I don't think it's so much that, I've sort of had a look inside Education departments and I just think it is more of a lackadaisical attitude that these people take. It's hard to have much enthusiasm working in the average govt department, trust me, so there's no incentive to excel, no incentive to do a really good job, and with the heavy bureaucracy when decisions are made about how to educate the kids often it can almost be a "whatever, yeah that'll do" and a "come on, just make a decision, it's 3:30 and I want to go home". You can't expect much from public schooling and never will be able to imo. Private schooling? Imo there needs to be more competition. You need to have schools competing for students to much chance for excellence. But I tend to think the Private system is weighed down by regulations imposed upon it by govt. It's the old socialism problem, provide the same level of education for everyone and you get lowest common denominator. At the same time we don't want good education being the exclusive abode of those who can afford it. I don't know what the solution is, but if I had a kid I'd be seriously considering home schooling. I think it could be done in less time and that you generally don't need to spend 6 hours a day educating your kid as schools do.
That's a sweeping statement. I don't think you can judge others on what you do or plan to do with your kids. Or will you be one of the magical 1%?
Great post! Our eldest won a full scholarship to a private school, but we eventually went with a state school that we felt had more to offer. We have never regretted that decision. Finding the right school is the key, not how much you pay for it.
Ok, I don't have at hand the stats to back me up, so may be not 99%. But do you agree that majority of kids are in school and not being homeschooled? If not, I'll make an effort to find the exact figure.. And yes, my wife and I are homeschooling our daughter.
I'll just give my last advices on rent vs buy. You dont ever buy out of necessity. You may rent out of choice, but it's more usually out of necessity. Almost everyone who rents wants to buy, own, control etc. It's natural. You don't rent your gold and silver afterall. So what does it reduce down to? Inflation. Debasement of currencies and its impact on saving. If savings were immune from and not subject to being stolen by inflation then saving for a home would be a reasonable choice. But as long as there is inflation, and lets face it, it's the default system everywhere and is the low lying land to which all systems eventually go towards, no matter where they start. Inflation favours the buyer and borrower. There just isnt any way around that bald fact. Therefore borrowing and buying is like swimming with the tide. The mistake people make is more often overstretching and overborrowing. Most renters have no clue about how to save and protect their savings from the effects of inflation. How about selling up and renting? Putting ones money into an interest bearing account and using the interest to pay your rent? Sounds good? Not to me. Having all your money in the inflation pool? Earning interest at less than the rate of inflation, and disappearing in rent payments. Gambling on the amount of fall in prices to buy back into a house. When you already owned one? Unless you have seriously overborrowed and can comfortably pay your loan, then you won't do too badly. Inflation and inflationary policy will get you off the hook as long as you can keep your payments going.
I should have quoted your entire post. I don't agree that sending your kids to school is mutually exclusive with teaching them about life and suceeding. I take my hat off to you and your wife that you can find the time and patience to both learn and then pass on to your daughter all the knowledge that a school can. It gets pretty demanding once they hit the high school years. I would be very interested to know how she gets on say 12 months after she complete here education, but that may be many years away. Will you do it all again if you have another child?
