Every so often the mainstream media gets a bee in their bonnet. They're like a dog with a bone. Unlike Demi Lovato they don't know how to let things go. Day after day after day they focus on stories about house prices and how young people can't get into the property market. They act like spoiled little children who aren't getting what they want. They fabricate the extent of the property bubble. Now don't get me wrong folks, property prices in Sydney, Melbourne and Auckland are nuts but this is all the mainstream media tells you.
I have a few friends who, like me, are obsessed with property prices and follow it like we follow the stocks, which is pretty much every day. Anyway, we look at the prices on a regular basis and I have to say I noticed something last night while I was perusing property listings, they actually aren't so bad so long as you don't expect to buy in Sydney or Auckland. You can get a large block of land in a country town for a very reasonable price. By reasonable I mean anywhere from $20,000 to $50,000. You probably wonder what towns I'm talking about here. I'm not going to tell you that, I don't want those prices to go up and property to be unaffordable everywhere.
The sensible thing to do where property is concerned is to buy a cheap piece of land in a growing region, or a region that people aren't immediately aware of where there is possibility of development whether it be agriculture or hospitality related industries. Once you've got the piece of land you can then decide what to do with it. You can either sit on it, leaving it dormant waiting for regional growth or you could build a nice house on it and then when you are of retirement age you'll have a property to live in and a holiday home.
The cool aspect of buying a cheap plot of land is that you could potentially buy it freehold without any debt, and that's super cool because in the long run you can only profit from your purchase.
It's not smart to buy in a city like Sydney or Auckland. Sure it's what everyone wants to do but the prices are so overvalued for what you get. It's better to rent in Sydney or Auckland and buy elsewhere by the time you take into account mortgage fees like interest, the actual fees of obtaining the loan in the first place and the associated legal costs. You only stand to lose when you think about it.
Then there's the property bubble that everyone is talking about. What happens when property prices go down? Well my friends that's when you lose it all. Buy where nobody wants to buy and you stand to gain in the long term and isn't that what property and housing is supposed to be about, a long term investment? It's hardly an investment if you're paying too much for something that isn't actually worth the price you pay.
Monday, June 22, 2015
Friday, June 19, 2015
Why Zoo shouldn't be taken off the shelves
Over the last few months there has been much discussion in Australia about men's magazine, Zoo. People have been calling for it to be removed from supermarket shelves. The common theme amongst complainants is that Zoo exploits young women. I haven't myself read Zoo magazine but to my knowledge it features a whole bunch of bikini clad women with articles about how to get a woman to do what you want and how to take advantage of drunk women. The latter has been getting people including the staff of women's lifestyle network MamaMia up in arms.
They have been up in arms because they are worried about the exposure young children in supermarkets will have to the magazine. They're worried that men are being taught to treat women poorly and disrespect them.
The problem is that the anti Zoo brigade have missed a key point which is actually that women's magazines are just as bad when it comes to the treatment of young women and teen girls.
Let's look at Cosmopolitan shall we?! Cosmo is a magazine targeted at teenagers and young women. The magazine features women in the most fashionable clothing around. Cosmo also features stories on how to give your man the best sex he's ever had. Are these magazines really any better than Zoo? They very rarely have intelligent articles and like Zoo they often reduce women to sex objects who are only there for men's enjoyment and the enjoyment/envy of other women. They lead women to believe that a woman's self worth only comes from how she looks.
It starts younger though with Dolly and Girlfriend. Dolly and Girlfriend are tamer version of Cosmopolitan and Cleo. They often feature sex stories and encourage teenage girls to wear make up and that they will not be complete or accepted if they don't. they then have a number of articles on how to be popular and what you should be wearing. The bottom line is that these magazines also feed on the notion that a woman's worth is tied up in her looks.
Men's magazines have a difference audience and so naturally they approach things differently but we also need to realise that often the women who feature in these magzines as centrefolds or other pin ups are paid models who are just doing a job. Nobody forces the women to appear in the magazines. they do so by choice.
