tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post1150369413859734106..comments2024-02-11T19:28:27.997+11:00Comments on Personal Reflections: Sunday Snippets - on the awfulness of academic writing, governance, Métin, pragmatism & the rise of the Australian underclassJim Belshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-82197710410053906842013-03-21T06:53:40.207+11:002013-03-21T06:53:40.207+11:00Hi LE. Interesting on the legal side. You capture ...Hi LE. Interesting on the legal side. You capture it well.<br /><br />On subsidised rent, it depends on the form of the subsidy. As a general rule, though, a direct subsidy does get passed on and may affect prices as a consequence. It can also become built in in complicated ways; rent assistance is an example. Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-68178100739503451082013-03-20T21:26:50.222+11:002013-03-20T21:26:50.222+11:00Jim, with my specialist book which is likely to be...Jim, with my specialist book which is likely to be only read by specialists, I went down the specialist route. Same if I were writing for a specialist journal. If I ever wanted to write a more "for the public" book or article, I'd write it quite differently, hopefully such that family members could understand it! So you're right, it's horses for courses. But it does make it a bit hard if an interested lay person wants to get a handle on the topic. <br /><br />In one of the areas in which I write, there's an <i>inordinate</i> amount of jargon (it really irritates me). I believe it is in part an indicator of whether you're in the "in group" (all of whom are totally au fait with all this stuff). Even experienced legal academics have problems with it, which to my mind indicates that it's really gone too far.<br /><br />That being said, sometimes I forget that some of the words I use are not in common parlance. A friend of mine wrote something in "plain English" the other day (for a lay audience). He tested it on me first, and I thought it looked very simple and good, but the lay audience member he then tested it on didn't know what "reading down" the statute was, which hadn't even occurred to he or I as something we'd have to explain! Heh, probably good for us both to get reminded of this. And it's a reason why I blogged - to practice writing more plainly.<br /><br />P.S. I agree about Evan on subsidising rent. It's like subsidising childcare. It doesn't actually work so well when it doesn't keep up with real costs, and half the time the costs are just passed on immediately.Legal Eaglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01096038577529334966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-28691720522124010372013-03-18T18:45:24.123+11:002013-03-18T18:45:24.123+11:00Hi Evan. Don't over-estimate the baby boomer t...Hi Evan. Don't over-estimate the baby boomer transfer thing. A very large number of boomers and especially those without the old defined benefits super are going to need to rely on that house for support and transition into expensive aged care.<br /><br />If my memory serves me correctly, it's a little while since I was directly involved in the philanthropy area, the law already allows for what you propose in terms of the trust. So its an organisational, packaging issue.<br /><br />Whether this would help in the way you want or at least at the scale you want is another question. The problem is that we just haven't been building enough houses because the development process is so long and so bloody complicated. We have the absurd situation at the moment in some country towns with lots of land yet land scarcity to the point that you can't build. You just can't recover the mandated development costs.<br /><br />Interesting comment on plain writing. Sometimes the plain writing cure is actually worse than the disease! Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-43634421148167413912013-03-18T09:35:07.722+11:002013-03-18T09:35:07.722+11:00Hi Jim, how I do agree about social housing.
My a...Hi Jim, how I do agree about social housing.<br /><br />My analysis: the market is the problem (and the market is shaped by government legislation); so it's no use looking to the market to fix it.<br /><br />So who is outside the market? Dead people. We are going through the largest transfer of wealth in history from the babyboomers to their grand-/children. Largely the family home. There are some of these who don't have children to leave the home to. Some of these, if asked, would probably be happy to will their home to a trust. This trust could rent the homes long-term for cost of maintenance plus a margin to buy more stock. Which results in a stock of housing somewhat distant from market pressures. This is the only way I know to deal with the problem of affordability in a sustainable way. <br /><br />Governments subsidising landlords (rent assistance) is either at the mercy of the market or of little use (as it hasn't kept pace with prices it is increasingly useless).<br /><br />Just btw, you probably know but other readers may not, rent assistance to a couple on pensions is less (yes, in total) than to single pensioner. I'm not making this up.<br /><br />On academic writing, I couldn't agree more.<br /><br />There was a push a while ago about 'plain writing' which did show that it was possible to be plain while addressing technical topics that need jargon. (I think it was pushed by Leonie Kramer and a colleague, whose politics diverged a good deal from mine, but with whose views on prose I was in hearty agreement)>Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13355215688351759230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-79577435806381518942013-03-17T13:29:19.391+11:002013-03-17T13:29:19.391+11:00How interesting LE.
As your comment came through...How interesting LE. <br /><br />As your comment came through, I was listening to the Sunday Profile program on retired Hire Court judge Dyson Heydon - http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/sundayprofile/dyson-heydon/4576026. I really admired the clarity and incisiveness of his thinking. <br /><br />It may not come as a surprise that you, Helen and marcellous were three of those I had in mind when I spoke of the clarity of writing. There is a simple test: when I disagree with you, I actually know why I am disagreeing!<br /><br />Part of your point actually goes to a different issue, one that I wrestle with. <br /><br />In your book, you are writing for a specialist audience. To what degree with that audience should you assume knowledge of core concepts? I don't know, it's horses for courses.<br /><br />My personal preference is to assume zero knowledge, but that can make the book or other piece of work boring for the expert. But if you are going to go in a different route, where do you draw the line? Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-90809740680262135472013-03-17T12:45:47.370+11:002013-03-17T12:45:47.370+11:00The thing about academic writing is that we're...The thing about academic writing is that we're writing to each other a lot of the time. I say this as an academic. So if I want to be taken seriously by my academic colleagues, I have to use at least some of the jargon! I do try and minimise it. However, I should confess that no one in my family could get past the first page of my book because it used at least three technical terms which would be instantly understood by someone in the field, and which would not be understood by a lay person. What's the solution? I'm not sure...Legal Eaglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01096038577529334966noreply@blogger.com