Ausboy75
03-18-2007, 01:15 AM
.... I would like to do research on homeless issues, and bring the truth about homelessness from an economic point of view to light. but, i've found no useful or any data done on homelessness.
i've found no data, to support any claims on the causes and effects of homelessness, ...... if anyone knows, where to find any factual data. please let me know.
thankyou
The difficulty you will face, when looking for 'factual' data is that most of the statistical data is only secondary, that is, it is gathered 'after' the event by various agencies, mostly goverment funded... which requires them to supply the data to the government body as being a condition of the funding (no-free-rides). This combined with information from other agencies such as Centrelink enables a reasonable economic (both financial cost compared to any other statistic ;and 'economic' by way of quantifying government expenditure per se, not specific, as government expenditure is an economic stimulant.) perspective, but the reliability of the data is questionable in as much as it is incomplete. And I would not hazzard a guesstimate as to what % I think it is being close to right, simply because I would probably get it wrong.
Main reason being there are no checkout counters or direct information repositorys for the homeless (or house-less) or any requirement for them to make such a report. So in that sense, there is no possibility of obtaining primary data.
The biggest economic cost is the comparative advantage cost to the Australian economy of being homeless/houseless compared to being fully productive (defined economically, not literally).
From a pure economics point of view, the homeless are still consumers (H) they share in the Income (I) and in a simple economic model H=I.
It is just that when you profile the consumers.... 93% of the wealth is controlled by 5% of the consumers (population) in Australia. You can imagine how much of an impact the houseless and homeless have in wealth statistics, such is how they are viewed by economists.. which partially explains why programs and inititives are always underfunded..(financial cost vs the economic benefits). Which is why 'Social Policy' is more concience driven than economically (or financially) driven.
The difficulty is that every economist will tell you that if you had zero homeless/houseless in an economy, the economy would be wholly productive.... yet because of what I said in the paragraph above, the likelyhood of it every happening is remote.
In terms of the economic cost(s), these are as vast as they are numerous.
In general terms the exposed financial costs which derive from Centrelink payments and government funded programs can be determined quite readily from figures avaliable from the auditor-general. In an economic sense, these qualify as 'government expenditure' on the simple economic flow chart (economic inflows and economic outflows).
In macroeconomic terms the effect of being homeless (or even house-less) can be seen in:
(a) the cost to Industry by way of the reduction of the productivity in the workforce. This directly correlates to a reduction in industrial capacity (manufacturing etc etc), business growth and business development to name a few.
(b) the cost to Government by way of both lack of income reciepts from what would otherwise be an increased participation in the workforce and the taxation derivation thereof (income tax, increased gst reciepts etc) AND the direct cost to government by way of funding welfare and other related programs directly associated with the homeless and house-less. (Income-Expenditure.)
(c) The overall reduction in consumption of Goods and Services, this impacts directly on GDP (the value of our countrys Gross Domestic Product). If there were no homeless or house-less we would have a higher GDP as the economy would experience an increase in productivity and consumption of what is ultimately produced (goods and services).
(d) the cost of capital. Ok, I know I am going to cop flack over this, primarily because no one would say that the state of homelessness/house-lessness can affect interest rates or the ability of personal and business borrowing from finanical institutions..... but I say it does, and it any reduction in the population of homeless and house-less will directly impact the cost of capital.
For example.... if you get every homeless person off the street, into shelter, give them jobs... this increases their ability to fund their own mortgages, personal debt for items they may desire, such as an automobile/car/truck whatever....... and this impacts capital markets because there are now more participants who are looking to utilise the limited captial which remains the same. Interestingly Australia now owes $800 billion to foreign entities. The majority of it is personal and business debts owed by individuals and businesses... because Australia has a low savings rate (not enough savings in the banks) we have to borrow the money from overseas countries and pay the interest cost to them.... the biggest cost of our current account is not trade based, but interest costs.
(e) Inflation. Any reduction in the level of homelessness/houselessness will place inflationary pressure on the economy simply by virtue of the corresponding increase in productivity and money supply (as they become more productive/paid more etc etc and buy things such as furniture etc). Seems silly, but thats reality.
On a Micro-economic area the simplist way to describe this is to reflect on where the population of homeless/houseless are and then consider the economic impact on a hypothetical basis if the homeless/houseless situation were that they then became productive and fiscally empowered, how that would effect the underlying wealth and productive capacity of the geographic location and regions in which they reside.
Im sorry if I am confusing you, put simply, if you are looking for financial data, then the auditor general should be your first stop. Though if you are looking at how the homeless situation relates to pure economics, your going to be limited to theorum and hypothesis. Simply because of what I said earlier that theres no requirement to report and no actual data available on the human numbers (which affects funding and ancillary govt expenditure)...and there never will be, its just not possible unless you believe that "Farenheight 451/1984" (books) will become a reality verbatim.
