morry040

International student intake as a ratio of housing supply is the main issue. If dwellings were being built at the same rate of international student intake, then affordability or vacancy would not be a problem.

Look up your local universities (they’re all non-profit organisations with financials reported in the ACNC) and realise just how much their business model has become funded by international students. Here’s a few examples:
University of Melbourne: 69% of tuition fee revenues comes from intl students
University of Queensland: 70% of tuition fee revenues comes from intl students

The universities also receive government funding, pay no income tax (because they are “nonprofit”), and don’t need to contribute anything to the housing problem that they are feeding. It’s time for them to help carry the burden - they should either provide housing or help pay for it.

I think it’s more about the web visitor cost. Handling traffic and API calls becomes a financial problem when there are a growing number of companies using bots to scrape data. Larger companies are moving their content behind paywalls, which acts as a bot filter, and have also identified that they can generate a revenue stream from subscriptions and API connections. Old content on the web is not deemed to have much business value, so it’s a decision of either charging for it or scrapping it.

There’s quite a difference between rapid prototyping on software/hardware versus the human body.
Musk’s approach to developing engineering advances has worked well in the software, aerospace, and vehicular industries. Development on inorganic things is much more predictable, we can isolate variables, and it is easier to understand cause & effect. If you screw up some software on an inorganic system, your program might crash, your rocket might explode, or your car won’t start. These risks can be anticipated and costed fairly well, therefore rapid prototyping has an acceptable risk/reward ratio in that environment.

The human body, on the other hand, is an extremely complex system that we still don’t fully understand. Each person is a unique variation on the model and that changes over time depending on upbringing, diet, exercise, and life experiences. Applying the same engineering approaches from inorganic industries has a much higher risk once you cross into the medical realm. If you have errors in a medical situation, you risk sickening, injuring, or even killing a person. The risk/reward ratio is skewed towards ensuring that human life is protected at all costs.

Using SpaceX as an example, the first three launches failed spectacularly and a fourth failure would have ended the business but fortunately the fourth test was a success. If you’re suggesting that we apply the same risk-taking to Neuralink, are you suggesting that it’s acceptable for the first three patients to die, as long as the fourth is a success?

It’s estimated that Tidal pays $0.013 per stream, Spotify pays $0.003 - $0.005, and Apple pays $0.01 per stream.
https://dittomusic.com/en/blog/how-much-does-tidal-pay-per-stream/

If you have management that tries to push for a return, give them this article from Microsoft and request a discussion of its many points.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/worklab/work-trend-index/hybrid-work-is-just-work

WFH, particularly in 2020-2021, was the opportunity for managers to learn how to effectively manage remotely, using metrics and good planning practices. Those who failed to do so should be the ones questioned as to why they should remain as managers.

I would love to see the overlap between the courses taught and the recognised skills gaps that we have in Australia (referenced as the basis for why we import so much overseas skilled labour). According to the migration reporting, chefs are the third highest skillset imported, so I would think that cooking classes would be a useful course for jobseekers…

https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/research-and-stats/files/report-migration-program-2022-23.pdf

A big difference, however, is that houses in the 80s were 3-4 times the average income. Now that ratio is about 10x.
Younger generations always need to work harder than older people, yes, but the major difference is that working hard these days doesn’t provide the same rewards that it once did.

https://www.finder.com.au/owning-a-home-in-the-80s-vs-today

You can use this tool to compare: https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=Australia&country2=United+States

My cinema down the street costs $18.50 for an adult.

Seems to be a logical choice, particularly when the universities are moving away from hiring staff based on merit. The unis will end up with a bunch of underqualified lecturers teaching to the only students able to afford the degrees (international students).
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-17/qut-defends-removing-merit-from-hiring-policy/103114562

I’ve lived overseas and I disagree.
Australia is no more racist than some other developed and developing nations, and there are countries with more racism than Australia.
Travel to different cities in the US and notice how neighbourhoods are subtlety segregated by race.
Talk to any European about their thoughts on gypsies.
Ask Japanese about their thoughts on Koreans.
Look up the usage of the word “keling” in south east asian cultures.

What we have in Australia is perhaps a more overt style of referring to cultures or differences, but the barriers to integrate with Australian culture is much lower than other countries. For some migrants that have come from cultures where they had a racial privilege (e.g. caste systems), it could now be confronting to them that their standing in Australia is lowered and equalised.

The way that we establish social bonds (banter, joking around, jabs, insults etc) can also be confusing to foreigners and be perceived as racist, but it’s an old UK way of establishing camaraderie by proving that you can dish out an insult but also take it as well. Like stand-up comedy material, this method is being tamed as time goes on.

One final indicator of racial division is the level of mixed marriages. If it was a serious problem, we would see low levels of marriages between different countries of origin. In the EU, the rate of mixed marriages is about 8% (1 in 12). In Australia, the rate is 3.5x larger at 29%.

