Search

Does hosting the Olympics, the World Cup or other major sports events really pay off?

<div class="theconversation-article-body"><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ivan-savin-678930">Ivan Savin</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/escp-business-school-813">ESCP Business School</a> After a long battle, <a href="https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240213-paris-booksellers-stay-olympics-macron-bouquiniste-france">Paris’s beloved bouquinistes will be staying put</a> this summer. The decision, announced on 13 February by the French government, came after considerable public backlash to the police prefecture’s original plan to move part of the iconic Seine booksellers elsewhere for the inauguration of the Olympics Games on 26 July. Meanwhile, less than six months away from the event, Parisians continue to grumble over a <a href="https://www.ouest-france.fr/jeux-olympiques/cest-aberrant-ce-maire-vient-dapprendre-que-sa-ville-accueillera-les-jeux-de-paris-ab1fa968-cfd1-11ee-89c0-6cefac77e04a">lack of consultations</a> with locals, warnings of <a href="https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20231130-paris-vehicle-traffic-to-be-heavily-restricted-during-2024-olympic-games">gridlocked traffic</a>, closed metro stations, extensive video surveillance and other grievances. So for host countries, what was the point of the Olympics, again? In academia, the debate about the potential positive and negative effects of large-scale sporting events is ongoing. Although these events are often associated with substantial economic losses, the long-term benefits are the main argument in favour of hosting them. These include the development of material and soft infrastructure such as hotels, restaurants or parks. Big games can also help put the host region on the map as an attractive place for sports and cultural events, and inspire a better entrepreneurial climate. <h2>The pros and the cons of big sporting events?</h2> The cost of these benefits, as the Parisians have realised, is steep. Host countries appear to suffer from increased tax burdens, low returns on public investments, high construction costs, and onerous running cost of facilities after the event. Communities can also be blighted by noise, pollution, and damage to the environment, while increased criminal activity and potential conflicts between locals and visitors can take a toll on their quality of life. As a result, in the recent past several major cities, including Rome and Hamburg, <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/6-cities-that-rejected-the-olympics/a-46289852">withdrew their bids to host the games</a>. A common feature of the economics of large-scale sporting events is that our expectations of them are more optimistic than what we make of them once they have taken place. Typically, expenditure tends to tip over the original budget, while the revenue-side indicators (such as the number of visitors) are rarely achieved. When analysing the effect of hosting large-scale sporting events on tourist visits, it is important to take into consideration both the positive and negative components of the overall effect. While positive effects may be associated with visitors, negative effects may arise when “regular” tourists refuse to visit the location due to the event. This might be because of overloaded infrastructure, sharp increases in accommodation costs, and inconveniences associated with overcrowding or raucous or/and violent visitors. On top of that, reports of poverty or crime in the global media can actually undermine the location’s attractiveness. <h2>When big sporting events crowd out regular tourists</h2> In an <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1527002523120639">article published in the Journal of Sports Economics</a> with Igor Drapkin and Ilya Zverev, I assess the effects of hosting large-scale sporting events, such as Winter and Summer Olympics plus FIFA World Cups, on international tourist visits. We utilise a comprehensive dataset on flow of tourists covering the world’s largest destination and origin countries between 1995 and 2019. As a first step, we built an econometric model that effectively predicts the flow of tourists between any pair of countries in our data. Subsequently we compared the predicted tourist inflow in a hypothetical scenario where no large-scale sporting event would have taken place with the actual figures. If the actual figures exceed the predicted ones, we consider the event to have a net positive impact. Otherwise, we consider that it had a “crowding out” effect on “regular” tourists. While conducting this analysis, we distinguished between short-term (i.e., focusing just on the year of the event) and mid-term (year of the event plus three subsequent years). Our results show that the effects of large-scale sporting events vary a lot across host countries: The World Cup in Japan and South Korea 2002 and South Africa 2010 were associated with a distinct increase in tourist arrivals, whereas all other World Cups were either neutral or negative. Among the Summer Olympics, China in 2008 is the only case with a significant positive effect on tourist inflows. The effects of the other four events (Australia 2000, Greece 2004, Great Britain 2012, and Brazil 2016) were found to be negative in the short- and medium-term. As for the Winter Olympics, the only positive case is Russia in 2014. The remaining five events had a negative impact except the one-year neutral effect for Japan 1998. Following large-scale sporting events, host countries are therefore typically less visited by tourists. Out of the 18 hosting countries studied, 11 saw tourist numbers decline over four years, and three did not experience a significant change. <h2>The case for cautious optimism</h2> Our research indicates that the positive effect of hosting large-scale sporting events on tourist inflows is, at best, moderate. While many tourists are attracted by FIFA World Cups and Olympic games, the crowding-out effect of “regular” tourists is strong and often underestimated. This implies that tourists visiting for an event like the Olympics typically dissuade those who would have come for other reasons. Thus, efforts to attract new visitors should be accompanied by efforts to retain the already existing ones. Large-scale sporting events should be considered as part of a long-term policy for promoting a territory to tourists rather than a standalone solution. Revealingly, our results indicate that it is easier to get a net increase in tourist inflows in countries that are less frequent destinations for tourists – for example, those in Asia or Africa. By contrast, the United States and Europe, both of which are traditionally popular with tourists, have no single case of a net positive effect. Put differently, the large-scale sporting events in Asia and Africa helped promote their host countries as tourist destinations, making the case for the initial investment. In the US and Europe, however, those in the last few decades brought little return, at least in terms of tourist inflow.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/222118/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ivan-savin-678930">Ivan Savin</a>, Associate professor of quantitative analytics, research fellow at ICTA-UAB, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/escp-business-school-813">ESCP Business School</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/does-hosting-the-olympics-the-world-cup-or-other-major-sports-events-really-pay-off-222118">original article</a>. </div>

Travel Tips

Think $5.50 is too much for a flat white? Actually it’s too cheap, and our world-famous cafes are paying the price

