House prices
@batfink that's certainly one part of the equation. I'm curious about your opinion on the currency aspect. In a world where everyone is lifting rates not lifting rates would result in currency devaluation. We live in a country that imports nearly all its consumer goods. The weak currency would inflate those consumer goods even further than what we're currently experiencing. And that is a problem for any government, it's visible and ugly.
There is a good argument that weaker currency assists exports and it might force us to make more stuff at home. But at this stage that looks like a long-term dream that can only be achieved through enormous short-term pain. I don't think anyone wants to pursue this deliberately and even if they do, it will be minor in nature. It's risky and it can cause some serious damage.
So, I guess RBA would be lifting rates to protect the currency (this is just one of the variables that lead to the decision-making). How important is this? I personally like my $ to stay as strong as possible.
and then there's this....
https://www.afr.com/companies/financial-services/the-push-is-on-for-bigg....
am i taking crazy pills or is this just undermining what the RBA is trying to do? i.e stop spending money.
bonza wrote:and then there's this....
https://www.afr.com/companies/financial-services/the-push-is-on-for-bigg....
am i taking crazy pills or is this just undermining what the RBA is trying to do? i.e stop spending money.
You're not on pills mate, many forces are working against each other.
Batfink, I'd definitely be interested in hearing some longer, more in depth perspectives from you.
But it's easy to debunk pretty well everything that's being said out there in the media right now... For instance, you said a very commonly expressed opinion:
"Their models should form part of the advice provided to the RBA board, but that body should be dominated by people who aren’t ‘pointy-heads’, and who have enough nous to know when to ignore the theories and the modelling."
But how you're saying things should be is exactly how they are. The RBA board is made up of a very diverse range of academics, RBA economists, and people with significant and impressive private sector business and government policy experience. The deliberations of the board take into consideration the RBA's economic modelling and the personal/professional/academic/policy experience and backgrounds of the board members.
The problem with the whole debate right now is it's just a completely chaotic mess of hysterical shit slinging junk trash politically motivated media noise. The overwhelming majority of the articles out there, including those you linked to, are just politically motivated and simpleton "lowest common denominator" trash, junk, misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda, combined with just outright uneducated misunderstanding. They are all easily debunked. Our media should be embarrassed and ashamed at the current state of things.
Something has gone very wrong with our media and society. There are no governing or enforced standards of factual, unbiased, evidence based reporting and analysis. There is no one watching over the quality of what's being published. It's just an unregulated unbridled free for all of shit slinging trash and politically motivated information warfare. It's not debate. It's just smothering the actual issues and potential for proper intelligent, factual, evidence-based debate and analysis.
The current "debate" surrounding monetary policy and the RBA is a perfect example of this completely chaotic hysterical mess.
Did you know that the whole RBA board was appointed by the LNP? How much of the current "debate" do you think is motivated by this simple fact.
I wouldn't be surprised if the main outcome of this whole chaotic mess is the ALP appoints some new board members, right at the time when we're possibly at the top of the interest rate cycle, so the new board members possibly won't have to raise interest rates anymore and will possibly be able to start reducing them soon, and as a result they'll be sold and viewed by all as legendary saviours, with the whole episode of interest rate rises being sold and viewed by all as a gigantic mistake by the current "LNP appointed imbeciles". Yet nothing could be further from the truth.
more hysterical politically motivated, shit slinging?:
https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/2023/02/13/reserve-bank-philip-lowe-r...
I think US CPI came in hot overnight too, suggest inflation being sticky/entrenched, Fed speakers afterward resulted in a 5.3% expectation of where the Fed will stop, which is up, = more IR pressure.
As Flollo said, if you don't follow, more inflation ends up getting imported as the currency relatively devalues.
bonza wrote:and then there's this....
https://www.afr.com/companies/financial-services/the-push-is-on-for-bigg....
am i taking crazy pills or is this just undermining what the RBA is trying to do? i.e stop spending money.
Real estate agent integrity at it's finest. Not just the dream price tag but the little disclaimer in the photos. Photo 1 is what you'd hope to get for $4 million and Photo 10 is what you'd actually get.
https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-tas-launceston-141448028
but Bonza I can't seem to find in Kohler's article where he points out that a study of say 2,000 years of economic and financial history reveals that, apart from the devastation of war, runaway and uncontrollable inflation the most destructive force for a nation's economic prosperity and welfare, living standards, currency stability, level of unemployment, social unrest and stability, etc.
This tends to be the main reason why central banks focus on inflation targeting nowadays.
