Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Having lived in both cities (as well as other parts) diversity doesn't always equal tolerance. Certainly Australia's cuisine choices in both Sydney and Melbourne are increasing to other parts of globe outside of Asia. It's remarkable how far cuisine diversity has come in a decade.
Back to the diversity doesn't equal tolerance issue, New York is a great melting pot but still there is clear segregation and prejudice. It's the same everywhere whether it's New York, Orange County, Sydney or Melbourne. Even such liberal cities as Seattle and San Francisco have their fair share of prejudice. One of the great influences is unfortunately socio economic, if someone who is different is either poorer or richer that seems to be where the prejudice comes into play.
Sure. That's why I made the point about the need for meaningful exposure, which we haven't mastered. Still, I find that exposure (especially at younger ages) to people who one views as being "different" from oneself can leave one realizing that they one has much more in common with the "other" than one originally thought. Doesn't work for everyone or always perfectly. As an black American, and understanding that fear/prejudice often comes from ignorance and lack of understanding, would rather live in an area where people have had exposure to other black Americans vs. where the interaction has been minimum.
Moving on: I'd point out that segregation doesn't necessarily equal greater prejudice, etc. Many people want to live around others they are used to/have more in common with culturally. I've found this to be true across socioeconomic lines as well, though there are certainly exceptions.
Otherwise, I generally agree with you on socioeconomic considerations, which is certainly a great influence.
Australia definitely could not become a superpower, but I also do not think that it wants to become one.
It is too geographically isolated, too empty, and too dependent on mining. Also, it lacks water because most of the inland parts of the country are desert, so it doesn't have much room for expansion.
Somehow, Australia enjoys a rather high quality of life though, and I don't think Australians, who are very proud of their country and generally happy with their situation, would want to risk their lifestyles to project power around the world. They seem to like being isolated and enjoy their empty spaces.
North Americans make the same complaints about European countries, overlooking that people at the bottom in these "expensive" countries earn significantly more.
In 2014 the Australian, Canadian and American dollars were trading roughly at parity.
The OECD puts the PPP exchange rate (ie where prices should roughly equal out) for Australia at $1.52 for 2015, meaning that A$15.00/hr has the same buying power as $9.87 does in the US.
Australia has gone from super-expensive at parity, to just kinda expensive now with the AUD trading at ~$1.35 per USD. Prices are roughly 13% higher using PPP. The BEA estimates RPP, which is basically a regional PPP for US states and metro areas, at today's exchange rates Australian prices are similar to the more expensive US states.
GDP per head at today's exchange rates for the more expensive/wealthy US states (NY, CA, NJ, MA, etc) is generally in the $65,000-$75,000 range compared with $49,000 in Australia.
Those numbers doesn't seem to be very correct. For instance in the US, you could rent a two-bedroom home for about $700 a month, and food is about $400 for a family of four. I don't know what bills represent, but lets say it is $300 a month. In this case daily essentials is $46, not $86 I think the problem is that they are using an expensive area in the US and comparing it to a cheap area in Australia.
And it gets even worse when we deal with third world nations. $35 is far more than what you need in Thailand. In Bangkok you need about $300 for rent, $150 for food, and $100 for other stuff. Rent is quite expensive, but everything else is cheap. The result is $18, not $35 which explains why people in Bangkok is able to live on their salary.
More people means cheaper goods and services due to economies of scale. That's one of the main reasons why the US overall has such a lower cost of living compared to Australia. Having a lower cost of goods and services would increase Australians quality of life.
Well no it doesn't actually lead to a higher quality of life at all. Rather the reverse. Australia has one of the highest population growths of all western countries in more recent times and I don't think too many would say life is improving.
More people stretch infrastructure like roads, public transport , schools and hospitals. It creates greater demand on houses and competes with locals for jobs.
Australia has indeed become one of the more expensive countries in the world but that is due to low interest rates, high immigration and a resource industry boom in decline.
Australia when it had far fewer people and definitely a fairer and more affordable place to live.
I made a mistake earlier by overlooking the differences across states and provinces in the U.S. and Canada.
That being said, my initial point stands. Australians can afford their higher cost of living because even people at the bottom earn a decent wage. That is precisely why tipping is less common.
Just because North American tourists find Australian (or Scandinavian) prices "too expensive", doesn't mean that Australians and Scandinavians do.
Even within North America, Americans complain about Canada being "expensive". Prices are all relative.
Australians cannot afford the levels of debt they now endure. Probably the highest or close to personal debt rates in the world. All due to the ridiculous price of housing. Completely unaffordable for the vast majority of young especially in Sydney and Melbourne, but hardly much better in other cities either.
Australians certainly find Australia expensive. Social life is generally very expensive with poor returns for price paid in this country. Luckily most are not big in going out outside the weekends being a somewhat stay at home preferring people.Travel within the country likewise expensive.
A big difference between Scandinavian countries and Australia is the welfare system rules supreme in those Nordic countries. Good unemployment and retirement pensions and better overall governance than the options available in Australia.
Australia definitely could not become a superpower, but I also do not think that it wants to become one.
It is too geographically isolated, too empty, and too dependent on mining. Also, it lacks water because most of the inland parts of the country are desert, so it doesn't have much room for expansion.
Somehow, Australia enjoys a rather high quality of life though, and I don't think Australians, who are very proud of their country and generally happy with their situation, would want to risk their lifestyles to project power around the world. They seem to like being isolated and enjoy their empty spaces.
Lifestyles are already under threat and in decline in many cases due to affordability issues. Those living in remote spaces face additional problems of crime and mental health issues. Lack of facilities and options.
The only way Australia will become anything approaching super power status will be due to a changing of the guard. Chinese domination in another five generations may just get it across the line. Well in the lower super power status anyway.
A big difference between Scandinavian countries and Australia is the welfare system rules supreme in those Nordic countries. Good unemployment and retirement pensions and better overall governance than the options available in Australia.
Only people who do not work benefit from the Scandinavian welfare system. Scandinavia has high cost of living, high rents like Australia, and much higher taxes. The result is that many working people cant afford to have a car or a house.
Also pensions and unemployment in Scandinavia is not that great, especially in Sweden.
Australia is the same size as the mainland of USA but has very few people but many resources. The main reason for this is a lack of water which has kept settlement low and around the coasts. If Australia could provide almost limitless water in the future with desalination plants and other emerging technologies, do you think it has the potential to become a global superpower due to its large size, great climate and relative proximity to Asia? I would say yes ONLY if the water issue is solved.
Melbourne has more to offer than sleepy Vancouver.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildColonialGirl
Vancouver is very much like Melbourne.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
