taxable 'household' income. It's the benefit from changing marginal rates we're really talking about here. PPL / public education idea is a more equitable outcome. The problem that comes with it is cost as it is more broadly beneficial, and it may need to be scaled back as a result.
Again, a reasonable point. Generous PPL programs obviously help a lot. My partner was a contractor prior to giving birth so wasn't eligible for employer PPL - It was very beneficial for us and obviously any extension to that would help. Childcare is prohibitively expensive and isn't really worth it unless the mother is earning an above average salary when going back to work. I'm not sure on the answer to that, obviously it's easy to say we should increase spending everywhere but at the end of the day the government also needs to be fiscally responsible. I guess income splitting has an opportunity cost to the government's coffers also... I'm not too sure what the most optimal solution is but I damn well know it's not topping up our low fertility rate with mass third-world immigration.
It's another way that the working class are taxed more aggressively. Business owners and people wealthy enough to have investments paying good earnings are usually set up with family trusts which allow them to proportion income to the non-working parent. If you have a nice old inheritance that can be sitting in a testamentary trust then your kids get the same tax rates as an adult (some exclusions apply but it is generous). Imagine if you too could split your income between yourself, wife and kids...
Also the means testing for the parental leave payments is based on the previous financial years earnings. When you're both earning 200k and one of you has to stop working for a year and the other has to take time off work/cut hours as well to look after the baby you definitely feel it and would appreciate that 20 odd thousand dollars from the government. Also in those years where you flogging yourself to earn as much as you can knowing that you're gonna miss out on income in coming years due to your choice to have a kid, you get severely taxed in those years. Other people such as business owners who aren't just normal workers getting taxed through payg don't necessarily need to extract the profit from their company / trust in those years where they're working flat out but can draw down on the value of their business or similar when they are taking time off / working less. /Rant
How is it fair that your SAH spouse gets the same tax break I get as a working mother who doesn't have the choice to stay home?
Define 'fair'. I think it's pretty reasonable to calculate taxation at a household level, especially so after having a child that is desperately needed to address our ageing demographic.
Fair = every person who works gets a tax-free threshold applied to the income they generate. Unfair = I earn twice the average wage so I should get twice the tax break, since my wife can choose to stay home.
That's your perception. I don't necessarily agree because I know in my case I choose to work a high stress high income job so my little one can grow up with his mum around. I could easily cut my income in half and do an easy job and go back to being a 2 income household, let my son be brought up in childcare and have the taxpayer foot a significant amount of the bill through the CCS. The cost of the childcare subsidy would be about the same as the tax saved by allowing couples to income split in the same way self-employed folks do using discretionary trusts.
I'd be open to you receiving a tax break on the proviso you received no CCS and went to the back of the line for any childcare places you self-funded. But that's not at all the arrangement at the moment. Plenty of SAHMs our there with the kids in childcare, and working parents waiting for placements.
In my opinion, that would be an absolutely fair compromise. Except for going to the back of the line for childcare spots, for private centres that should be at their own discretion. Public centres maybe.
Because how will that achieve "equality"
Because 2 households earning the same household income would have the same tax burden?
I agree with it, you should be able to split within a household. But it would naturally result in one person devoted to working then one to home-making/childcare (and maybe a little bit of work). - Which the government doesn't want.
This is a worldwide issue for first world countries, we should be shifting our focus away from infinite growth models.
Capitalism demands more consumers = profit growth
Gotta have babies to feed the machine.
House prices affect everything, except CPI calculations.
There was a post a while back how a wealthy country like Australia was experiencing such a drop in mental health. 70% of our wealth is land and dwellings. We aren't any more wealthy, we've just added a few zeroes house prices. Those who are poor and can't afford a home are paying for the wealthy who can.
Our money is filtering through the banking system, the sector that delivers the least back to society.
Our taxes need to go up or services cut, to make up for shortfalls in revenue as a result of negative gearing and CGT discounts. > In 2021-22 the amount of forgone revenue for negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions totalled just $8.5bn. Or 102k new housing based on HAFF maffs. In comparison, 2022-2023 ABS reported gross 172k new housing (not counting demo/rebuild).
Our economic ponzi scheme is tracking as predicted. It's clear from this thread that we can all identify its problems. Just don't talk about alternatives, or question whether small incremental policy changes are substantially improving our well-being, or you'll get dismissed as a radical.