irony 1 /arni, ar-/ Show Spelled[ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-] Show IPA noun, plural -nies. 1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, "How nice!" when I said I had to work all weekend. 2. Literature . a. a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated. b. (esp. in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., esp. as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion. 3. Socratic irony. 4. dramatic irony. 5. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected. 6. the incongruity of this. 7. an objectively sardonic style of speech or writing. 8. an objectively or humorously sardonic utterance, disposition, quality, etc. Origin: 14951505; < L rna < Gk eirnea dissimulation, sarcasm, understatement, equiv. to ern a dissembler + -eia -y3 Synonyms 1, 2. Irony, sarcasm, satire indicate mockery of something or someone. The essential feature of irony is the indirect presentation of a contradiction between an action or expression and the context in which it occurs. In the figure of speech, emphasis is placed on the opposition between the literal and intended meaning of a statement; one thing is said and its opposite implied, as in the comment, "Beautiful weather, isn't it?" made when it is raining or nasty. Ironic literature exploits, in addition to the rhetorical figure, such devices as character development, situation, and plot to stress the paradoxical nature of reality or the contrast between an ideal and actual condition, set of circumstances, etc., frequently in such a way as to stress the absurdity present in the contradiction between substance and form. Irony differs from sarcasm in greater subtlety and wit. In sarcasm ridicule or mockery is used harshly, often crudely and contemptuously, for destructive purposes. It may be used in an indirect manner, and have the form of irony, as in "What a fine musician you turned out to be!" or it may be used in the form of a direct statement, "You couldn't play one piece correctly if you had two assistants." The distinctive quality of sarcasm is present in the spoken word and manifested chiefly by vocal inflection, whereas satire and irony, arising originally as literary and rhetorical forms, are exhibited in the organization or structuring of either language or literary material. Satire usually implies the use of irony or sarcasm for censorious or critical purposes and is often directed at public figures or institutions, conventional behavior, political situations, etc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony
What is your point exactly? Learnt a new word for the day? Interesting social experiment how almost any comment sets you off on a 100 wanks-per-minute bubble and froth excercise. Envy? Jealousy? Feeling threatened? Overcrowded in your work pubicle? Get help.
To those who argue they would buy a house now if they were just starting out my question to you is at what price would you refuse to buy a house. Would you buy a house irrespective of how unaffordable and overvalued they were? If the average house price was $5 million dollars instead of the $500 000 or so it is today would you still be saying that? I suspect not. So the question of whether or not it makes sense to buy a house is in part price dependent. When you feel other goods that you normally buy are priced too expensively you would normally zip up your wallet and walk away. Why should it be any different with housing? A buy at any price mentality makes no sense. Now I know people say housing is an investment/financial asset but the reality lies somewhere in-between a long term durable consumer good and an asset. If you buy a house to live in for many years the mortgage, maintenance costs, land taxes, insurance, etc will consume large amounts of cash flow. However one day maybe when you are old and have paid it off you may decide to sell the house and downsize to supplement your retirement. At this point it can be considered an asset. If you agree with the logic of my first paragraph then the argument essentially boils down to what price are you prepared to pay. Some on the forum say the price is high but not yet so high as to dissuade them from buying house if they didn't already own one. Others are saying that the price is too high and they aren't willing to pay this much and thus prefer to rent.
My take is that it depends on the willingness to take on debt. We have a lot of investors here dependent on government subsidy, as well as homeowners enticed into the market by government carrot. Not just the FHOG, but also a few new items - I forget the names, but they turn up in a search on realestate.com.au for lower end properties as part of the marketing spiel. One of them offers impoverished individuals a "lease to buy" program, whereby the hapless mortgage themselves via a rent to purchase arrangement. Not long ago, there was a program for hard up retirees to mobilise the equity in their home to fund retirement without actually seling their property, at the expense of yielding ownership to the banks. Again, the names of these developments escape me, but the intent is clear...to encourage the ponzi to expand. Prices can't rise without new buyers. The whole pyramid depends on easy lending practise, by lowering deposit or income requirements, or by low interest rates. With the ever increasing dependence on foreign creditors to fund the loans, it can only end in a more unstable market imo, or at least one which fosters risks which lie outside Australian borders. Interesting to see how it pans out.
paranoid (pr-noid) adj. 1. Relating to, characteristic of, or affected with paranoia. 2. Exhibiting or characterized by extreme and irrational fear or distrust of others: a paranoid suspicion that the phone might be bugged. n. One affected with paranoia. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/paranoid Actually, I jest. The fact you're willing to nitpick data and assume very specific, made up scenarios to 'disprove' the point shows where your mindset is at. Look how you refuted the data ffs : I'm simply reporting factual information, which you discredited with something made up... then had the audacity to condone others in regards to sweeping statements lacking relevence. Do you honestly not see the irony in how you debate? Or do you actually have real world data to back up your claims? I know bias blinkers when I see it old fella and you have them super glued to the side of your head it's so obvious. I'm quite content to look at factual data from both camps, as long as it's factual. Made up crap by grumpy old farts who think anyone who doesn't agree with them are obviously mentally defective doesn't count. Hobo Jo went to a good amount of effort to collate this information and I protest your intent to slag off the effort under irrelevence because it doesn't comfort and support your pro-housing view of the world.
