Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
Anyone on minimum wage can afford to buy or rent a home in Australia
Topic Started: 29 Jan 2013, 03:53 PM (22,054 Views)
Frank Castle
Member Avatar
Business As Usual

Ex BP Golly
31 Jan 2013, 10:58 AM
Recieving rent assistance and a top up from the relos then.


Yes, but he is a old aged pensioner deserving it vs some single mum, disability pension rorter or doley who are capable of earning themselves.
He wants to remain independent instead of being stuck in some shitty govt. housing
And you would deny him this? :dry:
Quote:
 
All these hand outs you live on,

I hardly call approx $100 a week (difference between outgoings and rent) from a single property "living on"
Quote:
 
one step removed- welfare recipient by proxy.

and aren't they lucky that there are private and NRAS LL's prepared to take them on when the govt is not or has not the facilities.

We deserves a fken medal I tell ya. :tu:
Edited by Frank Castle, 31 Jan 2013, 12:05 PM.
Ignore posts by The Whole Truth · View Post · End Ignoring
The forum fuckwit goes RRRAAARRRGGHHhhh - But not a fuck was given..................by anyone.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Ex BP Golly
Member Avatar


Frank Castle
31 Jan 2013, 12:03 PM


We deserves a fken medal I tell ya. :tu:
Posted Image

Applauding all home owners for their selfless sacrifices and goods works for others.
You deserve a medal.
Edited by Ex BP Golly, 31 Jan 2013, 01:35 PM.
WHAT WOULD EDDIE DO? MAAAATE!
Share a cot with Milton?
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
mattly
Default APF Avatar

Good thread. People make excuses because they do not want to make sacrifices. For some it is easier to wine than actually try to change something in their lives (for instance, to find a higher paying job). But also many people just have terrible Infosaving skills and money management in general. Thus, it does not matter how much they make-they remain broke.
Mattly is an enthusiast of Australian property and making money through investments
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Admin
Member Avatar
Administrator

Quote:
 
Time to scrap the minimum wage?

Alexander Philipatos
Published 4:40 PM, 28 Feb 2013

As the saying goes, you reap what you sow. For the government, this applies to yet another well-intentioned but poorly thought out policy.

In an effort to wean the long-term unemployed back into work, the government introduced subsidies to entice businesses to hire workers who have been unemployed for more than two years and have little to no recent work experience.

The government set aside $85 million from the 2011-12 Budget to pay for the program over four years. Unfortunately, the program has been so overwhelmed with businesses looking to cash in that the government was forced to put it on hold until July 1. Meanwhile, the long-term unemployed are deprived of valuable job prospects.

The wage subsidy program, dubbed Wage Connect, subsidises employers to the tune of $5,900 per employee over six months to assist with the cost of training. This averages to roughly $230 per week, roughly equivalent to Newstart Allowance.

The original program provided subsidies for 35,000 job seekers over four years. However, according to National Welfare Rights Network president, Maree O'Halloran, ‘By August 2012 the number of very long-term unemployed had grown [since May 2011] by 23,000 to 253,000.’ The program simply has not been able to cope with the rising level of long-term unemployed.

The wage subsidy program has laudable objectives. It works for both employers and employees. The long-term unemployed find increased employment opportunities, and the employers’ costs are reduced.

But the taxpayer rather than the job seeker is footing the cost of training. Moreover, it was entirely foreseeable that a program like this would burn a hole through its budget.

There is a better way to get the long-term unemployed back into work and with no impact on the government’s budget. Instead of offering subsidies, the government could allow businesses a six-month exemption from the minimum award wage.

It increases the job prospects of the long-term unemployed and would give businesses the incentive to hire long-term unemployed, and reduce the cost of training so that job seekers finally obtain work and training.

The program could be designed along the same lines as Wage Connect. Job seekers must be unemployed and on income support payments for two or more years; be registered with an Australian Government employment services provider; and have little to no recent work experience.

After six months, the employee’s wage would go up to the minimum wage or an agreed-upon market rate. It is important that employees are not sacked after six months while the employer fills the position with another worker. This could be monitored by the employment services provider that the job seekers are already paired with.

In any case, such unscrupulous behaviour is costly and counterproductive. If employers were to go through employees every six months, they would face massive training costs, not to mention gaining a poor reputation.

A minimum wage exemption has two advantages over wage subsidies.

First, the program adds not one cent to government spending. On the contrary, it should reduce spending, since job seekers employed under the program come off welfare.

Second, there are equity advantages. The current wage subsidy program offers 35,000 places over four years – 8,750 per year. Great for those lucky enough to be recruited, tough luck for everyone else. A minimum wage exemption on the other hand does not require a budget; hence, the number of recruits is unlimited. So long as employers are willing, job seekers will be hired.

Critics might argue that a minimum wage exemption might incentivise business to hire the long-term unemployed, but reduce the incentive for the unemployed to accept the job. Is this a legitimate criticism?

A full-time minimum wage job pays $606.40 a week. Allowing employers to hire for less than the minimum wage would mean that employers would be offering a weekly wage lower than $606.40, perhaps only $400.

