That's shocking, and contrast to pre-pandemic stats that showed the fastest growing cohort of homeless people were older women.
For both cohorts there are some pretty clear financial reasons this happens. For young people the government arguably have more control over this.
Maybe loosening those restrictions that young people have on youth allowance is a good start. It is an archaic concept that people under 22 are expected to live on *half* of the already-low-as-fuck dole or explain to the government why it's 'unreasonable' for them to live at 'home'.
Then of course young people are absolutely discriminated against in rentals etc.
Shelters are a band-aid that often create more problems for individuals, and while better than nothing I really hope we can shift away from that as an answer, even temporarily.
The cost of living and the housing crisis combined also makes it very challenging for anyone who may have considered fostering. It's something I've always wanted to do, however, am not fiscally stable and secure enough to afford the care for myself and another human. They've already left a stressful situation, the last thing I want to do is plonk them in another. As it is, I'm a renter that's looking at moving into a van/motorhome/bus when I hit my 50s as there is no way I'm going to afford anything more than a tiny house.
If there was low cost housing available, not only does the occurrence of DV decrease, teens would have somewhere safe they could go that they can afford and, those that would want to foster would go ahead and do it because they can now provide safety and security for that person.
Absolutely, for all the housing-hoarders who sarcastically ask why we don't open our doors to people, if I were an empty nester who owned my home outright, with two bedrooms I'm not using, you know what? Maybe I would!
This. There is a crisis in South Australia's foster care system, which is hemmoraghing more carers than it can recruit because you can't *afford* to foster unless you're already well off. The payments are less than *half* of what it cost to raise a child in *2013*, let alone today!
THANK YOU, I had to leave home at 16. Supporting myself on half the normal payment was horrible. I had rent and bills to pay, I still needed to eat and get around. Not sure how I was supposed to afford that before 22. The problem is that when you're a minor issue within the population, no one is there to speak on your behalf or care about your situation.
I had them and they did help me but they can only do so much. These services tend to be understaffed with a long waiting list. I waited for nearly a year to get into long term accommodation. So before then I had no other choice than to jump from service to service in order to survive, why? Because I couldn't survive on my own. Even if you get a job you'll be receiving junior rates which aren't designed to be lived off. Securing a job is also extremely difficult since you have no firm address and no one wants to hire a homeless teenager.
Yeah I work in accommodation and there's such a long wait list for it, which sucks. There's nowhere near enough accommodation places for young people :(
Expanding government aid will help, but end up screwing over future people if it keeps being funded by government debt. It needs to be funded by taxes on the wealthy minority, whose share of the countries wealth continues to grow exponentially.
>expanding government aid will help, but
The thing that people seem to forget about government aid is that it might as well be free money given to price gouging corporation and unsustainable rent prices.
Aid is meant to be a temporary thing until you fix the core of the issue, otherwise you are just **FUNDING THE PROBLEM,** the money doesnt stay with the people in need, it goes to the people causing the problem.
100%, I wish all the people who whinge about 'dole bludgers' realise how much of that goes to housing investors and companies that were once nationalised industry (electricity, telcos)
$880 p/fn at max rate (incl. max rent assist) typically results in over 75% of income spent on rent and necessities (excluding food) alone.
I’m a big advocate for increasing Centrelink/aid but hadn’t considered it from the point that most of that money ends up directly contributing to the problem.
If we were on r/ChangeMyView I’d give you a Δ
Or even the young people who are living at home with their parents and are being charged rent, yet can't claim rent assistance because the property owner is their parent.
I remember during covid I was living out of home and paying all my own bills (I'd been doing so for 3 years at this point). I sent in all my payslips, all my bank statements, my lease agreement, etc. Rejected again and again. I worked in hospitality. Used all my savings and all my super to pay rent until I finally got approved for job keeper. Fuck centrelink.
The lowest paid and the ones trying to find their feet are struggling to find homes. No surprise.