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/emma-felton-143029">Emma Felton</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-south-australia-1180">University of South Australia</a> Even in a stubborn cost-of-living crisis, it seems there’s one luxury most Australians <a href="https://www.comparethemarket.com.au/news/what-australians-wont-give-up-cost-of-living-crisis-report/">won’t sacrifice</a> – their daily cup of coffee. Coffee sales have largely <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/866543/australia-domestic-consumption-of-coffee/">remained stable</a>, even as financial pressures have bitten over the past few years. So too have prices. Though many of us became upset when prices began to creep up last year, they’ve since largely settled in the range between $4.00 and $5.50 for a basic drink. But this could soon have to change. By international standards, Australian coffee prices are low. No one wants to pay more for essentials, least of all right now. But our independent cafes are struggling. By not valuing coffee properly, we risk losing the <a href="https://bizcup.com.au/australian-coffee-culture/">internationally renowned</a> coffee culture we’ve worked so hard to create, and the phenomenal quality of cup we enjoy. <h2>Coffee is relatively cheap in Australia</h2> Our recent survey of Australian capital cities found the average price of a small takeaway flat white at speciality venues is A$4.78. But in <a href="https://pabloandrustys.com.au/blogs/drinkbettercoffee/global-coffee-prices">some international capitals</a>, it’s almost double this, even after adjusting for local <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/updates/purchasing-power-parity-ppp/">purchasing power parity</a>. <iframe id="gaplH" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/gaplH/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> In London, a small flat white costs about A$6.96. Singapore, A$8.42. In Athens, as much as A$9.95. <h2>The cafe business is getting harder</h2> Over the past few decades, coffee prices haven’t kept pace with input costs. In the early 2000s, after wages, food costs, utilities and rent, many cafes <a href="https://www.coffeecommune.com.au/blog-why-are-cafes-so-expensive/">earned healthy profit margins</a> as high as 20%. The <a href="https://www.ibisworld.com/au/industry/cafes-coffee-shops/2015/">most recent data from IBISWorld</a> show that while Australian cafe net profits have recovered from a drop in 2020, at 7.6%, they remain much lower than the Australian <a href="https://www.money.com.au/research/australian-business-statistics">average business profit margin of 13.3%</a>. For an independent owner operating a cafe with the <a href="https://www.ibisworld.com/au/industry/cafes-coffee-shops/2015/">average turnover of A$300,000</a>, this would amount to a meagre A$22,800 annual net profit after all the bills are paid. <h2>What goes into a cup?</h2> Just looking at the cost of raw inputs – milk, beans, a cup and a lid – might make the margin seem lucrative. But they don’t paint the whole picture. <figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584949/original/file-20240328-24-rlngpk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584949/original/file-20240328-24-rlngpk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584949/original/file-20240328-24-rlngpk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584949/original/file-20240328-24-rlngpk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584949/original/file-20240328-24-rlngpk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584949/original/file-20240328-24-rlngpk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584949/original/file-20240328-24-rlngpk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="A takeaway coffee cup showing the price inputs, with wages and operation costs making up over 65% of the cost of a coffee" /><figcaption>Chart: The Conversation. <a class="source" href="https://pabloandrustys.com.au/blogs/drinkbettercoffee/whats-in-the-cost-of-coffee">Data: Pablo and Rusty's Coffee Roasters</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></figcaption></figure> Over the past few years, renting the building, keeping the lights on and paying staff have all become <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/ground-down-australia-coffee-shops-an-early-inflation-casualty-2023-07-10/">much bigger factors</a> in the equation for coffee shop owners, and many of these pressures aren’t easing. 1. Green coffee price Increasingly <a href="https://www.aa.com.tr/en/environment/brewing-crisis-how-climate-change-is-reshaping-coffee-production/3113886">subject to the effects</a> of climate change, the baseline commodity price of green (unroasted) coffee is <a href="https://perfectdailygrind.com/2024/02/demand-for-robusta-prices-record-high/">going up</a>. Arabica – the higher quality bean you’re most likely drinking at specialty cafes – is a more expensive raw product. Despite levelling off from post-pandemic highs, its price is still trending up. In 2018, it <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/675807/average-prices-arabica-and-robusta-coffee-worldwide/">sold</a> for US$2.93 per kilogram, which is projected to increase to US$4.38 dollars in 2025. Robusta coffee is cheaper, and is the type <a href="https://www.lavazza.com.au/en/coffee-secrets/difference-type-arabica-robusta-coffee">typically used to make instant coffee</a>. But serious drought in Vietnam has just pushed the price of robusta to an <a href="https://www.barchart.com/story/news/25094367/coffee-rallies-with-robusta-at-a-record-high-on-shrinking-coffee-output-in-vietnam">all-time high</a>, putting pressure on the cost of coffee more broadly. 2. Milk prices The price of fresh milk has risen by <a href="https://cdn-prod.dairyaustralia.com.au/-/media/project/dairy-australia-sites/national-home/resources/reports/situation-and-outlook/situation-and-outlook-report-march-2024.pdf?rev=b0222df4b01b40d0ae36cf8ac7b01bc0">more than 20%</a> over the past two years, and remains at a peak. This has put sustained cost pressure on the production of our <a href="https://gitnux.org/australian-coffee-consumption-statistics/#:%7E:text=Coffee%20is%20a%20beloved%20beverage,approximately%206%20billion%20cups%20annually.">most popular drink orders</a>: cappuccinos and flat whites. 3. Wages and utilities Over the past year, Australian wages have grown at their <a href="https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/jim-chalmers-2022/media-releases/real-wages-growth-back">fastest rate</a> since 2009, which is welcome news for cafe staff, but tough on operators in a sector with low margins. Electricity prices remain elevated after significant inflation, but could <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/heres-how-much-your-energy-bills-might-go-down-by-and-when/k8g00jheg">begin to fall mid-year</a>. <h2>Specialty vs. commodity coffee: why price expectations create an industry divide</h2> One of the key factors keeping prices low in Australia is consumer expectation. For many people coffee is a fundamental part of everyday life, a marker of livability. Unlike wine or other alcohol, coffee is not considered a luxury or even a treat, where one might expect to pay a little more, or reduce consumption when times are economically tough. We anchor on familiar prices. <iframe id="oDbah" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/oDbah/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> Because of this, it really hurts cafe owners to put their prices up. In touch with their customer base almost every day, they’re acutely aware of how much inflation can hurt. But in Australia, a huge proportion of coffee companies are also passionate about creating a world-class product by only using “<a href="https://medium.com/@samandsunrise/why-is-specialty-coffee-so-expensive-6cf298935e4b#:%7E:text=Specialty%20Shops%20Feature%20High%20Grade%20Coffees&text=Their%20coffees%20are%20hand%2Dpicked,even%20on%20the%20same%20tree.">specialty coffee</a>”. Ranked at least 80 on a quality scale, specialty beans cost significant more than commodity grade, but their production offers better working conditions for farmers and encourages more sustainable growing practices. Although not commensurate with the wine industry, there are similarities. Single origin, high quality beans are often sourced from one farm and demand higher prices than commodity grade coffee, where cheaper sourced beans are often combined in a blend. Running a specialty cafe can also mean roasting your own beans, which requires a big investment in expertise and equipment. It’s an obvious example of doing the right thing by your suppliers and customers. But specialty cafes face much higher operating costs, and when they’re next to a commodity-grade competitor, customers are typically unwillingly to pay the difference. <h2>Approach price rises with curiosity, not defensiveness</h2> When cafe owners put up their prices, we often rush to accuse them of selfishness or profiteering. But they’re often just trying to survive. Given the quality of our coffee and its global reputation, it shouldn’t surprise us if we’re soon asked to pay a little bit more for our daily brew. If we are, we should afford the people who create one of our most important “<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-cafes-bars-gyms-barbershops-and-other-third-places-create-our-social-fabric-135530">third spaces</a>” kindness and curiosity as to why. <img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/226015/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/emma-felton-143029">Emma Felton</a>, Adjunct Senior Researcher, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-south-australia-1180">University of South Australia</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/think-5-50-is-too-much-for-a-flat-white-actually-its-too-cheap-and-our-world-famous-cafes-are-paying-the-price-226015">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

Who will look after us in our final years? A pay rise alone won’t solve aged-care workforce shortages

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/stephen-duckett-10730">Stephen Duckett</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> Aged-care workers will receive a significant pay increase after the Fair Work Commission <a href="https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2024fwcfb150.pdf">ruled</a> they deserved substantial wage rises of up to 28%. The federal government <a href="https://ministers.dewr.gov.au/burke/fair-work-decision-aged-care">has committed to</a> the increases, but is yet to announce when they will start. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> Tens of thousands of aged care workers will receive a major pay rise after the Fair Work Commission recommended the increase. <a href="https://t.co/NeNt1Gvxd9">https://t.co/NeNt1Gvxd9</a> — SBS News (@SBSNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/SBSNews/status/1768557710537068889?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 15, 2024</a></blockquote> But while wage rises for aged-care workers are welcome, this measure alone will not fix all workforce problems in the sector. The number of people over 80 is expected to <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-08/p2023-435150.pdf">triple over the next 40 years</a>, driving an increase in the number of aged care workers needed. <h2>How did we get here?</h2> The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, which delivered its <a href="https://www.royalcommission.gov.au/aged-care/final-report">final report</a> in March 2021, identified a litany of tragic failures in the regulation and delivery of aged care. The former Liberal government was dragged reluctantly to accept that a total revamp of the aged-care system was needed. But its <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-greg-hunt-mp/media/respect-care-and-dignity-aged-care-royal-commission-452-million-immediate-response-as-government-commits-to-historic-reform-to-deliver-respect-and-care-for-senior-australians#:%7E:text=Minister%20for%20Senior%20Australians%20and,%2C%20dementia%2C%20food%20and%20nutrition.">weak response</a> left the heavy lifting to the incoming Labor government. The current government’s response started well, with a <a href="https://theconversation.com/anthony-albanese-offers-2-5-billion-plan-to-fix-crisis-in-aged-care-180419">significant injection of funding</a> and a promising regulatory response. But it too has failed to pursue a visionary response to the problems identified by the Royal Commission. Action was needed on four fronts: <ul> <li>ensuring enough staff to provide care</li> <li>building a functioning regulatory system to encourage good care and weed out bad providers</li> <li>designing and introducing a fair payment system to distribute funds to providers and</li> <li>implementing a financing system to pay for it all and achieve intergenerational equity.</li> </ul> A government taskforce which proposed a <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-will-aged-care-look-like-for-the-next-generation-more-of-the-same-but-higher-out-of-pocket-costs-225551">timid response to the fourth challenge</a> – an equitable financing system – was released at the start of last week. Consultation closed on a <a href="https://media.opan.org.au/uploads/2024/03/240308_Aged-Care-Act-Exposure-Draft-Joint-Submission_FINAL.pdf">very poorly designed new regulatory regime</a> the week before. But the big news came at end of the week when the Fair Work Commission handed down a further <a href="https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2024fwcfb150.pdf">determination</a> on what aged-care workers should be paid, confirming and going beyond a previous <a href="https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/sites/work-value-aged-care/decisions-statements/2022fwcfb200.pdf">interim determination</a>. <h2>What did the Fair Work Commission find?</h2> Essentially, the commission determined that work in industries with a high proportion of women workers has been traditionally undervalued in wage-setting. This had consequences for both care workers in the aged-care industry (nurses and <a href="https://training.gov.au/Training/Details/CHC33021">Certificate III-qualified</a> personal-care workers) and indirect care workers (cleaners, food services assistants). Aged-care staff will now get significant pay increases – 18–28% increase for personal care workers employed under the Aged Care Award, inclusive of the increase awarded in the interim decision. <figure class="align-center "><figcaption></figcaption>Indirect care workers were awarded a general increase of 3%. Laundry hands, cleaners and food services assistants will receive a further 3.96% <a href="https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decision-summaries/2024fwcfb150-summary.pdf">on the grounds</a> they “interact with residents significantly more regularly than other indirect care employees”.</figure> The final increases for registered and enrolled nurses will be determined in the next few months. <h2>How has the sector responded?</h2> There has been no push-back from employer groups or conservative politicians. This suggests the uplift is accepted as fair by all concerned. The interim increases of up to 15% probably facilitated this acceptance, with the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-does-the-budget-mean-for-medicare-medicines-aged-care-and-first-nations-health-192842">recognition of the community</a> that care workers should be paid more than fast food workers. There was <a href="https://www.accpa.asn.au/media-releases/accpa-welcomes-further-aged-care-wage-rises">no criticism from aged-care providers</a> either. This is probably because they are facing difficulty in recruiting staff at current wage rates. And because government payments to providers reflect the <a href="https://www.ihacpa.gov.au/">actual cost of aged care</a>, increased payments will automatically flow to providers. When the increases will flow has yet to be determined. The government is due to give its recommendations for staging implementation by mid-April. <h2>Is the workforce problem fixed?</h2> An increase in wages is necessary, but alone is not sufficient to solve workforce shortages. The health- and social-care workforce is <a href="https://www.jobsandskills.gov.au/data/employment-projections">predicted</a> to grow faster than any other sector over the next decade. The “care economy” will <a href="https://theconversation.com/care-economy-to-balloon-in-an-australia-of-40-5-million-intergenerational-report-211876">grow</a> from around 8% to around 15% of GDP over the next 40 years. This means a greater proportion of school-leavers will need to be attracted to the aged-care sector. Aged care will also need to attract and retrain workers displaced from industries in decline and attract suitably skilled migrants and refugees with appropriate language skills. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/demand-driven-funding-for-universities-is-frozen-what-does-this-mean-and-should-the-policy-be-restored-116060">caps on university and college enrolments</a> imposed by the previous government, coupled with weak student demand for places in key professions (such as nursing), has meant workforce shortages will continue for a few more years, despite the allure of increased wages. A significant increase in intakes into university and vocational education college courses preparing students for health and social care is still required. Better pay will help to increase student demand, but funding to expand place numbers will ensure there are enough qualified staff for the aged-care system of the future. <img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/225898/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/stephen-duckett-10730">Stephen Duckett</a>, Honorary Enterprise Professor, School of Population and Global Health, and Department of General Practice and Primary Care, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/who-will-look-after-us-in-our-final-years-a-pay-rise-alone-wont-solve-aged-care-workforce-shortages-225898">original article</a>. Image: Getty

