What Is Wealth Hoarding? What Does It Mean?

bargain huntress on 30/06/2023 - 16:15

It's something I keep seeing and hearing complained about. Including on ozb sometimes.

Often by millennials or younger. Often aimed at baby boomers.

I am a millennial and in a bad financial and life situation. But I don't get it because:

Didn't the people who are now retiring mostly earn their money?

I understand part of it comes from real estate gains that are harder to get now. But isn't that luck?

What is it the boomers should actually be doing according to the people complaining?

That's what I don't understand.

Financial

Comments

              • reactor-au on 02/07/2023 - 14:44

                @larndis: Because using birthing rate rather than immigration you keep the housing requirement fairly constant, with immigration you need another house for every family that arrives. You also assume with birthing rate that parents help their kids and eventually kids help their parents.

                • larndis on 02/07/2023 - 14:58
                  +1

                  @reactor-au: Do the extra children born live with their parents forever then? Or are you just temporarily pausing the need for more housing?

                  You would also be delaying the increased tax revenue. Are you going to fund that through reduced services, higher taxes or more debt?

                  • reactor-au on 02/07/2023 - 15:30

                    @larndis: You're being ridiculous. People don't all give birth at the same time, so the need for more housing would more gradual and consistent vs needing 200,000 houses for 200,000 immigrant families annually.

                    Wages would hopefully increase so people would be paying more tax as they'd be earning more.

                    In the ideal there would be an equilibrium.

                    • larndis on 02/07/2023 - 15:46

                      @reactor-au: If our system of government and budget process is ridiculous that's not on me.

                      These are just the realities of immigration policy, if you want to keep your head in the sand and believe that we could turn off skilled migration with no impact on tax revenues and no inflation due to shortages of critical skills, be my guest. It won't change anything though.

                • Ghost47 on 02/07/2023 - 17:44
                  +2

                  @reactor-au: Conversely though it costs a lot of money and time to turn a baby into a working adult to provide for society and pay taxes. That's why the government loves immigrants, they are all ready to work immediately. It's like buying flat pack furniture versus assembled furniture; and our governments all love instant gratification.

                  If the government's key goal is to boost the economy then immigration is better in the immediate and short term. It's no wonder our population growth is mainly driven by immigration; our economy is a piece of junk and if we keep pissing China off we'll be really screwed.

                  • reactor-au on 02/07/2023 - 19:04
                    +1

                    @Ghost47: For sure, government will do anything to stay in power, that includes putting lipstick on the pig to make things look good; when things look good the voters are happy and the pig lives another day.

    • netjock on 03/07/2023 - 09:18

      Agree with a lot of the above. It is actually quite hard to get a loan to buy property in SMSF now simply because of all the dodgy stuff that happened previously.

      Plus the new $3m super super tax also includes taxing unrealised capital gains at balances above $3m. If you only have 1 property and it is $3m in your SMSF, it goes to $3.1m next year you need to pay tax on the $0.1m

      If you are talking about residential property you can't actually live in it (related party is a no no) so it has to be rented out.

    • moortoozzy on 03/07/2023 - 13:53

      now dumping large amounts of wealth into superannuation where tax is minimal

      asking for friend… how to dump large amount of wealth into the superannuation if it is limited to $25000 per year?

      • Drakesy on 03/07/2023 - 15:04

        I agree with that
        *$27.5k a year
        However you can carry forward 5 years worth of unused contributions which adds up significantly.

        You also have $110k of non-concessional contribution that you can leverage

        And its the ability to use and access this which puts the purchasing power in the favour of the smsf

  • JIMB0 on 30/06/2023 - 16:47
    -4

    Great, another one of these threads. Life's not meant to be a walk in the park. You need to work hard and consistently when young and one day you'll find yourself in the same financial situation as the boomers.

    There's so much opportunity in this country if you're willing to work. No one is going to hand it to you on a platter. Complaining on online forums won't help either.

    • coffeeinmyveins on 30/06/2023 - 17:49
      -5

      Life's not meant to be a walk in the park.

      Why should life be 18 hour work days and eating rice?

      You need to work hard and consistently when young and one day you'll find yourself in the same financial situation as the boomers.

      That is just becoming more and more false as a statement. Work hard and you still can't afford RENT let alone a property. Also, boomers are in the situation they are in not because of hard work, LOL

      There's so much opportunity in this country if you're willing to work

      Everyone I know works their ass off and is nowhere near as well off as they should be compared to boomers who had one person working 9-5 and the other taking care of things at home.

      Your post shows that you probably are a boomer who had it made and thinks that everyone is lazy and entitled. You are the problem.

      • JIMB0 on 30/06/2023 - 18:12
        +12

        I'm nowhere near boomer age, came along more than 20 years too late. I just worked long hours 6 days a week and sacrificed a lot to get into a comfortable position. It can be done.