Another belief is that the magazines were created by men for men, and the fact of the matter is that those perceptions already had to be in the minds of the readers for them to exist and be published. So is it that Zoo is leading to the sexualisation and objectification of women or is it that the magazine is a symptom of society's long held belief which is that women are there for the pleasure of men and nothing more? Before Zoo the most popular men's mags were FHM and Ralph, both of which closed due to low readership. That should actually indicate that men are turned off by the magazines.
With the advent of pornography on the internet these men's magazines, just like all other magazines and printed media are going out of fashion so eventually Zoo many end up being taken off the shelves. Even if it was though that would not deal with the issue of the objectification of women and no doubt something else would take its place.
The bottom line is that Zoo is a magazine targeted at a specific market, men, and that women's magazines are really no better in their treatment of women. People do not have to buy the magazine if they do not wish to, but we live in a nation which has freedom of the press and that means being able to publish content which may or may not offend. So, in conclusion, if you don't like Zoo, don't buy it, but don't stop others who like it buying it. It's a personal choice.
They have been up in arms because they are worried about the exposure young children in supermarkets will have to the magazine. They're worried that men are being taught to treat women poorly and disrespect them.
The problem is that the anti Zoo brigade have missed a key point which is actually that women's magazines are just as bad when it comes to the treatment of young women and teen girls.
Let's look at Cosmopolitan shall we?! Cosmo is a magazine targeted at teenagers and young women. The magazine features women in the most fashionable clothing around. Cosmo also features stories on how to give your man the best sex he's ever had. Are these magazines really any better than Zoo? They very rarely have intelligent articles and like Zoo they often reduce women to sex objects who are only there for men's enjoyment and the enjoyment/envy of other women. They lead women to believe that a woman's self worth only comes from how she looks.
It starts younger though with Dolly and Girlfriend. Dolly and Girlfriend are tamer version of Cosmopolitan and Cleo. They often feature sex stories and encourage teenage girls to wear make up and that they will not be complete or accepted if they don't. they then have a number of articles on how to be popular and what you should be wearing. The bottom line is that these magazines also feed on the notion that a woman's worth is tied up in her looks.
Men's magazines have a difference audience and so naturally they approach things differently but we also need to realise that often the women who feature in these magzines as centrefolds or other pin ups are paid models who are just doing a job. Nobody forces the women to appear in the magazines. they do so by choice.
Another belief is that the magazines were created by men for men, and the fact of the matter is that those perceptions already had to be in the minds of the readers for them to exist and be published. So is it that Zoo is leading to the sexualisation and objectification of women or is it that the magazine is a symptom of society's long held belief which is that women are there for the pleasure of men and nothing more? Before Zoo the most popular men's mags were FHM and Ralph, both of which closed due to low readership. That should actually indicate that men are turned off by the magazines.
With the advent of pornography on the internet these men's magazines, just like all other magazines and printed media are going out of fashion so eventually Zoo many end up being taken off the shelves. Even if it was though that would not deal with the issue of the objectification of women and no doubt something else would take its place.
The bottom line is that Zoo is a magazine targeted at a specific market, men, and that women's magazines are really no better in their treatment of women. People do not have to buy the magazine if they do not wish to, but we live in a nation which has freedom of the press and that means being able to publish content which may or may not offend. So, in conclusion, if you don't like Zoo, don't buy it, but don't stop others who like it buying it. It's a personal choice.
Tuesday, June 9, 2015
How dare Joe Hockey tell people to work for a house, how dare he say such a prepostorous thing.
Work for a living.
How dare someone suggest such a thing. People shouldn't have to work for a better life. They should have everything handed to them on a silver platter and have their hand held along the way. Everyone should be given a house for life when they're born and live in that house forever. They shouldn't work hard or aspire to more.
I am of course being sarcastic in that last paragraph but felt the need to write about the outrage at Treasurer Joe Hockey telling people that if they want a home they should get a better job or work harder.
As usual, the left has taken offense to being told to work for a better life.