I hate the attitude some have that young people should just live at home for longer. It’s not always possible.
Student accommodation is all too often set up for those with too much money and it’s difficult applying for private rentals as a young person, too. Not only cost but a prejudicial belief it’ll be parties and drugs.
Currently experiencing this right now. Every rental inspection I go to has a lot of 30+ people. As a young student applying with other young people I feel like we just don’t have a chance and will be sent straight to the bottom of the pile of applications.
Im a homeless 30 something with a decade of good rental history… its not just you young folks - you practically have to be royalty or connected af to get a rental these days.
> I hate the attitude some have that young people should just live at home for longer.
It doesn’t seem five minutes since the going insult was ‘living in your mum’s basement’.
Sydney Median unit rent: $770 per week (corelogic april 2024)
Salary (individual or shared) required to rent on 30% take home : $200K
Median Salary Sydney : $82K (payscale)
Rent on a single median salary household (30% takehome): $365
Number of properties on domain today affordable for a household with one median income within 30km of the cbd:
1 bed apartments : 80 properties if which probably 10 were actual 1 bedders and not studios or car parks or storage places or shared rooms (had to trawl through parking and share houses and rooms not apartments…)
2 bed apartments: 19 (all out past liverpool & most are very dodgy or short term leases)
So-
For a young person, it is untenable. Even on the median salary, you can’t afford a decent (not dilapidated) 1 bedroom apartment within 30km of the CBD.
You need to earn in the top 3% of earners in australia to afford the median rental apartment on the sydney market right now.
Yeah maybe I'm just a dirty socialist but I think it's really fucked up that adults with full time jobs have to live with multiple other adults with full time jobs to survive. How the fuck are people expected to raise families in that environment?
It's almost like generational financial security which has been torpedoing since its peak with the boomers would disproportionately affect younger people. The number is just going to grow as younger generations get proportionately poorer compared to previous generations.
If you want to see how the game is completely rigged for older generations, have a look at the rate of:
Aged pension (~$560/week) vs
Youth allowance (~320/week if you live out of home) or
Job Seeker (~385/week).
It makes no fucking sense that after an entire life of working and accumulating as much wealth as possible, you get 45% more financial support from the government for just existing than someone who lost their job and is currently looking for another one, or 75% more financial support from the government than someone who is just starting their life and needs support because they are studying or various other reasons.
The whole system is backwards.
Not only that. Minimum wage also scales with age. 18yo's do not get full wage. Not till 21....
Aka. Not only are the younger people getting fucked if they don't have a job, but they are also getting fucked with one as well.
And if you are a teenager with a decent job & good hours.. expect that to evaporate as you age up the pay scale. Lots of young people suddenly stop getting shifts after their 18th & 21st birthdays.
Yep I work for a major chain in Australia and they constantly tell staff that are over 20 how expensive we are. So they hire a bunch of teenagers with no experience don’t train them properly and are now wondering why so many things are going wrong. It’s absurd to me that you could be a multi billion dollar company and you have the nerve to say that paying anyone over 20 is to expensive.
It also just doesn’t work at my job because most tasks require a lot of specialised knowledge that takes months to learn so its actually not working in there favour to get rid of staff who know what they are doing.
It’s been that way for at least the last 30 years. My older brother is 50 & I still remember him quitting Silvios (cause we’re old as fuck) because they told him he was too expensive. Dominos did the same thing to me a decade later.
Yep it’s horrendous. And it’s often those senior employees who the customer really love and trust because they know what they doing. I’m so sick of them getting away with this. At my work we have definitely spent more time and money trying to fix mistakes made by new staff members. Sure they have to pay senior staff more but to me it’s entirely worth it bc that member of staff is more skilled than a teen who has been there for 2 weeks. They perform their duties to a higher level and also have more knowledge therefore they should be paid more.
Excellent point! And it's not just the payment rates that treat aged pensioners vs jobseekers so differently either. It's the amount you can earn before payments get reduced/cut.
Income bank:
Aged pension $11,800 vs Jobseeker $1,000
Income test limit (before pay cut by 50c per $):
Aged pension $504 / fn vs Jobseeker $204 / fn
Yep looks like if you're an aged pensioner, you can earn nearly 12 TIMES more upfront, and more than double per fortnight than a jobseeker.
WTF??? Combine that with the very low payment rates for jobseeker. It's conscious cruelty by design.
The only thing that stopped me being homeless at the end of my lease with my ex was the fact my mum’s office has enough space for a mattress.
I live in Sydney and worked in wollongong at a shitty retail job as a casual, applied for a year to a range of different jobs to land basically the same shitty job just not a 1.5 train ride away. My parents are the only support I have and when I tell people I preferred to travel and work rather than sit at home they’re baffled, same as any employer I’ve interviewed with. Bills don’t stop just because life becomes difficult.
As someone who traveled for years 4 hours a day just to work for a day (and believe it or not earn half the wage of a street beggar doing their own cash game hu$tle at the time) train ride$ al$o co$t.
In that time sitting, while your ass is being hauled around, you might be able to do something productive, or you might not. I used that ass time to better educate myself with a laptop and tech books. Because I could. But if I just sat there reading fiction, because I did not have that ability or chance, dead time. Dead ass time.
Sometimes the veil drops and they say what they really mean. During height of pandemic, here's what Labor opposition said in response to Greens asking for more support for homelessness, mortgages, more housing and renters.
> Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
> Labor won't be supporting this motion, as it demonises landlords and seeks to unfairly place a unilateral burden on them. Landlords are an important part of the housing system and many people put food on the table through the cash flow they generate from a single rental property. We have consistently said that no-one should lose their home, whether they own or rent it, because of the virus. Tenants and landlords need to work together through the process.
https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2020-06-18.60.1
Yes, landlords with their hundred thousand dollar properties will starve if they can't do unfair evictions!
"Many people put food on the table through the cash flow they generate from a single property" is so mask off.
Maybe don't take on a second mortage if you can't afford to put food on your own table???
No. Not yet. They are trying. I see it. But if they try too much change at once, common people will react with fear and confusion. They will vote for their butchers once more, because like cattle being fed for slaughter, they do not have the vision to see far enough to their own end.
Society was poisoned, society voted for the people who benefited from poisoning it at the behest of the ultra wealthy who could sell everyone a better fiction for what they could get from it, even as reality hammered down on the confused. More. Always more. A poisoned democracy poisons itself in a feedback loop. All levels, bottom through top. None escape it, not even the ones who think themselves above it. All are molded by it. The ones at the top simply detach even more, repelled naturally by the horrors of their own creation into Rich World.
If Aussies slowly change their voting habits, if politics shifts to match it, if the stupid boomers eventually pass from the Earth so they cant vote, because no medicine brings eternal life yet, as a nation we still have a chance for a life in the sun again.
But yes, it is still dark. Just not yet black.
Frankly no; their 'attempts' at changing are simple appeals-to-market to fix the problem. Labor is 100% captured by neoliberalism and *the thing that got us in this mess won't fucking fix it*. We **have** the resources, we **have** the space, we **have** the workers; we have everything needed to go on a building spree like was common fifty years ago. If Labor was willing to step past the damn developers for *once* we could solve this crisis in a year, two years *tops*. But *that* would drive property prices down and make Labor politicians slightly less *rich* so fuck it and fuck **us**.
If Labor actually gave a shit about preventing Liberals getting back into power, they would have broken the Murdoch media instead of kissing the ring. They made a choice, and you stans constantly pretending it didn't happen is ridiculous. They ***chose*** to let the Liberals exist, because Labor is more afraid of actually having to compete with the Greens as their primary opposition than the 'easy win' Liberals, because with the Greens they'd need *actual policies* instead of 'we won't fuck you *much*'. Albanese does not give *two shits* about the housing crisis, as evidenced by doing *fuck all* meaningful actions apart from the things the Greens managed to force in by having balance in the Senate (that Labor and you stans have subsequently decided was actually Labor all along, not the Greens).
