A BBC News article about the seemingly ever increasing cost of living in Australia.
Australia has managed to come out of the global financial crisis without a recession. But as a result of its booming economy, the cost of living is extremely high. It was the limes that finally tipped me over the edge.
Whilst I found her deploring the price of limes a bit whiny.. I've been living outside of Australia for about 9 years now and was interested to see what you chaps thought of it all.
The cost of basic housing and rent is insane in a country with so much space, the aussie dorrah is too high. Both of these things are fucking the economy.
but hang on we have a never ending mining boom.....
The things that I find incredibly expensive is housing and utilities. Electricity and gas have gone fucking ballistic in the last couple of years. Off the top of my head I estimate it's at least tripled in annual costs.
You want to try living anywhere remote or mining town related. EVERYTHING is expensive.... We pay 50 bucks for a box of beer, 50 for a bottle of spirits, 1.87 a liter for petrol (2.33 further North)... Cheap rent is anything under 600 bucks a week that's not a sea container with a dirty old box aircon bolted onto it.
Happiness is when Dan Murphy has a free postage special on beer...
We pay 50 bucks for a box of beer, 50 for a bottle of spirits, 1.87 a liter for petrol (2.33 further North)...
I saw something on 60 minutes about those prices. Its because the shop keepers have to pay staff enough to match the mining wages, otherwise people would just go get a job in the mines instead. So some of the grocery store staff are earning 100k a year. The dude behind the counter at the petrol station - prolly on over 100k a year as well!
Caught a bus into town the other day. Two zones equalled $5.60 each way!
Brisbane's public transport prices are ridiculous. Melbourne only has 2 zones and a day pass across both (unlimited travel on tram, bus & rail) is $11.84. A ticket only to travel in zone 1 (good chunk of Melbourne) is $7.
The dude behind the counter at the petrol station - prolly on over 100k a year as well!
If he works for Coles Express or Caltex Woolworths he is only more like ~$20 an hour.
Same goes with the supermarkets, the different is they get some allownaces aswell. And a little boost in pay of a $50-100 a week depending. Nobody is making 100k.
Now that I have a mortgage, I understand what everyone was complaining about with the cost of everything being so high. After you take out rates, bills, insurances etc etc, it's like I'm living on a college graduates salary again - nothing spare for hobbies.
If he works for Coles Express or Caltex Woolworths he is only more like ~$20 an hour.
Same goes with the supermarkets, the different is they get some allownaces aswell. And a little boost in pay of a $50-100 a week depending. Nobody is making 100k.
Gotta love the random TV stories sometimes =)
Yeah 20 bucks an hour is dead on the money. My mate works at the bottleo here and he's on 21 an hour... Supermarket workers are about the same money...
So it's all about the profit for most businesses here, cause where else are you going to go?
I saw something on 60 minutes about those prices. Its because the shop keepers have to pay staff enough to match the mining wages, otherwise people would just go get a job in the mines instead. So some of the grocery store staff are earning 100k a year. The dude behind the counter at the petrol station - prolly on over 100k a year as well
yeah this sounds like bullshit
getting a job in the mines isn't as easy as everyone thinks
Brisbane's public transport prices are ridiculous. Melbourne only has 2 zones and a day pass across both (unlimited travel on tram, bus & rail) is $11.84. A ticket only to travel in zone 1 (good chunk of Melbourne) is $7.
In SEQ, you can do zone 1-17 (about 2-3 hours of travel, depending on how things line up) for $11 in offpeak, $14 in peak (one way).
EVERYTHING is expensive.... We pay 50 bucks for a box of beer, 50 for a bottle of spirits,
But I pay exactly that in Indro...heck my bottle of Kraken was $50 and my case of creatures was $50 as well. Pretty sure that kind of pricing is a drop in the bucket compared to how much some miners are being paid.
I understand the grief about limes - but they are 50c each at my local Coles now. There is a massive disparity which I assume is due to seasons (also maybe the article's author hasn't been keeping up on current events but we just got our asses kicked, pal - especially in citrus) - I buy a lot of limes cuz I love cocktails and am often enraged and furiousenated by the price.
But I pay exactly that in Indro...heck my bottle of Kraken was $50 and my case of creatures was $50 as well. Pretty sure that kind of pricing is a drop in the bucket compared to how much some miners are being paid
not sure if serious or trolling
pretty sure he is talking about standard beers like xxxx bitter etc and standard bottles of spirits
not sure if serious or trollingpretty sure he is talking about standard beers like xxxx bitter etc and standard bottles of spirits
Ahh, thought he was just talking in general terms, not the actual el' cheapo brands. If a carton of 4X is indeed $50 near mining areas, that is a pretty big rip off.
Thing is, where i am, there are a lot of "dry" communities... It's not uncommon for some of the locals from these communities to come in and buy 30 odd cartons in a hit.
So it's not just a price hike cause of it being a mining community, it's a cash in on cashed up locals who have plenty of royalty dollars...
Yeah dude XXXX gold - 50 bucks... 750 bottle of Beam - 50 Bucks....I think a carton of Beam UDL's is 120...
is that a result supply and demand? all the cashed up bogans wanting XXXX, VB and Tooheys while they have to cut the rate of little creatures to get it to move off the shelf?
Des Moloney runs the general store in Western Australia's largest mining hub of Port Hedland. Here, mining companies have snapped up just about every room, house and caravan, and they've offered almost everyone a job. So Des must match mining-company wages if he's to hold onto staff. And can I ask what sort of wages are they on? DES: With tax and super, some of them are over $100,000. LIAM BARTLETT: $100,000? DES: Yeah. And I have to fly them in and out, one of them. And I have to supply housing on top of that.
Boost, if you had ever been to Port Hedland you would know that it's not because of the mine wages that they would pay that much... it's because PH is the biggest shithole EVER.... Seriously, if Australia needs an enema that's where you stick the pipe.
You couldn't pay me 100 k a year to live there and work in a general store, let alone a mine site.
Down the road though in Karratha, the same situ is current with very little housing and ridiculous prices for rent etc, but i haven't heard anyone paying that sort of money for run of the mill general store workers...
If your in safety tho, and don't mind working 18 days straight with 3 days off, you can easily earn over 180 k a year
You guys in brisbane got it easy. try Sydney. our rent is 30% higher on average than Brisbane / Melbourne. I think im eventually going to make the move to Melbourne, i couldnt live in brisbane. too many assholes.
You guys in brisbane got it easy. try Sydney. our rent is 30% higher on average than Brisbane / Melbourne.I think im eventually going to make the move to Melbourne, i couldnt live in brisbane. too many assholes.
The things that I find incredibly expensive is housing and utilities. Electricity and gas have gone fucking ballistic in the last couple of years. Off the top of my head I estimate it's at least tripled in annual costs.
My electricity bill has been flat lined for the past 4 years. Rates are up but no-where near tripled. You need to get back to Brisbane ASAP bro.
Also i'm not trying to discredit the show you watched mate, but i've lived in the Pilbara for years and know what the go is... just telling it from personal xp, and no one i know running a pleb job like that is on that sort of money. Maybe like greazy mentions with tax and super, or accommodation factored into it, but not outright, no friggin way...
Clothes = 19% more expensive in Sydney, yet when you add up the dollar figures for Sydney and Brisbane it's only 9%. Likewise Housing it says 41% but the items only add up to 35%. Are they weighting certain things differently? I can't tell what heck they've done.
Infi will be so upset if we beat Norway and Denmark and Japan, rather than moving towards the unregulated paradises of say current Syria, and Somalia, and North Mexico, and Queensland's Schools (we have no regulation against non-secular teaching apparently, maybe one of the only places in the first world).
Infi will be so upset if we beat Norway and Denmark and Japan, rather than moving towards the unregulated paradises of say current Syria, and Somalia, and North Mexico, and Queensland's Schools (we have no regulation against non-secular teaching apparently, maybe one of the only places in the first world).
As per usual, both fpot and you have demonstrated how clueless you are about the real world (compared to the soy moccacino portlandia you live in).
there is a massive difference between
1) RULE OF LAW, which allows people to go to a court to petition a magistrate for justice eoither against excesses of the government or a civil wrong by another person, a right which goes back to the magna carta, and
2) REGULATION, where government regulates every aspect of our lives, workplaces, recreational activities, foodstuffs we buy, basically everything we touch, so that people too retarded to think for themselves don't have to think for themselves charging a non negotiable fee (tax) for the dis/service.
Every modern democracy needs rules of law. Regulation on the other hand I can do without.
If you want lack of regulation with modern living standards, the USA is the country for you, infi.
Regulation is what has shielded our country from the threats of the external world, a solid banking system (from regulation) low crime, from regulation. I dont see many homeless in the streets, thanks to our social security and programs, all from regulation and taxation.
It's a small price to pay to get the living standards we have.
(compared to the soy moccacino portlandia you live in)
Can somebody translate this into English?
RULE OF LAW, which allows people to go to a court to petition a magistrate for justice eoither against excesses of the government or a civil wrong by another person, a right which goes back to the magna carta, and 2) REGULATION, where government regulates every aspect of our lives, workplaces, recreational activities, foodstuffs we buy, basically everything we touch, so that people too retarded to think for themselves don't have to think for themselves charging a non negotiable fee (tax) for the dis/service.Every modern democracy needs rules of law. Regulation on the other hand I can do without.
k. All I was responding to was that you said Australia is expensive to live in because of the boogey man regulation, yet every rich nation is expensive to live in. Maybe it's as simple as that the people in these successful countries are richer and can out-compete each other up to those prices?
As per usual, both fpot and you have demonstrated how clueless you are about the real world (compared to the soy moccacino portlandia you live in).
Huh? You said Australia is the most overpriced country on the face of the earth. It isn't. Having trouble reading there, bro?
Also lol at a lolbertarian accusing someone of not living in the real world.
2) REGULATION, where government regulates every aspect of our lives, workplaces, recreational activities, foodstuffs we buy, basically everything we touch, so that people too retarded to think for themselves don't have to think for themselves charging a non negotiable fee (tax) for the dis/service.
