Which Parts of The Australian Economy Are Performing Poorly?

ThithLord on 04/03/2025 - 11:48
Last edited 04/03/2025 - 14:32

Here's a list of where the Australian economy is performing quite well: (credit: Alan Austin)

Is there data to suggest the economy is performing poorly, as stated ad-nauseum by the ABC?

I am interested to see how OzBargain can explain the economy is performing poorly?

Financial

Comments

        • ThithLord on 04/03/2025 - 15:00
          +2

          Right, I stand informed.

      • Dogsrule on 04/03/2025 - 21:41
        +11

        https://apo.org.au/node/329341

        Between August 2022 and August 2024, 82.1% of new persons employed were in the public sector.

        The total number of new public sector jobs created since August 2022 has already outstripped the number created from August 2014 to August 2022 by approximately 40%.

        • jrowls on 04/03/2025 - 22:43
          +6

          i would be very surprised if much of that wasn't simply due to the ALP govts removing artificial hiring restrictions and making all the contractor/consultant roles actual govt jobs.

          • Dogsrule on 05/03/2025 - 08:06
            +5

            @jrowls: That may be true, but it still exposes an underlying weakness in private sector job growth.

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 05/03/2025 - 13:05
          +2

          The best part of this is how the OP asked for evidance and was given it and then hides away typical shill and worst kind of poster

          • Dogsrule on 05/03/2025 - 20:35

            @Trying2SaveABuck: Hopefully OP can learn that the economy is much more complex than some surface level statistics, and moreover that the economy is becoming increasingly bifurcated between the winners and everybody else.

          • ThithLord on 06/03/2025 - 09:34

            @Trying2SaveABuck: I literally replied to the comment that stated NDIS, big brain

          • Tambani on 06/03/2025 - 13:23

            @Trying2SaveABuck: The NDIS would not be counted as public sector jobs. But then, the reference is to an IPA paper, a notoriously unbiased think tank.

            • R4 on 06/03/2025 - 18:57

              @Tambani: Technically correct but those jobs can only exist because of taxpayer dollars, so the gist of it is right.

              • Tambani on 23/04/2025 - 15:40

                @R4: So by that logic every Medicare funded health practitioner is also a public sector worker, as is every job in other subsidised industries…

    • pharkurnell on 04/03/2025 - 13:45
      +6

      Dont bring logic to this thread.. hes on a roll.

    • gyrex on 05/03/2025 - 08:32
      +1

      This is the answer.

  • CaptainJack on 04/03/2025 - 12:34
    +6

    Should this be re-titled I LUV ALBO?

    • pharkurnell on 04/03/2025 - 13:44
      -4

      Just think how shattered he will be when albo gets the arse at the next election…

      • ThithLord on 06/05/2025 - 10:48

        Hey buddy, just checking in with ya

        • Protractor on 06/05/2025 - 10:51

          Remember what Harry Butler used to say.

          • ThithLord on 06/05/2025 - 14:13

            @Protractor: hu dat

            • Protractor on 06/05/2025 - 15:07

              @ThithLord: Brevity
              He was our local Aussie David Attenborough back in the day.He used to say after he lifted rocks to find a bit of wildlife to always put it back where how you found it. So you know, of it was hiding under a rock, carefully replace it and the rock where you find them.

  • DingoBilly on 04/03/2025 - 12:35
    +10

    Some of the stats you posted don't work/are wrong.

    For example, RBA uses trimmed mean inflation. So the inflation rate is actually still above and has not been in their target for 2 years or something.

    The employment growth and more people participating is because people can't afford to live with less money. So that's not a good indicator, means more people are struggling and need to work more.

    I couldn't verify your homelessness data from your source, but other data I sourced from AIHW and other reports suggest it's rising quite significantly.

    I dunno, if you focus purely on business profit then I guess it looks OK, but most people aren't businesses and are struggling. What you wrote just misses a lot of nuance and context, and I think some of it is just incorrect or not properly researched by yourself.

