Science/Environment Could Australia become 3rd world?

[Run n Spread]

In light of postings on another board and responses I thought I'd create this question.
Every Australian has heard: if you don't like it leave; gee we are lucky, go live in Iraq/Somalia, other like place if you don't like it etc

But given the rate of change in the world the massive rise of China, India and many others in a generation

Could Australia go backwards? Massive housing issues, youth unemployment, unemployment, lack of new economic opportunity, no defence, inept and corrupt government, etc

Could we actually implode ourselves?
I hope not and have faith in our better nature but challenging Donald Horne what exactly makes us so great besides luck (largely squandered)

 

[Malifice]

Nah. Those resources we're digging up and selling will last forever.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

Quite possibly, if we continue ignoring the growth in inequality that capitalism is causing.

 

[Malifice]

Quite possibly, if we continue ignoring the growth in inequality that capitalism is causing.

Is it though? In order for there to be a growth in inequality, the middle class (and poor) should be shrinking. They're not. Particularly in Australia. Peeps who were once lower class are turning into 'cashed up bogans,' entering the middle class with McMansions in the outer suburbs, a boat and maybe even an investment property or two. Thats not uncommon these days.

I get the already very wealthy are getting even more disgustingly wealthy each year (and agree that should be looked at) but is there really any evidence that having it worse off as a result?

When I cast my eye over nations with capitalist free market economies, as opposed to ones with more tightly regulated State owned/ socialist economies, I know in which Nations middle classes are doing better, and which nations have lower rates of poverty and higher rates of HDI.

It isnt the socialist/ communist ones.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

Is it though

Yes.

 

[kickazz]

Well of course capitalism causes inequality. Communism would ensure were all equally in the s**t, like in Venezuela.

Some aspects of capitalism have gotten a bit out of hand. Regulated, democratic capitalism FTW.


To answer OP: my god we have a long way to go to be third world.

 

[Malifice]

Yes.

Proof?

As in; I agree that the super wealthy are increasing their wealth at an almost exponential rate. No need to prove that. It's conceded.

But what about the increase in median wealth caused by capitalism? Remove the super wealthy 5 percent and the super poor 5 percent. We can (and should) be doing something to tax the super wealthy and help the super poor.

But is there really that much of a difference in Australia between a bogan 'lower class' blue collar worker, and an upper class professional (Doctor/ Lawyer) in the city?

The average salary is 78k P/A. There are unskilled labor jobs where you can earn that if you're prepared to work for Gods sake. Any one can go to university (prepared you are OK with paying it off later, when you're working) to upskill.

Its the embrace of more free markets (and a move away from communism) that has lead to Chinas rapid development in recent years. As a consequence they (and neighbours in SE Asia) having a booming middle class:

We already had this happen a while ago (a rapid and steady increase of the middle class - the cornerstone of the market) thanks to an early embrace of [free market capitalist economics] + [a liberal democratic State].

Same deal in the USA, Western Europe, New Zealand, Japan and a few other places.

The rest of Asia (outside of Japan) is catching up. Their middle class is booming.

I get there is inequality at the upper (and lower) ends of the spectrum. I'm not sure that phenomenon is enough to ditch the overall benefits of capitalism for the majority just yet.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

Proof?

As in; I agree that the super wealthy are increasing their wealth at an almost exponential rate. No need to prove that. It's conceded.

But what about the increase in median wealth caused by capitalism? Remove the super wealthy 5 percent and the super poor 5 percent. We can (and should) be doing something to tax the super wealthy and help the super poor.

But is there really that much of a difference in Australia between a bogan 'lower class' blue collar worker, and an upper class professional (Doctor/ Lawyer) in the city?

The average salary is 78k P/A. There are unskilled labor jobs where you can earn that if you're prepared to work for Gods sake. Any one can go to university (prepared you are OK with paying it off later, when you're working) to upskill.

Its the embrace of more free markets (and a move away from communism) that has lead to Chinas rapid development in recent years. As a consequence they (and neighbours in SE Asia) having a booming middle class:

We already had this happen a while ago (a rapid and steady increase of the middle class - the cornerstone of the market) thanks to an early embrace of [free market capitalist economics] + [a liberal democratic State].