So did you think by your 100th rereg and attempt at being normal that I'd just forget you are Door, the biggest narcissistic fuckup to ever grace the internet?
edit: and before an admin nukes this, just know that I am dropping it and will just ignore Door's new account from now on. I just wanted him to know this is why I am ignoring him.
few things i really noticed when i got back to oz. lots of new cars. dont see all the old HQ's or XD's driving around. and $8-9 for a sandwich at lunch. not the 2 quid i was paying in london. have to make my own for that price
few things i really noticed when i got back to oz. lots of new cars. dont see all the old HQ's or XD's driving around. and $8-9 for a sandwich at lunch. not the 2 quid i was paying in london. have to make my own for that price
That's the biggest thing i have noticed. 9 dollars for a simple sandwich at shops. They put the price up just because they can and idiots still pay it.
It was funny the other day i walked into a shop in melb CBD and asked for a basic sandwich. She made it and came back and said "that will be $11" i said "hahaha, you would have to be joking, cya later" then she responds with "wait! you orderd it! fine ill give it to you for the special price of $7 dollars, just this time" what a joke.
So did you think by your 100th rereg and attempt at being normal that I'd just forget you are Door, the biggest narcissistic fuckup to ever grace the internet?edit: and before an admin nukes this, just know that I am dropping it and will just ignore Door's new account from now on. I just wanted him to know this is why I am ignoring him.
I'm sorry, but i'm in no way connected to your beloved "Door" character that you continuously write about in 95% of your posts.
Gasp, but a moment ago you were cheering on the guy blaming regulation, now you're blaming consumer behaviour in free markets?
Well first of all, i wasn't cheering him on. I made the remark that you and fpot sound a bit like the characters from Portlandia. Secondly, regulation obviously isn't responsible for every ridiculous price we pay for things and certainly isn't responsible for businesses that clearly and unashamedly ripping people off.
Regulation force wages for people who are otherwise unemployable Regulation creates welfare that unemployed would otherwise not be able to access and would therefore be required to take lower paying jobs, jobs that reflect the value they create Regulation increases the costs of opening a business Regulations increases the cost of keeping people employed Regulation increases the cost of renting or buying a business Regulation increases the cost of obtaining a development approval or any chance of increasing general land supply (ITS NOTHING LIKE SIM CITY FPOT) Regulation and tarrifs increase the costs of many of the components people use in business. Regulation increases the costs of maintaining operating licenses for one's business (I am operate in Childcare and Aged Care two of the heaviest regulated sectors in the economy). Regulation places imposts on the person risking their capital whilst placing zero risk on employees and public servants who have every incentive in the world to operate inefficiently and with the highest chance of causing loss to the business owner.
It would be great if we lived in a little bubble world but when tens of thousands of manufacturing employees are losing their jobs every year in Australia because we are globally uncompetitive, it's cold comfort to say to those unemployed people "Well at least the rest of the employed people have good conditions right! Hey?"
As the great John Howard once said, every person deserves a chance to have a job. Australia has priced itself out of global competitiveness driven by great big holes in the ground. We are lucky we have these resources to fuel our bureaucratic protected economy.
Regulation prevents me from killing you and taking your business. Regulation keeps many unethical practices from being carried out (e.g. slavery). Regulation keeps many scams and dangerous practitioners at bay. Regulation prevents the bank from running off with your money. Regulation often prevents food suppliers from being able to throw in cheaper materials which are demonstrably detrimental to your long term health. Regulation ensures that your house is built to scratch with protection against all sorts of historical dangers, and that the people who built it are held to some measure of account. Regulation keeps many dangerous drivers off the road. Regulation prevents the religious from intruding in your life in many ways where they did past.
Your "regulation is bad" ideology is lazy, it requires hyperbolic misrepresentation of reality.
Regulation creates welfare that unemployed would otherwise not be able to access and would therefore be required to take lower paying jobs, jobs that reflect the value they create
Well I've personally witnessed it: * Ensure that highly skilled people are able to focus on getting jobs in their niche industries without wasting their talents by having to make a living elsewhere. * Ensure that people not born into wealth are able to still skill up and help themselves and the economy, making the country worth living in and protecting. * Helped a family put their kids through school after the father died. * Ensure that criminal behaviour by the desperate is kept down. * Helped a brisbane-based friend of a friend focus on launching his business, which now seems to be taking off and bringing money in nearly exclusively from overseas.
Your solution is of course "lol inherit a chairman position at dad's business, anybody who isn't a slacker can do this."
As the great John Howard
You mean that conspiracy theorist, who ladened us with non-evidenced based practitioners called "school chaplains", who helped launch that "science is a conspiracy" book recently?
Yeah, you'd love him. Something almost identical to this, except slightly different, in irrelevant ways.
Regulation force wages for people who are otherwise unemployable Regulation creates welfare that unemployed would otherwise not be able to access and would therefore be required to take lower paying jobs, jobs that reflect the value they create Regulation increases the costs of opening a business Regulations increases the cost of keeping people employed Regulation increases the cost of renting or buying a business Regulation increases the cost of obtaining a development approval or any chance of increasing general land supply (ITS NOTHING LIKE SIM CITY FPOT) Regulation and tarrifs increase the costs of many of the components people use in business. Regulation increases the costs of maintaining operating licenses for one's business (I am operate in Childcare and Aged Care two of the heaviest regulated sectors in the economy). Regulation places imposts on the person risking their capital whilst placing zero risk on employees and public servants who have every incentive in the world to operate inefficiently and with the highest chance of causing loss to the business owner.
More lolbertarian.txt.
Don't worry, your fellow lolbertarian taggs will be in here to rescue you soon!
So I guess your solution is the typical lolbertarian one of removing all regulations and just letting the free market sort it all out right? Better open that txt file in anticipation of your response!
So i can't just deploy residential squares and expect houses to pop up? interesting.
No you have to comply with hundreds of pages of State Town Planning Acts, Regional Plans for Urbanisation, Local Council Planning Codes for land usage, traffic, noise, stormwater, environment, energy efficiency, sustainability, social planning and feng-shui, and Building Code of Australia Design codes, all driving the cost the cost up of your standard 3 bed 2 bathroom house and land package up by about $250,000.
These regulations are all designed by cool hipsters from the inner city with urban planning degrees who have never built anything in their lives. They only ever work for Councils or State Government, vote Greens and wear black clear lens glasses.
Local Council Planning Codes for land usage, traffic, noise, stormwater, environment, energy efficiency, sustainability, social planning and Building Code of Australia Design codes
It's almost like... many of the things which separate the successful countries from the mess of the third world...
These regulations are all designed by cool hipsters from the inner city with urban planning degrees who have never built anything in their lives. They only ever work for Councils or State Government, vote Greens and wear black clear lens glasses.
Why is it always always the inheritors who play tough guy at having "built something by themselves"? I've built 3 businesses by myself, the only reason I mention it is to tell people like you stfu with your idealistic posturing.
Funnily enough, the only two town planners I know are both from the country and rabid national party voters. The only greenies I know are basically anarchists as far as I can tell.
I don't know about others, but I for one get pretty frustrated by these guys, and don't even particularly care about the subject matter.
infi comes in ranting about Australia being the most expensive country in the world (oh wait it isn't), regulations only creating problems (oh wait they don't), regulated countries being the failures of the world (oh wait they're not), him being some great independent builder (oh wait he isn't), then just ignores every piece of criticism of the shit that he's spewed, and keeps on going. We should have special camps for those kinds of people.
Interesting one on the citrus farming damage, I've tweeted the author to see if she says anything.
India is also one of the most corrupt countries, no?
Great to see the age old socialism debate still in full swing. I would say I find Australia more tightly regulated on irrelevant things than the UK and Europe.
And yes, I built my last project from a block of dirt, I did the land purchases, the bank finance, the town planning development application, the building plans, the construction and the commissioning.
You get involved in conversations you have no idea about Nerf. You are completely idiotically clueless yet you are compelled to keep posting total rubbish. Do you go on with flawed advice to your clients. It's quite uncomfortable to have business dealings with people like you because you come off delusional, unable to grapple with real life business dynamics (how bills have to be paid and money isn't free). I am dealing with one such fellow right now an d I have learned to enjoy the comedy of it and wait for some third party to bring him back to earth.
It's the same syndrome which pervades the Left generally, pursuit of ideals at the expense of the real life impact of those policies. An inability to comprehend the finite nature of resources (except when on an environmentalism/global warming campaign - ironic isn't it).
Because the question of whether there was "an impact" is totttaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllly what you said before.
And yes, I built my last project from a block of dirt, I did the land purchases, the bank finance, the town planning development application, the building plans, the construction and the commissioning.
"I spent wealth" != "I independently built that wealth to be in a position to spend it"
You get involved in conversations you have no idea about Nerf. You are completely idiotically clueless yet you are compelled to keep posting total rubbish.
Blah blah blah. Can't answer the criticisms of your ridiculous hyperbole about the only effects of regulations, start attacking the messenger as usual.
It's quite uncomfortable to have business dealings with people like you because you come off delusional, unable to grapple with real life business dynamics (how bills have to be paid and money isn't free).
Haha jesus christ. I have been independently registered for and running multiple varyingly-successful businesses since I was something like 15, paying my own way more than anybody else I know, and an inheritor is going to tell me that I don't know that money isn't free? I just called out your bullshit on you posturing as the independently-built working hero, yet you just dig your hole deeper.
It's the same syndrome which pervades the Left generally,
There we go, "anybody who disagrees with my bullshit is from the dreaded "left" boogeyman" - for the record, I have never voted "left", and have more history of being fiscally self-made in my little finger than you do in your entire body.
Regulation increases the costs of maintaining operating licenses for one's business (I am operate in Childcare and Aged Care two of the heaviest regulated sectors in the economy).
Yeah shame they have regulations to stop you from ripping off Aged care. Like back in the good old days when Johnny Coward and his cohorts let you get away with murder, quite literally.
Stop leeching of the young and old and get a real business.
It's almost as though no-one said that regulation has no impact on cost. Wait, no-one did!
However some of us believe that when it comes to something as important as building houses, regulations are absolutely necessary. Now my 10 month year old nieces were here earlier, and if they were still here I'd get them to explain why to you because frankly I can't be fucked. In classic lolbertarian fashion you'll just post an image macro or some unfunny one-liner you have heard in your little reddit echo chamber.