    I get you're trying to push some weird political agenda for some reason, but Australia isn't doing so crash hot, and the future is pretty precarious given how poor the investment market is.

    E. G., the economic complexity of Australia is abysmal and keeps dropping. We're behind countries like Uganda.
    https://atlas.hks.harvard.edu/countries/36

    Plenty of other sources suggesting Australia is poorly positioned for the future and even atm with its over reliance on housing instead of actual investment into productivity and services.

    • ThithLord on 04/03/2025 - 14:31

      The employment growth and more people participating is because people can't afford to live with less money. So that's not a good indicator, means more people are struggling and need to work more.

      Can I ask what makes you suggest this?

      The link to Labour force statistics stated (in the Key Findings):

      participation rate increased to 67.3%.
      employment increased to 14,634,300.
      employment to population ratio increased to 64.6%.
      underemployment rate remained at 6.0%.
      monthly hours worked decreased to 1,971 million.
      full-time employment increased by 54,100 to 10,092,800 people.
      part-time employment decreased by 10,100 to 4,541,500 people.

      So I'm seeing: more people employed, the population-to-employment ratio higher, under-employment not increasing, monthly hours worked decreasing, as well as more full-time employment and less part-time employment showing that Employment growth is demonstrated

      I get you're trying to push some weird political agenda for some reason, but Australia isn't doing so crash hot, and the future is pretty precarious given how poor the investment market is.

      Nothing weird about questioning the entire media landscapes agenda to obscure past governments poor-performance whilst also obscuring the current government's performance.

      I couldn't verify your homelessness data from your source, but other data I sourced from AIHW and other reports suggest it's rising quite significantly.

      Noted, I'll edit the OP, as you are right.

      • [Deactivated] on 04/03/2025 - 16:32
        +2

        The employment growth and more people participating is because people can't afford to live with less money. So that's not a good indicator, means more people are struggling and need to work more.

        Can I ask what makes you suggest this?

        If a record % of the population is in employment (not talking about the unemployment rate which only considers people 'looking' for work, but the % of all citizens that are working), and the population is aging (so there are less working age people than before), that means people are working today who in past years would have already retired.

        This isn't the only explanation, you could also apply the logic to other assumed groups - less children means less mothers, so more women working

        Most likely it's related to the record number of migrant students adding to population and working population 1:1

  • Benoffie on 04/03/2025 - 12:36
    +2

    Can you delink the stats from imported economy and then break down by state and city vs country?

    It's irrelevant what those stats say as they are manipulated.

    What matters to voters is:

    • what does my mortgage cost?
    • what does a trolley of groceries cost?
    • cost of seeing a doctor (and related health care)
    • cost of raising children
    • taxes that impede movement into and through retirement

    Humans aren't tricky beings. Most want the same stuff. Work hard, be rewarded, not feel like theyre being robbed.

    This pretty much sums it up

    https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/publications/macro…

    And interest rate cuts wont be enough to restart spending. They could cut by 1% and itll still be too late.

    • MrThing on 04/03/2025 - 16:29

      b b b but the stockmarket

      say people who dont actually understand what the everyday person view as signs the economy is doing well

      • Benoffie on 04/03/2025 - 16:33

        I would even be careful with shares atm.

        Major longterm indicators aren't looking good (Buffett and Shiller)

  • Duckie2hh on 04/03/2025 - 12:39
    +3

    data to suggest the economy is performing poorly

    Potato cake at my local shop is $1.40 each.

    • ThithLord on 04/03/2025 - 13:01
      +1

      That's a smoking gun

      • Zondor on 04/03/2025 - 14:57

        Beef mince pie is $6+ now

    • Vomo on 05/03/2025 - 17:52
      -1

      Hmmm. $2 at mine. High quality, but small.

  • AustriaBargain on 04/03/2025 - 13:05
    +8

    Having so much of our wealth be on paper and debt around existing houses seems like a big problem to me. It would be better if more of that wealth were in shares of real Australian companies. If people could invest in the ABC after Bluey, I bet some would take a punt.

