A colleague of mine recently described how in the US a fruitcake is considered the gift that keeps giving - you just keep regifting it, because, apparently over there no one likes fruitcake.  I personally love fruit cake and thing Americans must be insane, but that's a whole other issue.  The comment got me thinking about the idea of regifting.  Personally I have never had to regift, I love getting stuff and unless I already have it, generally keep and use most things.  If I really hate the stuff I put it in the Salvos bin so it can both go to someone who wants it and also raise funds for a worthy cause.  If it's bad wine I take it to a party and leave it there.  But as a hole is being burned in my pocket by the gift vouchers work gave us for Christmas I wonder, is it regifiting if you use someone else's gift voucher to you to buy a present for someone else.

At the moment I'm holding on to my vouchers as I will be able to get so much more come the Boxing Day sales.  But as my pay looked like it wasn't coming earlier this week, it was looking like an attractive option to get gifts for loved ones and relatives.  And I have to say last time I cashed in my credit card points for a voucher, I very nearly did use it to buy a gift for someone else.  So the question is, if the voucher was intended for me but used on someone else, is it regifiting or just a smart use of availible cash equivalents?

One thing I really want to write about soon it our attitude towards what is dubbed our climate change crisis.  I am a sceptic with respect to global warming, however I also believe that we need to look after the natural environment and resources that we do have.  The solutions and scenarios of doom seem to point in two directions and one I think is erroneous – there is the backward looking view that I find echoes the thoughts of left wing greens that seem to have a nostalgic view of the past.  They harp back to societies where there is little specialisation of jobs meaning we all have to sew, cook, farm etc, where there was more in the ‘commons’ and neglect to acknowledge the setbacks of the lifestyle.  The other view is looking forward to innovate.  I’ve just learned heaps about geothermal energy as a potential investment – once the R&D/setup phase is over for start up companies there is free non-polluting energy to be had for as long as the earth has a lava core.  Much better solution than going back to having open fires in every home and taxing people for services they need to survive.  But more on that later.

***

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about why people annoy me and on the odd occasion get me enough to want to actually lash out or declare all out war.  There aren’t many but I think that each instance shows me up poorly as someone who is meant to be forgiving.  How do you turn the other cheek when someone either deliberately or though a intolerable mistake jeopardises your relationships and career?  Again I think I will write some more when I can think of a way to write without disclosing information about my work, clients, associations or companions in a damaging way…  …if I can.

I will add that for the record, don't ask someone for money if they may not be sure if they're ready to forgive you.

***

And one caveat, for those who don’t remember what it’s like to be single or dating for any period – you don’t need to ask when someone is getting engaged/married/moving in.  If they are they’ll be so excited they will tell you.  

There’s been a lot of talk about how the Federal government will pretty much be in deficit by the end of the reporting year, even if the budget is not.  The NSW government is essentially bankrupt after overspending so much and now, apparently, Queensland will follow suit.  I’m not sure how this can happen in Queensland as we have so much GST revenue and we’d have a pretty significant income stream from mining royalties, even if mining production is reduced somewhat.  But times are bad and we all have to tighten our belts.  This includes the government.  Their spending needs to be checked and double checked to ensure that it is not squandering our money.

I know that typically in hard times governments do think that they have to spend.  It’s not a classical or neo-classical, it’s somewhat Keynesian and as such grates on my sensibilities (funny how many things are doing that lately).  I find it funny that in the good times we do tend towards the more libertarian theories of economics and in the hard times we become more restrictive.  But the underlying idea of why governments need to change their habit is that taxation, interest rates and public projects can help boost the private sector to get through the hard times (as opposed to keeping wages and prices flexible to adapt to demand and economic conditions as the neo-classical would advocate).  And I’m actually tempted to say if it gives consumers confidence go ahead.  Reduce taxes and increase public works. 

However what is disturbing at present is that taxes are not being reduced and public spending rather than public works is being increased.  If we want to put more money in the hands of people to spend to boost the economy, the most obvious way for the government to do this is to reduce taxes.  That way people take home more of what they earn.  However in order to increase what people are spending the government has been increasing welfare, which is kind of disturbing.  First of all because the increased money to back this is not coming from increased revenue, but will have to come from borrowing or dipping into the savings from previous years.  Secondly money that has to go through the government before it is distributed to individuals and families is subject to what I have heard labeled as churning.  It means that the middle class that are paying out tax are also receiving it back in the form of welfare, however they don’t get the full benefit as some of the money is extracted to redistribute this money.  The preferable option for these people is actually to just significantly reduce the tax rate as a dollar received back in welfare actually equates to anywhere between $1.10-$1.40 if left in people’s pockets.  Essentially increasing welfare spending instead of reducing tax is the least effective way to stimulate spending.  But also it’s the borrowing to fund welfare that is not so good.  The bulk of the federal budget is welfare.  But to borrow to support it is really just wasting money.  It’s the equivalent of the government doing what Gen Y is criticized for doing – spending up on the credit card to get a new pair of shoes or iPod and only having a very disposable item to show for it.  It is fine for governments to borrow to complete big infrastructure projects – they are expensive however generally provide significant benefit to taxpayers.  In fact during previous economic downturns big infrastructure projects have been of great benefit to the country not only in providing much needed improvements to people but also in boosting employment.  The equivalent personal finance equivalent is that you only borrow to increase your assets or income, not to buy depreciating or disposable items.  But this is exactly what our state and federal governments are doing with their increased spending.  NSW is possibly the worst with things like standing by ridiculous policies like heavily discounted transport for various parts of the population.  And don’t get me started on how stupid it is for the state and federal governments to be spending so much on computers that will just have to be replaced in 2-4 years, especially when a high proportion of families have home computers and all schools have a computer lab (meaning that all Australian students have access to a computer).

So it is reasonable that we may see some deficits in our government budgets in the next few years.  It’s not ideal, but it can be helpful.  However it is far from ideal and even verging on down right negligent for government deficits and borrowing to come about because of welfare spending.

I don’t for one minute think that this detracts from the neighbourhood at all, in fact I embrace these people being here.  My area affords easy access to transport allowing access to a variety of facilities and services.  It also means that if willing to work or engage in community activities it’s really easy.  I have to say most of these characters are pretty friendly and don’t cause any trouble – they are after all people with physical and intellectual disabilities, not nut cases or recovering drug addicts.  And all of the people that I’ve come across are engaged with groups that support and care for people with disabilities.  Often the live in units with one or two other housemates, making it more efficient for people working in disability support to help out (ie they can help three people at once rather than driving around to different locations to help the same number of people.)  And whilst it’s not a life that you’d choose to have, it’s not a bad one at all.  No one else in the neighbourhood gives every one a big smile and a greeting when you see them in the street.

