Australian Bargain Hunters Are Hurting The Economy The RBA Warns as The Price Wars Wage on

Saw this on Business Insider.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/australian-bargain-hunter…

Surprisingly Ozbargain wasn't mention as contributing factor. Haha

Comments

  • +127

    I thought the problem with the economy is that we aren't allowed to use plastic bags any more, and therefore don't buy as much.

    • +72

      Yes, South Australia has been in recession for the past eight years, ever since single use plastic bags were banned. We just don't buy food anymore.

      • +9

        When i was in SA, i wouldnt bother "dashing in" to coles/woolworths to get something.

        • +1

          How about Foodland

        • Do you not have the ability to use your hands?

      • Hence the South Australian diet

    • +13

      I think we can all understand just how stupid some people have become.

    • -1

      I thought Coles had repented of this nonsense, but apparently I was wrong.

      I usually shop at Woolies, but was at Coles the other day and someone was handing out bags as I entered the self checkout.
      I went home and told my wife we were going to shop at Coles from now on, because bags are back. She had to explain to me that it was a con and she was actually a heavy-handed salesperson pushing bags for sale. I felt like such a rookie.

      • +2

        I thought they did that to monitor if you’ve brought your own or not. If you take one, eagle eyes that you pay for it

        • +3

          except they employ one person to hand out bags + resolve all the weighing issues that come with people bringing their own bags or the machines playing up, so you half the time the person isn't even available to hand out the bags..

        • Eagle eyes monitoring whether you paid 15c for a bag

    • +29

      To be fair, I think this law has hit Coles and Woolies very hard.

      Let's face it, if we need to bring our own bags (and pack our own groceries at self-service checkouts), just another reason we might as well go to Aldi.

      • if we need to bring our own bags

        You have to bring your own bags (or buy them) at Aldi too

        • +3

          The point is that there's less incentive to shop at Colesworth now, compared to before.

        • At ALDI's, if I forget my bags, I always ask the staff (who are always zipping around with a trolley of empty cardboard cartons) if I could take a few. They are more than happy to oblige.

          All of my groceries fits into 2-3 of those cardboard cartons and I toss them into the recycle bin when I am home. Problem solved.

          Recycle, people! Don't buy unnecessary plastic bags when empty cardboard carton boxes are just as good.

    • Shopping with plastic bags was half the problem with the economy.

      The other half are those nasty dog poo plastic bags destroying the economy.

      Thankfully, now that we have to pay for a plastic bag, all will be a little bit better.

      As soon as we have to pay for a dog poo plastic bag the economy, the environment, heavens and earth all will be so much better!!!

      • +4

        Nonsense. here in Vic dog poo bags are bio degradable

        • +9

          So is poop.

        • +1

          in Vic dog poo bags are bio degradable

          So were the "supermarket" shopping bags given free with every purchase … but suddenly someone decided they weren't … and we shall pay for them instead (that makes them biodegradable, instantly!)

          Funny thing is, now we are receiving all junk mail handily put into a … a dog poo bag (unused, of course!!!!)

          • +1

            @LFO: Full plastic bag ban comes into effect in Vic from November. Woolies and Coles just got in early to bank more profit. Source: they sent an internal email stating how much it would save and how much more they'd make selling bags. (I wish I'd printed it at the time)

    • +2

      I have completely stopped quick detours to Coles / Woolies. I'm too stingy to pay for bags when I have them at home and I never remember to bring them.
      Now I only go when I have a shop planned out.

      • +5

        Psst … don't tell anyone else … but grab a plastic bag (one or many) from the roll in the fresh fruit/vegetables section and then put your shopping there.
        They are rather small but kinda works.

        Also the fresh flower stand has triangular looking "free" bags.

        Rest assured all these "free" bags are totally biodegradable, dolphin and koala friendly, sourced responsibly and safe and everything else … like the ones you are forced to pay for …

        Hush hush!!!

        • +2

          They are 15c each, FFS! $0.15! Surely this is not a cost issue?

          Ironically the only problem I have with them is that they are bulky and useless for anything other than grocery shopping, so I have a stockpile. At least the "single use" bags doubled as bin liners or dog/cat poop bags.

          • @endolphin: I guess is an Australian thing … paying 15 cents for a plastic bag that costs 0.015 cents …

            It is not the co$t endolphin, it is the Ozbargain principle.