    • Cluster on 04/03/2025 - 14:00
      +7

      Building a house produces huge amounts of economic activity, then flipping that house between multiple owners counts in GDP calculations, but nothing is actually produced. On paper we're richer but in terms of actual real, usable wealth it's rather dubious. The only way we can 'export' the ever more expensive house is to get a foreigner to buy it.

      My house increased by $100k in value last year, according to my council fee statement. Yay? I'm "richer" on paper but realistically I'm poorer: I have to pay more in insurance now, and the council can use the excuse that everyone is richer now to jack up council fees.

      • AustriaBargain on 04/03/2025 - 14:33
        +1

        Plus if you have children, they all need to pay 100k each more for their own houses if houses have gone up 100k.

        • [Deactivated] on 04/03/2025 - 21:14
          +1

          Asset price growth is driven by increasing financialisation of the economy. The money comes from the future. The future of the people purchasing homes later, i.e. the younger generation.

          In the UK talk of 40 year mortgages started appearing a few years ago. We aren't going to fare much better if governments don't start taking this seriously.

          • AustriaBargain on 04/03/2025 - 21:42
            +1

            @[Deactivated]: If the government built social housing that even median income people would qualify for, massive towers with big rooms, gyms, etc. then I'd be happy to rent one of them the rest of my life. I don't want to own a home, I just want somewhere half decent to live and know I can always afford it. Government would probably make a bit of a profit off such social housing after a few decades, if the opposition doesn't sell it all off.

            • [Deactivated] on 04/03/2025 - 21:50
              +1

              @AustriaBargain: I think so too. Unfortunately the way government budgets work discourages infrastructure investment.

              It looks much better to increase payments for rent assistance by 3% every year than it does to increase debt by several billion dollars in the short term. Since 2018 the government spends more on rent assistance than it does on social housing. More on money to private landlords than on property it owns itself.

              Rent assistance subsidises rent, meaning it increases the price of rent - it's counter productive. Instead the government could own the housing and earn a return, even if that return was lower than market rate the government would still own the asset.

              The money people save in rent is disposable income that goes back into the economy. Instead it is more acceptable to stimulate the economy by giving banks billions in interest free capital and hope it trickles down eventually.

              • RMBC on 05/03/2025 - 11:07

                @[Deactivated]: Not just the budgets, it's also the political cycle. There's disincentives to operate on a basis which provides benefits that aren't realised in the current political term. Unfortunately big infrastructure projects & long term thinking is the first casualty of that. If you're lucky it won't be your team that is in power when it all hits the fan

      • Talonparty on 04/03/2025 - 15:19

        You're absolutely richer relative to the person who wants to buy your house and hasn't had one in their possession.

  • Drakesy on 04/03/2025 - 13:30
    +9

    Anything Private.

    NDIS is literally propping up the entire economy right now.

    • R4 on 04/03/2025 - 15:41

      Mining is going gangbusters.

      • Drakesy on 04/03/2025 - 15:50
        +3

        Iron Ore Price isn't great, Nickel's in the sh1tter and Lithium is dead, WA's rising unemployment rate says otherwise.

        There's a lot of redundancies out there at the moment.

        • R4 on 04/03/2025 - 15:59

          Sure, I work in the industry and everyone I know is employed. Most people laid off are getting hired elsewhere. Fe is still at 105 (with a break even price of about 20) and gas and gold are still going crazy. Things can obviously change (and change quickly) but right now it's looking pretty good.

          Agriculture is also going well. CBH are in the same building as us and the guys I talk to say that things are good.

          Something will have to give on the NDIS as current expenditure is unsustainable.

          • Drakesy on 04/03/2025 - 16:14
            +3

            @R4: Yeah CBH is flying under the radar on the back of a bumper season and Ukraine's unfortunate situation.
            There's a lot of cashed up farmers out there.

            NDIS will definitely be the gradual downfall of the current generations who have to support both the pensioners and a dramatically increasing social services budget.