I know you want to live in a Ron Paul utopia where you can just do whatever you want, fuck over whoever you want and receive corrupt favours from your corrupt liberal mates all you want in the true spirit of the lolbertarian free market but I'm sorry to say you can't. You'll just have to settle for being one of the Great Jokes of the Internet in the same vein as 9/11 truthers (which you were at one stage), creationists and alternative medicine people. Sorry 'bout that dude.
What's so hard about accepting a compromise view on business regulation? I'm sure there's plenty of stupid regulation that's a burden and inflates costs unnecessarily, but some regulation is surely required or else old people end up getting their weekly bath in some nice exfoliating kerosene.
If you ever had a look at the Building Code of Australia you would understand, or any town planning scheme for that matter. But I hesitate that 99% of folk here have not.
Well at least he's downgraded his flailing wildly at the demons of "welfare" and "regulation" and "not living in unregulated nightmare countries" and "leftists who disagree with my heroic hard working self made self", to "we have a few regulations which are arguably burdensome."
lolbertarian isn't a real thing. something isn't a thing because fpot says it's a thing. fpot being a pretentious fuckwit while offering absolutely nothing of any intellectual or comedy substance; that's an actual thing.
You should relax a little and realise that perhaps I am turning up the pretentiousness a bit in a counter to how lolbertarians typically conduct themselves on the internets.
Unless you are getting a sandy vagina because you yourself are a lolbertarian. In that case, go fuck yourself.
or is there a mystical sensibility that results from checking IDs and year of undergraduate study?
I suppose it's the same force that enables one to take a libertarian stance on almost every single issue while simultaneously attempting to sound superior for being sceptical of the free market.
There is nothing mystical about knowing that lolbertarians are a joke.
The thing with lolbertarians is that once you boil down all the rhetoric, all the half truths and 'brilliant' ideas that they happily dunk their dicks in and all that's left is the residue of their great political ideology is the sentiment of 'fuck you, got mine'.
If it was me I'd worry that with each contemptuous lolbertarian reference there's that tiny danger of actually becoming the narrow minded asshole that is evidently despised.
I could google you a textbook response but I will try and explain it in my owns words. I'll even use the word libertarianism.
It's basically the thought that the government should be as small as possible and have a minimal impact on our lives. At face value that looks fine. As the government gets bigger it gets more complicated and more complicated is almost always a bad thing. However like all base definitions of political ideologies, it has no basis in the real world and how followers of it want it applied. In this very thread infi is citing building regulations including things like traffic, noise and stormwater as a bad thing. In other threads himself and other lolb... err libertarians have rallied against public health services suggesting that they should all be private and controlled by the free market. This to me is literally crazy talk. The reality is that there are poor people, and that things like specialised medical care, housing, and education would be extremely expensive if government assistance weren't provided. Some people just would not be able to obtain medical care for easily treatable diseases.
I'll agree that perhaps my views of libertarians is narrow, because I don't actually know any in real life (that I know of) and I am mostly exposed to the internet variety. So I apologise if there are some libertarians who believe in public health, public education, housing assistance, public utilities, government run public transport that runs at a loss, social programs for minorities, adherence to the UN Refugee convention, that steps need to be made to counteract climate change, mental health programs, assistance and not just punitive measures against people with drug addiction, progressive tax systems and I could go on and on. Last time I read a whole bunch of stuff from a libertartian, they were against many of the things I just listed there. I believe strongly in all of the things I mentioned there (and others) and quite frankly there are some you'd have to be quite the cunting prick to be against.
ignoring the loon above, libertarianism extends beyond economics to a wide range of social issues that you, fpot, take the affirmative on. how do you reconcile that?
Well okay that's fair. Another one I thought of was foreign policy, and how libertarianism encourages non-intervention.
I suppose you could find parts of hard right fascism, or hard left socialism that I would agree with as well. To me this doesn't really improve them at all, or make them any less stupid or unrealistic. I guess when I look at a political ideology, I take heed of the best it has to offer while also being mindful of the worst it has to offer. Despite what you read from people on here, I am not some raging lefty hippy type person. They are just using the age-old rebuttal method of painting the other person as their polar opposite to try and discredit them. The point I am trying to make is that I think that in just about every political ideology there are sensible ideas, but some contain things that are far too harmful to make them a valid choice. There are far too many things in libertarianism that seem motivated by nothing but selfishness that would cause harm to a large amount of people to make it anything more than something that I want to mock. The fact that there are so many vocal libertarians who are just so insufferably dumb (hi infi) perhaps cause me to pick on it a little more than I should. These are the people I am referring to when I use lolbertarian (which is actually a thing on urbandictionary btw)
but you obviously don't believe infi is a true libertarian either given most of the jabs you make at him are about loving the government or benefiting from the system in some way. if you'd just made that last post in the first place you could have made your point, offered a reasonable as well as reflective opinion and not come across as more ignorantly cuntish than whatever you were parodying. I got drunk tonight and saw flogging molly, sorry if irishmen and accordions made my jimmies rustlable.
tHATS WITH TAX AND SUPER. im probably being paid 100k right now.
cause it sounds a lot more to say $100k then $60k. I know how much i am getting paid, i don't know how much my employer is paying in total.
I meant payroll tax.
Greazy, payroll tax in WA is 5.5% for businesses paying over $750,000 in annual wages and nil tax up to $750k. So if he the shopkeeper actually meets the 750k + criteria, reduce the 100k wage to around 95k (keeping in mind he said OVER 100k and based on your assumption he is factoring this tax in).
FYI if you're in QLD and are paid 60k per year and your company is paying over 1.1 million in annual wages, your company is paying $2,850 payroll tax for you.
No you have to comply with hundreds of pages of State Town Planning Acts, Regional Plans for Urbanisation, Local Council Planning Codes for land usage, traffic, noise, stormwater, environment, energy efficiency, sustainability, social planning and feng-shui, and Building Code of Australia Design codes, all driving the cost the cost up of your standard 3 bed 2 bathroom house and land package up by about $250,000.
Do you have any references for that figure? From what I've seen the price explosion (at least in Qld) is purely a result of supply vs demand and that there haven't been any major regulatory changes that would account for an increase of $250,000. You can still buy whole units for that much money further out of Brisbane so it seems sort of like a high figure.
Anecdote:
Last night I was out for dinner. Walking home I went past an ice cream shop and thought, "yum, ice cream!" I went in and was flabbergasted to see that the cost for 2 scoops was $5.50.
Now I don't think people should think too much about costs if they really really want something. If you want ice cream, throw down. But if you've read anything I've posted here in the last like 10 years, you know I also think that the reason game companies have been so successful at skinning Australians (and gamers in general) is because we simply continue to pay exorbitant prices for games instead of doing without.
I thought about this thread last night when standing at the counter for ice cream and in the end decided I didn't want it that much. I can't believe the actual costs for ice cream delivery (even in West End, where I was) are such that $5.50 is a reasonable price for ice cream.
I appreciate there are some regulatory overheads - compliance with health codes, etc - but I don't have a problem with most of them because they generally stop me from getting poisoned and dying from eating bad food. But I can't believe that in the case of tiny shop those regulatory costs are what is driving the price up to $5.50.
So anyway:
a) does anyone know why two scoops of ice cream would cost $5.50? b) stop buying things that are overpriced where possible to drive demand down
you know I also think that the reason game companies have been so successful at skinning Australians (and gamers in general) is because we simply continue to pay exorbitant prices for games instead of doing without.
Some of us do, I'm thinking maybe teenagers with better persuasion skills than patience (and Khel, you love new and shiny, don't lie :P). The rest of us either laugh or sigh and wait for the steam sales.
So anyway: a) does anyone know why two scoops of ice cream would cost $5.50?b) stop buying things that are overpriced where possible to drive demand down
They're just trying to fleece inner city dwellers with high incomes :) And while people keep buying, why not keep ratcheting up the price?
There's also the subtle psychological angle; if the ice cream costs more, it must be really good ice cream.....right???
I suspect a lot of the inflated prices you are subject to Trog is contributed by the structural pricing of our economy i.e. the same reason Photoshop costs so damn much in Australia.
Australia has geared up its internal economy with so much regulation, indirect taxation (rates, payroll tax, land tax) and protectionism (wage regulation, union rules) that the only way businesses can naturally ever survive is by on-charging those costs of business (increase cost of ice-cream).
This is fine in a domestic economy where A charges B more money for their house construction so B in return charges A more for their ice cream. However the people who suffer are price elastic exporters e.g. manufacturers and raw material producers who have to sell their commodity in a globally competitive market.
For example, Competition for bouncer labour on the Gold Coast is not global it is restricted to only several of the shittiest cesspools on a single shitty gold coast strip. The internet nor global trade can reduce your labour cost for this unskilled labour because a) it is regulated by award conditions and b) the transaction cost of using these methods is inefficient.
BUT, the aussie who does have to compete with the manufactured or raw material goods must sell at the global best price (taking into account transport costs) or else they sell only to their domestic market which for Australia is quite small.
Now going on from that, if Adobe know the tricks Aussies play on each other with their pretend wealth charging each other double due to their strange labour laws and red tape, they will jump on the bandwagon and charge more too as it relates to wages, rents, and every other standardised pricing. An aussie dollar is not equal to an American dollar in all circumstances because usually you have to goto America to use it as a consumer.
Internet purchasing has changed all this and now even retail which was the last bastion for protected unskilled labour (that and door security) is being hammered by offshore purchasing. Adobe et al. knowing that Australia has jumped on the bandwagon are increasing their prices because they know Australia economy will tolerate it and the purchaser of that software will be able to pass it onto the next consumer of goods.
TLDR It is fine to have protected award rates for general unskilled labour like bouncers, or domestic based businesses like selling icecream but globally competitive businesses must pay the going global price. America prices its software based on Australia's appetite and ability to pay, not on any value basis.
Nobody believes you infi - we had to go to the extent of a parliamentary inquiry the outcome of which would be clear to any keen observer: Adobe charges what it does because it can.
Australia has geared up its internal economy with so much regulation, indirect taxation (rates, payroll tax, land tax) and protectionism (wage regulation, union rules) that the only way businesses can naturally ever survive is by on-charging those costs of business (increase cost of ice-cream).
This doesn't sound very different to other 1st world Western countries, certainly on the indirect taxation examples you pose.
What are protected award rates, is that like minimum wage? I can see that being different, Australia has a much higher minimum wage in comparison to the US and UK. Perhaps that's the main cause you're driving at?
