Urban Life and Culture of Australia

This article explores the division between the rich and poor in residential areas of Australian cities and the social disadvantages faced by those in poor neighborhoods. It discusses the impact of income inequality on economic growth and the need for government intervention to promote social mixing. The concept of social mixing is examined, along with its potential benefits and drawbacks. The article concludes with a discussion on the role of public housing in addressing social inequality.

Running head: URBAN LIFE AND CULTURE OF AUSTRALIA
URBAN LIFE AND CULTURE OF AUSTRALIA
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1URBAN LIFE AND CULTURE OF AUSTRALIA
How far the residential areas of the Australian cities are divided between the rich and poor?
Do those who live in poor neighbourhoods/suburbs suffer social disadvantage as a
consequence their address? How and why? Should governments promote ‘social mixing’ by,
for example, building housing for low-income families in affluent areas, or by redeveloping
poor neighbourhoods to encourage middle-class people to live there? Does ‘social mixing’
help to break down class divisions and provide opportunities for poorer citizens?
In response to the above question, it can be said that the inequality among the wealthy
and underprivileged in the dwelling areas of the Australian cities are caused mainly due to the
decrease in the income of the people. Near about 27% of households have faced a deep fall in
the income earned by the people (Mithen et al, 2015). Factors like job insecurity, cut in the
wages of the people and underemployment are putting continuous pressure to the households.
Inequality in excess is harmful, in any society of a region. When low earning people are left
behind in a situation, they try very hard to reach to a socially agreeable place with minimum
standard of living and engage themselves in the society. When the available resources and
power are reduced in fewer hands, or the people are too exhausted to take part efficiently in
the paid workforce, or gain the skills required to perform the same, the economic growth of
the nation is reduced. Income equality is indirectly proportional to the economic growth of
the nation. If the equality income rises, the economic growth of the country will diminish,
like the country of Australia. Most of the poor people depend primarily on social security for
their earnings. The uneven growth in wages and the investment income is the main cause of
the high income inequality in Australia. The impact of these factors actually regulated the
unemployment factor by a certain percent of fall or reduction (Alam & Imran, 2015).
The declining rates of most of the investment returns and a huge boost in the payment
rate of pensions, changes in other social security like the change of remaining parents and
people with disadvantages from pensions and reduction in the family payments also increases

2URBAN LIFE AND CULTURE OF AUSTRALIA
inequality. The supporting architecture of these tendencies across the overall period are
irregular social security policies like frigid Newstart Allowance and payments to the family
while guiding pensions to hike in the income, a long-term trend towards more bias in hourly
payment rates, and developing inequality in the allocation of wealth, which tend to boost
biasness in investment earning. These underlying tendencies are likely to acknowledge
themselves and increase inequality once stronger economic growth is restored. This is not
imminent; minimum wage, tax, education, social security and labour market policies all
affect the way the fruits of economic growth are delivered across the community. Loss has its
own base in a complicated interaction of determinants. Most of these determinants, if linked,
can have a combined results or effects in the society. The chance that a person will face the
loss is affected by their own abilities and household situations, the backing they get, the
society where they dwell as well as the scope it proposes, life occurrences, and the extensive
financial and civil environment. Knowledge of relative income poverty is a deeper and active
circumstance than point-in-time estimates discloses. The rates of relative income poverty may
exaggerate the part of the society experiencing economic loss. For example, current study
highlights the significance of adapting for finance when calculating the rates of relative
income poverty. Since 2006, the breach is increasing between the disadvantaged young
students and the richer ones as 41% of the former aren’t involved in job or studies after
school (Kavanagh et al, 2015). Poverty is just another way to measure hardship – economic
stress, hardship, dwelling stress and food insecurity are also the symbols. The chief
disadvantage indicator is less earnings. Though, scrutiny from the Household, Income and
Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey revealed that both are frequently connected,
less income does not always relate to financial burden. For instance, a pensioner may have
less income but their fixed expenses like mortgage repayments are likely to be low and thus
they may not experience financial burden. It appears that situations that are generally