        • MrThing on 04/03/2025 - 16:50

          Nickel is dead, its not in the shitter china/Indonesia have all but crippled our nickel mines as being too high cost (environmentally and ethically sound, but financially dead)

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 05/03/2025 - 13:06
      -1

      NDIS is literally propping up the entire economy right now.

      the taxpayers and record high migration is keeping this scam going but the ALP shills wont tell you that

  • [Deactivated] on 04/03/2025 - 13:36
    +1

    Wages growth above inflation for five straight quarters(abs.gov.au);

    Barely. The problem was that things got hard when inflation was massively outdoing wages and it hasn't reversed that trend.

    There's also that it should be compared to monthly household spend and not inflation. Inflation is the cost of goods, but people are spending significantly above inflation. Trying to tell people inflation is coming down when they have less money in their pocket is a losing battle.

  • jv on 04/03/2025 - 14:03
    -3

    Which Parts of The Australian Economy Are Performing Poorly?

    All the parts Albo is responsible for….

  • Wiadro on 04/03/2025 - 14:20
    +8

    all these good things and yet people want to vote for dutton.

    • Drakesy on 04/03/2025 - 14:24
      +10

      I'm not sure if having 15 years of growth in spending power eroded in the space of 3 years is a good thing.

      having said that Dutton is a dropkick

      • nned2say on 04/03/2025 - 14:42
        -1

        Dutton is an (profanity) for sure. But what other options do we have? After the Chinese live-fire exercises saga, I am sick of the weak Labor government.

        • Drakesy on 04/03/2025 - 14:44
          +1

          There're a lot of independents out there.

        • ThithLord on 04/03/2025 - 14:47
          +8

          Was it Labor who allowed the port of Darwin to be leased to a Chinese company for 99 years, and then had one of their politicians join said board?

      • [Deactivated] on 04/03/2025 - 21:39
        +5

        This is why Dutton will win the next election. The average voter will blame the inflation on the current government rather than Scott Morrison and the RBA governor that he picked.

        The great economic minds they put into the RBA determined that the economic crisis caused by a shortage of goods (caused by COVID lockdowns) required near zero interest rates to 'simulate' the economy and encourage spending - on goods that didn't exist. We got a 30% increase in house prices in 2 years and people cheered - as if this wealth comes from nowhere like a genie, rather than coming from their fellow Australians and the younger generation.

        People will blame Albanese for inflation and vote for the man that will work hard to lower taxes on corporations, keep the mining kickbacks flowing, and fix unaffordable housing by some new flavour of first home buyer grant.

        • Dunks on 05/03/2025 - 17:25
          -1

          Was it Dutton or Albo who allowed record immigration during a cost of living crisis?

          • [Deactivated] on 05/03/2025 - 18:59
            +2

            @Dunks: Technically the cause occured under Dutton, but Albo did nothing to address it either.

            visas were granted during 2020 and 2021, during the COVID lockdowns. The recipients of those visas didn't use them at the time.

            In 2022 and 2023 the annual amount of migration and the backlog of people that were waiting to use their visa granted in previous years all entered the country at the same time.

            Albo would have been told that the migration spike was temporarily, so he did nothing. It was just the backlog of migrants entering. However his advisors were wrong and we got far more migrants than expected.

            My guess is that the number of student visas granted was well above the historical average, likey driven by the worsening economic conditions across the globe.

            The number of most visas including permanent migrants is capped, however student visas (up until recently) were unlimited, the only limit was the higher education providers ability to offer a place. Hence all the sham degree mills that have emerged in Melbourne and Sydney.

            This problem has been ongoing for years before either Dutton or Albo was in power, in reality both parties are responsible because neither of them care about limiting immigration to a reasonable amount

  • LanceVance on 04/03/2025 - 14:45
    +5

    Is it enough to stop people voting for the uniparty?

    • ThithLord on 04/03/2025 - 15:23

      Do Independents usually platform economy-reforming policy?