The prospect of a job paying $400 per week is clearly less enticing than one paying $600, but it is still far better than the $246.30 a week Newstart Allowance – with the added prospect of earning higher wages in a few months. Furthermore, Newstart payments will not cut off completely. Payments taper off as the job seeker begins working, so they will still be drawing a smaller proportion of their payment until their income rises to a sufficient level.

The reduced incentive argument holds little water because it still pays for the job seeker to be employed. The options for the long-term unemployed are few; the trick is to give incentives to prospective employers.

A minimum wage exemption is a fiscally responsible and fair alternative to wage subsidies – a no-brainer for a government struggling to produce a budget surplus before an election.

Alexander Philipatos is a policy analyst at The Centre for Independent Studies.

Read more: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/minimum-wage-exemptions-jobs-unemployment-pd20130226-5A56N
Follow OzPropertyForum on Twitter | Like APF on Facebook | Circle APF on Google+
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Admin
Member Avatar
Administrator

Quote:
 
Report on workers and housing stress released

Mar 12, 2013
joelpringle

A fulltime salary is not enough to guarantee affordable housing, according to a report released by Australians for Affordable Housing today. The report, launched by ACTU President Ged Kearney, shows that the housing crisis is hitting working Australians who traditionally would be looking at home ownership.

“Home-ownership rates have dropped, and first home-buyer numbers are in decline. This is no surprise, when people who are working can’t afford somewhere to live without going into housing stress.” said Joel Pringle, Campaign Manager for Australians for Affordable Housing.

Defaulting on the Australian dream

“This report shows that for some workers, they would have to spend more than half their income either paying rent or the average first home loan in their area. Child care workers, cleaners and hairdressers, in particular, are likely to be spending more than half their income to pay housing costs in their capital city.”

“What’s happening to the Australian dream? This report confirms the need for affordable housing close to jobs.”

ACTU President Ged Kearney said that while the report focussed mainly on full-time earnings, hundreds of thousands of workers faced further hurdles to entering the housing market because of insecure work.

“Job insecurity naturally leads to income insecurity, and without a reliable income, people are unable to save to put down a deposit on a house,” Ms Kearney said.

“A common refrain we have heard from casual workers in particular is that banks simply will not give them a home loan because they do not have a secure income.

“This is creating a trap for a generation of Australian workers who are unable to build their life by purchasing a house.

“With about 40% of the workforce in casual, labour hire, short-term contracts and other forms of insecure work, this is the beginning of a social and economic crisis that will be discussed at the National Community Summit on creating secure jobs and a better society that the ACTU is hosting in Canberra tomorrow and Thursday.

“Unions commend Australians for Affordable Housing for putting together this report, and endorse its recommendations, particularly those which concern improving housing affordability through tax reform.”

Australians for Affordable Housing is a coalition of national housing, welfare and community sector organisations to highlight the problem of housing affordability in Australia. For more information visit www.housingstressed.org.au

Read more: http://housingstressed.org.au/2013/03/12/report-on-workers-and-housing-stress-released/
Follow OzPropertyForum on Twitter | Like APF on Facebook | Circle APF on Google+
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Admin
Member Avatar
Administrator

Quote:
 
Minimum wage to inch up $15.80 per week

June 3, 2013 - 3:28PM

Australia’s 1.5 million lowest paid workers will get a $15.80 a week pay rise, less than last year.

The national minimum wage will rise to $622.20 a week, from $606.40 currently, the Fair Work Commission ruled on Monday.

It is less than the $30 a week increase sought by unions but more than the $5.80 wanted by business groups.

Last year the national minimum wage rose by $17.10 a week.

Fair Work Commission president Justice Iain Ross said there would be a 2.6 per cent increase in the minimum wage, noting a number of considerations led to the decision to award a lower increase than last year.

‘‘While the economic outlook remains favourable, GDP growth is expected to ease to slightly below trend in 2013/14 and the unemployment rate is expected to increase slightly,’’ Justice Ross said.

‘‘Inflation is expected to remain comfortably within the RBA’s target range of two to three per cent.

‘‘In addition to these considerations, the superannuation guarantee increase to apply from 1 July this year has also been a moderating factor in our assessment of the adjustment that should be made to minimum wages.

‘‘As a result, although it would not be appropriate to quantify its effect, the increase in minimum wages we have determined in this review is lower than it otherwise would have been in the absence of the superannuation guarantee increase.’’

He said the commission had also taken into account the effect of the carbon price on inflation figures and the lower than forecast recent inflation outcome.

Justice Ross said while some of the minimum wage rates in modern awards had increased in real terms over the past decade, they had not kept pace with the level of wage increases generally.

‘‘Relative to all measures of median and average earnings, modern award minimum wages have fallen over the past decade and earnings inequality is increasing.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/minimum-wage-to-inch-up-1580-per-week-20130603-2nl4n.html
Follow OzPropertyForum on Twitter | Like APF on Facebook | Circle APF on Google+
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Admin
Member Avatar
Administrator

Quote:
 
House rentals out of reach of jobless

July 19, 2013
Clay Lucas

The cost of renting a house is far too expensive for the unemployed, with little low-cost housing in areas where they could find work, a new national study has found.