My other exposure to people with disabilities comes through the work experience I did when studying Education.  I did most of my pracs in special schools.  After these pracs I was amazed a how wonderful most of these children were.  Their ability to learn as a normal child was impaired and their hope of a normal life was limited, but their lives were no less wonderful for not being normal.

Given this experience I am amazed to hear that the government has set up a committee to see if it’s appropriate to abort unborn children if they will have a disability.  My personal views aside, I can’t believe that the government or anyone else is even asking this question.  What makes a child who may have a disability any less entitled to being born than a normal healthy child?  Aren’t we all meant to be equal?  I also don’t like that people seriously debate this issue as if it is a legitimate question, especially as the answer in favour is based on huge assumptions about the quality of the child’s life to determine it’s value.  I don’t consider someone with a disability to have any lower changes of a happy, healthy, fulfilling life.  In fact I’d probably rate it higher.  Education and support services are so geared towards looking after people with disabilities that it means that unlike your healthy “normal” children they won’t end up drug addicts, are unlikely to end up in jail, are more likely to have an occupation (even if it’s not an income earning one).  People with disabilities that are purely physical also have just as much chance of completing their education and having a career – they may just require a little more help and support to do so.  However arguements about quality of life just don't wash with me.

Don’t get me wrong, I do think that it is hard to have a family member with a disability, especially a severe one, and that if parents do proceed with the birth but give the child up for adoption they may never have a loving happy home to be raised in, but that’s more about us than the child in question.

The other thing that we need to remember about this is that things can always go wrong in utero and also during the birthing process.  So a child that may appear normal after gene screening and ultrasounds (or whatever those imaging things they do now are called), may still be affected by conditions caused by the birth process – some of these conditions such as Cerebra Palsy can cause quite severe disability.  There is absolutely no way to guarantee a child is free of disability when born and so we probably shouldn’t even consider intervening as we have not guarantee of success.  Whilst I believe that abortion can be appropriate if the mother’s life is at risk or if the child is at risk of dying or is already dead in utero, but this is extreme and perverse and I can not believe that our government needs a group of people to decide if it’s right or wrong.

I’m over the US election, I will say that.  After all the hoohar for their preselection (or what ever they call the process) and now the actual campaign, I’m kind of sick of hearing about it.  And it’s not so much the campaign we hear about here, it’s just Obama and it’s mostly just pictures of him with adoring crowds.  I consider myself lucky to have picked up on the fact that he wants to increase tax and McCain is trying to distance himself from Bush.

One message I seem to hear time and time again is from people who don’t like Sarah Palin, although what they seem to say is, “she scares me.”  WFT?  What kind of political argument is that?  It’s emotive, unjustified nonsense.  Public speaking scares most people but it doesn’t mean we’re about to eradicate it from the political process.  The Greens scare me, but I’m not ever going to propose or interfere with people’s right to vote for the loonies.  I know she’s made a few gaffes, but there doesn’t seem to be anything outside the realm of normal human fallibility (politicians are human as well btw, not robots and not lower-simian type beings).  There is a lot I don’t know about her, our media seems to have a very left-wing filter when it comes to the US, but the question I’ve been asking is when will it be okay for a woman to be in the top job in the US?  And when will it be okay in Australia?  I think that this election is showing that Americans are actually more discriminating towards women than they are people’s race.

This problem was first highlighted by Hillary Clinton’s preselection campaign.  No one seemed to like her.  Why?  Hillary is a bitch.  That was pretty much it.  No problems with her ideology or policies, it was just a personal complaint.  And whilst it was always touch and go as to who would win the right to run for the Democrats, Clinton was never that far ahead when she was ahead.  I think Palin is a victim of the same mindset.  She is at the opposite end of the spectrum to Clinton as far personalities go – she’s more homey and ditzy than a hardened career woman – and yet they get the same treatment, they seem to be hated an maligned.  Other than discrimination it seems hard to come to terms with why this is.  And it also begs the question as to what ‘type’ of woman would actually make it in the top job?

England, which I perceive as much more conservative, has had a woman in the top job and for the conservative party.  China, Germany, France, the Philippines, India and  Canada have all had women elected to the top job in politics or as their head of state.  If New Zealand reelects Helen Clarke, she will be Prime Minister for 10 years next year.  (I will also note that NZ has an upcoming election that has had almost no coverage here in Australia and they are much closer to home for us than the US).  Many of these countries are not as modern, progressive and intent on appearing to treat women as equals as the US and Australia.

I have to say Australia has made progress somewhat with both out Deputy Prime Minister and Deputy Opposition Leader being women.  However neither receive the outstanding publicity that their male counterparts do.  The thought of Julia Gillard being Prime Minister scares me, but I wouldn’t use that in an attempt to persuade people to vote Liberal-National.  I’m sure Julie Bishop scares socialists (at least I hope she does) although I have to say occasionally – not very often – she falls into the category of politicians that are annoying because they can’t go outside their brief.  But it does beg the question, what woman would we be comfortable with as Prime Minister?

This is actually an important issue for us to think about as I have read recently that there are now less women on company boards than there was 5 or 10 years ago.  It seems like Western society is becoming liberal in terms of racial inclusiveness, but taking leaps and bounds backwards in terms of the liberation of women.

I have to say I am a very bad Liberal supporter and must admit I have mixed feelings about Malcolm Turnbull. And it’s not just the Republic thing, although that irks me more than a bit.  What I comes down to, I think, is that he’s smug.  And I hate smugness almost as much as I hate people with overblown egos.  In fact the two are often closely related.

The unfortunate thing is that it’s getting harder and harder to hate him as he may just stand a chance against Rudd and I have to say putting more women in senior positions is endearing.

Actually upon reflection he is actually close to my ideal party leader – economically to the right, has had a successful career before going into politics, able to fund his own and others campaigns, articulate, not overly showy.  It’s really just the republic thing (and the smugness) that is getting in the way.  Well that and his unabated quest for power.  If there’s one thing he seems serious about it’s being in power, although that could also work in his favour as if he does anything too unpopular he’ll loose it.

At the end of the day, I will support any one working to get Rudd out of office.  So he can’t be all that bad, however I am also relishing the idea that it may be a woman that is next in line for the leadership.  Julie Bishop is becoming more and more the woman of the moment (but not quite in the same way that Sarah Palin has overshadowed John McCain) and you know what, I don’t care that she didn’t know the official interest rate this week, because when he first go in Wayne Swann didn’t either.  (That and it’s the RBA that sets the rate not the government).  I think that if the UK and NZ can have a female PM, Japan was considering it, and Sarah Palin will probably take over from McCain as he's almost at his use by date, then we are more than ready for a woman at the helm of government.