Can you show me where he mentions this...?
Also, isn't the main reason why central banks are independent is so that in times of high inflation and hence unpopular interest rates rises, they're actually able to do their job without political, ideological, journalist, mass hysteria, etc, influence and pressure, and actually do it in a relatively scientific, unbiased, politically neutral, and evidence/fact/data-based manner?
Or would we prefer that central banks be subject to the whims of the mob-like tribal behaviour of the masses, like what's borderline happening now?
Thats a bit overkill mate – “mob-like tribal behaviour”. This issue is right to be reported on and I agree that it should also be taken in context with government policy that has led us here when it comes to housing – which is where all this commentary on pain is focussed on.
I’m such a numpty on all this gsco. I’m just genuinely exasperated that such a large number of sophisticated, highly educated and hugely remunerated people can continue to get things wrong and, are immune from any consequences that relate to their decisions. I have been watching for a while now and it baffles me.
They have been getting called out for being non-transparent on their decision reasoning. Fairly I reckon.
I don’t think their modelling or reasoning is anything close to scientific. I have posted about that before. More questions should be raised about this e.g:
“First let me say, where did that number 2 to 3 per cent come from? It was pulled out of the thin air. There was no scientific basis.”
https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/how-a-nobel-laureate-got-australian-e...
I think Switzer’s report makes for interesting reading – which outlines how RBA has failed to meet targets and objectives for several years now.
Which despite Switzer being on the right (and therefore arguably non-politically motivated on this issue (?)– see your comments above) I am guessing you are not a fan given the CIS reports on China.
https://www.cis.org.au/publication/structural-reform-of-the-reserve-bank...
Here’s a question for you – could they have done better. if so how?
The dismal science eats its own.
Ross Gittins weighs in on the boomer vs young outcome disparity:
https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/given-our-monopoly-on-housin...
Bonza, I don't think this statement is true:
bonza wrote:I’m just genuinely exasperated that such a large number of sophisticated, highly educated and hugely remunerated people can continue to get things wrong and, are immune from any consequences that relate to their decisions.
They have not had any major failures and don't get things very wrong in the context or relative to other economic forecasters, central banks, think tanks, policy makers, etc.
I'd already read the Stiglitz article and Tulip CIS report. Knowing their backgrounds I wasn't surprised at their opinions.
Stiglitz is nearly the most (left) progressive Keynesian economist on the planet and is heavily focused on inequality and social justice.
The Tulip CIS report is in my opinion unnecessarily harsh and scathing. I also think some of it is just plain not accurate. And his bias is evident in this statement:
"In defence of the RBA, it is often argued that Australian macroeconomic outcomes have been good — relative to history, other countries and other benchmarks. However, this seems to reflect luck"
It's just not reasonable or fair to absolutely bag the crap out of the RBA and then attribute our country's economic success to "luck". This success, and in particular our insulation from various economic crises like the Asian and Russian financial crises, dotcom/tech bubble, GFC, Euro sovereign debt crises, covid, have very much been in part due to the actions of the RBA.
At the moment there is too much scathing criticism and abuse of the RBA and its board, and not enough on the institutional and economic context and environment in which the RBA acts. The focus should be on things like:
- We live in a framework of neoliberalism in which the main macroeconomic tool to manage economic cycles is monetary policy, and this tool is limited and can't fix every economic and social problem the planet faces, as all are.
- Neoliberalism implies small, limited government focused on austerity where fiscal policy is not really a tool for managing economic cycles, and fiscal policy is ineffective anyway since it's not responsive enough (one can't just increase/decrease government spending and taxes at will).
- Neoliberalism implies limited government intervention in the economy, in particular related to investing in productivity growth and the overall productive capacity (long run aggregate supply) of the economy, and it's evident that these areas are weak and underinvested in a neoliberal system.
- We have been in a couple decades of very easy monetary policy and asset price bubbles, so a supply side shock (cost push inflation) will much more easily trigger a lasting inflationary event due to pent up demand and stubborn consumer spending. A significant aspect of this inflation event is strong and stubborn demand and spending.
- Neoliberalism implies that everything is privatised so we are at the mercy of the whims of global markets and have few if any economic shock absorbers apart from a flexible exchange rate.
- This inflationary event was first set off by a relatively equal combination of massive government covid stimulus and supply chain blockages from lockdowns and travel restrictions etc.
- The forecasting errors of all central banks globally in late 2021 to early 2022 was due to another supply side shock of Russia invading Ukraine, which understandably no one predicted.