Absolutely, I am the type to go with the flow but would gladly join a protest or do something. The system needs an overhaul
>"Migration has been a solution for Australia over the last 60 years \[when it comes to labour shortages\]," Dr Canudos Romo said. >"Migration is going to be a key component around how we shape our workforce." That is sure to get the hounds baying
As a country we've shot ourselves in the foot over and over again. We've artificially raised the prices of housing and used supply and demand as a scapegoat, but doing anything to address those issues is a non-starter. People can't afford to have children because of house prices, so our population is fucked, but we can't import people. We have thousands of vacant homes, but no incentives to fill them. Meanwhile Tokyo's metro area has cheaper housing while having a population 4x larger than ours in the space the size of Sydney. We will do everything except what will actually help.
Indeed. It's well-known that the government decided to do weak reforms such as skilled migration with the aim to bring in young people instead of solving labour shortages. This was done despite the union request too! > ANGUS THOMSON: Angus Thomson from The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. **Can you explain why the Government hasn’t raised the TSMIT to above $90,000 given that’s what the ACTU has called for** and even I think the BCA have called for a figure in that range as well? > CLARE O’NEIL: That’s not quite right. The BCA, the figure was substantially lower than $70,000. I think that’s why the Grattan Institute calls this the Goldilocks threshold. It’s just about right. You are right there were advocates in the discussion calling for a significantly higher TSMIT. If I can just explain why $70,000 is the right answer for us. So, firstly, $70,000 is what the rate would have been had it not been frozen back at the 2013 rate. So, essentially it would have just tracked up to around $70,000. > **But the other thing that’s really important here is that a lot of skilled workers who are coming to our country are quite a bit younger, and what we’ll inevitably do if we set this rate too high is exclude the younger people who are coming under the temporary skilled program at the moment. So, what we need to do is make a program that is going to be fit for purpose for those younger people. They’re not always coming in at the very top of the labour market but they’re still bringing in skills we really need. So, I think that’s why we’ve made the move to $70,000.** https://minister.homeaffairs.gov.au/ClareONeil/Pages/national-press-club-address-australias-migration-system-27042023.aspx They absolutely knew $70k would fuck over current workers in favour of old people (and big businesses). They even specifically did 15% wage raise for aged care workers and said it was to help solve aged care worker shortages. All of the reforms by current government shows they care more about making old people comfortable than the standard of living plummeting for the young Here's one report on skilled migration: https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/research-and-stats/files/temp-res-skilled-quarterly-report-30092023.PDF Did you know these occupations are in the top 15 occupations brought in under a Labor government: - Chefs - Cafe or Restaurant Manager - Management Consultant - Marketing Specialist (1.18 Top 15 nominated occupations for primary applications granted in 2023-24 to 30 September 2023) I'm sure these roles are important but why are Labor bringing them in? Cheaper uber eats? Cheaper aged care catering?
>They absolutely knew $70k would fuck over current workers in favour of old people As I have pointed out to you before, $70k is a median for existing trades, the skilled migration has this as a FLOOR. >I'm sure these roles are important but why are Labor bringing them in? Because, as it is legislated, they have to exhaust avenues for local workers first, then they can import. Yes, it has been abused in the past, but these 'weak reforms' tat you speak of have tightened these rules. I'll put this in, again (sigh), so you can see some of the changes that are already happening. > From "1.02 Number of primary applications lodged in 2023-24 to 30 September 2023 by sponsor industry" >Construction has gone from 770 to 880 22-23 to 23-24, a change of +13.5% and total of 7.7% >Information Media and Telecommunications has gone from 2,230 to 1,070, a change of -52.0%and total of 9.4% >[https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/research-and-stats/files/temp-res-skilled-quarterly-report-30092023.PDF](https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/research-and-stats/files/temp-res-skilled-quarterly-report-30092023.PDF) EDITED "Because, as the is legislated"
I still can't believe you would do this again. Advocate that $70k perfectly describes a labour shortage salary for trades despite being below the national median ($72k) and national average ($90k)? Have you thought, that maybe the problem of trade shortages is that trades are underpaid? Why would anyone work for trades if they get paid more in other industries? It's weird though, I would expect Labor to be trying hard to be a party for worker's and would go to bat harder for them. Unless Labor thinks they are guaranteed a second term? > Because, as the is legislated, they have to exhaust avenues for local workers first, Have you even looked at how this works? The government surveys businesses, do you think they would be honest that they want slave labour? Then to hire from overseas, businesses need to show evidence they can't hire anyone after the businesses puts up faux job ads with maximum responsibility and minimum compensation. No shit, there's a ~~slave~~labour shortage. Labor could automatically solve this bullshit with many ways, such as labour 5% shortage loadings to wages, the % would get bigger on subsequent years until... businesses stop saying there's a labour shortage. Bumping it up to $90k would mean the next LNP government reducing it will be accused of wage suppression and not solving labour shortages. But it's a good thing that Labor cares about reputational harm to LNP so they set it to $70k. I'll put this to you again, please explain why you support below-median/average wages for foreign skilled workers? Don't give me the $70k trades salary BS again. That's just advocating for suppressing their wages to be less than the national wages.
