Discussion Random Discussion

[gringo2011]

The combination of Australia and every other country outside the top 10 emitters still make up 30% of carbon emissions. So yes, we all need to make a change even if China, India and America are the worst offenders.

One of the major reasons the greenhouse effect is so prevalent is because trees convert carbon dioxide to oxygen and all the trees are being cut down so there's a much higher ratio of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So no, the two are actually quite closely linked. In the same way that polar ice sheets and coal contain a lot of greenhouse gasses and are also being melted and burned respectively.

The big issue with the melting ice is permafrost holds methane in, it's worse than just carbon. It's a heat intensifier.

 

[gringo2011]

Housing is expensive because "we " made it expensive, because housing costs what people are prepared to pay for it.
A single wage used to afford a house, and we blew it out to double salaries.

Concentrating all of our population in only a few large cities doesn't help.

I agree there is a certain amount of paralysis. People are yelling out "do something" but no-one knows where to start.
Personally i think we should go with the "Australia owns the nuclear industry" model.
But that'll get shouted down.

property became commoditised and an "investment" rather than a home. When a few were buying extra houses it was okay but if too many want to make money it pushes the system out of whack. We kept increasing population which need to be housed and when people invest in the houses they want returns on rent and capital growth, it's been set up as a wealth making exercise. Like most things legislation can make a difference.

Govern meant could make very easy changes for environmental change like taxing higher capacity cars more than small ones so that buyers are incentivised to only buy as big as they need. They do that in other countries. Also making a solution tax for generation of power so that it incentivises the use of renewables and encourages investment. Abbott really ****ed the debate up, even the power companies want certainty. He backed a few interests over the common good.

Nuclear is expensive and the dangerous nature of handling, storage and generation make it a hard sell. Renewables will take over sooner rather than later and wind and solar can easily make up the bulk.

 

[Brains Trust66]

Any person who commits mass murder should be put to death full stop - he should of been hanged long ago.

Actually hanging is too quick. I’m not a violent person normally but someone who does like a mass shooting , or mass murder should get tied down so he cant move , then start slicing bits of his legs with one of those slicing machines for cold meat in the deli . When it gets to his knees then you start on the other leg , then arms etc , with a blood line so he can’t bleed to death . Now that sort of thing might be a good deterrent don’t you think ? No tv footage and no last words , just a quote in the press saying the killer eventually died , dont even give out his name so he gets no glory .


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[gringo2011]

Yeah no I completely agree. There's a lot of things no one thinks about like the dairy industry which are one of the bigger contributors in Aus and NZ. I don't want people to lose quality of life but the tiniest bit of effort to not actively destroy the environment is a fair enough expectation I reckon. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that we don't start opening more coal plants or starting more coal mines because Clive Palmer wants to. I don't think it's unreasonable to keep subsidising solar panels, electric cars/trucks and encouraging cycling etc. The current government has spent 7 years turning Australia from one of the most environmentally friendly countries to the least. And then our PM deadass has the gall to carry a lump of coal into parliament and talk about how clean it is.

Should legislate to make things happen. The Libs have no policy still on power. It will **** up badly, it's like driving a car without brakes, you are fine for a while but it doesn't mean you are fine.

 

[St Muir]

Actually hanging is too quick. I’m not a violent person normally but someone who does like a mass shooting , or mass murder should get tied down so he cant move , then start slicing bits of his legs with one of those slicing machines for cold meat in the deli . When it gets to his knees then you start on the other leg , then arms etc , with a blood line so he can’t bleed to death . Now that sort of thing might be a good deterrent don’t you think ? No tv footage and no last words , just a quote in the press saying the killer eventually died , dont even give out his name so he gets no glory .


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

I hope I never get on your bad side BT

 

[Yawkey way]

Did you know mine is the first generation that will be less able to afford a house than our parents? Do you know why that is? Because a bunch of greedy boomers bought a bunch of houses and negatively geared them until they could start making money off of rent. Because the housing market has been artificially inflated at an astronomical rate during a period of wage stagnation or even decline. Because a bunch of people who clearly think like you are willing to just blame someone else for the problems you and your generation has caused.

No one's saying old pensioners are stealing jobs either. What a copout bullshit strawman argument wow. People are saying that greedy people keep voting in a party that endorses their greed. And the rest of the population is either too stupid or doesn't have the time to research to find out anything to the contrary.

Why should housing necessarily be more affordable for each generation.