This week I’ve had the privilege of working with some auditors from Italy.  Any one who knows me knows I love and hate this particular job.  I hate it because it seems to be the case that any Italian who is not a blue collar worker seems to think themselves obliged to spend a minimum of 10 hours a day at work, regardless of how much work they actually do.  I love it because the people are lovely, welcoming, interesting people.

So one of these fellows is a little older than me and we were discussing how it’s wonderful to not have to wear a suit on the weekend.  Italy is a little more formal in their professional standards than Australia, however as a consultant I should generally be wearing a suit at all times when I am or could potentially be in contact with clients.  We’re in the same boat.  I'm lucky, however, instead of wearing a tie and a buttoned shirt I get to wear more colourful tops and fabulous jewellery.  Needless to say during the course of this conversation I taught my colleague the correct use of the term “thongs” when in Australia (which is the incorrect use in the UK).  I think it all leads back to my university days, where being a member of the Arts faculty meant that I could pretty much what ever the heck I wanted.  Pyjamas were dressed up for some classes, ironed clothes were a rarity.  My staple clothing was pretty much jeans or army fatigues and t-shirts (yes you heard me right, I wore combat pants consistently or at least two years I can remember).  In my final year I started to get buttoned shirts as I thought I may need a professional wardrobe at some point and didn’t want to have to fork out for it all at once.  I loved it.  I’d love it even more now as I can actually afford decent clothes.

Which made me wonder, who on earth wears a suit outside business hours anyway?  The only time I would do this is if I’m going to something after work and don’t have time to change.  Although if it’s a professional function I wouldn’t change even if I had time to do so.

Personal dress sense, in situations where there is not a uniform (I include suits in this as even though they are not homogenous, are all essentially uniform) is generally meant to say something about you.  It’s a form of personal expression and also a way to belong to a group.  Really, to be voluntarily wearing a suit after hours or on the weekend, you pretty much have to be selling something or have absolutely no creativity or individuality what so ever.  The third option is that you don’t have a regular desk job and for some reason you think it’s cool to wear a suit, but I won’t go there.

For my case in point my mind goes back to a fellow I knew a few years ago who I had only ever seen in a suit, a tux and the generic jeans, polo and leather jacket (none of the items were fashion items, they were all rather generic, “I have no idea what to wear when I’m not wearing a suit” type items).  I think he thought he was creating a good impression or giving a sense of authority.  He was doing quite the opposite.  The suit was so often out of place that it immediately put people off side and seemed to mark him out as someone who did not know what was contextually appropriate.  It was on par with turning up to the church for your grandfather’s funeral in a fuchsia emblazoned Hawaiian shirt.  Possibly a Hawaiian shirt with “thank goodness the old bastard is gone” embroidered on the back as well. 

The other thing about my case and others I can think of as well, is that the suit was usually fairly new and worn with gaudy cuff links.  I put this sort of dressing on par with girls who update their Cue collection every 6 weeks.  Whilst moderately fashionable (for the middle class) and up to date.  It screams lower level customer or client facing staff.  It readily identifies the wearer as young, generally childless and having few financial commitments.  

Let me elaborate.  People who are able to update their wardrobe regularly, and even seek out fashion finds, are people with time.  They also don’t have to spend their cash on things like feeding, clothing or educating children, housing and in most cases that come to mind, transportation.  Their budget is pretty much divided into clothing money and drinking money.  And it really does show.  People who spend their time seeking fashion finds on work clothing, also place a high degree of importance on the front that they present at work.  They feel insecure enough to have to have something newer or sharper than most of the people they deal with.  And more often than not, they do not have sufficient experience or ranking to assert their authority without resorting to Donald Trump brand suits and Italian cufflinks.

These are probably people who also base their ideas of what it’s like at the top on television and the movies.

I have been in board rooms, worked with executives of a variety of companies from small to large, from listed, to private to partnerships.  The one thing I have noticed is that people with real power and authority do not have to be suited up in order to be in command of a situation.  One female banking executive I worked with in a previous role looked to me, like she did most of her clothes shopping at Kmart when she was picking up toys for her children (don’t ask me how a woman gets that high in a company and still looks after the children as I have no idea).  If she didn’t have the authoritative dignity which she has, the unsuspecting could have easily mistaken her for one of the EA’s.  The same goes for a CFO I have worked with recently.  She generally walks around the office in a knitted top and slacks and you need to watch closely to notice she’s wearing expensive shoes!  Other than that, it is her knowledge and her people handling skills that set her apart as someone who leads the company.  I have come across one CEO who I always see in a jacket and often in a tie, but his work does involve a meeting with clients regularly.  However, he is quick to shed his jacket and isn’t nearly as fashion conscious as most of the external auditors I have met in the firm.  I’ve also found the heads of the medical firms that I have worked with surprisingly unassuming and unpretentious as well.

So this is my very long winded way of saying that nothing seems more clueless, socially inappropriate and less authoritative than some one in a suit at 8:30pm at night or on the weekend.  I’ll generally want to know what’s wrong with you or what you’re selling!

And for those not convinced, I will show you a picture of a very undesirable public servant that came up on my hits when I googled, "bland suit."

My other point is, a suit is also the resort of someone who does just not have a clue about what to wear.  Perhaps they’re too scared to say something personal about themselves, or living in fear that they have got the dress code wrong.  But by the same token, sometimes wearing a suit does actually say something, it says, “I’m bland.”  And from time to time it is also inappropriate in many social situations.  At school, self expression through clothing is inappropriate; hence school uniforms are selected for students.  However if by the time you’re 17, have finished school, and feel the need to wear something uniform like, you obviously needed to spend more time in Art class, or with your friends.

And as much as I could have something to say about all of these things, it makes me wonder, when did government become so trivial?  And when did government decide that they are serving the public interest best by arranging all the intimate details of how people live, how they do their work and even, if things keep going the way they do, what they put in their mouths.

When you think about it, there are some significant changes that have been introduced through law.  Most criminal codes go a long way to ensuring the rights of the citizens in most countries.  Allowing women to vote, work, own property and be the partner who initiates marital separation again springs to mind as fairly significant advances.  The abolition of slavery in both the US and UK, and the abolition of apartheid in South Africa, all are historically significant.  Even in Australia, the referendum to give Aboriginal people equal rights to those of other Australian’s is  a history defining moment.  (Along with the blocking of supply to Whitlam, but that wasn’t so much legislation as the blocking of it.  However it has been a long time since we have had something truly history defining go through our parliaments.

