2018 South Australian State Election

[rubberman]

Let's look at some data.

Unemployment. Of the major mainland states. Queensland is highest at 6.1%, SA next at 6%. WA 5.7% but rising. Vic at 5.6%. NSW at 5.1%. Ok, so Qld is the backwater by that measure, and with a whole whopping 0.9% better than SA, NSW is apparently nirvana. Better move there for that extra 0.9% for the kids? Here's a link to the data. http://lmip.gov.au/default.aspx?LMIP/LF ... oymentRate


Ok, let's look at NSW for wages vs SA. Median wages in NSW are $66,820, vs SA at $55,848. Aha! SA IS a backwater! Send the kids there! They'll get about $7,500 more after tax! Win! Gold for NSW! Here's a link for median salaries: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_ ... ew_Zealand

But wait! The average house in Sydney costs $600,000 more than in Adelaide, so at 4% interest, they'll need an extra $24,000 to even pay interest, let alone pay off the mortgage. Which means that even if someone in SA gets $7,500 per year less in salary, they are still $16,500 better off after housing costs.

So, send the kids to Sydney for a 0.9% lower unemployment rate, but worse off over there by about $16,500 in the hand per year. Plus the extra commute. Not likely.

I could go through them all, but of the major cities, only Hobart and Adelaide are realistically affordable. Here's a link: https://whichrealestateagent.com.au/sal ... australia/

Put bluntly. There's pretty much nothing in the data that says people are better off in other states.

By all means, everyone is entitled to opinions. However, the SA=backwater assertion has not much data behind it.

I know this is an election thread, and therefore there's a political reason for making claims that SA is a backwater. That's a good campaigning strategy for opposition supporters, and legitimate for this discussion.

However, having provided links to show that SA is travelling pretty well compared to Queensland (unemployment), Victoria (housing affordability) and Sydney (housing affordability and commute times), I now challenge the nay-sayers to come up with the data to back up their assertions. Otherwise, it's just electioneering.

[Jaymz]

http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/ ... c796f159e8

Pretty sad and embarrassing when articles get written such as this and Adelaide is excluded. But it's not a new phenomenon, it's been like this for at least the past 10-15 years.

In the 60's, Adelaide was the 3rd largest city in Australia. Not only are we now 5th largest, but there's daylight between us and Perth (around 700k), and they only over took us in the 80's. Also at our current population growth rate, the Gold Coast is likely to overtake us in the next 3 or 4 decades.

[Jaymz]

.....oh. And that should be a free for all article above

[rubberman]

http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/ ... c796f159e8

Pretty sad and embarrassing when articles get written such as this and Adelaide is excluded. But it's not a new phenomenon, it's been like this for at least the past 10-15 years.

In the 60's, Adelaide was the 3rd largest city in Australia. Not only are we now 5th largest, but there's daylight between us and Perth (around 700k), and they only over took us in the 80's. Also at our current population growth rate, the Gold Coast is likely to overtake us in the next 3 or 4 decades.

That article details serious challenges for those cities. Challenges for housing costs, infrastructure and environment. It talks of them being taxed out of owning cars and deteriorating health and education infrastructure.

Can somebody please explain why anyone would want us on a map of upcoming disaster areas? That's what that map, and the accompanying article was saying: the cities on that map are headed into serious problems.

Does anybody want to vote for their kids to never afford a house? Or be taxed out of cars, or spend hours going to work? That's what's happening elsewhere, and it isn't a good thing.

I'm not trying to pretend that everything is a woderful bed of roses here. There are plenty of problems. However, saying we are worse off than Sydney or Melbourne is so far from the reality of the data, it's an unbelievable exaggeration. Brisbane and Perth are heading that way.

[Jaymz]

Perhaps, from a doomsday point of view such as yours.

My point of view is that Adelaide has become irrelevant on a national scale.

[rubberman]

Perhaps, from a doomsday point of view such as yours.

My point of view is that Adelaide has become irrelevant on a national scale.

Hi, the doomsday point of view was what the article you posted said. Are you saying you don't agree with the article you yourself posted?

As for relevance. I guess it's a question whether the price of relevance is worth it. The article YOU linked says that those cities are paying a heavy price for their "relevance".

[Jaymz]

Perhaps, from a doomsday point of view such as yours.

My point of view is that Adelaide has become irrelevant on a national scale.

Hi, the doomsday point of view was what the article you posted said. Are you saying you don't agree with the article you yourself posted?

As for relevance. I guess it's a question whether the price of relevance is worth it. The article YOU linked says that those cities are paying a heavy price for their "relevance".

Well every state Govt. would secretly like the fact that they have these population problems. It means their economy is travelling well. Jay on the other hand, conveniently, says he doesn't support high population growth..... only because we don't have it

The fact that that every other states unemployment rate is on par, or better than ours is that those extra people (a lot more than us) are being absorbed into the labour market. It's economics 101.

Let's make this clear. I don't want or expect Adelaide's population to hit 4 million in the next 30 years, but 2 million would be more than hoped based on our once significant place in this country. And we ain't gonna get there on our current path.

[rubberman]

Perhaps, from a doomsday point of view such as yours.

My point of view is that Adelaide has become irrelevant on a national scale.

Hi, the doomsday point of view was what the article you posted said. Are you saying you don't agree with the article you yourself posted?

As for relevance. I guess it's a question whether the price of relevance is worth it. The article YOU linked says that those cities are paying a heavy price for their "relevance".

Well every state Govt. would secretly like the fact that they have these population problems. It means their economy is travelling well. Jay on the other hand, conveniently, says he doesn't support high population growth..... only because we don't have it

The fact that that every other states unemployment rate is on par, or better than ours is that those extra people (a lot more than us) are being absorbed into the labour market. It's economics 101.

Let's make this clear. I don't want or expect Adelaide's population to hit 4 million in the next 30 years, but 2 million would be more than hoped based on our once significant place in this country. And we ain't gonna get there on our current path.

Actually, that might be the case but for one thing: Australia's vertical fiscal imbalance. That is, the Feds get all the extra tax money that immigrants provide, but the States have to fund the infrastructure. It's a serious problem.

Here's a link : http://www.ncoa.gov.au/report/appendix- ... lance.html

Also, it so happens that Queensland has slightly higher unemployment. However, what good is higher employment in these other states if the cost of housing wipes out that advantage?

It's a simple question that people knocking SA refuse to answer.

As far as I am concerned, those states with unaffordable housing are simply disqualified from comparison. Of course, if someone thinks living in a car or renting forever in Sydney is somehow something that demonstrates that NSW is ahead of SA somehow, they are entitled to their opinion. However, if people's aim in life is to rent forever, well, Sydney or Melbourne is for them. No harm, no foul.

I guess though for someone who wants to own their own home, enjoy work/life balance rather than spend their leisure time in a bus, SA is better than most other states. The penalty of maybe 0.5% more unemployment is a fair exchange.

[claybro]

Adelaide to me does not seem a backwater. Finally there is some growth in the CBD and the N/S motorway will transform the metro area by getting some heavy vehicles and many cars off of secondary suburban roads that were never designed as major thoroughfares(I'm looking at you Holbrooks road /east ave/ David tce. There is no reason that Adelaide cannot comfortably reach 2 million, provided proper planning is in place. Problem is I'm not sure there is proper planning for transport for 2 million. So by all means go for growth, but don't let it happen along by accident. As for othe Australian cities, Melbourne and Sydney are a mess, but Perth at 2 million is actually easier to get around than Adelaide, and so I have found is Brisbane. In perths case there has been massive investment in freeways and commuter rail Over the last 50 years which continues to this day. The SA government must get more proactive in planning, and applying for federal funds for infrastructure, but is often found wanting by lack of a coherant plan.

[SRW]

Not to mention that economic growth by merit of population growth doesn't actually improve the means of the average citizen of those states. The rising tide doesn't lift all boats. If you apply a per capita scale to the GDP growth rates crowed about in Australia, there's actually very little or no growth.

That said, I support population growth and think it remains a key concern for South Australia in particular. But we should focus ourselves less on the rate of growth, and more on the quality of life we provide.

[Jaymz]

Hi, the doomsday point of view was what the article you posted said. Are you saying you don't agree with the article you yourself posted?

As for relevance. I guess it's a question whether the price of relevance is worth it. The article YOU linked says that those cities are paying a heavy price for their "relevance".