Retirement Income

How will Meta’s refusal to pay for news affect Australian journalism – and our democracy?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-greste-616885">Peter Greste</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/macquarie-university-1174">Macquarie University</a> When we speak of media freedom, we generally mean it in terms of freedom from unnecessary legal restrictions, so journalists and their sources are not threatened with prosecution for exposing the misdeeds of governments. But the announcement by Meta (Facebook’s parent company) on March 1 that it will <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-01/meta-won-t-renew-deal-with-australian-news-media/103533874">stop paying for Australian news content</a> poses a different kind of threat to media freedom. The most progressive <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-push-to-make-social-media-companies-liable-in-defamation-is-great-for-newspapers-and-lawyers-but-not-you-127513">media freedom laws</a> in the world are meaningless if news companies can’t afford to hire experienced journalists to run expensive investigations. It doesn’t matter how free the laws are if there are no journalists to do the reporting. A <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-37265-1_4">key part of any successful democracy</a> is a free media, capable of interrogating the powerful and holding governments to account. Even in a world overflowing with digital content, we recognise the need for good journalism, produced to ethical and professional standards, to help inform public debate and good policy-making. <h2>It was always going to fall apart</h2> Three years ago, in 2021, under <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/by-industry/digital-platforms-and-services/news-media-bargaining-code/news-media-bargaining-code">the News Media Bargaining Code</a>, the government forced Meta and Google to negotiate with news organisations and pay for the right to access and post their stories. The government introduced the code after <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2024/3/1/facebook-owner-meta-to-end-deals-funding-news-in-australia-germany-france">Facebook and Google were accused of putting news content on their platforms</a>, while denying news organisations the advertising revenues that used to pay for journalism. Although we don’t know exactly who gets paid what, it is estimated that the two digital giants injected <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/1b-for-journalism-at-risk-in-new-warning-over-google-facebook-20240223-p5f78j.html">about $250 million a year</a> into Australian journalism. It wasn’t enough to end the crisis in news caused by the collapse of the old business models, but it <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Communications/Regionalnewspapers/Report/Section?id=committees%2Freportrep%2F024888%2F79305">helped prop up</a> a lot of struggling companies. In some cases, it helped pay for otherwise unprofitable forms of journalism. One of the big problems with the code was that it pushed media companies into inherently unstable and unpredictable deals with commercial behemoths, whose only interest in news was as a commodity to help drive profits. It was always going to fall apart, if and when news became too expensive and Facebook users became disinterested. It is hard to criticise Meta for deciding the deals weren’t worth it. The company is doing what it is supposed to, making hardheaded commercial decisions and maximising shareholder returns. But Meta’s interests are not the same as the Australian public’s. Or more accurately, Meta’s interests are not the same as our democracy’s. Meta doesn’t need high-quality news, particularly if its users are more interested in sharing family photos than sober reporting on inflation rates. But collectively, our society does need it. High-quality news is expensive. It doesn’t cost much to send someone to report on <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-are-taylor-swift-tickets-so-hard-to-get-the-economics-are-complicated-208567">Taylor Swift’s</a> Melbourne concert, but it is hugely expensive to cover <a href="https://theconversation.com/other-nations-are-applying-sanctions-and-going-to-court-over-gaza-should-nz-join-them-224132">the war in Gaza</a> or investigate allegations of government corruption. I suspect not that many Australians have read Adele Ferguson’s reporting about the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/adele-ferguson-on-the-cost-of-whistleblowing-and-need-for-a-bank-royal-commission-20160505-gomxc4.html">corrupt practices of our biggest banks</a>. Her investigations took years of work, and cost far more than the Sydney Morning Herald would have recovered in subscriptions and advertising revenue for her stories. But her reporting triggered the <a href="https://www.royalcommission.gov.au/banking">Banking Royal Commission</a> and a suite of reforms that benefit everyone with a bank account. <h2>A news levy?</h2> If we accept that news is a public good, not something we can treat as a product to be traded like soap, then we have to develop economic models that somehow get the public to pay for it. It could be something like a levy – similar to Medicare’s – that recognises even if we don’t all consume news equally, we are collectively better off by having good journalism that’s free from commercial or political pressure. It is a difficult conversation to have, particularly when most Australians say <a href="https://www.edelman.com.au/trust/2023/trust-barometer">they don’t trust the media</a>, and more and more of us are <a href="https://www.canberra.edu.au/uc-alumni-canvas/canvas-articles/posts/news-blues-over-half-of-australians-avoid-the-news">giving up on news altogether</a>. And that brings us to the other truth this crisis has exposed: our consumption of media <a href="https://www.canberra.edu.au/about-uc/media/newsroom/2023/june/digital-news-report-australia-2023-tiktok-and-instagram-increase-in-popularity-for-news-consumption,-but-australians-dont-trust-algorithms">has changed irreversibly</a>. Fewer and fewer people are reading long news stories or wading through heavy TV bulletins. Now, short-form videos on TikTok, YouTube and Facebook are dominant. The news industry needs to meet audiences where they are, and accept that the ways of presenting news must also radically change. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3RW1U9Q-lzw?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe><figcaption>Our ways of consuming the news have changed, with short-form videos now dominant.</figcaption></figure> This is not to suggest all journalism should henceforth be presented as TikTok videos. But forcing digital giants to prop up analogue-era news companies cements a system that is no longer fit for purpose. By trying to make the big digital giants pay for content they ultimately profit from, the News Media Bargaining Code started with the right intention. But now that Meta has decided it is no longer worth it, we have a chance to radically rethink and redesign how we finance and deliver news – in a way that works for us all. Our democracy depends on it.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/224872/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-greste-616885">Peter Greste</a>, Professor of Journalism and Communications, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/macquarie-university-1174">Macquarie University</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-will-metas-refusal-to-pay-for-news-affect-australian-journalism-and-our-democracy-224872">original article</a>.

Legal

"We've all gone": Why Jackie O stormed off set

Jackie O Henderson has marched out of KIIS FM in the middle of The Kyle and Jackie O show, after finding out that the station has the highest gender pay gap disparity across Australian radio. “Southern Cross Austereo has a disgraceful 5.9% pay gap. At Nova and Smooth FM it is even worse, six per cent." Kyle Sandilands told listeners on Tuesday. "But unfortunately, the number one spot is at KIIS FM, – at the top of the tree with a 12% pay gap disparity.” Sandilands, who famously fought for Henderson to secure equal pay on their radio program, then brought on one of the show’s producers Pete Deppeler and another female KIIS FM producer, who revealed she was only being paid half of what Deppeler was. “Are you freaking joking? Why is Peter getting that much money? I’m so angry about that, it makes my blood boil,” Henderson replied. She then left the studios with all her female colleagues. “We’ve all gone,” she said. "We are just here with the fellas. I don’t know whether I am enjoying this, bring the girls back!” Sandilands told listeners. On Tuesday, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency published the gender pay gap for more than 5,000 Australian companies. This was done after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese ordered the information to be made public for the first time ever, so the data can be compared within and across industries. The new data revealed that the national gap for total remuneration sits at 19 per cent and the median Australian female worker is taking home $18,461 less than their male counterpart. Despite a few criticisms on Albanese's decision to publicise this data, Workplace Minister Tony Burke has said that releasing this data is effective. “People on this side know that releasing that sort of data is effective and you will only find in the other side of politics anyone arguing that it is useless,‘’ he said. “The days of secretly paying women less than men are now over.” Images: Kyle and Jacki O Show