And Victoria is the worst Australian state for low-cost housing that is also located near jobs.

The study recommends that the federal government immediately adds $25 a week to its rental assistance payments.

Australians for Affordable Housing, a coalition of welfare and community organisations, this week released its Opening Doors to Employment study.

It looked at the occupations where unemployed people were most likely to get a job. It found caring and aid work, cleaning and laundry, warehousing, retail sales, factory process work and construction labouring were the easiest areas to find work.

The study simultaneously identified the top 40 Australian suburbs and towns with the most jobs in these fields. None had affordable housing on offer, the study found.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/house-rentals-out-of-reach-of-jobless-20130718-2q75r.html
Follow OzPropertyForum on Twitter | Like APF on Facebook | Circle APF on Google+
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
herbie
Member Avatar


Alex Barton
19 Jul 2013, 11:53 AM
House rentals out of reach of jobless
Must admit that when I was a kid, the unemployed who weren't living at home tended to live in caravan parks - Or 4 blokes in a 2 bedroom flat - Heck, some of the employed even did that.

But I guess the building industry and banks don't stand to make much profit from it. Or the pollies to win a lot of votes from it - What with changed expectations 'n all ...
Edited by herbie, 19 Jul 2013, 12:16 PM.
A Professional Demographer to an amateur demographer: "negative natural increase will never outweigh the positive net migration"
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Trojan
Default APF Avatar


If unemployed people were paid enough to rent in suburbs with work, then who exactly rents in those further out suburbs with no work? The employed?
I put trolls and time wasters on my ignore list so if I don't respond to you, you are probably on it ....
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
glorrible
Default APF Avatar

This thread is filled with such black and white trollop, I couldn't get through more than half the pages.

Yes if you exist the life of a drone work bot, you will be able to afford everything under the sun. If you get up in the morning and carefully measure your $3 breakfast, hell even have a 80c coffee, get dressed and walk to work (walk, not drive, or public transport), work your 8 (more like 9, anyone trying to make it probably works 10 to hope for recognition/promotion), then you come home, eat your $5 dinner, throw clothes in the was (a few dollars). Don't watch television, don't have a dog to feed or walk or wash, or any little extras like that. Then you go to sleep and repeat the process, and on weekends you spend most of it going for a nice leisurely walk, maybe go to a friend's or family member's house and catch up, then go home and sleep. over and over for 3-4 years (5% of your life, but at this point, you're at least 18-20, so you might as well minus that from the average, and it's more like 10-20% of your life, working life anyway).

After all that you might have a deposit to put on a house. Great! And if all has gone to plan, you may have gotten a promotion to a slightly-higher-than-minimum-wage-position. You're set right? awesome, good luck with that.

But the reality is, we are not drones. We need entertainment, we need slightly more than bare minumum protein and carbs to make it through the day's chores, we need more than a small room to sit sleep, get dressed (we we can't do most of any of this in public, legally). This is all a product of a system placed upon us, not some dictators one, but one we can't simply ignore, and we make decisions around it all the time.

We can't exist outside the system that has been created around us, we can't just disappear out bush and live off the wilds (some legal issues, + we are no longer equipped with the skills to do so), and thus the system DOES actually owe it's people the ability to "make it" with a decent standard of living. Living that isn't the life of a robot.

Also, no one lives the same life. Accidents, unintended circumstances, etc.. all happen, to many people, not just a small percentage. Whether it's a pregnancy that wasn't intended which lands a single mother without the support needed to complete a degree or work a full time job (at minimum wage, try child care? ha). A young father who now has to send child support payments? there's another hit. How about the situation where traveling to work requires transportation? public transport, 5 days a week, I haven't used it myself in awhile, but even 5 years ago it was pretty steep on a minimum wage, what is it now? $30 a week? Let's not even touch how not having a vehicle can seriously hinder job options in the first place.

What about injury? or illness? many people are medicated in one form or another, whether it's a form of depression, pain killers for a car accident related injury, a case of intestinal problems (easily caused by diet as a result of low income, etc..).

Owning a house for $200 a week? what type of house? where? is it anywhere near civilization and minimum wage jobs? or any jobs?
200 x ( 52weeks x 30years ) = $312,000. I don't know of any properties, that aren't just vacant blocks of land, that sell for anything near that in Melbourne (within 100km). Do I have to move to Sale? Wonthaggi? maybe Penshurst? definitely going to need a car (a reliable one at that) to get to whatever job I have then. Then what about if I want to progress in career? I hope there are educational options out there, methods of career progression of any sort even. Oh? the tafe 50km away? just a couple of days a week? awesome, now let's calculate the fuel costs.

Your idea of living a single life is a bit idealistic. Not everyone can live like a robot. I won't be getting rid of my dogs despite the fact they cost me $50 month to feed and keep in good order, maybe your idea "sacrificing a few years in order to make it" includes just throwing away anything you care about, but it doesn't for others.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Australian Property Forum · Next Topic »
Reply



Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.

Forum Rules: The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.

Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.

Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.

This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.

For more information go to Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use

Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ

Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy