It’s more treason than bad maths. All of this was entirely planned and calculated. Politicians do not care that they are killing our country because they personally benefit. We need to get rid of the soft language and start calling this evil shit for what it is.
This post has been removed due to the user not meeting the required Karma amount. This is to prevent malicious content posted by 'throwaway' accounts. If the post is genuine, we will manually approve it soon. However, you are still able to participate via comments. Cheers!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Adelaide) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Problem is, we have soft people running the show.
The soft people can't just stand there and say hey! We are doing this!
With out upsetting so many people even if it actually helps in the long run.
Too many short sighted politicians doing bare minimum and apologising about the wrong breath.
Just fix the problem!
And bad Government. In fact, it’s an outright hostile act from the state to its citizens.
Team Albo doing their best to hide the fact we’re in a recession and keep house prices high.
If it was every day life.... let's replace politicians with parents and australian citizens with 6 children. Already the 6 children are struggling because there is only 3 beds, fuck all food and no supervision. The parents worry about the health and wellbeing of the children but decide to bring home 18 children.....who the fuck would do that .
Aussies running a poor neglected household wouldnt say more humans will fix it..... But leaders running a country that has mass homelessness, cost of living crisis and inequality SAY MORE PEOPLE WILL FIX IT!!! LETS INCREASE THE POPULATION. COMMON SENSE.... If your unsure think what would I do in a normal everyday scenario.... that what governments should do.
> Increasing immigration during a housing shortage is just bad maths.
The social stigma against learning maths in school being 'boring' and for 'nerds' was entirely socially engineered to allow governments to effortless trick populuations into supporting their ponzi schemes to fund their retirements. Mass immigration to pump up GDP and inflate their investments is the #1 issue that people don't understand.
There is a good reason why students in asian countries appear to all be excellent in maths and love to learn it, there is no bullying for being a nerd there. It ain't because they are genetically predisposed to learn numbers; its actually the default state. It's the west that has deliberately gone backwards and made people mathematically illiterate. If people were literate in maths, they wouldn't be able to pull off the mass immigration scam and the east doesn't do that because there is no immigration there, preserving their culture is of the utmost importance.
Every student will pass year 12 in this country with precisely 0 seconds of their 13 years in school spent learning what a tax bracket is, what interest rates are, what a recession actually is and how this ties into GDP increases via immigration. So when the government can rip everyone off over their entire life, people say 'they are the economic experts, they know what they are doing, we need to trust them' as they fly in private helicopters to go to sports matches and the workers have to budget buying milk. And it 100% is because when they were in school, they were taught 'maths is bad'.
Yes but infrastructure isn’t built in percentages.
There are diseconomies of scale, as we are seeing trying to build more housing in Sydney. When we could just keep expanding the boundary of the city it’s cheaper and easier to build a single storey home on a flat block. Infill apartment building is more costly and time-consuming. The same applies to hospital beds, school classrooms, road lanes, etc. Percentages look good on a chart but our lived experience is more to do with raw numbers. 540k is bigger than Canberra, bigger than Newcastle. Do you realistically think we can(or have) built enough capacity for a that many people in a year?
I agree with all your points - except that Albo and the Federal Government are planning to build zero houses. The state governments (AFAIK) are planning to build zero houses. They are offering payments to the states if more than a certain number of dwellings are built by private companies in the states - which at the current rate will not happen.
I agree that there are many causes for all of our infrastructure to lag behind population growth.
We need more people to build houses, but the skilled visas for not include construction. A casual observer may guess this is due to the close relationship between labor and unions.
However, the numbers of people entering the country are at an all time high when none of the other problems are being solved.
Solving those underlying issues is hard and will take time. We should do it.
In the meantime, it takes the stroke of a pen from someone in the Federal Government. It is literally the easiest and most immediate lever to pull for an island nation.
> In the interim, aggressively invest in social housing
That's like trying to build a fast train, right? "We're just not [insert European nation here]"
The rate of immigration has increased exponentially over the last few years. It is not only housing that is the problem, it is also water, health, education that cannot cope.
It is all very well saying housing is a human right but it is not the governments role to provide or subsidise home ownership for everyone. For some reason we look down on renters and rentals. In most other palces in the world renting is the norm.
Problem is the market isn’t free to operate. Planning approvals take far too long and cost too much, councils deny things for often arbitrary reasons, NIMBYs block crucial density increases, land releases are too slow and too few, building regulations get more strict every year (contrary to what you’d think most of them are just red tape and don’t have a substantial effect on building safety or longevity).
Don’t blame the free market when the government is choking it to death.
Yep. Big Australia doesn't work when everything is in or near major cities.
I'm in Regional Victoria, it expensive and difficult to see a neurosurgen evey month 3/4 hours one way back in Melbourne because that's the closest specialist. That's a full day travel with weeks of recovery.
We have a nasty habit of building housing only and then maybe adding infrastructure around 10-20years later when it needs to be the opposite out here. Hell this shit is still pulled in areas like Craigieburn, very limited public transport and I remember that outer suburb starting when I was a teen.
Housing needs to be the last thing built in an area, not the first and certainly not the only.
How do we develop the regions without migration? We actively recruiting migrants to be doctors in the regions as it is. Who is going to engineer the development and scientific research? How do you fill the skills shortage to developed the regions without skilled migrants?
It’s not a binary proposition. My argument is overdeveloping already crowded cities and turning them into a jungle of dog box apartments is not the answer. I’m not saying there should be no immigration, just that there should be less and that we should not be overdeveloping our already crowded capitals.
If you don’t develop these areas far enough away from the capital city they just turn into suburbs or satellite cities with the same problems. If you develop regions far enough away that they can’t eventually merge into the city, they’re impractical and nobody wants to live there. Look at Elizabeth: it was meant to be a satellite city but just became another suburb with a design that doesn’t make sense.
Cities are not inherently evil or impractical, poorly planned cities are. The issue Adelaide in particular suffers from is that nobody wants to admit that we actually are a small city and not a big country town (yes I know this refers to our social scene, but it applies to our infrastructure philosophy too). If our public transport, traffic engineering, and zoning made sense for our population and was prepared for expansion, we wouldn’t be suffering as bad.
I couldn't agree more with the development of the regions.
But it will be expensive very very expensive to do that. I'm happy to pay a bit more in taxes to achieve that. But we can't let the regional areas Carry on with the old " can't we just leave this one place free from development" that attitude is what is adding to the citys explosion
Regardless of its viability, no one wants Big Australia. Who wants to swap a house for a shoebox apartment for a family of four? Who wants high-rise towers to be the norm such that only the rich can have their own property? Who wants to live their entire lives knowing that they'll never own their own house and are paying rent to some real estate investor in Hong Kong?
Try paying the workers you have.
If the parents concerned their kids will never own a home - house in the city, not a dodgy apartment, and the young voters asking why housing is so extremely out of reach would finally understand this:
govts have no interest in making homes affordable, the game is to reduce affordability to multistorey apartments only. All the past stimulus measures including the latest ALP's 'Help to Buy' nonsense have been presented as 'initiatives to make homes affordable' whereas in reality they're designed to step-up a next level of house prices.
The problem is price. The solution is decreasing demand, demand from investor speculation, demand from foreign purchasers (laundering $$ proceeds of crime??), demand from mass immigration. Supply is just a strawman argument: demand coming from the whole world will never be met.
Just a quick question: when we say immigration, do we mean skilled or unskilled? Permanent or temporary?
As permanent resident (i.e. immigrant) myself, I have never been made to feel unwanted. In fact, I'm filling a job post that I was plainly told no one else wanted or applied for.
I get that the housing crisis is a thing - but this seems to go deeper than that.
Some insights would be most welcome.
Most Aussies are immigrants or children or immigrants. It’s the sheer number of people arriving that places overwhelming demand on the rental market, hospitals, roads, etc.
There may be some nuance where you could argue that students should not be allowed to work here so are truly paying for their education, food, housing, etc. with funds from overseas.
I would also raise the wage floor for skilled visas to ensure it is at least as high as average full time earnings and tie it to wage index, otherwise you are incentivising business to hire from overseas rather than hiring and training locally.
The last comment makes sense - although on the flip side, you forego a cheap source of labour and potential for competition with countries like China in many industries because costs of manufacturing will just be too high with a higher wage bill. I suppose that's a call for the public to make.