        • ssfps on 30/06/2023 - 20:52
          -4

          if working hard paid off my donkey would be a millionaire
          you're also gen X which was a relatively small generation, where immigration still hadn't finished ramping up, so no surprise your "hard work" really paid off.

        • coffeeinmyveins on 30/06/2023 - 21:39
          -4

          just worked long hours 6 days a week and sacrificed a lot to get into a comfortable position. It can be done.

          Oh sod off mate. The "hard work" BS doesn't stack up against the facts. People work their asses off to live just above the poverty line.

          I'm glad you're in a comfortable position, but I guarantee you if you were 18 today and in the same position, your "hard work" wouldn't pay off like it did before.

          • JIMB0 on 01/07/2023 - 04:13
            +17

            @coffeeinmyveins: I certainly didn't get to where I am by whining on a forum about how tough and unfair it is.

            It's 4am on a Saturday and I'm off to work. The place I work at can't get enough trades to cover their roster. It's not a glamorous job but just by doing a 4 year apprenticeship a young person could have a job that pays $120k+

          • Some Human on 01/07/2023 - 12:42
            +7

            @coffeeinmyveins: I'm sure half the earth's population would happily trade their poverty for our "poverty".

            • greatlamp on 01/07/2023 - 15:10
              +1

              @Some Human: With enough immigration their poverty and our poverty will be the same. Thats the entire point - to dilute our standard of living until we are no better off than any other pacific island nation.

              The fact that we aren't there yet doesn't mean we shouldn't just shutup while it happens.

        • reactor-au on 01/07/2023 - 09:30

          Can be done with a ton more effort than the boomer years

      • brad1-8tsi on 30/06/2023 - 22:48
        +11

        Everyone I know works their ass off and is nowhere near as well off as they should be compared to boomers who had one person working 9-5 and the other taking care of things at home.

        I'm a boomer. What you are referring to is my parents.

        I worked 50-60hrs a week from 1979-1997. I took any and all overtime that was offered. I worked shift work. I went to night school 2-3 nights a week. On the weekends I renovated houses & fixed cars for profit.

        My current partner (Gen X) refers to 1980s popular culture and I haven't a clue what she's talking about. I missed a decade because I was a bit busy.

        My partner in the '80s worked a full time job and 2 other casual jobs. We never saw each other, which is probably why our relationship lasted so long. :-p

        My story is pretty much what all our friends did.

        9-5 is a fallacy. The only folk I knew that did that didn't get ahead. They might have looked like they did but it was all on credit.

    • Bob Svargis on 01/07/2023 - 07:48
      +4

      Got to love how the whingers tell you that your success is wholly and solely due to luck due to your birth date. Whilst you're working 6+ days a week.

  • moar bargains on 30/06/2023 - 16:49
    +3

    Here's a summary for you :)

    https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/13963490/redir

  • LVlahov on 30/06/2023 - 17:31
    +12

    Boomers were already in the job market and the property market before the government began crush loading immigrants into the nation. Therefore immigrants tended to slot in beneath Boomers in the workplace allowing them to swell in importance & salaries in their jobs, while the immigrants pushed up the price of housing and land driving windfall gains for Boomers than could then be re-invested in the stock-market and property for further gains.

    Meanwhile later generations entered the employment market at a base level alongside migrants prepared to work for less, and then had to compete with the same migrants for promotions, and so with the supply of labour being much greater at the entry level, the pace of (real) wage rises was significantly more subdued, with the flip-side being that the cost of living (read housing & energy), was pushed up via increased demand from the migrants themselves.

    Australia was sold out to foreigners and it is through this manner that Boomers gained a great deal of their riches, and the savings and opportunities for those that came after them were crimped.

    • coffeeinmyveins on 30/06/2023 - 17:50
      +11

      Australia was sold out to foreigners and it is through this manner that Boomers gained a great deal of their riches, and the savings and opportunities for those that came after them were crimped.

      Yep. Buy a house for $100k, sell it for $1.5m and tell young people to "just work hard" like @JIMB0

      • the wiz on 05/07/2023 - 16:25
        +1

        Easy as that, right?

        In a few decades, your generation will be belittled for having the opportunity to buy at $1.5m and sell for $20m without breaking a sweat.

    • morse on 01/07/2023 - 06:34
      +2

      Boomers were already in the job market and the property market before the government began crush loading immigrants into the nation.

      Many boomers are actually migrants themselves. The migration rate has fallen since 1946 when the boomers started to be born https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/AUS/australia/net-migr….

      Almost half of Australians have parents that were born overseas, a great deal of these are boomers.

      There was a huge surge in migration in the mid-late 60s when boomers were coming on to the job market.

    • try2bhelpful on 01/07/2023 - 06:54
      +3

      You seem to have missed the immigration that happened after the Second World War. I grew up in Geelong and most of my friends were the children of immigrants.

      • greatlamp on 01/07/2023 - 15:13
        -3

        Yeah but those migrants were white passing, doesn't count

    • MessyG on 01/07/2023 - 11:08
      +2

      Which is a direct result of the anti-education stance of this country. Immigration wouldn't need to be high if we skilled our population appropriately but instead we have to bring that expertise in because we're not interested in maintaining our own supply.

      • try2bhelpful on 01/07/2023 - 12:30

        Sort of. However our current birth rate is 1.6 per woman. We aren’t at replacement level.

      • dtc on 01/07/2023 - 12:51
        +1

        Compare university degree rates in the 1970s (under 5%) with rates today (around 30%). How is that anti education?

  • tsunamisurfer on 30/06/2023 - 17:38
    +25

    Wealth Hoarding.

    What is one to do with Wealth other than hoard it?

    I am building wealth so that I can keep (hoard) it if you like so that :
    - It can be used to help shield me from life's ups and downs later in life.
    - It can help generate a revenue stream in retirement, since I will fail the eligibility tests miserably.
    - It can be an assistance to the next generation.
    - I can enjoy the fruits of my labour with less opportunity costs.

    Disclaimer : I am not a boomer.

    Gen Y and Millenials love to quote how much easier Boomers got it. They got SOME things easier but some things harder. Gen Y and Millenials LOVE to pick and choose the best bits for their argument (education, real estate).

    • SOME got free higher education, not all.
    • Back then jobs were not the same as they were today. There were far more manual labour / manufacturing jobs, less comfortable and often more dangerous.
    • It was VERY hard to get a mortgage back then. You had to get dressed in a suit, make an appointment with the Bank Manager and SELL to HIM how you would be a good candidate for his money and how you can afford to pay it back. Nowadays Banks are PAYING YOU to borrow from them!

    The Primary one is probably real estate and that's probably where the greatest disparity lies.

    In the 80's my parents purchases a 4 x 2 home on 800sq in the 'sticks' 10 kms out of Perth.

    30 years later I purchased a 3 x 1 on less than a quarter of the block size in a less desirable location for more than double the Price.

    I just understood that real estate goes up over time, I can either jump on board then or keep whinging I got ripped off.

    Just how far back do these people want to do their comparison of Income to Median House ratio? My parents could also have a gripe. 230 years ago the Colonists were allotted some land to work on without payment. How come my parents had to pay $80k??? What a rip off !!!111!

    In another example of Gen Y and Millenial pick and choose logic.

    Life was harder back in the 60s, 70s and 80s, which lacked a lot of today's innovation, medical advances and conveniences.

    My mother and those before her did not get pain management during birthing,
    Imagine a life where you had to listen to music on an 8 Track or Vinyl out of Mono speakers.
    TV was in black and white.
    If you had to research something, you had to go to a library and look up the World Book Encyclopedia.

    What Gen Y or Millenial would be willing to trade all the conveniences today to have a cheaper loan?

    Everyone is responsible for their own wealth building / creation and management. Don't look at how others had it easier.

    • LVlahov on 30/06/2023 - 17:41
      +10

      Luxuries have gotten significantly cheaper, essentials significantly more expensive.

      Which has seriously negative effects on the rate of family formation, which is the biggest underlying reason something should be done.

      • tsunamisurfer on 30/06/2023 - 17:49
        +3

        Luxuries have gotten significantly cheaper, essentials significantly more expensive.

        This housing 'crisis' and ' inflation' has only been going on for about 2 years (housing) and 1 year (inflation).

        When rents were low 3 years ago, did you bitch about it?

        When the property boom finished and prices normalised were you concerned?

        People only want action when things don't go their way but are HAPPY to ride it out when its good times.

        I abhor these double standards.

        • coffeeinmyveins on 30/06/2023 - 17:52
          +7

          When the property boom finished and prices normalised were you concerned?

          I must have missed this memo

        • ssfps on 30/06/2023 - 20:56
          +6

          I abhor these double standards.

          Haha, rents haven't been "low" for 20 years in WA.

          prices normalised

          LOL, what are you smoking?

        • LVlahov on 30/06/2023 - 23:16
          +2

          Overall inflation was low prior to the last few years, but energy and housing inflation have been red hot for decades.

          Rent being 'low' is only relative to how high it has risen since. By every measure rents were already extreme before the current crisis.

    • coffeeinmyveins on 30/06/2023 - 17:51
      +3

      It was VERY hard to get a mortgage back then. You had to get dressed in a suit, make an appointment with the Bank Manager and SELL to HIM how you would be a good candidate for his money and how you can afford to pay it back.

      I almost fell off my chair laughing at this.

      Those poor boomers having to get dressed in a suit to get a mortgage that a single person can pay down and was 3-5x their annual salary.

    • bargain huntress on 30/06/2023 - 21:00
      +1

      You make a lot of sense.

    • trapper on 03/07/2023 - 11:46
      +1

      In the 80's my parents purchases a 4 x 2 home on 800sq in the 'sticks' 10 kms out of Perth.

      30 years later I purchased a 3 x 1 on less than a quarter of the block size in a less desirable location for more than double the Price.

      If you want to do the equivalent of your parents, then consider that the 'sticks' of Perth is now 100km out. Go look for your 4 x 2 on 800sq there and you may be surprised.

    • dmac on 04/07/2023 - 13:46
      +1

      You are comparing a 30 year difference i.e. a generation, to 230 years. To be fair you should keep comparison periods similar i.e. the 50s.

      Technological advances has very little to do with property prices, whilst it is nice to have a colour TV, I doubt it impacts life satisfaction as much as owning a home.

  • Nillionaire on 30/06/2023 - 17:57
    +4

    Hello!

    Often by millennials or younger.

    Yep, I'm Gen Z.

    Often aimed at baby boomers.

    Not necessarily.

    I am a millennial and in a bad financial and life situation

    I am Gen Z and in a bad financial and life situation too.

    Answer: Instead of typing something to start, I'm going to first link a 6 minute video that helped me understand this. It's US based data but it still helps grasp the concept for what we're talking about in regards to Australia too. Note that the video is 10 years old and there may be a few mistakes in the video, notably when they describe socialism as everyone owning the exact same amount of wealth lol. Wealth Inequality In America: Perception vs Reality vs Ideal

    • bargain huntress on 30/06/2023 - 21:19
      +1

      Thank you for the video. Im aware of the concept of the 1%. That kind of makes me more confused though. Because the complaining i see is mostly aimed at what i assume is boomers in the middle class and maybe some in the top 20%. But its the 1% who are the problem in that graph.

      • garygaz on 01/07/2023 - 16:14

        i think the main gripe is a lot of boomers had property/family in their 20s/early 30s and a very, very small proportion of the population can do the same at those ages now - unless you are willing to move outside of the cities (where the jobs are).

        so new generations are collectively less well off and seeing an older generation still enjoying the spoils of their existence in a golden economic period and there is spitefulness about it.

        everyone ultimately acts in their own self interest.

  • samyall on 30/06/2023 - 19:02
    +7

    What is it the boomers should actually be doing according to the people complaining?

    Nobody is giving you a good answer here but one big thing is to not invest in property. Property is not a productive investment meaning that putting money into it is not going to help grow the economy past the value of the property itself.

    Compare this to investing in a company. You help fund a company and it will create jobs, buy good and services off other business, its staff will spend their money at businesses around where they live and work etc. All of this acts to actually grow the economy.

    With property, its value only goes up when it is scarce and given its scarcity in Australia, this has lead to it outperforming every other investment class over the last 50 years.

    This leads to a problem because those with money can now keep the housing market mostly out of reach of younger people who would rather own than rent, thereby effectively transferring the wealth of the younger generation to older generation through perpetual rent payments. Instead the rent money could pay a mortgage and the property investors could invest in new businesses that diversify the economy and can bring in export dollars.

    • DashCam AKA Rolts on 30/06/2023 - 20:37
      +2

      The whole wealth hoarding when property focused is somewhat erroneous, unless one has IPs.

      For most boomers, it's a paper value only, it's not like shares or a portfolio of investments that can be quickly divested to realise a short term gain. If it's your PPOR, you not going to realise any gain unless you decide to downsize.

      The result of this investment in a PPOR is ultimately to fund care accommodation (RAD payment), then ultimately inheritance to the next generation.

      Some are known to use their equity in their PPOR to assist their children's home purchases.

    • bargain huntress on 30/06/2023 - 21:05

      You make a lot of sense. Do we have any stats about investment property vs homes and people who have 1 investment vs more?

      • DashCam AKA Rolts on 30/06/2023 - 22:17
        +1

        No hard data, just anecdotal from my family and acquaintances.

        Quite a few of our acquaintances have parents who have had to sell PPOR to afford the RAD payment when entering care.

        When a family member entered care in 2017, her home sold for $600K. Cost of the RAD was $500K. Then out of what she had left, she had a government co-payment towards care of up to approx $49/day (until achieving a lifetime cap after almost 5 years) + actual daily care charge to the home, of a similar amount.

        Whilst some boomers may appear to be quite wealthy, on paper, it can look quite different later in life.

        • bargain huntress on 01/07/2023 - 21:57

          Im very confused about this because ive seen people say that you dont have to sell your house or pay a deposit if you go into aged care?

          • DashCam AKA Rolts on 01/07/2023 - 23:21
            +2

            @bargain huntress: If a spouse, dependent or tenant in common share the PPOR, you don't have to sell, but you may be paying an accommodation fee of approx $100+/day, on top of the government co-payment and the actual care fee.

            If you have sufficient assets to pay the RAD, without selling the home, you are free to do so. That fee increases every year, just like home prices.

            There are places available for those who cannot afford the fee or the RAD, but this means you will have little to no choice in the home or location, it's based purely on availability.