- Modern macroeconomic theory also dictates the nature of using monetary policy as a tool to manage the business cycle since the modern framework is one of viewing the economy in the context of optimal control theory in which the economy is the (unstable) dynamical system, the objective in the optimisation problem is target inflation (and to a lessor extent unemployment and growth), and the external control is monetary policy.
- There is a number of transmission mechanisms through which monetary policy work, including consumer spending, asset prices/wealth effect, business investment decisions, savings and investment channels, exchange rates and the trade balance, inflation expectations, etc; the strength or impact of each depends on the exact economic conditions of the time.
- A high inflation and subsequent increasing interest rate environment is a new experience and phenomena for the majority of the working population, and it's painful for some and generally unpopular, and people are going hard on the information warfare targeting interest rate increases.
- etc
There's probably some other points I've accumulated in my head over the past year or so since the country has gone into mass hysteria and panic mode, and if I remember them I'll jot them down.
But note that NONE of these above points have anything to do with the RBA, its role and its conduct and effectiveness.
People need to get off the blame deflection RBA bashing bandwagon and look at the real issues.
Australia is one of the most well managed countries economically on the planet as the last 30 years demonstrates, and a large part of this is due to our central bank and its people, processes and procedures that have evolved over time.
Having said all that, every public institution should be regularly reviewed, but the current context and basis of the debate surrounding the RBA is misguided and misdirected, largely because it's just due to anger at interest rates having to rise.
Thanks gsco. Pretty robust response.
My only comments being I’m not judging them compared to other forecasters or economists. I expect that they should be better. the public pays them and bears the consequences of their decisions. They need to be held to account.
I think there is a trend of failure given the bank failed to facilitate any wage increase through its management of interest rates prior to 2022 and was quite vocal about it until the moment when they weren’t - which was essentially a phone call with Gerry Harvey and co and it’s been interest rate rise to the moon since? Seems pretty loose “science” to me. I do acknowledge they were given credit during and post gfc.
If “ NONE of these above points have anything to do with the RBA, its role and its conduct and effectiveness” then what is their point?
I mean you seem to be giving them large credit for Australia’s economic success but won’t entertain the idea of ascertaining blame for what I would argue disproportionate impacts on the vulnerable poor and young based on archaic “modelling”thar delivers an ineffectual tool being interest rate rises given the circumstances, .
gsco"Having said all that, every public institution should be regularly reviewed, but the current context and basis of the debate surrounding the RBA is misguided and misdirected, largely because it's just due to anger at interest rates having to rise.'
I think they are angry because Phil said no rises until 2024. A stupid thing to say. The Board needs an overhaul and some more diverse opinions and personnel. It's a product of the LNP.
as I suggesed the other day, is it not more a case of they couldn't possibly put a foot wrong... until they did... when the easy ride dried up...
"The performance of Australian central banking has soured for more than a decade.
Before the Global Financial Crisis, forecasting and monetary policy seemed to run itself. Inflation was largely quiescent, exports were driven by China, and households added debt like clockwork to drive consumption.
These reliable growth drivers made for a well-oiled economic machine that delivered widespread and consistent income gains. Forecasting and setting interest rates were easy..."
https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/interest-rates/real-reason-austr...
"I think they are angry because Phil said no rises until 2024. A stupid thing to say. "
This type of statement is actually part of their "forward guidance" strategy. It was totally intentional and part of the Central Bank bag of tricks the world over.
The concept is that of you make the public and business think interest rates will stay low for a longer period they will act accordingly making low interest rates more effective as a policy tool. In addition, it lessens the tendency of the bond markets to speculate on the rates moving up soon - which tends to raise market rates.
So the RBA engaged in psi ops to fool the people knowing real people make real decision on their psi ops communication.... but forgetting the blowback anger potential Or, knowing a $1 million p.a. salary made some heat from the public and politicians pretty easy to rationalise.
Their forecasts are also intentionally wrong (always too optimistic) to fool the people that things are better than they are.
The answer - don't believe their forecasts or their communications - they are not your friend.
They must lie as a matter of their core strategy.
Roy Morgan unemployment claims it's actually 10.7%.
https://www.9news.com.au/finance/unemployment-rate-discrepancy-roy-morga...
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2023/02/aussie-unemployment-soars/
Note tip upward in the Morgan polls, too. What does everyone think? Is that poll worth any weight compared to official? Numbers in the surf here would tend to support Roy.
Australia sleepwalking into mortgage calamity:
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2023/02/australia-sleepwalking-into-mor...