When you think about it, things may have not been that much better during the middle ages, because of social restrictions and power structures, but at least people were much more free.  I’m not entirely sure that most of the legislation we have has made life safer, easier, or human interactions more pleasant because of it.  In fact quite the opposite.  The best thing it’s probably achieved is keeping a lot of mediocre people in employment in the civil service, in an environment that frustrates the few good people it manages to attract.  I’m tempted to go into a little rant about over legislation, but really I just mean to say, I think the government should stick to the history shaping decisions, and leave the trivial ones to the communities, rather than trying to control people too much.

One interesting issue I’ve been thinking about over the weekend, is when does an invite to a social gathering include both the person invited and any partner they may have?

I half wonder if the question maybe answered in different ways depending on the context.  Although on further reflection, it may not.  For example an invite to a formal function or dinner party, should include a partner, but if it doesn’t it would definitely be rude to bring them along.  I would also say it is the same case with weddings.  Whilst it is polite to invite a spouse, de facto or long term partner, I have known people to extend wedding invites to just one partner because of a poor relationship with the other.  I’ve also know partners to be excluded from invites to more formal settings on the grounds that the relationship has not been going long enough to be considered well established.

There are also some contexts where partners are generally excluded, things like business and industry networking, work functions, and special interest groups.  In fact it’s often poor form to bring your partner as it is contrary to the nature of the function - you don’t go to a finance industry breakfast to spend time with your partner, you do it to make business contacts.

In more causal circumstances, parties, gatherings at pubs and the like, the rule is usually the more the merrier.  However if the gathering is at someone’s’ house it always serves to check if you can bring a guest at the very least for the purposes of catering and also in some of my circles this pays to ensure that there won’t be any personality clashes.  In fact all in all there are very few circumstances where it could be considered appropriate to bring  guest, or that your guests know they can bring a friend, partner or other person.

But the other thing to bear in mind, if you’re doing the inviting, is that the more social the occasion, the more offense you will give for not inviting a partner.  For example – formal meeting of a social club or organisation = members only, backyard drinks = people bring guests.

Also the tricky thing these days, is to know when to invite people separately and when to invite them as a couple.

When a couple first starts going out, then it’s good to include the new partner in less formal functions.  Especially if both belong to the same organisation or circle.  However in the even that both are known to a host, it’s important that both are invited separately as well.  This I would say is not the case for more formal occasions.  For example, about four months after I started dating my boyfriend, two mutual friends were married.  They had invited my boyfriend, but not me, which I thought was fair as we had not publically aired that we were going out for very long and my bf was quite close friends with the groom where as both were acquaintances to me.  Perhaps if the same thing happened now, about 8 months later, then I might be a bit annoyed about it.  However if this did happen 8 months later, I would still prefer to be invited in my own right.  This is because whilst I like spending time with my boyfriend and I like it even more when we get to circulate in the same spheres, we are also only boyfriend and girlfriend.  We are not engaged, we are not de facto partners living together (nor will we ever be!) and we’re definitely not married.  Because of this we can still be considered very much two individuals with separate but closely linked lives rather than a couple who are entitled to always be together and know each other’s affairs.  There is no assumption that we know of each other’s engagements or that we will attend each others functions.  This isn’t just a matter of status as a couple, but it’s also a matter of having boundaries in line with the nature of your relationship.

That being said as a general rule, it is good to state explicitly who is welcome to a function you are hosting, to avoid any misunderstanding.  This is always done for more formal functions.  However I find it’s a good idea for more casual get togethers as well.  Generally I’ll say to people, let’s do drinks or dinner, feel free to bring a guest.  Or if it’s something like my birthday and I just want people I know and like there I’ll say let me know if there’s anyone who’s been left out.  Again like my friend’s wedding, there aer some people that I may have deliberately left out.  This came about when one of my friends bought his boyfriend (who was also a mutual friend of a few others there) to a get together for my birthday.  This guy had spend most of the weekend on party drugs and spent the whole time at lunch pretty much comatose, and had made no effort to conceal the fact that he had not washed or changed his clothes all weekend.  Most of my other friends were not impressed.  I seem to remember using the phrase, “not my friend…” a number of times as well.

Actually it all comes back to what my mother taught me when I was younger.  When you’re hosting a party you invite your friend and any one else in the social circle.  Excluding others is rude and often it’s best to just not have a gathering or restrict the guest list further so as not to cause offense.  If you want to invite someone but not their partner or their best friend who goes to everything with them, then it’s best not to invite anyone.  I know to mention every one included in an invite, for example if you’re inviting a couple you name both rather than one and if their children are welcome it is acceptable to put ‘and family’ rather than listing them all.  This can be done for adult children, but in the modern context I find it best to invite them each in their own right.  Also I know that if some one invites you somewhere, even if informally, it’s best to respond (it’s amazing how many people these days don’t) even if to decline, and if you feel that there is someone you really want to bring, you ask.  You never ever just bring some one to any occasion unless it’s said that guests are welcome.  And you never ever go with some one to an even someone else is hosting purely on the advice of a mutual friend, when they have not invited you.  

So at the end of the day, try not to exclude people from your get togethers unless you want to send a strong message and never assume that an invite to you or your partner means both of you are welcome!

It’s an easy train of thought to slip in to.  Our TV programming is full of loud, idiotic morons big noting themselves, fighting in public and proudly confessing to or performing acts that some of us wouldn’t even dream of mentioning.  E-mail has meant that our society has become the most prolific letter writers since the Victorian era, however we do not have the eloquence to match.  However it, along with mobile telephony and other digital media, has also been used to bully, incite hatred and humiliate.  Even IRL, I feel like people are getting pushier and ruder.  I couldn’t believe that last week, catching the train for the first time in ages, how my ears were constantly assaulted by the noise of people’s iPods.  Quite frankly I’m not going to worry about the sound making people deaf, I wish it would so they stop using the bloody things in public.  One young fellow standing quite near me was listening to some fairly offensive death metal.  I had to address him twice before he took his ear phones out and obliged me by turning his music down so I could just hear a blearing sound rather than every single lyric and guitar chord.  I hate being a Nazi like that, but I also don’t like tolerating other people being rude!

It is easy to despair at our future, which inevitably seems to be a worse state rather than a more advanced one, but I think perhaps there is a simpler explanation.

The cultural texts that we have from our past were produced by a small group of people.  Depending on how far you want to go back we have had eras where only the clergy, the aristocracy and men were educated enough to read and write.  They were the ones who recorded our history and also fed popular discourse through plays, songs, stories and artwork.  It was the most cultivated and learned people who were producing these things.  Even as recently as 150 years ago, the majority of texts were still produced by the well educated and relatively well breed (I’ll use this term loosely to include the middle class).  The people with the money were the gatekeepers and things were tailored to their tastes rather than that of the crass, uncouth, unwashed masses.  And whilst people like Charles Dickens would have written about the lower classes, they certainly wouldn’t have been given a voice for themselves.

