You can use this tool to compare: https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=Australia&country2=United+States
My cinema down the street costs $18.50 for an adult.
morry040
joined 2 years ago
Seems to be a logical choice, particularly when the universities are moving away from hiring staff based on merit. The unis will end up with a bunch of underqualified lecturers teaching to the only students able to afford the degrees (international students).
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-17/qut-defends-removing-merit-from-hiring-policy/103114562
I've lived overseas and I disagree.
Australia is no more racist than some other developed and developing nations, and there are countries with more racism than Australia.
Travel to different cities in the US and notice how neighbourhoods are subtlety segregated by race.
Talk to any European about their thoughts on gypsies.
Ask Japanese about their thoughts on Koreans.
Look up the usage of the word "keling" in south east asian cultures.
What we have in Australia is perhaps a more overt style of referring to cultures or differences, but the barriers to integrate with Australian culture is much lower than other countries. For some migrants that have come from cultures where they had a racial privilege (e.g. caste systems), it could now be confronting to them that their standing in Australia is lowered and equalised.
The way that we establish social bonds (banter, joking around, jabs, insults etc) can also be confusing to foreigners and be perceived as racist, but it's an old UK way of establishing camaraderie by proving that you can dish out an insult but also take it as well. Like stand-up comedy material, this method is being tamed as time goes on.
One final indicator of racial division is the level of mixed marriages. If it was a serious problem, we would see low levels of marriages between different countries of origin. In the EU, the rate of mixed marriages is about 8% (1 in 12). In Australia, the rate is 3.5x larger at 29%.
The growth rate is still lower than the pre-COVID years...
Who stole the land, exactly? The last Census detailed that 28% of Australians were born outside Australia and 48% have a parent born overseas, so the population who could be traced back to "stealing land" is a small minority.
From the perspective of some in the older generations, Indigenous Australians were given a voice and representation in 1962 when they were given the option to enrol and vote in federal elections, the same as every other Australian.
Not specifically about ATSI people, but of any race. The 'races power' part of the Constitution (section 51(xxvi)) reads as follows:
Current text:
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
"the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws"
Original text:
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
"the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws"
What's a bigger problem than the IMF? Corruption.
The article itself links to another Oxfam report that details how correctly taxing the wealthy in these poorer countries would provide all of the critical social services that these regions are lacking.
https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/the-middle-east-and-north-africa-gap-prosperity-for-the-rich-austerity-for-the-621549/
If it is not an additional layer of bureaucracy, where I can find information that explains which minister or government body that the Voice will make representations towards? Will it direct representation to the existing NIAA or will it replace this government agency?
When explaining the concept to my parents and grandparents, it has been challenging to convince them that this is not just ATSIC 2.0. Their concerns are that the corruption that occurred within that former organisation will be harder to control as the organisation would now have a constitutional shield to protect against criticism or accountability.
I doubt it. The whole "representation" part seems over-hyped. It's being promoted almost as if it will be a dedicated seat in parliament. The more likely outcome that it will just end up being a committee that reports into the existing NIAA structure and we don't end up seeing anything more impactful than what the NIAA is currently delivering.
If the Voice goes ahead, we can look forward to it running into the usual government bureaucracy, leading to disappointment once it becomes clear that government legislation doesn't solve issues that are occurring at the local, community level.
These are the design principles from the working group: https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles
The 272-page final report from the co-design working group has all of the minute detail about how they engaged with the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) to design the Voice proposal, including recommendations on how it should operate: https://voice.gov.au/sites/default/files/resource/download/indigenous-voice-co-design-process-final-report_1.pdf
A big difference, however, is that houses in the 80s were 3-4 times the average income. Now that ratio is about 10x.
Younger generations always need to work harder than older people, yes, but the major difference is that working hard these days doesn't provide the same rewards that it once did.
https://www.finder.com.au/owning-a-home-in-the-80s-vs-today