I’m sorry in advance for my tirade, but this story makes my blood boil, but I’m not on the side of the ‘full-time homemaker’. I’m not anti stay at home mums, or mums, or full time homemakers, I’m anti these two particular women for being so stupid and making all women look ridiculous by association.
“I couldn't believe it. It was like being back in the '50s. “
Honey, you don’t have a job, that’s why you didn't get the phone contract. You have no proof of income, as your husband is paying the bills (yes, even if you are the one who physically pays them), so what did you expect the poor rep in the store to do?
"Being a mum is a full-time job and it's a very hard job - the hardest job you can have - because if you get it wrong, the ramifications for everyone are enormous," Ms Fair said.
Being a full time Mum is hard, blah blah blah we all know that, but it doesn't demonstrate any financial capacity to pay off a 24mth phone contract if you have no income.
As for you Ms. Eva Cox of the Women's Electoral Lobby, the company should not be ashamed. Calling for a boycott of Vodafone is ridiculous.
To give you some perspective on why this has made me so mad, I don't work for Vodafone, in fact I work for a competitor.
We have to do Trade Practices Act - Consumer Protection compliance training every single year (even those in non customer facing roles) specifically to ensure we do not sell/develop/market dodgy products to customers or make them sign up for things they couldn’t reasonably be expected to understand (selling to persons who are mentally disabled, or deliberately misleading customers with Marketing offers, or not ensuring customers capacity to pay at point of sale).
It’s just as likely that we’d see this same woman on ACA or Today Tonight wailing we had sold her a phone and we’re the big meanies because we’re expecting her to actually pay her bills and she’s just a stay at home Mum.
You know you've seen those stories before.
As an independent woman this sort of thing infuriates me, the sense of righteous indignation for something that is completely unreasonable is what sends us back to the ‘50s, not Vodafone.
Wednesday, 17 December 2008
Stupid Woman Rant
Tuesday, 21 October 2008
Government Handouts Don’t Always Help Those Who Need It
The Australian government's recent first home grant policy change is shameful. Don’t get me wrong, this isn't entirely sour grapes as I’m not in a position to take it up myself, it’s simply a short sighted, bad idea.
For the non-Aussies, the government announced they will double the first home buyers grant from $7000 to $14,000 between now and June 30 2009. First home buyers get a further $7000 for new build houses.
This will only encourage those who can not afford it to take on excessive debt and invest in an asset that is fundamentally overvalued here in Australia. At the same time property owners and investors who hold significant equity in their homes following years of above average returns are given a free ticket to exit the property market before it really starts to fall. It’s well known that the grant isn't actually for first home buyers; it’s actually a bonus for those selling to first home buyers.
Property values at 7-8 times annual income are unsustainable and need to fall. Other countries who had over inflated property markets are currently falling back to averages around 3-4 times income, so why is Australia an exception?
The government is trying to engineer the fall in Australia to be more extended and less severe than other nations like the US & UK, but by doing this all they are doing is passing the losses from those that can afford it and who are sitting on large equity in the properties, and passing it on to the young and so called future engine of the Australian economy who can almost certainly not afford it.
Why isn't the government actively trying to promote people to save some money? Their original proposal of First Home Saver Accounts is still an excellent idea, so why did they all of a sudden change their minds and promote people to skip saving and go straight for their first home?
In 4 years time when people have proven they can save some money and house prices have fallen they will be in a perfect position to buy a house and pay for it over the long term. The banks must have a bug in their ear as they’d rather make money handing out loans, rather than pay interest on savings.
So that’s still the path I’m going to take. Save my money, live within my means and buy a home when I can afford to do so. It seems crazy that I earn as much as I do and can’t affords to buy a home on my own, but that’s the way it is here at the moment.
The process of trying to spend and borrow our way out of every economic hiccup is destined for failure. We can not keep increasing debt levels happily ever after, I know this even without a mortgage, my original debt load was exactly the amount I’d need for a house deposit, and I feel this keenly.
At some point of this financial crisis we’ll all have to take some pain, and I’m glad I started peeling off the band aid in September 2007.