            • bargain huntress on 02/07/2023 - 01:11

              @DashCam AKA Rolts:

              on top of the government co-payment and the actual care fee.

              How much are those?

              • DashCam AKA Rolts on 02/07/2023 - 17:37

                @bargain huntress: Daily care fees from April 2023 $58.98/day
                ITF / Means Tested Care Fee late 2021 in this known case (last payment as lifetime cap reached) $46.03/day

    • bargain huntress on 30/06/2023 - 21:22

      And also thank you for actually answering the question about what they are supposed to do. I thought the greens recent proposal to limit negative gearing to one investment property seemed sensible. But i dont actually know anyone with more than one investment property.

      • bargain huntress on 30/06/2023 - 21:23
        +1

        Come to think of it the only person i know with any investment properties is my landlord and he only has one.

        • samyall on 01/07/2023 - 12:20
          +1

          There is a retirement strategy which involves buying multiple investment properties and only paying interest on the loans (using the rent) and then when it comes time to retire you either sell enough of these properties to buy the rest with the profits or your sell them one by one and live off the profit. This strategy is entirely dependent on capital growth of the housing market and owning multiple properties.

      • LVlahov on 30/06/2023 - 23:22
        +1

        The best thing they could do is vote for a party other than Labor, Liberal and the Greens!

        Beyond that passing wealth down/going guarantor/buying a property to rent at a decent price for younger family members so they can scratch off that worry and go on raising their own families.

        And if not that, ironically, go out and spend locally. Have the meals out, buy some nice things, renovate their homes. Money back in the economy helps keep others employed and thus the ability for others to afford things.

        • RefusdClassification on 02/07/2023 - 05:48
          +2

          "The best thing they could do is vote for a party other than Labor, Liberal and the Greens!" Democracy is in essence no different from a One Party totalitarian state. You can vote for different parties in Australia, but you get the same outcome no matter who you vote for. Anyone who ends up in power, ends up supporting policies that cause housing to skyrocket in price.

          • LVlahov on 02/07/2023 - 10:58

            @RefusdClassification: True to some extent. If the population voted with more than critical myopia change could be affected at the ballot box, but ultimately the media stands in the way of that.

    • morse on 01/07/2023 - 06:55
      +1

      Nobody is giving you a good answer here but one big thing is to not invest in property.

      While this maybe true, the onus cannot be on the individual investors to just choose not to invest. If this is to change it would have to be policy and taxation changes that made investing in property less desirable. Same with affordability of education and other things that will give younger generations a leg up. It’s also not just boomers investing in property. Lots of genXers and millennials doing it too. I’m a millennial and starting to move into the investing phase of life, those of us born in the 80s are now moving into our 40s, many have paid off their first home, many had two or more properties through their 20s-30s. Whilst we had to pay for uni the fees were lower and the interest low, unlike the young ones today.

      • samyall on 01/07/2023 - 12:22
        +2

        Totally agree. Our entire monetary system is set up to favour property investment and this should change (especially if we want to be competitive globally for innovation).

        The big issue is that when the system favours one type of investment class and that investment class is not accessible to all, that just drive a massive wealth gap between haves and haves not.

        • morse on 01/07/2023 - 20:44

          Totally, and when it comes to housing stock it’s problematic. It really needs to be up to government to make the system such that housing is more affordable. No one is going to give up a legal way to make more money voluntarily.

    • NigelPearson on 01/07/2023 - 10:22
      +3

      "one big thing is to not invest in property. Property is not a productive investment"

      Fully agree for residential. Commercial is a bit more of a grey area; people in factories build things, tradies using storage units keep the economy ticking, et c.

      Disclaimer, I am hoarding wealth by owning two small factory strata units. One is rented out at about 5% gross value p.a., which was good return for me a few years ago, but now not much better than cash would return through bank savings interest

      • samyall on 01/07/2023 - 12:23
        +2

        Fair point. However you are the exception not the rule.

    • xavster on 02/07/2023 - 01:12
      +1

      Sorry, gotta disagree on this one.

      Property for a family is the best investment you can ever make.

      Nothing, beats a secure roof over your head and a place to raise a family.

  • Ocker on 30/06/2023 - 19:05
    +1

    Great theory except for one major flaw - if I invest in a company and it goes belly up I have lost everything.
    If I invest in property it will always be there and have some value.

    • AustriaBargain on 30/06/2023 - 19:38
      +1

      What if you go belly up?

    • bargain huntress on 30/06/2023 - 21:07
      +1

      But thats the risk of investing. And real estate isnt as secure as people think historically.

    • tomfool on 02/07/2023 - 11:46
      +1

      A loss is a loss regardless of circumstances. Loosing 200K on a property investment is the as losing 200k invested in a business.

  • BuyoTheCat on 30/06/2023 - 20:31
    +1

    All these red dragons.