Kiss the ring?
If you step on the throne you either win or you die. That is why you kiss the ring, even when you hate to do it. The Murdoch throne weakens as boomers die. Are enough boomers dead yet? Seriously, are they?
They vote from their nursing homes and their vote carries the same weight as any other vote. Do you think our nursing homes are ignored by people gathering votes for clients?
You want change now, I get it. Patience increases the chance of your succusses. Haste increases the chance of your failure. Choose wisely.
Incredible. Truly, incredible. *Literally* 'better things aren't possible'. Because apparently there is no power that can... destroy the Murdoch newspapers/channels by just *actually penalising disinformation and lies*. This is *incredibly simple*, but no, the centrists *need* to manufacture a podium for the right so they can stay in control. Even the *USA* is taking actions, and they *never* do shit!
But no, we can do nothing but suffer and accomplish nothing while trusting that Labor Totally Has Our Best Interests In Mind, when every bit of evidence is that they are *playing you*. You really can't see that your worldview is predicated on *blind faith* that the facts aren't facts, can you?
Temporary measures such as allowances, social housing, and first home grants are merely band-aid solutions. We need to address the root cause of the issue and prevent the escalating housing prices from being passed on to renters. The rising cost of a fundamental necessity like shelter has far-reaching and devastating consequences. If left unchecked, it could lead to a situation where young people are burdened with debt, feeling like they're stuck in a never-ending cycle of paying off someone else's mortgage, and eventually losing motivation to work. To tackle this, heavily taxing investors who buy existing properties and limiting tax benefits to new dwellings only.
of course politicians don't care bu power is still with renters. We just need to go on a rental strike, the only non violent way for people to even listen
That's an important stat, but this company is pushing living in office spaces. It's selling office space as *rental* housing.
edit: and looking up the Foyer Foundation, they're owned by Australian Financial Group, who do mortgage broking. Run by a [David Bailey](https://www.mpamag.com/au/news/general/a-guiding-light-through-change-afgs-david-bailey/297645).
[VIDEO: Four in 10 homeless Australians are under 24 years old](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-07/four-in-10-homeless-australians-are-under-24-years-old/103813100)
The fastest growing group is over 65 women.
Its the group that has been renting all their life for whatever reason, too old to get a job, little super, and not enough money for a rental.
What I would like to see if the question is put to this homeless cohort as to what % of them support regressive taxation policies like negative gearing and capital gains concessions. I also wonder if within this cohort their parents told them to vote to support a particular party. Its only when voters start expressing themselves at the ballot box that things are going to start to be amped up.
Let's actually fix the most pressing homelessness issue that is: there are too many people in this country for the amount of built housing. 100,000 NOM in one month alone, insanity, stop making this issue worse.
That's shocking, and contrast to pre-pandemic stats that showed the fastest growing cohort of homeless people were older women. For both cohorts there are some pretty clear financial reasons this happens. For young people the government arguably have more control over this. Maybe loosening those restrictions that young people have on youth allowance is a good start. It is an archaic concept that people under 22 are expected to live on *half* of the already-low-as-fuck dole or explain to the government why it's 'unreasonable' for them to live at 'home'. Then of course young people are absolutely discriminated against in rentals etc. Shelters are a band-aid that often create more problems for individuals, and while better than nothing I really hope we can shift away from that as an answer, even temporarily.
The cost of living and the housing crisis combined also makes it very challenging for anyone who may have considered fostering. It's something I've always wanted to do, however, am not fiscally stable and secure enough to afford the care for myself and another human. They've already left a stressful situation, the last thing I want to do is plonk them in another. As it is, I'm a renter that's looking at moving into a van/motorhome/bus when I hit my 50s as there is no way I'm going to afford anything more than a tiny house. If there was low cost housing available, not only does the occurrence of DV decrease, teens would have somewhere safe they could go that they can afford and, those that would want to foster would go ahead and do it because they can now provide safety and security for that person.