Same deal in the USA, Western Europe, New Zealand, Japan and a few other places.

The rest of Asia (outside of Japan) is catching up. Their middle class is booming.

I get there is inequality at the upper (and lower) ends of the spectrum. I'm not sure that phenomenon is enough to ditch the overall benefits of capitalism for the majority just yet.

You already conceded that inequality has increased in your first paragraph. The world's 2000 billionaires increased their wealth by $750 billion last year. Enough to remove poverty.

That is a rise in inequality, by definition, ignoring your other superfluous qualifiers used to justify capitalism.

I'll reply to the rest, with evidence, when I'm at my laptop tomorrow at work or after work.

One last point. To conflate the upper ends of inequality with the bottom end is very disingenuous, and borderline disgusting.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

Well of course capitalism causes inequality. Communism would ensure were all equally in the s**t, like in Venezuela.

Some aspects of capitalism have gotten a bit out of hand. Regulated, democratic capitalism FTW.


To answer OP: my god we have a long way to go to be third world.

Considering it's continually becoming less regulated, good luck.

 

[Pie eyed]

In light of postings on another board and responses I thought I'd create this question.
Every Australian has heard: if you don't like it leave; gee we are lucky, go live in Iraq/Somalia, other like place if you don't like it etc

But given the rate of change in the world the massive rise of China, India and many others in a generation

Could Australia go backwards? Massive housing issues, youth unemployment, unemployment, lack of new economic opportunity, no defence, inept and corrupt government, etc

Could we actually implode ourselves?
I hope not and have faith in our better nature but challenging Donald Horne what exactly makes us so great besides luck (largely squandered)

Left to the Liberal Party Australia could be come a dark ages village.

 

[Frank Bunn]

I think it could. If Australia were stupid enough to elect the Greens into power.

 

[Malifice]

You already conceded that inequality has increased in your first paragraph. The world's 2000 billionaires increased their wealth by $750 billion last year. Enough to remove poverty.

I'll see your 2000 billionares getting even more disgustingly wealthy and raise you over 1 billion people entering the middle class from poverty or the lower class in Asia alone over the next 20 years thanks to the free markets and globilisation (and a move away from socialist economics).

I agree the tiny number of people who are already super wealthy are growing that wealth at an almost exponential rate. Good for them.

But when you exlude the super wealthy, and look at the median increases across the board (the booming global middle class) and the rise of many into the middle class you see a very different story.

One last point. To conflate the upper ends of inequality with the bottom end is very disingenuous, and borderline disgusting.

There are people in poverty. To mention them (in the context of inequality) is not 'disingenous or disgusting.'

And I wasnt conflating them; when discussing inequality you need to know the measure we are using. If we're comparing the billions of dollars the wealthiest 2000 people in the world have as opposed to the net worth of those in poverty of course it looks like we're in dire straights. The wealthiest 1 percent own as much as the poorest 50 percent of the world do.

Same deal if I compare my income to Bill Gates income - it looks unequal. But Bill Gates is an outlier.

When I compare my income to the median of the majority of people around me, its a different story. If you're employed in Australia in a 9-5 you're probably earning from 60-120k (around 80k is the median, and it's brought down a bit by part time work and so forth).

Thats not exactly a massive wage differential at the end of the day once taxation and so forth is considered. The difference between 40k a year and 80k per year, or even 120k per year isnt that huge at the end of the day. The dude on 120k probably has a nicer apartment, takes slightly more expensive holidays, and can afford a luxury or two. It also takes him only 3-4 years to save for a house deposit instead of 10 years for the guy earning 40k.

 

[RupieDupie]

In light of postings on another board and responses I thought I'd create this question.
Every Australian has heard: if you don't like it leave; gee we are lucky, go live in Iraq/Somalia, other like place if you don't like it etc

But given the rate of change in the world the massive rise of China, India and many others in a generation

Could Australia go backwards? Massive housing issues, youth unemployment, unemployment, lack of new economic opportunity, no defence, inept and corrupt government, etc

Could we actually implode ourselves?
I hope not and have faith in our better nature but challenging Donald Horne what exactly makes us so great besides luck (largely squandered)

Nope, fortunately for us, we don’t have a chemically imbalanced munny obsessed Prime Minister attempting to increase their own wealth at the expense of the Australian public, and like a two-bit hooker wouldn’t think twice of reducing Australians to poverty if he could gain a couple of bucks... oh wait...

