Gas Prices are cool!

[roller]

yeah lets beat our parents up




Kup you can buy my Sydney house soon its close to many toy shops and the city

[GoktimusPrime]

Oh I really don't think it's THAT bad. Besides, before you know it, anyone with a remotely dangerous job will be claiming that sort of stuff. Hell a council worker on the side of the road with a lolipop stick has more chance of being run over then a teacher being seriously assaulted.

I wasn't seriously suggesting that we get danger pay - but we are underpaid. Considering the conditions we work in etc., the pay isn't worth it. Teaching is a labour of love... but without improved working conditions and wages, we're seeing an ever increasing shortage in teaching labour (and we're seeing the same other fields with similar problems such as doctors and nurses). Universities are seeing ever decreasing numbers of enrolments in education and we're seeing decreasing number of students teachers and new teachers. I've heard that the average new teacher doesn't last beyond their first three years of teaching before quitting their job and changing careers. And a lot of people are taking up teaching as a temporary job - something to do for a few years before changing their job (i.e.: they're planning this while still at uni) instead of going in with the intention of doing it as a lifelong career.

And ultimately the people who really suffer from this are the kids whose education is becoming increasingly compromised. It will be a sad day indeed when our teacher shortage becomes as bad as in the UK (and I imagine there would be similar shortages in other underpaid professional areas like nursing too).

Besides. Gok knows Kung Fu. I'm sure he could bitch slap any kid before they made a move

...and it's come in handy more than once. My right elbow is currently sore after an encounter with a student yesterday.

We can't hit students but we are allowed to restrain them. The most extreme move I've ever had to use on a kid was a "triangle" headlock. I'm currently co-teaching Kung Fu (see details on the martial arts discussion thread) where we're focusing on passive self-defence which is easier to use legally and is also more ideal for use at schools - i.e.: countering violence without becoming violent.

In Monday's Telegraph there was a story about schools where teachers were attacked by students with weapons including pieces of wood, broken glass, and even a toy gun (which looked realistic) - and the latter is the reason why we need a frikkin' permit to own Megatron. As benben would say, grrr!!

[dirge]

What depresses me is that there's _no_ public debate at all on the impact that negative gearing (read: tax concessions on residential property investment) has on the prices in the property market.

The net effect is to increase the prices through an increase in demand for property.

The present band-aid solution being proposed by the real estate industry? Increasing the FHOG. Which will do squat for the average first home buyer, since the vendors will lift their prices accordingly. It will disadvantage those buying an owner occupied property _not_ eligible for the grant, while the investors will factor the net increase in initial cost into their rent.

The real estate industry is always going to be happy which leads to a net increase in sale prices - it increases their cut. The fact that it does very little to improve affordability isn't really an issue for them. As long as someone buys the house - they don't care if that someone is more likely to be an investor.

Since most of the powers that be (ie pollies) are around the age of the bulk of investors (Baby Boomers, and those around that age), they're quite attune to the concerns of the poor little investors. Nevermind the fact that if the tax breaks were removed, the investors would (over a few years) shift a lot of their money from property into shares, bonds etc.

The situation will likely change in one way or another, but I think we have to wait for a significant change at the Federal level. One of two things could happen:

1) The Baby Boomers find themselves older than the parliament. A parliament dominated by today's 30 somethings would see their own generation's problems as more pressing than those of retirees who have other options for their retirement funds.

2) Someone in Canberra realises that urban sprawl and (for the most part) awful Public Transport means that our current city model is unsustainable as the market for petroluem becomes ever tighter. At which point they may actually work with state governments on the _heavy_ infrastructure projects required for Australian cities to be of a much higher population density. City living is expensive because there's not enough supply of dwellings _near_ the city. Other than small areas of inner Sydney and a decent chunk of inner Melbourne, our Public Transport truly sucks. If state governments can't or (in the case of NSW) wont spend the money needed, surely it's a nationally significant issue worthy of being included in the federal budget.

[STL]

Here's a good one (playing devil's advocate):

The Baby Boomers are only able to buy these houses b/c they have money to invest. It's their right to. They've been working hard, saving lots while the rest of us sit around and whine but spend our money on annual holidays, gizmos and gadgest and lifestyles we can't afford. So the rest of us should get off our proverbial butts and stop looking to the government for an answer and do it the hard way.

[kup]

Here's a good one (playing devil's advocate):

The Baby Boomers are only able to buy these houses b/c they have money to invest. It's their right to. They've been working hard, saving lots while the rest of us sit around and whine but spend our money on annual holidays, gizmos and gadgest and lifestyles we can't afford. So the rest of us should get off our proverbial butts and stop looking to the government for an answer and do it the hard way.

You are assuming too much with that statement.

[Bartrim]

That he may be Kup. But in my life experience (ie: "the baby boomers" and "Gen X'ers" I've met and known) that statement seems pretty accurate. In my family growing up we didn't have a phone or a car until I was 5. Why? Simple, we couldn't afford them. The problem today (or as it appears to me) is that people want it all. They want to live the lifestyle and own a house without sacrificing anything from that lifestyle. The way I was brought up was needs come first. If it came down to it my house payments would take priority over collecting TF's or whatever.

If you want to own a house so bad You'll be able to work it out.

[kup]

I cannot afford upwards of $600 per week.

[Bartrim]

Yet you can afford your hobbies? You don't have the time to take a 2nd job?

Before making such a statement you have to consider these things.

[STL]

You are assuming too much with that statement.

It's a sentiment that I've seen battered around by people in the older age group. Not all of them, mind you. I'm not saying I agree with it but it is out there and it kind of scares me.

[kup]

It's a sentiment that I've seen battered around by people in the older age group. Not all of them, mind you. I'm not saying I agree with it but it is out there and it kind of scares me.

My Uncle emigrated from England roughly 30 years ago as a young man with almost no money. When he arrived he quickly found cheap accommodation and people literally knocked his door to offer jobs. Very soon he purchased his own reasonably large home at something ridiculous like $20,000 or less. After a couple years he and a friend saved enough money went on a trip around the world that lasted over a year. A couple of years after this he met my aunt and went on another trip around the world for roughly the same amount of time.

These days his $20,000 home is now worth well over a million and because he doesn't have to pay a mortgage or rent he has 2-3 Holiday trips overseas per year and is pretty much set.

Very tough life indeed.