Why Australia's Miracle Economy Is Stalling
Australia has long been known for its prosperous economy, with many calling it 'The Lucky Country.' But that luck may be running out. While the nation's overall economy isn't in recession, its people have been weathering a perfect storm of financial headwinds that do not bode well for its future.
Australia's gross domestic product-per capita fell for 21 months in a row and household disposable income is on the downslope. Household debt meanwhile is headed up as real wages have largely stagnated. Indeed, inflation has been rising and the cost of buying a home—if you can find one to purchase—is among the highest in the world. In the weekly documentary How Australia's Luck Ran Out, Bloomberg Originals shows how the country's economy managed to dodge the worst the 21st century has to offer—and why it may no longer be able to get out of the way.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Zip Codes and Credit Scores: Why Your Address and FICO Score May Be Driving Up Your Car Insurance
New data reveals that your ZIP code can increase car insurance costs by 20–40%, while a poor credit score may lead to a shocking 60% increase; learn how to fight back and save money by understanding these hidden factors and shopping smart. LOS ANGELES, June 11, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- A new analysis from reveals that where you live and how you manage your credit may significantly affect what you pay for car insurance even more than your driving history. The findings are part of a broader education initiative tied to the company's latest report, How Often Should You Get a Car Insurance Quote?, which encourages drivers to regularly reassess their policies as insurers weigh unexpected factors in premium pricing. Key insights from the report and supporting data include: Your ZIP Code Can Add Hundreds to Your Annual Premium : According to analysis in Does Your Zip Code Impact Your Car Insurance Rates? , urban residents in high-density or high-claim areas can pay 20–40% more than drivers in neighboring ZIP codes—even when all other factors are equal. Theft rates, accident frequency, and even weather events can all play a role. Credit Score is Quietly One of the Biggest Factors in Pricing : Many drivers don't realize that their credit score can be as impactful as their driving record when it comes to setting rates. In The Role of Credit Score in Determining Insurance Rates , found that drivers with poor credit may pay up to 60% more than those with excellent credit even if they have a clean driving record. 2 in 3 Drivers Don't Know These Rules Exist : Consumer sentiment is one of confusion and frustration. According to internal surveys, fewer than 1 in 3 drivers are aware that non-driving factors like ZIP code and credit can impact their rates. The result? Many overpay without realizing they're being penalized for something unrelated to their behavior behind the wheel. Americans can get the best deal by checking their quote every 6-12 months : The article emphasizes the power of regular comparison shopping. With rates shifting due to economic and underwriting trends, checking quotes every 6–12 months is one of the most effective ways to save especially for those who've recently improved their credit or moved to a lower-risk area. "Drivers are often told that safe driving saves money. But too often, your ZIP code or FICO score does more to shape your premium than your time behind the wheel," said Fausto Bucheli, Founder & President at "We're committed to helping drivers take back control by understanding how the system works—and how to beat it." The Bottom Line: Knowledge is Savings offers a growing suite of tools and resources to help consumers better understand what's behind their rates and how to reduce them. From location-based quote comparisons to guidance on improving insurability, the platform helps drivers optimize their coverage without compromising protection. Explore the Full Report Visit to read How Often Should You Get a Car Insurance Quote? and access comparison tools, savings tips, and expert advice. About Founded in 1974, is a trusted insurance solutions broker dedicated to helping individuals and families across the United States find affordable, high-quality insurance coverage. With nearly five decades of experience, the company partners with top-rated national insurers to offer a wide array of products, including auto, SR-22, motorcycle, home, renters, life, health, RV, and boat insurance. simplifies the insurance shopping process through its user-friendly online platform, providing instant quotes tailored to each customer's unique needs. By combining unbeatable affordability with reliable coverage options, the company ensures that customers can secure the protection they need without compromising on quality. Headquartered in Chino Hills, California, is committed to delivering exceptional service and value to its clients nationwide. For more information, visit or contact info@ View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE
Hamilton Spectator
04-06-2025
- Hamilton Spectator
Ford government bulldozes green building standards with new legislation