 

[Admiral Byng]

Yes, but I hope we don't.

both the far right and the far left would love to take us there if we ever gave them their way at the ballot box.

 

[Reynolds Number]

One thing I will say.

Anyone who quotes a heavily slewee average wage figure and claims that anyone in this country can earn that has lost me, obviously has their head buried in certain literature at the expense of reality.

 

[RupieDupie]

I'll see your 2000 billionares getting even more disgustingly wealthy and raise you over 1 billion people entering the middle class from poverty or the lower class in Asia alone over the next 20 years thanks to the free markets and globilisation (and a move away from socialist economics).

I agree the tiny number of people who are already super wealthy are growing that wealth at an almost exponential rate. Good for them.

But when you exlude the super wealthy, and look at the median increases across the board (the booming global middle class) and the rise of many into the middle class you see a very different story.



There are people in poverty. To mention them (in the context of inequality) is not 'disingenous or disgusting.'

And I wasnt conflating them; when discussing inequality you need to know the measure we are using. If we're comparing the billions of dollars the wealthiest 2000 people in the world have as opposed to the net worth of those in poverty of course it looks like we're in dire straights. The wealthiest 1 percent own as much as the poorest 50 percent of the world do.

Same deal if I compare my income to Bill Gates income - it looks unequal. But Bill Gates is an outlier.

When I compare my income to the median of the majority of people around me, its a different story. If you're employed in Australia in a 9-5 you're probably earning from 60-120k (around 80k is the median, and it's brought down a bit by part time work and so forth).

Thats not exactly a massive wage differential at the end of the day once taxation and so forth is considered. The difference between 40k a year and 80k per year, or even 120k per year isnt that huge at the end of the day. The dude on 120k probably has a nicer apartment, takes slightly more expensive holidays, and can afford a luxury or two. It also takes him only 3-4 years to save for a house deposit instead of 10 years for the guy earning 40k.

Ah yes Geelong_Crazy, up to your old antics again I see... oh... oh dear...

 

[quotemokc]

The world is struggling to support our population enough as it is.

Imagine how much worse off the world would be if everyone lived by the means of the first world?

It callous but its true.

 

[Procrastinator35]

The U.S has more chance of becoming 3rd world than we do.....In fact, it's already well on the way, by coming last in so many first world estimate criteria for standards of living.

All empires inevitably fall....Lets just hope these insane maniacs don't take us all down with them.

 

[kickazz]

The world is struggling to support our population enough as it is.

Imagine how much worse off the world would be if everyone lived by the means of the first world?

It callous but its true.

Yeah we just gotta hope scientist and engineers come through with the goods regarding energy and food and such.

 

[DaRick]

It is impossible to see Australia turning into Somalia/DR Congo. Those sorts of highly dysfunctional third world countries are that way due to extraordinary corruption coupled with the sort of intense tribalism you don't see here.

On the other hand, it is not entirely inconceivable that we could become another Argentina/Brazil/Mexico. Not strictly third world, but nevertheless clearly quite dysfunctional and unequal societies. The US is well on its way to becoming like that IMO and I myself believe that the direction we've been going in recent decades has not been the best.

Consider:
- Welfare payments have not increased significantly since the mid-1990's
- GINI coefficient (inequality index) has increased from around 0.3 in the mid-1990's to 0.335 by the late 2000's after taxes and transfers (almost certainly higher now due to the Abbott/Turnbull governments), which is actually one of the highest in the first world (Chile/Turkey/Mexico are not IMO first world countries)
- While a somewhat flawed measure of corruption, our rating in the Corruption Perceptions Index has been backsliding
- Concerns about infrastructure, particularly in regional areas (in America, most infrastructure has decayed alarmingly with the partial exception of ports)
- Declining educational performance

While this makes me sound like a crusty old conservative, I am also concerned that our birth rate is below replacement (broadly true of the West), which of course encourages our political leaders to engage in mass immigration to sustain our society (including labour/student importation). This has multiple potential issues, including increased competition for jobs in a situation where we certainly don't have a general labour shortage, along with potential culture clashes (the former Yugoslavia would be the worst-case example of such).