It makes me sad to think we live in a country where being told to work harder for a better life is frowned upon. It shows you how much damage Labor did while they were in office. What happened to working for a better life? What happened to aspiration? What happened to the satisfaction you get when you know you worked hard for something and earned it?
Once upon a time it was a sign that you'd done well to be able to buy a home. It was a sign you'd done well to be able to buy nice things, but Labor's two parliamentary terms took away that mentality and people decided they were entitled to nice things with no work.
If everyone has nice things they lose their value. Just look at degrees. Just about everyone these days has some type of university qualification and they're losing their value as a result which is seeing quotas introduced for certain universities and in some cases, like at the University of Sydney degrees are being scrapped. What happens when everyone has a degree and eventually a PHD? The answer is, we create another level.
I'm not saying home ownership is easy because it's not but if you scour the markets then it is affordable. Nobody can expect their first home to be in the suburb they want to live in, so why not invest money while you're working for a few years to get up a deposit and then buy a house in a cheaper location and rent it out or live in a less desirable suburb for a while?
Some of you will say that home ownership is a right, but it isn't. Having shelter and a roof over your head is a right. Owning that roof isn't. It's time people remembered that, and actually appreciated the value of hard work.
If you want a better life then the simple answer is to increase your income. Getting your first property has always been tough so if people want to achieve that goal make sacrifices whether it be going without the latest gadget or getting a second job. It is not up to the government to give million dollar homes to everyone.
How dare someone suggest such a thing. People shouldn't have to work for a better life. They should have everything handed to them on a silver platter and have their hand held along the way. Everyone should be given a house for life when they're born and live in that house forever. They shouldn't work hard or aspire to more.
I am of course being sarcastic in that last paragraph but felt the need to write about the outrage at Treasurer Joe Hockey telling people that if they want a home they should get a better job or work harder.
As usual, the left has taken offense to being told to work for a better life.
It makes me sad to think we live in a country where being told to work harder for a better life is frowned upon. It shows you how much damage Labor did while they were in office. What happened to working for a better life? What happened to aspiration? What happened to the satisfaction you get when you know you worked hard for something and earned it?
Once upon a time it was a sign that you'd done well to be able to buy a home. It was a sign you'd done well to be able to buy nice things, but Labor's two parliamentary terms took away that mentality and people decided they were entitled to nice things with no work.
If everyone has nice things they lose their value. Just look at degrees. Just about everyone these days has some type of university qualification and they're losing their value as a result which is seeing quotas introduced for certain universities and in some cases, like at the University of Sydney degrees are being scrapped. What happens when everyone has a degree and eventually a PHD? The answer is, we create another level.
I'm not saying home ownership is easy because it's not but if you scour the markets then it is affordable. Nobody can expect their first home to be in the suburb they want to live in, so why not invest money while you're working for a few years to get up a deposit and then buy a house in a cheaper location and rent it out or live in a less desirable suburb for a while?
Some of you will say that home ownership is a right, but it isn't. Having shelter and a roof over your head is a right. Owning that roof isn't. It's time people remembered that, and actually appreciated the value of hard work.
If you want a better life then the simple answer is to increase your income. Getting your first property has always been tough so if people want to achieve that goal make sacrifices whether it be going without the latest gadget or getting a second job. It is not up to the government to give million dollar homes to everyone.
Sunday, June 7, 2015
Why are people living in poverty? Or is it a budgeting problem?
Every week when we switch on the news we see yet another story about some struggling family. There will be some family in Western Sydney or South Auckland who can't heat their homes and who can't give their kids new shoes. We hear about families who can't put food on the table and we hear about parents who can't heat their house. Then we hear about those who can't buy a home. In this piece I won't be talking about the latter because home ownership is something which should be earned and not necessarily a given or taken for granted.
The first group however is considerably high. If you believe the statistics that are released every few months with great reactions then you'd believe that 14% of people in Australia are living in poverty. Poverty is defined as being half of the median income, or $400 a week in Australia for a single person, and $841 a week for a family of four
If you were a single person living in Sydney then $400 a week would be tight but you would get the following:
Rent $200 for a cheap boarding house in a terrible suburb with power included.