The Ford government passed controversial legislation on Tuesday, stripping Ontario cities of the ability to set their own green building standards. Bill 17, the Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act , was introduced last month by the provincial government in response to housing pressures and economic uncertainty. The legislation is intended to 'streamline development processes' and 'reduce costs' by establishing consistent construction standards across all municipalities, the government said. But critics say passage of the bill was rushed without proper consultation, denying municipalities, large and small, the ability to confront climate threats. Currently, at least 14 municipalities in Ontario, including Toronto and Hamilton, have adopted policies requiring new buildings to meet higher environmental performance benchmarks. Those will be invalidated by the new legislation. 'There is no doubt in my mind that Bill 17 will make flooding and other extreme weather impacts worse in many communities across Ontario,' said How-Sen Chong, climate campaigner at the Toronto Environmental Alliance. The changes mean municipalities are not allowed to pass bylaws for the construction or demolition of buildings — a move widely seen by experts and advocates as targeting municipal green building standards. The legislation also requires municipal councils to get written approval from the provincial minister of municipal affairs and housing before making certain changes to their official plans, further restricting cities' control over planning and development. 'Unfortunately, late last week, Doug Ford's government pushed the bill directly to the legislature without going through the committee process first,' Chong said. 'The problem with that is committees are where you hear from experts, organizations, and individuals who are impacted — or could be impacted — by a bill.' The bill now includes new regulations that limit what municipalities can request from developers during the planning process. Under the new legislation, cities are no longer allowed to require information on key design and environmental factors like shadow impact, wind conditions, urban design alignment or exterior lighting. Both Toronto and Hamilton are reviewing the implications of Bill 17. In Toronto, a city spokesperson said staff have been asked to prepare a report on the bill's potential impacts for the executive committee meeting later this month and are continuing to assess the proposed changes. Bryan Purcell, vice president of policy and programs at The Atmospheric Fund, said Bill 17 would severely undermine cities' ability to regulate development, leading to higher emissions and less climate-resilient buildings. 'Municipalities have a legislated responsibility to protect public health and environmental wellbeing,' Purcell said. 'Restricting their ability to exercise those duties will not protect Ontario or build housing faster. It will only reduce the quality of new housing and communities and expose Ontarian residents to greater environmental risks.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
03-06-2025
- Yahoo
How the Consequences of Defaulting on Student Loans Became So Harsh
ROBYN BECK By the time Patricia Gary contacted a lawyer to help her deal with her student loans, she'd paid $23,000 towards them and still owed $3,882. That was the case even though she only borrowed $6,000 in the first place. What prompted the call was a notice in 2019 that the government planned to take some of her Social Security check in order to repay the debt. Gary needed that money to afford food and medications, so she raced to figure out how to stop the feds from taking it. Stay up-to-date with the politics team. Sign up for the Teen Vogue Take Gary first took on student loans in the 1980s to attend a for-profit beauty school. She left after about a year, amid concerns she wasn't receiving a valuable education. The school later collapsed in scandal. Still, the debt Gary took on to attend followed her for years. She would periodically hear from debt collectors and make agreements with them to throw some money at the loan each month. There were stretches where Gary didn't hear from anyone about her loan and so she assumed she'd handled it, but somehow it would always pop up again. In the meantime, she went back to school with help from her employer and later paid out of pocket to earn a master's degree. Those credentials helped her make a career of working with foster youth. So how did someone who helped others escape their circumstances find herself at risk of struggling to afford basic needs because of her student loan? The answer, I found in researching my book, Sunk Cost: Who's to Blame for the Nation's Broken Student Loan System and How to Fix It, is decades of rhetoric that fueled an image of student loan borrowers who didn't pay as people shirking their responsibilities. The result is that a program meant to help low- and middle-income Americans attend college features consequences for falling behind that are harsher in some cases than those credit card users face. Now those penalties are looming over borrowers as the Trump administration restarts student debt collection following a five year pandemic-era pause. About 5 million borrowers are at risk of having their Social Security checks and tax refunds taken as well as their wages garnished over defaulting on student loans. But the march towards these punitive consequences began decades before the Trump administration. Over the years, lawmakers layered on policies that made it nearly impossible for borrowers to escape their student loans and delivered punishing penalties when they fell behind. This pattern started in the mid-1970s when Congress changed the way the bankruptcy court treats student loans. Probably one of the most well-known facts about student debt is that it's nearly impossible to discharge in bankruptcy. But that wasn't