Money & Banking

From this week, you’ll be able to look up individual companies’ gender pay gaps

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/natasha-bradshaw-1358801">Natasha Bradshaw</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168">Grattan Institute</a> There will be nervous executives all over Australia this week. Come Tuesday, large private sector organisations will have their company’s gender pay gaps published for the first time for all to see, name, and shame. As they brace for the fallout, let’s look at how what we will be told is changing, and what it will mean for you. <h2>What is changing?</h2> Every year, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (<a href="https://www.wgea.gov.au/">WGEA</a>) collects information from every employer with more than 100 employees. Until now it has published only a summary of the findings on its website, including Australia’s overall gender pay gap, and the gap by industry and employment arrangement. But for the first time legislation enacted last year also allows WGEA to publish the gender pay gaps of individual employers. <figure class="align-right zoomable"><figcaption></figcaption></figure> Tuesday’s release will include each large company’s median gender pay gap, and the share of women it employs in lower- and higher-paid jobs. Employers will have the chance to publish a <a href="https://www.wgea.gov.au/data-statistics/data-explorer">statement</a> alongside their results to provide context. That means from Tuesday you will be able to look on the <a href="https://www.wgea.gov.au/">WGEA website</a> and find the median gender pay gap of your large private sector organisation, or of an organisation you are thinking of joining, and how it stacks up against its competitors. <h2>Why the change?</h2> Australian women, like women elsewhere, have made astounding progress in the workforce in recent decades. Women are both working and earning more than ever before. But progress has stalled, and the gender pay gap remains stubbornly persistent. The Albanese government has shown its commitment to gender equity by increasing the <a href="https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/child-care-subsidy">childcare subsidy</a> and extending <a href="https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/parental-leave-pay">paid parental leave</a>. But beyond this, the options for governments are limited. Most of the barriers to women getting better-paid jobs can only be broken by employers. The public naming and shaming that will begin on Tuesday will push accountability onto employers, holding them responsible for the conditions in their workplaces. Workers and bosses are going to take notice: when employer gender pay gaps were released in the UK in 2018 it was the <a href="https://www.genderpay.co.uk/wp-downloads/moving-forward-may-2018/presentations/Gender_Pay_Gap_Moving_Forward_May_2018_Studio_2_5_Nick_Bishop.pdf">biggest business news story of the year</a>, with coverage rivalling the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. At a time when companies are fighting for top talent, it is going to make it more difficult for employers with large pay gaps to hire talented women. Research shows that on average women are willing to accept a <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3584259">5% lower salary</a> in order to avoid working for the employers with the biggest gender pay gaps. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vAr1Lhaw0Ao?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe><figcaption>Workplace Gender Equality Agency.</figcaption></figure> <h2>Let’s not rush to judge</h2> While <a href="https://www.wgea.gov.au/about/our-legislation/publishing-employer-gender-pay-gaps">naming and shaming</a> will help make this policy effective, we should be careful about rushing to judgement. It is possible for an employer to be making serious efforts to improve while its gap remains large. And some actions aimed at improving things, such as implementing a gender quota on entry-level positions, can worsen a company’s apparent gender pay gap in the short term by temporarily increasing the number of lowly-paid women. Also, there will be firms that have a low gender pay gap because they pay both men and women poorly. On Tuesday, we should instead look closely at whether the organisation has outlined clear steps it will take to improve, and how it compares to its competitors. In future years, we will be able to see how things have changed. <h2>What will matter is what employers do next</h2> Since the UK reforms were introduced in 2018, the gender pay gap has narrowed by <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3584259">one-fifth</a>, with the biggest improvements coming from the worst offenders. UK companies have also become more likely to include wage information in their job ads, equalising the starting point of wage negotiations for all applicants. But for existing employees, the narrowing of the gap has been caused more by slower growth in men’s wages than faster growth in women’s wages, which isn’t good news for anyone looking for a pay rise. The full effects of the Australian reforms won’t be seen for some time. It is likely that making high-paid jobs more accessible to women will allow employers to tap into a new talent pool and encourage more highly credentialed women into the workforce, adding to productivity growth. What is clear now is that if we want to narrow the gender pay gap, we need to know what’s happening. The avalanche of data due on Tuesday will be a start.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/224167/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/natasha-bradshaw-1358801">Natasha Bradshaw</a>, Senior Associate, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168">Grattan Institute</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/from-this-week-youll-be-able-to-look-up-individual-companies-gender-pay-gaps-224167">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

"Absolute joke": Hefty pay rise for traffic controllers met with outrage

A new union pay agreement that would see junior labourers and traffic controllers working 36-hour weeks earn $120,000 a year has received mixed reviews. According to reports by the Herald Sun, the Construction, Forestry, Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU) was close to cementing a new pay agreement with the Victorian state government that will see its workers given “at least” a 5 per cent pay rise. The three-year agreement would guarantee that basic labourers and traffic controllers would earn more than $2000 per week plus another $260 a week in travel allowance, equating to 23 per cent more than the average full-time weekly income of $1838. Those working overtime or more than five days per week would earn much more than the $120,000 a year figure, which is for a basic 36-hour week. CFMEU boss John Setka told the publication that the rise was to help workers combat the rising cost of living. “It could be more than 5 per cent,” he said. “Everyone is allowed to increase the cost of everything but we are not allowed to increase wages — fair dinkum? We want a pay rise to keep up with the cost of living and we are not allowed? We are not going to be the sacrificial lambs.” The proposal was met with mixed reactions online, with some people on social media wondering how the labourers were able to make higher wages than those with valuable degrees. “Let me see. Get a tertiary education and become a teacher or a paramedic. Or hold up a pole all day and get paid 50 per cent more. Only in Victoria,” one person wrote. “Visit any of the train crossing removal sites around town and you’ll see dozens of people doing nothing but standing around and looking at their phones, and just a handful doing anything that could be described as work. It’s an absolute joke,” another said. A third added, “Who other than the union thinks it’s realistic for a labourer to earn $120,000 in the same state where a trained doctor earns $83,000 first year post grad and doesn’t get to $120,000 until five years post grad.” Despite the outrage, many came to the defence of workers, saying the pay rise is well overdue. “It’s called traffic control and it is dangerous, hard work,” one X user wrote. “We respect trades in this country do not try to be America about this. Also a field that’s becoming more and more female dominated I’m sure that plays no part in the righteous indignation of men who earn $200,000 a year to say things on radio.” Another said, “I dare anyone talking s**t about this job to do it for a single summer day.” Image credits: Getty Images

Money & Banking

“So tacky”: Bride slammed for using GoFundMe to pay for wedding

A cash-strapped bride has been slammed for considering using GoFundMe to help pay for her wedding. Taking to a wedding page on Facebook, the bride explained that she and her partner had been saving as much money as possible for their wedding, but were struggling with their finances. “Our wedding is next year but I'm still so stressed that we won't be able to pay for the things that we need let alone actual decorations,” the bride began. Given the large expense of a wedding, the bride questioned if it was “tacky” to use GoFundMe, a crowd-funding website used for emergencies, to fund her big day. People were quick to chime in on the idea, with many people labelling it as “inappropriate” to use such a site for wedding expenses. The bride didn't share how much extra money she needs to fund the wedding, but many said she should continue to save rather than rely on others. “Have the wedding you can afford, or wait and save,” one said bluntly. “Personally I think it is [tacky]. If you want to have a wedding you should be funding it yourself. If you can't afford all the things you want, then I guess you have to decide if you would rather go without or postpone until it's in your budget,” another wrote. One woman said it's “insensitive” since GoFundMe pages are for emergencies only, such as medical situations. “If you can't afford to have the wedding you want you really have two choices - postpone until in a better position financially or scale back your plans to fit within your means,” she said. Image credits: Getty Images

Money & Banking

Tenants forced to pay landlord after fleeing their “uninhabitable” rental

A family has been ordered to pay their former landlords $3,000 after they “abandoned” they “uninhabitable” rental property. Bechara Rizk and Ariye Atayi Juma claimed that the Sydney home was unlivable, given the unrelenting infestation of cockroaches and other bugs. When the couple moved into the home with their young daughter on April 29th 2023, they immediately noticed “tiny insects and small cockroaches” in the linen cupboard, living area, master bedroom, second bedroom and main bathroom. They said the house was completely inundated with insects, as they found them on the walls, doors, skirting boards, carpets and in the toilets. Rizk emailed the real estate agency saying he did not consider the property habitable — especially for his young daughter. “(We) went to the property an hour ago for the first time since we received the keys yesterday and there were tiny insects and cockroaches alive and dead in every room,” the email said. “I have taken some videos if you need to see evidence but, most importantly, we are not comfortable bringing a small baby who is crawling to live in this apartment.” “I am writing to formally pull out of the lease and wanting to understand what the repercussions are for us.” The real estate offered to arrange a pest control service, to which the couple turned down as they believed the problem was too far gone to be fixed easily. After returning the keys on May 1st, Rizk sent an email the next day requesting their bond and deposit be returned. A pest controller treated the home on May 3rd, recording that a “small amount of (insect) activity” had been located and treated. In a letter to Rizk and Juma the next day, the real estate agency said the pest controller had found “no evidence of a pest infestation in the property” and the couple’s claim the property was uninhabitable was without merit. Rizk replied, “We have pulled out of our lease not due to a change of mind, it is uninhabitable and simply not what we signed up for. “We cannot live in an insect-infested apartment with a young baby.” “As any parent should understand, our child is our first priority and at the very least it would be irresponsible and the most could potentially put her in harm.” The matter between the family and the landlord ended up in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, with the couple seeking repayment of their bond while the landlords asked for compensation for the couple’s “abandonment” of the lease. Tribunal member Ross Glover found that the couple did in fact abandon the property, and were ordered to pay their former landlord $3,000 in compensation. The amount was deducted from the couple's bond which left no remaining balance to be refunded to them. Image credits: Shutterstock

