Time for another rate hike.

It appears that indexation creates an ongoing feedback loop. That is, CPI inflation increases excise; the higher excise contributes to higher consumer prices and CPI; and that higher CPI feeds into subsequent excise indexation

Thoughts? You hear figures being bandied around like 60 to 70% of the online jobs are fake and that recruitment companies use ai algorithms to sort applicants and the algorithms are quite precise and tossing resumes that arnt a 100% match even when the applicant would be more than capable of doing the job. Do you think this could have something to do with why the government thinks we a critically short of workers when maybe the workers are here but not being connected with jobs. I mean we've had high immigration numbers for years and apparently the worker shortage is getting worse. Something dosent add up 🤔

Data for prices is from : https://discover.cotality.com/hubfs/Article-Reports/COTALITY%20HVI%20OCT%202026%20FINAL.pdf

CPI is from : https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/price-indexes-and-inflation/consumer-price-index-australia

Earnings data is from :

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-working-conditions/average-weekly-earnings-australia/may-2026

And

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-working-conditions/average-weekly-earnings-australia/may-2020

Some interesting thoughts in there that I don't entirely hate.

Every time a politician treats super as a personal problem solver, that certainty erodes.

Aren't the government [as an institution] adopting the same philosophy? [Eg. recent push for Build to Rent, Military investment, etc]

Super is in the firing line, with proposals to let people raid their savings early. That sounds like a gift. It takes away the only realistic path to a dignified retirement for millions of Australians.

Different perspective:

Singpaore's CPF scheme (superannuation equivalent which we based on) allows individual to withdraw their retirement savings, depending on the accounts (3 Accounts), including:

• Housing (Ordinary Account),
• Education (Ordinary Account),
• Investment ((Ordinary Account)
• and Medical (Medisave Account).

The Special Account and Ordinary Account are then combined at retirement age to purchase pension product for retirement.

So empirical there is a precedence for withdrawal from their saving early.

Nuisances on the different perspective (for complete of the above described scheme):

• Singapore does not have government pension [in general]. This gives them more incentive to save for retirement.
• Cultural wise the degree of collectivism [as opposed to individualism] is higher there.
• Their Contribution rate is at 37% [17% from employer and 20% from employee]

*** NOT ECONOMICS ***

Populism is on the rise everywhere you look. Leaders are portrayed as greedy and dishonest. Institutions are not to be trusted.

IMHO, this is the very problem in the current political discourse - STEREOTYPING.

This stereotyping labeling strategy creates an "arbitrary category" specifically the in vs out-group mentality.

This lead to "splitting or dichotomous thinking".

It might explain the rise of distrust, dis-enhancement [sometime using violence means] of the current Institutions.

Instead try arguing or evaluating based on the merit of the proposition - providing different perspective such that it paints a more complete pictures of the discourse space so that we can appreciate the trade-off decision.

Disclaimer / Biases

• - I am not in support of raiding the super [personal bias].
• - Love CBUS [when dealing with them though am not with them]

I’m a nurse, I’ve recently gone back to hospital work after a very long time doing other things.

It is unbelievable what we are doing and what we are spending to keep extremely elderly people alive another few months - often so they can spend those few months laying in their own piss and shit, not really aware what is going on.

I’m not suggesting that once you turn 85 we take you out the back and shoot you. Indeed, I’m not quite sure what I’m suggesting and I certainly don’t have all the answers. What I do know is that a lot of what we are doing to keep elderly alive is extremely expensive, and frankly, quite cruel to them.

We run expensive tests that the results really won’t change outcome much

We pump them full of antibiotics to clear pneumonia so they can go back to the nursing home and sit and stare into space.

Spoon feeding crushed medication to advanced dementia patients. Of course im all for meds that reduce pain, but that’s not all we are giving a lot of people.

I’m not sure how much of our Medicare budget is spent on trying to give the elderly a few more miserable weeks or months, but it would have to be a hell of a lot.

Example - recently we had a lady with advanced dementia, no longer aware of who she was, no longer speaking, required help for absolutely everything.
My colleague noticed a mouth droop. Told the junior doctor. Her, in my opinion, sensible response was “ look, she may have had a stroke but I don’t think we’ll do anything other than keep her comfortable at this point, but I’ll talk to my boss”.

