Two Million Aussies Live In Poverty

[SDL]

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...974-661,00.html

This is disgusting given the recently announced surplus, and what drives me mad reading it is:

But Treasurer Peter Costello said the report did not paint an accurate picture of how Australians were faring.

He said most people were doing well, benefiting from more jobs and higher wages.

"Average weekly earnings have increased by 4.4 per cent over the year to June 2007, easily outstripping movements in the Consumer Price Index," he said.

"In fact, over the last five years they have increased 25.7 per cent. This means that working families have more spending power."

Most people may be doing well, but that isn't the issue here, 2 million aren't, that's 10% of the country that are just written off by Peter. And again the average earnings does not address the issue of the 2 million.

Again Costello clearly doesn't understand, or doesn't want to address, the widening gap that is creating a real underclass in Australia which as well as directly effecting those people below the poverty line as they struggle, it also leads to higher crime and other social issues that will effect even those with their heads in the sand.

Edited August 30, 2007 by SDL

[Gutty]

My better half works with Illawarra youth housing. Looking after young single mums etc that have no one to turn to for help, be it financial, mental, physical. A decent feed or a simple roof to sleep under. It's an eye opener i tell ya...

I dare say Costello's never seen real poverty.... head too far up is clacker i'd say.

[BribieG]

Isn't amazing that Peter Costello has that admirable and totally humane brother Tim Costello. Reminds me of the Arnie movie "Twins" where one 'twin' got all the good genes and the other got all the crap DNA!!!!

[FMB]

I wonder if this has anything at all to do with recent news stories that Australians are pumping billions into poker machines each year and that the Equine Influenza outbreak has crippled the billion dollar racing (gambling) industry.

There's an awful lot of money being spent on gambling in this country. Not one cent by me btw.

[Maverick]

I just love it when the government comes out with these figures that wages have increased by X amount over the life of their incumbency. I for one have not had a real pay rise in over 6 years. My pay rise this year was 0.5% and in the last 6 years I have not had a rise above CPI or even close to CPI.

[aztec]

I just love it when the government comes out with these figures that wages have increased by X amount over the life of their incumbency. I for one have not had a real pay rise in over 6 years. My pay rise this year was 0.5% and in the last 6 years I have not had a rise above CPI or even close to CPI.

That's because the high income earners have had their wages go through the roof skewing the statistics.

[Aloysius]

The definition of poverty used in this case is a world definition :

Those people who receive less than half the median wage are defined as - "in poverty"

That means with a median wage of $50 / week an Indian person earning less $25 is defined as living in poverty.

In Oz with a median wage of say $600 / week - a person receiving less than $300 is defined as living in poverty.

Any one think there is any similarity in the two examples?

[stahc]

I wonder if this has anything at all to do with recent news stories that Australians are pumping billions into poker machines each year and that the Equine Influenza outbreak has crippled the billion dollar racing (gambling) industry.

There's an awful lot of money being spent on gambling in this country. Not one cent by me btw.

couldn't tell you where to find the local tab if i tried

[Skid_MacMarx]

The definition of poverty used in this case is a world definition :

Those people who receive less than half the median wage are defined as - "in poverty"

That means with a median wage of $50 / week an Indian person earning less $25 is defined as living in poverty.

In Oz with a median wage of say $600 / week - a person receiving less than $300 is defined as living in poverty.

Any one think there is any similarity in the two examples?

Although the relative poverty measure is problematic, it doesn't diminish the fact that a certain sector of our community have been let down big time by this administration.. these people have suffered greater hardship .

I find your example misleading as one would relate India or certain segments of Indian society with absolute poverty no?

I think its common knowledge that there are two forms of poverty,:

Absolute poverty is based on subsistence, a minimum standard needed to live. Seebohm Rowntree's research identified a 'poverty line' on the basis of minimum needs. The Copenhagen Declaration defines absolute poverty as "a condition characterised by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to social services."

Relative poverty is based on a comparison of poor people with others in society. Peter Townsend defines poverty as "the absence or inadequacy of those diets, amenities, standards, services and activities which are common or customary in society."

http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/introduction/needf.htm

These definitions of poverty don't diminish the gravity of this report, the hardship many suffer nor the divisive nature of the Howard administration's policies

Australia scores poorly in efforts to reduce poverty

DESPITE its strong economy, Australia is falling behind many of the wealthy countries in eradicating poverty and making life fairer, a new report shows.

Increasing numbers of Australians fell into poverty in the decade until 2004 when one in 10 - or almost 2 million people - were living below an austere poverty line.

As well, Australia has some of the most expensive housing and worst dental health problems.

The report uses current data to compare Australia with other OECD countries on "10 essentials", including education and health. It was released yesterday by Australia Fair, a coalition that is campaigning for "a fair go for all".

It shows Australia is ranked 14th of 18 OECD countries on the UN Human Poverty Index, which combines income poverty, longevity, and literacy. The gap in life expectancy between the indigenous and the general populations is much greater here than in the United States, Canada and New Zealand. While unemployment is relatively low, workforce participation lags nine other countries, including Canada, New Zealand and Sweden.