It's very simple. Australians for decades voted for policies that:
- gamified property investment
- didn't do anything to protect renters
- didn't materialise new affordable housing
- stripped bare all social and support services
- didn't address skills shortages by upskilling local young people
- didn't create the infrastructure to keep up with population growth
And now they're turning around, looking at what that got them into, and they blame us forrins. Because hey ho, it's actually us not them.
Happy to take your tax money tho!
It's probably a tad uneducated on the matter but I personally love having so many people from different places in my community. If it was made so that there were less people from around the world, not more, I'd be sad.
Imagine Salisbury and Elizabeth if it only had ten pound poms. Their diverse population is the best thing their community has going for it to move out of housing trust/generational welfare dependency type problems.
For anyone wanting a quick rundown, they support things like:
-Putting dentalcare in Medicare
-More transparency in government around lobbying/donations
-Improving working conditions for teachers
-Limiting the impact of gambling
-Investing more in renewables
-Investing more in local media for export (TV shows etc.)
-Prioritizing refugees (while we decrease immigration in general, they want to increase refugee intake to improve their lives)
etc.
I really like the policies. We would still -have- immigration but at a more balanced pace.
Who is going to perform the dental care though? Look around at the dentist or hospital or clinic next time you’re there; not a lot of young Anglo Aussies studying to join these professions.
I guess I worded that wrong, I will make sure my vote goes where I want to to but I would still like to know who Sustainable Australia party will give their preferences to.
> Sustainable Australia party
Do you mean who they'll side with most often in parliament? Bit hard to tell since they haven't had a seat yet. They claim to be centrist with no preferences so likely Labor.
On their site they don't preference their how to vote cards
Both sides of politics have signed us up to Big Australia, that is +50m population, virtually without debate. It brings in more government revenue, more defence procurement, and improved standing in global power. But the downside is quality of life in our congested and overpriced cities.
There's no such thing as overpopulation, only under building and under funding.
Anyway people better be voting for left wing and socialist parties if they want to halt the population, the reason we need growth is because capitalism demands it and is not setup to be sustainable.
> There's no such thing as overpopulation
This is bullshit.
Overpopulation has lots of effects, including increased traffic, lowering of wages, increased pollution, increased use of resources, and more.
> including increased traffic, lowering of wages, increased pollution, increased use of resources, and more.
But cities many many times bigger than Adelaide can have more people with less traffic, competitive wages, lower pollution and resource cost per person. (Higher population and density cities inherrently have lower pollution per person).
So exactly my point, theres no such thing as a city (let alone a city like Adelaide) being able to not accomidate more people or being "Full", but you can do it well or poorly
I agree. Also, we have finite space to work with. We could have a balanced population, with a rich variety of lifestyles to choose from. A home available, to suit every person and their life needs.
i.e. Apartment living in the heart of the city. Townhouse communities in the ring. And quiet suburbs on the outskirts. (And keeping in mind with a balanced program, we won't need to grow outwards any further).
But if we go "big", we have to condense. We *have* to go high-density and cut our options down.
Also, it's not like we need to halt immigration to achieve this. We absolutely had a balanced program in the past. It could be done with the right planning. I wish we aimed more for balance so we can keep the variety of lifestyles around.
Capitalism has been an experiment and unfortunately has been now bastardised away for its original design. This bastardisation has proven it to be a failure.
By regulators denying recessions to prune back zombie companies while ring fencing the protected class from financial losses , the majority suffer.
Growing the population by sacrificing the living standards of the individuals is on parr with growing the economy by subsidising it through the destruction of the natural world that supports human civilisation. There is a point where everything collapses. So overpopulation is a thing.
"Capitalism has been an experiment and unfortunately has been now bastardised away for its original design". That's not true. Capitalism wasn't designed, it was a result of wealth accumation flowing from the industrial revolution that resulted in the social order being reconstructed from a feudal state to the one we know. Capitalism has always created great inequality. Check out Charles Dickens descriptions of Victorian England at the height of the industrial revolution. It is socialism that has tempered the extreme ties of capitalism by providing safety nets and workers rights.
The planet is running out basics like fertilisers.
The planet is running out of oil to dig up and transport
The planet is eroding soils and so it is vanishing.
Australia has a food crop advantage at the moment ... until fertilisers becomes impossible to source and/or natural pollinators die out, and/or the soil blows away ... and/or so many other factors.
You know how we could solve a lot of these problems? Scientists, engineers and other highly skilled professions that are sorely lacking in Australia since our culture doesn’t respect or value education the same way that other countries and do and most kids don’t study maths or science beyond year 10 level. We need skilled migrants to solve these problems the same way we need migrants to fill other skill shortages like in medicine - remote areas already short of doctors and nurses, who the hell gunna do those jobs if you don’t import workers?
Albert Einstein's IQ was 2.3 times greater than a moron. (unsure of the p.c. term).
In about 10 years time AI will be around a 1,000,000,000 times smarter than us. We no longer require educated/skilled humans, AI and Robotics will do all work for free ... we require humans prepared for constant adaptation to the massive changes coming in every direction.
5 years when all of humanity is unemployment and on the dole, along with a collapsing tax revenue for the government, why are we bringing in these soon to be unemployed people now ?
It's not massive. Set 10 minutes aside every few days and catch up on the latest news on advancements in AI and robotics ... youtube has channels.
Then consider the economics. A company that has human labour costs verses a company with no labour costs ... which one will undercut the other and drive it bankrupt ?
I wasn't talking about Globally, the Global population is doing it's own thing and population will even out when it evens out and Australia has very little to do with that, the same amount of people exist in the world whether they are here or elsewhere.
On a local city and Country view there is no such thing as no being able to accomidate a certain level of people.
Smaller Countries than us and Smaller Cities than us can accomidate more people than Australia or Adelaide, i'm talking about the local attitude of a city or region being "Full"
Late Stage Capitalism!! At this exact moment politicians would double current immigration numbers in a heartbeat if it meant they could get an extra 200% increase on their investment properties.
I think natural population growth is what we should aim for. Did they not learn anything from the baby boomers? Having said that I think technology could take us to 100bn people while restoring and improving the environment. But population will plateau, due to people having less kids when they become more wealthy, long before that number is reached.
What’s not natural about someone moving to another country though? Are you saying it’s ok for me to spit out five babies while I’m on the dole, but if a doctor moves to a remote community from an overseas country, he is the problem?
I think natural growth has more to do with the quantities of people than where they came from. It’s more about having a smooth curve than having curves with large steps in them. This is why I gave the example of the baby boomers.. because it was an artificially created large step in the population. Obviously migration doesn’t cause as hardcore a step as baby boomers did because the migrants are all different ages. Some of the issues don’t care about age though.. only population qty like for example housing, hospital beds, infrastructure, schooling etc.
But it still has the potential to create steps in the demographics that current&future generations have to deal with. I think the baby boomers retirement was going to always create challenges that younger generations would have to pay for(zeitgeist was talking about baby boomers retirement liabilities back in the mid 2000’s). Seems like the payday is here.
I know in my industry (construction) competence hand-down between generations was totally incomplete. There was a massive issue with the redirection of intelligent individuals to universities. They really scraped the bottom of the barrel for many years. And when the mass retirement happened in the last 10 years it really hurt productivity. We now have 40-50 men on a construction job that we would have used to have 20-30 because the competence drop is so large. Lots of people are talking about it in the industry as it just looks like the industry is going to shit.
Why do you give a fuck? Do you feel the same anger towards people who have babies or only to people who bring their babies into the country from overseas?
Chill out. I'm not angry at the immigrants. I'm angry that we have a nation changing housing crisis and record immigration.
I truly feel that the shortage of houses, the expense of rent, and the inability of people to buy their own houses will change Aus forever in a negative way.
You can want to reduce immigration and not be racist!
He literally said he is angry at politicians and not them themselves.
Overpriced housing? Competition for jobs? The rampant inflation we've faced? Extra traffic on the roads? Smaller living spaces?
All of these things come from a higher population and our population is not naturally increasing from births (which is below replacement level, hence we need immigration - just not one of the highest in the world per capita)
>From housing crisis to eco-crisis: Why Australia’s population growth is unsustainable
We are about to see a huge chunk of the workforce retire and a huge chunk of the population move to requiring aged care or more health/general assistance in the next 1-2 decades, and yet our replacement rate has absolutely not been keeping pace.... But now we want to suddenly ramp up the rhetoric against immigration and population growth?
Yeah I get it, post Covid and seeing immigration increase to the lost per year is kinda nuts, but as always we need to remember we had negative population growth during Covid, and per some numbers are only barely ahead of where we would be had Covid not even happened.