Is owning your own home even the most effective model, how do other countries and cities compare. What impact would changes to tenancy laws and rent control have. If housing isn’t an investment but simply meeting a need for secure, affordable housing then why buy.

 

[BigPowerForward]

Why should housing necessarily be more affordable for each generation.

Is owning your own home even the most effective model, how do other countries and cities compare. What impact would changes to tenancy laws and rent control have. If housing isn’t an investment but simply meeting a need for secure, affordable housing then why buy.

Renting and investing in the stock market can be another viable way to build wealth and can also be more profitable. It just requires a little more discipline. The program "The Business" ran an espisode recently.

Wealth creation for retirement

Follow the latest news headlines from Australia's most trusted source. Read in-depth expert analysis and watch live coverage on ABC News.

www.abc.net.au

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Its interesting , the interest rates went down recently, and the housing prices just slid up to match them.

Both investors and those wanting a home to live in aren't approaching it on the basis of "what is this house worth " but rather, "What repayments can i afford to make ".
In the inner city area's i can accept that a house is worth what someone wants to pay to be there.

I can't accept that a small piece of land in what used to be a farm paddock in country Victoria is worth Several hundred thousand.
Both the government and developers are cashing in on it.
If there is actually a shortage of such land...release more. Australia is big.

 

[Crusty Undies]

Housing is expensive because "we " made it expensive, because housing costs what people are prepared to pay for it.
A single wage used to afford a house, and we blew it out to double salaries.

Concentrating all of our population in only a few large cities doesn't help.

I agree there is a certain amount of paralysis. People are yelling out "do something" but no-one knows where to start.
Personally i think we should go with the "Australia owns the nuclear industry" model.
But that'll get shouted down.

Supply and Demand doesn't function properly in Australia when one person can own 5 houses. That massively reduces the supply of available houses to buy, hence massively increasing the demand when there are unoccupied houses everywhere. Negative Gearing was one of the worst if not the worst policy for the economy ever introduced.

 

[Crusty Undies]

I don't see the point in closing coal power stations, and creating an electricity shortage ( which means remaining providers can gouge for money ) but then export the coal to other countries. The coal will still be burnt , the CO2 will still be released.

I agree with what you don't think is unreasonable.

But!!! When was Australia EVER one of the lowest CO2 emitting countries?
Australia has been environmentally friendly as far as pollutants go. But CO2 emissions have always been high per capita. Part of the problem is a large developed country with sparse population.

Any environmental friendliness that we had 7 years ago was more to do with talking the talk , than walking the walk.

The big thing is people refuse to think outside their own little square.
The company i work for is based in Germany, and all their operations need to have ISO 14001 quality certification. Part of that involves setting targets and taking actions to improve environmental performance.
The main site in Germany had the gall to stop an operation they were performing internally and outsource it, then pat their backs among the organization about how they saved electricity. The outsourced operation is NOT more efficient.

Australia mines ore.
We ship it to China in Boats, the boats probably aren't added to Australia or China's CO2 footprint.
They use around 2 Tonne of Ore and a Tonne of Coke to Create a Tonne of Pig Iron
---------------
Today, it is estimated that the global steel industry used about 2 billion tonnes of iron ore, 1 billion tonnes of metallurgical coal and 575 million tonnes of recycled steel to produce about 1.7 billion tonnes of crude steel

Raw materials

Efficient use of natural resources is critical to sustainability. The steel industry uses advanced technologies and techniques to increase production yield rates, reduce its energy requirements, and facilitate the use of by-products.

www.worldsteel.org

-------------------
Steel has a carbon content of just a couple of percent.

A process has been developed for producing steel without using a blast furnace.
If we are serious about having a high tech future for Australia, surely this is the type of high tech we should be looking at.

Cleaner, Cheaper Way to Make Steel Uses Electricity

Making steel in a similar way to aluminum is cheaper and reduces greenhouse gas emissions

www.scientificamerican.com

Sweden aims for first place in zero carbon steel race

The Swedish government has announced plans to make its steel production facilities a world leader by developing a radical new carbon-free production

www.thefifthestate.com.au

Our ore mines seem to be in good places for solar energy.
Even if we had fossil fuel backup generation ( i'd expect that an elctric smelter would need to be 100% ON ) , the total CO2 footprint for Steel Production would be way less.
The energy used to ship the much denser steel products overseas would be much less than that of iron ore.

That's my idea.
It could be crap, but its an idea.

Marching around in the street waving placards is like throwing a temper tantrum because they ain't happy.