  • miwahni on 30/06/2023 - 22:47
    +20

    Fact: I'm a boomer. Just getting that out of the way.
    I see what's happening to the current younger generation in terms of housing affordability etc and I despair. I worry for my grandkids, how they will ever make their way.
    BUT - I also see a lot of grief directed towards my generation, for taking advantage of things that were offered. Yes, free tertiary education, from 1975 - 1989. If you matriculated during that period you could access university for free. Can anyone tell me they wouldn't take advantage of that, if offered?

    Likewise housing prices etc. I agree that housing is a dream to a lot of people now. I don't have an answer for that. I think it's wrong, and it's something basic that everyone should be able to aspire towards. BUT - why is it my generation's fault for taking advantage of housing prices?

    @tsunamisurfer mentioned how hard it was to get a mortgage. I worked in a bank and I was declined for a loan, because of my gender. I didn't have a male to speak for me or guarantee the loan. But once I was married, I still got declined because the bank I worked for wouldn't take my income into account, only my partner's. The reason? It was the same reason that I was given for being overlooked for a promotion - "you'll leave work and have babies while the guy who got the promotion will make a career of banking."
    Well here we are 45 years later and guess what I'm still doing….

    Because of course back then there was no such thing as maternity leave.
    Of course I was one of the lucky ones - just before I started in the bank, if a female got married she had to leave. That policy changed in 1975.

    Honestly I can understand the frustration of the current generation, seeing how hard things are for them now. How they have these crippling HECS debts, which they can spend decades paying off. How getting step up onto the housing ladder seems like an impossible dream. But I don't understand the seeming hate directed at my gen for taking advantage of what was available, when we could. Who would not?

    • try2bhelpful on 30/06/2023 - 23:14
      +11

      Fortunately I was a bit later with joining the Bank and went into IT.

      At my final job interview the guy who would become my manager asked me if I was intending to have kids. When I said “no” he said “good, because I don’t like women who abandon their children in the home”. Also when we got a housing loan it was filed under my other half’s name even though I was the Bank Employee. I overheard two managers whining about the uppity women who wanted loans filed under their names as well. It is hard to get over to people just how openly discriminatory it was back then.

      A lot of Boomers would like the kids of today to have our advantages. I would love to see people being able to afford a house. Housing should be a nest not a nest egg. Property portfolios and allowing overseas people to buy housing is a big problem. Free education should be available, it is the single biggest improvement in my life. I’m one of five, and my parents didn’t get past fourth form equivalent. Getting to Uni would’ve been extremely difficult.

      It wasn’t all cream for Boomers. We had enormous interest rates, electronics and travel was a lot more expensive compared to wages. The advantage was housing wasn’t totally preposterous. We lived on one wage and poured the other straight into the loan. This allowed us to eat into the principal which allowed us to get ahead of the interest rates. Frankly the current interest rates are, probably, about right. The real problem was they went too low and this pushed the house pricing to ludicrous levels. We didn’t have mobile phone plans, computers, electronic gizmos, Internet costs, to eat into our money. We barely went out, didn’t do overseas travel. The one goal was to pour money into the loan, which was a no brainer when interest rates were that high.

      The problem with denigrating “Boomers” is you get people offside who really want to champion the following generations. Some of us are living proof you don’t need “mummy and daddy bank” if you just get a bit if help at the beginning. We want the next generations to have those advantages.

      • miwahni on 01/07/2023 - 00:10
        +2

        Yes, yes and yes. I'm just glad I was in the position to help my son and daughter in law into their first house - via equity in my own home - bearing in mind that I was just about cleaned out in a messy divorce in the early 2000's so I was thrilled that I'd recovered to the extent that I could help. Things were tough earlier - I remember being thrilled that I could afford to buy a plastic garbage bin in BigW in 2001. How sad is that. But that seems to be the reality that a lot of people are facing now.

        The kids put every spare cent into their mortgage so I was able to get the guarantee over my home released pretty quickly. And when they traded up to a bigger home they didn't need my help at all. Not sure that my grandkids will be that fortunate.

      • NigelPearson on 01/07/2023 - 10:25
        +3

        "Housing should be a nest not a nest egg"

        LIKE !!!

        • try2bhelpful on 01/07/2023 - 11:00
          +6

          My other one is it should be shelter not a tax shelter.

          • bargain huntress on 01/07/2023 - 21:51
            +1

            @try2bhelpful: Both are good.

            How do we get back to houses being homes and not investments?

            This is the root cause of everything that is wrong.

            • try2bhelpful on 01/07/2023 - 22:02
              +1

              @bargain huntress: Absolutely agree. The problem is this will require a massive reduction in house prices. We need to start by allowing people one home, maybe one investment property, then taxing the bejesus of having properties above that. Similarly for people who aren’t residents and own property. Get homes back on the market.

              • bargain huntress on 02/07/2023 - 01:14

                @try2bhelpful: Yes that might go a long way.

                How do we make politicians do this when they often own many houses themselves?