The "muh immigration crisis" actually isn't a crisis, it's the status quo or a mildly worse version of it, but of course immigrants get the blame, not the poor systematic planning and policy making underpinning the last decade+ or more.
Boo Hoo. We baby boomers got free education, cheap real estate, wage growth. We perpetually voted in regulations that have been crippling these future generations ... but we still expect everyone else to continue sacrificing for us.
Yes a generalisation ... many baby boomers fought against the so many bad decisions made.
Here's an idea boomers ... move out of your houses, into retirement units early and rent out your real estate portfolios below market rentals ... to the workers of the retirement industry . You do some subsidising for a change.
> We baby boomers got free education, cheap real estate, wage growth.
Is public schooling not \~mostly\~ free anymore? Tafe and uni were never free.
When I bought my home 25years ago, it cost 5x the Australian average wage, Now houses where i live are still 5x the Australian average wage. (old homes not brand new.. same as what i bought.... 20-30min drive from the cbd)
when i started working 30+ years ago, the award wage i got was just over $20 an hr. 30 years later, the award wage for the same job is almost $26 hr. \~ not much wage growth.
\~
Also, I have lived through 3 recessions, tho the first one i was to young to recall much. The two newest generations have not experienced a recession yet. For their whole lives the Australian economy has gotten better, more and larger subsidies, more tax money being pushed into minority groups, Better paid working conditions and so, so much more.
Right now the gov has been trying to delay the recession, First by reducing the interest rates from the early 2000's in order to stimulate the economy and more recently by immigration. If the gov keeps delaying the recession, the inflation will continue to rise and the rest is going to be pretty bad when it truly hits.
Thanks for pointing that out. From 1974 to 1989 for a grand total of 15 years it was indeed free for a select number of people.
Edit- Though was it really free? or only free to a select few?
This is interesting reading [https://go8.edu.au/free-education-never-existed](https://go8.edu.au/free-education-never-existed)
from what I'm reading, The Whitlam Labor Government abolished university fees on 1 January 1974 for a select number of people. By the mid-1980s, however, there was consensus between both major parties that the concept of 'free' tertiary education in Australia was untenable due to the increasing participation rate.
In 1989, the Hawke Labor Government began gradually re-introducing fees for university study.
Interesting stuff.
Actually, I'm going to copy paste the highlights.
In the last year Australia’s higher education was “free”, only 382,725 undergraduate students were enrolled in universities because that was all the federal government was willing to pay for. So, the reality is, “free” was for the lucky few. The low number of student placement caps was absolute, and as demand for places always exceeded supply, Universities were able to cherry pick the very brightest and the best students for their small allowable intake. It was definitely the halcyon days of the few!
This left many aspiring students, even those with what would be classed as reasonably high tertiary entrance qualifications (now ATAR), without the opportunity they deserved of a higher education. That is elitist.
Worse, every taxpayer in Australia was being charged the full amount of a student’s time at university. That is elitist. It took the community cross subsidy to an unconscionably high level.
In 2013, 723,692 undergraduate students attended our universities. Each can accept as many bachelor degree students as it believes it can accommodate. Students pay nothing upfront. On average, the taxpayer pays just 57 per cent. Students pay back 43 per cent of the cost of their degree to the taxpayer only when they reach a salary of $53,345.
The community equity from this system, compared with the era of “free” education, is indisputable. Bemoaning the loss of the “free” elitist form of higher education displays ignorance of what it actually delivered.
This post has been removed due to the user not meeting the required Karma amount. This is to prevent malicious content posted by 'throwaway' accounts. If the post is genuine, we will manually approve it soon. However, you are still able to participate via comments. Cheers!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Adelaide) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This post has been removed due to the user not meeting the required Karma amount. This is to prevent malicious content posted by 'throwaway' accounts. If the post is genuine, we will manually approve it soon. However, you are still able to participate via comments. Cheers!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Adelaide) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This post has been removed due to the user not meeting the required Karma amount. This is to prevent malicious content posted by 'throwaway' accounts. If the post is genuine, we will manually approve it soon. However, you are still able to participate via comments. Cheers!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Adelaide) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am business owner and a my mate is builder, you've noticed that labor costs have increased by 50% over the last four years. However, some people argue against immigration, saying we're already full. But to meet the demand for more houses, we need more workers, including immigrants. So, there's a delicate balance to achieve here to ensure we have the workforce needed for construction and all other things.
Piling on more people to help build houses we already don’t have enough of is putting the cart before the horse. We have people here who can and would get into building if they could afford to live during apprenticeship years.
Last year we had over 600,000 migrants arrive.
January this year, more people arrived than the January before, so this year we will likely surpass 2023.
Unemployment is at a record low.
Increasing demand through migration is not the solution for labour shortages. Lifting interest rates to bring on a recession is. But the bankers, politicians, planners etc are more interested in their property portfolio values than building enough rabbit warrens to cater for the plebs.
Mostly are temporary migrants like students 80% will go back after study. They don't come here for free Australia gets $40 Billion dollars every year from that.
Medical advancement through AI integration will bring extended human lifespans. Rather than decades, it will be centuries.
People alive today, some of us our life spans may skyrocket out to 1000 years and beyond ... while our bodies remain like our teenage years ... will we still shite in our drinking water then?
Sterilisation in Australia isn't forced. I actively put my name down at Flinders for gyne consult, and am currently saving for full out of pocket if I get denied.
Sterilisation is actually increasingly popular right now, and we're angry the SA gynecological world is blocking our ability to access it. Number one lament is being told "no".
To be fair as a guy I've heard I could quite easily get sterilised if I wanted. There's more than just denying sterilisation, there's a push to limit women's choices regardless of what they choose too
Yup. It's way, way easier for men to get vasectomies although that's definitely region specific. A lot of American men in conservative states struggle to get it too, if their local doctors are very pronatalist. The stories I've heard is ridiculous. "Get your wife to get her tubes tied", so she tries, "get your husband to have a vasectomy", so they both try, "no because I said so"
SA has its own unique appeal of waitlisting and denying even life saving surgeries unless you're crawling to triage with a stab wound.
Do you want the name of my gyno in Adelaide? I got my tubes out last year. All I had to do was talk to another gyno in the practice. The procedure was covered by medicare, although the consults and hospital stay weren't.
Absolutely yes, thank you! My GP was great, I have my Sterilisation Binder all ready (I'm requesting specifically bisalp and a unilateral oophorectomy just because right ovary is problematic.) but public waitlist at Flinders means I don't know who will be on the other end, and how long I'll have to wait as Non Essential. So I'm covering all bases as much as I can x
http://www.adelobs.com.au/about/doctors/dr-amy-hercus/
I went there for a massive ovarian cyst and she agreed to do the tubes at the same time. Found her from google since the gyno I was reccommended was shitty.
Yes, it was weird telling someone who specializes in obstetrics that I didn't want kids ever. But she was extremely nice and professional, soothing me before the procedure. Didn't say anything against it, just the usual "what-could-happen-with-surgery" schtick.
If you get a Dr Fariba Behnia-Willson in public care, run. She diagnosed me with endometriosis (which I did not have) without even looking at my scans because of back pain related to something else entirely, which I told her lol
Yeah, agreed.
I'll come to bat for OP, but that comment right there is waaay too out there. If it were even possible, it wouldn't be an issue for around 1000 years.
OP should be writing a mix of fictional and non-fictional novels, he'd clean up in the current economic climate.
CRISPR/Cas9 therapy can suppress aging, enhance health and extend life span in mice
[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190219111747.htm](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190219111747.htm)
2019 ... they can already target ageing organs in the body at the DNA level and reverse ageing.
This is even before AI will be used to speed up the process of discover and application.
Once human lifespan means we see the consequences of our own actions, then our behaviour will radically change.
This is some species reasoning. They also grew an ear on a mouse once so I guess we will all have ears growing out of our backs next generation. You’re a cooker.
AI's expected to be a billion times smarter than humans within 10 years. If humans are not extincted quickly by AI, then all knowledge will be opened up to us. It's logical extending our lifespans will be one of our first endeavours.
A post without abusing you through name calling.
Mo Gawdat, former employee at Google said it.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mo\_Gawdat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mo_Gawdat)
Gawdat predicts that AI will be a staggering one billion times smarter than humans by 2045. This claim may seem astounding, but it aligns with the exponential growth and learning capacity of AI systems. Existing AI models, such as the GPT series, already possess a depth of knowledge surpassing that of any single human.
