blossom Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Will you be needing to pay rent/mortgage as well while being on that amount? Just being a bit nosey as we will be on a similar wage + about $550 per fortnight for child and rent assistance ,when we come over if I don't go to work (2 young children would make it pointless childcare cost wise unless I found an evening job). :smile: Yes. My rent is $370 per week at the moment. If you are entitled to rent assistance (not sure if we will be until next financial year) then it seems to be a set amount no matter what your rent, so better to rent cheaper if you can. I wouldn't bank on that amount of child payment until you are here though. They go off what you have earnt that financial year, and will include uk income. So even if you are currently earning nothing, if you have the rest of the year you won't be entitled to as much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 One in seven Australians to be precise are living in poverty. Due largely to the allowance of benefits to fall behind in value and lack of rent increases reflecting the massive growth of rents as they have escalated over the past decade. Australia is well down the list of OECD countries in welfare entitlements largely due to this. The fact being of course is a segment of the population has been allowed by government to fall ever behind as part of policy with little thought from the majority that done well from boom conditions or rapid housing inflation over the past decade or so. The Gillard government did at least raise the OAP by $50 a week. Even business has admitted present welfare payments are too small. Shades of UK or more especially USA are all too apparent with these stats that without doubt will increase due to declining economic conditions and more competition and the desire to impose an ever declining safety net. Thankfully the scrapping of the dole for under thirties for six months on application has been defeated. Just shows the ends the present lot in power will go though, if given the chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrutineer Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Measuring poverty is actually very difficult, and statistics like this are open to serious examination. Mostly poverty stats are relative to minimal living standards, and those too are very hard to agree upon. The economic model is a factor, which is why there is more relative poverty in the Anglo-Saxon countries than there is in the Scandinavian countries, for example, but it's give and take because the Scandinavian countries have much higher overall taxation and many more regs hindering businesses and so on while Australia, for example, has the highest number of entrepreneurs in the world as a percentage of the population, including even the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenon4017 Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 while Australia, for example, has the highest number of entrepreneurs in the world as a percentage of the population, including even the US. You mean the highest number of self-employed?? How is your stat derived exactly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Measuring poverty is actually very difficult, and statistics like this are open to serious examination. Mostly poverty stats are relative to minimal living standards, and those too are very hard to agree upon. The economic model is a factor, which is why there is more relative poverty in the Anglo-Saxon countries than there is in the Scandinavian countries, for example, but it's give and take because the Scandinavian countries have much higher overall taxation and many more regs hindering businesses and so on while Australia, for example, has the highest number of entrepreneurs in the world as a percentage of the population, including even the US. Relative poverty is more than in Scandinavian countries due to the Nordic world having a much better safety net. In those countries folk are paid a high percentage of last earnings on becoming unemployed for a period. Rental controls prevent big rent increase and give security of tenure. As for small business folk, I take that is who you refer to, remind me how many are still up and running after a few years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Poverty will only get worse. The outlook is really grim. Manufacturing jobs are disappearing at an alarming rate. In three years time there will be no Australian auto industry and all the local suppliers will close down. Soon everything will be produced in Asia. I lost my job at a Melbourne suburban newspaper group where I had worked for over ten years. Everyone was made redundant and the work is now being done in Manila. The advertising and pages are created there and with a click of the mouse they end up on a printing machine in Melbourne. Not many people would realise that the local newspaper they are reading is now produced in the Phillipines at the cost of hundreds of Australian jobs. That was 3 years ago - no one wants my skills - I'm still unemployed and now I'm technically living in poverty. **** happens. We need more stories as yours from the coal face so to speak. If you read the gloss often written on this forum one may well get the impression that what you write about and I know belongs to a foreign land. Thanks for sharing. Good luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 It may not be what you'd call poverty. Regardless increasing numbers of Folk are finding life increasingly challenging. The divide is ever increasing between have and have nots a situation totally un necessary in a country with Australia's wealth. Still relative and of concern even if not complete abject poverty. I think "challenging" is now defined as if they can't afford a mobile phone internet and another form of communication (laptop or ipad), have at least one flat screen TV, have a car and be able to drive, go out for a few drinks with friends at least once a week, afford rent in a decent house in a decent neighbourhood. I think what people who are classed as "in poverty" now expect needs a bit of adjustment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chortlepuss Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 . I think what people who are classed as "in poverty" now expect needs a bit of adjustment. My daughter (20 year old) said to me the other day 'I don't think it would be possible for a family of four to have just one bathroom would it?' I grew up in the 60's (one bathroom for 6 and we were jolly pleased it was inside). My parents told us we were well off because we didn't go hungry. Their childhood during wartime was very different and I have no idea how my granny fed her 4 kids after grandad died - My mum had to go into service instead of continuing at school. I remember having about 2-3 changes of clothes apart from my school uniform. I knew that we weren't well off - but I never thought of us as living in poverty. My best mate's dad was a stockbroker and they lived in a similar house to us (although they went on fancy holidays, shopped for food at M&S and had a nice car). The wild differences in living standards between rich, comfy and poor just weren't that apparent to me growing up in the 60's and 70's. Divisions now between rich and poor and inequality seems to be increasing in Australia, UK, many developed nations... and the thing is, inequality hurts us all, rich or poor in so many ways. I'd recommend a great book if anyone's interested...