If it is not an additional layer of bureaucracy, where I can find information that explains which minister or government body that the Voice will make representations towards? Will it direct representation to the existing NIAA or will it replace this government agency?

When explaining the concept to my parents and grandparents, it has been challenging to convince them that this is not just ATSIC 2.0. Their concerns are that the corruption that occurred within that former organisation will be harder to control as the organisation would now have a constitutional shield to protect against criticism or accountability.

I doubt it. The whole “representation” part seems over-hyped. It’s being promoted almost as if it will be a dedicated seat in parliament. The more likely outcome that it will just end up being a committee that reports into the existing NIAA structure and we don’t end up seeing anything more impactful than what the NIAA is currently delivering.
If the Voice goes ahead, we can look forward to it running into the usual government bureaucracy, leading to disappointment once it becomes clear that government legislation doesn’t solve issues that are occurring at the local, community level.

These are the design principles from the working group: https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles

The 272-page final report from the co-design working group has all of the minute detail about how they engaged with the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) to design the Voice proposal, including recommendations on how it should operate: https://voice.gov.au/sites/default/files/resource/download/indigenous-voice-co-design-process-final-report_1.pdf

Want to know what the ballot paper will look like? Check it out here: https://aec.gov.au/referendums/vote/completing-the-ballot-paper.html

The text under A Proposed Law will read:
To alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?

I did my postal vote the other day and that was all that they give you, so just remember that you’re expected to do all of your research and decision making before you get to the ballot box.

We shouldn’t concede that the public has to pay more to fix this problem. We just need to pressure our government representatives to prioritise funding for education above that of other areas.

The average teacher makes $84,810 per year.
It is estimated that there are 307,041 full time teachers.
This equates to a full teacher salary budget of $26B. We know that education is managed at the state level, but let’s just experiment with a scenario whereby the federal government decides to provide a funding boost to salaries. Giving all teachers a 25% pay rise would cost $6.5B per year.
How much was the 2023 budget surplus just recently announced by the government? $22B.
So, the government could have covered a 25% pay increase to all teachers in Australia, using a third of the surplus that they realised in this year’s budget.

Ok, that’s for one year, but what about future years, you might ask…
Well, how about we take some of the funding from the scrapping of Stage 3 tax cuts. The Parliamentary Budget Office estimates that the cost of the Stage 3 tax cuts will be $313B over a decade ($31.3B per year). Those tax cuts could even be watered down so that they don’t impact lower incomes. The top 20% of income earners in the country receive 73% of the benefit from those tax cuts.
Let’s only have tax cuts for the bottom 80% of income earners. That would still give us $22.8B per year in extra budget that we allocate to education. It’s that simple.

As soon as you legally change your name, it becomes your legal name. The only places where you would need to state that original name might be on something like a passport / visa / or tax return.

If your goal really is to try and change some perspectives, then I would recommend reading this article on how to talk with others about racism.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/02/social-psychologist-offers-key-to-ending-racism/

GAZETTE:How do you break through?

LIVINGSTON: I’ll start with the discomfort. People are afraid of conflict in these kinds of conversations. But research has shown that conflict can actually be productive, if it’s the right type of conflict. Task-based conflict is when people disagree about the best course of action. And person-based conflict is when you say, “I think you’re an idiot for [arguing that viewpoint].” So try to focus on the problem and not the person. The second thing is to engage in conversations with curiosity and not with certainty. Research shows it’s much more productive to be in what is called inquiry mode versus advocacy mode. What you’re trying to do in these conversations is either to discover what the truth is — by asking questions — or to discover a common ground. And you can’t do that if you’re too deeply entrenched in your own convictions or ideological position.

Ah yes. The imaginary GDP created from trading properties with each other.

In the 7 properties that I have rented over the last 15 years, I have never known a landlord to just kindly “update” their property. The properties are at an acceptable standard when first purchased and the only way that things change is when something breaks, is damaged, the tenants complain, or the owner is preparing to sell. This is probably influenced by the majority of landlords outsourcing property management to agencies (research suggests ~75%), who are financially motivated to provide the minimum basic standard for maximum financial gain.

Do you have any data or research on the profile of sellers? I find that there is not a lot of research out there, so I’m curious to learn how I would explore your claim that most sellers use their proceeds to invest in small business. Selling a property just to buy a property helps the real estate sector and some banks, but I think that calling it a valuable contributor to GDP is a stretch.

What we do know is that people in older age brackets typically own their own home (78%+ for the 65+ age group). However, people in that age bracket also demonstrate a decline in consumption, spending about the same as someone in the 15-24 age bracket. This could be interpreted to show that older sellers are not freely investing the returns from their property sales back into the broader economy. Instead, they are conserving their money to last through retirement.