    • -7

      Dunno about Plastic Bags…

      But - from 1999 - AU has BANNED
      Nuclear Energy use here…

      …a Very Stupid restriction, IMO

      Canada is today's clever place, where
      at least TWO (2) Small, Green,
      Molten Salt Reactors (MSR) are
      being developed:

      • IMSR - YouTube "MacDiarmid Economy Club"

      • SSR (from UK's Moltex Energy) 'cause
        . BrExit might screw-up import/exports
        . of parts or fuel for it, later….)

      (They even consider the needs of Outback
      Communities+Industry w/ 4 MW "U battery":

      (Each one: Due ~2030, last time I checked)

      Why should "NuClear" thinking be restrict-
      to those OUTSIDE of AU?!?

      We seem like a Colony here…

      "Oh, No… AU couldn't -possibly- match .FR's
      ability to "Do Nuclear Right… IMPOSSIBLE!"

      "Nuclear Vaxers" (Convinced that Nuclear En
      could only Harm us… so we BAN it, while
      France continues to enjoy Abundance from it
      eg, after German referenda lead to closing
      of ~half of Germany's old-nukes… causing
      BIG RISES of CO2 + GHG's there… & - maybe
      - Local Climate Change… the past week's\
      Extremely HOT Temp's nearby)

      Meanwhile (in years leading up to this one)
      Russian's Putin has been going around buy'g
      up all the Uranium he can…

      He's clearly planning to make $$ by selling
      it back to others, ie, when they realise,
      that Nuclear is the only way we'll pushback
      Climate Change.

      Watch - ~2030 - the Canadians enjoying simi-
      lar wealth, as they Export "Lots & Lots" of
      MSR's - from at least 2 providers

      BEFORE ~2030, we -must- "Make AU Free Again"
      by Ending the 1999 Nuclear Energy Ban.

      …OR, maybe - in the spirit that lead to CB
      Radio being Free-to-Use (decades ago, when
      it was all on 27 MHz ;-) "courageous" Aussies
      just Did the Right Thing - en mass - refusing
      to pay annual License Fees to use the few
      (23, then 40… even now only 80) CB channels
      (OK, with UHF CB's 80, it's 160… minus 3 on
      UHF, that are "Reserved").

      In a 2017 panel discussion (of course: in Canada)
      we learn of Nuclear Energy (eg, from IMSRs) to
      make "Clean Steel" (in South Australia, YouTube
      videos show Whyalla's saviour Billionaire, out
      trying to sell Renewables (willfully?) blind to
      Nuclear's advantages to his industry, in Outback
      AU.. like some Religious Zealot, IMO, who's been
      "converted" to Stanford prof'r Mark Z Jacobson's
      "100% WWS" nonsense, IMO, that's likely to require

      • herds of non-nerds, living to Replace PV Panels &
      • maintain wind-generators

      …rather than to Live & develop culture, in AU, etc.

      …because Greens (who have No Math Models to show
      the implications of their "Yes, Renewables Can!"
      dogmas) can win a few more elections (even in .CA)

      • "KNOW New Nukes" = Liquid-Fuel Molten Salt Reactors

      See: IAEA's Free "SMR-book_2018.PDF" & see the MSR's,
      that will soon beat Greens' unproven "just trust us"
      claims

      Yes, we can WAIT for MSR's to arrive… and THEN pay
      (more) to "buy 'em"

      • -3

        CBC has a report of a couple
        (each ~30 years old), who're
        plannimg to retire in ~5 yrs

        Modest Living in Small Space
        (home) & Not using Credit

        Once known as Frugal Living.

      • -3

        …a Very Stupid restriction, IMO

        The people whose fathers/sons/husbands died at Chernobyl would beg to differ.

        1. Global warming is complete farce - they have to lie, manipulate, exaggerate, round up/down figures to suit their pre-concieved bias, and continue to cite data achieved by using long-disproven incorrect mathematical constants to prop up their fairy story for adults, or - 'lose muh funding'.

        2. When a nuclear plant blows up (and you can guarantee some jihadi WILL do it one day), it not only kills everyone in the immediate vicinity, but more nearby, gives cancer to those who survive the initial meltdown, and poisons everything around for hundreds of km for thousands of years - as well as being able to trace the specific signature of the source of radiation in the food chain all the way around the planet.

        3. If a coal plant blows up it MIGHT kill as many people as the number of fingers on a clumsy butcher's left hand - and then - no-one for 100km can charge their iphone or watch other people cook meals on TV for a few days.

