ABC Article on "Long-Term Renters" and Home Ownership - Ridiculous

CrushJelly on 18/10/2021 - 11:07
Last edited 18/10/2021 - 17:29

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-18/record-house-and-rent…

I find the entire premise of this article absolutely absurd. Granted, the concept that home ownership is beyond reach due to circumstances that are outside of a person's control seems to be something we can all sympathise/empathise with.

That is, until you get to the second paragraph:

The 35-year-old teacher lives in Sydney's south-west and has been saving to buy a property for four years, ever since she moved out of her family's home.
Both she and her husband save 10 per cent of their pay cheque towards a deposit

  1. She only started saving at age 31?
  2. She is only setting aside 10% of her pay?

I might be missing something here, but this reeks of entitlement.
How can anyone choose to spend their entire disposable income until the age of 31 then complain four years later that they cannot afford to buy a home.

I personally started setting aside money when I first started earning money - before I was even 15. I am just over double that age now and have 2 apartments - both with approximately 50% equity and 50% loan outstanding. No help from family or otherwise.

Since @GrueHunter was kind enough to try and challenge my numbers:

To anyone that thinks this couple can't save more than 10% of their income, have a look at a brief weekly budget below, and tell me what else you add that accounts for spending the rest of your disposable income of $1,700 per week after rental expenses.

$160k gross income - let's say $120k clear after tax.
$620/week rent. That's $32.2k/year.
So they clear just shy of $90k/year, which is $1,700 per week for bills and food.

The below expenses total $612 per week. Add whatever you want as monthly subscriptions. But that couple could be saving MUCH more than 10%.

Items Weekly Monthly Quarterly Yearly TOTAL WEEKLY
Electricity $ (300) $ (23)
Gas $ (100) $ (8)
Water $ (200) $ (15)
Contents Insurance $ (1,000) $ (19)
Fuel $ (40) $ (40)
Car Insurance $ (900) $ (17)
Car CTP $ (600) $ (12)
Car Rego $ (300) $ (6)
Car Payments $ (500) $ (115)
Health Insurance $ (397) $ (92)
Gym $ (100) $ (23)
Mobile 1 $ (60) $ (14)
Mobile 2 $ (60) $ (14)
Internet $ (60) $ (14)
Groceries $ (200) $ (200)
Financial

Comments

        • Unorthodox on 18/10/2021 - 11:53
          +1

          To add on, I'm not trying to make excuses for her/this case.

          I think in the past decade or so, people really do have to give up certain leisures etc to save up for a house.

          I have a degree in economics and it's very concerning to see.
          These crazy house prices mean less spending which will result in less aggregate demand and GDP plus a negative effect on well-being and quality of life which can't be measured as easily.

          • CrushJelly on 18/10/2021 - 11:57

            @Unorthodox:

            I think in the past decade or so, people really do have to give up certain leisures etc to save up for a house.

            Agree. Immediate vs deferred gratification.

            Fine, you can spend on all the fine food and products now. But that means the person that decides to defer their gratification is in a better financial position when it comes time to purchasing the big ticket items.

            Lack of self-restraint is a potential reason.

        • CrushJelly on 18/10/2021 - 11:55
          +4

          Yes, we can hypothesise until the cows come home as to what they spent their money on.

          At the end of the day, whether they bought cars, had a wedding or travelled on multiple holidays - it all comes back to the same question - could they afford it?

          At the time they spent that money, they probably analysed their finances and though "yes, I can afford to spend that cash".
          But the issue is that that their analysis was flawed, as it didn't take into account their future goals of buying a home.

        • dasher86 on 18/10/2021 - 12:24
          +2

          Whatever happened to the back yard wedding, or the good old scout hall?
          What about buying a car that you can afford and not going into debt for it?