Edit: I'm not sure I actually see your point, it doesn't make sense. Unless you're just making the point that selling at globally competitive rates whilst being forced to endure high cost of manufacture or sale when your competitors aren't is a difficult market.
Doing Buisiness 2013 (IFC and World Bank) has Australia ranked #10 in the world of 185 economies studied.
This page summarizes Doing Business 2013 data for Australia. The first table lists the overall "Ease of Doing Business" rank (out of 185 economies) and the rankings by each topic. The rest of the tables summarize the key indicators for each topic and benchmark against regional and high-income economy (OECD) averages.
This is a study directly aimed at ranking the things infi complains about. Its very detailed and shows the shit business owners go through reasonably well.
IMO there are things we can do better but the overrall rank shows that while we are middle-ground for a fair few items we are not especially weak cw. the world in any.
Tis provoking to ponder about how much better off we might be if so much of the country's private "wealth" wasn't tied up in buying and selling real-estate from each other at higher and higher prices, primarily driven by speculation of future capital gains.
You can thank the post ww2 baby boom for that one.
On this topic, Australia is a miserable place to return to every Christmas. Since I moved to the US, I've been back at least once per year and the ramp up of pretty much everything is just out of control. Yet you look around here, and shit has hardly changed aside from real estate.
They're just trying to fleece inner city dwellers with high incomes :) And while people keep buying, why not keep ratcheting up the price?There's also the subtle psychological angle; if the ice cream costs more, it must be really good ice cream.....right???
Agreed. Also i bet the interior of the said icecream store was all nice and flashy and had that "boutique" feel to it, they use that to try to make you feel like you are buying something special and high quality while in reality what they are serving is the equivalent of $1 icecream from coles
Agreed. Also i bet the interior of the said icecream store was all nice and flashy and had that "boutique" feel to it, they use that to try to make you feel like you are buying something special and high quality while in reality what they are serving is the equivalent of $1 icecream from coles
actually no, it is a hole in the wall shithole - something else that contributed to my lack of desire to pay for it.
I suspect a lot of the inflated prices you are subject to Trog is contributed by the structural pricing of our economy i.e. the same reason Photoshop costs so damn much in Australia.
Well, I don't know about that. I think Photoshop costs are high for the same reason game costs are high - people just kept paying for it (except for a few intrepid pioneers that figured out how to import it thus avoiding the issue altogether).
I sort of find it a little funny that the one thing that REALLY would have stopped Adobe from fucking us on Photoshop would have been government regulation preventing them from price-fixing in different markets :)
In the end though I maintain they don't charge more because of any really clever thinking on their part about taking advantage of our market. They just have found the maximum price that the market will bear based on their almost exclusive control of the market (AFAIK noone in graphic design takes any graphics package outside of Photoshop very seriously) and their exclusive control of the supply, and have just acted like assholes in exploiting it.
TLDR It is fine to have protected award rates for general unskilled labour like bouncers, or domestic based businesses like selling icecream but globally competitive businesses must pay the going global price. America prices its software based on Australia's appetite and ability to pay, not on any value basis.
I think we're saying the same thing but just with different rationales.
BUT:
Australia has geared up its internal economy with so much regulation, indirect taxation (rates, payroll tax, land tax) and protectionism (wage regulation, union rules) that the only way businesses can naturally ever survive is by on-charging those costs of business (increase cost of ice-cream).
I don't believe this is the case, and I think Photoshop is an example of this not always being true. Photoshop aren't on charging because of anything to do with whatever increased regulation.
FWIW in our business - software development - we do not often stumble against issues to do with regulation. I understand that there are some but I'm yet to see a lot of evidence that supports the fact that we're generally "over-regulated". Especially in things like construction - having been to Brazil and seeing in the favelas how the building code is quite literally "I'll build a one story building and then I will sell my roof to someone to build their own house on top of it", and then every summer seeing a story about how mudslides have wiped out hundreds of people.
I don't believe this is the case, and I think Photoshop is an example of this not always being true. Photoshop aren't on charging because of anything to do with whatever increased regulation.
but the photoshop scenrio is consistent with this theory trog, because they are charging what the local economy will bear in comparison to other goods the local economy has already overpriced. e.g. if an icecream is $2.50 in the US but $5.50 in Australia then they will apply the same price increases accordingly to software they are trying to sell in Aus...
Apart from a whole bunch of lolbertarian word salad, has infi produced a single shred of evidence that Australia is actually overregulated compared to other countries, and that this supposed overregulation is the direct cause of the increased costs of ice-cream and Photoshop?
Fpot, if you don't think Australia's labour laws are at the high end of the regulation spectrum by ANY world standard then you have no hope for intelligent discussion. Look at any OECD report or anything prodcued by ANY economist other than those funded by unions. You come off very obtuse sometimes in your pursuit to be "different".
No, lol, he's now arguing that "regulations" (on ice cream?) have created a precedent for expensive graphics software (a monopolized market) in Australia.
But the possibility of Australians being wealthier consumers, and companies which have an unchallenged monopoly marking up their prices in response, as the main or entire cause? That basic market theory is "crazy leftist" talk.
So no then, you don't have any evidence that all your lolbertarian claims are even remotely true. That kind of reminds me of this time that a lolbertarian said a whole bunch of stuff, but had no evidence to back it up with.
edit: just for the record, I am not saying that Australia is not a regulated country. There are phone books worth of regulation that cover a whole bunch of different areas. I am asking for evidence from our lolbertarian friend here that we are in fact heavily overregulated to the point of detriment compared to other countries, and for a direct link between this overregulation and the increased cost of raspberry swirl and photoshop.
This ranks Australia number 10 out of 185 economies tested which doesn't really bode well for your little lolbertarian fantasy does it? Another example of evidence to test your little hypothesis about AUstralia being the most overpriced country in the world could be this link http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/rankings_by_country.jsp which has us at number 5 in the world for 2012. But I am sure they were produced by a leftist union backed conspiracy consortium hey?
infi's ice cream argument is pretty solid
How much does a Ben & Jerry's tub cost in the USA compared to here? You don't see any important politician inquiry into that.
infi's ice cream argument is pretty solid
How much does a Ben & Jerry's tub cost in the USA compared to here? You don't see any important politician inquiry into that.
I am asking for evidence from our lolbertarian friend here that we are in fact heavily overregulated to the point of detriment compared to other countries
I dunno about 'compared to other countries', but compared to the default in nature of no regulation, it is pretty fucking severe. Have you heard about the government forcing adobe and apple to answer for their prices? BOOOM there it is
but the photoshop scenrio is consistent with this theory trog, because they are charging what the local economy will bear in comparison to other goods the local economy has already overpriced. e.g. if an icecream is $2.50 in the US but $5.50 in Australia then they will apply the same price increases accordingly to software they are trying to sell in Aus...
My point though is that ice cream in West End is charged at $5.50 for two scoops because they've figured out that's the optimum price point for their market - drunk hipsters walking past after smashing beers at the Archive or whatever.
It's not $5.50 because they have to spend heaps of money complying with regulations. They're just charging what people are prepared to pay for ice cream. This is capitalism and the free market in action and the correct response is to not buy ice cream!
...unless there's evidence that it's $5.50 because of regulations X Y Z which mean that's just what ice cream costs to buy. Maybe $5.50 isn't actually that much and I'm just completely out of touch with what shit costs.
its a shame australia is so regulated, as i would like to open factories here and pay children to make things for me so cheap, so then i could sell them to drunken hipsters in west end at inflated prices.
There is so much more to this than fair child labour laws. Even laws that aim to do good for a good reason, can be unwarranted for other reasons. And laws aren't the solution for every problem.
...unless there's evidence that it's $5.50 because of regulations X Y Z which mean that's just what ice cream costs to buy. Maybe $5.50 isn't actually that much and I'm just completely out of touch with what shit costs.
I think that more falls into 'you should feel sorry for them rather than they were ice-cream extortionists' basket. If you don't think it's worth that much that's really all there is to the discussion.
There is so much more to this than fair child labour laws. Even laws that aim to do good for a good reason, can be unwarranted for other reasons. And laws aren't the solution for every problem.
Nor are they the cause of every problem.
To wind back to the core issue, the question is "why the hell is stuff so expensive?!" infi seems to lean towards the answer being "because of over-regulation" (I don't know if he's saying that's the cause in all cases).
My answer is "because we're still forking over money for the stuff and just bitching about the price".
A unit in my old building in Taringa recently sold for $900,000 after being on the market for almost a year. The owners were originally asking for $1.05m - which I thought was completely and utterly laughable. I actually met them and spoke to them about it and implied that what they wanted was totally unrealistic (without saying that to their face). But I told the real estate agent to their face that I thought the owners were crazy and would never get anywhere near what they wanted.
I was stunned that it sold for $900k; I thought that was still massively over the top. But I met the family who bought it; an elderly couple (and the dude owned a pretty sweet ass Porsche). They said that it was more than they wanted to spend, but they decided they really wanted the place and ended up putting in what they thought was a low ball offer at auction.
I believe they were the ONLY couple to even turn up to the auction (from what the real estate agent said).
If this one couple hadn't turned up, the owners would have had to re-think their asking price, probably significantly. Luckily they got Richy McPorsche who bothered turning up to the auction otherwise they would have ended up even further away from what they wanted (remembering they were over $100k lower than their original asking price).
Anyway, Australia's doing really well and people seem to be flush with cash and spending it on expensive luxury items (I'm still stunned by how many people seem to own iPads and tablets). It's completely unsurprising that prices are high across the board. But I don't think de-regulating a few things is going to make any difference.
(I'm still stunned by how many people seem to own iPads and tablets).
Hi-five on your fiscal conservatism. Trying to talk my parents out of being so enthusiastic about the latest fashions of ipads and similar now that they have a proper dual income again, when they already have laptops and desktops and are paying off a house, is painful.
Trying to talk my parents out of being so enthusiastic about the latest fashions of ipads and similar
Hah, don't take this personally Nerf, but I just had this image of you all up in their shit quoting their arguments back at them for a few hours at a stretch and your old man finally throwing his hands in the air in despair ;)
Trog if an economy puts a minimum wage on its economy that is double a competing economy eg US, they have a same dollar value on exchange basis, then all prices will double for import components because labour is the dominant input. Then also factor on comparable inefficiencies in the economies with regards to regulation. Locally other regulatory costs eg town planning and other business business compliance costs, drive the cost up to the consumer.