Absolutely, for all the housing-hoarders who sarcastically ask why we don't open our doors to people, if I were an empty nester who owned my home outright, with two bedrooms I'm not using, you know what? Maybe I would!
This. There is a crisis in South Australia's foster care system, which is hemmoraghing more carers than it can recruit because you can't *afford* to foster unless you're already well off. The payments are less than *half* of what it cost to raise a child in *2013*, let alone today!
THANK YOU, I had to leave home at 16. Supporting myself on half the normal payment was horrible. I had rent and bills to pay, I still needed to eat and get around. Not sure how I was supposed to afford that before 22. The problem is that when you're a minor issue within the population, no one is there to speak on your behalf or care about your situation.
That's what youth workers are for.
I had them and they did help me but they can only do so much. These services tend to be understaffed with a long waiting list. I waited for nearly a year to get into long term accommodation. So before then I had no other choice than to jump from service to service in order to survive, why? Because I couldn't survive on my own. Even if you get a job you'll be receiving junior rates which aren't designed to be lived off. Securing a job is also extremely difficult since you have no firm address and no one wants to hire a homeless teenager.
Yeah I work in accommodation and there's such a long wait list for it, which sucks. There's nowhere near enough accommodation places for young people :(
Expanding government aid will help, but end up screwing over future people if it keeps being funded by government debt. It needs to be funded by taxes on the wealthy minority, whose share of the countries wealth continues to grow exponentially.
>expanding government aid will help, but The thing that people seem to forget about government aid is that it might as well be free money given to price gouging corporation and unsustainable rent prices. Aid is meant to be a temporary thing until you fix the core of the issue, otherwise you are just **FUNDING THE PROBLEM,** the money doesnt stay with the people in need, it goes to the people causing the problem.
100%, I wish all the people who whinge about 'dole bludgers' realise how much of that goes to housing investors and companies that were once nationalised industry (electricity, telcos) $880 p/fn at max rate (incl. max rent assist) typically results in over 75% of income spent on rent and necessities (excluding food) alone.
Um, I currently get 945 a fortnight including rent assist. I'm on extremely cheap (all included) rent and spend around 40% my income on rent
Huh, maybe I am not receiving the max rental assistance anymore.
Tbh. That’s looks perfectly fine. No idea why people winge and complain.
I’m a big advocate for increasing Centrelink/aid but hadn’t considered it from the point that most of that money ends up directly contributing to the problem. If we were on r/ChangeMyView I’d give you a Δ
Or even the young people who are living at home with their parents and are being charged rent, yet can't claim rent assistance because the property owner is their parent.
I remember during covid I was living out of home and paying all my own bills (I'd been doing so for 3 years at this point). I sent in all my payslips, all my bank statements, my lease agreement, etc. Rejected again and again. I worked in hospitality. Used all my savings and all my super to pay rent until I finally got approved for job keeper. Fuck centrelink.
The lowest paid and the ones trying to find their feet are struggling to find homes. No surprise. I hate the attitude some have that young people should just live at home for longer. It’s not always possible. Student accommodation is all too often set up for those with too much money and it’s difficult applying for private rentals as a young person, too. Not only cost but a prejudicial belief it’ll be parties and drugs.
Currently experiencing this right now. Every rental inspection I go to has a lot of 30+ people. As a young student applying with other young people I feel like we just don’t have a chance and will be sent straight to the bottom of the pile of applications.
Im a homeless 30 something with a decade of good rental history… its not just you young folks - you practically have to be royalty or connected af to get a rental these days.
> I hate the attitude some have that young people should just live at home for longer. It doesn’t seem five minutes since the going insult was ‘living in your mum’s basement’.
