20 years of growth = increased poverty

[boxy]

A report by welfare organisation The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) has found one in eight Australians is living in poverty.



Unsurprisingly, the unemployed and single parents make up the bulk of them. It's hard to believe that "the Newstart payment has not been increased in almost 20 years", given the cost of living increases in that time

[IQS.RLOW]

Did you write to Gillard and ask why she was ripping $60 a week from single mothers?

[Rorschach]

There is no way a single can live on Newstart. It just slightly slows the decline into the gutter.

[AnimalMother]

ACOSS puts out these bullshit reports all the time.

They're bullshit, because they're usually based on a definition of "poverty" as being in the lowest percentiles of the income range. No matter how wealthy the country is, there will always be some people making less money than others - and so there will always be those "living in poverty".

Using this method, if 80% of Australians had two Mercedes and an eight-bedroom house, then the 20% who had one Mercedes and a four-bedroom house can be said to be "living in poverty".

It's a great way for welfare and charitable organisations to guarantee they never run out of work!

[boxy]

Hahaha... low income Australians with any house... let alone a four bedroom

Fuck me dead.

[Mattus]

Righto. Move to Detroit. The houses there are free.

[Super Nova]

Is this a good time to buy some property in Detroit?

[boxy]

They're bullshit, because they're usually based on a definition of "poverty" as being in the lowest percentiles of the income range.

Tell us how the percentage of people in lowest percentile increases over time, please, AM?

[Rorschach]

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)

[IQS.RLOW]

They're bullshit, because they're usually based on a definition of "poverty" as being in the lowest percentiles of the income range.

Tell us how the percentage of people in lowest percentile increases over time, please, AM?

When Australia has neither a relative or absolute poverty line, it becomes quite easy to manipulate data to suit your requirement to increase lobby pressure for more gubmint money