1 in 8 has missed a payment in last 6 months. That's 429,000, and that's before widespread resets: 800,000 predicted to reset with considerably higher rates. Household expenditure could fall by 20Bn - significant?
CBA record profit but warns of slowdown:
https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/commonwealth-banks-half-profit-jumps-2...
And reports of forced sales by investors in Sydney (circumstance forcing, not the bank):
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2023/02/forced-sales-spread-like-poison...
“We are now getting calls from lots of landlords”, Goswami told ABC News.
“They are struggling with the repayments, so they are looking to sell”.
“All the inflation and other day-to-day costs has gone up, so they can’t afford”.
And that's the headline wrap up as I wait for the (surf) tide to drop. I found the calamity article the most eye opening.
adam12 wrote:I think they are angry because Phil said no rises until 2024. A stupid thing to say. The Board needs an overhaul and some more diverse opinions and personnel. It's a product of the LNP.
These are really good points that illustrate the problem.
The RBA has been hammered for its "inaccurate" inflation and cash rate predictions in 2021. But this is completely unfounded and unjustified.
- To start with, these prediction were made pre Russia-Ukraine war, and in the economic conditions of the time they were valid and reasonable.
- Another point: every economic forecaster, central bank, think tank, etc, did the same thing - they made the same inflation forecasts pre war.
- Also, the RBA did not tell people to "go out and get up to your eyeballs in debt" like they have been accused of. The RBA just said that their central forecast scenario was for transitory inflation and hence they were not expecting to raise the cash rate in the near future.
- Finally, the RBA also intentionally uses its messaging to manage inflation expectations, since these are arguably the strongest driver of realised inflation. The RBA was intentionally trying to reinforce in the public's mind that inflation would be transitory, because the public all thinking that strongly contributes to it panning out like that.
Hence, criticising the RBA for its poor inflation and cash rate forecasts in 2021 is completely unjustified not only since it ignores about 30 years of reasonably good forecasting, but it also just doesn't fit the circumstances and facts as per the above points.
So your last comment explains things perfectly. This is all just a politically motivated witch-hunt and war against a LNP elected RBA board.
frog wrote:"I think they are angry because Phil said no rises until 2024. A stupid thing to say. "
They're also now saying that they don't expect inflation to settle down into their ideal 2-3% range until 2025. Does this mean we can expect rate rises well into 2025!!!
velocityjohnno wrote:“We are now getting calls from lots of landlords”, Goswami told ABC News.
“They are struggling with the repayments, so they are looking to sell”.
“All the inflation and other day-to-day costs has gone up, so they can’t afford”.
And this is where the great real estate bubble reset begins....always with landlords bailing first.
garyg1412 wrote:Real estate agent integrity at it's finest. Not just the dream price tag but the little disclaimer in the photos. Photo 1 is what you'd hope to get for $4 million and Photo 10 is what you'd actually get.
https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-tas-launceston-141448028
WTF, this is almost bordering on false advertising. Who the fck is gonna pay $4m for the actual house in Pic #10!!!
""I think they are angry because Phil said no rises until 2024. A stupid thing to say. "
This type of statement is actually part of their "forward guidance" strategy. It was totally intentional and part of the Central Bank bag of tricks the world over..."
I think the problem, and the backlash, lies in how explicitly his little psy ops operation language was...
usually the language is much more reserved and coded, this was almost a pushing people to rush out and borrow more statement...
whilst it is always buyer beware, and one should always factor in a reasonable amount of rises into any loan equation... (though such sensible days, and personal responsibility, seem a thing of the past...) ...this did seem a bit of bizarre statement at the time, with I think freeride pointing it out as such way back then
RBA "30 years of reasonably good forecasting"
Central Banks will never ever forecast a substantial recession or major spike in inflation as a matter of both modelling and policy.
Like a weather forecaster refusing to predict storms.
RBA "30 years of reasonably good forecasting" - but they can't or won't forecast the recessions and unusual events that really matter.
frog wrote:Buyer ability to negotiate price in many instances is proving to be limited.
That's all about to drastically change once the global economy comes to a grinding halt.
I don’t want to break your dreams don but I believe they will throw everything on it again so the wheel keeps on spinning. Interventions in the market during the last 15 years were enormous, if they were to stop I would agree with you, the crash is imminent. But let’s be realistic, it’s not going to happen.
flollo wrote:I don’t want to break your dreams don but I believe they will throw everything on it again so the wheel keeps on spinning. Interventions in the market during the last 15 years were enormous, if they were to stop I would agree with you, the crash is imminent. But let’s be realistic, it’s not going to happen.
