Jump to content
Dadto2

$25'000 stimulus package

Recommended Posts

ipsee

In the early 90s there were just no jobs. School leavers and university graduates mostly went straight to unemployment, or competed with literally thousands of others for a few crumby jobs.

 

It was fine for those who already had good jobs though.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PuddingPlease

That's why this isn't a project for this week, or next month. It's a project that will start paying off in six months time, when construction as a whole hits a big hole. A lot of jobs are taking a lot longer than anticipated due to Covid, so it's no surprise they're busy now, but that's not going to last.

 

It's been talked about for a few months now, how construction in six months will be a huge issue.

 

A recession isn't pretty.

 

I don't think anyone is disputing that a recession is bad.

 

The issue isn't whether stimulating the economy is a good idea but what is the best way to do so.

 

The problem with the proposed scheme, as written, is that it seems to disproportionately benefit people who are already financially comfortable and uses public funds to do so. In a financial environment where many people are in genuine financial strife this (to my mind) represents a poor return.

 

In September (at the latest) our government will explain that we can no longer afford to keep job-seeker payments at their current rate and will attempt to return to a rate of $40 a day. Job-keeper payments will disappear and many of those people will return to jobs where they earn a lot less than they currently receive. The mostly young people who work in restaurants, bars, cafes and the tourism industry will be incredibly vulnerable if they lose their jobs. If it comes to a choice between funding extra bedrooms for middle class families or providing employment and welfare support for unemployed bar and cafe staff then I know who I would prioritise. Obviously we could do both but we aren't going to be able to do everything and this seems like a poor deal for the community as a whole.

 

I get that construction is a large industry that employs a lot of people. But there is no reason that we can not provide support to that industry in a way that benefits the whole community more equitably instead of a measure that will ultimately increase the gap between those who own property and those who don't. I think the idea of replacing bathrooms in schools in great as is boosting the quality of existing public housing (as the Victorian state government has already announced they will). Having said all of that, the details provided so far are pretty sketchy, I suppose we will have to wait and see.

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
liveworkplay
Posted (edited)

The thing that always annoys me with these threads is how Melbourne and Sydney centric they are. Outside of a big city it is relatively easy to fall into the under $750 000 house, have equity to borrow $75000 and earn under $200 000. We were looking at renovating around the 100K mark now we have essentially 4.5 adults in a standard 1 bath, 3 bed house. Our property prices have continued to rise, yes a lot smaller then the big cities, but we have not had negative growth. Our house has increased nearly a third in value in the last 10 years, adding an extra bedroom, living area and bathroom will take it up to the next price bracket and we could easily sell it for double, maybe even up to 3x, what we paid judging on current prices.

Edited by liveworkplay
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lozoodle

Interested to know about this, our renovations are in the hundreds of thousands...! but the money is sitting in our account as it was borrowed, not sure if that works. I don't think we'd qualify but interesting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
liveworkplay

In the early 90s there were just no jobs. School leavers and university graduates mostly went straight to unemployment, or competed with literally thousands of others for a few crumby jobs.

 

It was fine for those who already had good jobs though.

 

School leavers were certainly encouraged into further study as there just wasn't the jobs out there. I went to Uni at the start of the recession. I was in quite a specialised field and found work, so did my now husband. But we had to move state as youth unemployment where we lived was around 30% at the time.

 

In a recession you really have to sit tight, hope you are in a somewhat recession resistant job and hope for the best really.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dianalynch

When I was looking for work in the 90s as a student and then uni grad, youth unemployment in my uni city and then regional city was over 30%. It was dismal.

 

I’ve heard people complain about having to apply for 10 jobs and hearing nothing, back then it was not unusual to hear back from about 1 in 50 jobs you applied for.

 

I remember trudging around the local retail shops and supermarkets every week looking for causal work, i knew to put my name down at the supermarket every week, as it showed you were keen, and when they finally had vacancies they’d only look at who put their name down in the last week. I worked a bunch of casual and contract roles until I landed a ‘proper’ job in the public service, omg I thought I’d won the jackpot.

 

dh applied for 68 graduate positions out of uni, he had significant vacation work experience, first class honours, was an engineer usually in demand, he felt pretty lucky to get a job with one of his preferred employers, and that was only because someone pulled out.

 

it’s miserable living through a recession, people will lose jobs in their 40s and 50s and never work again, the young won’t be able to get a first job, and if you do get work it will be insecure.

 

vote labor

  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ipsee

Schools and public housing are not something the liberals are likely to spend money on.

 

Tourism they might , and maybe health and aged care?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PrincessPeach

 

Actually a scheme to upgrade school toilets due to coronavirus would be a great idea - in fact the whole water supply system to a school - remove the taps, put in tanks for water bottle refilling.