Money & Banking

"Proud to pay more": The billionaires who want to pay more tax

Over 250 millionaires and billionaires have issued an <a href="https://proudtopaymore.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">open letter</a> to global leaders encouraging them to implement wealth taxes to combat the cost-of-living crisis. This comes just as a report by the <a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/finance/money-banking/shocking-amount-australia-s-richest-people-earn-per-hour" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Oxfam Charity</a> revealed that the global wealth of billionaires have only grown in the last three years despite inflation. The open letter, signed by super-rich individuals from 17 countries, includes signatories like Abigail Disney, the grand-niece of Walt Disney, Succession actor Brian Cox, and American philanthropist and Rockefeller family heir Valerie Rockefeller. They said that they would be "proud to pay more taxes" in order to address the inequality. "Elected leaders must tax us, the super rich," the letter read. "This will not fundamentally alter our standard of living, nor deprive our children, nor harm our nations' economic growth. "But it will turn extreme and unproductive private wealth into an investment for our common democratic future." Austrian heir Marlene Engelhorn is also among the voices demanding that they pay more in taxes. "I've inherited a fortune and therefore power, without having done anything for it. And the state doesn't even want taxes on it," Engelhorn, who inherited millions from her family who founded chemical giant BASF, said. The letter was released just as global leaders gather in Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum. Abigail Disney, whose net-worth is measured at more than $100 million, said that lawmakers need to come together to make a meaningful economic and social change. "There's too much at stake for us all to wait for the ultra rich to grow a conscience and voluntarily change their ways," she said. "For that reason, lawmakers must step in and tax extreme wealth, along with the variety of environmentally destructive habits of the world's richest." A recent <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/63fe48c7e864f3729e4f9287/t/6596bfb943707b56d11f1296/1704378297933/G20+Survey+of+those+with+More+than+%241+million+on+Attitudes+to+Extreme+Wealth+and+Taxing+the+Super+Rich.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">survey</a> of almost 2400 millionaires found that 74 per cent of them supported the introduction of a wealth tax to fund improved public services and deal with the cost-of-living crisis. The open letter also said that one-off donations and philanthropy "cannot redress the current colossal imbalance" of societal wealth. "We need our governments and our leaders to lead," the letter said. "The true measure of a society can be found, not just in how it treats its most vulnerable, but in what it asks of its wealthiest members." Images: Getty

Money & Banking

What are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ debts, and which should I pay off first?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/angel-zhong-1204643">Angel Zhong</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a> With the cost of living soaring and many struggling to get a pay rise, it’s not surprising people are using debt to navigate life’s financial twists and turns. Owing money can sometimes feel challenging, but not all debts should keep you awake at night. So which debts are good and which are bad? And in what order should you pay them off? As it all depends on your personal circumstances, all I can offer is general information and not financial advice. Ideally, you should seek guidance from an accredited financial adviser. But in the meantime, here are some ideas to consider. <h2>What is a ‘good debt’?</h2> Good debts can be strategic tools and help build a solid foundation for your future. They usually increase your net worth by helping you generate income or buy assets that increase in value. With good debts, you usually get back more than what you pay for. They usually have lower interest rates and longer repayment terms. But personal finance is dynamic, and the line between good and bad debt can be nuanced. If not managed properly, even good debts can cause problems. Some examples of “good debts” might include: Mortgages: A mortgage allows you to buy a house, which is an asset that generally increases in value over time. You may potentially get tax advantages, such as <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/forms-and-instructions/rental-properties-2023/other-tax-considerations">negative gearing</a>, through investment properties. However, it’s crucial not to overstretch yourself and turn a mortgage into a nightmare. As a rule of thumb, try avoid spending <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/select/mortgage-affordability/">more than 30% of your income</a> per year on your mortgage repayments. Student loans: Education is an investment in yourself. Used well, student loans (such as <a href="https://www.studyassist.gov.au/help-loans/hecs-help">HECS-HELP</a>) can be the ticket to a higher-paying job and better career opportunities. <h2>What is a ‘bad debt’?</h2> “Bad debts” undermine your financial stability and can hinder your financial progress. They usually come with high interest rates and short repayment terms, making them more challenging to pay off. They can lead to a vicious cycle of debt. Examples of bad debts include: Payday loans: A payday loan offers a quick fix for people in a financial tight spot. However, their steep interest rates, high fees and tight repayment terms often end up worsening a person’s financial problems. The interest and fee you may end up paying can get close to the loan amount itself. Credit card debt: Credit cards can be like quicksand for your finances. If you don’t pay off your purchase on time, you’ll be subject to an annual interest rate of around <a href="https://www.rba.gov.au/statistics/tables/">19.94%</a>. For a A$3,000 credit card debt, for example, that could mean paying nearly $600 annual interest. Carrying credit card debt from month to month can lead to a seemingly never-ending debt cycle. Personal loans: People usually take personal loans from a bank to pay for something special, such as a nice holiday or a car. They often come with higher interest rates, averaging around <a href="https://www.finder.com.au/personal-loans">10%</a>. Spending money that you don’t have can lead to prolonged financial headaches. Buy-now-pay-later services: Buy-now-pay-later services often provide interest-free instalment options for purchases. This can be tempting, but the account fees and late payment fees associated with buy-now-pay-later services can lead to a long-term financial hangover. The convenience and accessibility of buy-now-pay-later services can also make it easy to get further and further into debt. <h2>So in what order should I pay off my debts?</h2> There is no one right answer to this question, but here are three factors to consider. Prioritise high-interest debts: Start by confronting the debts with the highest interest rates. This typically includes credit card debt and personal loans. Paying off high-interest debts first can save you money and reduce your total debt faster. Negotiate interest rates or switch lenders: Don’t be shy. A simple call to your lender requesting a lower rate can make a significant difference. You may also take advantage of sign-on offers and refinancing your loan with a new lender. In the banking business, customers are not usually rewarded for their loyalty. Consider different repayment strategies: Choose a debt repayment strategy that aligns with your preferences. Some people get a psychological boost from paying off smaller debts first (this is often called the “<a href="https://www.wellsfargo.com/goals-credit/smarter-credit/manage-your-debt/snowball-vs-avalanche-paydown/#:%7E:text=The%20%22snowball%20method%2C%22%20simply,all%20accounts%20are%20paid%20off.">snowball method</a>”). Others focus on high-interest debts (often known as the “<a href="https://www.wellsfargo.com/goals-credit/smarter-credit/manage-your-debt/snowball-vs-avalanche-paydown/#:%7E:text=The%20%22snowball%20method%2C%22%20simply,all%20accounts%20are%20paid%20off.">avalanche method</a>”). Find what works for you. The most important thing is to have a plan and stick to it. Review the terms of each debt carefully. Certain loans offer flexibility in repayment schedules, while others may impose penalties for early settlement. Take note of these conditions as you develop your repayment plan. Debt can be a useful tool or a dangerous trap, depending on how you use it. By understanding the difference between good and bad debts, and by having a smart strategy for paying them off, you can take charge of your financial future.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/217779/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/angel-zhong-1204643">Angel Zhong</a>, Associate Professor of Finance, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-are-good-and-bad-debts-and-which-should-i-pay-off-first-217779">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

Flower tycoon pays $76 million in CASH for epic mansion

A Sydney businessman and flower mogul has expanded his real estate portfolio, snapping up one of NSW's most prestigious properties. Leo Lynch and his wife Christina have bought a Federation mansion in Sydney's Bellevue Hill, with the eight-bedroom eight-bathroom property boasting impressive views of Sydney Harbour. The mansion, which was built in the 1890s, also showcases a pool, tennis court, and endless luxury amenities for the well-off buyers. "Designed by architect Walter Vernon," read the listing for the property, "the home is considered his most significant residence. Other heritage buildings designed by Vernon include the Australian Museum, the Art Gallery of New South Wales and Central Railway Station. A truly rare offering to earn a piece of Australian history." While securing the house seems like a huge feat in itself, the Lynch's decided to take the purchase to the next level, buying the home for $76 million in cold hard cash. Despite paying the whopping eight-figure for the mansion, the home needs work and is set to undergo renovations. The purchase of the property, named Leura, comes just after the Lynch's sold their former home for $52.4million more than he bought it. The same night he made the enormous purchase for the Leura estate, he sold his mystery home, just blocks away, for $61.5 million after rebuilding the property he had bought for just $9.05 million in 2014. Leo Lynch, 60, is a third generation of the wholesale flower family's company, founded in 1915 and for which private equity group Next Capital took a majority interest in 2015, before it was publicly listed in 2021. Image credits: Domain

Real Estate

Secret Santa pays off everyone's Christmas shopping at local Kmart

The festive season is all about spreading joy and love and one generous Aussie has gone above and beyond to make people's day so much better. A Secret Santa at a Victoria Gardens Kmart in inner-city Melbourne, covered the cost of items on lay-by for all of the customers at the local store, making some of them cry tears of joy. "We are overwhelmed by our customer's generosity at this time of year, and want to thank them for their act of kindness towards other members of our community," a Kmart spokeswoman said. "We are proud to call them one of our customers." The customer, who chose to remain anonymous, said that they simply wanted to contribute to something positive this holiday season. The shopper reportedly told retail staff that they "just wanted to do something nice for the community." The exact amount of the donation remains undisclosed, but they revealed that most of the items were Christmas gifts. Image: Tim Boyle/Getty Images

Money & Banking

The debate: Should kids over 18 pay rent if they’re still living at home?