(available from the library for free!!) The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better Richard G. Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 Poverty will only get worse. The outlook is really grim. Manufacturing jobs are disappearing at an alarming rate. In three years time there will be no Australian auto industry and all the local suppliers will close down. Soon everything will be produced in Asia. I lost my job at a Melbourne suburban newspaper group where I had worked for over ten years. Everyone was made redundant and the work is now being done in Manila. The advertising and pages are created there and with a click of the mouse they end up on a printing machine in Melbourne. Not many people would realise that the local newspaper they are reading is now produced in the Phillipines at the cost of hundreds of Australian jobs. That was 3 years ago - no one wants my skills - I'm still unemployed and now I'm technically living in poverty. **** happens. The only way things are going to get better is when the workers in Manila, China, India where a lot of the work seems to be going to get their act together and start asking for a decent wage themselves. Compared to most Aussies they are in more poverty than them and working full time. You're right Lambethlad. It's not going to get any easier to get a decently paid job for the younger generation. We may have been in the biggest boom this country has ever seen and for a lot of people, my son included, they've done really well out of it and a lot will continue to do well. There are still thousands of FIFO workers on good money and it's not going to stop for a long time yet. Problem is the companies who are making the money, your BHP Billiton, FMG, Rio Tinto, Ford, Holden, the Banks etc. etc. complain all the time about how they are struggling, they need to do more with less people, they have to rationalise/improve productivity (or other words to find to make an excuse to get rid of a few more workers and get the ones they keep to have more work, more stress). When it comes to reporting season, surprise surprise, record profits again and the CEO and management get a fat bonus. They only care about shareholders and profits and have no social conscience whatsoever. I'm not a massive fan of Colin Barnett but he made a few comments last week about how some of the big miners are operating. Price of Iron Ore is low so the big miners who can afford to take a hit are increasing production hoping that some of the small miners will have to pull out of the market, giving them an even bigger share. Colin remarked that he thought it was bad business practices and they "should remember who their landlord is". Not that I expect him to cancel any leases and give them off to anyone else but I was with him on his words. All depends what your skill set is too. I used to be a fitter and had years when the money was going backwards and jobs disappearing so I went back to uni and did a degree in computer Science. Not saying that's going to be available to everyone, I was single at the time and couldn't imagine contemplating doing that had I been married with a mortgage. My sons an apprentice trained sparkie so I think he will be OK. I suppose the other action people could take here is refuse to have anything to do with the local paper that is produced from Manila and put pressure on companies that offshore staff. I've seen a few adverts on TV recently where a couple of banks and insurance companies have started making a point about talking to people that are local and having local branches, so maybe the message is trickling through in that sector. It would take a massive effort and I think the only people that would be able to organise anything like that would be unions who's memberships are dwindling. The side of politics that are in now won't have much sympathy for that type of thinking though. They would rather see everything privatised, people who can't get work really suffer, and benefits cut for everyone. In the meantime them and their rich shareholding, company director mates would be minting it in, cost of living would have to fall, making them feel even richer. Job done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 Measuring poverty is actually very difficult, and statistics like this are open to serious examination. Mostly poverty stats are relative to minimal living standards, and those too are very hard to agree upon. The economic model is a factor, which is why there is more relative poverty in the Anglo-Saxon countries than there is in the Scandinavian countries, for example, but it's give and take because the Scandinavian countries have much higher overall taxation and many more regs hindering businesses and so on while Australia, for example, has the highest number of entrepreneurs in the world as a percentage of the population, including even the US. I watched the Danish show Borgen and was surprised that most of the people featured had pretty high power jobs. Major character being the PM who quit then started her own party and challenged for power again. What surprised me was just about all of them seemed to be getting round on bicycles and living in pretty average sized apartments. I can't remember one of them owning a house and most didn't seem to have a car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ausborn Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 So I grew up in a low income/ most on welfare type of suburb. The ones I'm sure being used as examples of poverty in surveys like this . Meanwhile they all drink , smoke pack of ciggies a day and every other night eating in one of our great fast food outlets that prey on them. They are not defining poverty