3URBAN LIFE AND CULTURE OF AUSTRALIA
approved to lead to poor results are not always good predictors of low outcomes occurring for
children. While most of the disadvantage indicators focus on those in need of financial
buffering, add-on services do actually have an effect on the civil and financial success of
Australian children in common, the same is not applicable for local children. This conveys
that procedures aimed at counterbalancing these disadvantages directly may not have a
positive effect in reversing the high levels of civil and emotional problems experienced by
local children. The more disadvantaged conditions people live in, the more unfavourable life
events occur. In addition, adversity is far from casually dispersed, with people in
disadvantage experiencing both a higher frequency and higher severity of difficult events,
while simultaneously having a lower likelihood of efficient protective influences that help
them to bounce back. In brief, susceptibility tends to bring about further vulnerability.
Children those who have poor social and mental wellness, health and career tend to stay in
jobless homes and families. These consequences may endure through generations, where
jobless grandparents result in a jobless family. Insufficient education and lower earnings lead
to a jobless future. People who are deprived from receiving the proper education, go through
the problems of unemployment, less earnings, lack of health and also tend to get involved
with crimes. Rural people are more deprived, socially disengaged and excluded both socially
and economically. Whereas, urban people experience very less deprivation and are more
socially engaged. Multiple-life-stage loss is more widespread in distant and very distant areas
of Australia, and not much accepted in most (though not all) capital cities. Maximum urban
people lived in places which are not considered as disadvantaged for any life stage. There are
disadvantaged areas in villages and on the edges of metropolitan cities (Milner et al, 2014).
The concept of social mix is elaborately divided into two broad categories: firstly,
which promotes the profits for less-earning people and secondly which disputes that
prescribed civil mix can generate less advantages and sometimes injurious results. The

4URBAN LIFE AND CULTURE OF AUSTRALIA
Carlton reimprovement was structured as a civil mix study; as a result, this project
contributes towards the case study of the article. These conclusions also add to the regional
argument about civil mix in interior-city general housing area reimprovements in Victoria,
which until this day has been restricted by the decision of the government of Victorian to
detain the statement from a state-commissioned examination of the Kensington
reimprovement pilot. The policies which have been adopted to launch civil combination are
gradually being acquired across the flexible west as an answer to the queries that identifies
socially and financially deprived neighbourhoods. The advantages of civil combination to
economically disadvantaged people are debatable, but to the limit they are assumed to
increase, they are based on civil combination between the various statistics. This research
investigates the approach and procedures of initiating personal dwelling onto a general
dwelling estate in Interior-Melbourne, Australia. Through the study of determined policies
and results in this project, a conclusion can be drawn that the civil combination
reimprovement model is not causing civil combining, that the claimed profits for general
dwelling tenants are not likely to appear, and that the application of civil combination
policies can be disadvantageous for existing tenants. The inner-city Carlton general dwelling
area in Melbourne, Australia is the second prime area to experience reimprovement. It
follows the destruction and restore of general dwelling and creation of fresh personal
dwelling on another inner-city estate, in Kensington, proposed by the state government of
Victorian in the late 1990s. Kensington was the aviator for a civil combination model that
was to brief all consecutive Inner-Melbourne general dwelling area reimprovements. State-
imposed or rather introduced civil combination, when functionalised through procedure as is
the case in these reimprovements, is aimed to stabilize the statistics of less-income tenants by
carrying in more-income citizens, with the announced goal of improving civil, financial and
natural conditions for the current less-income citizens. The law of social combination now

5URBAN LIFE AND CULTURE OF AUSTRALIA
usually drives public dwelling area renewals and new dwelling builds on additional public
land. This is usually signified in a 50:50 combinations of social (public and community) and
personal housing, though the social constituent is often much smaller. As the inventory of
public land is ever decreasing, and affordable dwelling is in such less supply, which is
problematic (Phillips et al, 2013).
These verdicts are in accordance with the evolving bodies of article that present
objections to the structure of public-private tenancy combination on general dwelling estates.
The arguments for public association strategies have mainly two related consequences; the
first one is promotion of public association across distinctness, which is considered pleasant
in itself and important to the formation of regional social peace and solidarity. The second
one is a depletion in aggregation of loss and thereby alleviation of associated adverse locality
effects, which is known to be as breeding of poverty, widespread low literary levels,
substandard work moralities, increasing rates of crime and shame: that affects the socio-
economic prosperity of low-income earning people. The intercommunications of the
disadvantaged people with more privileged tenants results into alleviation of neighbourhood
effects that happens through role modelling and other effects through close association, or
through effective general association, where the previous one is important to the attainment
of the concluding one. The idea that general combination decreases absorptions of loss and
thus locality results is hypothesized on the faith that structural absorption of less-earning
people aggravates and boosts poor results of welfare – a view which politicians and
procedure makers in the flexible west strongly adhere to along with some scholars. Advocates
of general combination policies quibble that middle-class dwellers decrease these adverse
results by giving civil and material advantages like normal middle-class attitude, job routines,
civil flexibility, networks and employment chances that “alleviate the social constraints posed
by neighbourhoods where large numbers of residents are disadvantaged”. Hence the reason