1) Australia's economic climate is a multiple for everything due to the floor of the minimum wage so on a comparable basis US as a result cheaper economy.
2) Locally costs of doing business add further cost to the consumer, that could otherwise be removed if they did not exist.
this is a great example that minimum wages do not make people better paid, it just drives up the cost of everything. Real increases in wealth come from productivity growth
It's definitely not regulations, wages etc which cause the Australian tax. One fine example is JB and cameras. They had to sell Aus versions of cameras at high price because of the distributor and their RRP, so they got jack of that and started grey importing and selling camera gear significantly cheaper. Meaning, it's often the distributors jacking up the RRP because they know people will pay a higher price.
Why it costs $5.50 for two scoops of ice cream in West End... here's a hypothetical Ice Cream shop
"Trog's Creamery" Fixed Costs: 50sqm shop leased @ $750/sqm/PA = ~$38,000 rent (that's cheap - look at what $890/sqm gets you, lol) 1 x store manager or owner-operator @ $57,000/yr (average Australia wage but below average for Brisbane) 1 x junior @ $16/hr x 12 hours per week (to help out on weekends and holidays) = $16 x 12 x 52 = ~$10,000/yr Utilities - $2,000/yr Depreciation costs - $3,000/yr Amortization $5,000 (assuming you've taken a small business loan) Other costs (advertising, promotions, insurance, misc fees, cleaning, maintenance, wastage etc) - $14,000
We're at ~$130,000 in costs before we've even bought or sold any ice cream. How many scoops do we need to sell?
Break-Even Quantity = Fixed Costs / Revenue Per Scoop — Cost Per Scoop
So... Ice Cream Manufacturing Revenues / Number of Litres Sold Per Year = Wholesale Ice Cream Cost Per Litre. = 617,000,000 / 22,000,000 people x 18 litres = 617,000,000 / 396,000,000 litres = ~$1.50 per litre.
Cost Per Scoop = Cost Per Litre / Scoops per litre = $1.50 / ( 1000ml / 125ml ) = $1.50 / 8 scoops per litre = ~$0.20 Add a tub/waffle cone @ 5c per scoop = $0.25
Income Net Sales $165,000 (60,000 scoops @ $2.75ea) TOTAL INCOME $165,000
Expenses Cost of Sales Ice Cream $12,000 Tubs/Waffles $3,000 Wages $67,000 Rent $38,000 Utilities $2,000 Depreciation $3,000 Amortization $4,000 TOTAL COST OF SALES $134,000
GROSS INCOME $31,000
Operating Expenses (SG & A) - $14,000
OPERATING INCOME $17,000
Taxes GST $16,500 Income tax (30%) $166
NET PROFIT $330!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So besides the fact that Trog would have to work 12 hours per day, 7 days per week just to earn the average wage, we're counting on selling 60,000 scoops per year. So what does 60,000 scoops a year actually look like on a day-to-day basis?
Assumptions: Store is open 9am-9pm (12 hours/day), 7 days per week. 33% of ice cream is sold between 9am-3pm 66% of ice cream is sold between 3pm-9pm
Ice cream sells much better in the warmer months, so let's assume 33% of sales from cooler months (6) 66% of sales from warmer months (6)
Let's look at the busiest period (3pm-9pm during the warmer months) = 60,000 x 66% x 66% / ( 365 / 2 ) = ~143 scoops or 24 scoops per hour. If, on average, customers buy 2 scoops then that's ~12 customers per hour.
Generally people don't eat ice cream by themselves, so let's use the average household size (2.5 people) for each group of customers entering the shop. 12 / 2.5 = ~5 groups her hour (called the Flow Rate)
If it takes an average of 6 mins to serve each group and take payment, then that's 30 mins spent serving customers each hour, so you'd be busy but still have some flex if you get a rush of customers.
Let's say two thirds of groups consume in-store, spending about 20 mins at a table before leaving. In-store consumers = 5 / 3 x 2 = 3.3 groups Take away consumers = 5 – 3.3 = 1.7 groups
Average time spent in store per group (called the Flow Time in operations) = ( Total time of in-store consumer groups + Total time of take-away consumer groups ) / 5 = ( 5 x 5 mins + 3.3 x 20 mins ) / 5 = ( 25 mins + 66 mins ) / 5 = 91 mins / 5 = ~18 mins (or 0.3 hrs)
The "inventory" (the number of customer groups in store) = Flow Rate x Flow Time = 5 groups x 0.3 hours = 1.5 groups in store
So that means 1.5 groups @ 2.5 people per group = 3 or 4 people always in store during busy periods. Busy, but manageable.
TL;DR: If you can sell 160 scoops of ice cream per day in West End at $2.75 per scoop ($5.50 for 2 scoops), and you're willing to work 12 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year paying yourself the average Aussie wage, you will break-even (on paper). Put the price up to $7.
p.s just shows that what is fucking the retail economy of this country is exorbitant commercial and residential rents caused by rampant speculation, encouraged by a pissweak limp dick government who won't implement the recommendations of the Henry Tax Review.
I know the basics of accounting well enough to understand the fundamentals of a business but definitely not an accountant.
On the topic of regulation – It's a double-edged sword. Regulations do increase the price of goods and services, but I do like knowing there's no mad cow in my ice cream and my apartment building isn't going to fall over while I'm sleeping.
This said, regulatory interference is often a slippery slope in government with numpty law makers fucking the economy up. Managing an economy is like walking a tight rope. When you're off balance you shift your weight to compensate. But if you over compensate you get all fucked up and plummet to the earth. The less corrections you have to make (that is, the less intervention from the government) the better it works out.
"The strengths and weaknesses of the system are well known.
In terms of the former, the range and quality of care and support available to older people has been increasing, with quality and safety standards continuing to improve. The workforce is generally appropriately skilled and dedicated to caring. However, due to the variable quality of training, some workers have insufficient skills.
But, there are many weaknesses. The need for fundamental and wide-ranging reform has been identified in the 2004 Hogan Review, the 2009 National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission Report, the 2010 Henry Review, the Commission’s previous reports, the analysis it has undertaken for this inquiry, and in the many submissions from inquiry participants. Concerns about the current system include:
• delays in care assessments and limits on the number of bed licences and care packages — older people may suffer excessive waiting times and have limited choice of care providers, while providers have reduced incentives to become more efficient, improve quality, innovate, or respond to consumer demand ... • workforce shortages — due in part to low wages, high administrative loads arising from the burden of regulation, strenuous work environments and limitations on scopes of practice
• complex, overlapping and costly regulations — with an embedded culture in governments of excessive risk aversion and a lack of independence of some regulatory activities
• insufficient independence of the complaints handling process from the Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA) — with policy development and the administration of regulation being combined, contrary to best practice
• incomplete and overlapping interfaces — within and between jurisdictions, and also with health, disability, mental health, housing and income support."
It's funny that people like to paint Infi as the greedy Rockefeller of QGL because Aged Care, Child Care and Nursing Home businesses have something in common with my ice cream example – their profits account for less than 1% of revenues. Gina Rinehart is nowhere to be seen for a reason! Ice Cream is much easier compared to these industries.
Most of that $134k will have GST charged which you can offset your GST generated through sales. Your GST bill may only be $3100.
Wrong, very few businesses have that high a level of GST input credits as wages and other non-GST expenses are typically the major costs of business rather than GST-applicable purchases.
GST inputs (12000 / 11) + (3000 / 11) + (38000 / 11) + (2000 / 11) = 1090 + 272 + 3454 + 181 = 4997 gst credits, nowhere near 13k, our fictional business will still have a hefty GST bill.
If a business is stupid enough to startup on small margins like that then they have no one to blame but themselves when things fall through.
Most very small businesses (1-3 full-time staff) operate where the owner's wage takes the place of most or all profits, and the owner is the primary productive input. This isn't because of poor planning, its the nature of the petite bourgeoisie who are either happy to 'work for themselves' or building capital to actually live off the business' profits and 'get off the tools'.
Sorry - I never claimed to be an accountant. :) I just knew that you can claim GST on an expense where it's charged and where so much detail was added elsewhere in the post, I thought it should be highlighted.
Thank you gents.. I did indeed forget the GST credits... Lucky the QGL green eye-shades are all over it :D
Most very small businesses (1-3 full-time staff) operate where the owner's wage takes the place of most or all profits, and the owner is the primary productive input. This isn't because of poor planning, its the nature of the petite bourgeoisie who are either happy to 'work for themselves' or building capital to actually live off the business' profits and 'get off the tools'.
Well put.
TicMan - drop me a PM, I'll let you know where I may be helpful.
Seems people are interested in this stuff... perhaps someone should list Infi's assets on Google maps and we can do a leveraged buy-out model to assess whether he's an attractive hostile takeover target for Fpot Capital... haha
Nitro, that is an awesome post and what I was hoping someone would do (I know nothing about retail otherwise I would have done it myself) to provide some actual facts.
There's a couple things I could nit pick on (this place is too small to even have tables, your wholesale icecream price seems closer to the retail price from just it at Woolies, misses the fact that they also sell other products like soft drinks, coffee, etc), but it's probably a pretty good reflection on reality. It would be interesting to throw all that onto a spreadsheet to see if we can refine it further.
So does it answer the question - are those high prices caused by over the top regulation? Or is that just what it costs to sell stuff in West End?
edit: also did you account for the tax deductible salaries of staff?
It's funny that people like to paint Infi as the greedy Rockefeller of QGL
That's not really what anybody has said. More like the privileged judgemental asshole who lives in an ideological fantasy, throwing out hyperbolic lies (e.g. what fpot called him out on throughout this thread) and ignores all positives of things which he doesn't like.
your wholesale icecream price seems closer to the retail price from just it at Woolies
It's natural to expect the Woolworths cost breakdown analysis on their ice cream product lines to be completely different from a retail Ice Creamery though, considering the differences in purchasing power, service costs, etc. I don't think it'd be unusual for suppliers to clamor in order to stay within the Australian supermarket duopoly either.