real well. Meanwhile unemployed rises these same lot living large in "poverty"won't get of there bums and train up or fill all the labour positions in the construction industry that screaming for workers at present. There is some Real poverty in Australia , aboriginal communities, rarely seen by most though IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 If poverty is defined as earning under $400 per week, does that mean newstart allowance should be raised to $400 per week (from approx $255 currently). I would think that unemployment benefits should be raised to the poverty line marker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frozen Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 I watched the Danish show Borgen and was surprised that most of the people featured had pretty high power jobs. Major character being the PM who quit then started her own party and challenged for power again. What surprised me was just about all of them seemed to be getting round on bicycles and living in pretty average sized apartments. I can't remember one of them owning a house and most didn't seem to have a car. Don't believe all you see on TV............ http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/images/1/14/Distribution_of_population_by_dwelling_type%2C_2012_%281%29_%28%25_of_population%29_YB14_II.png Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Collett Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 In Australia, the poverty line equates to living on less than $400 a week for a single adult or $841 for a couple with two children. When you define "poverty" on the basis of an average number (as this report does) you will always have a number living in poverty. It is a statistical inevitability ... which doesn't mean that the same number are unable to house, feed and clothe themselves - which I suggest is a better indicator of what constitutes "poverty" in the minds of most. Best regards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 Don't believe all you see on TV............ http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/images/1/14/Distribution_of_population_by_dwelling_type%2C_2012_%281%29_%28%25_of_population%29_YB14_II.png Don't believe all you download from the internet either Frozen. Makes the UK look good that graph doesn't it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blossom Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 If poverty is defined as earning under $400 per week, does that mean newstart allowance should be raised to $400 per week (from approx $255 currently). I would think that unemployment benefits should be raised to the poverty line marker. Not at all. As I said, I happily lived on that when single, with a car and renting a three bed house to myself. If I got given that per week what incentive would I have to go get a job? I have heard so many people here crying poor, but still smoking, drinking, and playing on pokies. If you have money to do those things then you have spare money. People just have a skewed idea of what they NEED and how to get it. Loans are not generally the way, but they and credit cards are made too easy for people without the brains to budget their money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 So I grew up in a low income/ most on welfare type of suburb. The ones I'm sure being used as examples of poverty in surveys like this . Meanwhile they all drink , smoke pack of ciggies a day and every other night eating in one of our great fast food outlets that prey on them. They are not defining poverty real well. Meanwhile unemployed rises these same lot living large in "poverty"won't get of there bums and train up or fill all the labour positions in the construction industry that screaming for workers at present. There is some Real poverty in Australia , aboriginal communities, rarely seen by most though IMO. What's wrong with them getting off their bum and filling said vacancies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 Not at all. As I said, I happily lived on that when single, with a car and renting a three bed house to myself. If I got given that per week what incentive would I have to go get a job? I have heard so many people here crying poor, but still smoking, drinking, and playing on pokies. If you have money to do those things then you have spare money. People just have a skewed idea of what they NEED and how to get it. Loans are not generally the way, but they and credit cards are made too easy for people without the brains to budget their money. I don't think you could do all that today on less than $400 per week. But if poverty means an amount of income on which you can only just live, then unemployment benefits should really equal that. True we want people to have incentive to get a job, but we also want to pay unemployment benefits at a level that allows people to live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest66881 Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 I don't think you could do all that today on less than $400 per week. But if poverty means an amount of income on which you can only just live, then unemployment benefits should really equal that. True we want people to have incentive to get a job, but we also want to pay unemployment benefits at a level that allows people to live. Then the unemployment payment should be in the form of food stamps or some other form of voucher as not to allow the miss use of dole money, and direct debit payments via the dole to the renting agencies for any accommodation lived in. The dole is a loan in my book and should be paid back, especially if you have never worked in the first place, bit like a student loan, it is also a stop gap not a way of life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blossom Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 I don't think you could do all that today on less than $400 per week. But if poverty means an amount of income on which you can only just live, then unemployment benefits should really equal that. True we want people to have incentive to get a job, but we also want to pay unemployment benefits at a level that allows people to live. I was doing that just over a year ago, hardly a life time away. I've now moved to somewhere with higher rent, and got a better car which I have higher insurance on (fully comp rather than third party property). If I wanted to down size I could EASILY still do it now. As a single person, there are house shares etc to save even more money. It used to be common for people to have lodgers to help with the bills. One of the main reasons I could live off