Because coal power stations are one of the biggest contributors to CO2 emissions. And don't get me wrong I'm not saying just shut them down in Australia to pass the blame, we should stop mining coal altogether as the only viable locations left are in Northern Queensland where they've almost already killed the GBR which would make more money annually from tourism than the entire coal industry were it in full health. Which would mean the coal would stay in the ground, maintaining at least one of our latent CO2 stores.

I didn't say CO2 specifically I said environmentally friendly. During the last Labor administration there were hundreds of policies introduced at state and federal levels to protect wildlife, prevent deforestation, attempt to regulate mining and energy companies and so on that were all swiftly removed by the Liberals. Australia's gone from one of the most native wildlife preserving countries to somewhere on par with Northern African countries' levels of wildlife protection, I'm not even exaggerating, we've had a similar number of species go extinct in the last few years than places like Niger.

As for the iron and steel industries I completely agree. Not only would it be less damaging to export steel than iron due to massively decreasing the volume of exported goods but it could also increase profits as refining generally exponentially increases prices.

And yeah protesting is essentially useless at this point. Those who have already been convinced are being turned off by ridiculous road blockages, those who won't be convinced now feel vilified claiming that climate activists are nutcases.

 

[Crusty Undies]

Why should housing necessarily be more affordable for each generation.

Is owning your own home even the most effective model, how do other countries and cities compare. What impact would changes to tenancy laws and rent control have. If housing isn’t an investment but simply meeting a need for secure, affordable housing then why buy.

Well for starters, the rate of home ownership is one of the most accurate indicators of quality of life worldwide, which is coincidentally why Australia is falling off a lot of quality of life lists. And second, because housing becomes cheaper and cheaper to produce with each generation. Why is it reasonable for something that costs half of what it used to be to build worth 10 times as much as it used to be to buy? Again, why should we be changing tenancy laws and so on when 2 very simple changes would more than fix the current problem of wealthy people buying up all the housing? Eliminate negative gearing for everything after the first home, so that people start to feel the pressure of investing rather than a literal risk free investment, and increase the property tax with each successive house someone owns.

 

[gringo2011]

My point is that fixing our own emissions wont help. And blaming all your problems on a certain demographic is just another form of bigotry.
Its not passing the responsibility on, its a matter of not putting out enough emissions that we make any difference.
Oh but CHina might stop putting out CO2 if we do.... sure believe that ... seems gullible to me.

And what caused those extinctions. Deforestation is a different issue altogether

We as you said outsourced our manufacture to China that's why we look okay. We don't smelt our steel, we don't run factoruies, don't produce stuff, don't refine etc.It doesn't mean we don't emit, just means they emit for us and live in the shit while we live it up. We still produce more by population than most.

 

[gringo2011]

Its interesting , the interest rates went down recently, and the housing prices just slid up to match them.

Both investors and those wanting a home to live in aren't approaching it on the basis of "what is this house worth " but rather, "What repayments can i afford to make ".
In the inner city area's i can accept that a house is worth what someone wants to pay to be there.

I can't accept that a small piece of land in what used to be a farm paddock in country Victoria is worth Several hundred thousand.
Both the government and developers are cashing in on it.
If there is actually a shortage of such land...release more. Australia is big.

Then someone has to build bigger roads, public transport and basic infrastructure like schools and power. Lots of developers and sub dividers get rich and the public pay for it.

 

[Yawkey way]

Its interesting , the interest rates went down recently, and the housing prices just slid up to match them.

Both investors and those wanting a home to live in aren't approaching it on the basis of "what is this house worth " but rather, "What repayments can i afford to make ".
In the inner city area's i can accept that a house is worth what someone wants to pay to be there.

I can't accept that a small piece of land in what used to be a farm paddock in country Victoria is worth Several hundred thousand.
Both the government and developers are cashing in on it.
If there is actually a shortage of such land...release more. Australia is big.

You can’t just keep releasing land we already have massive infrastructure problems in part because of urban sprawl.

Higher density housing is what has been identified and planning regulations adjusted accordingly to encourage development in appropriate areas. The urban redevelopment at fisherman’s bend is slated to be Australia’s largest urban redevelopment project.