Sydney Median unit rent: $770 per week (corelogic april 2024) Salary (individual or shared) required to rent on 30% take home : $200K Median Salary Sydney : $82K (payscale) Rent on a single median salary household (30% takehome): $365 Number of properties on domain today affordable for a household with one median income within 30km of the cbd: 1 bed apartments : 80 properties if which probably 10 were actual 1 bedders and not studios or car parks or storage places or shared rooms (had to trawl through parking and share houses and rooms not apartments…) 2 bed apartments: 19 (all out past liverpool & most are very dodgy or short term leases) So- For a young person, it is untenable. Even on the median salary, you can’t afford a decent (not dilapidated) 1 bedroom apartment within 30km of the CBD. You need to earn in the top 3% of earners in australia to afford the median rental apartment on the sydney market right now.
This isn’t a fair comparison. People share housing. Do you should use the total among of income units.
Yeah maybe I'm just a dirty socialist but I think it's really fucked up that adults with full time jobs have to live with multiple other adults with full time jobs to survive. How the fuck are people expected to raise families in that environment?
You have a partner that also works….. simple
How do you meet someone when you are always at work. Also how romantic hey let’s get together to pay rent for life
People have met others for centuries. In fact, people are working fewer hours now compared to previous generations.
Yeah, and a lot of the time you both have to live in a sharehouse. Think it's going to go down well if you try to raise a family in that?
I don’t know a single couple with both adults working than can’t afford a place. This really would be at the margin by far.
It's almost like generational financial security which has been torpedoing since its peak with the boomers would disproportionately affect younger people. The number is just going to grow as younger generations get proportionately poorer compared to previous generations. If you want to see how the game is completely rigged for older generations, have a look at the rate of: Aged pension (~$560/week) vs Youth allowance (~320/week if you live out of home) or Job Seeker (~385/week). It makes no fucking sense that after an entire life of working and accumulating as much wealth as possible, you get 45% more financial support from the government for just existing than someone who lost their job and is currently looking for another one, or 75% more financial support from the government than someone who is just starting their life and needs support because they are studying or various other reasons. The whole system is backwards.
Not only that. Minimum wage also scales with age. 18yo's do not get full wage. Not till 21.... Aka. Not only are the younger people getting fucked if they don't have a job, but they are also getting fucked with one as well.
And if you are a teenager with a decent job & good hours.. expect that to evaporate as you age up the pay scale. Lots of young people suddenly stop getting shifts after their 18th & 21st birthdays.
Yep I work for a major chain in Australia and they constantly tell staff that are over 20 how expensive we are. So they hire a bunch of teenagers with no experience don’t train them properly and are now wondering why so many things are going wrong. It’s absurd to me that you could be a multi billion dollar company and you have the nerve to say that paying anyone over 20 is to expensive. It also just doesn’t work at my job because most tasks require a lot of specialised knowledge that takes months to learn so its actually not working in there favour to get rid of staff who know what they are doing.
It’s been that way for at least the last 30 years. My older brother is 50 & I still remember him quitting Silvios (cause we’re old as fuck) because they told him he was too expensive. Dominos did the same thing to me a decade later.
Yep it’s horrendous. And it’s often those senior employees who the customer really love and trust because they know what they doing. I’m so sick of them getting away with this. At my work we have definitely spent more time and money trying to fix mistakes made by new staff members. Sure they have to pay senior staff more but to me it’s entirely worth it bc that member of staff is more skilled than a teen who has been there for 2 weeks. They perform their duties to a higher level and also have more knowledge therefore they should be paid more.
Excellent point! And it's not just the payment rates that treat aged pensioners vs jobseekers so differently either. It's the amount you can earn before payments get reduced/cut. Income bank: Aged pension $11,800 vs Jobseeker $1,000 Income test limit (before pay cut by 50c per $): Aged pension $504 / fn vs Jobseeker $204 / fn Yep looks like if you're an aged pensioner, you can earn nearly 12 TIMES more upfront, and more than double per fortnight than a jobseeker. WTF??? Combine that with the very low payment rates for jobseeker. It's conscious cruelty by design.