Transport $50 assuming you have a job or studies to travel to.
Phone $15
Food $70
That would still leave $65 to put into savings for a rainy day or for clothing. One could argue that we have a distorted view on what poverty is in Australia because our wages and living standards are so high.
Now suppose you're a family of four living in Sydney, the poverty line is $841, so what could you get for that amount of money?
Rent $350 - $400 for a house with three bedrooms in Western Sydney.
Transport $100
Food $150
Power $50
Phone $40
That leaves $60 to put away for a rainy day or savings for the doctor although the doctor is free. In other words, if you budget carefully then you can survive if you live below the official poverty line. Yes things would be tight and you would have to watch the pennies but you could still save.
This actually brings me to my next point, do we have a poverty problem or do we have a budgeting problem? If you are bringing in $800 a week as a family and you still can't make ends meet then you have a budgeting problem, you also have an employment problem. if you have just relocated to a new area then it makes sense that your income would be low as you would need to find a job, however if that's not the case then you need to ask yourself the question of why your income is so low and what you can do to increase it. Do you have skills that employers want? Are you educated enough? Do you have motivation? Do you want to improve your situation in life? Those who are proactive and want a better life will do everything in their power to get ahead and will not be on the low income for long (think less than two years) while those who are on that long term have other issues that need addressing.
Given Australia, depending on where you live, is a land of opportunity people should have no issues finding jobs and increasing their income. It is the same situation for the young. We hear about youth unemployment day after day and how it's awful but instead of asking why, the mainstream media just says it's happening. I don't support activism journalism, though one could argue that is what I do in my independent blog, however surely it's the mainstream media's job to look at what is actually causing long term unemployment.
Nobody is saying it is easy to solve long term unemployment or the cycle of poverty however imagine this, if you only grow up surrounded by poor people with low education you don't know anything else, just as the well off don't know what poverty is. Is it time that schools in well off areas had a quota of say 10% for those out of zone from the poorer areas? And with private schools is it time we looked at increasing the number of scholarships offered? It seems that the current system is failing people and handouts and benefits are not the answer. Not everyone can reach the top and nor should they, but it seems like some parents, teachers and kids themselves are ensuring they never improve their lot in life.
Parents play a big part in their kids' future and education. Without good parents investing in your education you won't have opportunities and may end up stuck in poverty, so the question is, why are parents having kids that they don't want to help achieve? And the bigger question, how can parents live with themselves if they don't give their kids opportunities? Are they dumb? Or do they just not care?
Rather than just giving endless handouts, what can be done to truly help those living in poverty get out of it? Why didn't they get the qualifications and skills when they were younger?
The first group however is considerably high. If you believe the statistics that are released every few months with great reactions then you'd believe that 14% of people in Australia are living in poverty. Poverty is defined as being half of the median income, or $400 a week in Australia for a single person, and $841 a week for a family of four
If you were a single person living in Sydney then $400 a week would be tight but you would get the following:
Rent $200 for a cheap boarding house in a terrible suburb with power included.
Transport $50 assuming you have a job or studies to travel to.
Phone $15
Food $70
That would still leave $65 to put into savings for a rainy day or for clothing. One could argue that we have a distorted view on what poverty is in Australia because our wages and living standards are so high.
Now suppose you're a family of four living in Sydney, the poverty line is $841, so what could you get for that amount of money?
Rent $350 - $400 for a house with three bedrooms in Western Sydney.
Transport $100
Food $150
Power $50
Phone $40
That leaves $60 to put away for a rainy day or savings for the doctor although the doctor is free. In other words, if you budget carefully then you can survive if you live below the official poverty line. Yes things would be tight and you would have to watch the pennies but you could still save.