        4. The only real climate change is called the four seasons.

  • +114

    Maybe the previous status quo of spending $60 on a t-shirt, $15 for lunch at work every day, and buying an SUV because the couple now has one child were unrealistic and unsustainable business models?

    If economists want to see where all the money has gone, looking at housing. Many Australians have furiously bid up the price of housing and are now squealing when the bills are due, even with sub 4% mortgage interest rates.

    • +75

      I’m busily spending my money on an overseas holiday, at the moment. We paid off our house decades ago, we drive a ten year old car. I will spend some money doing up some of my house but I’m not going to “consume” more than I need to. If I can’t afford it, I do without it. Screw this Government, they stuffed the economy they can rescue it without my help.

        • +48

          Where is the surplus? They are meant to be the great economic managers, surely the fact people are looking for bargains shouldn’t put a dent in their great economic recovery. Or maybe, it is just they have depressed wages so much for the average worker that is causing a problem.

          • +9

            @try2bhelpful: Irrespective of surpluses, spending power feels as though it’s significantly down over the last 10years. Whether or not it is, that’s how we feel so naturally we’re more cautious with our money. And that will hit growth.

          • +34

            @try2bhelpful: The last thing we need right now is a surplus. The point of "managing" the economy is that you know when to spend money and when to save it. We spent the whole mining boom spending money to earn votes, now there's nothing left to spend, and they're promising to 'save' their way back to a surplus - at a time when the economy is stumbling and needs a cash injection.

            • +18

              @macrocephalic: Spot on. Typical people with no macroeconomic knowledge associate "surplus" in a positive way and hence the current budget was nothing but tool to help libs in the election. The amount of government spending needs to be respondent to the general state of the economy. This is one of the downsides of democracy and ultimately we're gonna end up in a recession because of it.

              Also I have no idea why people believed that our economy was strong during election phase. We have a stagnating chinese economy of which ours is heavily tied to, a hugely escalating trade war, below target CPI and employment rates. All signs point downward yet the general public is willing to believe whatever they hear in political marketing.

                • +12

                  @stewy: What a biased comment that is. Talk of little understanding. Quite a few of my friends earn well over $90k and vote either ALP or Greens because they believe in the social contract. Many of us had the good fortune to be “Gough’s children” so we know that getting access to University education can change your life significantly. If everyone wants to make my life easier by making their’s harder then so be it, but I tried to help them. Now I can do it with a clear conscience. There was nothing that Labor was proposing that couldn’t be paid for if people like me didn’t pay their share.

                  • @try2bhelpful: Actually I forgot to add c) Queenslanders wanted jobs from mining.

                    In case you missed it, Labor lost what everyone thought was an unlosable election. So why did Labor lose the election if you don't agree with my comments?

                    • +6

                      @stewy: The same reason Trump got in, people are idiots. You think Hitler being elected was a good thing?

                    • +2

                      @stewy: Because people who vote can be misled and ignorant, say hello to Brexit where Boris has admitted he lied, but it was during campaigning so it shouldn’t count. (That does have a familiar ring, doesn’t it). There are a lot of people who were voted in that have been disasters for their country. The jobs for mining is a furphy, with mining automation the number of jobs will be quite small, whereas the environmental damage will be large long term. Besides Queensland had Joh and Russ Hinze voted in for many years; they are hardly a great advertisement for logical voting. Winning the popular vote doesn’t mean you are good money managers it is, often, the reverse.

                      • +1

                        @try2bhelpful: lol.

                        The Voters are ignorant - otherwise they would vote in Socialists, because its been a huge success everywhere its been implemented.

                        • @Other: Cause every time it was implemented successfully the US overthrew them in a coup. And capitalism hasn't worked anywhere it was implemented either. 9 million people starve to death every year in capitalist countries and the country that's closest to pure capitalism, the US, is responsible for the deaths of over 20 million people since WW2. But mUh VuVUzELa is a great counter argument.

                          • @WinstonWithAY: Is this a joke? I've seen heaps of Russian bots post these all over Reddit. You weren't supposed to take them seriously dude….

                          • +1

                            @WinstonWithAY: Communism has killed in excess of 100 million people, with Zero help of the Americans (personally I think 150 Million is more accurate - if only those countries had a free press to tell us the real numbers!). So thats x5 your statistic.

                            If every Communist country seems to need to setup a secret police to torture its own citizens on an industrial scale, what does that tell you?