                • try2bhelpful on 02/07/2023 - 07:48
                  +1

                  @bargain huntress: That is the trick. Maybe people pay more attention to who they are voting in. This could be a good platform for a smaller party to have crossbench power in the Senate. However, to a certain degree the Boomer issue will resolve itself as we die off and the next generation inherits. Maybe the dreaded death taxes could apply to people leaving property portfolios. There are options. As you said it takes political will and people to not buy the “deserving” rich line. If you inherit wealth you haven’t earned it. If you get your wealth flipping properties, you haven’t earned it. Too much money is tied up in bricks and mortar that should go into growing businesses and providing employment.

                • larndis on 02/07/2023 - 14:39
                  +2

                  @bargain huntress: Labor tried and got smashed at the ballot box, it's got nothing to do with how many houses politicians own. The problem with changing laws around negative gearing and franking credits is that many people have made long term investment decisions based on the current laws, and they get upset if you pull the rug out from under them, especially if they are already retired or approaching retirement.

              • tomfool on 02/07/2023 - 11:52
                +1

                @try2bhelpful: There is of course the problem of the cost of building said houses, the avg cost for a house build in Brisbane is around 470K, that is without land.

                • try2bhelpful on 02/07/2023 - 12:04
                  +1

                  @tomfool: That is the price they charge not necessarily what it costs to build :)

                  • tomfool on 03/07/2023 - 11:26

                    @try2bhelpful: Agree, but stimulus to the construction industry over the years has inflated expectations on margins that trades etc charge, those prices are not coming back.

  • brad1-8tsi on 30/06/2023 - 22:53
    +6

    loling at all those that have conveniently forgot the post WW2 immigration boom, the Vietnamese immigration boom and the Lebanese immigration boom (and all the other compassionate programs). They obviously never happened.

    • LVlahov on 30/06/2023 - 23:26
      +4

      All of those represented far lower raw numbers of migrants, and came at a time "an affordable home" didn't place a person over an hours commute from the city centre. As an example the total flow of Vietnamese migrants across several years only adds up to a few months of current migration levels. And Lebanese migration never amounted to more than a couple thousand per year.

      Which just goes to show how desperate people are to enable the current rip off of average Australians by mass migration to continue, suddenly we've "always done it" which absolutely isn't the case. The volume of migration over the last two decades is unprecedented in the local context. And was unprecedented globally as well except UK, Germany, France, NZ, and Canada all joined the party shortly after, and are now suffering the same problems.

    • saltypete on 01/07/2023 - 11:24
      -1

      We pretty well all are immigrants here, or the families of immigrants. The only folk that really have a right to object we are in the process of ensuring that we continue to ignore by not giving a voice to.
      For better or worse - immigration has, and will continue to make this country what it is. And some of the ones already here will whinge about the next lot.

      • LVlahov on 01/07/2023 - 13:20
        +3

        This is a mistruth designed to allow further dispossession and replacement of the population. The vast majority of the population prior to the recent immigration explosion was born here, to parents born here. You are aware that families up until the 1960's were having 5 to 6 or even more children each right? Over 5, 6 or more generations that really adds up. On both sides of my family we have been here since the first fleet.

        And the first settlers weren't "immigrants" either. Modern "immigrants" move to a nation that is already established, past settlers and pioneers literally moved to a nation in the process of being built, opening up frontiers to new settlement. Most with an Anglo-Celtic background are locally BORN residents of the nation, descended from setters and pioneers, nothing like you characterise with your anti- Anglo-Celtic racism.

        • morse on 02/07/2023 - 15:09
          -1

          The majority of people born overseas who live in Australia are still from the UK, 48% of the population has parents that were born overseas and the majority of these parents are from the UK - you’re not seriously trying to suggest that all the English, Welsh, Scottish that have moved here 1947 onwards are part of these ‘pioneers’ you speak of. So most people with an ‘Anglo-Celtic’ background in Australia are not ‘settlers and pioneers’, it’s probably about 50:50 now. I myself am the child of 10 pound poms - definitely immigrants. The immigration rate is actually down, so whilst there might be more migrants in total, it’s less as a percentage of population. Very recently immigration from India and China has surpassed that from the UK, but amoungst total migrants in Australia now the majority are from the UK.

          • LVlahov on 02/07/2023 - 17:59
            -1

            @morse: Ahem, you are using a measure of the population now (48% of population) AFTER 6 decades of massive immigration (with even more extreme levels over the last two). PRIOR to that, so i.e. reflective of the majority of the Anglo-Celtic population, the percentage that was locally born was much higher. i.e. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, only 10% of the population was overseas born in 1946. Case closed.

            Replacing a settled population with others is a human rights crime, it was for the Aborigines, it is when it occurred to deeply settled Anglo-Celtic people as well.

            • morse on 02/07/2023 - 18:17

              @LVlahov: So to be clear you want no migration post 1946?