          Can't have it all these days

          • jaybo on 19/10/2021 - 11:39
            +2

            @dasher86: yeah $50k for a wedding is insane…
            we had about 100 guests and our total cost was around $13k

            • 4tran on 19/10/2021 - 14:04

              @jaybo: 50k is not insane, typical asian wedding is 80-100k

              • ankor on 20/10/2021 - 03:37

                @4tran: I'm Asian and I married an Asian. 16k wedding with about 112 guests at a winery with sit-down catering in 2013.. 3 course dinners with seafood, beer and wine package etc.

        • serpserpserp on 18/10/2021 - 22:30

          some of my friends who are teachers in VIC get so bored

          Really wish they'd stop having so many "pupil free days" if they are bored.

          • RMBC on 19/10/2021 - 07:53

            @serpserpserp: How else are they meant to get their "work" done? It's not like their are a raft of other days without students every year for them to do it

          • Unorthodox on 19/10/2021 - 11:45

            @serpserpserp: Teachers do spend time outside of work hours on lesson plans, marking and other admin tasks.

            My friends are more tech savvy so can automate many of the processes and teach more technical subjects and VCE where the curriculum and SAC criteria are more defined so it's easier to plan ahead.

            That said, a lot of younger teachers who make it into full time permanent roles are generally still in that age range of wanting to have fun. Leave benefits are pretty crazy for teachers.

      • Brumby92 on 21/10/2021 - 23:25

        Many people do. Not that hard to believe. Holidays, nights out, weed habit. Surely its not that hard to believe. People in their twenties have difference priorities.
        Can't have your cake and eat it too. I'm with you on that point. They could easily be saving 20%, not 10.

    • Dogsrule on 18/10/2021 - 21:58

      Remember there are 2 of them earning $80k per year, so $18kx2=$36k a year they should be saving according to your scenario.

      Their actual yearly savings are around $12k.

    • cadwalader on 19/10/2021 - 10:46

      The average aussie doesn't have major life expenses or a few holidays? Bit of double-dipping going on there.

      • Unorthodox on 19/10/2021 - 11:41

        Haha I count major life expenses as stuff such as
        - insurance claims (excess)
        - traffic/parking fines
        - medical /dental

        Stuff that you don't really expect but might happen and you just try get it out of the way.

        • cadwalader on 19/10/2021 - 13:41
          +1

          Why wouldn't it be included in the average aussies' expenditure if its common enough to be assumed that this family will incur it. Its a bit funny to model them after an average aussie then to add on stuff that average aussies do not spend.

          I would say that the average Australia doesn't pay very much in insurance excess and fines every year. It would probably just amount to 500 per year averaged out. But fair enough if you want to factor it in, medical is on medicare but lets include dental and call it 1500. So 2000 in total.

          That leaves a lot more that she could be saving.

          I think the point here is that this person in the article is different from an average aussie in so many ways but some people are trying to jump through hoops to relate that behavior to the common person in order to defend it for whatever reason.

          • Unorthodox on 19/10/2021 - 14:44

            @cadwalader: Yeah I'm just trying to rationalise what might be possible not defending the case as I mentioned above.

            Heck the case could very well be that she gambles or sunk money into sh*tcoins or something.

            We'll never know

  • Dr Ginger on 18/10/2021 - 11:42
    +26

    I find this style of reporting very frustrating. It seems to have the view that without a 'human story' to anchor it to then it won't be relatable but it undermines the point when your example is flawed. Just report on the issue from the data.

    • CrushJelly on 18/10/2021 - 11:45
      +4

      Agree - the example is absolutely flawed and takes away from the message the article had intended to get across.

    • Cheaplikethebird on 18/10/2021 - 12:28
      +13

      I believe the ABC does this on purpose. Usually it's some inner city Melbournite with multi-coloured hair to drive the hate-clicks.

      • Kangal on 19/10/2021 - 09:33
        +3

        I don't even think they are intended as hate-clicks. I think some of these writers and editors are really that disjointed from the everyman, that it is plain and easy to see for the rest of us.