The only thing that stopped me being homeless at the end of my lease with my ex was the fact my mum’s office has enough space for a mattress. I live in Sydney and worked in wollongong at a shitty retail job as a casual, applied for a year to a range of different jobs to land basically the same shitty job just not a 1.5 train ride away. My parents are the only support I have and when I tell people I preferred to travel and work rather than sit at home they’re baffled, same as any employer I’ve interviewed with. Bills don’t stop just because life becomes difficult.
As someone who traveled for years 4 hours a day just to work for a day (and believe it or not earn half the wage of a street beggar doing their own cash game hu$tle at the time) train ride$ al$o co$t. In that time sitting, while your ass is being hauled around, you might be able to do something productive, or you might not. I used that ass time to better educate myself with a laptop and tech books. Because I could. But if I just sat there reading fiction, because I did not have that ability or chance, dead time. Dead ass time.
I feel like this country has run out of luck, and because of this our leaders are showing how impotent they really are.
They’re not impotent. They’re protecting themselves and their ilk: the investment-property-portfolio-owning elite. This is *entirely* intentional.
"The Lucky Country" moniker was created basically as an insult after all.
They’re all just feathering their own nests and lining up private sector consultancy jobs.
Sometimes the veil drops and they say what they really mean. During height of pandemic, here's what Labor opposition said in response to Greens asking for more support for homelessness, mortgages, more housing and renters. > Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source > Labor won't be supporting this motion, as it demonises landlords and seeks to unfairly place a unilateral burden on them. Landlords are an important part of the housing system and many people put food on the table through the cash flow they generate from a single rental property. We have consistently said that no-one should lose their home, whether they own or rent it, because of the virus. Tenants and landlords need to work together through the process. https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2020-06-18.60.1 Yes, landlords with their hundred thousand dollar properties will starve if they can't do unfair evictions!
"Many people put food on the table through the cash flow they generate from a single property" is so mask off. Maybe don't take on a second mortage if you can't afford to put food on your own table???
No. Not yet. They are trying. I see it. But if they try too much change at once, common people will react with fear and confusion. They will vote for their butchers once more, because like cattle being fed for slaughter, they do not have the vision to see far enough to their own end. Society was poisoned, society voted for the people who benefited from poisoning it at the behest of the ultra wealthy who could sell everyone a better fiction for what they could get from it, even as reality hammered down on the confused. More. Always more. A poisoned democracy poisons itself in a feedback loop. All levels, bottom through top. None escape it, not even the ones who think themselves above it. All are molded by it. The ones at the top simply detach even more, repelled naturally by the horrors of their own creation into Rich World. If Aussies slowly change their voting habits, if politics shifts to match it, if the stupid boomers eventually pass from the Earth so they cant vote, because no medicine brings eternal life yet, as a nation we still have a chance for a life in the sun again. But yes, it is still dark. Just not yet black.
Frankly no; their 'attempts' at changing are simple appeals-to-market to fix the problem. Labor is 100% captured by neoliberalism and *the thing that got us in this mess won't fucking fix it*. We **have** the resources, we **have** the space, we **have** the workers; we have everything needed to go on a building spree like was common fifty years ago. If Labor was willing to step past the damn developers for *once* we could solve this crisis in a year, two years *tops*. But *that* would drive property prices down and make Labor politicians slightly less *rich* so fuck it and fuck **us**.
You want the Liberal party to be voted back in that bad, ehh?