always the case. About 10 years after policymakers created the broad-based student loan program, newspapers across the country chronicled how seemingly easy it was for borrowers to get rid of their student debt. There were stories of graduates with professional degrees and from elite law schools discharging their loans through bankruptcy. One article in Pennsylvania newspaper, the Lancaster New Era, told the story of a woman in Ohio who got rid of her $4,100 in student debt by filing for bankruptcy. Ultimately, she found a job that would have paid her enough to repay the loan. A major source for that story was the executive director of a state-backed organization that worked for the government as a middleman in the student loan program. In other words, the organization had an interest in ensuring it would be difficult for borrowers to escape their loans. The head of the organization described to the paper what he called 'pre-planned bankruptcies.' They, 'really make you sick,' he said. According to the article, he worked with a congressman in his region to draft a bill that would ban borrowers from discharging loans in bankruptcy within five years of graduating. During congressional debate around this idea, it became clear that stories of widespread efforts from borrowers to get rid of their loans were just that — stories. For example, one congressman cited data indicating a 225% increase in student loan-related bankruptcies over one year in Pennsylvania. That really amounted to an uptick to 13 cases from four. Despite this evidence, the proposal became law. Lawmakers ultimately expanded the provision to make it nearly impossible to discharge student debt throughout the lifetime of the loan. Roughly two decades after members of Congress first changed the treatment of student loans in bankruptcy, lawmakers quietly pushed through another change that would make it nearly impossible for borrowers to escape their student loans. For most consumer debt, there's a maximum amount of time a lender can sue to collect, called a statute of limitations. But in the early 1990s, lawmakers eliminated the statute of limitations on federal student loans. In other words, borrowers can be sued or face collections on the debt until they die. This decision was made without much fanfare. Lawmakers used a process that was meant for technical, non-substantive law changes to push it through. In their limited comments around the decision, members of Congress wrote that student loan borrowers shouldn't be able to escape their debt because their ability to repay the loan would theoretically increase over time. The wording echoed arguments in favor of making student loans more difficult to discharge in bankruptcy, portraying borrowers who weren't paying their student loans as people looking to escape their debt. That logic was part of what drove lawmakers to allow the government to take borrowers' Social Security benefits and tax refunds to repay defaulted student loans. In the mid-1990s, a bipartisan pair of lawmakers was looking to make it easier for the government to collect on debt of all kinds to help the federal budget. In defending the proposal, Carolyn Maloney, then a Democratic congresswoman representing New York, wrote in the New York Times that 'many delinquent debtors are able to pay,' with little data to back up the assertion. Mainstream media outlets fueled that perception, sometimes calling those who owed the government money — including former college students, military veterans and foreign governments — 'deadbeats.' To address these concerns lawmakers passed the Debt Collection Improvement Act in 1996, which among other things allowed the federal government to take a borrower's Social Security check and tax refund to repay a defaulted student loan. Years later, borrowers like Patricia Gary have coped with the fallout from decades of policies that assumed borrowers who didn't pay were doing it simply because they didn't want to. In my reporting on the student debt crisis for MarketWatch I've spoken with borrowers who wrestled to navigate the student loan system and then had their Earned Income Tax Credit — a tax credit with bipartisan support that largely helps working parents — taken, making it more difficult for them to afford the basics like shoes for their children. The data on borrowers who default indicates that most people who fall behind on their student loans are people like Gary or other borrowers I've encountered. They aren't paying because they don't have the money or are struggling to navigate the complexity of the student loan system — not because they're trying to shirk their debt. Borrowers in default are more likely to be unemployed and less likely to have finished school. Despite this, the government keeps using harsh consequences to essentially pull blood from a stone. That's because the groundwork has been laid for decades to prime policymakers and ordinary Americans to believe that borrowers defaulting on student loans are trying to outrun them, even though the data indicates otherwise. That begs a question Gary asked me about the efforts to collect her debt during the interviews we conducted for Sunk Cost: 'Does it ever stop? 'Or they just want to keep taking money because they can do it?' Originally Appeared on Teen Vogue Check out more Teen Vogue education coverage: Affirmative Action Benefits White Women Most How Our Obsession With Trauma Took Over College Essays So Many People With Student Debt Never Graduated College The Modern American University Is a Right-Wing Institution