        As long as they don't remove/censor comments that do not agree with them, then I have no issue with it. Last thing we need are more echo-chambers of people with unrealistic ideals.

        • andresampras on 19/10/2021 - 13:55

          I've always wondered how they choose the case studies for their articles.

          Is it just friends of friends of the reporter?

          In this case the case study didn't even allow use of a photo - normally expect a person photographed half in shadow, with a sombre look on their face to match the doom and gloom of the article.

          And my 2c - you can quite easily rent a very decent place in Sydney for under $620/week, but if you want fancy…. then don't complain it's taking longer to build a home deposit. Chances are if you've spoilt yourself with fancy rental accommodation that's above your budget, you're also seeking a home purchase that's above your budget.

          Expectations not being managed IMHO.

      • Buckshot on 19/10/2021 - 14:53
        +1

        Based on the trajectory of ABC special reports and opinion pieces, it's fairly safe to say that they're in a bit of an ideological/reality bubble.

        Entitlement seeps through a lot of their pieces these days. My opinion.

    • brendanm on 18/10/2021 - 14:50
      +7

      Many such cases with the abc these days. Gone are the days of simple, factual reporting.

  • jv on 18/10/2021 - 11:43
    +10

    Both she and her husband save 10 per cent of their pay cheque towards a deposit

    If they really wanted to save up, they'd be saving 90% and spending 10%…

    • [Deactivated] on 18/10/2021 - 11:58
      +4

      99.95 % saving would be better IMO

  • Ocker on 18/10/2021 - 11:44
    +6

    The dilemma she faces is what should be her first priority - saving for a deposit or her daily coffee's?

    • djsweet on 18/10/2021 - 13:59
      +26

      When you're paying $620pw in rent, what's an extra $20 on coffee? Realistically it makes no difference. Cutting down on little comforts like barista coffee or avo on toast isn't going to save this generation. There's a real economic problem that needs to be solved.

      • brendanm on 18/10/2021 - 14:51
        +2

        All those things add up.

        • GrueHunter on 18/10/2021 - 16:06
          +11

          In the context of a $600k 30 year mortgage for a two bedroom dog box apartment made from recycled Chinese newspapers? No, they really don't.

          • brendanm on 18/10/2021 - 17:10

            @GrueHunter: I would never suggest buying a crappy apartment in Sydney/Melbourne.

        • djsweet on 18/10/2021 - 16:30
          +4

          Yep, adds up to less than $1000 in a year. Not going to be the difference between having a house deposit and not having a house deposit. Not even close.

          • brendanm on 18/10/2021 - 17:09
            +24

            @djsweet: Just coffees. Just avo on toast. Just a new car on finance. Just a new iPhone every year. Just a $99 Telstra phone plan. Just an overseas holiday. Just Netflix, Disney etc. Yes, it all adds up.

            • plasmog on 18/10/2021 - 19:25
              -4

              @brendanm: Actually it doesn't. Do the maths.

              • May4th on 18/10/2021 - 23:33
                +5

                @plasmog: it actually does. its not the number that matters, it's the spending habit that forms over a life time.

                oh what's an extra 20 a week in coffee. oh i need a day spa at the end of the week to treat myself. oh i need that weekend getaway every 2-3 months to stay grounded.. and poof there goes your savings

                • BreezyPalms on 19/10/2021 - 06:04
                  +4

                  @May4th: @plasmog - Managing outgoing expenses is absolutely the way to save money. What is your argument against this?

                  When we bought our first place we had to make sacrifices to save. Instant coffee, make lunch at home to take to work, not eating out etc etc

                  While I agree drinking a barista made coffee in and of itself is not going to break the bank, it would be at the expense of something else. For the same as a coffee a day ($28) you could buy enough food to make lunch for a week and have spare change.

                • plasmog on 19/10/2021 - 10:12

                  @May4th: Actually it is those who buy coffee daily who do not need a spa at the end of the week, and those pumping instant coffee feel stressed and edgy and need excessive holidays.