Parents have shared their thoughts on letting their children live at home rent free, as the age old debate of paying board stirred up some strong opinions. A <a href="https://honey.nine.com.au/money/should-children-over-the-age-of-18-pay-board-if-they-still-live-at-home-reader-poll-exclusive/77876711-2950-4bf3-bb30-716442a6fd74" target="_blank" rel="noopener">nine.com.au</a> reader survey asked the question: Should children over the age of 18 pay board if they still live at home? The responses were many and varied, as a whopping 72 percent of respondents said grown up kids should be contributing financially to the household. One person commented, "If children have employment, it's important that they clearly understand that life is not free and they need to budget, show accountability and responsibility." Another wrote, "If the children over 18 are working, then yes, they should contribute or give money to the parents to bank for them." Others said children shouldn't be expected to pay board, and would rather their kids save money for bigger financial commitments. "My parents did not charge me board even though I was working because they did not need the money and told me to save for my first car, which I did," one person shared. Another wrote their parenting tactic, writing, "I let my children not pay board. So they could save for a deposit on a house. They did and they all (3) have a house." Despite many people sharing their strong opinions on the matter, most respondents said it was not a black and white question, as many households have individual circumstances that affect their decision. "Depends on if they are working or not and what income the parents have. My son is 22 but unemployed due to health problem, we just pool our unemployment payment so it differs for each family situation, not a YES or No answer," one reader wrote. Another said it depends on their employment and study status, writing, "Yes if they're working almost full time, not if they're studying and just working part time to cover living expenses." The poll comes as Aussies have struggled with a rise in basic living costs, with <a href="https://www.finder.com.au/australian-household-spending-statistics" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ABS</a> data showing that Australian households spent a total of $1.2 trillion on what was classed as general living costs in 2022. This sum is close to $100 billion more than in 2021. The average household spent $130,353 in 2022, which is the equivalent of $2507 per week. This is a 20.4 per cent jump on the previous year. Image credits: Getty Images

Money & Banking

Queen Camilla pays tribute to Queen Elizabeth with a historic first

Queen Camilla has honoured her late mother-in-law with a special tribute at a royal engagement in London. King Charles and Queen Camilla attended a reception at Mansion House in London on Wednesday evening, where the monarch called for unity amid increasing tensions over the conflict in Israel. At the event, Queen Camilla donned Queen Elizabeth's favourite tiara for the first time in a subtle display of respect for the late monarch. Camilla chose the Girls of Great Britain and Ireland tiara for the event, which was worn by Queen Elizabeth regularly throughout her historic 70-year reign. The diamond headpiece was first seen on Elizabeth II in the first official photographs of the new monarch, taken on February 26th 1952, just 20 days after her accession to the throne. It was later worn during Her late Majesty's first visit to Australia in 1954, and became her most worn headpiece throughout her time as Queen. Queen Camilla paired the tiara with two other of the late Queen's beloved pieces of jewellery, the South African diamond necklace and bracelet. The Girls of Great Britain and Ireland tiara originally belonged to Queen Mary, who received it as a gift in 1893. It then came into Elizabeth II's collection in 1947 when Queen Mary gave it to her granddaughter as a wedding present. At the royal event, King Charles gave a speech as he called for peace in Israel and Palestine, referring to himself "as King and as a father and a grandfather" as he appealed for calm. He said, "I have often described the United Kingdom as a 'community of communities'; an island nation in which our shared values are the force which holds us together, reminding us that there is far, far more that unites us than divides us. Yet we are living in something of a watershed age." "Do we pause, instinctively and unerringly, before speaking or acting to ensure we are affording equal weight to both sides of the balance? Our society would be a kinder and gentler place for it." "Such understanding, both at home and overseas, is never more vital than at times of international turmoil and heart-breaking loss of life." Image credits: Getty Images

Beauty & Style

Ted Lasso star ordered to pay massive child support sum

Jason Sudeikis has been ordered to pay ex Olivia Wilde an enormous sum of child support, as a bitter two-year custody battle draws to a close. According to new court filings obtained by <a href="https://pagesix.com/2023/09/25/jason-sudeikis-and-olivia-wilde-settle-custody-battle-actor-to-pay-27500-per-month/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Page Six</a>, the Ted Lasso star has allegedly agreed to pay his ex $27,500 ($A42,800) per month in child support for their two kids, Otis, 9, and Daisy, 6. The hefty settlement has been based on Sudeikis' reported 2023 income of $10.5 million ($A16.3 million) and Wilde’s estimated income of $500,000 ($A778,000). “The parties agree that child support for the minor children in the amount of $27,500 per month is sufficient to maintain the needs of the minor children considering Jason’s station in life … is consistent with each child’s best interest, and application of the guideline would be unjust or inappropriate in this case,” the court papers reportedly state. The legal proceedings began two years ago, and took a dramatic turn in 2022 when Wilde, who was promoting her new movie Don't Worry Darling at the time, was served legal papers while on stage delivering a speech at CinemaCon. At the time, a source told <a href="https://pagesix.com/2022/04/29/olivia-wilde-mortified-after-being-served-with-legal-papers/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Page Six</a> that Wilde was mortified over the brazen act. “It seemed unthinkable to her, and it took a moment to set in, but as mortifying as it was, she did not want to give a reaction,” the insider explained. Since then, things have improved for the couple, as they were both seen putting on a united front at Otis' soccer game in LA. Wilde and Sudeikis started dating in November 2011 and got engaged in January 2013. They welcomed their two kids before separating in November 2020. Image credits: Getty Images

Legal

Why you’re probably paying more interest on your mortgage than you think

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/sander-de-groote-1472267">Sander De Groote</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-sydney-1414">UNSW Sydney</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kevin-li-892606">Kevin Li</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-sydney-1414">UNSW Sydney</a> For most things we buy, the price we are quoted is the price we pay. That’s supposed to be the case even where taxes and fees are involved. Australian law requires anyone selling anything to display a <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/business/pricing/price-displays">total price</a> that includes all “taxes, duties and all unavoidable or pre-selected extra fees”. But our investigations, which compare the interest rate quoted on our mortgages with the fine print in our own mortgage documents, shows this is hardly ever the case for home loans. Even though we are both trained as accountants, until recently we hadn’t bothered to check – even as interest rates climbed. We assumed the rates we were being told we were being charged (say 5% per year) were the rates we were actually paying. This would be easy enough, and in our view the right thing, for banks to do. <h2>The price quoted usually isn’t the price paid</h2> Mortgage interest is usually charged monthly, but the rates are yearly. This means that each time interest is charged, the outstanding amount <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/compoundinterest.asp">compounds</a> as interest is applied to interest. That sounds bad enough. But this isn’t our main complaint. It’s that there are two possible ways to calculate the amount of interest. Banks calcualte interest on a daily basis. The most reasonable would be to calculate the daily amount in a way that adds up to an annual amount that matches what was quoted. That way, a 5% rate would really be 5%. Although there’s a bit of <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/2814/compound_example.pdf">calculation</a> involved, it’s easy enough for banks to do. <h2>How banks calculate mortgage interest</h2> The other, arguably less reasonable, way is what’s called the “<a href="https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/020614/learn-simple-and-compound-interest.asp">simple</a>” method. Our investigations show that this technique is used by all the big four banks, and probably many others too. It’s called the simple method because it involves simply dividing the annual rate (say 5%) by 365 to determine the daily rate. This seems to not be important, but because of compounding it means the amount charged over a year is more than the rate quoted. Say you borrow $100,000 for one year at an annual rate of 5%, repaying the whole amount at the end of the year. You might expect to pay back $105,000. Instead, the banks’ method of calculating interest results in a total repayment of $105,116. This is because the daily interest rate (5% divided by 365) is applied to the outstanding balance each day and added to your balance once a month. These regular increases mean your interest compounds costing you more. <h2>Over decades, the difference matters</h2> In July 2023, the average size of a new mortgage in New South Wales was about A$750,000, with an average interest rate of about 5.95%. The method of calculation used by the banks and in the fine print of their mortgage contracts requires a monthly payment of $4,473 including the repayment of the amount originally borrowed over the life of a 30-year loan. But if 5.95% were actually charged each year, the monthly payment would be $4,398 – a difference of $900 per year. In this typical example, the difference over the life of the loan amounts to about $27,000. It means these borrowers will end up paying an effective interest rate of 6.11%. <h2>We had to read the fine print</h2> We checked the terms and conditions of each of the big four banks – Westpac, the Commonwealth, the National Australia Bank and the ANZ – as well as their biggest subsidiaries which include St George, The Bank of Melbourne, Bank SA and Bankwest. They all charge interest using the “simple” method. Mutual banks – the old credit unions and building societies owned by their members – have different reporting requirements, and we were unable to check the terms and conditions used by each one. But where we could, we found they used the same method as the big four. You can find this small print yourself, usually in the middle of your mortgage document. It’s a formula, accompanied by a paragraph of explanation. But you have to look carefully. Or you could call customer service, as we did, and ask the bank to explain the calculation. You shouldn’t have to. <h2>The price quoted ought to be the price paid</h2> We think the price quoted for a product should be the price that’s actually charged, as the law <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/business/pricing/price-displays">generally requires</a> for products other than mortgages. This means if you are told you’ll be charged 5.95% interest per year, you should pay 5.95% per year – not 6.11% because of a quirk in the formula. Mortgages are a larger financial commitment than most purchases. This means that honesty and clear communication are even more important. It’s worth knowing what you are letting yourself in for when signing up for a mortgage. That way, when the bank or broker explains it to you and it’s not what was advertised, you can ask for a discount.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/213862/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/sander-de-groote-1472267">Sander De Groote</a>, Lecturer, School of Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-sydney-1414">UNSW Sydney</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kevin-li-892606">Kevin Li</a>, Senior Lecturer, School of Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-sydney-1414">UNSW Sydney</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-youre-probably-paying-more-interest-on-your-mortgage-than-you-think-213862">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