 

[Yawkey way]

Well for starters, the rate of home ownership is one of the most accurate indicators of quality of life worldwide, which is coincidentally why Australia is falling off a lot of quality of life lists. And second, because housing becomes cheaper and cheaper to produce with each generation. Why is it reasonable for something that costs half of what it used to be to build worth 10 times as much as it used to be to buy? Again, why should we be changing tenancy laws and so on when 2 very simple changes would more than fix the current problem of wealthy people buying up all the housing? Eliminate negative gearing for everything after the first home, so that people start to feel the pressure of investing rather than a literal risk free investment, and increase the property tax with each successive house someone owns.

Yes it is a measure in some studies and a stated goal of a majority of renters, it has benefits and drawbacks.

I’m not sure how you conclude the cost of building a house is getting cheaper to produce given what we pay our tradies. I can tell you from personal experience that even a relatively minor extension and renovation runs into the hundreds of thousands.

Private rentals are currently providing our rental housing stock so unless you want a massive investment in public housing then you’re stuck with negative gearing and generous capital gains treatment. Hawke and Keating briefly ended negative gearing and introduced a capital gains tax. Rents shot up and negative gearing was restored even though Keating had described it as an outrageous rort. It’s also something that whilst boomers may have been in the vanguard everyone else since has also joined the party. I’m sorry to break it to you crusty but it’s not just the wealthy, my postie was telling me about his various investment properties, not one we’re taking several.

Personally I’d be happy for it to be reined in along with the capital gains tax concessions but only after a reasonable debate and some independent modelling. I’m not signing up for get some cane toads that will fix the problem solutions. I have four kids and no investment properties so I have no skin in the the game other than to hope we don’t do something that brings on a property crash or a housing shortfall.

 

[Crusty Undies]

Yes it is a measure in some studies and a stated goal of a majority of renters, it has benefits and drawbacks.

I’m not sure how you conclude the cost of building a house is getting cheaper to produce given what we pay our tradies. I can tell you from personal experience that even a relatively minor extension and renovation runs into the hundreds of thousands.

Private rentals are currently providing our rental housing stock so unless you want a massive investment in public housing then you’re stuck with negative gearing and generous capital gains treatment. Hawke and Keating briefly ended negative gearing and introduced a capital gains tax. Rents shot up and negative gearing was restored even though Keating had described it as an outrageous rort. It’s also something that whilst boomers may have been in the vanguard everyone else since has also joined the party. I’m sorry to break it to you crusty but it’s not just the wealthy, my postie was telling me about his various investment properties, not one we’re taking several.

Personally I’d be happy for it to be reined in along with the capital gains tax concessions but only after a reasonable debate and some independent modelling. I’m not signing up for get some cane toads that will fix the problem solutions. I have four kids and no investment properties so I have no skin in the the game other than to hope we don’t do something that brings on a property crash or a housing shortfall.

We're the only country in the world with negative gearing the way it is. We don't need to run advanced statistical models we can just look at every other first world society that is richer than ours and notice that their housing is still astronomically cheaper. You can buy a house in the US for 30 grand, you couldn't buy a shoebox in the gutter for 30 grand here. The reason your extensions are so expensive are a by-product of the housing market because builders know they can charge that much becauseyou can't just love house. The materials and time required to producr housing have gotten cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and housing prices still go up. It's a completely fabricated lie that we need negative gearing otherwise no one can have anything but government housing.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

You can’t just keep releasing land we already have massive infrastructure problems in part because of urban sprawl.

Higher density housing is what has been identified and planning regulations adjusted accordingly to encourage development in appropriate areas. The urban redevelopment at fisherman’s bend is slated to be Australia’s largest urban redevelopment project.

In the cities.
But part of that is because there are huge numbers of people spending an hour trying to get to their place of work.
If you put a Government office in a place like Traralgon, ( which they did ) its easy to life within 20 minutes from work. You only spend 20 minutes contributing to the traffic.

 

[Yawkey way]

We're the only country in the world with negative gearing the way it is. We don't need to run advanced statistical models we can just look at every other first world society that is richer than ours and notice that their housing is still astronomically cheaper. You can buy a house in the US for 30 grand, you couldn't buy a shoebox in the gutter for 30 grand here. The reason your extensions are so expensive are a by-product of the housing market because builders know they can charge that much becauseyou can't just love house. The materials and time required to producr housing have gotten cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and housing prices still go up. It's a completely fabricated lie that we need negative gearing otherwise no one can have anything but government housing.

I’m sure you don’t really believe you can buy a liveable house in the US for $30,000, a large coastal city like San Francisco could easily top 1 million US.

Yes you can look at what other countries do but you have to remember that it’s not a clean slate. If there is a better system we have to figure out how we get from here to there without creating carnage.