 

Tanks would be good for toilet facilities. Using tank water for drinking in most cities comes with a few health issues, especially with the large numbers of Ibis.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FeralZombieMum

Wonder if it would cover outbuildings, landscaping. water tanks and a swimming pool... If so, I'd spend $75,000 to gain that extra $25,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
born.a.girl

The thing that always annoys me with these threads is how Melbourne and Sydney centric they are. Outside of a big city it is relatively easy to fall into the under $750 000 house, have equity to borrow $75000 and earn under $200 000. We were looking at renovating around the 100K mark now we have essentially 4.5 adults in a standard 1 bath, 3 bed house. Our property prices have continued to rise, yes a lot smaller then the big cities, but we have not had negative growth. Our house has increased nearly a third in value in the last 10 years, adding an extra bedroom, living area and bathroom will take it up to the next price bracket and we could easily sell it for double, maybe even up to 3x, what we paid judging on current prices.

 

 

Yep, and country areas will hopefully thrive with the new recognition that people can definitely work productively from home.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
born.a.girl

When I was looking for work in the 90s as a student and then uni grad, youth unemployment in my uni city and then regional city was over 30%. It was dismal.

 

I’ve heard people complain about having to apply for 10 jobs and hearing nothing, back then it was not unusual to hear back from about 1 in 50 jobs you applied for.

 

I remember trudging around the local retail shops and supermarkets every week looking for causal work, i knew to put my name down at the supermarket every week, as it showed you were keen, and when they finally had vacancies they’d only look at who put their name down in the last week. I worked a bunch of casual and contract roles until I landed a ‘proper’ job in the public service, omg I thought I’d won the jackpot.

 

dh applied for 68 graduate positions out of uni, he had significant vacation work experience, first class honours, was an engineer usually in demand, he felt pretty lucky to get a job with one of his preferred employers, and that was only because someone pulled out.

 

it’s miserable living through a recession, people will lose jobs in their 40s and 50s and never work again, the young won’t be able to get a first job, and if you do get work it will be insecure.

 

vote labor

 

 

I remember when my sister told me she'd got to 100, and physically writing and posting those applications took quite some effort, as you'll remember.

 

One advantage of starting a business during a recession is that the only way is up!

 

Took me five years though, before I could start drawing an income from it, not all due to the conditions, partly because we were already going backwards and the extra I could make if I used more childcare would be less than the cost of the childcare so I stuck with the slow grind. Paid off in the end I'm happy to say. Although the GFC caused my income to drop by 2/3, it wasn't long lived.

 

And yes, some will never work again. This is 'the economy' that some were so derisory about a few months ago.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MerryMadrigalMadge
Posted (edited)

 

 

Did you get it replaced? I need a replacement, and I’m selfishly hoping for a good price due to reduced demand. But I haven’t called around yet.

 

Yep, the whole unit had to go - it's was really old anyway, and unrepairable. The new controller is amazing - finally, proper zoning, timer, etc

Edited by MerryMadrigalMadge
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
born.a.girl

School leavers were certainly encouraged into further study as there just wasn't the jobs out there. I went to Uni at the start of the recession. I was in quite a specialised field and found work, so did my now husband. But we had to move state as youth unemployment where we lived was around 30% at the time.

 

In a recession you really have to sit tight, hope you are in a somewhat recession resistant job and hope for the best really.

 

In the early eighties recession, youth unemployment was vicious. That was when governments actually gave families money to keep their kids at school doing year 11 & 12. There were no jobs, but it was still the time when many parents needed their 'leaving' age kids to go out to work to pay some board.

 

I remember clearly that being a big shift in attitude that school finished at year 12. Prior to that significant enough numbers considered it pointless if their kids weren't going to uni, in fact thought it was counter-productive as they'd have to be paid higher wages, with still no experience.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Expelliarmus

So this is a scheme to help low to middle income earners, being given $25'000 to be put towards big projects such as remodelling and home extensions. To qualify for the $25'000 you must earn under $175'000 per year, have $75'000 in cash that you are willing to contribute towards a minimum spend of $100'000 on renovations. I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate the number of low to middle income earners, in Australia, that have $75k in cash that they are willing to spend on renovating their house is precisely 0. Am I missing something? It just sounds completely whack.

Don't assume. Looks like this might fit with our current reno plans we've been working on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RynandStompy

Not a proposal I'm a fan of in principal, but damn, if it was like 20k instead of 75k we might have taken it, we have renovations we'd love to do but can't afford yet, but they're not that big.Eta: I'm not surprised though, dh mentioned it coz i hadn't heard anything and we didn't know any details yet, just the idea, and i said to him then, as usual no money for the poor plebs that rent, and i bet the criteria will be such that they pay it to as few people as possible anyway

 

Not only that, how many tenants will be booted out to allow landlords get taxpayer public funds to renovate?