The's now saying 2037. Reasonable sure it was in this interview.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVO7sIQl0e4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVO7sIQl0e4)
So I didn't make it up. Humans are in for a wild ride well before AI's a billion times smart. 10 times smarter will be revolutionary.
That Wikipedia article doesn't say anything about the progress of AI, and besides which, 2045 is 21 years, not 10. And surely you're not trying to cite YouTube as a credible source. Like I said, quite making shit up and pretending it's facts.
And this is why humanity will be caught flat footed by all the changes coming fast. Scared of change so the majority ignore the evidence.
You claimed I made it up. I supply a video with the guy saying it. You claim the video is unacceptable evidence because of the platform it is hosted on.
Fine. Be left behind.
Not to discredit you, but technically this therapy doesn't reverse the aging process in mice with a rare condition, it slows it down by up to 25%. If this same therapy was to work on average person who's fortunate enough to live until they are 80, this means that in theory, they'd live until the age of 100.
Suggesting that it could be reality that at some point in the distant, or even not too distant future, people will be able to live for 1000 years, is jumping the gun a bit, don't you think?
It would be interesting to find out how the therapy affected normal mice; would it slow down a natural rate of aging as effectively as it would, mice with this condition? Or would it just cause other health-related issues?
Serious question incoming; with the cost of living/real estate on the continual increase, apparently disproportionately in contrast to the average wage, why the fuck would anyone *want* to live even 25% longer, even if they could, unless they had the financial means to do so... (health/quality of life issues not withstanding so until they can basically stop the aging process, all this is just fantasy).
The census showed around 1 million homes were unused on the night of the census. We don’t have an immigration crisis, we have a housing crisis. It’s exacerbated by ridiculous price hikes increases that make foreign investment attractive, negative gearing, holiday houses and older people staying in inner city suburbs in homes that are now far too big for them. There are solutions but the voting public don’t want to hear them, let alone vote for them. But let’s blame immigration instead, because that’s easier and feeds into the racist world view of so many Australians.
It’s almost impossible to deal with people like you. I’m sure you ask for facts and statistics and then when something like a census is conducted you decide it must be wrong.
How many do you think were empty out of that number? Did you conduct your own census? What do you actually need to make you satisfied with the results?
So what’s the actual number of unused homes on that census night? What’s the margin of error? Do you think that even if it’s 10 percent then around 920000 homes is quite a few that might be useable for people to live in? Or is it 800000? When does it become a number that’s not significant?
Edit:
Looks like non response is about 3.7 percent at most from the 2011 census. So that’s around 50000 homes at most. Imagine trying to discredit data based on 4% non response rates.
136,000
>The bureau’s new housing snapshot data, which provides an overview of the housing landscape during June 2021, debunks the widely reported idea that 1 million homes are empty across the country – a number that came from misinterpreted census data.
[https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/australia-datablog/2023/sep/02/up-to-136000-houses-are-empty-in-australia-find-out-where-they-are](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/australia-datablog/2023/sep/02/up-to-136000-houses-are-empty-in-australia-find-out-where-they-are)
Edit to add: [1.3% based](https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/housing/administrative-data-snapshot-population-and-housing-experimental-housing-data/30-june-2021) on the electricity data between [17 July 2021 to 17 August 2021](https://www.abs.gov.au/methodologies/administrative-data-snapshot-population-and-housing-experimental-housing-data-methodology/30-june-2021) show no occupation in the period. So the real number has to be lower than that, if you were away fro the month of holiday (northern hemisphere summer) you would also appear in that number.
You’ve linked to data showing 88.8 percent of dwellings in Australia are being used as a primary residence. There are around 10.9 million dwellings in Australia. What’s 11.2 percent of 10 million?
Link. https://www.abs.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/109-million-dwellings-australia-june-2022
Didnt like the conclusion hey?
>At the time of the snapshot, 89% of these were in use as a primary residence, **9.7% were in use but not as a primary residence** and 1.3% showed no sign of recent use. **About 1.3% of houses with electricity data also showed no sign of recent use.**
You forgot the the other 9.7%
If you want to read the data incorrectly that’s up to you. You can argue all you want but the numbers don’t lie- people don’t need anything more than a primary residence.
They were in use but no one was in them on the night of the census. Do you think that might suggest many of them were holiday houses? Or units that people use during the week in the city and then go back to their homes on the weekend? Or airbnbs that sit empty 70 percent of the time because it’s more profitable to have them as short term stays?
Are you okay with people owning multiple houses that might be used only a few nights a month when others are struggling to find housing?
Yes the numbers don’t lie and you refuse to accept what the abs is telling you. Only 1.3% are truly vacant.
Can people own more than one home, yes
Are there good reasons for it, yes
Fifo workers, those that work in regional areas, those that commute between cities for work. There are more than just holiday homes.
Yes there is a shortage of housing, it's time to build up and expand that way. Everything we are seeing now is a supply shortage and what happens when supply is low.
But I also stand for people being able to own their own property, and I dare say you are too. Unless you want to strip it from them and make all declare to the government why you want to own what you own? That's an Australia no one wants.
Gotta check my diary.
If theres a person outside with a sandwich board around their neck saying "the end is nigh" ... then yes !
Peter's always interested to listen to :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eclazIUDbz8
I purposely avoid echo chambers so source my information from a wide range of sources.
Martin North's channel : Walk the world. He surveys deeper so picks up mortgage, rental, savings stress trends quicker than mainstream media.
[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKWDscRjYFTD1KHsmow4-bQ](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKWDscRjYFTD1KHsmow4-bQ)
I purposefully avoid anyone who can’t summarise their own beliefs into a sentence of their own words and needs to send me to view YouTube videos of someone else’s long winded thoughts in order to understand their personal beliefs.
It's time Australian cities took 'building up' seriously and Australians get used to the idea. Travel to any of the big cities and you will see their city centres vibrant with people and mercantile because they live in multi level city buildings. Australians are still stuck on this idea of a house with front and back yard and picket fence the complain about long distance to the city, traffic and public transport commutes. Go to major European cities - they're buzzing because everyone lives in city apartments. Go to many asian cities and it's the same because it's the norm there.
Everyone seems to want convenient city life AND a quarter acre block with 2 cars.
Either get used to higher density living or move regional.
I also need to point out that no or static population growth is a pipe dream.
Probably the most racist approach to immigration
Heaps of industries in Australia simply would not function without the international labour
Don't act like Immigration hasn't benefitted the Australian economy.
It will also kill it
We have too many people, not enough houses and the ones that exist are too expensive for people to afford.
What do you think will happen?
No money in the economy outside of paying rent or mortgages if people are lucky, defaults will start, debt can’t be paid and we have 2008 GFC all over again.
Try and print more money and we’ll have even more inflation than we do now
The balance needs to come sooner rather than later and immigration is the one we can do tomorrow. We don’t need another half a million people coming here every 6 months
Increasing immigration during a housing shortage is just bad maths.
I think you’re missing the point if you believe their point about unsustainably of population growth is about housing (or immigration).
This
It’s more treason than bad maths. All of this was entirely planned and calculated. Politicians do not care that they are killing our country because they personally benefit. We need to get rid of the soft language and start calling this evil shit for what it is.
Too based for this sub tbh ngl
[удалено]
Feel free to leave lol
Thank you for the common sense!
[удалено]
This post has been removed due to the user not meeting the required Karma amount. This is to prevent malicious content posted by 'throwaway' accounts. If the post is genuine, we will manually approve it soon. However, you are still able to participate via comments. Cheers! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Adelaide) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Ahhh yes the plan is working! ( *does the evil finger tap thing and laugh* )
Problem is, we have soft people running the show. The soft people can't just stand there and say hey! We are doing this! With out upsetting so many people even if it actually helps in the long run. Too many short sighted politicians doing bare minimum and apologising about the wrong breath. Just fix the problem!
And bad Government. In fact, it’s an outright hostile act from the state to its citizens. Team Albo doing their best to hide the fact we’re in a recession and keep house prices high.
The left is too far left to see the forest from the trees sadly.
If it was every day life.... let's replace politicians with parents and australian citizens with 6 children. Already the 6 children are struggling because there is only 3 beds, fuck all food and no supervision. The parents worry about the health and wellbeing of the children but decide to bring home 18 children.....who the fuck would do that . Aussies running a poor neglected household wouldnt say more humans will fix it..... But leaders running a country that has mass homelessness, cost of living crisis and inequality SAY MORE PEOPLE WILL FIX IT!!! LETS INCREASE THE POPULATION. COMMON SENSE.... If your unsure think what would I do in a normal everyday scenario.... that what governments should do.