We suffer to some extent because we don’t have the same choices that say the US and the UK have, there’s really not much outside of our capital cities and that’s not likely to change.

Home ownership in Australia - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I don’t usually put much faith in Wikipedia but this is a decent entry with some very good links.

 

[Yawkey way]

In the cities.
But part of that is because there are huge numbers of people spending an hour trying to get to their place of work.
If you put a Government office in a place like Traralgon, ( which they did ) its easy to life within 20 minutes from work. You only spend 20 minutes contributing to the traffic.

Yeah look this sort of argument has been used before in fact we had good old Barnaby shifting part of his department into his electorate.

The question you have to ask yourself is why, apart from a bit of pork barreling what benefit is there to the department and it’s operation. The tac and the abs both have offices in Geelong just off the top of my head but again all I saw in those moves was massive initial disruption for little gain. Sure Geelong gained some employment but Melbourne lost some it wasn’t as though they created new jobs.

You’re also making some fairly large assumptions about where the staff live and their travelling times, I can tell you for a fact that many of the abs employees live in Melbourne and on the bellarine peninsula around Barwon heads etc. so there goes the driving times.

 

[gringo2011]

Yes it is a measure in some studies and a stated goal of a majority of renters, it has benefits and drawbacks.

I’m not sure how you conclude the cost of building a house is getting cheaper to produce given what we pay our tradies. I can tell you from personal experience that even a relatively minor extension and renovation runs into the hundreds of thousands.

Private rentals are currently providing our rental housing stock so unless you want a massive investment in public housing then you’re stuck with negative gearing and generous capital gains treatment. Hawke and Keating briefly ended negative gearing and introduced a capital gains tax. Rents shot up and negative gearing was restored even though Keating had described it as an outrageous rort. It’s also something that whilst boomers may have been in the vanguard everyone else since has also joined the party. I’m sorry to break it to you crusty but it’s not just the wealthy, my postie was telling me about his various investment properties, not one we’re taking several.

Personally I’d be happy for it to be reined in along with the capital gains tax concessions but only after a reasonable debate and some independent modelling. I’m not signing up for get some cane toads that will fix the problem solutions. I have four kids and no investment properties so I have no skin in the the game other than to hope we don’t do something that brings on a property crash or a housing shortfall.

It's cheaper to start from scratch than renovate usually. Renting is shit because you get moved on and have very few rights. I was lucky enough to get a deposit from my parents and bought a house when I was 18. I sold the house when I broke up with my girlfriend at the time and rented in Elwood across from the beach. I painted the place inside myself because it hadn't been painted since the 1970s and looked derelict. I had to pay money to the owner for fixing the place and got a warning that I'd be booted if I did anything else reckless like renovating at my own cost. The owner sold and moved me on eventually and I bought again. I never want to have to rent again.

 

[Yawkey way]

It's cheaper to start from scratch than renovate usually. Renting is shit because you get moved on and have very few rights. I was lucky enough to get a deposit from my parents and bought a house when I was 18. I sold the house when I broke up with my girlfriend at the time and rented in Elwood across from the beach. I painted the place inside myself because it hadn't been painted since the 1970s and looked derelict. I had to pay money to the owner for fixing the place and got a warning that I'd be booted if I did anything else reckless like renovating at my own cost. The owner sold and moved me on eventually and I bought again. I never want to have to rent again.

Yeah look let’s be honest it’s been one way traffic for years with renters obviously being on the loosing end.

That doesn’t have to be the case though other countries do things quite differently with rent control etc. Most people would obviously prefer to own but there will always be people who are locked out of the market for various reasons or who simply choose to rent. My point was that studies have shown that yes owning a house has its advantages but it can also bring its own problems.

It’s also not a great equaliser in the sense that socioeconomic disadvantage exists across postcodes let’s not pretend that Brighton golden mile is the same as a new development on the city fringe.

I personally think house prices are ridiculous but I don’t subscribe to the theory that it’s all down to negative gearing and baby boomers. Have a look at official interest rates, I thought I had seen it all when they resembled credit card rates but there so low at present that it can’t help but encourage buyers to push the envelope. It also doesn’t help that we have record population growth.

Having said that young people are still buying my eldest daughter has purchased a nice courtyard apartment in Elwood and most of her friends have brought or are planning to. Their also making the same compromises most people made back in the day, apartment and location or house and moving further out. Who at 25 said I’ll just buy a four bedroom forever house in my suburb of choice.