Don't get me wrong Flollo. We've got one more last hurrah coming that will be a rise of epic proportions, followed by one of the largest dumps the world economy has seen in modern times. The reset will follow one last rapid party.
flollo wrote:Slumlord special
https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/buying/house-with-19-bedroom...
Geezus!! I can't imagine that would pass Council approval.
donweather wrote:That's all about to drastically change once the global economy comes to a grinding halt.
Can you imagine it (the never ending boom of the last 25 years in Aus) ever coming to an end? It went on so long that tbh it made me uneasy; watching housing never retrace until now. And even then some are saying their areas are still going up, from eye watering prices. My old man started out in London real estate before town planning, and told me of times when every second house on a street would be for sale without buyers and utter desperation ruled supreme - I've seen this once myself (Gero, early 90's) so know it can actually happen. But it's like the last 25 years has been a fairy tale cos they just keep bailing it out, creating greater and greater imbalances as they go (wage:house price, interest rates at 5000 year lows).
Likelihood of ‘them’ not bailing it out when required is very low. And to be clear, one can pull dozens of different levers to boost housing demand when needed. 23/24 is looking like a crazy good period for great cash flow opportunities. Prices are falling (hot areas will always remain hot, give or take small % adjustments) while rents keep going up. Those who can jump on it will do exactly that. And they will probably be encouraged by the political landscape looking to boost its statistics going into an election which is actually happening sooner than people think.
Spare a thought for the Canadians: https://wolfstreet.com/2023/02/16/the-most-splendid-housing-bubbles-in-c...
Parabolic spikes in asset prices well outside long term moving averages always face gravity at some point.
The simple mistake that has been made in the neoliberal worshipping era, the consequences of which we are currently living through, is that there is underinvestment in productivity and the supply side of the economy: the overall productive capacity of the nation.
As a result, long-term economic growth is naturally, actually structurally, sluggish and this is attempted to be (unsuccessfully) compensated for by ultra low interest rates and quantitative easing, to spur growth and private sector investment in supply side capacity.
But easy money and supply side underinvestment just leads to parabolic asset price bubbles and pent up savings and demand, including via the wealth effect from the bubbles. This demand is easily pushed over its tipping point into an inflation event due to a supply side shock.
Then interest rates go up to manage the inflation event, but this does not address the original supply side shock, and it takes time to impact on the strong and sluggish demand and spending.
The main immediate outcome of the increased interest rates is a bursting and initial minor deflating of the parabolic asset price bubbles, continued stubborn spending and inflation, continued slow growth, and continued underinvestment in supply side capacity.
None of this is the fault of central banks. Sitting here watching the RBA hearing is just cringeworthy.
Society will continue to get nowhere on this problem as long as it keeps trying to pin the problem on central banks.
@gsco this view will not win you any points but I personally fully agree.
In an age where ‘quiet quitting’ is a thing, it’s little wonder productivity is a drag. One wonders whether those yelling loudest are also worthy contributors. Or whether they got a bit too used to a once in a century and temporarily life that is simply not sustainable
Agree as well. This is why it's so important to diversify the economy and create policy conditions that support this. What we've seen with the FTAs and rise of Chinese production at low cost has been eradication of a lot of the diversified value-adding in our economy. It's substantially weaker in this regard than it was.
What is 'quiet quitting' Kaiser? Is it the same as in Atlas Shrugged when the productive go on strike (fiction)?
VJ, it’s a ‘choice’ made by workers and entered the zeitgeist towards the end of the pandemic, born out of apathy.
You basically contribute the minimum amount of work and effort - only just enough to keep your job (or at least not get sacked). It’s a work/life balance thing
The inequality and unfairness considerations come into it by:
1. The already landed wealthy with strong income/cashflow are the ones who got even wealthier, particularly from the asset price bubbles, and are the ones who have strong savings and income/cashflow buffers to handle interest rate increases. They are the ones who are causing the pent up, strong and stubborn demand and spending.
2. The poor got relatively poorer in the lead-up to the inflation event, and then disproportionately and unfairly feel the damage and bear the burden and cost of the increasing interest rates. They are the ones who have to tighten their belts first and start struggling the most from rising interest rates.
The whole neoliberal system is rigged to benefit the already wealthy.