Well every state Govt. would secretly like the fact that they have these population problems. It means their economy is travelling well. Jay on the other hand, conveniently, says he doesn't support high population growth..... only because we don't have it

The fact that that every other states unemployment rate is on par, or better than ours is that those extra people (a lot more than us) are being absorbed into the labour market. It's economics 101.

Let's make this clear. I don't want or expect Adelaide's population to hit 4 million in the next 30 years, but 2 million would be more than hoped based on our once significant place in this country. And we ain't gonna get there on our current path.

Actually, that might be the case but for one thing: Australia's vertical fiscal imbalance. That is, the Feds get all the extra tax money that immigrants provide, but the States have to fund the infrastructure. It's a serious problem.

Here's a link : http://www.ncoa.gov.au/report/appendix- ... lance.html

Also, it so happens that Queensland has slightly higher unemployment. However, what good is higher employment in these other states if the cost of housing wipes out that advantage?

It's a simple question that people knocking SA refuse to answer.

As far as I am concerned, those states with unaffordable housing are simply disqualified from comparison. Of course, if someone thinks living in a car or renting forever in Sydney is somehow something that demonstrates that NSW is ahead of SA somehow, they are entitled to their opinion. However, if people's aim in life is to rent forever, well, Sydney or Melbourne is for them. No harm, no foul.

I guess though for someone who wants to own their own home, enjoy work/life balance rather than spend their leisure time in a bus, SA is better than most other states. The penalty of maybe 0.5% more unemployment is a fair exchange.

You use lots of big words chief. But let's be honest, I can only compare us to WA. and I lived there for 10 years. I suggest you have a holiday and drive around our nearest competitor.

[Jaymz]

Not to mention that economic growth by merit of population growth doesn't actually improve the means of the average citizen of those states. The rising tide doesn't lift all boats. If you apply a per capita scale to the GDP growth rates crowed about in Australia, there's actually very little or no growth.

That said, I support population growth and think it remains a key concern for South Australia in particular. But we should focus ourselves less on the rate of growth, and more on the quality of life we provide.

This is the classic example of talking a lot and saying nothing.

[Jaymz]

Adelaide to me does not seem a backwater. Finally there is some growth in the CBD and the N/S motorway will transform the metro area by getting some heavy vehicles and many cars off of secondary suburban roads that were never designed as major thoroughfares(I'm looking at you Holbrooks road /east ave/ David tce. There is no reason that Adelaide cannot comfortably reach 2 million, provided proper planning is in place. Problem is I'm not sure there is proper planning for transport for 2 million. So by all means go for growth, but don't let it happen along by accident. As for othe Australian cities, Melbourne and Sydney are a mess, but Perth at 2 million is actually easier to get around than Adelaide, and so I have found is Brisbane. In perths case there has been massive investment in freeways and commuter rail Over the last 50 years which continues to this day. The SA government must get more proactive in planning, and applying for federal funds for infrastructure, but is often found wanting by lack of a coherant plan.

Seriously mate, what drugs are you on? Brisbane is by far the worst capital in OZ as far as traffic congestion goes.

[SRW]

Not to mention that economic growth by merit of population growth doesn't actually improve the means of the average citizen of those states. The rising tide doesn't lift all boats. If you apply a per capita scale to the GDP growth rates crowed about in Australia, there's actually very little or no growth.

That said, I support population growth and think it remains a key concern for South Australia in particular. But we should focus ourselves less on the rate of growth, and more on the quality of life we provide.

This is the classic example of talking a lot and saying nothing.

Au contraire, this is the retort of someone who's said a lot but has nothing to back it up.

[Jaymz]

Not to mention that economic growth by merit of population growth doesn't actually improve the means of the average citizen of those states. The rising tide doesn't lift all boats. If you apply a per capita scale to the GDP growth rates crowed about in Australia, there's actually very little or no growth.

That said, I support population growth and think it remains a key concern for South Australia in particular. But we should focus ourselves less on the rate of growth, and more on the quality of life we provide.

This is the classic example of talking a lot and saying nothing.

Au contraire, this is the retort of someone who's said a lot but has nothing to back it up.

I suggest you scroll back 3 or 4 pages, through each on your way.