Technology has changed this.  Photography meant that every one could have portraits and family pictures, where previously they had to be painted and were restricted to the wealthy.  And now we have digital photography and are not restricted by what we put on precious film and development costs, people will take photos of virtually anything or anyone doing everything.  Mass media has become cheaper and cheaper, meaning that newspapers have expanded to include items of human interest and trivial matters and magazines are no longer restricted to just in depth articles but also include the most trivial matters and are full of pictures rather than text.  And we have one of the highest literacy rates ever, meaning that any one no matter how eloquent or cultured, can pick up a pen or sit down at a computer and write their story, what’s happening in their lives or whatever thoughts are running through their head no matter how trivial, illogical or dangerous.  We have democratised the ability to create cultural texts and now almost every one produces them.  As a result we have gone from having only the most refined, beautiful or intelligent discourse to having every sort of discourse preserved.  We live in one of the most documented eras ever.

Also the people who are able to consume media and texts has changed.  In Australia there are 1.5 televisions per household.  In fact a house without a television is less likely to be a deprived one as home to a family with at least one person who is so despairing of the content that they have chosen to not have it in their home.  Every one has a radio, CD’s, goes to the moves, reads the news, magazines and websites.  Every one consumes media no matter what their social status.  This is a sharp contrast to eras when books and newspapers were only available to the middle class, gentry and aristocracy.  Where only the relatively wealthy viewed and collected artwork and whilst there may have been some popular theatre and even music, the type of place you went to see it and the frequency you accessed it was directly related to your status in life.

All in all I have come to the conclusion that the decline in quality of content of popular texts is not actually a reflection on a decline in society.  Whilst our communities seem to be filled with more and more pushy and rude people than ever before, I’m hard pressed to say that it is an increase disproportionate to the rest of the population.  I think all we have seen is a change in the power of who produces and publishes the texts that we come across every day and who consumes them.  It now reflects and is accessed by all of society and unfortunately there are more dregs than good elixir in it.  I suspect that this has always been the case, but in the past, without technology we have been more successful at silencing the voices of those who are counter-cultural, crass, rude, offensive, uneducated, illogical or dangerous.  We didn’t educate those sorts of people and it was too expensive for them to produce or purchase texts of any sort.

At the end of the day there are still good quality, intelligent, entertaining texts out there.  They can be submerged by a deluge of rubbish, but they are still there.  I think that society has not become worse, so much as the worst parts become louder.  But I will also finish by saying that I am always disappointed by people who are capable of producing and understanding quality, giving in and producing and immersing themselves in morass.  Especially if it's in the mistaken belief that there is nothing else out there or that they will not otherwise be understood.

For some inexplicable reason I put the radio on whilst I was driving to the city cat stop to get to work.  I almost never do that because I hate radio.  Actually not so much what they play as the people who are employed to dribble a lot of rubbish which is, we are told, entertaining talk and commentary.  I was disappointed to learn that the BB winner this year was Terri.

Now I don’t claim to have watched the show that much.  Some of the ‘housemates’ I still couldn’t pick in a line up, but this woman seems to have seared her presence into my, and indeed most of Australia’s minds.  To be perfectly honest, I think that she is classless, rude, white trash at worst, annoying at best (and that's the scrubbed version of what I originally thought).  It was clear from the outset that she and the other old bloke on the show were merely there to prove a point – the BB production crew was caving in to criticism that their show was mostly full of young white people.  Not that the other people I saw this year delivered a viewing experience that should be rewarded with a quarter of a million either.  (As an aside, what is with having such a small prize, you can’t even get a house for that these days, just a very nice car.)

To my way of thinking, this woman winning the show is akin to Casey Donovan winning Australian Idol.  Anthony Callea was clearly the more talented singer and has had more career success since finishing the show.  It seemed more of a political choice to promote Donovan and crown her the victor.  (I’m not advocating the voting was rigged, but the footage we see on TV is definitely edited to bias our preferences).

But all in all, I’m not sure why I’m even bothering to vent.  The first series of BB was interesting and innovative.  It’s since been over taken by increasingly attention whoring, trashy contestants who are far from engaging (imho).  So eh, if that’s who you wanted Australia, so be it, but I think less of those who supported or participated in the decision this year!

For some reason there seems to be a growing fascination with people in their 20’s and in some cases 30’s, who still live at home.  Apparently 16% of us still opt to live at home.  Although as some one who is in this situation, it doesn’t always feel like I have a choice.

I am the first one in my family to have completed a university degree.  I have one cousin who started one before me but I understand never graduated (I could be wrong about that we’re not that close).  University education is becoming an increasingly common option for school leavers.  I know that in my parents’ era very few people did or needed to complete it.  In my grandparents’ era, due to the depression, children had to commence work as soon as possible, and the number of students completing high school is no where near the 90-something percent who complete it now.  One of my great grandfathers was even a teacher and eventually school principal, without having completed a tertiary degree.  Whilst there are many students who live in college or shared accommodation as a student, it is far more common for students to save on costs by living at home.  Especially so in Australia where most of the population and major tertiary education institutions are in capital cities.  The average student is 17-18 years of age when starting studying and will study for 3-5 years to obtain an undergraduate degree, meaning they do not enter the work force until between the ages of 20-23.  This has an impact on when people move out now, as tertiary education pushes back when you start moving towards the independence achieved by working.

I graduated shortly before my 22^nd birthday and immediately went overseas for a year to teach English. I rather enjoyed living out of home.  However, this was necessary as I was living abroad and subsidised by my employers.  My cousin has recently come to Australia on a similar working holiday and had to move into a backpackers dormitory as it only cost $140-$160/week.  I don’t know how she did it for a year and it hardly seems fair that she paid that amount for the worst kind of shared accommodation, when I paid about 30,000 yen (equivalent to about $350-$400 at the time) a month to share with one other teacher in a comfortable apartment, my utilities all included, just over 5 years ago.

When I moved back to Australia I moved back home.  I had no idea how long it would take before I could actually afford to move out, let alone get a job.  Fortunately it took only 2 weeks to get a casual job, but it took 4 months to get a permanent part-time job in the finance industry and another 9 months before I was able to convert my job to full-time.  By then I had resumed study, and was encouraged to remain at home, by my mother, who was also studying so that we could pool our time and resources to ensure the household was running well, rather having more time and resources consumed in two dwellings.