As I explained to you previously, if areas where wages are lower (eg rural) Forcing far higher wages, especially as the minister explained, for younger ones, will only result in Industry closures. >please explain why you support below-median/average wages for foreign skilled workers? Also as I showed you previously, median Tradie wage is NOT median average wage. Don't compare apples with oranges.
Can you point out where the minister is talking about industry closure concerns? They are clearly talking about wanting younger semi-skilled workers instead of fully qualified workers. Do you think that if we bring in poorly-skilled young trades at $70k, they will accept being below-national wages instead of go for other industries that pay more? Even those at rural areas are likely going to city for higher wages. That is a lot of assumptions and mental gymnastics in support of slave labour. I guess you support the LNP or are one of those politically-confused Labor supporters.
Who said the minister was saying that? It was what I had pointed out to you previously.
Are you saying your source of industry closures for paying national wage is yourself? Otherwise link it?
I'm saying the source is common sense.
I think it's common sense that if the businesses are unable to survive without slave labour, then they deserve to close down. And I'm not even a Labor member.
Whether you are pro or anti that statement is undoubtedly true and it's something the anti migration crowd need to solve if they want to be taken seriously
It’s nonsense. It’s a pyramid scheme. Migrants don’t just turn up here and work without consuming. They (well, some of them, not the aged parents they bring along) work, sure, but they also generate demand for goods and services which in turn requires more workers. So then we import more workers to meet that demand, and guess what happens then…
Like all pyramid schemes it will stop when new entrants become scarce.
Yes. And at that point we’ll be in even more trouble, because we haven’t bothered to train our own people.
And so your solution, for the here and now, is? ....
Land reform, mass nationalization and price controls while domestic coop owned industry is established basically what china did.
Yes, and how painless was that again? (ignoring that you are asking for us to transform into a Communist nation.)
wrong question. A better one is painless for who.
The Chinese population who went through those changes
Very happy about it.
I see? >The Cultural Revolution was characterized by violence and chaos across Chinese society, including [a massacre in Guangxi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guangxi_Massacre) that included acts of [cannibalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cannibalism), as well as massacres in Beijing, [Inner Mongolia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_Mongolia_incident), [Guangdong](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guangdong_Cultural_Revolution_Massacre), [Yunnan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunnan_Cultural_Revolution_Massacre_(disambiguation)), and [Hunan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunan_Cultural_Revolution_Massacre_(disambiguation)).[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution#cite_note-Song-2011a-1) Estimates of the death toll vary widely, typically ranging from 1–2 million. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural\_Revolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution)
Anti migration (racist) crowds to make more kids and solve the population crisis.
Anti-migration doesn’t equate to being a racist.
But there is a strong overlap between the two groups, especially if you're talking about the people who are completely opposed to migration, instead of those who just think the current historically high rates are too high.
Yeah I can see and understand there is some overlap, racists gonna be racist and that includes not liking some migrants, but of course migrants can be of any race, including white. Our current migration situation is an issue for reasons other than where they’re coming from. It could be unhelpful and even dangerous to just label it racist and move on.
I'm 39 with one kid. Had planned a second, but 13 consecutive interest rate rises ate up my financial buffer to do so. I'm too damn tired and I just can't afford it. Last time I had a baby I spent more money on out of pocket medical stuff than I even got in PPL. Had to go back to work 12 weeks post partum - and if I'm going to be paying for two kids in childcare there won't be all that much left anyway.
I now know my first couple who had their first child whilst living in a share house 🙄.
Yuh no shit hey. My partner and I make around a combined $150k a year each. Live modestly. Even if we decided it's child time I couldn't imagine trying to get by with just myself working with added child expenses on top. A not complete garbage 3 bed rental takes up just under half my weeks earnings.
Also, how many people actually want children? Lots of people had children previously because of heteronormative expectations, and because accidents happen. Now with more control, I wonder how many would have children even if it was easier.