In summary, while we are still very much a first world country, there are multiple issues we need to address to ensure we don't become like the US in the future, much less Argentina/Brazil/Mexico.

 

[twotooto]

Considering it's continually becoming less regulated, good luck.

Is that because of capitalism or because it's becoming less regulated?

In my opinion, it won't matter what sort of governing system is in place unless there are controls implemented and adhered to, to ensure governments remain transparent and accountable, particularly with regard to policy being manipulated by corporations with big agendas and bigger cheque books.

Look no further than the completely absurd situation in the US with the NRA effectively buying the govt. Or, closer to home, the potentially catastrophic TPP.

And this is where I agree that unregulated capitalism does not a happy citizen make, but again, I would wager that any system of governance, left unchecked, is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Mofra]

The U.S has more chance of becoming 3rd world than we do.....In fact, it's already well on the way, by coming last in so many first world estimate criteria for standards of living.

There are more children living in poverty in the US than there are in Russia.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

Is that because of capitalism or because it's becoming less regulated?

In my opinion, it won't matter what sort of governing system is in place unless there are controls implemented and adhered to, to ensure governments remain transparent and accountable, particularly with regard to policy being manipulated by corporations with big agendas and bigger cheque books.

Look no further than the completely absurd situation in the US with the NRA effectively buying the govt. Or, closer to home, the potentially catastrophic TPP.

And this is where I agree that unregulated capitalism does not a happy citizen make, but again, I would wager that any system of governance, left unchecked, is a recipe for disaster.

Every bad aspect of past socialist societies has been pinned on socialism, ergo, we have to blame every failing in capitalist societies on capitalism.

 

[Admiral Byng]

It is impossible to see Australia turning into Somalia/DR Congo. Those sorts of highly dysfunctional third world countries are that way due to extraordinary corruption coupled with the sort of intense tribalism you don't see here.

On the other hand, it is not entirely inconceivable that we could become another Argentina/Brazil/Mexico. Not strictly third world, but nevertheless clearly quite dysfunctional and unequal societies. The US is well on its way to becoming like that IMO and I myself believe that the direction we've been going in recent decades has not been the best.

Consider:
- Welfare payments have not increased significantly since the mid-1990's
- GINI coefficient (inequality index) has increased from around 0.3 in the mid-1990's to 0.335 by the late 2000's after taxes and transfers (almost certainly higher now due to the Abbott/Turnbull governments), which is actually one of the highest in the first world (Chile/Turkey/Mexico are not IMO first world countries)
- While a somewhat flawed measure of corruption, our rating in the Corruption Perceptions Index has been backsliding
- Concerns about infrastructure, particularly in regional areas (in America, most infrastructure has decayed alarmingly with the partial exception of ports)
- Declining educational performance

While this makes me sound like a crusty old conservative, I am also concerned that our birth rate is below replacement (broadly true of the West), which of course encourages our political leaders to engage in mass immigration to sustain our society (including labour/student importation). This has multiple potential issues, including increased competition for jobs in a situation where we certainly don't have a general labour shortage, along with potential culture clashes (the former Yugoslavia would be the worst-case example of such).

In summary, while we are still very much a first world country, there are multiple issues we need to address to ensure we don't become like the US in the future, much less Argentina/Brazil/Mexico.

This is BigFooty. Careful you don't get reported for bringing up things like Gini Coefficients
But yeah, there does seem to be a narrow band that is the sweet-spot for the electorate, too high or too low and they'll vote the other mob in. There is always going to be some inequality in society, in fact you could argue that is a good thing. But it is finding that Goldilocks area where it is neither too high nor too low but just right. This tends to favour pragmatic politicians over ideologues.

On related topic now, the one major advantage we have in Australia, and I hope we never lose, is compulsory voting. It is our defence against tyranny, and our defence against extremism. We just won't let any one party get too carried away with a purely ideological agenda.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

The future is a long time so probably.