      • tenpercent on 04/03/2025 - 15:24
        +3

        Who knows? No mainstream media outlets would cover it even if they did.
        Pepsi vs Coke, Red vs Blue, Labor vs Liberal, NRL vs AFL, NSW vs QLD, Australia vs India is the depth and breadth of complexity the mainstream media think you can handle.

        • ThithLord on 04/03/2025 - 15:26
          +1

          I'd posit that's all they want us to handle. Treat us like mushrooms

      • LanceVance on 04/03/2025 - 15:26

        People First party has some great looking policies. Few probably ever bother to read them, rather they'll go with the media label of 'fringe' or 'racist'.

    • tenpercent on 04/03/2025 - 15:23
      +4

      Most people don't think there are any other options beyond uniparty or 'the racist party' and 'the tree huggers party'.

    • Vomo on 05/03/2025 - 17:59
      -1

      Interestingly informal voting is quite low, around 4 percent, so I guess people either believe their vote matters or don’t realise the time it takes to fill out the form is a waste, unless they’re there for the democracy sausage.

  • ForkSnorter on 04/03/2025 - 15:17
    +2

    You missed the main point: housing price growth has massively exceeded wage growth over the last 5 years. We are all poorer because of it (unless you bought a house prior to that).

    • ThithLord on 04/03/2025 - 15:21

      Is it only in the last 5 years?

      • ForkSnorter on 04/03/2025 - 15:23

        Rural areas and QLD have seen prices increase by 100% or more since early 2020. Wages are not even in the same ballpark as this increase.

        • SlickMick on 05/03/2025 - 17:43

          I was going to call BS, but maybe not as far off as I thought. That would be 15% pa growth.
          We bought at the bottom after a boom, and have seen an average of 11% pa increase in valuations. So I don't really think 100% in 5 years is representative of anything real.

          It certainly isn't accurate for our place at Brisbane, which has averaged 7% pa. In my experience, that's the same as Adelaide and Toowoomba.
          Even Gatton, which seemed to be stagant in comparison, has actually averaged 4.5%. Thus is the magic of compounding.

          For comparison, from my memory of prices from my youth, junk food prices have risen 7% pa too. (It just seems so much worse remembering a burger or piece of fish being $1.)

          Unless we have a falling population or new cities, I don't see why anyone would expect properties to increase by less.

          I have no idea about average wage growth. Mine grew between 7-33% at different stages of my career until it hit a wall, and has gone backwards since. Still averaged 9% pa overall. I think it has a lot to do with whether a person invests in themselves or not. e.g. to not get a trade or qualification, then expect your wage to keep up makes no sense to me.

          • CurlCurl on 05/03/2025 - 18:04

            @SlickMick:

            For comparison, from my memory of prices from my youth, junk food prices have risen 7% pa too. (It just seems so much worse remembering a burger or piece of fish being $1.)

            Maccas opened in OZ in 1971.

            Plain Burger 20c. Cheesburger 25c. Big Mac 49c. Fish Dinner $1.05. Fries 15c. Apple Pie 20c. Coffee 15c

            • SlickMick on 05/03/2025 - 20:39
              +1

              @CurlCurl: So only 5.5% for cheeseburger and 5.3% for big mac.
              You've just made me realise that Maccas is still cheap food. (I thought that was no longer the case, but $7.90 for a burger is far cheaper than others. I'd been fooled into comparing meal "deals".)

              I noticed cheeseburger inflation is actually falling too.
              A cheeseburger was $1 in 1994. That's 6.2% 1971 - 1994, and 5.3% since 1994.

              It seems that times were tougher 1971-1994 than 1994-now, and Maccas is getting increasingly cheaper. Who'd have thought!

              My 7% might have been a bit high though. 6.4% according to local burger joint and 6.2% for fish.

              Sorry for the huge detour to OP.

    • tenpercent on 04/03/2025 - 15:22

      Even if you did, you're probably still functionally poorer (just not on paper). Your council rates will have gone up, insurance costs would have gone up. If you sell anything you buy has already gone up too, so you're not that much better off unless you downsize and reduce your standard of living.