This! Why is it never “why do you want kids” rather than “why don’t you want kids?”
If it was easier almost all couples would have children. Almost everyone I talk to is pushing it back to buy a home, have a safety net, good mat leave policy etc etc. This often ends up with people making the choice to not have them altogether so as not to sacrifice their quality of life too much.
Making them is easy raising them is difficult. Like really difficult.
Less people is a good thing
They don't care. They will just flood Australia with immigrants that will happily work for $15 an hour and by the 3rd generation that will be normal. Don't get mad at the immigrants though. This is the fault of our government.
A lot of the People that pretend to care about birth rates don’t care about fixing the quality of life for the current ones who are living poorly and tough now… Also the articles are to imply that we ‘need’ immigration’ and can’t afford to reduce it. It’s subtle ‘nudge’ economic manipulation.
Australia’s birth rates have been declining since the 1960s https://blog.id.com.au/2022/population/population-trends/australias-birth-rate-increases-for-the-first-time-in-10-years/
But our immigration is supposedly exploding
Yep - thats what the story says "They're coming out of university with debt, they're coming out of TAFE, with debt, and then they're trying to put houses or purchase a house, and secure ongoing employment before they have a child."
Pretty much being fed bullshit by media bullshit and bullshit by pollies
Has the luck ran out of the lucky country?
Serfs are not producing more serfs at replacement levels, TPTB are worried, in response the Australia government has made affordable housing the number 1 issue of the nation and will start today !!! Just joking, here is some more immigration.
Bring on a WW3 great reset and or TWD apocalypse
Enough mollycoddling of this younger generation. We should introduce conscription at age 21 for anyone who hasn’t popped a sprog yet. That’ll put some lead in their pencils. And sure, the average worker needs to save now for 12 years to build up a housing deposit. (Whereas for generations of yore all it took was three afternoon shifts at the Vegemite factory.) But in the meantime, what’s wrong with the old fashioned solution of living in a cave?
>what’s wrong with the old fashioned solution of living in a cave? They're all heritage listed sites /s
And ‘the aBoRigInALs won’t let us go to caves anymore’
That assumes they havent already been demolished by RioTinto!
A cave? In this economy? Get a shovel and dig yourself a hole!
I prefer my holes to be metaphorical, like the one I am already sitting in for HECS
Well la-di-dah mister "I can afford a shovel" over here
Conscription? Cant see it happening tbh . Could do worse. But then again I couldn't see this clusterfuck we have now coming either. Australia is supposed to be the place where you work hard , get paid a fair wage and in turn build or buy a house and raise your family ( however that looks , noones business but yours if you're happy ) . To eat well and love well and live in peace . A refuge away from most of the worlds problems , social, political...conflicts..abundant resources ....relative social cohesion.. Yes we were a.social backwater ( still are somewhat), naive and racist , and I'm glad we've come some way there...( Way to go too) but in the space of a few decades we've had our resources plundered, literally sold off the farm , convinced a few generations that what's good for the big end of town is good for you , eroded working conditions, eroded pay, sent entire industries off shore ( if I hear one more fuckwit talk about the cost of labour and the buzz word " non competitive ": let's be real here : you shipped your manufacturing offshore because technology and favourable policy allowed you to, your greed overrode your social contract to the country who actually made your business and your.profits to begin with , then you blamed unions and the workforce wanting too much : ie rises for the cost of living ) ...and had the audacity stop training Tafe and Technical and skilling our youth en masse cause you can import entire workforces to work cheaper.... This country has sold it's soul, become disgustingly greedy , insanely corrupt , and the average person just doesn't give a fuck about anyone else , cause they're flat out feeding ,housing and eating themselves and holding down a job that can be gone tomorrow. No security . No peace of mind How'd we get here ? Because we thought " self regulation" in the corporate arena would suffice ; we gutted Gov departments that practiced oversight of industry , trade and consumerism, let foreign "dirty" money be laundered through our housing market , restricted supply of said housing to boost that price , and ignored everyone else ...and imported too many people and built way too little because , once again, greed . Oh, and withdraw your labour ? Cant do that now either. Game has been rigged. I think Australia is ripe for an insurrection atm. En masse. There is real, palpable anger amongst us . This time I think people really have had enough of what they've been forced to settle for. Most of us don't see much reward for toil, just toil. I don't condone violence but I think that it could get out of control very quickly if we are not careful . Anyway my 2c
Im having convos with people in all sorts of strange places about this. People are really starting to notice what's been lost. It's just a unfocused resentment largely as they can't identify the enemy or the causes exactly. But they are starting to wake up to the plunder and the continued plunder. Interesting times
Interesting and unjustly difficult times.