        • [Deactivated] on 02/07/2023 - 15:18
          -1

          On both sides of my family we have been here since the first fleet.

          lol

          Are you a GP too ?

          • morse on 02/07/2023 - 15:32

            @[Deactivated]: You’ve got to worry if on both sides of their family they’ve only ever produced kids with other ancestors of the first fleet their lot would be getting pretty inbred by now.

            • [Deactivated] on 02/07/2023 - 15:56
              +2

              @morse: lol - Well, it would definitely explain the thinking behind a few of the posts on here

            • LVlahov on 02/07/2023 - 18:01
              +3

              @morse: I would suggest your are unaware what level of diversity is required in a population for it to avoid genetic inbreeding. Hint it is low, like 10,000 is more than enough. A population sticking with other Anglo-Celts, is not an example of inbreeding, which is specific to people bearing children who are close cousins, not 4th and 5th etc.

              • morse on 02/07/2023 - 18:07
                +2

                @LVlahov: Yikes - there was only 1400 on the first fleet

                • LVlahov on 02/07/2023 - 18:08

                  @morse: I think you do not understand the context. Both on my fathers side and mothers they trace to the first fleet. My family on both sides has been here since the first fleet. You know if you've leapt past a reasonable conclusion, to a ridiculous one, perhaps your assumptions are off.

                  • morse on 02/07/2023 - 18:11
                    +2

                    @LVlahov: So some of your other ancestors are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander or other immigrants then?

                    • LVlahov on 02/07/2023 - 18:18
                      +1

                      @morse: The argument that people should not be entitled to a civilisation or nation, because they have ancestry that includes immigrants (or the children of them), is offensive, and in context is used to justify the replacement of a population.
                      It is also a standard applied exclusively in North Western Europeans nations, even those that never had anything to do with colonisation.

                      It is offensive. It is wrong.

                      Anglo-Celts, the vast majority of them born in Australia, built a unique civilisation here, that people are now desperate to take from them. Done to ANY people such a thing would be wrong. The LIVED EXPERIENCE and consequences are the same.

                      Sustainable self-determination is the primary factor in the long-term welling of any population and an utter linchpin to retaining their rights. It is something that is lost, on a mathematical basis, under conditions of mass migration and at or below replacement births.

                      There are so many ways a path to the future could be charted that don't require the replacement of a people. To forgo such options requires the particular view that upholds all genocides (population replacement exercises)… those affected are unworthy.

                      • morse on 02/07/2023 - 18:30
                        +1

                        @LVlahov:

                        The argument that people should not be entitled to a civilisation or nation, because they have ancestry that includes immigrants (or the children of them), is offensive, and in context is used to justify the replacement of a population.

                        Literally no where did I say that, but:

                        a) you’re delegitimising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and other First Nation people like Tiwi Islanders by saying your entitlement to their land is as great as theirs.

                        b) you’re saying that there is a greater class of immigrants and your ancestry to the first fleet gives you some special claim or rights above the rest of Australians that is not part of being Indigenous

                        • LVlahov on 02/07/2023 - 18:38
                          +1

                          @morse: I am not delegitimising attachment to land, rather the opposite, I am not excluding any group, unlike those excluding Anglo-Celts, as to the legitimacy of their being able to sustainably retain their self-determination and nation.

                          Do two wrongs make a right? It is not me arguing so.

                          A person WITHOUT local familial connection to land, has no rightful claim on it. A person DEEPLY settled on a nation, for multiple generations has a significant claim on it.

                          This metric associates connection with where it actually exists and develops.. with time. Over generations.

                          To deny a group the right to have that place sustainably represent them, without being replaced by others, who do without such connection, is the bill for your position.

                          And now would you care to move on from the topic? Is there a limit to how long we should engage on this? Come to Gab if you'd like a fully developed discussion, I'd be more than happy to accommodate you.

                          • morse on 02/07/2023 - 18:56
                            +1

                            @LVlahov: I was born in Australia. I know nothing else. I grew up on a very special piece of land that my parents sold and I even considered buying it (when on market again) but couldn’t sensibly afford it. I’m first generation and I get that realistically my connection is no more important than anyone else’s ,expect the Aboriginal people that lived there first for thousands of years (not hundreds) that anyone ‘Anglo-Celtic’ can lay claim to. That land system that came with your and my ancestors meant that land can be bought and sold and that the government makes decisions on how land is administered.

                            • LVlahov on 02/07/2023 - 19:00
                              +2

                              @morse: You have essentially repaid the kindness the Anglo-Celts that lived here extended your family, with a complete disregard for their rights and future wellbeing.

                              The alternative would simply be being against the mass wholesale replacement of any people, especially if you consider it was wrong to do to one group.

                              I think this case overall speaks to the immense danger of mass immigration. A newcomer might just decide that the people here before him, that let him in, can do without the rights and society they may cherish, instead to hand it over to people with no connection whatsoever.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join