Albo's eye-watering pay rise revealed

Anthony Albanese has received a massive pay rise, along with several other Federal MPs, in the biggest pay rise for politicians in a decade. The Prime Minister and his deputy Richard Marles have scored a big pay pump which will increase their pay to $586,768 and $432,860 respectively. The pay increase for all politicians is four percent, which is the heftiest single pay rise in almost 10 years, taking the base salary of a backbencher from $217,000 to $225,680. Under the changes, Albo will score a $22,568 a year pay rise, while his deputy Richard Marles will score a $16,000 pay rise from September 1st. The Remuneration Tribunal, the body that determines the pay and entitlements of public office holders, announced the decision on Monday afternoon citing cost of living pressures as one factor for the increase. “The Tribunal has decided to increase remuneration by 4 per cent for public offices in its jurisdiction. This increase applies from 1 July 2023 for all offices except Federal Members of Parliament (MPs), which applies from 1 September 2023," a spokesman said. “The Tribunal completed its last review of remuneration for public offices in its jurisdiction in June 2022 and determined an adjustment of 2.75 per cent would apply from 1 July 2022. The Tribunal made no adjustment in the preceding two years." “The Tribunal is aware that the remuneration increases it has awarded to offices in its jurisdiction over the past decade have been conservative," a spokesman said. Despite the Tribunal's justification for the increase, the news of the pay rise has come at a difficult time for the Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles, as revelations emerged that he was booking military planes to pick him up and drop him off at Avalon airport closer to his home in Geelong saving himself a one-hour chauffeur-driven car ride from Melbourne. The flights are contributing to a staggering $3.6 million bill for Mr Marles’ VIP private plane costs since last year alone. Image credits: Getty Images

Money & Banking

Private health insurance is set for a shake-up. But asking people to pay more for policies they don’t want isn’t the answer

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/yuting-zhang-1144393">Yuting Zhang</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nathan-kettlewell-903866">Nathan Kettlewell</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-technology-sydney-936">University of Technology Sydney</a> Private health insurance is <a href="https://consultations.health.gov.au/medical-benefits-division/consultation-on-phi-studies/">under review</a>, with proposals to overhaul everything from rebates to tax penalty rules. One <a href="https://consultations.health.gov.au/medical-benefits-division/consultation-on-phi-studies/supporting_documents/Finity%20Consulting%20MLS%20and%20PHI%20Rebate%20Final%20Report.pdf">proposal</a> is for higher-income earners who don’t have private health insurance to pay a larger <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-and-private-health-insurance/Medicare-levy-surcharge/">Medicare Levy Surcharge</a> – an increase from 1.25% or 1.5%, to 2%. And if they want to avoid that surcharge, they’d need to take out higher-level hospital cover than currently required. Encouraging more people to take up private health insurance like this might seem a good way to take pressure off the public hospital system. But <a href="https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/publications/working-papers/search/result?paper=4682822">our research</a> shows these proposals may not achieve this. These may also be especially punitive for people with little to gain from buying private health insurance, such as younger people and those living in regional areas who do not have access to private hospitals. <h2>What is the Medicare Levy Surcharge?</h2> The Medicare Levy Surcharge was <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2013/May/A_short_history_of_increases_to_the_Medicare_levy#:%7E:text=From%20July%201997%2C%20a%20surcharge,ancillary%20insurance%20cover%20was%20introduced">introduced in 1997</a> to encourage high-income earners to buy health insurance. People earning above the relevant thresholds need to buy “complying” health insurance, or pay the levy. This surcharge is in addition to the <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-and-private-health-insurance/Medicare-levy/">Medicare levy</a>, which applies to most taxpayers. The surcharge varies depending on your income bracket, and the rate is <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-and-private-health-insurance/Medicare-levy-surcharge/Medicare-levy-surcharge-income,-thresholds-and-rates/">different</a> for families. For instance, to avoid paying the surcharge currently, a single person living in Victoria earning A$108,001 can buy basic hospital cover. The lowest annual premium for someone under 65 is <a href="https://www.privatehealth.gov.au/dynamic/Search/">about $1,100</a>, after rebates. That varies slightly between states and territories. Not buying private health insurance and paying the Medicare Levy Surcharge instead would cost even more, at $1,350 (1.25% of $108,001). <h2>What is being proposed?</h2> The <a href="https://consultations.health.gov.au/medical-benefits-division/consultation-on-phi-studies/">report</a>, by Finity Consulting and commissioned by the federal health department, reviews a range of health insurance incentives. It recommends increasing the Medicare Levy Surcharge to 2% for those with an income above $108,001 for singles, and $216,001 for families. The definition of a “complying” private health insurance policy would also change. Rather than having basic hospital cover as is required now, someone would need to buy <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/private-health-insurance-reforms-gold-silver-bronze-basic-product-tiers-campaign-fact-sheet?language=en">silver or gold</a> cover to avoid the surcharge. Under the proposed changes, people who pay the 2% surcharge would also no longer receive any rebate, which currently reduces premiums by <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-and-private-health-insurance/Private-health-insurance-rebate/Income-thresholds-and-rates-for-the-private-health-insurance-rebate/#Rebaterates1">about 8%</a> for people earning $108,001-$144,000. So, for a single person under 65, earning $108,001 and living in Victoria, the <a href="https://www.privatehealth.gov.au/dynamic/Search/">annual cost of buying</a> complying hospital cover would be at least $1,904 (without the rebate). Again, that varies slightly between states and territories. But the cost of not insuring and paying the Medicare Levy Surcharge instead would go up to $2,160 (2% of $108,001). <h2>Is this a good idea?</h2> However, <a href="https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/publications/working-papers/search/result?paper=4682822">our research</a>, out earlier this year, suggests increasing the Medicare Levy Surcharge will not meaningfully increase take-up of private health insurance. We’ve shown that people do not respond as strongly to the surcharge as theory would predict. For example, when the surcharge kicks in, we found the probability of insuring only increases modestly from about 70% to 73% for singles, and about 90% to 91% for families. It is generally cheaper to buy private health insurance than to pay the surcharge. However, we found about 15% of single people with an income of $108,001 or above don’t insure despite it being cheaper than paying the Medicare Levy Surcharge. We don’t know precisely why. Maybe people are not sure of the financial benefit due to changes in their income, or if they are, cannot be bothered, or do not have time, to explore their options. Maybe, as <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/AusFinance/comments/x2909w/does_anyone_else_willingly_pay_the_medicare/">anecdotal reports suggest</a>, rather than buying private health insurance, some people would rather support the public system by paying the Medicare Levy Surcharge. The point is, people who are not buying private health insurance appear to be highly resistant to financial incentives. So stronger penalties might have little effect. Instead, we propose the Medicare Levy Surcharge be better targeted to true high-income earners. We can do that by increasing income thresholds for the surcharge to kick in, which are then indexed annually to reflect changes in earnings. <h2>How about needing more expensive cover?</h2> Requiring people to choose silver level cover or above would address criticisms about people buying “<a href="https://theconversation.com/getting-rid-of-junk-health-insurance-policies-is-just-tinkering-at-the-margins-of-a-much-bigger-issue-82749">junk</a>” private health insurance they never intend to use. However, people may be buying this type of product because private health insurance has little value to them. Requiring them to spend even more on a product they don’t want is a roundabout way of taking pressure off the public system. So we propose keeping the current level of hospital cover required to avoid the surcharge, rather than increasing it. <h2>Who loses?</h2> Taken together, the cost of these proposed changes would disproportionately fall on people with little to gain from private health insurance. These include younger people, those living in regional areas who do not have access to private hospitals, or those who prefer to support the public system directly. These groups are the least likely to use private insurance so have the least to gain from upgrading their cover. <h2>Where to next?</h2> The report also recommends keeping <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-and-private-health-insurance/Private-health-insurance-rebate/">health insurance rebates</a> (a government contribution to your premiums), the <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-and-private-health-insurance/Private-health-insurance-rebate/Lifetime-health-cover/">Lifetime Health Cover</a> loading (to encourage people to take out hospital cover while younger), as well as the Medicare Levy Surcharge. We also support keeping these three in the short to medium term. But we recommend gradually reducing public support for private health insurance. We believe the ultimate goal of reforming private health insurance is to optimise the overall efficiency of the health-care system (both public and private systems) and improve population health while saving taxpayers’ money. The goal should not be merely increasing the take-up of private health insurance, which is the focus of the current report. So, as well as our recommendation to better target the Medicare Levy Surcharge, we need to: <ul> <li> lower income thresholds for <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-private-health-insurance-rebate-has-cost-taxpayers-100-billion-and-only-benefits-some-should-we-scrap-it-181264">insurance rebates</a>, especially targeting those on genuinely low incomes. This means lower premiums only for the people who can least afford private health care </li> <li> remove rebates <a href="https://theconversation.com/private-health-insurance-premiums-should-be-based-on-age-and-health-status-122545">based on age</a> as higher rebates for older people <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2017.1299094?journalCode=rael20">do not</a> encourage more to insure. Rebates should be tied to just income, which is a better indicator of financial means.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210981/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> </li> </ul> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/yuting-zhang-1144393">Yuting Zhang</a>, Professor of Health Economics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nathan-kettlewell-903866">Nathan Kettlewell</a>, Chancellor's Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Economics Discipline Group, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-technology-sydney-936">University of Technology Sydney</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/private-health-insurance-is-set-for-a-shake-up-but-asking-people-to-pay-more-for-policies-they-dont-want-isnt-the-answer-210981">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