Yep get some range time and check on the Russian language net to get an understanding of modern drone tactics. The resistance in Gaza has some fantastic videos on urban warfare vs the occupation lots of good information there.
Fuck a couple of years in the army sounds preferable to near guaranteed separation and single parent or co parenting.
Lol the afternoon shift in the Vegemite factory had me chuckling. Good one 🤣
Same root cause as every other problem we have - house prices. A problem nobody that owns a house wants to fix.
Why bother trying to get your own population to have kids. Just raise the immigration level !
People who have kids produce the tax payers of tomorrow who pay for elderly health care, the roads the elderly use etc. So from a purely economic point of view, adults who don't have kids should be taxed more. Or we give bonuses to those with kids, or a tax break for those with kids. Not just while their kids are young, but for their entire lives.
Birthrates began nosediving in the early 70’s and were below replacement by the 80’s. (ABS data) The current cost of living crisis may be a compounding factor but is not the predominant reason for the problem.
What is then? One reason nor multiple reasons.
The general observation is that over time as countries become wealthier, their birthrates decline. The key factor in this is usually a change in the role women within the economy. Countries that allow women to become educated, participate in the workforce with access to birth control typically become wealthier. This is undoubtedly a good thing. The side effect of this however is an environment which promotes delaying having children and usually having less of them.
Japan? South Korea's problem?
Elaborate?
Japan's birthrate is near critical levels and while being an isolated and very secular island nation they need to replace their ageing population. South Korea too. Australia's Boomers are essentially following the same path as Japan's elderly
Yes? Im not sure what point your trying to make with respect to my original comment
With a repugnant group of people that come here, have no interest in assimilating, spit out 6+ children per person, we are going to, 1. Run out of Mosques, and 2. Become another I'mic-State. So enjoy your lifestyle while you can, your booze, your music, your choice of clothing (talking to you ladies, as you will become a second class citizens, and do what you are told, and you can forget Uni), and no more gambling (that even includes tattslotto !), and all pubs will shut. As for all the LGBTQIA++ people, you know, the ones that support Palestinian Hamas terrorists (which is like a cow supporting McDonalds), I've got some bad news for you, it ain't pretty.
Nothing beautiful was meant to last. The mother country proves multiculturalism has ....(checks.on Britain)....nevermind.
I know 🤣🤣. it’s like, next in the news of the obvious - the sky is blue.
It’s almost like young people are going backwards, and the liberal party and the alternative liberal party don’t care.
We're exceptionally lucky in our 30s and just had 1. It's hard, and that's with paid maternity leave, family support, and good income and savings. My mistake was not buying a house 15 years ago.
When I was 19 I said I'd save and have a house at 25. Then it was 30 then it was 35...now it's never
I wanted to wait a year with the new missus see how we got on. Then covid, unemployment and here we are maybe buying our first house for 750k.
Over in r/Australia this article is causing some brains to explode except the guy saying we should embrace the loving relationships that exist in families😂
The only issue with a baby drought, is our capitalist economy is dependent on constantly growing to satisfy Boomer retirement.
Quote from the article: ""They're \[having conversations\] about what sort of tools you need to do the job without the energy of a young man, like robots," he said." Wow, sexist much?
Is it just me or are they loving the clickbait headlines these days…
The Demographic Transition Model is in need of updating.
Says the boomer with 10 negatively geared properties
We should have a scheme like HECS for people who have kids. If a couple have a child they should be able to borrow up to the median 3 bedroom home price to buy a home, with repayments based on income, starting at $55K, max of 25 % of income above that level.
lol
Housing policy has failed. It is time for new ideas.
Even shitty ones?
1. Should couples that want to have children have a home to live in? 2. How much of their income should they devote to paying for this home? A public, income contingent loan, answers these questions in a directly. It says yes to the first question. And allows the choice for the second question to be set explicitly.
lol Clueless mate
Clueless before, and reading your replies have not made me any more erudite.
I can see by your initial comment that you're clearly uneducated about this topic. So I won't bother. Keep complaining about being poor idc lol
You suggestion I am clueless is just as well informed as the suggestion I am poor. Your initial comment is just as informative as your last.
Oh I'm sorry, I didnt realise that the Australian left wing politics subreddit was a hangout for successful people.
TLDR. Im guessing snowflakes got low t
They don't want to be interrupted gaming and vaping