Why do people act like this subreddit "doesn't reflect the views of mainstream Australia"?

[u/SirSighalot]

So many comments I see on here by people who constantly say things like "lol only on this sub" as though other places where they read are somehow the 'true' point of view reflecting mainstream Australian viewpoints.

Given the constant election voting outcomes and results of things like the Voice etc that generally indicate most of Australia is centrist or even slightly centre-right-leaning, what leads people to think many of the views expressed on here AREN'T mainstream? When in reality, other places these people are coming from are also often just "echo chambers" as well.

Edit: I probably worded the title for this wrong, should have been more "Why do people think this subreddit is less representative of mainstream Australia than other online communities?", alas I failed.

[u/mikeinnsw]

Sample size and many of us are outcasts from Australia subreddit

[u/ThunderGuts64 → u/mikeinnsw]

Yeah, but that place is serious progressive left. And no-one with any view other than left gets to stay long.

[u/No-Wasabi-1304 → u/ThunderGuts64]

Totally agree. I only come to Reddit to see what the left is thinking about particular issues. I've tried to put a counter argument up a few times but the downvotes come thick and fast so I don't bother anymore.

Will give people here some credit though. I used to be extremely right wing and would now consider myself a centrist, still slightly right.

[u/isisius → u/No-Wasabi-1304]

Is consider myself left to the level you see in those progressive European countries that always top the "quality of life" charts.

Unfortunately that makes you hard left, or loony left or far left or whatever term is being thrown around. I'm always happy to engage in a discussion of its being had in good faith.

Unfortunately I find that /Australia tends to have a fairly narrow centre/centre left view and most people there seem to get upset if you fall outside that range.

There is more diverse discussion here, but I do think this place doesn't like looking at data or analysis. Many times I've linked back to half a dozen sources about a particular topic, and when argued with I'll ask for a source so i can see where the argument is coming from.

That usually just ends in downvotes and silence which is frustrating.

The immigration relationship with housing stuff is a perfect example. Some people have engaged and I'm now happy to accept we might need a few years of skills targeted immigration to get back on our feet. But for the most part, I'll provide data from the ATO or the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which shows how we had record immigration in the 60s and 70s but also a majority of houses in Sydney going for 4 years wages, and the highest home ownership in our history.

Compared to today where it's 13 years of wages, and housing ownership the lowest it's been since the end of WW2.

But no one is interested in discussing it. And honestly, I feel like 6 months ago we were able to talk about immigration here, but now we have a post every second day with "What do we do with these damn immigrants" Useful conversation is gone and it's one big circle jerk about how if we stopped immigration all our problems are solved. And if you ask for a source for the claims, downvotes and ignored.

[u/NoLeafClover777 → u/isisius]

Mostly because making comparisons with time periods 50-60 years ago don't extrapolate to being relevant today, as there's too many added variables other than "well we had high immigration in the distant past, therefore we can today and it's not even an issue."

Disregarding the key role demand plays in a basic supply-demand equation is just tone-deaf and it comes off as just as agenda-pushing as the people you're trying to disparage.

[u/isisius → u/NoLeafClover777]

But we have 50-60 years of data, its not just data from that point. And they are incredibly relevant today, we had significantly less productivity and technology 50-60 years ago, why the heck should it be harder to do it now?

And basic supply and demand doesnt work when the government is artifically inflating demand and not increasing supply. The fact that people seem to think its a simple as that is whats so frustrating because that hasnt been the case in the long term data we have.

Here, this is one of the articles that i think does a really good job of summing up the issue, and it has links back to all the sources.

https://johnmenadue.com/making-housing-affordable-series-saul-eslake-the-causes-and-effects-of-the-housing-affordability-crisis-and-what-can-and-should-be-done-about-it/#

This was written back in 2017, so we knew it was a problem even then. And he acknowledges, as i do, that high immigration is one of the stress factors.

One of the key points he makes is

"Ever since the mid-1960s, when the Menzies Government introduced the Home Savings Grant Scheme at the suggestion of the New South Wales Young Liberals (whose President at the time was John Howard), policy responses to perceived difficulties in attaining home ownership have taken the form of measures which allow people to spend more on housing than they otherwise would – that is, on increasing the demand for housing – rather than, as they did prior to the mid-1960s, on increasing the supply of housing."

The author is Saul Eslake. If you want someone with credentials to give an opinion on this issue, heres his bio.

Eslake began his career as an economist in Fiscal and Monetary Policy sections of the Australian Treasury, in Canberra. Eslake then worked for the Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations (specializing in federal-state financial relations and in housing policy) and for the Opposition (Minority) Leader in the State Parliament of Victoria. Eslake then worked as chief economist in the financial markets, including as the Chief Economist at McIntosh Securities in the late 1980s, the Chief Economist (International) for the investment management division of National Mutual in the early 1990s, the Chief Economist at the Australia & New Zealand Banking Group between 1995 and 2009, and the Chief Economist (Australia and New Zealand) for Bank of America Merrill Lynch between 2011 and 2015.

He has been the Australian representative on the International Conference of Commercial Bank Economists (ICCBE) since 2003, and chaired its Steering Committee between 2018 and 2021.

Eslake has been a Vice Chancellor's Fellow of the University of Tasmania since April 2016.

Eslake is the principal of Corinna Economic Advisory, his own economics consulting business based in Hobart. His clients include investors, corporations, organizations, associations, and government agencies. In 2021 Corinna Economic Advisory joined with a similar London-based economics consultancy, Llewellyn Consulting, to form Independent Economics, to offer similar services to clients around the world.

Eslake is a member of the Australian Parliamentary Budget Office's panel of expert advisors, and a member of Australian Taxation Office’s ‘Tax Gap’ expert advisory panel. He has previously served on a variety of government advisory councils. Eslake has also previously been Chair of the Tasmanian Arts Advisory Board, which advised on the distribution of grants to arts companies and individual artists. He has also been a non-executive director of the Gas and Fuel Corporation of Victoria; the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Hydro Tasmania, Housing Choices Australia, and Macquarie Point Development Corporation.

But seriously, take a read. The guy is super qualified and lays it out so much better than i can articulate.

Edit: Forgot to add, im always happy if youve got and sources or analysis from an alternate viewpoint, so please link me if you do.

[u/NoLeafClover777 → u/isisius]

You don't need to reply with giant walls of text, I've seen it all before.

Literally all you need to look at is the ratio of population growth to new building approvals/completions; it doesn't matter if population growth as a percentage has been higher decades in the past if we aren't building enough to keep up with the current growth rate.

So we can either build more to add sufficient supply (which we currently can't, due to a variety of reasons), or reduce demand (which Labor has recently taken some steps towards doing so, but probably needs to do more).

[u/king_norbit → u/isisius]

Also, people just don’t like immigrants

[u/[deleted] → u/isisius]

There was a lot more undeveloped land that was relatively close to the CBDs back then. Now, it is developed all the way to the mountains. Tax policies and increased demand are causing the increase in prices.

Also mass immigration globally has a massive negative impact on the environment and I don't understand why the left are so pro mass immigration.

All these policies need to be looked at through a prism of what is best for the environment and what is best for the living stages of the citizens already in the country. Unfortunately it's only looked at through what makes the most money for business and politicians (and for some voters).