Beyond Barbie and Oppenheimer, how do cinemas make money? And do we pay too much for movie tickets?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-martin-682709">Peter Martin</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/crawford-school-of-public-policy-australian-national-university-3292">Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University</a> I’ve got two questions about blockbuster movies like Barbie and Oppenheimer. <ol> <li> Why aren’t the cinemas charging more for them, given they’re so popular? </li> <li> Why are they the same price, given Oppenheimer is an hour longer? </li> </ol> The opening weekend <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/culture/movies/how-australian-cinemas-and-audiences-handled-the-barbenheimer-juggernaut-20230724-p5dqso.html">for both films</a> saw an avalanche of Australians returning to the cinema. Extra staff had to be put on (although probably not enough) to manage queues, turn away pink-clad fans who couldn’t get in, and clean up mountains of popcorn trampled underfoot. An obvious solution to such a rush of demand is to push up prices. Airlines do it when they are getting low on seats. When more people want to get a ride share, Uber makes them pay with “<a href="https://www.uber.com/au/en/drive/driver-app/how-surge-works/">surge pricing</a>”. Even books are sold at different prices, depending on the demand, their length, their quality and how long they’ve been on the shelves. But not movie tickets, which are nearly always the same price, no matter the movie. Why? And how much has the cost of a trip to the movies risen over the past 20 years? <h2>Why not charge more for blockbusters?</h2> In suburban Melbourne, Hoyts is charging $24.50 for the two-hour Barbie – the same as it is charging for the three-hour Oppenheimer, even though it could fit in far fewer showings of Oppenheimer in a day. It’s also the same price as it is charging for much less popular movies, such as Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. It’s also how things are in the United States, where James Surowiecki, author of <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/175380/the-wisdom-of-crowds-by-james-surowiecki/">The Wisdom of Crowds</a> blames convention and says "it costs you as much to see a total dog that’s limping its way through its last week of release as it does to see a hugely popular film on opening night." Australian economists Nicolas de Roos of The University of Sydney and Jordi McKenzie of Macquarie University quote Surowiecki in their <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167718714000174">2014 study</a> of whether cinema operators could make more by cutting the price of older and less popular films and raising the price of blockbusters. By examining what happened to demand on <a href="https://www.eventcinemas.com.au/Promotions/HalfPriceTuesdays#cinemas=59">cheap Tuesdays</a>, and developing a model taking into account advertising, reviews and the weather, they discovered Australian cinemas could make a lot more by <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167718714000174">varying their prices</a> by the movie shown. We turn out to be highly price sensitive. So why don’t cinemas do that? <h2>‘There’s a queue, it must be good’</h2> It’s the sort of thing that puzzled <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/1992/becker/biographical/">Gary Becker</a>, an economic detective of sorts who won the Nobel Prize for Economics in the early 1990s. A few years earlier, he turned his attention to <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/2937660">restaurants</a> and why one particular seafood restaurant in Palo Alto, California, had long queues every night but didn’t raise its prices. Across the road was a restaurant that charged slightly more, sold food that was about as good, and was mostly empty. His conclusion, which he used a lot of maths to illustrate, was there are some goods for which a consumer’s demand depends on the demand of other consumers. Queues for restaurants (or in 2023, long queues and sold out sessions, as crowds were turned away from Barbie) are all signals other consumers want to get in. This would make queues especially valuable to the providers of such goods, even if the queues meant they didn’t get as much as they could from the customers who got in. The “buzz” such queues create produces a supply of future customers persuaded that what was on offer must be worth trying. Importantly, Becker’s maths showed that getting things right was fragile. It was much easier for a restaurant to go from being “in” to “out” than the other way around. Once a queue had created a buzz, it was wise not to mess with it. <h2>Cashing in from the snack bar</h2> There are other reasons for cinemas to charge a standard ticket price, rather than vary it movie by movie. One is that it is hard to tell ahead of time which movies are going to soar and which are going to bomb, even if you spend a fortune on advertising as the <a href="https://variety.com/2023/film/box-office/barbie-marketing-campaign-explained-warner-bros-1235677922/">makers of Barbie did</a>. In the words of an insider, “<a href="https://variety.com/2018/film/opinion/william-goldman-dies-appreciation-1203030781/">nobody knows anything</a>.” Another is the way cinemas make their money. They have to pay the distributor a share of what they get from ticket sales (typically <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167718714000174">35-40%</a>). But they don’t have to pay a share of what they make from high-margin snacks. This means it can make sense for some cinemas to charge less than what the market will bear – because they’ll sell more snacks – even if it means less money for the distributor. <h2>Rising prices, despite some falling costs</h2> But cinemas still charge a lot. From 2002 to 2022, Australian cinemas jacked up their average (not their highest) prices <a href="https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/fact-finders/cinema/industry-trends/box-office/ticket-prices">from $9.13 to $16.26</a> – an increase of 78%. In the same 20 year period, overall prices in Australia, as measured by the <a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-in-the-cpi-and-what-does-it-actually-measure-165162">consumer price index</a>, climbed 65% – less than the rise in movie ticket prices. <hr /> <iframe id="E2kxi" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/E2kxi/5/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> A 2015 study found Australian cinemas charge more <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306227560_Counting_the_cost_the_impact_of_cinema_ticket_prices_in_Australia">than cinemas in the US</a>. Yet some of the cinemas’ costs have gone down. They used to have to employ projectionists to lace up and change reels of film. Digital delivery means much less handling. A now-dated <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/about-us/publications/developments-in-the-cinema-distribution-exhibition-industry">1990s report</a> to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission found the two majors, Hoyts and Greater Union/Village, charged near identical prices except where they were faced with competition from a nearby independent, in which case they discounted. Whether “<a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/The%20Cinema%20Industry.pdf">by design or circumstance</a>”, the two cinema chains rarely competed with each other, clustering their multiplexes in different geographical locations. <h2>Longer films no longer displace shorter films</h2> I think it might be the multiplex that answers my second question: why cinemas don’t charge more for movies that are longer (and movies are <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/culture/movies/bigger-than-ben-hur-why-movies-are-getting-longer-and-longer-20220322-p5a6ty.html">getting longer</a>). In the days of single screens, a cinema that showed a long movie might only fit in (say) four showings a day instead of six. So it would lose out unless it charged more. But these days, multiplexes show many, many films on many screens, some of them simultaneously, meaning long films needn’t displace short films. Although we have <a href="https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/fact-finders/cinema/industry-trends/screens-and-theatres">fewer cinema seats</a> than we had a decade ago (and at least until the advent of Barbie, we’ve been <a href="https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/fact-finders/cinema/industry-trends/screens-and-theatres">going less often</a>) we now have <a href="https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/fact-finders/cinema/industry-trends/screens-and-theatres">far more screens</a>. Long movies no longer stop the multiplexes from playing standard ones. And because cinemas like to keep things simple, you pay the same price, no matter which movie you chose. <img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/211121/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-martin-682709">Peter Martin</a>, Visiting Fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/crawford-school-of-public-policy-australian-national-university-3292">Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/beyond-barbie-and-oppenheimer-how-do-cinemas-make-money-and-do-we-pay-too-much-for-movie-tickets-211121">original article</a>.

Movies

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Does hosting the Olympics, the World Cup or other major sports events really pay off?

Think $5.50 is too much for a flat white? Actually it’s too cheap, and our world-famous cafes are paying the price

Who will look after us in our final years? A pay rise alone won’t solve aged-care workforce shortages

How will Meta’s refusal to pay for news affect Australian journalism – and our democracy?

"We've all gone": Why Jackie O stormed off set

From this week, you’ll be able to look up individual companies’ gender pay gaps

"Absolute joke": Hefty pay rise for traffic controllers met with outrage

“So tacky”: Bride slammed for using GoFundMe to pay for wedding

Tenants forced to pay landlord after fleeing their “uninhabitable” rental

"Proud to pay more": The billionaires who want to pay more tax

What are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ debts, and which should I pay off first?

Flower tycoon pays $76 million in CASH for epic mansion

Secret Santa pays off everyone's Christmas shopping at local Kmart

The debate: Should kids over 18 pay rent if they’re still living at home?

Queen Camilla pays tribute to Queen Elizabeth with a historic first

Ted Lasso star ordered to pay massive child support sum

Why you’re probably paying more interest on your mortgage than you think

Albo's eye-watering pay rise revealed

Private health insurance is set for a shake-up. But asking people to pay more for policies they don’t want isn’t the answer

Beyond Barbie and Oppenheimer, how do cinemas make money? And do we pay too much for movie tickets?

Our Partners

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Does hosting the Olympics, the World Cup or other major sports events really pay off?

Think $5.50 is too much for a flat white? Actually it’s too cheap, and our world-famous cafes are paying the price

Who will look after us in our final years? A pay rise alone won’t solve aged-care workforce shortages

How will Meta’s refusal to pay for news affect Australian journalism – and our democracy?

"We've all gone": Why Jackie O stormed off set

From this week, you’ll be able to look up individual companies’ gender pay gaps

"Absolute joke": Hefty pay rise for traffic controllers met with outrage

“So tacky”: Bride slammed for using GoFundMe to pay for wedding

Tenants forced to pay landlord after fleeing their “uninhabitable” rental

"Proud to pay more": The billionaires who want to pay more tax

What are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ debts, and which should I pay off first?

Flower tycoon pays $76 million in CASH for epic mansion

Secret Santa pays off everyone's Christmas shopping at local Kmart

The debate: Should kids over 18 pay rent if they’re still living at home?

Queen Camilla pays tribute to Queen Elizabeth with a historic first

Ted Lasso star ordered to pay massive child support sum

Why you’re probably paying more interest on your mortgage than you think

Albo's eye-watering pay rise revealed

Private health insurance is set for a shake-up. But asking people to pay more for policies they don’t want isn’t the answer

Beyond Barbie and Oppenheimer, how do cinemas make money? And do we pay too much for movie tickets?

Our Partners

Join Over60