Before the end of my studies I did move out of home for a couple of months, however due to my financial circumstances, moved into my fathers residence.  His working arrangements meant that I would have the place to myself for 6 out of 12 months of the year – an ideal set up.  This also came in handy when I had to quit a job due to a destructive manager and would not have been able to meet commitments such as rent and my car loan with no job.  I also accepted a graduate role as my next job, which cut my pay by about 20% - my previous salary was far from extravagant and below the national average at the time.

My mother has always encouraged me to live at home until I was married, a kind of old fashioned idea, but a good one.  It means that no having to struggle to pay your bills alone or sharing with some one you’re not quite sure about.  It also means that in the past the ages of moving out were not really comparable as people tended to get married younger, and moved out then, rather than living solo.  Also my parents lived with my father’s parents after they married and moved to the UK, and both had lived at home until that point.  I know my mother was the age I am now when she had me, and my father is a few years older, meaning that until my mother was almost 30 and my father in his mid 30’s, they lived with their parents.  I’m hardly trailing behind.  Only in the stakes of finding some one to settle down with (which until you’ve marched down the aisle is not a certainty …I’m more than happy to wait and decide carefully rather than rushing in that sort of decision as well).

Finally I think that generally, if you’re paying more than 25% of your income in rent or 30% in mortgage repayments, you’re paying too much and/or living below the poverty line.  It is generally irresponsible as you may not be able to consistently meet those commitments for an extended period of time.  Just look at the number of people defaulting on their mortgages going up at the moment.  I have no desire to join their ranks any time soon.  With my current financial situation, there is no way I could rent in a convenient location to my work for 25% of my disposable* income without sharing with more people than I’d feel comfortable with.  Although as some one who is not open minded about drug taking, bringing ‘new friends’ home and how frequently the bathroom needs to be cleaned, I’d have trouble finding flatmates anyway.  The other thing to bear in mind, as a bit of an aside, with 16% of people in my age group are living at home, and after reading a bunch of demeaning press articles and watching documentaries about us on SBS, we all decided to move out, the housing market couldn’t cope.  The rental market is already stretched tight as it is.  This would be even worse with approximately 116,000 additional people looking for housing.  It wouldn’t be pretty.  Also with people moving more towards sharing accommodation, is it really that different if you share with your family or your friends?

My final thought on this topic really relates to the type of people who force their children out at an earlier age.  I’ve already mentioned that my parents welcome me at home, and that they expected me to stay there until I got married, which would still mean I moved out at an earlier life-stage than they did.  Some months ago one of the cleaners in the office mentioned that she thought it was about time her daughter moved out as she was almost 18 and had started working.  She said that she couldn’t afford to have her daughter at home.  Obviously her daughter hadn’t or wouldn’t pay any sort of board at home, but it seems like it is an economics, as well as education issue which forces children out of the parental home sooner.  The more comfortable and better educated parents are, the more likely it seems that they welcome their children in their home.  So it would make it a class issue as well.  Delving deeper, it would not surprise me to find out that typically (not categorically) the families living together for longer were more likely to be middle-high income earners with good educations.

*for those who struggle with this term, it means post-tax income, not post-tax post-bills income.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23867573-3102,00.html

 Share on Facebook

Whilst I am not a climate change sceptic, I consider myself to be more of an environmental moderate.  I think we should respect the environment and try not to use up stuff for the sake of it, but I also think that we are entitled to live the best lifestyles possible.  This as been reinforced for me lately after reading the Karl Marx page on Brainy Quote and discovering that the sort of backward looking, preserving the environment to the detriment of human progress thinking I hate is exactly what he taught.

And I have often refused to jump on the global warming band wagon.  I’ve never been convinced that global warming exists, and there have always been voices of dissent.  This week I’ve managed to pick up on a few that have a very sciency sounding explanation behind them.

They argue that yes, there is climate change, but the temperature on earth is actually dropping.  This reinforces an article I remember from a while ago (and sadly don’t have a link for) that many of the temperature readings taken to support global warming, are not entirely accurate and more often than not are in areas where the physical change of environment is likely to produce an elevated temperature.  For example taking readings in bitumen car parks or where solar reflection has increased.  I’ve also been unimpressed by pictures of melting ice caps as I am pretty damn sure that this would occur every summer – a result of seasonal change.  Although I will come back to this point soon.  Those who say the temperature is dropping point to solar activity actually diminishing, meaning that we receive less heat from the sun, regardless of what we pump into our atmosphere.  Something of a slap in the face for climate change hysterics.

Whilst those who argue that the globe is warming say that the ice cap is diminishing, those who argue otherwise say that last year has seen the ice cap extend to previously unseen areas.  What I have been trying to find, to support either argument, is actual satellite images or records of exactly where the summer ice cap extended during a period of time.  This just doesn’t exist.  All I can find is a lot of nice CGI pictures with commentary about how high the oceans would be if it all melted.  That’s not science, that’s propaganda and CGI.  Actually I am so sure that this issue has been so muddied by those pushing ideological band wagons, that accurate information may never be available to all and sundry.

In favour of the argument, I do remember being in NZ a few years ago, being shown how much the glacier I visited had diminished over time as the glacier face left  a pile of debris where it ended each year.  But I’m a bit sketchy on the details and also how they could tell that there wasn’t a pile of debris under the glacier from a time when it was smaller still.

To be honest, sceptic that I am, all that can actually be concluded, is that the climate is changing.  But that’s no surprise, it does that anyway.  We know that there have been ice ages before, we know that there have been times of elevated temperatures before (and if you subscribe to evolution that is what led to much of the biodiversity we see today).  (I know for some people the concern is that it is because the change is caused by humans, but I’m not entirely sure that we can.)  Heck the magnetic poles of the earth have even been changed.  We can worry about it or we can deal with it.  To be honest I think that climate change, particularly global cooling, warrants careful use of our natural resources.  After all, it would be good to have some fuel left to burn when Singapore freezes over.

So in conclusion – look after the earth because you have to live in it, not because some hysteric is preaching a doomsday scenario.

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/yoursay/index.php/theaustralian/comments/sorry_to_ruin_the_fun_but_an_ice_age_cometh

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm

http://www.solarcycle24.com/

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/forecast.html

Is it just me or are we seeing an era or a lot more industrial action?  In the last month both the nurses and teachers have been on strike here in Qld, and I just saw on CCH that the nurses are on strike in NSW as well.  In all cases I actually support the industrial action taken (which is rare as I will argue against others until I’m blue in the face) and I think it serves to illustrate how poorly our Labor run, state governments are treating workers.