Nitro it is not just my industry: Any business owner who employs more than 15 people or has a substantial turnover is looking at things like: complying with bullshit "modern awards" (which no other country in the world has), modern award is code for jacking penalty rates and allowances with not benefits for employers, payroll tax (yes a tax on creating more jobs), all sorts of arbitrary unfair dismissal, workplace harassment, bullying, OHS and discrmination rules which are so far over the top it isn't funny. Then you have other council regulations regarding environimental design of buildings, annual checking of backflow prevention devices, annual checking of hot water tempering devices, administration of employee superannuation choice of funds, oh shit when does employee super get increased by the government again? how will i pay for that? right to retun to part time work from maternity leave even if there is no part-time job there, requirement to give fair warning to employees who are deadshits plain and simple, increase in the casual loading from 18% to 23%, trading hours wtf we can't open when we want to?, weekend penalties wtf people wants shops open 7 days a week but then employer has to pay more that and pass the costs on?, carbon tax making business inputs more expensive, kitchen license for serving food, oh if residents wants a beer i need to get a liquor license fuck, wtf they removed the junior rates from modern award now i have to employe juniors on adult rates fuck that get rid of the juniors, can't enter into individual agreements any more, now everyone must be paid the same.
Have to take everything that infi says with a massive grain of salt, given the idealistic biased nonsense and flat out falsehoods which he was sprouting earlier in the thread, which he's refused to accept responsibility for.
He's already made it clear that in his mind, every regulation is the evil and pointless work of "leftists", of course he's going to have a massive whinge. Meanwhile the country is one of the best in the world economically. Maybe he's even just not cut out for business, and is more evidence why we should value a merit based culture instead of inheritance.
I've hit a lot of regulations too, some understandable (difficulties with selling internationally for preventing money laundering and terrorism funding) and some for rubbish reasons such as puritan based fears.
Nerf - nepotism and generational wealth will always exist, it's pointless for you to spend so much time being angry about them. Just because infi's parents were wealthy or he got some old boy hookups for jobs along the way doesn't invalidate his wealth of business experience. How can you with a straight face accuse him of not living in the real world when he has kids and owns a home and runs businesses, while you're 30~ with no drivers license and have never been laid? And I'm not sure whats on fpot's resume apart from manhandling drunk men and cleaning up vomit...
Ironically, its not infi but the two of you that usually come across as unreasonable, emotional ideologues. You with your constant hate of the wealthy and religion, and fpot's need to enter into debates he seemingly knows almost nothing about then shout down anyone with differing views as ignorant/racist/bigot/'lolbertarian' then pat himself on the back for being morally superior.
Just because infi's parents were wealthy or he got some old boy hookups for jobs along the way doesn't invalidate his wealth of business experience.
Sigh, I never said that it did. My criticism was of his constant badgering of anybody not in the same position as being lazy and whatnot when he lucked his way, as well as his constant representation of himself as somebody who heroically independently built his position - which is flat out wrong - as the basis for all of his "if I can, why can't you?" and "I'm a hard working independently made man being torn down by our society full of people who can't independently make themselves!" misinformation.
Though, I would say that being carried severely diminishes the value of one's views about the real world concerns of independently starting a business. It seems to always be the inheritors who have the biggest libertarian ideological whinges. As C. Wright Mills identified: "Nobody talks more of free enterprise and competition and of the best man winning than the man who inherited his father's store or farm"
How can you with a straight face accuse him of not living in the real world
Because of the shit which he says. He still hasn't backed up any of the claims/outright lies from the first half of the thread. It was just ranting nonsense.
Ironically, its not infi but the two of you that usually come across as unreasonable, emotional ideologues.
Maybe to obvious ideological dolts like you. :)
You with your constant hate of the wealthy
Lol, the old "you called us out on your bullshit, you must hate wealth" - no I hate liars and dishonest people, and work very hard towards being wealthy. Your cult-like ideological defensive games are showing, same as infi's with his "leftist" bullshit.
30~ with no drivers license
Some of us have to earn our own way, and decide to put our money into more important investments like starting a business and building a wealth base, rather than frivolous and super expensive bullshit like cars.
'lolbertarian' then pat himself on the back for being morally superior.
They deserve the title, they/you constantly use lolworthy untruths and tactics like this ("hate wealth", fucking lol). Notice that you don't have a go at him for his use of "leftists" and communist hysteria.
My friends in London are saying the thing they miss about Australia are the wages. They're getting paid a lot less now due to the Aussie dollar being high.
as someone who is involved in the development industry, infi is spot on regarding regulation with developments it is ridiculous how many hoops and regulations there are to follow and thne on top of the fact your average developer has to pay a consultant to do a development application including planning and engineering they then get hit with all sorts of fees from councils just for the right to submit an application. our company gauges the average total cost to develop land per lot and it has only grown since i started here 6 years ago
despite the fact that infi may have been giving his initial money doesn't mean he hasn't been through the system before and doesn't know what he is talking about
as usual nerfy's tears are directed at the fact infi was given money, because people that are given money make nerfy angry
as someone who is involved in the development industry, infi is spot on regarding regulation with developments it is ridiculous
That's not at all the scope of what he said, you're re-writing history if you say that that was our criticism, or what the first half of the thread was about.
Good rule of thumb, pick out the two loudest in any 100+ post fight on QGL and the reasonable position to take is probably midway between them.
I only ask for truth instead of this ideological-fervency, propaganda, and defamation games of anybody who challenges their claims ("hate wealth", "leftist", etc).
everyone else is just making a lot more sense on these topics than you two
Was that when they were: * Claiming things which were shown to be empirically untrue? * Linking prices here to the minimum wage, when most people are not on the minimum wage, rather than consumer behaviour where consumers are richer? * Describing themselves as the heroes of independent wealth creation because they spent other people's created wealth? * Making out things like fire safety codes and minimum wages as being ridiculous and only hurtful, getting in the way of their heroic independent wealth creation? * Claiming that anybody who criticized them hated wealth? * Represented Australia as some sort of economic hell? (as opposed to the unregulated markets of anarchist north africa presumably?)
Maybe if we played their game, and just threw around confident-sounding ideological untruths, gullible people would listen to us too.
as usual nerfy's tears are directed at the fact infi was given money, because people that are given money make nerfy angry
Jesus christ. The cult games with you people. "We're being called back to reality. We're being hated at."
Nerf, you can hardly claim your posts are rational and objective on this forum (anymore?), take a look at them, you be slinging shit with the rest of the monkeys.
Nerf, you can hardly claim your posts are rational.
Highlight just one which you think is irrational. Just one.
I'll take your criticism on board when I see you criticizing infi for lying, as he did. QGL has such a libertarian-economics streak that the people like infi spewing what they do almost never get criticized. But the people asking for evidence of their claims? Criticized for it. The people who dug up evidence which was contrary to the claims. Criticized. The people pointing out the flaws and hysteria? Criticized. Pointed out that his criticisms are almost certainly entirely motivated by his ideologies sprayed all over the first half of the thread and should be taken with a massive grain of salt? Better criticize that.
Just out of curiosity, what have I said that didn't make sense?
Railing against a strawman opposition viewpoint of getting rid of all regulation when all that would realistic be proposed is getting rid of stupid regulation. I certainly don't claim first hand business operation experience, do you? If not, why would you shrug off complaints of those that do?
Contempt of an opposing viewpoint because of perceived past injustices - you keep bringing up allegation of infi's dodgy dealings with a corrupt MP, I'm surprised you haven't taken the evidence you have to police already.
Overusing lolbertarian as an insult yet struggling with the definition of and first hand experience with libertarianism. Don't take that last one too harshly though I guess, I actually thought the Q&A between you and reload earlier was the most lucid exchange I've seen in many threads.
OK, I'm not here for a big back and forth dude, TicMan has me over a barrel this arvo.
My criticism was of his constant badgering of anybody not in the same position as being lazy and whatnot when he lucked his way, as well as his constant representation of himself as somebody who heroically independently built his position - which is flat out wrong - as the basis for all of his "if I can, why can't you?" and "I'm a hard working independently made man being torn down by our society full of people who can't independently make themselves!" misinformation.
This is slinging shit at the poster, not attacking the argument. You're flaming people not posting concise, matter of fact logic, and allowing the discussion to move away from discussing whether regulations are a significant and primary cost of business. infi (in between his own ranty shit slinging) posted a list of regulatory complaints from his experience, rather than challenge those, you went for the character attack.
You can claim its rational and objective shit slinging if you like I guess?
I stand by everything I said because I run (not own, run) a business that turns over $13m p.a. And employs over 200 people. I speak from my experience as a job creator and a chief executive charged under many acts to comply with various obligations. Call me lost in fantasy if you like. I turn up to work every day and ensure bills and wages get paid for a lot of people. I build new services by risking company capital (not mine, company capital). I have to pitch deals to banks, valuers and departments for a lot of money. If you think I have kept the business running and growing for 10 years through dumb entitlement and luck then you are entitled to your completely uninformed opinion.
if I was talking shit I am pretty sure those other stakeholders would pull me up. Thank you for your very valuable insight Nerfy...
Railing against a strawman opposition viewpoint of getting rid of all regulation when all that would realistic be proposed is getting rid of stupid regulation.
Infi is so anti-regulation that he tried to blame it entirely for higher prices in Australia. Eventually he came around to it being a matter of consumer behaviour, but insisted that it's because average Australians are too rich because of the minimum wage, when the median and average incomes are well over the minimum wage.
why would you shrug off complaints of those that do?
Because they're coming from a repeating liar, exaggerator, and idealist.
This is slinging shit at the poster, not attacking the argument.
It is directly attacking the argument, maybe you just haven't read the thread and don't know what infi said about being some super-experienced hard-working independently-made business person who has a monopoly on "real world making your own way."
These regulations are all designed by cool hipsters from the inner city with urban planning degrees who have never built anything in their lives. They only ever work for Councils or State Government, vote Greens and wear black clear lens glasses.
As per usual, both fpot and you have demonstrated how clueless you are about the real world (compared to the soy moccacino portlandia you live in).
You get involved in conversations you have no idea about Nerf. You are completely idiotically clueless yet you are compelled to keep posting total rubbish.
It would be great if we lived in a little bubble world
So i can't just deploy residential squares and expect houses to pop up? interesting.
All because we asked for evidence and pointed out the flaws in his hyperbole. I also note that you didn't criticize infi once for any of this. I'm tired of your obvious ideological bias.