I would agree that this is true but oversimplified. The same applies to many things in life, regardless of the system. For example, GST (or VAT in Europe). If we would go from 10% to 20% who would suffer the most? Rich people? I don't think so. But those anti-neo-liberal Scandinavian countries all have GST at 25%. Most people I know in Europe complain about their VAT on regular basis. Especially if they're running the business. They see it as an unjust and unfair burden that is carried on the shoulders of lower-income people.
australian 'identity' in retreat...
OPINION
Hey Sydney, can we talk about something other than property and private schools?
Antoinette LattoufBroadcaster, columnist and author
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/hey-sydney-can-we-talk-about-somethi...
"Boo Radley
6 HOURS AGO
And yet there would be multiple articles each week from the SMH on these very topics… not to mention the Domain section."
That article is terrible. Thankfully, it's just an opinion.
it might be terrile, but it's true...
Yeah, when parents with kids get together they talk about school a lot. What's new? And what's unique to Sydney?
kaiser wrote:VJ, it’s a ‘choice’ made by workers and entered the zeitgeist towards the end of the pandemic, born out of apathy.
You basically contribute the minimum amount of work and effort - only just enough to keep your job (or at least not get sacked). It’s a work/life balance thing
Cheers for that Kaiser. It does sound a lot like the book - in the story brilliant engineer John Galt creates a 'free energy' motor, but notices his role/job/money/company gets looted by many and refuses to give the world the gift of it.
It's where I get my idea to suggest the young go and form their own towns (discussed here) - in the book the productive all disappear and form their own community in the Rockies ("Galt's gulch"), thus denying the looters their productivity, and the society collapses while they happily get on with making things and holding to values like hard money and tremendous stoicism lol.
The book is a harder sell once you have rare illnesses and need to depend on others!
Edit: I guess I'm feeling a bit of this myself after the pandemic. It's more manifested in "I'm going to do what interests me," vs "how can I be part of it all" and has led to much (road) travel, different places, development of cool stuff, and testing of it. The outside world (apart from searching for the ultimate one-liner on these forums) is something different that does its own thing. Of course there are appointments to be met, and the isolation from people, but it's like being free. Ultimately, I deem it to be important to give back and wheras I would directly do this and benefit others before (loved seeing the happiness), this time around I'll do it other ways.
what's new?
is it's all people talk about now! ...house prices... including us :)
hard not to, when everyone is so heavily, and precariously... invested in this ponzi scheme on steroids...
schools, in sydney... yeh it's what parents always talk about... but not in the manner described in the article, where 'normal' conversations have become all about enrolling ya kid at birth to get a foot in and a leg up...
I'm guessing your kids are in private school... no judgement, good for you... but this perceived need to get your kids into the best school possible was never a part of mainstream-ish ausralian culture. we once had a very good public system, a very egalitarian public system, that gave kids a good chance...
now we're well into the americanisation of our culture and systems, where prestigious schools carry way too much weight, too much pull, ...as they siphon way too many resources from the public system
yeh, it's about choices, parental choices, and governments reacting to them... but that doesn't make it an improvement... or progress... it's another step backwards, seemingly an irreversable one, for a cohesive society, shoved neoliberalism down their throats, under the guises of choice and efficiency....
and, it's not all about money, as some of the comments point out, the public system has gone a bit wayward - and that public system should be reflecting long and hard on that - but it is another final death blow to the once egalitarian australia
the author's conversations, and article, are just a little bit too typical and confronting for anyone who 'values' are once celebrated public education system
I have an issue with an article because it makes wild assumptions without backing it up with any sort of analysis. Honestly, I feel like I’m reading some cheap propaganda. This is not a Sydney issue. I lived in several cities and overseas + traveled for work and guess what, I witnessed these discussions over and over again everywhere I lived/travelled.
I’m not being dismissive of some correctly identified problems. But I am against unnecessary labelling it a ‘Sydney’ problem. It doesn’t add any value and it’s just driving unnecessary polarisation.
@VJ there is no need to start the cities. With the quiet quitting phenomenon driven and ambitious individuals can easily stand out. I witnessed some great young people building fantastic careers in the last few years. And demand is still strong for many things. This week I heard some comments from a civil contractor in Vic who specialises in directional drilling. He said that not that long ago he lost some jobs at $25 per m and that now he’s winning some jobs at $195 per m. Now, $25 does sound low, could’ve been awhile ago. But $195 is pretty crazy. Basically, whole industries are fighting for directional drillers right now, telco against power, power against gas…They launched so many programs at the same time, it’s crazy out there. This is just one example of some good opportunities.
House prices - going to go up , down or sideways ?
Opinions and anecdotal stories if you could.
Cheers