                            If every Communist country seems to have food security issues, what does that tell you? (unless you blame the US for that as well! lol).

              • +3

                @ls123: Actually I agree with you. The LNP has no macroeconomic knowledge, and yet, people voted them back in. If they had been in charge during the GFC we would, probably, have gone down with the others. They will be during the next one so we shall see, shan’t we.

                • +2

                  @try2bhelpful: I think it's more of a problem of unwillingness to apply the knowledge. On one hand they could attempt some correction but due to the constant two party switching in Australian politics they're much more willing to focus on the short term and do whatever it takes to get voted in in the next election. It's sad because people associate surplus with the Howard years where our economy boomed and deficit with the Labor years where we went through the GFC, which is a simple case of misinterpreting cause and effect. That being said we don't know whether Labor would have handled the budget significantly differently had they won the election.

                  As to why libs won the election @stewy isn't wrong in saying that people were wary of Labor's spending and tax cuts definitely played a role. At the end of the day most people are going to prefer more money directly in their own pockets vs government spending, simply because it's harder to see the tangible benefits of the later. However there's so many other factors, I for one also think that social factors should play a much bigger part in that decision.

                • -1

                  @try2bhelpful: The mining boom saved the economy, it certainly was not KRudds insulation and buy a big screen TV import program.

              • @ls123: I think the best way to look at it is: you pay tax to the government. If there's a surplus then it means that they collected more money than they spent, you (society as a whole) paid more in taxes than you got back.

                • @macrocephalic: I'm not debating that, I'm saying that the government should be spending more into deficit in times where consumers are beginning to spend less (like now), and then they can spend less relative to consumers when the economy is strong and pay back the debt. Generally that's how it has been through history and it's worked to some degree.

                  The libs' justification now is that tax cuts will result in consumers spending more, but when the economy starts stagnating that doesn't always happen.

            • +1

              @macrocephalic: I’m not saying I think the surplus is the best thing, but the LNP kept touting we were getting one. They are not great economic managers nor great social managers, yet people voted them back in.

              • @try2bhelpful: Not only did they tout we were getting a surplus, the touted we were going to get it year on year, and that was many moons ago in 2013! For all the years the LNP has been in power since, they still haven't delivered a single year in surplus. To top it off, it was Tony Abbott who said this was a national 'budget emergency'. What ever happened to that 'budget emergency' requiring a surplus?

                How soon people forget…
                https://www.economist.com/asia/2015/05/14/no-more-emergencie…

                • +1

                  @ozkiwi75: Who created the deficit? The Greatest Treasure of the World! Wayne Swan.

                  Six years of deficits, even after declaring that you would have a surplus that year (2010), or that we would have a surplus in 3 years (2013).
                  Now we still pay $1Bn every month on interest. For how many years? Those conditions were set up and a price has been paid.

        • +4

          Howard-Costello era surplus was resources-led. With iron ore going gangbusters and massive lithium, coal and uranium reserves, you can bet the next surplus will mirror the last.

          Land rights? Environment? Pah!

          • @Speckled Jim: Resource led? Wrong. Very wrong.

            Price of Iron ore during Howard (1996 onward) was for 8 years= $18 per metric tonne.
            From 2005-2008 price doubles to $36 per metric tonne.

            Guess how much under KRudd-Gillard? The month they were elected it rose to $60 per metric tonne (basically double Costello price).
            Then from 2009 to 2010 the price rose to around $180 per metric tonne. Lets repeat that = $180 per tonne.
            x10 how much it was under Howard first & second Gov. x10.
            And it stayed at that price for 4 years.

            Only in 2012 did it fall to $100 per tonne, and then rose back up to $140-$160 per tonne.

            During Abbott's term - the iron ore price fell from $140 to $60 per tonne (hence the 'budget emergency', which people did not believe).

            The truth is that Costello's first budget/second/third cut Gov spending by $14Billion. Which was about 10% budget or -1.3% of Australia's GDP, which was a massive amount. Obviously this had two outcomes - $14Bn per year in savings you could spend; Secondly you don't have to pay interest anymore.

            • +1

              @Other: Sure, the mining boom never happened.
              Real estate prices never shot up in mining towns.
              FIFO workers are a pipe-dream.
              The minerals and resources rent tax proposed by Labor and opposed by the Resources Council never happened.

              Finally, most economists calling it a resources-led period of Govt liquidity (for things like middle-class welfare) are all mistaken.