that a week was probably because I don't go out drinking (and didn't drink at home), don't smoke, didn't go get take aways (I was much better behaved before my partner came along). I ate cheaply, drank water, made lunches for work, didn't have any loans of credit cards to pay off. But I was consciously living cheaply as I wanted to save money. My point is, it CAN be done. Just because someone doesn't want to, doesn't mean they can't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ausborn Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 P What's wrong with them getting off their bum and filling said vacancies? Why would they? You can if done right set yourself to be able to live on welfare payments quite easy . Take a suburb like woodridge in Logan , brissie. You can have 4-5 people living in a house, believe me some go more. All pay their share of rent and do there own thing getting off the books cash.A lot of families all living together splitting rent on houses. If I had $10 for everyone I've given a labouring job too and they don't come back the second day I'd be able to finally have a holiday. They are comfortable on the dole. Don't want much out of life . Guess my point is a number of these classed as in "poverty " actually choose that life. Nothing's changed around where I grew up. The problem has only got worse.The lifestyle is generations deep now .We live in a society now where people think everything should be handed to them for free, hence why labour will likely be back in power again next election. IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest66881 Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 PWhy would they? You can if done right set yourself to be able to live on welfare payments quite easy . Take a suburb like woodridge in Logan , brissie. You can have 4-5 people living in a house, believe me some go more. All pay their share of rent and do there own thing getting off the books cash.A lot of families all living together splitting rent on houses. If I had $10 for everyone I've given a labouring job too and they don't come back the second day I'd be able to finally have a holiday. They are comfortable on the dole. Don't want much out of life . Guess my point is a number of these classed as in "poverty " actually choose that life. Nothing's changed around where I grew up. The problem has only got worse.The lifestyle is generations deep now .We live in a society now where people think everything should be handed to them for free, hence why labour will likely be back in power again next election. IMO. Then the ones who are happy stop the payments, put them on work for the dole schemes, ones who are knowingly active in looking and taking two or three jobs should be getting the low wages topped up with dole as well, thats an incentive, pay back when you get better wages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 PWhy would they? You can if done right set yourself to be able to live on welfare payments quite easy . Take a suburb like woodridge in Logan , brissie. You can have 4-5 people living in a house, believe me some go more. All pay their share of rent and do there own thing getting off the books cash.A lot of families all living together splitting rent on houses. If I had $10 for everyone I've given a labouring job too and they don't come back the second day I'd be able to finally have a holiday. They are comfortable on the dole. Don't want much out of life . Guess my point is a number of these classed as in "poverty " actually choose that life. Nothing's changed around where I grew up. The problem has only got worse.The lifestyle is generations deep now .We live in a society now where people think everything should be handed to them for free, hence why labour will likely be back in power again next election. IMO. When I wrote "them" I was meaning the aborigines who you said were in poverty but no-one sees. They are just as capable as anyone else and the government gives incentives to them and the employer to get them off the dole. I haven't got a lot of sympathy for people who can't be arsed to help themselves. As for "we live in a society now where people think they should get everything handed to them on a plate" I don't see much has changed from when I was a kid in Derbyshire. I heard exactly the same arguments when people were struggling, most wanting a job but couldn't get one. You see this argument when the Tory/Liberal party are in. They focus on the so-called dole bludgers and try to get public opijion turned against them to justify cuts to benefits. The press usually go along with it. You would think the press would be turning a bit the other way as their industry is going on-line and there are going to be an awful lot of reporters, journalists, photographers out of work. They are told what to write though by their Liberal supporting bosses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Collett Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 When I wrote "them" I was meaning the aborigines who you said were in poverty but no-one sees. They are just as capable as anyone else and the government gives incentives to them and the employer to get them off the dole. I haven't got a lot of sympathy for people who can't be arsed to help themselves. As for "we live in a society now where people think they should get everything handed to them on a plate" I don't see much has changed from when I was a kid in Derbyshire. I heard exactly the same arguments when people were struggling, most wanting a job but couldn't get one. You see this argument when the Tory/Liberal party are in. They focus on the so-called dole bludgers and try to get public opijion turned against them to justify cuts to benefits. The press usually go along with it. You would think the press would be turning a bit the other way as their industry is going on-line and there are going to be an awful lot of reporters, journalists, photographers out of work. They are told what to write though by their Liberal supporting bosses. Do you read the Fairfax press? If you want a left of centre perspective this is the place where you'll hear arguments which are likely to support your perspective. Best regards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 Do you read the Fairfax press? If you want a left of centre perspective this is the place where you'll hear arguments which are likely to support your perspective. Best regards. I have a look at the Guardian on-line as it's free. There are papers at work sometimes. Can't remember the last time I paid for one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.