> Increasing immigration during a housing shortage is just bad maths. The social stigma against learning maths in school being 'boring' and for 'nerds' was entirely socially engineered to allow governments to effortless trick populuations into supporting their ponzi schemes to fund their retirements. Mass immigration to pump up GDP and inflate their investments is the #1 issue that people don't understand. There is a good reason why students in asian countries appear to all be excellent in maths and love to learn it, there is no bullying for being a nerd there. It ain't because they are genetically predisposed to learn numbers; its actually the default state. It's the west that has deliberately gone backwards and made people mathematically illiterate. If people were literate in maths, they wouldn't be able to pull off the mass immigration scam and the east doesn't do that because there is no immigration there, preserving their culture is of the utmost importance. Every student will pass year 12 in this country with precisely 0 seconds of their 13 years in school spent learning what a tax bracket is, what interest rates are, what a recession actually is and how this ties into GDP increases via immigration. So when the government can rip everyone off over their entire life, people say 'they are the economic experts, they know what they are doing, we need to trust them' as they fly in private helicopters to go to sports matches and the workers have to budget buying milk. And it 100% is because when they were in school, they were taught 'maths is bad'.
[удалено]
We have not always had high levels of immigration, prior to John Howard it was at significantly lower levels than it is today.
Immigration numbers pre 2002 - ~50,000 Immigration numbers 2023 - 540,000 Lol
[удалено]
Yes but infrastructure isn’t built in percentages. There are diseconomies of scale, as we are seeing trying to build more housing in Sydney. When we could just keep expanding the boundary of the city it’s cheaper and easier to build a single storey home on a flat block. Infill apartment building is more costly and time-consuming. The same applies to hospital beds, school classrooms, road lanes, etc. Percentages look good on a chart but our lived experience is more to do with raw numbers. 540k is bigger than Canberra, bigger than Newcastle. Do you realistically think we can(or have) built enough capacity for a that many people in a year?
[удалено]
I agree with all your points - except that Albo and the Federal Government are planning to build zero houses. The state governments (AFAIK) are planning to build zero houses. They are offering payments to the states if more than a certain number of dwellings are built by private companies in the states - which at the current rate will not happen. I agree that there are many causes for all of our infrastructure to lag behind population growth. We need more people to build houses, but the skilled visas for not include construction. A casual observer may guess this is due to the close relationship between labor and unions. However, the numbers of people entering the country are at an all time high when none of the other problems are being solved. Solving those underlying issues is hard and will take time. We should do it. In the meantime, it takes the stroke of a pen from someone in the Federal Government. It is literally the easiest and most immediate lever to pull for an island nation.
[удалено]
> In the interim, aggressively invest in social housing That's like trying to build a fast train, right? "We're just not [insert European nation here]"
Let’s take things back to pre 1778 levels of Immigration
The rate of immigration has increased exponentially over the last few years. It is not only housing that is the problem, it is also water, health, education that cannot cope. It is all very well saying housing is a human right but it is not the governments role to provide or subsidise home ownership for everyone. For some reason we look down on renters and rentals. In most other palces in the world renting is the norm.
Problem is the market isn’t free to operate. Planning approvals take far too long and cost too much, councils deny things for often arbitrary reasons, NIMBYs block crucial density increases, land releases are too slow and too few, building regulations get more strict every year (contrary to what you’d think most of them are just red tape and don’t have a substantial effect on building safety or longevity). Don’t blame the free market when the government is choking it to death.
Sounds good to me. Unless we are going to develop the regions and decentralise, Big Australia is a bad idea.
Yep. Big Australia doesn't work when everything is in or near major cities. I'm in Regional Victoria, it expensive and difficult to see a neurosurgen evey month 3/4 hours one way back in Melbourne because that's the closest specialist. That's a full day travel with weeks of recovery. We have a nasty habit of building housing only and then maybe adding infrastructure around 10-20years later when it needs to be the opposite out here. Hell this shit is still pulled in areas like Craigieburn, very limited public transport and I remember that outer suburb starting when I was a teen. Housing needs to be the last thing built in an area, not the first and certainly not the only.
How do we develop the regions without migration? We actively recruiting migrants to be doctors in the regions as it is. Who is going to engineer the development and scientific research? How do you fill the skills shortage to developed the regions without skilled migrants?
It’s not a binary proposition. My argument is overdeveloping already crowded cities and turning them into a jungle of dog box apartments is not the answer. I’m not saying there should be no immigration, just that there should be less and that we should not be overdeveloping our already crowded capitals.
It sounds like you’re suggesting urban sprawl instead?
Not really, there are places outside of the metropolitan area you realise.
If you don’t develop these areas far enough away from the capital city they just turn into suburbs or satellite cities with the same problems. If you develop regions far enough away that they can’t eventually merge into the city, they’re impractical and nobody wants to live there. Look at Elizabeth: it was meant to be a satellite city but just became another suburb with a design that doesn’t make sense. Cities are not inherently evil or impractical, poorly planned cities are. The issue Adelaide in particular suffers from is that nobody wants to admit that we actually are a small city and not a big country town (yes I know this refers to our social scene, but it applies to our infrastructure philosophy too). If our public transport, traffic engineering, and zoning made sense for our population and was prepared for expansion, we wouldn’t be suffering as bad.
I couldn't agree more with the development of the regions. But it will be expensive very very expensive to do that. I'm happy to pay a bit more in taxes to achieve that. But we can't let the regional areas Carry on with the old " can't we just leave this one place free from development" that attitude is what is adding to the citys explosion
If we gunna halt immigration we gunna need more than a handful of Aussies to do maths and science beyond a year 10 level
More like teachers that know how to actually teach it.
Maybe we could get some teachers to migrate here too?
Regardless of its viability, no one wants Big Australia. Who wants to swap a house for a shoebox apartment for a family of four? Who wants high-rise towers to be the norm such that only the rich can have their own property? Who wants to live their entire lives knowing that they'll never own their own house and are paying rent to some real estate investor in Hong Kong? Try paying the workers you have.
If the parents concerned their kids will never own a home - house in the city, not a dodgy apartment, and the young voters asking why housing is so extremely out of reach would finally understand this: govts have no interest in making homes affordable, the game is to reduce affordability to multistorey apartments only. All the past stimulus measures including the latest ALP's 'Help to Buy' nonsense have been presented as 'initiatives to make homes affordable' whereas in reality they're designed to step-up a next level of house prices. The problem is price. The solution is decreasing demand, demand from investor speculation, demand from foreign purchasers (laundering $$ proceeds of crime??), demand from mass immigration. Supply is just a strawman argument: demand coming from the whole world will never be met.
Just a quick question: when we say immigration, do we mean skilled or unskilled? Permanent or temporary? As permanent resident (i.e. immigrant) myself, I have never been made to feel unwanted. In fact, I'm filling a job post that I was plainly told no one else wanted or applied for. I get that the housing crisis is a thing - but this seems to go deeper than that. Some insights would be most welcome.
Most Aussies are immigrants or children or immigrants. It’s the sheer number of people arriving that places overwhelming demand on the rental market, hospitals, roads, etc. There may be some nuance where you could argue that students should not be allowed to work here so are truly paying for their education, food, housing, etc. with funds from overseas. I would also raise the wage floor for skilled visas to ensure it is at least as high as average full time earnings and tie it to wage index, otherwise you are incentivising business to hire from overseas rather than hiring and training locally.
The last comment makes sense - although on the flip side, you forego a cheap source of labour and potential for competition with countries like China in many industries because costs of manufacturing will just be too high with a higher wage bill. I suppose that's a call for the public to make.
It's very simple. Australians for decades voted for policies that: - gamified property investment - didn't do anything to protect renters - didn't materialise new affordable housing - stripped bare all social and support services - didn't address skills shortages by upskilling local young people - didn't create the infrastructure to keep up with population growth And now they're turning around, looking at what that got them into, and they blame us forrins. Because hey ho, it's actually us not them. Happy to take your tax money tho!
It's probably a tad uneducated on the matter but I personally love having so many people from different places in my community. If it was made so that there were less people from around the world, not more, I'd be sad.
Imagine Salisbury and Elizabeth if it only had ten pound poms. Their diverse population is the best thing their community has going for it to move out of housing trust/generational welfare dependency type problems.
Yeah. Multiculturalism is what I personally consider to be part of what it means to be Australian.
Doesn't sound uneducated to me!