    • MonkEE on 04/03/2025 - 16:58

      House prices has increase massively due to the liberal's policies for decades. If you want house prices to improve. Don't vote LNP.

      https://www.corelogic.com.au/news-research/news/2022/the-lon…

      • tenpercent on 04/03/2025 - 20:19

        If you want house prices to improve, don't vote for the uniparty.

  • MrThing on 04/03/2025 - 15:42
    +6

    Remove government and NDIS jobs how many jobs have actually been created?

    • Drakesy on 04/03/2025 - 16:15
      +4

      Shhh

      Don't talk about the elephant in the room.

    • drprox on 05/03/2025 - 15:42

      Negative… A bajillion?
      Don't forget "work for the dole" or what Vic state government calls infrastructure works (at infinite cost and time overruns).

  • CurlCurl on 04/03/2025 - 16:25
    -2

    If there were no CGT where would the rentals come from? If there were no CGT, please don't tell me renters could purchase properties that could be rentals.

    My daughter and her husband have two rental properties. Neither are negative geared.

    • Benoffie on 04/03/2025 - 16:39
      +3

      No one actually wants to answer that question.

      CGT discount and negative gearing actually facilities lower rents and investment uptake.

      As with anything, if the market for investors is 💩, theyll move their money somewhere else. Example is over tightening of tenancy laws. Sure, some was needed but being unable to evict poor, non paying tenants as if investors are social services is BS.

      And we've witnessed the results. They exit the market, there is no suddedn flood or drastic down turn in price (because investors aint dumb) and rents just go up more on tightening supply.

      Yes, well done 👏

      • MrThing on 04/03/2025 - 16:52
        +3

        slow clap for Victoria, marvellous work chaps

      • Drakesy on 04/03/2025 - 18:21
        +6

        Funny thing is the investors bail and that supply translates into renters actually purchasing their own homes.

        it's not like the houses evaporate. But it's 1 less family stuck paying someone else's mortgage.

        • CurlCurl on 04/03/2025 - 18:41

          Funny thing is the investors bail and that supply translates into renters actually purchasing their own homes.

          it's not like the houses evaporate. But it's 1 less family stuck paying someone else's mortgage.

          Is it?

          • mskeggs on 04/03/2025 - 18:43
            +2

            @CurlCurl: What is the alternative? The investor leaves the house empty, or occupies two houses?

            • CurlCurl on 04/03/2025 - 18:49

              @mskeggs: Who says the house would be purchased by an owner occupier? The house could be sold to another investor.

              • mskeggs on 04/03/2025 - 18:52
                +4

                @CurlCurl: Why would a new investor emerge if the law changes made it so unpalatable to be a landlord?

        • mskeggs on 04/03/2025 - 18:42
          +6

          But that would require the investor not to make super profits, for the renter to afford to buy. And house investors are a protected species.

        • Benoffie on 04/03/2025 - 19:46

          Nope.

          You have multiple more likely outcomes:

          • migrants with higher purchasing power buying the property over the previous tenants or local tenant pool (no benefit to existing renters)
          • house is subdivided, evaporating the stock and subsequent stock is sold (certainly not below $500k - again, no benefit)
          • house is renovated, relisted at higher price point and previous rental pool is excluded (again, no benefit)

          Each time one of the loopholes for vacancy has to be triggered to push out a dud tenant, the result is invariably higher rental prices.

          I have seen no actual data yet anywhere to show significant uptick in rental to owner occupier due to investor movements

          • Drakesy on 04/03/2025 - 21:04
            +1

            @Benoffie: Do you want to re read your point again?

            • Benoffie on 04/03/2025 - 21:21

              @Drakesy: Your point is that renters become owner occupiers.

              If they could do that, they either would have or, they are substantially in a worse off position financially trying to save for a deposit whilst renting in $800k-$1m min housing markets.

              Your argument is that a house, formerly tenanted to someone at say, $500 a week, will somehow magically be affordable by that same tenant when it hits the open market.