Your tears are always the same with infi, regardless of how he got his money he is IN THE BUSINESS of what he is commenting about but you are so fucking self righteous and utterly butthurt to see it
He said some things are over regulated so your first post reply is 'regulation stops me from killing you' any level heading person should be able to see he wasn't talking about removing all regulation
Nerf and fpot have posted the most in this thread and provided nothing but their own brand of hyperbole
How can you with a straight face accuse him of not living in the real world when he has kids and owns a home and runs businesses, while you're 30~ with no drivers license and have never been laid? And I'm not sure whats on fpot's resume apart from manhandling drunk men and cleaning up vomit...
LMFAO. This is exactly why i signed up to this forum.
It's humorous to watch people like fpot try to act like they know more about business than someone who actually runs one, infact it's a common theme in fpots posts where he acts like he knows everything about everything, despite the fact that he checks IDs for a living and only has a year of undergraduate study to his name.
Also note how nerfy totally ignored infi's last post?
Lol, you criticize and then complain when you're asked to back any of it up.
No, I was mentioning I have limited time today for a chat as I'm working against a deadline and might not be able to get back to you quickly. There was no complaint there, nerf, this is a good example of your shit-slinging.
It is directly attacking the argument, maybe you just haven't read the thread and don't know what infi said about being some super-experienced hard-working independently-made business person who has a monopoly on "real world making your own way."
Yes, I mentioned he was ranty. I also mentioned he posted some hard examples of the regulation he's talking about that makes doing business hard and in his opinion needlessly expensive. To date all you seem to have done is post about what a cunt infi is, rather than explain why you (presumably) think things are not actually the way he says they are? Have you even posted your opinion on the subject in this thread?
Because infi has specifically mentioned things in his little whinges that I believe are necessary. In particular this sentence
No you have to comply with hundreds of pages of State Town Planning Acts, Regional Plans for Urbanisation, Local Council Planning Codes for land usage, traffic, noise, stormwater, environment, energy efficiency, sustainability, social planning and feng-shui, and Building Code of Australia Design codes, all driving the cost the cost up of your standard 3 bed 2 bathroom house and land package up by about $250,000.
Now he threw feng-shui in there for some reason so that one is obviously a joke, but apart from that how are any of those things not essential when considering development projects? Social planning is a very broad term so perhaps if he went into a bit more detail about that we could find some rubbish to get rid of. infi's posts in this thread have pretty much been two untruths (that Australia is the most overpriced country in the world and also the most overregulated) with purestrain libertarian garbage sandwiched in between it. We live in the information age where google can find things for us in fractions of a second, yet he hasn't been able to produce a single piece of evidence to back up his claims. There were other things he mentioned as problems which sound completely reasonable to me as well, like not being able to supply alcohol unless you have a liquor license among others. That is one area I do happen to have experience in (security guard, security trainer, RSA trainer) and when it comes to supplying alcohol to the public in a public area, heavy regulations are required and they need to be enforced.
Fair enough, I do bring that up a lot. I guess I just love irony, and the irony of someone who constantly criticises the government for being dodgy and inefficient who almost certainly was the beneficiary of corrupt favours from an MP who was proven to be corrupt is just way too good for me to resist.
All I said regarding his later post was "take it with a grain of salt", because none of us were born yesterday and can read between the lines.
rather than explain why you (presumably) think things are not actually the way he says they are? Have you even posted your opinion on the subject in this thread?
I've said that I don't have much of an opinion, I've encountered understandable (security) and unjustifiable (christian sexual morality) regulations. My concern is liars, game players, idealists representing things only in a defaming light because of their bias, etc.
To date all you seem to have done is post about what a cunt infi is
Sigh, that's just not true. Only reason I was even posting was to get him to admit that what he said didn't match empirical evidence. I'm out.
The bias for empirically incorrect bullshit here is depressing.
Any business owner who employs more than 15 people or has a substantial turnover is looking at things like: complying with bullshit "modern awards" (which no other country in the world has), modern award is code for jacking penalty rates and allowances with not benefits for employers, payroll tax (yes a tax on creating more jobs), all sorts of arbitrary unfair dismissal, workplace harassment, bullying, OHS and discrmination rules which are so far over the top it isn't funny.
I agree with some of this, but not all of it. Award rates I think are a bit on the high side, especially when it comes to penalty rates. I think we would be more productive and employ more people (albeit at less money per person) if we had some more flexibility in what we could pay casual or part time staff.
There are lots of people out there willing to work and accept a lower wage. But because of the rules, they don't get to work (legally) at all. The law isn't actually doing them any favours.
Maybe centrelink is doing them a favour you say? Well getting you used to to being reliant on the dole is no favour.
I've agreed for a long time that the minimum wage is too high, if the goal is raw survival (having pretty much always lived on half of it), though suspect that it's part of a larger economic balancing act, and a slightly overzealous attempt at preventing a lot of exploitation of naive and option-limited people (so I do support at least some minimum wage). I've actually been hired below minimum wage several times when working in labs, no idea how it worked though, think that we just understated my real hours.
Currently I want to cheaply hire some students for some 3d modelling work (I used to do this myself, but don't have the time for the volume needed), but am less keen because of the potential legal complications of the minimum wage. It's one of those things that makes sense and prevents problems, but does also create problems.
To be clear though, my objection wasn't about regulations/minimum wage being perfect, it was only about the obvious ideological bias in the slippery changing argument where 'regulations' are to blame for Australia's costs, because: * Safety regulations factor into the cost of production. Oh it's an import? * Er, I mean, because health code regulations make people used to paying more for things like ice cream. Oh it's software in a monopolized field? * Er, I mean, because minimum wage regulations means that some people have more money.
etc etc. No matter what it is, regulations are somehow to blame when you have an ideology that says so.
I'm glad that we do have regulations, because if people like infi had their way ("leave it up to me!"), we wouldn't be doing a thing about carbon emissions.
I'm glad that we do have regulations, because if people like infi had their way ("leave it up to me!"), we wouldn't be doing a thing about carbon emissions.
that you're happy to make blanket generalisations like this in one breath and frothingly pop veins about liars and ideologists in another is the reason people think you're a loon.
Nice one Nitro - it is really surprising how many people don't appreciate the level of costs involved in running a business, they just assume they're all making huge profits with their monocles and tophats like evil capitalist fatcats!
I dig that the Nerfy/Fpot/Infi shitstorm has reached some nice conclusions, but no-ones appreciating those sweet 60 second adventures in economics videos I posted!
Sidenote, what was Nerf Lord's previous names? I'm not up on forum intrigue.
I tend to agree that the minimum wage can make it prohibitive for people to get extra help to expand businesses at times. To go from one to two employees, if I was so swamped with work, I'd basically need to be making $40k profit before bringing on the second full-time person.
However two things that really need to be fixed:
- That a 'casual' person can be 'not' fired by just giving them no shifts. You hear of this all the time - casual employee does something that annoys manager, but is totally legit - could even be as much as reporting them not doing something up to standard - and suddenly they're getting no work. If they were full/part time and they were fired it'd have been all kinds of trouble, but because they're casual, they have no rights.
- That a business can close up over any period (usually Christmas/New Year) and force the employee to use up their holiday at full accrual - sometimes beyond what they have accrued. The law should be changed so that forced leave only accrues at something like 50%.
Nothing used to shit me more than being in a job as a software developer where because all the marketing, business, finance etc slackasses wanted their holiday, we were forced to take time off when we had nothing to do - at a time of the year where we could be the most productive. And it was at our cost.
That whole idea is farking buuuulllllshit.
I pay 1 euro a scoop for ice cream, but its so cold the ice cream shop is shut ... which leaves me with Ben & Jerries that is owned by Unilever a Dutch/British multinational that goes for 4 or even 5 euros at the supermarket for the tiny tub.
Case of Heineken is about 10 euros on special, crate of 24 that is.
That a 'casual' person can be 'not' fired by just giving them no shifts. You hear of this all the time - casual employee does something that annoys manager, but is totally legit - could even be as much as reporting them not doing something up to standard - and suddenly they're getting no work. If they were full/part time and they were fired it'd have been all kinds of trouble, but because they're casual, they have no rights.
People who sook because they are no longer offered work shouldn't take casual jobs. It's inherent to the arrangement that the offer of work can be withdrawn at any time without reason.
That a business can close up over any period (usually Christmas/New Year) and force the employee to use up their holiday at full accrual - sometimes beyond what they have accrued. The law should be changed so that forced leave only accrues at something like 50%
Annual leave under the NES does not have to be taken each year, as the entitlement can accumulate. It is up to each employer and employee to agree on when and for how long paid annual leave may be taken. ... In certain circumstances, an employer can direct an employee to take annual leave. In order for an employer to be able to do this, an award or agreement must include terms that require an employee to take paid annual leave, or allow the employee to be directed to take leave.
The requirement in the award or agreement must be reasonable. Similarly, the NES allow an employer to require an award or agreement-free employee to take a period of annual leave, but only if the requirement is reasonable.
A requirement to take paid annual leave may be reasonable if, for example: • the employee has accrued an excessive amount of paid annual leave • the employer’s enterprise is being shut down for a period (such as between Christmas and New Year)
This seems entirely reasonable to me. I've never had someone cry that they wanted to work over Christmas / New Year and it would be a pain in the arse to accommodate such a request.
Yeah not recieving shifts (for whatever reason at all) seems inherent to a casual employment arrangement. My understanding was that employers trying to have that cake and eat it too by employing "casual" staff at the equivalent of full time hours week in week out are forced to reclassify those staff members as permanent after 6 months anyway?
We close up over Christmas, but give people the option of paid or unpaid leave.
Dont make me laugh infi, the cost of living (at least in my state) is due to the massive amount of mining dollars flowing in through private business, and the complete lack of workers. Basic supply and demand - labour is scarce, if we want more bodies we can change immigration laws, but I'm guessing that's one of the few regulations you do agree with given your prevalence for the "STOP THE BOATS" party.
Regulation stops people using children for cheap labour, it makes employers pay people a fair wage and let them go home on time. It means that people can go and have a kid if they want, it means all sorts of awesome things. Just because you have an issue with a few regulations is no reason to make blanket statements about all regulations being bad.