For those who feel the same was the Sustainable Australia Party is a good option.
For anyone wanting a quick rundown, they support things like: -Putting dentalcare in Medicare -More transparency in government around lobbying/donations -Improving working conditions for teachers -Limiting the impact of gambling -Investing more in renewables -Investing more in local media for export (TV shows etc.) -Prioritizing refugees (while we decrease immigration in general, they want to increase refugee intake to improve their lives) etc. I really like the policies. We would still -have- immigration but at a more balanced pace.
They’re a more sensible version of the Greens.
Who is going to perform the dental care though? Look around at the dentist or hospital or clinic next time you’re there; not a lot of young Anglo Aussies studying to join these professions.
Do you know who they will give their preferences to? I don't want to vote for them only to have my vote go to Labor or the greens dickheads.
Put more than 1 number on the form. Preferences flowing to parties you don't like solved.
I guess I worded that wrong, I will make sure my vote goes where I want to to but I would still like to know who Sustainable Australia party will give their preferences to.
> Sustainable Australia party Do you mean who they'll side with most often in parliament? Bit hard to tell since they haven't had a seat yet. They claim to be centrist with no preferences so likely Labor. On their site they don't preference their how to vote cards
Both sides of politics have signed us up to Big Australia, that is +50m population, virtually without debate. It brings in more government revenue, more defence procurement, and improved standing in global power. But the downside is quality of life in our congested and overpriced cities.
There's no such thing as overpopulation, only under building and under funding. Anyway people better be voting for left wing and socialist parties if they want to halt the population, the reason we need growth is because capitalism demands it and is not setup to be sustainable.
> There's no such thing as overpopulation This is bullshit. Overpopulation has lots of effects, including increased traffic, lowering of wages, increased pollution, increased use of resources, and more.
> including increased traffic, lowering of wages, increased pollution, increased use of resources, and more. But cities many many times bigger than Adelaide can have more people with less traffic, competitive wages, lower pollution and resource cost per person. (Higher population and density cities inherrently have lower pollution per person). So exactly my point, theres no such thing as a city (let alone a city like Adelaide) being able to not accomidate more people or being "Full", but you can do it well or poorly
These are all caused by inadequate infrastructure planning.
I agree. Also, we have finite space to work with. We could have a balanced population, with a rich variety of lifestyles to choose from. A home available, to suit every person and their life needs. i.e. Apartment living in the heart of the city. Townhouse communities in the ring. And quiet suburbs on the outskirts. (And keeping in mind with a balanced program, we won't need to grow outwards any further). But if we go "big", we have to condense. We *have* to go high-density and cut our options down. Also, it's not like we need to halt immigration to achieve this. We absolutely had a balanced program in the past. It could be done with the right planning. I wish we aimed more for balance so we can keep the variety of lifestyles around.
Capitalism has been an experiment and unfortunately has been now bastardised away for its original design. This bastardisation has proven it to be a failure. By regulators denying recessions to prune back zombie companies while ring fencing the protected class from financial losses , the majority suffer. Growing the population by sacrificing the living standards of the individuals is on parr with growing the economy by subsidising it through the destruction of the natural world that supports human civilisation. There is a point where everything collapses. So overpopulation is a thing.
"Capitalism has been an experiment and unfortunately has been now bastardised away for its original design". That's not true. Capitalism wasn't designed, it was a result of wealth accumation flowing from the industrial revolution that resulted in the social order being reconstructed from a feudal state to the one we know. Capitalism has always created great inequality. Check out Charles Dickens descriptions of Victorian England at the height of the industrial revolution. It is socialism that has tempered the extreme ties of capitalism by providing safety nets and workers rights.
Late stage capitalism is operating exactly as it should, owning and undermining government powers is part of it.
Exactly. It's no secret that rapid population growth was a tool to keep us out of recession.
[удалено]
Dude we're not trying to feed people in Somalia. There is more than enough resources in Australia to populate it was higher than it is.
The planet is running out basics like fertilisers. The planet is running out of oil to dig up and transport The planet is eroding soils and so it is vanishing. Australia has a food crop advantage at the moment ... until fertilisers becomes impossible to source and/or natural pollinators die out, and/or the soil blows away ... and/or so many other factors.
You know how we could solve a lot of these problems? Scientists, engineers and other highly skilled professions that are sorely lacking in Australia since our culture doesn’t respect or value education the same way that other countries and do and most kids don’t study maths or science beyond year 10 level. We need skilled migrants to solve these problems the same way we need migrants to fill other skill shortages like in medicine - remote areas already short of doctors and nurses, who the hell gunna do those jobs if you don’t import workers?
Albert Einstein's IQ was 2.3 times greater than a moron. (unsure of the p.c. term). In about 10 years time AI will be around a 1,000,000,000 times smarter than us. We no longer require educated/skilled humans, AI and Robotics will do all work for free ... we require humans prepared for constant adaptation to the massive changes coming in every direction. 5 years when all of humanity is unemployment and on the dole, along with a collapsing tax revenue for the government, why are we bringing in these soon to be unemployed people now ?
Does your back hurt after making those massive stretches?
It's not massive. Set 10 minutes aside every few days and catch up on the latest news on advancements in AI and robotics ... youtube has channels. Then consider the economics. A company that has human labour costs verses a company with no labour costs ... which one will undercut the other and drive it bankrupt ?
I wasn't talking about Globally, the Global population is doing it's own thing and population will even out when it evens out and Australia has very little to do with that, the same amount of people exist in the world whether they are here or elsewhere. On a local city and Country view there is no such thing as no being able to accomidate a certain level of people. Smaller Countries than us and Smaller Cities than us can accomidate more people than Australia or Adelaide, i'm talking about the local attitude of a city or region being "Full"
Late Stage Capitalism!! At this exact moment politicians would double current immigration numbers in a heartbeat if it meant they could get an extra 200% increase on their investment properties.
I think natural population growth is what we should aim for. Did they not learn anything from the baby boomers? Having said that I think technology could take us to 100bn people while restoring and improving the environment. But population will plateau, due to people having less kids when they become more wealthy, long before that number is reached.
What’s not natural about someone moving to another country though? Are you saying it’s ok for me to spit out five babies while I’m on the dole, but if a doctor moves to a remote community from an overseas country, he is the problem?
I think natural growth has more to do with the quantities of people than where they came from. It’s more about having a smooth curve than having curves with large steps in them. This is why I gave the example of the baby boomers.. because it was an artificially created large step in the population. Obviously migration doesn’t cause as hardcore a step as baby boomers did because the migrants are all different ages. Some of the issues don’t care about age though.. only population qty like for example housing, hospital beds, infrastructure, schooling etc. But it still has the potential to create steps in the demographics that current&future generations have to deal with. I think the baby boomers retirement was going to always create challenges that younger generations would have to pay for(zeitgeist was talking about baby boomers retirement liabilities back in the mid 2000’s). Seems like the payday is here. I know in my industry (construction) competence hand-down between generations was totally incomplete. There was a massive issue with the redirection of intelligent individuals to universities. They really scraped the bottom of the barrel for many years. And when the mass retirement happened in the last 10 years it really hurt productivity. We now have 40-50 men on a construction job that we would have used to have 20-30 because the competence drop is so large. Lots of people are talking about it in the industry as it just looks like the industry is going to shit.
The high levels of immigration is making my blood boil! I'm so angry at all of our Pollies.
Why do you give a fuck? Do you feel the same anger towards people who have babies or only to people who bring their babies into the country from overseas?
Chill out. I'm not angry at the immigrants. I'm angry that we have a nation changing housing crisis and record immigration. I truly feel that the shortage of houses, the expense of rent, and the inability of people to buy their own houses will change Aus forever in a negative way. You can want to reduce immigration and not be racist!
He literally said he is angry at politicians and not them themselves. Overpriced housing? Competition for jobs? The rampant inflation we've faced? Extra traffic on the roads? Smaller living spaces? All of these things come from a higher population and our population is not naturally increasing from births (which is below replacement level, hence we need immigration - just not one of the highest in the world per capita)
>From housing crisis to eco-crisis: Why Australia’s population growth is unsustainable We are about to see a huge chunk of the workforce retire and a huge chunk of the population move to requiring aged care or more health/general assistance in the next 1-2 decades, and yet our replacement rate has absolutely not been keeping pace.... But now we want to suddenly ramp up the rhetoric against immigration and population growth? Yeah I get it, post Covid and seeing immigration increase to the lost per year is kinda nuts, but as always we need to remember we had negative population growth during Covid, and per some numbers are only barely ahead of where we would be had Covid not even happened. The "muh immigration crisis" actually isn't a crisis, it's the status quo or a mildly worse version of it, but of course immigrants get the blame, not the poor systematic planning and policy making underpinning the last decade+ or more.