Andrew Johnson, the executive director of the Australian Council of Social Service, said: "So many Australians in good economic times don't have access to decent education, housing, health and services. There are 600,000 low-income Australians on waiting lists for dental care."

The report, A Fair Go for All Australians, says Australia is in the peculiar situation of having strong economic growth "yet entrenched and continuing" social exclusion. Almost 2 million Australians in 2004, including 365,270 children, were living at or below the most austere poverty line used in international research: 50 per cent of median (middle) disposable income.

While Australia had the fourth-highest home ownership rate in the OECD, housing was now the most expensive in the English-speaking countries relative to income. Yet the supply of subsidised housing for people on low incomes was one of the lowest in the OECD.

The report said 22 of 30 OECD countries - but not Australia - had implemented strategies to reduce poverty. The Federal Government has maintained a strong economy and low unemployment constituted the best anti-poverty strategy. But Mr Johnson said a national anti-poverty plan to address problems from health to education was needed.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/austra...8067192177.html

[Cody]

what a national disgrace this is, and with a budget surplus of $17.3bn.

good economic management? I think not.

[AndrewW]

In Oz with a median wage of say $600 / week - a person receiving less than $300 is defined as living in poverty.

Well I'd be surprised if anyone could live on $300/week, let alone a single parent with kids.

We pay nearly that much each week just to put our 2 kids in child care

No matter how Costello tries to spin it, this is an absolute disgrace, especially with him crowing on about a $17 billion surplus being a sign of good economic management

[BribieG]

The problem is not only people on welfare such as single mothers, the disabled and the genuinely unemployable (Illiterate, tattoed all over their faces and covered in piercings, and unable to talk in anything other than a 'f***' embellished grunted slur) in places like Campbelltown or Caboolture, QLD - another problem is that workchoices is forcing down wages in the lower paid sectors, sending more decent hard working families into poverty.

An example is Australia Post who are trying to covert their full time posties to part time casualised. So Mr or Ms postie who is probably on 37.5 hours a week earning maybe $700 will probably be offered five x six hour shifts on a AWA and drop to below $600 and be forced to look for say 4 hours twice a week working at a bottle shop or service station. This may well kick out the single mum at the service station who will be knocked back on the straight pension.

When I arrived in Australia 30 years ago, there were no working poor and no underclass. Anyone who had a full time job could expect to get a mortgage, save up and buy a Holden Kingswood, clothe and feed their kids and later on get a caravan or maybe a small boat for use on their holidays.

Now, underclass, working poor, and no holidays.

Roll on the election.

[myrantz]

Well I'd be surprised if anyone could live on $300/week, let alone a single parent with kids.

We pay nearly that much each week just to put our 2 kids in child care

No matter how Costello tries to spin it, this is an absolute disgrace, especially with him crowing on about a $17 billion surplus being a sign of good economic management

I seriously think $300/wk isn't that bad (might be a problem if living alone).

But If a a couple with no children has $600/wk they can do relatively well... Sure they have to live without a lot of luxuries and have have to rely on public health and public transports... Rent will be the biggest cost, but if that's managed, things can be good.

In the old days (which wasn't that long ago really), people walked 10-20km (or maybe more) to work/school. People live with no hot water system (or they heat the water with firewood). Never switched on the electricity unless really necessary (e.g. for kids to study), i.e. no heat in winter and a/c in summer, don't own a fridge. Eat very simple meals etc (as in porridge, a little bit of rice with a lot of water, maybe an egg once a week)... Get all the concessions and assistance you can where possible, and in ten years they might have a tidy savings to start their own business or something.

[SDL]

I seriously think $300/wk isn't that bad (might be a problem if living alone).

But If a a couple with no children has $600/wk they can do relatively well... Sure they have to live without a lot of luxuries and have have to rely on public health and public transports... Rent will be the biggest cost, but if that's managed, things can be good.

In the old days (which wasn't that long ago really), people walked 10-20km (or maybe more) to work/school. People live with no hot water system (or they heat the water with firewood). Never switched on the electricity unless really necessary (e.g. for kids to study), i.e. no heat in winter and a/c in summer, don't own a fridge. Eat very simple meals etc (as in porridge, a little bit of rice with a lot of water, maybe an egg once a week)... Get all the concessions and assistance you can where possible, and in ten years they might have a tidy savings to start their own business or something.

Which is all well and good, but we live in great economic times not the post war era. The Government crows on about the raised standards, how Australia is doing better than ever before, and you are suggesting people go back to one of hardship equivalent to post World War 2? Believe me I know the difference between what we have and how hard some people do it in other places around the world - but that isn't the issue. We supposedly are getting great management from our leaders, the country is booming, and yet we should see people eating porridge, going cold in winter etc. while $17Billion gets bandied around for use electioneering.