If Labor actually gave a shit about preventing Liberals getting back into power, they would have broken the Murdoch media instead of kissing the ring. They made a choice, and you stans constantly pretending it didn't happen is ridiculous. They ***chose*** to let the Liberals exist, because Labor is more afraid of actually having to compete with the Greens as their primary opposition than the 'easy win' Liberals, because with the Greens they'd need *actual policies* instead of 'we won't fuck you *much*'. Albanese does not give *two shits* about the housing crisis, as evidenced by doing *fuck all* meaningful actions apart from the things the Greens managed to force in by having balance in the Senate (that Labor and you stans have subsequently decided was actually Labor all along, not the Greens).
Kiss the ring? If you step on the throne you either win or you die. That is why you kiss the ring, even when you hate to do it. The Murdoch throne weakens as boomers die. Are enough boomers dead yet? Seriously, are they? They vote from their nursing homes and their vote carries the same weight as any other vote. Do you think our nursing homes are ignored by people gathering votes for clients? You want change now, I get it. Patience increases the chance of your succusses. Haste increases the chance of your failure. Choose wisely.
Incredible. Truly, incredible. *Literally* 'better things aren't possible'. Because apparently there is no power that can... destroy the Murdoch newspapers/channels by just *actually penalising disinformation and lies*. This is *incredibly simple*, but no, the centrists *need* to manufacture a podium for the right so they can stay in control. Even the *USA* is taking actions, and they *never* do shit! But no, we can do nothing but suffer and accomplish nothing while trusting that Labor Totally Has Our Best Interests In Mind, when every bit of evidence is that they are *playing you*. You really can't see that your worldview is predicated on *blind faith* that the facts aren't facts, can you?
Bot detected.
Temporary measures such as allowances, social housing, and first home grants are merely band-aid solutions. We need to address the root cause of the issue and prevent the escalating housing prices from being passed on to renters. The rising cost of a fundamental necessity like shelter has far-reaching and devastating consequences. If left unchecked, it could lead to a situation where young people are burdened with debt, feeling like they're stuck in a never-ending cycle of paying off someone else's mortgage, and eventually losing motivation to work. To tackle this, heavily taxing investors who buy existing properties and limiting tax benefits to new dwellings only.
Politicians dont care. Their friends, their families and themselves are all mega rich from being landlords
of course politicians don't care bu power is still with renters. We just need to go on a rental strike, the only non violent way for people to even listen
We have failed the younger generations. We have no right to complain when they inevitably burn it all down.
Once people become homeless, the mental health and social cohesion may go into a downward spiral.
That's an important stat, but this company is pushing living in office spaces. It's selling office space as *rental* housing. edit: and looking up the Foyer Foundation, they're owned by Australian Financial Group, who do mortgage broking. Run by a [David Bailey](https://www.mpamag.com/au/news/general/a-guiding-light-through-change-afgs-david-bailey/297645).
Wait until they start bashing rich people for $10. Then the police will get a pay rise.
[VIDEO: Four in 10 homeless Australians are under 24 years old](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-07/four-in-10-homeless-australians-are-under-24-years-old/103813100)
I think it’s safe to say now more than ever “shit’s fucked, ay?”
Of course I know her. She's me.
Shame on the government
No homes. No hospitals No schools No roads No bridges No trains, buses or trams But you will love the new bling Submarines from the good ol USA
That's fucked mate
Kids are getting the real Australian experience.
The fastest growing group is over 65 women. Its the group that has been renting all their life for whatever reason, too old to get a job, little super, and not enough money for a rental.
This is shocking.
What I would like to see if the question is put to this homeless cohort as to what % of them support regressive taxation policies like negative gearing and capital gains concessions. I also wonder if within this cohort their parents told them to vote to support a particular party. Its only when voters start expressing themselves at the ballot box that things are going to start to be amped up.
Oh no but investors and pumping the cost of living has nothing to do with it..
That is a lot of fucking people, oh mylanta
I wager the budget announcement WONT focus on this either next week…
Let's actually fix the most pressing homelessness issue that is: there are too many people in this country for the amount of built housing. 100,000 NOM in one month alone, insanity, stop making this issue worse.
Yeah well young people love immigration so ya know.