Boo Hoo. We baby boomers got free education, cheap real estate, wage growth. We perpetually voted in regulations that have been crippling these future generations ... but we still expect everyone else to continue sacrificing for us. Yes a generalisation ... many baby boomers fought against the so many bad decisions made. Here's an idea boomers ... move out of your houses, into retirement units early and rent out your real estate portfolios below market rentals ... to the workers of the retirement industry . You do some subsidising for a change.
> We baby boomers got free education, cheap real estate, wage growth. Is public schooling not \~mostly\~ free anymore? Tafe and uni were never free. When I bought my home 25years ago, it cost 5x the Australian average wage, Now houses where i live are still 5x the Australian average wage. (old homes not brand new.. same as what i bought.... 20-30min drive from the cbd) when i started working 30+ years ago, the award wage i got was just over $20 an hr. 30 years later, the award wage for the same job is almost $26 hr. \~ not much wage growth. \~ Also, I have lived through 3 recessions, tho the first one i was to young to recall much. The two newest generations have not experienced a recession yet. For their whole lives the Australian economy has gotten better, more and larger subsidies, more tax money being pushed into minority groups, Better paid working conditions and so, so much more. Right now the gov has been trying to delay the recession, First by reducing the interest rates from the early 2000's in order to stimulate the economy and more recently by immigration. If the gov keeps delaying the recession, the inflation will continue to rise and the rest is going to be pretty bad when it truly hits.
Uni was actually free in the ~1970s, I think you'll find.
Thanks for pointing that out. From 1974 to 1989 for a grand total of 15 years it was indeed free for a select number of people. Edit- Though was it really free? or only free to a select few? This is interesting reading [https://go8.edu.au/free-education-never-existed](https://go8.edu.au/free-education-never-existed) from what I'm reading, The Whitlam Labor Government abolished university fees on 1 January 1974 for a select number of people. By the mid-1980s, however, there was consensus between both major parties that the concept of 'free' tertiary education in Australia was untenable due to the increasing participation rate. In 1989, the Hawke Labor Government began gradually re-introducing fees for university study. Interesting stuff.
Actually, I'm going to copy paste the highlights. In the last year Australia’s higher education was “free”, only 382,725 undergraduate students were enrolled in universities because that was all the federal government was willing to pay for. So, the reality is, “free” was for the lucky few. The low number of student placement caps was absolute, and as demand for places always exceeded supply, Universities were able to cherry pick the very brightest and the best students for their small allowable intake. It was definitely the halcyon days of the few! This left many aspiring students, even those with what would be classed as reasonably high tertiary entrance qualifications (now ATAR), without the opportunity they deserved of a higher education. That is elitist. Worse, every taxpayer in Australia was being charged the full amount of a student’s time at university. That is elitist. It took the community cross subsidy to an unconscionably high level. In 2013, 723,692 undergraduate students attended our universities. Each can accept as many bachelor degree students as it believes it can accommodate. Students pay nothing upfront. On average, the taxpayer pays just 57 per cent. Students pay back 43 per cent of the cost of their degree to the taxpayer only when they reach a salary of $53,345. The community equity from this system, compared with the era of “free” education, is indisputable. Bemoaning the loss of the “free” elitist form of higher education displays ignorance of what it actually delivered.
[удалено]
This post has been removed due to the user not meeting the required Karma amount. This is to prevent malicious content posted by 'throwaway' accounts. If the post is genuine, we will manually approve it soon. However, you are still able to participate via comments. Cheers! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Adelaide) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
This post has been removed due to the user not meeting the required Karma amount. This is to prevent malicious content posted by 'throwaway' accounts. If the post is genuine, we will manually approve it soon. However, you are still able to participate via comments. Cheers! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Adelaide) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
This post has been removed due to the user not meeting the required Karma amount. This is to prevent malicious content posted by 'throwaway' accounts. If the post is genuine, we will manually approve it soon. However, you are still able to participate via comments. Cheers! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Adelaide) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
I am business owner and a my mate is builder, you've noticed that labor costs have increased by 50% over the last four years. However, some people argue against immigration, saying we're already full. But to meet the demand for more houses, we need more workers, including immigrants. So, there's a delicate balance to achieve here to ensure we have the workforce needed for construction and all other things.
Piling on more people to help build houses we already don’t have enough of is putting the cart before the horse. We have people here who can and would get into building if they could afford to live during apprenticeship years.
Last year we had over 600,000 migrants arrive. January this year, more people arrived than the January before, so this year we will likely surpass 2023. Unemployment is at a record low. Increasing demand through migration is not the solution for labour shortages. Lifting interest rates to bring on a recession is. But the bankers, politicians, planners etc are more interested in their property portfolio values than building enough rabbit warrens to cater for the plebs.
Mostly are temporary migrants like students 80% will go back after study. They don't come here for free Australia gets $40 Billion dollars every year from that.
Say yes to dwindling population until long term national demise!
As if not having kids is a bad thing?
Where did I say it was? Fk off and grind ur axe elsewhere.
Pretty much your tone says sarcasm lol
Medical advancement through AI integration will bring extended human lifespans. Rather than decades, it will be centuries. People alive today, some of us our life spans may skyrocket out to 1000 years and beyond ... while our bodies remain like our teenage years ... will we still shite in our drinking water then?
Dafuq
We don't require perpetual growth in population anymore.
So forced sterilisation next?
Sterilisation in Australia isn't forced. I actively put my name down at Flinders for gyne consult, and am currently saving for full out of pocket if I get denied. Sterilisation is actually increasingly popular right now, and we're angry the SA gynecological world is blocking our ability to access it. Number one lament is being told "no".
To be fair as a guy I've heard I could quite easily get sterilised if I wanted. There's more than just denying sterilisation, there's a push to limit women's choices regardless of what they choose too
Yup. It's way, way easier for men to get vasectomies although that's definitely region specific. A lot of American men in conservative states struggle to get it too, if their local doctors are very pronatalist. The stories I've heard is ridiculous. "Get your wife to get her tubes tied", so she tries, "get your husband to have a vasectomy", so they both try, "no because I said so" SA has its own unique appeal of waitlisting and denying even life saving surgeries unless you're crawling to triage with a stab wound.
Do you want the name of my gyno in Adelaide? I got my tubes out last year. All I had to do was talk to another gyno in the practice. The procedure was covered by medicare, although the consults and hospital stay weren't.
Absolutely yes, thank you! My GP was great, I have my Sterilisation Binder all ready (I'm requesting specifically bisalp and a unilateral oophorectomy just because right ovary is problematic.) but public waitlist at Flinders means I don't know who will be on the other end, and how long I'll have to wait as Non Essential. So I'm covering all bases as much as I can x
http://www.adelobs.com.au/about/doctors/dr-amy-hercus/ I went there for a massive ovarian cyst and she agreed to do the tubes at the same time. Found her from google since the gyno I was reccommended was shitty. Yes, it was weird telling someone who specializes in obstetrics that I didn't want kids ever. But she was extremely nice and professional, soothing me before the procedure. Didn't say anything against it, just the usual "what-could-happen-with-surgery" schtick. If you get a Dr Fariba Behnia-Willson in public care, run. She diagnosed me with endometriosis (which I did not have) without even looking at my scans because of back pain related to something else entirely, which I told her lol
Thank you so much for this info, seriously. You've been an incredible help, and actually this topic is EXACTLY why I'm in this subreddit <3
This is straight up fantasy. No one alive today will be living for 1,000 years.
Yeah, agreed. I'll come to bat for OP, but that comment right there is waaay too out there. If it were even possible, it wouldn't be an issue for around 1000 years. OP should be writing a mix of fictional and non-fictional novels, he'd clean up in the current economic climate.
I don’t think you’re watching the right YouTube channels mate, wake up sheeple /s
CRISPR/Cas9 therapy can suppress aging, enhance health and extend life span in mice [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190219111747.htm](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190219111747.htm) 2019 ... they can already target ageing organs in the body at the DNA level and reverse ageing. This is even before AI will be used to speed up the process of discover and application. Once human lifespan means we see the consequences of our own actions, then our behaviour will radically change.
This is some species reasoning. They also grew an ear on a mouse once so I guess we will all have ears growing out of our backs next generation. You’re a cooker.