We close up over Christmas, but give people the option of paid or unpaid leave.Dont make me laugh infi, the cost of living (at least in my state) is due to the massive amount of mining dollars flowing in through private business, and the complete lack of workers. Basic supply and demand - labour is scarce, if we want more bodies we can change immigration laws, but I'm guessing that's one of the few regulations you do agree with given your prevalence for the "STOP THE BOATS" party. Regulation stops people using children for cheap labour, it makes employers pay people a fair wage and let them go home on time. It means that people can go and have a kid if they want, it means all sorts of awesome things. Just because you have an issue with a few regulations is no reason to make blanket statements about all regulations being bad.
Labour is scarce, yet the government released figures showing the biggest jump in people claiming the dole in 20 years.............
This whole "oh we don't have enough labour, need to import it" is absolute rubbish.
^ but it must be true, Gina said she needed, what was it 4700, 457 visa holders to construct her new mines. If she says it's the case it must be. /sarcasm
Or could it be that some people just want to pay people way less so they can have way more?
^ but it must be true, Gina said she needed, what was it 4700, 457 visa holders to construct her new mines. If she says it's the case it must be. /sarcasmOr could it be that some people just want to pay people way less so they can have way more?
or they are too lazy to train people which is the case with most employers these days. Every job ad reads "must have experience" even if its a shit kicker job.
I like the idea of Special Economic Zones.
These zones will generate more business for companies outside the zones creating more jobs.
Many ppl dont want to work in the mines.
especially for shitkickers money.
gina doesnt need to employ at cheaper wages but what it does is it makes unviable ventures viable.
The problem I see is in the last 30 or so years there has been a significant increase in unprincipled people gaining positions of influence and power, both politically and corporately in the western world. The second Iraq war, GFC, our current domestic and global political numbnuts I think exemplifies this to be the case.
Just had an allegedly homeless dude come up to me whilst fine dining at Maccas and ask me and my mate for $30 to help him out. Either I'm even more out of touch than I thought with the cost of living or beggars have really upped their asking price.
A specific $ amount seems rather weird, the majority of the time I get asked for 'spare change' or 'a couple of bucks for x.' Pretty rare occurrence (me being in the city for starters and someone asking for coin) for me though. Last time I was at Queen street someone that looked under age was asking me for change so he could 'call my older bro' when he had just purchased Hungries and I saw him texting on his phone...
(usually Christmas/New Year)
I get extra 'Christmas leave' that doesn't eat up my normal Annual Leave. I know a few forced to take leave, but most I know are offered the opportunity to take unpaid leave over Christmas if they want to save their leave. Most guys I know in the private sector have a hell of a lot easier taking unpaid leave actually, I have to fill out a 2 page request asking for it... and even then HR seems to be adverse to it. I took 3 months off to go to Europe and I had to go through heaps of shit with HR to get it, even though my Program Leader and Manager agreed to it.
I had a homeless guy ask me for some money to help buy himself breakfast. In his hand he was flicking a lighter constantly as though he was jonesing ti light up a ciggy.....
I said no. I used to see an old homeless dude on Elizabeth St who would eat muffin break muffins and drink juice if he got some money. Happy to help that guy out.
I said no. I used to see an old homeless dude on Elizabeth St who would eat muffin break muffins and drink juice if he got some money. Happy to help that guy out.
yeah same
there's a chap in his mid to late 20s getting around the area between the valley and west end - he stands out when you meet him. The poor guy doesn't have hands. 'Tim' is his name.
Meh being homeless in this country generally means you dont want to be helped and just want to drain the system. There's so many self help avenues to get you on your feet in this country, there's no excuse to be homeless. Unless you have some kind of mental disability, an incredibly low IQ or sorts, even then... if you want help, you'll find it, instead of just asking for cash/cigs/maccas
If there were no minimum wage, we'd just be like America. Low/ middle class would require tips to survive. We have an excellent system to ensure people can actually have a retirement, have worker rights and medical assistance. If some of you don't like it, simply go to the USA and live the capitalist / libertarian you desire.
Compared to Australia and Europe, though, so much of the US feels like such a shithole and I can't help but think it's because of that libertarian ideal that they champion so much, that attitude of "every man for himself" taken to the extreme.
The massive gap between the rich and poor is glaringly obvious, there are homeless people everywhere, infrastructure is a joke, public transport is old and run down, the roads are poorly maintained, requiring healthcare is a nightmare...
Having relatives living in the US and travelling between the US and Australia or Europe, all this stuff really hits you in the face.
Why shouldnt a homeless person enjoy the occassional drug binge ?
I cant think of much worse than being homeless.
or do you think taking Drugs is some kind of an elitist reward for being better off than a homeless person ?
Only problem is the more "stuff" you get, the more of it is then taken by the government. Accumulating stuff is not approved by the government. That is greed. That government will tell you how much stuff is fair.
Or for another spin, once you get a certain amount of stuff you are no longer struggling, so can afford to pay a bit more of the share of the country's needs.
Only problem is the more "stuff" you get, the more of it is then taken by the government. Accumulating stuff is not approved by the government. That is greed. That government will tell you how much stuff is fair.
O, democracy!
I prefer to look at it thusly: the more successful you are, the more you get to help contribute to the system that helped make you successful
Free people normally do stuff voluntarily. But nowadays the encouragement comes via force and threat of imprisonment. Pretty cool.
haaaaaaahahahahaah ahah ahah aha. Dude that sounds like it's straight from the Glen Beck playbook. I can't figure out if you're intentionally going over the top because it makes you sound like one of those hilarious Fox News sockpuppets for Republic party interests and it's just great troll/comedy value, or if you genuinely believe these things. I hope it's just exaggeration for comic effect, even if you somewhat believe in big-L Libertarian values, because the hyperbole is genuinely funny then - otherwise it's just depressing
I can't figure out if you're intentionally going over the top because it makes you sound like one of those hilarious Fox News sockpuppets for Republic party interests and it's just great troll/comedy value, or if you genuinely believe these things.
so people work hard, they earn wealth for themself, but if the government gets in the shit or decides it wants to porkbarrel more voters, it can just increase your tax rate? what the fuck is going on? this sounds like a mafia.
a basic stable amount of tax is fine but tax to fund pink batts and back to school handouts and free latops for all - do the workers of australia honestly agree with wortking their ass off for this tomfoolery?
the socialists of this forum always talk about fair wages and workers getting screwed by their employers. has anyone ever stopped to think their wages are getting raped by their government, on programs that go to people who don't work or on funding asylum seekers who have done jack shit for this country except come here to get on the sweeet free health care and housing programs, on wasteful bureaucracy and public servants that can't work even in an Iron Lung?
United Nations human rights monitors have asked the Federal Government to justify its decision to cut welfare payments to single parents.
The Federal Government this year moved thousands of single parents onto the lower unemployment payment, Newstart, cutting their payments by up to $110 a week.
edit: it's deliciously ironic that canberra is the most wealthy state/territory in australia. keep em coming.
Anyone who isn't a frothing at the mouth libertarian is a socialist, said every lolbertarian ever.
I am happy to see my money go to people from disadvantaged countries so they can have a crack at a good life here free from persecution and disease. You aren't because you live life by the motto 'fuck you got mine'. Like every lolbertarian does. Pink batts weren't a bad idea. It was just people taking advantage of it and doing dodgy jobs that fucked it up. The same people who will voluntarily give away their money if income tax was taken away, according to you. To be honest that is something that really annoyed me, because roof insulation is incredibly effective and would have saved heaps in energy costs in the long run. Greedy fucking cunts though scammed it and ruined it for everyone.
The rest of your post is just typical lolbertarian strawman nonsense.
Of course everybody agrees that pork barrelling and inefficient spending is bad, but you've been railing against very different things up until this point. "I've been criticized? Make them look stupid by accusing them of loving unrelated kitten murder, and ask why they agree with it."
canberra is the most wealthy state/territory in australia
Got a source for that? Because every google result I have found says it's Western Australia. They aren't very good though, mostly news articles and stuff.
edit: according to this it's number two. You have this real problem with just making stuff up don't you?
a basic stable amount of tax is fine but tax to fund pink batts and back to school handouts and free latops for all - do the workers of australia honestly agree with wortking their ass off for this tomfoolery?
i would like my children to have laptops at school and i like my house being insulated. i am happy that my taxes went to useful projects like this. (yes, the batts could have been managed slightly better)
a basic stable amount of tax is fine but tax to fund pink batts and back to school handouts and free latops for all - do the workers of australia honestly agree with wortking their ass off for this tomfoolery?
but you can say that about any government programme that you don't get a direct or indirect benefit from.
Like: fuck the flood levy, my house stayed dry, right?
Sometimes they'll swing and miss - sometimes it will be a genuinely boneheaded decision or lack of foresight but in many cases like pink batts (from what I know of the programme - not much) it was just (as fpot says) ruined by a few bad apples (something that probably could have been avoided with better regulations :) The programme was probably a good idea though.
It's just not possible to leave things to the free market to let them work it out. Not. Possible. The market is too shortsighted to deal with big problems. It requires a government to do that because they are the only organisations that can think and plan in the truly long term.
Sometimes they'll fuck up it up, like every other organisation, but you just have to take the losses with the wins - learn from them and do what you can to minimise them the next time.
Batts program worked for me, my insulation is saving me in the long term, and will for the lifetime of the property. As a mortgagee with a small regional business in a moribund local economy with a young family ... I'd be massively unlikely to find the capital to do it in the next 5 years.
I know in some places it was managed badly, but for us it was an awesome program. Maybe it should have been a little less ambitious and started first in the hottest regions / had a rollout limit etc etc to keep a lid on the scope.
Batts program worked for me, my insulation is saving me in the long term, and will for the lifetime of the property. As a mortgagee with a small regional business in a moribund local economy with a young family ... I'd be massively unlikely to find the capital to do it in the next 5 years.I know in some places it was managed badly, but for us it was an awesome program. Maybe it should have been a little less ambitious and started first in the hottest regions / had a rollout limit etc etc to keep a lid on the scope.TLDR Would batts again, AAA++++++
But how do you know it was done properly when so many houses weren't? Have you had it properly checked?
But how do you know it was done properly when so many houses weren't? Have you had it properly checked?
Yes, after the shitfight the independent inspectors came around and tweaked it a little (removed a 30cm strip that was too close to some power) and gave it the nod. I know for a fact that the same guy ordered some to be removed so he wasn't fucking around.
Also see spook's reply. We had some good shit installed not the spray-in foam etc.