              • @Speckled Jim: Mining boom happened in 2003. Howard Gov came to power in 1996.

                In fact he was in longer without the mining boom, than with it. Even with the boom, it did not translate to larger than normal 'profits' / revenue until the price went to $36.

                KRudd tried to cash in on the high price at $180 per tonne via the resources rent tax as a way of trying to cash in on a (desperate? because he promised it x3 times) attempt to create a surplus. It could never of happened at $36 a tonne, as MRT was according to KRudd "super profits tax".

                But I agree with you. It was squandered. Howard gave our own money back to us. What he should of done is to put the funds in the future fund and made it more a sovereign wealth fund.

                • +1

                  @Other: I don't give a stuff how it all started. The fact still remains that Abbott's mob promised us yearly surpluses 6 years ago. I don't understand how people can still think that they are good at economic management. If you can't turn things around in 6 years, especially when you've promised it, when are you going to do it?

                  I'm not saying the other side is any better. Both sides of politics are full of muppets. Our politicians are all just as bad as one another, and will say anything to get themselves elected. Let's all raise the bar and hold political parties to account, rather than letting them sweep statements like that under the carpet.

    • +25

      No no I'm almost certain we all all "get rich by selling overpriced houses and lattes to each other".

      • +2

        Certainly not.

        But, as the proverbial rocking chair, it keeps you busy going nowhere.

      • get rich by selling overpriced houses and lattes to each other".

        Money laundering was a thing and still a thing. (((They))) all knows about it
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7L5bBBlHg0&ab_channel=Econo…

        • +3

          Yep that too. Pity I was a generation too late to cash in on this. If I had been born in the 70s and was able to buy a house on median income, I'm sure I'd be arguing that the economy has been very well managed and everyone complaining about the property prices were entitled brats.

          Instead, I have pretty formally checked out of society, and don't really give a rat's what happens. Juvenile response I know. But an authentic one nonetheless.

          • @ozbjunkie: Im on the same boat, but worse I would says that is a long story for AMA. However, I will get on the wave of bitcoin earlier this time. We see how it go in 3yrs.

    • +5

      Totally disagree.

      House prices in the Perth has barely moved compared to 10 years ago.

      People can’t get any jobs, that’s the problem

  • +38

    How stupid! The endless sales and discounting has been a strategy introduced by retailers, consumers have just adapted. Other than that your average wage earner just has less money… it's the plebs that spend, the wealthy invest.

    • +40

      Absolutely, and big business is beginning to take note that customers have adjusted and are willing to wait for prices to be slashed:

      https://www.afr.com/business/manufacturing/coles-reviews-pro…

      Take Dr Oetker frozen pizzas for example. The normal price is $7.50. I have never paid that. Every month or so the price gets reduced to $5. No deal, I won't buy, because I know the price is $3.75 every few months and I can stock up. Missed the sale at Coles? Wait for Woolworths as they'll have the same offer next week. The same cycle is seen with many other food items.

      • +6

        Yes. Totally agree. Between Coles & Woolworths theres always the specials on the items I need.

      • +14

        Their claimed "usual price" is a joke. They just try to double(+) the price most of the time, to catch suckers with too much money.

        We have to keep track of "real prices" ourselves so we don't get caught. eg tim tams and potato chips are $2, not $3.50.

        It seems dumb that we have to play this game. If $2 is a fair price, why do I have to wait for a sale? I'm never going to buy without the sale.

      • +7

        It's a given that people will not buy any products unless it's on discount

        Simply because cost of living is too expensive in Australia. Hence why ozbargain exists

      • +3

        I always wait for the half price items and usually stock them up when available.

    • +4

      it's the plebs that spend

      You're basically labelling the majority of members on this site 'plebs'.

      • +1

        No. I would think the OzBargain community are very careful spenders, we’re the bargain hunters that are damaging the economy!

        • +28

          I would think the OzBargain community are very careful spenders

          We're really not. I've got like 4 sets of headphones :(

          • +4

            @idonotknowwhy: yeah…. but do they all serve a different purpose (that's my excuse).

          • @idonotknowwhy: Straight facts ! Amen OZ Brother.

          • @idonotknowwhy: lol, and so do I. Its a pity the latest 3 sets aren't even as good as the first set i bought. I keep on using them though hoping they'll get better with age.