[myrantz]

Which is all well and good, but we live in great economic times not the post war era. The Government crows on about the raised standards, how Australia is doing better than ever before, and you are suggesting people go back to one of hardship equivalent to post World War 2? Believe me I know the difference between what we have and how hard some people do it in other places

It wasn't even in WW2.. If you think what I described is bad, there are families that's worse off that what I just described at that point of time. Of course there also the rich kids who gets one brand new transformer toy every week. Man the envy!!! haha

around the world - but that isn't the issue. We supposedly are getting great management from our leaders, the country is booming, and yet we should see people eating porridge, going cold in winter etc. while $17Billion gets bandied around for use electioneering.

Life isn't fair. I know it's harsh but no matter when/how the elite will always screw the poor. I like you am angry with the high taxes here with no seemingly improvement to anything while big fat amanda vanstone is spending in excess of $300k to move to Italy.. Vote the current government out as they do not deserve to stay in office, but don't expect labor to fix all the problems, as they likely will just stick to the status quo.

A couple, at $600/wk, if there's additional welfare + other concessions, seriously I don't think it's that bad.. Singles at $300/wk really have to coshare with more people to survive. These people can look at their outgoings every month, seriously sit down and consider every possible cent they can save so that they can do something to escape poverty. You can't expect the government to pull them out, they can assist somewhat, but really the people themselves must sit up straight and really claw their way out. In many ways poverty is like a drug addiction.

Edited August 31, 2007 by treblid

[(ツ)]

When I arrived in Australia 30 years ago, there were no working poor and no underclass. Anyone who had a full time job could expect to get a mortgage, save up and buy a Holden Kingswood, clothe and feed their kids and later on get a caravan or maybe a small boat for use on their holidays.

And it was all done MONDAY'S to FRIDAY'S, weekends were weekends.

None of this working thursday nights, saturday's AND sunday's for just $600 a week. POO!

[SDL]

And it was all done MONDAY'S to FRIDAY'S, weekends were weekends.

None of this working thursday nights, saturday's AND sunday's for just $600 a week. POO!

hmmm we arrived in Australia in the mid 70's, my dad worked 10 hour days and Saturdays - BUT it was to get ahead, not just to make ends meet.

[Steve C]

When I read the thread topic "Two Million Aussies Live in Poverty", I immediately thought that the Federal Government had finally rounded up all the poor and shipped 'em off to a town called 'Poverty'.

I hadn't got a knock on my door, so I figured the round up had only begun on Indigenous people first...

[SDL]

All reminds me of the English comedy B'Stard MP or whatever it was called. The character making a speech about scrapping the National Health System because it would improve overall living standards and health. When asked about the poor that couldn't afford private insurance he explained they would get sick and die and therefore the average Britain would then be better off financially on average, the health system wouldn't have such long queues, and the taxpayers wouldn't be footing the bill. It was funny when I watched it many years ago, now it seems like a party political statement for the coalition.

[AndrewW]

All reminds me of the English comedy B'Stard MP

That would be "The New Statesman"

[phase5]

I seriously think $300/wk isn't that bad (might be a problem if living alone).

"Might" be a problem if living alone?

[AndrewW]

"Might" be a problem if living alone?

Yeah well some people have a strange idea of what it actually costs to survive.

I dare say that if they were forced to try and live on $300/week then their opinion might change pretty rapidly.

[(ツ)]

A couple, at $600/wk, if there's additional welfare + other concessions, seriously I don't think it's that bad.. Singles at $300/wk really have to coshare with more people to survive. These people can look at their outgoings every month, seriously sit down and consider every possible cent they can save so that they can do something to escape poverty. You can't expect the government to pull them out, they can assist somewhat, but really the people themselves must sit up straight and really claw their way out. In many ways poverty is like a drug addiction.

I can see what trying to say here but most people dont the ability to take this path. They are locked into home loan repayments which also attracts other "fixed" expenses such as council rates, water & sewrage, insurance or strata fees. They add to your "unavoidable" weekly expenses. Not to mention costs incurred getting to and from work.

You often need a car for this: there goes another $20 a week just keep it legal! Then got you've fuel, maintainance...........

Walking to work doesn't help sell your reliability. How many jobs require you to not have reliable transport?

What scares me at the moment is that families could have made some financial progress, thanks to overtime, a 2nd job, or some other work. Now thanks to John Howard's I/R changes some people have had a fairly large chunk taken out of their income.

You could try to sell the family home, incurring $$$$ in fees, taxes moving expenses etc and try and find some cheap rent, but you then you're really going backwards, and if OZ continues with its current path the situations will get worse.

I think lifting the tax free threshold could be a start.

And if you must remove penalty rates remove some of the taxes as well.

[Steve C]

I think lifting the tax free threshold could be a start.

And if you must remove penalty rates remove some of the taxes as well.

And I think preventing the CEO's club from raping and looting the 'kitty' of companies they only care about in terms of funding their next maxi-yacht would also go a long way to reducing the increasing economic inequity our nation is experiencing.

If the penalty rates are removed for ordinary workers, they should reappear in the form of a slug to the skull for any CEO who underperforms yet still invokes 'productivity' bonus contract clauses to obtain inordinately disproportionate salary increases...

[raikage]

living in poverty, that refers to the homeless right?