                  I am in my 30s and have accruied $2m in net worth, and by the way I did it while buying 1 - 2 coffees every work day when I was in the office world pre-covid. Coffees make zero difference.

                  • andresampras on 19/10/2021 - 14:04
                    +5

                    @plasmog: I think you're taking the word 'coffee' too literally - in this context it is a metaphor for unnecessary spending on things you don't need.

                    In your case you had your coffees but you managed to restrict/reallocate your spending in other ways.

                    The assumption with the comments on 'coffee' and 'smashed avo' are that the person generally doesn't have a handle on their finances. It's the attitude that's the problem - spending on coffee / holidays / annual tech upgrades / fancy car etc

                  • aboogee on 19/10/2021 - 14:34

                    @plasmog: Yeah but depends on your income tooo

      • Ghost47 on 18/10/2021 - 16:22
        +10

        Very true. A lot of people seem to think that forgoing little comforts such as not buying a $4 coffee each day is the way to go about saving for a house (or building wealth in general). I mean, it might help but it’s hardly impactful, sort of like that meme of the guy sweeping back a tide with a broom lol.

        One real way to save more money is by actually renting somewhere as cheap as you can (could easily be $100 saved each week) or switching insurance providers, or buying a second hand car, pre COVID anyway, instead of a brand new car (if one must purchase a car), or not having kids. Those sorts of things would far outweigh the benefit of not buying a coffee every day.

        Everyone who suggests not buying a daily coffee to save for a house has no idea about how stupid such a suggestion it is. If houses were $100k and coffees were $4 forgoing coffees would help you get to a 20% deposit, but not when houses are $1 mil lol.

        There’s no wonder why we’re in this economic problem, all you need to do is look at who’s been in power the majority of the past two decades.

        • brendanm on 18/10/2021 - 17:14
          +13

          Coffee is symbolic champ, same as the avos on toast. It represents people not being willing to sacrifice to get something, choosing to whine instead.

                • brendanm on 18/10/2021 - 18:39

                  @Ghost47: At least I don't complain when my own spending habits stop me from getting a house I suppose, that would be a truly sad position to be in 😔

        • zephyrfox on 18/10/2021 - 17:15
          +16

          Everyone is quick to dismiss the whole going without the daily takeout coffee or avo on toast won't make a difference in saving for a house. That's not the point.

          The point is going without to increase your savings and the people who don't go without things like that have a general approach to spending which limits their ability to save. The people buying the daily coffee are likely also buying the new tv, the new yearly phone, have the expensive phone bill, don't shop around their service providers (electricity, insurance etc.) probably have 4-5 streaming services (tv, music, etc), likely don't cook, get pre-made meals, have the nice car on finance etc. All the above adds up year on year.

          1000 becomes 10,000 pretty fast.

          Money makes money. And if you never save you never get this process started and you are left behind. The ASX on average outperforms the housing market for growth (~8%), if you were saving and buying index funds you would out pace the housing market and be able to buy.

          If you went without a nice 15k holiday in your early 20s, it would be worth over 30k in your 30s. Half way to a 10% house deposit for a modest 600k house and it was only one instance of going without. If you managed to save 15k each year for 10 years it would be over ~$220k, more than enough for a house (except syd but really adjust you expectations ffs).

          • Ghost47 on 18/10/2021 - 17:45
            +1

            @zephyrfox:

            That's not the point.

            The original post said:

            The dilemma she faces is what should be her first priority - saving for a deposit or her daily coffee's?

            There really isn't much to read into when people say "try forgoing the $4 coffee each day, that'll help you save for a house." It's quite simple and straightforward. The fact you're lumping in buying a new TV, eating out constantly, financing a car etc. is twisting the point, which straight up is the argument that not buying a daily coffee will help save for a deposit.