            And i'm currently looking at a fifth set for "work"

  • +7

    The Australian 'Bargain hunter' mentality existed long before OzB. For example the liquidator for Daimaru (Melbourne/Brisbane) specifically attributes it's 10 years of losses until closure to Australians expecting factory outlet like prices despite the department store being premium positioned and stocked.

    • +3

      Daimaru was definitely not premium positioned during its existence. Melbourne Central was a ghost town for years, it’s only in the last decade that it’s taken off. Position was what killed Daimaru.

      • What killed Daimaru was the weird layout. It was hard to find anything you wanted to buy, unless it was in the food section.

  • Spend! Spend! Spend!

  • +103

    Who sponsored this article? Gerry Harvey?

    You reap what you sow.

    We've had 40 decades of some of the most inflated prices in the Western world for basic goods, being locked out of how many brands, chains and platforms, and even when they did finally arrive on our shores we got regionally-priced into daylight robbery territory.

    Only in the last 10 years have Australians finally had access to international sales channels and distribution networks that can give us what the rest of the world can pick up at their local corner store for 50% less than what we used to pay, and that level of consumer purchasing power basically caused all of Australia's bricks-and-mortar behemoths to rally behind every possible measure to curtail this trend like GST for online purchases.

    No, we do want to spend money, just not with you dipsh*ts. We've been given a taste of what sensible prices are and the collective wool has been lifted from our eyes, and as a result we can't go back into Harvey Norman or Myer to pay $1,000 dollars for a product that's been discounted from $2,000 dollars but costs the equivalent of $400 Australian dollars in the rest of the world.

    And before anyone says it, our higher minimum wage or supposed consumer/labour protection laws don't mean we should pay more for the same products than America or the UK because we've effectively destroyed Australia's privileged socio-economic position with the last 3 governments we've elected. Most of the middle-class live paycheque-to-paycheque and adjusted for inflation and currency differences, we still have the highest cost of living in the world.

    • I agree with almost all of this, except for:

      Who sponsored this article? Gerry Harvey?

      No, unfortunately We did; by getting angry at the headline and giving them clicks.

      and

      adjusted for inflation and currency differences, we still have the highest cost of living in the world.

      Citation needed? I thought it was Tokyo.

      • I'd like to see the source too. I did some googling and found some cost of living comparisons, but none of them seemed to adjust for all the things he mentioned.
        While Australia was up there in a lot of them, you're right that Japan and some other countries were above us in most of them.

      • +5

        As a former resident of Tokyo I can tell you it's far cheaper than sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane… those comparisons arent even valid as they take a typical western house and lifestyle re have and use a car etc and then say how much to replicate it in Japan… well um not comparing apples and apples they live differently there, average Japanese full time worker makes 40k a year… if you make the median sydney salary of 80 something in Japan you are in the top 5 percent try even servicing a mortgage on a family income of 80 something in melb or syd… good luck

      • Citation needed? I thought it was Tokyo.

        I thought it was whoever has the lowest currency value…in this case being Iranian Rial

        Also he probably doesn't have a citation and just speaking from his extremely high daily expenses! hahaha

    • Yes… but then we have an average full time wage of $80k pa, while the rest of the world is much less…

      • +8

        Median vs mean is very different

    • +5

      I can't like this enough. Absolutely spot on.

    • +1

      We've had 40 decades of some of the most inflated prices

      40 decades is 400 years. 4 decades sounds more plausible.

      • +6

        That's what I intended; I was too late to edit the post.

    • Finalized purchase at TYPO only to realise they asked for $.15 or $0.25 for bag.

      Purchased cake at Cheesecake shop only to realise sales person asked for extra few cents for bag.

      Both instances are now Last shopping from their store. Businesses shouldn't cry for few cents in name of environment. Either add into actual product price or stop whining about declining business.

  • +9

    To be fair to RBA, after reading the report it seems pretty objective in stating it. The 'blame' part is businessinsider putting a narrative spin on it for the clicks.

    • +1

      The pie has grown over time but the capital ie owners have taking most of the growth… capital use to be captive in a country and couldn't just get up and leave on a minutes notice like it can now… in constant search for cheaper labour and lower taxes… leaving the lower and middle class who are captive to pick up the tax shortfall… or the feds just keep cutting back on spending and hollow out the whole system. Money circulation and consumption are the life blood of the economy but every year assets income gets more concentrated… money that use to be paid as wages or tax is now hoarded by the elites who just pump up assets prices or lend it to the plebs and turn then into debt slaves

Login or Join to leave a comment