Just a few random thoughts, hope they help.
i've found no data, to support any claims on the causes and effects of homelessness, ...... if anyone knows, where to find any factual data. please let me know.
thankyou
The difficulty you will face, when looking for 'factual' data is that most of the statistical data is only secondary, that is, it is gathered 'after' the event by various agencies, mostly goverment funded... which requires them to supply the data to the government body as being a condition of the funding (no-free-rides). This combined with information from other agencies such as Centrelink enables a reasonable economic (both financial cost compared to any other statistic ;and 'economic' by way of quantifying government expenditure per se, not specific, as government expenditure is an economic stimulant.) perspective, but the reliability of the data is questionable in as much as it is incomplete. And I would not hazzard a guesstimate as to what % I think it is being close to right, simply because I would probably get it wrong.
Main reason being there are no checkout counters or direct information repositorys for the homeless (or house-less) or any requirement for them to make such a report. So in that sense, there is no possibility of obtaining primary data.
The biggest economic cost is the comparative advantage cost to the Australian economy of being homeless/houseless compared to being fully productive (defined economically, not literally).
From a pure economics point of view, the homeless are still consumers (H) they share in the Income (I) and in a simple economic model H=I.
It is just that when you profile the consumers.... 93% of the wealth is controlled by 5% of the consumers (population) in Australia. You can imagine how much of an impact the houseless and homeless have in wealth statistics, such is how they are viewed by economists.. which partially explains why programs and inititives are always underfunded..(financial cost vs the economic benefits). Which is why 'Social Policy' is more concience driven than economically (or financially) driven.
The difficulty is that every economist will tell you that if you had zero homeless/houseless in an economy, the economy would be wholly productive.... yet because of what I said in the paragraph above, the likelyhood of it every happening is remote.
In terms of the economic cost(s), these are as vast as they are numerous.
In general terms the exposed financial costs which derive from Centrelink payments and government funded programs can be determined quite readily from figures avaliable from the auditor-general. In an economic sense, these qualify as 'government expenditure' on the simple economic flow chart (economic inflows and economic outflows).
In macroeconomic terms the effect of being homeless (or even house-less) can be seen in:
(a) the cost to Industry by way of the reduction of the productivity in the workforce. This directly correlates to a reduction in industrial capacity (manufacturing etc etc), business growth and business development to name a few.
(b) the cost to Government by way of both lack of income reciepts from what would otherwise be an increased participation in the workforce and the taxation derivation thereof (income tax, increased gst reciepts etc) AND the direct cost to government by way of funding welfare and other related programs directly associated with the homeless and house-less. (Income-Expenditure.)
(c) The overall reduction in consumption of Goods and Services, this impacts directly on GDP (the value of our countrys Gross Domestic Product). If there were no homeless or house-less we would have a higher GDP as the economy would experience an increase in productivity and consumption of what is ultimately produced (goods and services).
(d) the cost of capital. Ok, I know I am going to cop flack over this, primarily because no one would say that the state of homelessness/house-lessness can affect interest rates or the ability of personal and business borrowing from finanical institutions..... but I say it does, and it any reduction in the population of homeless and house-less will directly impact the cost of capital.
For example.... if you get every homeless person off the street, into shelter, give them jobs... this increases their ability to fund their own mortgages, personal debt for items they may desire, such as an automobile/car/truck whatever....... and this impacts capital markets because there are now more participants who are looking to utilise the limited captial which remains the same. Interestingly Australia now owes $800 billion to foreign entities. The majority of it is personal and business debts owed by individuals and businesses... because Australia has a low savings rate (not enough savings in the banks) we have to borrow the money from overseas countries and pay the interest cost to them.... the biggest cost of our current account is not trade based, but interest costs.
(e) Inflation. Any reduction in the level of homelessness/houselessness will place inflationary pressure on the economy simply by virtue of the corresponding increase in productivity and money supply (as they become more productive/paid more etc etc and buy things such as furniture etc). Seems silly, but thats reality.
On a Micro-economic area the simplist way to describe this is to reflect on where the population of homeless/houseless are and then consider the economic impact on a hypothetical basis if the homeless/houseless situation were that they then became productive and fiscally empowered, how that would effect the underlying wealth and productive capacity of the geographic location and regions in which they reside.
Im sorry if I am confusing you, put simply, if you are looking for financial data, then the auditor general should be your first stop. Though if you are looking at how the homeless situation relates to pure economics, your going to be limited to theorum and hypothesis. Simply because of what I said earlier that theres no requirement to report and no actual data available on the human numbers (which affects funding and ancillary govt expenditure)...and there never will be, its just not possible unless you believe that "Farenheight 451/1984" (books) will become a reality verbatim.
Just a few random thoughts, hope they help.