The senior doctor decided that what this shell of a woman needed was a CT scan, blood tests, get a cannula in and start antibiotics to cover for possible infection.

Now imagine the above, or something similar, happening again and again and again across the country, at huge cost and to what end?

We need to, as a nation, accept that once you get old, you die. And do we really want to spend billions attempting, often fruitlessly, to give very elderly people a few extra days, months or weeks

My view only but is the government tone deaf to where the community might like to see 100m of tax payer dollars spent? Watching the news this morning where it was stated the exercise to send an Aussie to space on the upcoming euro space flight would be circa that figure. Can someone help me understand the benefit of this or the opportunity cost in terms of $100m to social programs at home in Australia.

I’ve been looking at the state of things - stagnating productivity, massive national debt, the cost of living, and the looming fear of AI taking our jobs and feeling like the current economic model is just... broken.

Our financial system is built on the assumption that the economy will grow forever to pay off compounding debt. But we live on a finite planet, and the math of endless growth is hitting a wall.

So, we decided to do something about it instead of just doomscrolling.

I'm just a regular Aussie part time nerd with a laptop. Over the last few months, we designed the Productivity Bond Model (PBM).

The basic idea:

Instead of government bonds paying a fixed interest rate regardless of how the country is doing, the return is linked to a National Productivity Index (measuring how efficiently we use labour, energy, materials, and capital).

• If we get more efficient, investors get paid.
• If we stagnate, the debt burden eases.
• It also includes a Productivity Dividend (a kind of UBI funded by productivity gains, not just taxes) so the wealth created by AI and tech is shared by everyone, not just the shareholders.

We stress-tested it using an open-source Monte Carlo simulation (10,000 paths) to see how it holds up against booms, busts, and AI shocks.

You can read the actual submission here: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=25e9d73e-76be-4f7f-87af-5fb5b3e71058&subId=805961

Or check out the open-source simulation and further reading/listening material here: https://traffictorch.github.io/productivity-bond-model/

I know Reddit loves to tear things apart, so have at it. Do you think a model like this could actually work in Australia? Or is it just a nice theory that will get destroyed by societal reality?

I need to vent because the current "fight inflation" playbook feels completely rigged.
Headline inflation is still stuck above target, and the big banks are practically drooling over the high probability of the RBA hiking the cash rate again. Every time the cash rate goes up, mortgage holders lose hundreds of dollars a month permanently, while the Big Four bank dividends skyrocket. That money is gone from our pockets forever, and it doesn't even fix global fuel shocks or supply bottlenecks.
Why can't we use a temporary macroprudential tool instead of forcing people out of their homes?
Here’s the math/scenario I’ve been playing with:
The 4% Emergency Trigger: If headline inflation breaches 4%, a temporary emergency brake kicks in. The RBA leaves interest rates stable, but a temporary 1% Inflation Buffer Levy is taken out of payrolls.
The Sovereign Account: That 1% doesn't go to the government, and it definitely doesn't go to commercial banks. It gets funneled into a zero-fee Sovereign Holding Account at the central bank to freeze liquidity. The net effect on our weekly wallets is exactly the same as an interest rate rise, but the cash remains ours.
The Drip Release (Sub-3%): To prevent a massive asset-price bubble from suddenly dumping cash back into the economy, the money stays locked in the holding vault until inflation drops back into the RBA's sweet spot (sub-3.0%). Once stable, it is steadily drip-fed into our private super accounts at 5% of the total balance per month over a couple of years to compound for our retirement.
The Low-Income Cash Out: If the economy slumps and inflation falls below 1.5%, the bottom two tax brackets get exclusive rights to pull their remaining balance out as cold, hard cash to buy groceries and stimulate local retail. Everyone else leaves it locked to secure their retirement.
Pair this framework with a proper 25% windfall export tax on the gas cartel to fund public housing supply, and you suddenly relieve pressure on builders, stop landlords from using rate hikes to justify skyrocketing rents, and build massive working-class equity.
Instead, our system is optimized to crush mortgage holders and hand super profits to banks while politicians act like "there is no alternative." Why is an emergency 1% forced savings cap seen as radical, but forcing people into financial ruin via interest rates is just accepted as "normal"?
Change my mind.