This actually brings me to my next point, do we have a poverty problem or do we have a budgeting problem? If you are bringing in $800 a week as a family and you still can't make ends meet then you have a budgeting problem, you also have an employment problem. if you have just relocated to a new area then it makes sense that your income would be low as you would need to find a job, however if that's not the case then you need to ask yourself the question of why your income is so low and what you can do to increase it. Do you have skills that employers want? Are you educated enough? Do you have motivation? Do you want to improve your situation in life? Those who are proactive and want a better life will do everything in their power to get ahead and will not be on the low income for long (think less than two years) while those who are on that long term have other issues that need addressing.
Given Australia, depending on where you live, is a land of opportunity people should have no issues finding jobs and increasing their income. It is the same situation for the young. We hear about youth unemployment day after day and how it's awful but instead of asking why, the mainstream media just says it's happening. I don't support activism journalism, though one could argue that is what I do in my independent blog, however surely it's the mainstream media's job to look at what is actually causing long term unemployment.
Nobody is saying it is easy to solve long term unemployment or the cycle of poverty however imagine this, if you only grow up surrounded by poor people with low education you don't know anything else, just as the well off don't know what poverty is. Is it time that schools in well off areas had a quota of say 10% for those out of zone from the poorer areas? And with private schools is it time we looked at increasing the number of scholarships offered? It seems that the current system is failing people and handouts and benefits are not the answer. Not everyone can reach the top and nor should they, but it seems like some parents, teachers and kids themselves are ensuring they never improve their lot in life.
Parents play a big part in their kids' future and education. Without good parents investing in your education you won't have opportunities and may end up stuck in poverty, so the question is, why are parents having kids that they don't want to help achieve? And the bigger question, how can parents live with themselves if they don't give their kids opportunities? Are they dumb? Or do they just not care?
Rather than just giving endless handouts, what can be done to truly help those living in poverty get out of it? Why didn't they get the qualifications and skills when they were younger?
Monday, June 1, 2015
The same sex marriage debate
Unless you've been living under a rock then you'd know that for the last few weeks same sex marriage has been debated widely amongst the Australian parliamentarians and the Twittersphere. As you'd expect the public and MPs are divided 50/50 on the matter. Of course, those who support same sex marriage say that same sex couples should have the same legal right to marry that heterosexual couples have. They say that it is discrimination and that the Government is disapproving of their lifestyles and treating them as second rate citizens.
Supporters of same sex marriage hold the belief that opponents are homophobic and have an issue with gay people.
Those in homosexual relationships who support same sex marriage say they are being denied basic rights that heterosexual couples have and they want legal recognition in the case that their partner should die, or simple to be next of kin in case of emergency.
Firstly, nobody is saying that same sex couples cannot be together. Nobody is saying they should be stoned like in countries with Sharia Law. All opponents are saying is that marriage is between a man and a woman and should remain that way. Nobody is saying that same sex couples cannot raise children because more often than one of the partners does have children from a previous relationship. The main difference being that if one partner dies, the other may not be recognised as a legal guardian by the state.
Supporters of same sex marriage hold the belief that opponents are homophobic and have an issue with gay people.
Those in homosexual relationships who support same sex marriage say they are being denied basic rights that heterosexual couples have and they want legal recognition in the case that their partner should die, or simple to be next of kin in case of emergency.
Firstly, nobody is saying that same sex couples cannot be together. Nobody is saying they should be stoned like in countries with Sharia Law. All opponents are saying is that marriage is between a man and a woman and should remain that way. Nobody is saying that same sex couples cannot raise children because more often than one of the partners does have children from a previous relationship. The main difference being that if one partner dies, the other may not be recognised as a legal guardian by the state.
That's fair but why require and be obsessed with marriage? Why not just have a case by case family law system?
These days if you're getting married for legal rights then you're marrying for the wrong reason. You can still be with the person you love. The other aspect is religion is dying so why do people even need to get married in the first place? Of all the things you can spend money on it seems like an exorbitant waste of both time and money.
Same sex couples are not being discriminated against and marriage should, as it currently is, remain between a man and a woman not two women or two men.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)