I will bet money that landlords doing this will be exempted from tenant protection provisions.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PuddingPlease

 

And yes, some will never work again. This is 'the economy' that some were so derisory about a few months ago.

 

That's not really fair, the people you are referring to were pushing for an early and definitive shut-down to protect lives. But it was also pretty clear that the economy would be in trouble either way. If hundreds of people were dying daily, the work would have disappeared and people would have stayed home anyway, maybe for a lot longer. A lot of people were refusing to acknowledge that but it was and remains true. The choice was never health or the economy because the economic effects were probably inevitable.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
born.a.girl

Not only that, how many tenants will be booted out to allow landlords get taxpayer public funds to renovate?

I will bet money that landlords doing this will be exempted from tenant protection provisions.

 

 

I'd wait for the details. You might have had to live in the house yourself for a certain period of time to qualify.

 

Hopefully.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
born.a.girl

That's not really fair, the people you are referring to were pushing for an early and definitive shut-down to protect lives. But it was also pretty clear that the economy would be in trouble either way. If hundreds of people were dying daily, the work would have disappeared and people would have stayed home anyway, maybe for a lot longer. A lot of people were refusing to acknowledge that but it was and remains true. The choice was never health or the economy because the economic effects were probably inevitable.

 

 

No, it is fair because people were asked what do you care about, health or the economy, as though the two could be separated.

 

That's my point, they can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kallie88

Not only that, how many tenants will be booted out to allow landlords get taxpayer public funds to renovate?

I will bet money that landlords doing this will be exempted from tenant protection provisions.

 

Yeah wouldn't surprise me, and then they'll hike up their rent for the next tenants too. Guess we'll see, I'd love to be wrong but...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RichardParker

I think once you apply all the criteria, it just won't amount to a lot of people that qualify and/or that are interested:

 

- earn under $175k

- access to $75k

- one large renovation project required

- willing to spend $100k on project

 

I think this is one of those announcements to make it look like the government is doing a lot but actually, not that many people qualify and the money doesn't end up flowing.

 

Much like the loans to businesses through the banks. That sounded like a great idea - but the hoops to jump through are making it practically impossible for all but a few to access.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kallie88

And yes, some will never work again. This is 'the economy' that some were so derisory about a few months ago.

 

Considering the options being debated a few months ago were to lockdown or not, and countries that haven't really locked down, like the US are still facing a massive economy crash the "screw health to save the economy" crowd weren't really the ones to listen to were they. Most arguments I remember from then were about the economic benefits not really being there for anti-lockdown arguments plus the massive potential loss of life, not that the economy didn't matter at all

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
born.a.girl

That's a really comfortable point to make when the massive amount of deaths from the pandemic were avoided. What an unbelievably low point score. Go you.

 

 

 

No, I was making the same points months ago.

 

So were very left wing economists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
born.a.girl

Considering the options being debated a few months ago were to lockdown or not, and countries that haven't really locked down, like the US are still facing a massive economy crash the "screw health to save the economy" crowd weren't really the ones to listen to were they. Most arguments I remember from then were about the economic benefits not really being there for anti-lockdown arguments plus the massive potential loss of life, not that the economy didn't matter at all

 

 

Absolutely agree on both the USA, UK and Sweden for that matter, amongst others.

 

Sweden is a classic case of sacrificing life for the sake of the economy, although they'd deny it.

 

I'm on record here repeatedly wondering why we weren't stopping flights from the USA, the way we did China, South Korea, Iran, Italy ... despite the fact it was obvious most of our cases were coming from there.

 

I honestly believe the government was too afraid of Trump, and instead stopped all non residents.

 

 

BTW I'm only talking about a handful of people, not the general discussion that there should be a balance, which is obviously the case in Australia.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kallie88
Posted (edited)

Cool, it did sound a bit like you could have meant anybody that wanted to lockdown for the sake of health, which I thought seemed odd coming from you, so much clearer if it was more a comment on a few outliers that didn't understand/want to understand the economy matters too

Edited by Kallie88
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RichardParker

 

I remember clearly that being a big shift in attitude that school finished at year 12. Prior to that significant enough numbers considered it pointless if their kids weren't going to uni, in fact thought it was counter-productive as they'd have to be paid higher wages, with still no experience.

 

I was a kid during the 90's but my older brothers were school leavers - there was much debate about whether to go through to Year 12 or not, or whether to start a trade. By the time I was finishing highschool in 2000, it was a given that most people went through to year 12.

 

Recessions seem like a good time to study, if you can - and it's probably easier to do it because the social expectations of going out, spending money, traveling, etc have been removed.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...