6URBAN LIFE AND CULTURE OF AUSTRALIA
for tactics to expand civil combination is that adjacent natural contacts between several
associations will change into nearer civil connections (Stoeckl et al, 2013). The probability
that a person will experience loss is affected by their personal abilities and family conditions,
the support they get, the community where they live as well as the circumstances it offers, life
events, and the larger financial and social environment. Knowledge of relative income
poverty is a deeper and vital phenomenon than point-in-time estimates discloses. The rates of
relative income poverty may amplify the percentage of the population experiencing
commercial loss. This means that the physical length is the most essential obstruction to the
accomplishment of public association, thus the location of several groups will advance
consequences for disadvantaged persons and assist social coherence. The channel between
public association and the formation of equalized and corresponding communities get more
support. Public association procedures in Australia have been hugely aligned to solving
disputes on and detailing to general dwelling areas with the aim of diminishing civil
expulsion. General dwellings have been seen by procedure makers of Australia as tricky for
years, in portion due to its little fraction of the entire dwelling market (5 percent roughly) of
the entire market, which means that priority is given to the applicants with high and complex
demands. The maximum skyscrapers and walk-up areas in the cities of Australia were created
during the 1960s and have faced funding issues through decades, and presently are left with
lowly maintained and notably old housing stock. On one hand public dwelling areas and their
dwellers have become more and more diminished by white middle-class Australians, the
importance is to record that particularly the areas in the interior cities of Melbourne and
Sydney are well-supplied by public transportations, parks, and social facilities such as
government schools, libraries, healthcare centres, pools and sports centres, senior citizens
centres and so on. As the cities grew further, most of these amenities have been developed.
These areas can be catalogued as islands of social dwelling in seas of personal housing,

7URBAN LIFE AND CULTURE OF AUSTRALIA
places where the local shops are located close by and the prospects for communication
between community tenants and home-owners in the surroundings and private tenant are
sufficient. However, government reactions to the ‘residualisation’ of community housing
have occupied the comprehensive wordiness of the need (Pawson & Herath, 2015).

8URBAN LIFE AND CULTURE OF AUSTRALIA
References
Alam, K., & Imran, S. (2015). The digital divide and social inclusion among refugee
migrants: A case in regional Australia. Information Technology & People, 28(2), 344-
365.
Easthope, H., & McNamara, N. (2013). Measuring Social Interaction and Social Cohesion in
a High Density Urban Renewal Area: The Case of Green Square. City Futures
Research Centre, University of New South Wales.
Ghahramanpouri, A., Lamit, H., & Sedaghatnia, S. (2013). Urban social sustainability trends
in research literature. Asian Social Science, 9(4), 185.
Kavanagh, A. M., Krnjacki, L., Aitken, Z., LaMontagne, A. D., Beer, A., Baker, E., &
Bentley, R. (2015). Intersections between disability, type of impairment, gender and
socio-economic disadvantage in a nationally representative sample of 33,101
working-aged Australians. Disability and health journal, 8(2), 191-199.
Milner, A., LaMontagne, A. D., Aitken, Z., Bentley, R., & Kavanagh, A. M. (2014).
Employment status and mental health among persons with and without a disability:
evidence from an Australian cohort study. J Epidemiol Community Health, 68(11),
1064-1071.
Mithen, J., Aitken, Z., Ziersch, A., & Kavanagh, A. M. (2015). Inequalities in social capital
and health between people with and without disabilities. Social Science &
Medicine, 126, 26-35.
Moore, T., & Higgins, D. (2016). Influencing urban development through government
demonstration projects. Cities, 56, 9-15.

9URBAN LIFE AND CULTURE OF AUSTRALIA
Pawson, H., & Herath, S. (2015). Dissecting and tracking socio-spatial disadvantage in urban
Australia. Cities, 44, 73-85.
Phillips, B., Miranti, R., Vidyattama, Y., & Cassells, R. (2013). Poverty, social exclusion and
disadvantage in Australia. Canberra: National Centre for Social and Economic
Modelling, University of Canberra.
Scott, J., & Hogg, R. (2015). Strange and stranger ruralities: Social constructions of rural
crime in Australia. Journal of rural studies, 39, 171-179.
Silver, H. (2015). The contexts of social inclusion. Available at SSRN 2641272.
Stoeckl, N., Jackson, S., Pantus, F., Finn, M., Kennard, M. J., & Pusey, B. J. (2013). An
integrated assessment of financial, hydrological, ecological and social impacts of
‘development’on Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in northern
Australia. Biological Conservation, 159, 214-221.