Urban Life and Culture of Australia

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