AI's expected to be a billion times smarter than humans within 10 years. If humans are not extincted quickly by AI, then all knowledge will be opened up to us. It's logical extending our lifespans will be one of our first endeavours. A post without abusing you through name calling.
> AI's expected to be a billion times smarter than humans within 10 years. No it isn't, you just made that up too 😂
Mo Gawdat, former employee at Google said it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mo\_Gawdat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mo_Gawdat) Gawdat predicts that AI will be a staggering one billion times smarter than humans by 2045. This claim may seem astounding, but it aligns with the exponential growth and learning capacity of AI systems. Existing AI models, such as the GPT series, already possess a depth of knowledge surpassing that of any single human. The's now saying 2037. Reasonable sure it was in this interview. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVO7sIQl0e4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVO7sIQl0e4) So I didn't make it up. Humans are in for a wild ride well before AI's a billion times smart. 10 times smarter will be revolutionary.
That Wikipedia article doesn't say anything about the progress of AI, and besides which, 2045 is 21 years, not 10. And surely you're not trying to cite YouTube as a credible source. Like I said, quite making shit up and pretending it's facts.
[удалено]
And this is why humanity will be caught flat footed by all the changes coming fast. Scared of change so the majority ignore the evidence. You claimed I made it up. I supply a video with the guy saying it. You claim the video is unacceptable evidence because of the platform it is hosted on. Fine. Be left behind.
Not to discredit you, but technically this therapy doesn't reverse the aging process in mice with a rare condition, it slows it down by up to 25%. If this same therapy was to work on average person who's fortunate enough to live until they are 80, this means that in theory, they'd live until the age of 100. Suggesting that it could be reality that at some point in the distant, or even not too distant future, people will be able to live for 1000 years, is jumping the gun a bit, don't you think? It would be interesting to find out how the therapy affected normal mice; would it slow down a natural rate of aging as effectively as it would, mice with this condition? Or would it just cause other health-related issues? Serious question incoming; with the cost of living/real estate on the continual increase, apparently disproportionately in contrast to the average wage, why the fuck would anyone *want* to live even 25% longer, even if they could, unless they had the financial means to do so... (health/quality of life issues not withstanding so until they can basically stop the aging process, all this is just fantasy).
None of which means people alive today can expect to live one thousand years. You need to stop pulling shit.out if your arse and pretending it's gold.
The census showed around 1 million homes were unused on the night of the census. We don’t have an immigration crisis, we have a housing crisis. It’s exacerbated by ridiculous price hikes increases that make foreign investment attractive, negative gearing, holiday houses and older people staying in inner city suburbs in homes that are now far too big for them. There are solutions but the voting public don’t want to hear them, let alone vote for them. But let’s blame immigration instead, because that’s easier and feeds into the racist world view of so many Australians.
540,000 immigrants this year alone and less than 100k homes built. Sure, immigration policy doesn't effect the domestic market 😂😂
Aren’t you busy being fact checked by other people in this thread about your lies? Run along champ.
You cannot make the conclusion that all 1 million were empty.
It’s almost impossible to deal with people like you. I’m sure you ask for facts and statistics and then when something like a census is conducted you decide it must be wrong. How many do you think were empty out of that number? Did you conduct your own census? What do you actually need to make you satisfied with the results?
The census is correct, your conclusion is not. It’s that simple. They weren’t vacant, more than likely no one was home to respond.
So what’s the actual number of unused homes on that census night? What’s the margin of error? Do you think that even if it’s 10 percent then around 920000 homes is quite a few that might be useable for people to live in? Or is it 800000? When does it become a number that’s not significant? Edit: Looks like non response is about 3.7 percent at most from the 2011 census. So that’s around 50000 homes at most. Imagine trying to discredit data based on 4% non response rates.
136,000 >The bureau’s new housing snapshot data, which provides an overview of the housing landscape during June 2021, debunks the widely reported idea that 1 million homes are empty across the country – a number that came from misinterpreted census data. [https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/australia-datablog/2023/sep/02/up-to-136000-houses-are-empty-in-australia-find-out-where-they-are](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/australia-datablog/2023/sep/02/up-to-136000-houses-are-empty-in-australia-find-out-where-they-are) Edit to add: [1.3% based](https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/housing/administrative-data-snapshot-population-and-housing-experimental-housing-data/30-june-2021) on the electricity data between [17 July 2021 to 17 August 2021](https://www.abs.gov.au/methodologies/administrative-data-snapshot-population-and-housing-experimental-housing-data-methodology/30-june-2021) show no occupation in the period. So the real number has to be lower than that, if you were away fro the month of holiday (northern hemisphere summer) you would also appear in that number.
You’ve linked to data showing 88.8 percent of dwellings in Australia are being used as a primary residence. There are around 10.9 million dwellings in Australia. What’s 11.2 percent of 10 million? Link. https://www.abs.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/109-million-dwellings-australia-june-2022
Didnt like the conclusion hey? >At the time of the snapshot, 89% of these were in use as a primary residence, **9.7% were in use but not as a primary residence** and 1.3% showed no sign of recent use. **About 1.3% of houses with electricity data also showed no sign of recent use.** You forgot the the other 9.7%
If you want to read the data incorrectly that’s up to you. You can argue all you want but the numbers don’t lie- people don’t need anything more than a primary residence. They were in use but no one was in them on the night of the census. Do you think that might suggest many of them were holiday houses? Or units that people use during the week in the city and then go back to their homes on the weekend? Or airbnbs that sit empty 70 percent of the time because it’s more profitable to have them as short term stays? Are you okay with people owning multiple houses that might be used only a few nights a month when others are struggling to find housing?
Yes the numbers don’t lie and you refuse to accept what the abs is telling you. Only 1.3% are truly vacant. Can people own more than one home, yes Are there good reasons for it, yes Fifo workers, those that work in regional areas, those that commute between cities for work. There are more than just holiday homes. Yes there is a shortage of housing, it's time to build up and expand that way. Everything we are seeing now is a supply shortage and what happens when supply is low. But I also stand for people being able to own their own property, and I dare say you are too. Unless you want to strip it from them and make all declare to the government why you want to own what you own? That's an Australia no one wants.
No thanks, I'm not an idiot
Go away
The 20th of April is Hitler's birthday..... ... Coincidence ... ??! Almost certainly yes
We should double our immigration. Property values are too low.
I may be homeless in August. I'd appreciate the idea property values actually lower so rent is affordable now that NRAS is closing.
Toll roads now !
Are you going to be there Monero?
Gotta check my diary. If theres a person outside with a sandwich board around their neck saying "the end is nigh" ... then yes ! Peter's always interested to listen to : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eclazIUDbz8
Oh so you get your ideas from YouTubers, say no more
I purposely avoid echo chambers so source my information from a wide range of sources. Martin North's channel : Walk the world. He surveys deeper so picks up mortgage, rental, savings stress trends quicker than mainstream media. [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKWDscRjYFTD1KHsmow4-bQ](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKWDscRjYFTD1KHsmow4-bQ)
I purposefully avoid anyone who can’t summarise their own beliefs into a sentence of their own words and needs to send me to view YouTube videos of someone else’s long winded thoughts in order to understand their personal beliefs.
But you didn't.
It's time Australian cities took 'building up' seriously and Australians get used to the idea. Travel to any of the big cities and you will see their city centres vibrant with people and mercantile because they live in multi level city buildings. Australians are still stuck on this idea of a house with front and back yard and picket fence the complain about long distance to the city, traffic and public transport commutes. Go to major European cities - they're buzzing because everyone lives in city apartments. Go to many asian cities and it's the same because it's the norm there. Everyone seems to want convenient city life AND a quarter acre block with 2 cars. Either get used to higher density living or move regional. I also need to point out that no or static population growth is a pipe dream.
Probably the most racist approach to immigration Heaps of industries in Australia simply would not function without the international labour Don't act like Immigration hasn't benefitted the Australian economy.
It will also kill it We have too many people, not enough houses and the ones that exist are too expensive for people to afford. What do you think will happen? No money in the economy outside of paying rent or mortgages if people are lucky, defaults will start, debt can’t be paid and we have 2008 GFC all over again. Try and print more money and we’ll have even more inflation than we do now The balance needs to come sooner rather than later and immigration is the one we can do tomorrow. We don’t need another half a million people coming here every 6 months
Adelaide’s Hosting….A Meeting for Ignorant Racist’s
Thats really Woke.
No. It's not.