20 years of growth = increased poverty

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

A low income person in a house is an interesting proposition boxy.

One that may be fraught with problems.
I imagine the scenario would be like this...
Lets say they owned a house and were "elderly" and single.
Let's say they still had a substantial mortgage and had to pay say exorbitant strata fees also. But all this was affordable when they had a job.
But they suddenly found themselves at 60 years of age, out of work.
That would make them to some unemployable. (being 60)
Lets say they survive on a small redundancy for 6 months.
Then they have to struggle for the next 6 without unemployment benefits (all $250 a week ? of it)
So they sell their home.
Move into something much smaller with much lower strata fees and a much smaller mortgage.
12 months later they are still out of work, but now with that great big newstart allowance. ($250/w)
A few more months go buy and they sell their car, to keep their head above water.
This is what I meant by a slow spiral into the gutter.
What do they sell next?
Everything they worked for all their life, all their assets, are diminishing in value or being sold.
Should they live in a tent?
Should they sell off everything and become homeless?
Should they rent, lose their home and assets and take rental assistance (which I hear is another pittance) and why many young unemployed I hear, rent as a group, which will cost the government more than the original small mortgage they were paying off?
No I think increased poverty is a reality.
(Especially living in say a place like Sydney, I believe it is the most expensive place in Australia)

Why is this elder of society not more prepared for retirement at his age?
Why did he buy again in Sydney when he could have, being single and therefore highly mobile, move to a cheaper city and purchased a cheaper home and sort work there?

Do you think that there is something of the irresponsible victim in this, contributing to their own financial demise?

[Neferti]

Why is this elder of society not more prepared for retirement at his age?

Perhaps the elder is a female? Compulsory superannuation only came in during the early 90's. She would not have been working long enough to take advantage of it. In case you didn't know, Sappho, there was NO way a female could save for her "retirement", pre about 1980. She was dependent on a man! So much for burning the bras, etc.

Why did he buy again in Sydney when he could have, being single and therefore highly mobile, move to a cheaper city and purchased a cheaper home and sort work there?

What if he is a she ..

Not every female married a bloke, in the 70's, who had a good job, got the Mortgage, had a couple of kids, and some years later, left due to whatever and sued him for everything he had.

It wasn't until the 80's that females could get a Mortgage under their name alone ... or anything else for that matter. You needed to get your husband's authority to buy anything like a car or furniture! Whitlam, I think, changed that .....

[Rorschach]

good points neferti.

Why is this elder of society not more prepared for retirement at his age?

In what way?

Why did he buy again in Sydney when he could have, being single and therefore highly mobile, move to a cheaper city and purchased a cheaper home and sort work there?

Hmmm.
Well I can think of many reasons. But I'll just post a few.
So given we have confirmed he doesn't have a car and lives on $250 a week, and let's say, whatever casual work he can get, what city would be cheaper and what work would be available for him considering his age seems to be a problem there? What makes you think he/she as it could well be either, hasn't already looked into those options? Would you move somewhere say away from your relatives who you can rely on, etc, without first having a job there?

Do you think that there is something of the irresponsible victim in this, contributing to their own financial demise?

No. I don't. Why do you think this? Not being retirement age, a pension and access to super are not exactly an option.

[Mattus]

He should move to wa and clean houses up north for $150k a year.

Next?

[Rorschach]

Except you have to know someone or be related to someone to get that gig.

I know that for a positive I have family involved.

Next.

In fact in the mining industry and related services that is the norm especially for newbies and unskilled jobs.

[Rorschach]

Excerpt...

The federal minimum wage - increased each year by Fair Work Australia - is comfortably above the poverty line which, in 2010, was $358 a week for single adults.

And, most people with children to support get the relatively generous family tax benefit.

So why do 13 per cent of people fall below the poverty line? The biggest single reason is that the levels of the various social benefits fall below the line. Way below in the case of the dole; a little below in the case of the single parenting payment and the age pension.

It follows that, unless they can supplement their payment with income from savings or a little part-time work, people living on social security payments are at great risk of poverty. Overall, 37 per cent of people on social payments live below the line. But the proportions vary widely according to the type of payment: 14 per cent of those on the age pension, 42 per cent of those on the disability pension, 45 per cent of those on the parenting payment and, get this, 52 per cent of those on the dole. Not surprising then, that people on social payments account for almost two-thirds of those in poverty.

The next most important factor explaining why people fall below the line is the high cost of housing.

In particular, the gap between the costs of owning and renting. It's a safe bet the majority of people in poverty are renters.

It may surprise you that the retired account for only about 15 per cent of those below the line. That's because so many own their homes outright.

When you're measuring relative poverty, it follows as a matter of arithmetic that the only way to reduce the proportion of people falling below the line is for their incomes to increase at a faster rate than incomes generally.

Julia Gillard could reduce poverty at a single (expensive) stroke: a decent, one-off increase in the indefensibly low rate of the dole.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/ ... z29TDEQ0X8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Rorschach]

Oh and one more thing re mining.
There are web sites promising to help you get a job in the industry.
Many of these are bogus and just take your money, with no job eventuating.
The other catch is that it costs 1000s of dollars and someone living on or below the poverty line just can't afford to pay that much.

[Mattus]

Except you have to know someone or be related to someone to get that gig.

A blind crippled dog could land full time unskilled employment in northern wa.

[Mattus]

Oh and one more thing re mining.
There are web sites promising to help you get a job in the industry.
Many of these are bogus and just take your money, with no job eventuating.
The other catch is that it costs 1000s of dollars and someone living on or below the poverty line just can't afford to pay that much.

Rubbish. There is a job for every soul who wants one in wa. No matter how unskilled, lazy, old, drug addicted or retarded. They even employ Irishmen there. There is simply no excuse for unemployment at the moment.

[Neferti]

Oh and one more thing re mining.
There are web sites promising to help you get a job in the industry.
Many of these are bogus and just take your money, with no job eventuating.
The other catch is that it costs 1000s of dollars and someone living on or below the poverty line just can't afford to pay that much.

Rubbish. There is a job for every soul who wants one in wa. No matter how unskilled, lazy, old, drug addicted or retarded. They even employ Irishmen there. There is simply no excuse for unemployment at the moment.

There is, you know. Why work when the Government keeps you in the style you have become accustomed to? A little bit of "relieving people of their jewellery" or having a another baby .....

This bloke on the Dole with 4 kids trying to feed them on $40 a week, after "rent"? What does he spend the money the Government hands out PER CHILD? I have heard of people who do not work because it would be less money (as a Salesperson or something menial) than what the Government gives them, tax free, because they have 3 children.