              Unless that property is $500k and their deposit is 10%, my answer is - no, there's no conversion

      • [Deactivated] on 04/03/2025 - 22:12
        +2

        Everything you have said I have heard spoken word for word on Sky News by their guest REIV spokeswoman.

        Rent increases consistent with CPI as it always has.

        Rental yield has decreased. That can be because rent has decreased or prices have disproportionately increased. What has actually happened is obvious, we don't need the Real Estate Institute to provide their version of events.

        CGT discount and negative gearing actually facilities higher housing prices at the expense of renters who might otherwise be able to afford to buy.

        The slowdown in new construction is directly attributable to increasing interest rates, not because landlords need to spend a few hundred dollars on checks every year. Rents have increased far more than the new costs.

        • Benoffie on 05/03/2025 - 01:17
          +1

          Dunno, dont have access to Sky and honestly, trying to link to some 'right wing' or ideological plot is half the reason why we're in this mess.

          There are multiple factors at play. But in this particular sub thread, the assertion was that once a house leaves the rental pool, it will magically become owner occupied by a previous renter.

          And Im sorry but Ive seen absolutely no data to prove that's occurring on any significant basis anywhere.

          • [Deactivated] on 05/03/2025 - 07:50
            +4

            @Benoffie: The point is the view you are sharing is the one pushed by the corporate media, you can find it in the Financial Review also.

            But in this particular sub thread, the assertion was that once a house leaves the rental pool, it will magically become owner occupied by a previous renter.

            That's a false dichotomy. It's easy to find reasons why some people prefer to rent. This is first shared as a talking point by biased media and then on-shared without thought.

            And Im sorry but Ive seen absolutely no data to prove that's occurring on any significant basis anywhere.

            I'm using the same data you are. It's a question of understanding and not just accepting the explanation you have picked up. The proportion of population that are renters is increasing every year, people don't prefer insecure housing, people don't prefer to deal with landlords, something is driving people to that outcome.

  • Dack Smith on 04/03/2025 - 18:26
    +2

    The economy is performing well, possibly top three in the OECD

    Together with China we can do great things and allow everyone to prosper

    • tenpercent on 04/03/2025 - 20:22
      +6

      +100 social credit points, good citizen #42069

  • mskeggs on 04/03/2025 - 18:40
    +8

    Housing has broken the economy. Howard and Costello most to blame, but so too every government since.
    Understanding the economy is really easy. If you have lots of housing equity, life is pretty good. If your job/business has people with lots of housing equity as customers, you are doing fine.
    If you have a recent mortgage, or are trying to save for a house, you are stuffed.
    And if you are young enough to share a flat and live pay packet to pay packet, you are having a good time too, but know that ‘stuffed’ is on the horizon.

    We could probably deal with this, except the riches continue to accrue to the people with houses, and the number in the “stuffed or pay packet to pay packet” cohort is growing larger and larger.
    Nobody has the political guts to do anything about it.

    • [Deactivated] on 04/03/2025 - 22:29
      +5

      The Greens do, but socalism is bad because Russia, or something

    • drprox on 05/03/2025 - 15:44
      +4

      Housing is part of what has broken the economy. A reliance on digging shit up and selling it raw (and allowing far too many $$ of profits to be privatised in this regard), importing ppl to do shit jobs that Australians don't want to and exporting garbage education are my favourite contributors.
      This country has no real jobs that create value.

  • cille745 on 04/03/2025 - 19:00
    +3

    median wealth per adult(ubs.com) as the second highest in the world;

    Pretty easy when this is all tied up in housing and we're not doing well if you take that out

  • justworld on 04/03/2025 - 19:02
    +5

    Australia is an extremely easy country compared to any other country in the world. If you struggle here, you'd be struggling worse anywhere else. As a migrant who came here with no family money, no connections, no private schooling and no English language, I've found Australia to have a wealth of opportunity - and I'm a millennial, not a boomer. It is hard to see how anyone could struggle here unless he or she had (1) chronic severe health problems, (2) low intelligence, (3) low work ethic, (4) abusive parents.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join