 

[gringo2011]

Yeah look let’s be honest it’s been one way traffic for years with renters obviously being on the loosing end.

That doesn’t have to be the case though other countries do things quite differently with rent control etc. Most people would obviously prefer to own but there will always be people who are locked out of the market for various reasons or who simply choose to rent. My point was that studies have shown that yes owning a house has its advantages but it can also bring its own problems.

It’s also not a great equaliser in the sense that socioeconomic disadvantage exists across postcodes let’s not pretend that Brighton golden mile is the same as a new development on the city fringe.

I personally think house prices are ridiculous but I don’t subscribe to the theory that it’s all down to negative gearing and baby boomers. Have a look at official interest rates, I thought I had seen it all when they resembled credit card rates but there so low at present that it can’t help but encourage buyers to push the envelope. It also doesn’t help that we have record population growth.

Having said that young people are still buying my eldest daughter has purchased a nice courtyard apartment in Elwood and most of her friends have brought or are planning to. Their also making the same compromises most people made back in the day, apartment and location or house and moving further out. Who at 25 said I’ll just buy a four bedroom forever house in my suburb of choice.

Did she just buy this last weekend? I might know who sold it I think.

 

[BigPowerForward]

Warnings About Processed Meat Fail the Test of Science — Diet Doctor

A new re-analysis of the science concerning links between processed meat and chronic disease indicates that studies showing a relationship between the two are very low quality.

www.dietdoctor.com

Good news considering I eat according to the five food group principle:
1. Bacon
2. Ham
3. Salami
4. Sausages
5. Jerky

 

[Yawkey way]

Did she just buy this last weekend? I might know who sold it I think.

No she purchased it a couple of years ago with her fiancé, the lease was up so they decided now was the time to move in.

I had a good laugh at your story about the place on the beachfront, I can remember when you had to ask permission to do anything more than scratch your butt.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Yeah look this sort of argument has been used before in fact we had good old Barnaby shifting part of his department into his electorate.

The question you have to ask yourself is why, apart from a bit of pork barreling what benefit is there to the department and it’s operation. The tac and the abs both have offices in Geelong just off the top of my head but again all I saw in those moves was massive initial disruption for little gain. Sure Geelong gained some employment but Melbourne lost some it wasn’t as though they created new jobs.

You’re also making some fairly large assumptions about where the staff live and their travelling times, I can tell you for a fact that many of the abs employees live in Melbourne and on the bellarine peninsula around Barwon heads etc. so there goes the driving times.

CBD is old fashioned thinking. I'm not saying that its suitable for ALL businesses and agencies to relocate. But many of the traditional reasons for locating in a city are gone.

These are just a few redundant reasons i can think of offhand.
Of course there are other intangibles like Prestige. Maybe some people ( gullible ) really do bank with ANZ instead of Bendigo or ING direct,
There are also other issues, such as availability of experienced staff.


1: Proximity to the Port.
That's why Melbourne is there. But now its a liability having the Port in town.
Trucks hauling containers are using some of the busiest roads around the city, yet very few of their good would be delivered in close proximity.
It would be better for those in the City if the Port was elsewhere, and it would be better for the Port if it wasn't in the City center.

2: Communication between government/financial departments.
You don't need to run down the road to the Office of Superfluous Bureaucracy with all your forms filled in anymore.

3: Location close to clients and customers.
Cities are a massive sprawl, unless very specialised , its not uncommon for clients and customers to be an hour or more away. The city is a massive bottleneck, and any advantage to the central location is offset by the extra traffic.


I'm not a massive fan of the way the city planners have allowed the apartment revolution. To me a lot of the apartments built on the cheap and the town planners haven't been particularly active in doing anything apart from allowing developers to do what they want.
For example , the closing in of the spaces around Marvel Stadium, to me is pretty crappy.
You just need to go to places like Hong Kong to see how shitty apartments can look once they get 20 or 30 years on them.


You go to places like Germany, they have their big cities like Frankfurt. But there are also lots of smaller cities, that are much better to live in, and have thriving businesses. ( Frankfurt is actually slightly bigger than Melbourne, with slightly higher population ).
USA is similar.
Imagine if all the businesses, government departments, and universities in Sacramento were based in L.A.

As far as L.A. goes, I don't think the wealthiest live, or want to live , in the central business district.
Paris. Same.

https://www.movingtolondon.net/top-10-areas-to-live-in-london/
( London is not one of them ).