I shall have to dig out my figures but under our last government there was a decrease in Industrial Action taken.  And before you start reading off the union press release to me, there were no laws preventing them all together at all and certainly none which have since been changed.  So there has to be another explanation.  I can only hope it’s not so the government can try to look like the good guy by coming to the rescue and intervening in disputes.  The last thing we need is more government intervention.  [Or less stable work places for that matter.]

Share on Facebook

I find as I get older, I become more and more of a stickler not just for etiquette and consideration, but also good manners.  Occasionally I worry that I’m turning into my mother but then I remind myself that I’m just standing up for what is decent, right and proper.

Last night I was told in reply to my comment of, “who wears a ball dress/tuxedo to a function that says the dress code is Lounge Suit” that it’s better to be over dressed than under (which I may have been for the evening given that I came straight from work and had only changed my blouse, not my suit, shoes or make up).  

But there really is an art to getting a dress code just right.  Lounge suit is just that for men and a cocktail length (knee high) dress for women.  Black tie is tux with a black tie and cummerbund for men and a floor length dress for women.  White tie is substituting the black for white accessories in the gentlemen’s suit and women must not only wear long dresses, but also gloves.  I’m yet to go to a function where this is properly observed.  But living in the one state in Qld where it is acceptable to turn up to work in a Hawaiian shirt and cargo pants if you work for the state government (the land fashion forgot as a certain senior employee at my work refers to it).  But I have to say, even I break dress codes from time to time.

What I prefer not to see broken is table manners.  There is nothing more unsightly than someone who is eating like a pig (or even some one eating awkwardly, it makes every one uncomfortable).  I was actually shocked when I saw the website of a restaurant that we will be entertaining a client at, Siana.  (http://www.siana.com.au/) and was shocked when the video on the page began playing.  Besides the fact that their models were dressed in fairly boring corporate attire, none of them seemed to be able to eat gracefully and I was shocked to see one girl breaking one of the golden rules of dining – bring your food to your mouth not the other way around.

Now this does sound very much like my mother’s repeated comments during my and my brother’s childhood.  But there is wisdom in the idea (although don't get me started on the table manners of many of my family members including my mother).

I was going to wait until I had some news on my success failure or otherwise on Temptation before I put the previous (or any) entry back up about it.  But I'm going nuts at the moment!  So much for cool calm and collected.

Imagine this.  You're coming up to a final exam, your success or failure hinges entirely on this exam, and you have no idea what will be on it.  It could be anything from TV trivia to world leaders to historical events.  On top of that, the exam is closed book, your classmates are all watching your answers and only 1/3 of the grade will pass.  Only one person can get the top mark for each question, but will loose marks for getting it wrong.  On top of that, unlike your other exams you not only have to be there and on time, but you have to travel 3 hours by plane to get there, you have to look pristine, with three outfits of your own choosing which comply to strict regulations whilst having to look good and you'll be assessed under bright lights with your marks broadcast to 1 million Australians during prime time a few weeks later.  NO PRESSURE AT ALL!!!

It should also be noted that I am not that consoled by the pen that is given to most contestants, as whilst it is worth $200, I already have one and a "writing instrument" from Mont Blanc.  Which incidentally, I need to get more cartriges for (total aside).  So losing is not an option for me.

Needless to say I should have taken the day off work as I'm not geting too much done and I am cursing the fact that we have world leaders with very long names such as Yousaf Raza Gillani (Pakistan), Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (Indonesia) and Gloria Macpagal-Arroyo (Philippines).  Also icons like Koizumi, Fidel Castro (replaced by Raul) and Ariel Sharon have left us, and Zimbabwe and Russia have very inconveniently had recent elections.  And I can't find out who replaced Wayne Bennett as Broncos coach (not that it's likely to be asked), as the Bronco's site is rather less well formatted than the Reds (not that if affects how they play).  For some reason I can't remember any academy award winners, except that Denziel Washington and Halle Berry won an award in the same year, 2001, I think, and for some insane reason Shakespere in Love was given an award over Elizabeth.  And whilst I can remember the battle of Hastings was in 1066, the only WWI battles I can remember are Ypes, the Somme and Gallipoli but know none of WWII and the millions of other endless wars which plague our planet and make life just a little more eventful or even who the Generals int he above battles were.

Needless to say I'll have news in about 36 hours and will update you all as soon as I know.

Share on Facebook

After reading a finance mag for a professional body which I belong to, I have had a burning question all day.

Is inflation and high property prices really the result of low interest rates?

The reason I think that this question is worth asking is because whilst rates have returned to what they were in the late 90’s, our appetite for property in particular, has not been dampened.  It has slowed with our last rates rise, but not much.  One oversight when looking at the property market is to not take rent prices into account as well.  Rent has risen phenomenally, and it is not solely set by landlords.  Prices which are phenomenally high for the quality and the amount of space on offer, are not stopping people queuing up to look.  Price, in this market is being driven by demand rather than just easy access to money.  One of the points in my reading was well, is that development applications have actually decreased over the last 3 years, meaning that supply is not meeting the ever-increasing demand.

I half wonder if this is why we are also experiencing inflation with other prices as well.  The article observed that prices for imported goods have generally gone down, making inflation figures seem reasonable, however prices for local products have increased spectacularly.  Are we not increasing our production to meet demand?  (for the uneducated – when there are more buyers than supply the price of products is forced upwards).  And how much of this is attributable to a lack of labour supply?  Equally this makes an even stronger case for increasing our import facilities as a mechanism to control costs and to make up the shortfall.

The only mystery remaining is where did all this demand come from?  Did we have a population increase?  I know we’re having a mini baby boom, but that’s only in the vicinity of a couple of hundred thousand people in a year…

And if none of this is a result of a decrease in the cost of borrowing, why on earth is the government allowing the RBA to increase rates if the only likely effect is to cause pain and suffering to families?

Mobiles have made me lazy.  I’ve just been thinking about how when I was in high school I knew almost all of my best friends numbers off by heart.  It would have been no big deal if I lost my address book.

Now, all my numbers are in my mobile phone.  If I lost it or the numbers in it (which I did early last year) I’m completely stuffed.  The only numbers I do remember are the insanely easy ones or those that resemble my own – my manager, the office or cousisn’s number for example.

I am kind of ashamed that if something happened to my phone I’d be able to call my mother and my manager, but not my boyfriend.  It almost seems kind of intrinsically wrong.  It may not be all the fault of mobile telephony.  Part if it may just be that I think I’m devoting too much time to work and not enough to my friends at the moment, hence, annoyed about memorising work numbers.