And, applying the exponential function to the axiom that house prices double every 7 years, this means that house prices must rise by 10% per annum. The nett effect of income rise and subsidy must therefore come close to meeting this requirement. This becomes exponentially more difficult as prices rise, I think.
Never underestimate the power of the printing press. If you are buying gold and silver then you already know about inflation. It's THE reason that gold and silver are chosen for refuge. There is nothing that makes the Wests modern economies immune from slipping into a currency crisis in which the thousand dollar and million dollar banknotes begin circulating. People worry about $5 million prices. Prices are ephemeral and nominal. Values are enduring. If you are given the opportunity to ride the inflationary path towards owning real estate then not buying is illogical. All the same arguments that apply to buying gold and silver in exchange for fiat apply here too. As long as you can play the game and pay the loan off comfortably then you're going to be ahead because the house will stay ahead of inflation. Your rent will only take you deeper into the hole as inflation rises, and your savings will also disappear if you havent anchored them to gold and silver. In my mind, buying at reasonable prices amd within your means is a no brainer.
So when house prices stay flat you're loseing money at the rate of infation. And if they drop it hits you twice as bad. Sounds like a big gamble in an unstable market to me.
Agreed most certainly, with that final caveat in mind. Trouble is, how do you define a 'reasonable' price? Is the current market what you'd deem reasonable? Looking at the world rankings on housing, the Australian market is one of the most 'unreasonable' markets in modern existence, don't you think? http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf What do we say to these happy figures I wonder? Aussie, Aussie, Aussie... Oi Oi Oi?
Aus, no need to make things up. I wasn't refuting data, merely adding thoughts for input. I feel sorry that you feel a need to take everything as a joust and fail to see a comment for what it is. I do understand that your feeling is of paranoia however. Learn the difference between discussion, debate and argument. This forum is primarily for discussion. Cheers!
I thought about it. Yes, there are parents who do that. The fact that my own and my friends experience do not reflect that doesn't mean it's not happening. Agreed. Yes, many years away. We THINK we will. However I'd like to address this point: "...that you can find the time and patience to both learn and then pass on to your daughter all the knowledge that a school can." MY OPINION is that you don't need all this knowledge. I don't know about you, but I don't remember most of the stuff my school taught me. I'll go one step further. I don't remember more than 60% (and never cared to remember) of the stuff I learned in university to get my BSc. And yet, I have not a bad paying job, within the industry I was interested in, have some amount of experience and if I'd need to go on a job hunt again, I have no doubt I'll find what I need and want. I was fairly successful in the subjects I WAS INTERESTED IN. And I believe this is the key. I spoke with people who are homeschooling their child before we plunged in. I pay attention to how my child behaves. I recall what I was doing and why, when I was a student, in various institutions (school, another school, technical institute, university). When a person is genuinely interested in something, the knowledge gets sucked in their head and they progress to their goal. A school is bound by a curriculum. They HAVE to give you some stuff. Yes, there are some schools which are somewhat open/liberating (Steiner/others). But they can not allow you to learn just what you want, 100%. They have responsibilities before council/state/ whatever other government wing is involved in funding or policy-wise. And yes, we're not there yet, but people who I spoke with, who have grownups, confirmed: yes, their otherwise homeschooled teens, once zeroed in on a subject of their preference, were ready to go through needed preparations to pass a standard school/university/ TAFE exam or do whatever's necessary to be able to follow what they want and get a job. so my opinion is this: you don't really need the school to propel your child towards the bright future where he/she will earn enough to make a good living and doing what he/she is interested in. And also my opinion is this: schools are not the best way to get them there. If you're interested in something else than my opinion, here's a relevant book http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/index.htm Very revealing. Warning: long