Share on Facebook

In news yesterday was the settlement that Cornelia Rau has finally reached with the department of Immigration.  It’s sort of like the new incumbent government is cleaning house to get rid of any lingering issues that remain from the last incumbent.  I didn’t really have any thoughts on what happened with Rau.  I have no idea why she was originally arrested and I can see why she would have been forwarded to detention.  I was a little surprised as for a long time we have not had “men in white coats” to deal with the disruptive mentally ill and the police are regularly called to intervene.  So it’s a fair assumption that most police have had some experience with the mentally ill and can probably recognize some symptoms, even if not qualified to diagnose.  I’m not even going to go on a rant about the compensation pay out – I’ll save that for if and when legitimate criminals like Haneef enter negotiations.

One thing mentioned on the ABC news is that Rau’s situation is not unique or even the tip of the iceberg.  It was described as being fairly frequent, which is worrying.  It’s also suggestive of a solution that I would almost always be violently opposed to – storing of identification data which can be used in the event of a person being unable to identify themselves.  And yes, I know such a system would be open to abuse very very easily.

Upon entry to the US, most visitors have their thumb print taken.  When I first heard about this before visiting I thought it was like labelling us all criminals before we even got there.  But really, it’s just one digit, not all of them, and serves easily to identify a person, rather than serve to be used for criminal detection.  Also, it wasn’t nearly as segregating as when I lived in Japan and had to carry a resident foreigners card.  The card works well in Japan as it’s pretty obvious who’s not local and who is and the card easily and quickly determines who should be there or not.  Of course this would not work quite so well in a multi-cultural country like Australia.

So the question is, if this is to work who’s identity do we capture and who can access the information under what circumstances?  Rau, for example, is in fact an Australian citizen, so capturing information of just visitors would not have helped her.  And I think that it would be wrong to capture the information of all Australians, especially if we opted for something more than fingerprints, in favour say DNA storage.  (The problem of DNA storage for Immigration to use would be very tempting for police to use in crime solving, I also believe that it is a huge violation of privacy and human rights).  My other thought was to capture the information of people who were diagnosed with mental illnesses which may result in them not being able to identify themselves.  So someone with depression, would not have to register their identity, whereas someone with schizophrenia would be.  Of course this is flawed as well, besides being extremely discriminatory.  First of all just because some one has had one schizophrenic attack, does not mean they will ever have another one.  Also people can have their first schizophrenic or psychotic attack from taking drugs (even the first time), which still leaves them at risk of not being properly identified.

So I can see the need, I can’t answer the problem in a way that I think is acceptable.  Except to propose this:

That the government  needs to start a voluntary database of data which can only be used by government agencies (and perhaps they should be limited or named) to identify people in the event that they can not identify themselves.  Individuals should be given a choice as to what information they would like to have captured including what identifier (eg fingerprint/s, dental record, dna sample) is to be used and what corresponding information is kept (could be as little as name and nationality but also include address, age, etc).  People who are at risk of being wrongly detained should be told that they can apply including, but not limited to – people who are visiting the country, people who are at risk of not being easily identified as Australian, people with mental illnesses, people who are or intend to use illicit drugs.

Problem solved.  Now for my next imaginary act of parliament...

Share on Facebook

When my cousin first arrived in Brisbane last year she was amazed that the CBD was as busy, if not busier than London.  I was surprised, but when I go out at lunch time, rush down Queen St to get to work or walk to my bus after work, there is a constant sea of people.  It is utterly relentless.  The majority of the people here are working, but there are also tourists and travellers, shoppers and during the school breaks, students.  All competing for the same space and resources. 

Over the last few weeks it’s been fairly cloudy and raining in Brisbane as well, which means my lunch break has become a rat race.  Normally I like to take a break from the office environment and find somewhere to eat, outside my usual building.  As the weather has been driving every one indoors, it’s become next to impossible to find some where to sit unless you want to do laps of the food court for 5 minutes and manage to get to a newly vacated seat before the other dozen people, desperately clutching their lunches, beat you to it.  Lately shopping hasn’t been too much better and I’ve promised to not keep retelling the story of some psycho who ran over my foot with his child’s pram just to push in line in front of me.  I now hate people with prams.  Parenthood does not make you a good or selfless person.

To me, at the moment, Brisbane is like a pressure cooker.  We know that there’s pressure on resources.  I read today that office rent in Brisbane will go out 23% this year, making it the most expensive place to do business in Australia.  Home rent has gone up over 10% in the last year and properties which rented for $200/week in 2002 now go for over $330/week.  Our transport system is creaking and ready to burst at the seems.  Trains are standing room only and constantly cancelled due to a lack of drivers (if some one is sick or injured or needs time off, there is no one to pick up the slack).  Busses are carrying over 60% of commuters and there is demand for longer routes, especially as new areas are developed, however there is no capacity for demand.  Road rage and general motoring habits are getting worse.  Apparently the number of injuries and fatalities on the roads have drastically increased and in the last two years the number of unlicensed drivers being caught has doubled (possibly because they tried the transport system and decided it was easier to get behind the wheel regardless of the consequences).  Our hospitals can’t find enough staff and there aren’t enough university enrolments to give us enough doctors, nurses and allied health professionals to care for us all, but given that the bureaucratic environment and that the number of generally nasty patients willing to assault and insult the people there to help them is on the increase, it’s not surprise many of our more qualified and talented people head abroad now.  Heading overseas is also a good option as one of my colleagues commented last week that the cost of living for him and his family is now more here in Australia that it was for them in the Netherlands and London.  (He also echoed my thoughts that the Brisbane job market is somewhat lacking good opportunities for qualified professionals like ourselves, and but does have an overwhelming demand for university educated, experienced people willing to work for under $40,000 a year.)

So my perpetual question is, “What is going to give?”

We can’t keep cramming people into town, but the government, cloistered up in the southern parts of the CBD, with their own subsidised cafeterias and parking seem not to realised just what it’s like for the rest of us.  The easiest thing way for the government to support business growth in Brisbane would to either stop seeing the Valley as a district for entertainment and boutique shopping and let it be developed into much needed office space.  Or they could vacate all the space they’re using in town and relocated to the suburban business districts they seem to keep touting.  To be absolutely honest, it is essential for businesses to be operating in a well serviced business district.  Especially as this encourages meetings designed for industry bodies and information sharing.  It also allows people to locate in a variety of regions and easily and conveniently get to work.  Government, on the other hand, whilst it insists on providing parking, cars and a myriad of other services to it’s employees, actually has no valid reason to be located here clogging up our business district.  But that’s just the tip of the iceberg.  What is going to happen if we don’t fix our transport, our roads, our property problems etc etc?  I could just be hysterical, people could be coping with our grossly inadequate situation better than I think, but something has to give, right?

Share on Facebook