            By that suggestion, saving $4 on coffees 365 days a year, results in $1,460 a year, which will require forgoing daily coffees for 6.85 years to save $10,000 (which is very measly after 6.85 years of saving). As I said for example, saving $100 on rent a week would net $5,200 saved a year, so after two years you already save $10,400. Much faster and easier than not buying a daily coffee for 6.85 years. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that the people who buy coffee every day also buy new tvs, eat out constantly etc. I think that's just a big assumption really and possibly based on anecdotal evidence (which is subject to anecdotal fallacy). The people out there saving for a property fall on a spectrum. There'd be people out there who do buy coffees but scrimp on everything else to save for a deposit, as there are people mentioned in the article.

            Thanks for trying to educate me on how wealth begets wealth and compound interest, I already invest regularly both into and outside of super through pre and post-tax contributions and have been for the past several years.

            • zephyrfox on 18/10/2021 - 18:05
              +4

              @Ghost47: Thanks for the response. It's a generalisation. Yes there is likely people who buy coffee but not tvs or other expense, but covering all types of people isn't really practical and this line of replies is in response to Ocker's original point which people have been largely dismissive of since it relates to a low cost item like coffee which makes little difference over a year.

              The example of coffee was pointed at wasted spending and the fact that people are less likely to go without things to save more money. Your cheaper rent is an excellent example of the same point, renting somewhere cheaper (going without the nice apartment or increasing your travel time) is going to make a much greater difference than daily nice to haves will. But the people who go for the cheap rents are more likely to make savings elsewhere in their lives and therefore be able to save for a house over a period of time.

              I don't actually believe anyone is suggesting buying coffee out is the key to owning a house but it feels like you've really run with trying to disprove coffee is the key to financial freedom for some reason.

      • Dogsrule on 18/10/2021 - 22:26
        +5

        The $620 of rent per week is not the problem, nor is the $20 of coffee.

        The problem is - where is the remaining $1742 per week of after tax income going? Why are they only able to save $12.5k out of $91k of after tax income every year?

        • zephyrfox on 18/10/2021 - 22:40

          I like you. Dogs do rule

          • Dogsrule on 18/10/2021 - 22:40

            @zephyrfox: They do indeed mate, cattle/staffy cross in my armoury

            • zephyrfox on 19/10/2021 - 09:38

              @Dogsrule: Lazy chocolate border collie in mine :D I would have got a 2nd, ended up having a kid instead. Should have got the dog.

        • djsweet on 19/10/2021 - 08:24
          +1

          You are right. Normal discretionary spending is not the issue here. A lot of this couple’s cash is unaccounted for.

      • gromit on 19/10/2021 - 07:52
        +6

        $20 a week is a $1040 a year, an almost 10% increase in their current pathetic savings rate. It is the attitude like yours that actually see people never achieve their goal. When I was saving for my house deposit I cut all Barista bought coffee and took my lunch to work, for me that saved an extra 50-100 a week. Add in many other smaller sacrifises and suddenly you can cut years of time to deposit. Over the course of a year or a few years that makes a BIG difference. Every little bit counts, and it is the mindset of foregoing unecessary spending, whether that be on coffee, lunches, smashed avo or finding a cheaper car or rent.

        • djsweet on 19/10/2021 - 08:20
          +3

          I agree with you. Sacrifices are important. And in this case, the savings level is indicative of not many sacrifices being made. However, I’m just saying giving up your coffee and occasional cafe treat isn’t gong to help much. You have to cut where it counts. In many cases rent and other non-discretionary expenses form such a disproportionate part of the budget that you are kind of screwed whatever you do. On reflection, this probably doesn’t apply to this couple where the majority of their income appears to be disappearing into a black hole.

          • CrushJelly on 19/10/2021 - 08:32

            @djsweet: I made the same comment to a mate about the expenses going into a black hole.

            There is something else in the ABC couple's story that isn't being told.

            • zephyrfox on 19/10/2021 - 09:37
              +1

              @CrushJelly: Can't let facts get in the way of a good old ABC sob story.

              It's everyone's fault except mine that I can barely save 10% of my take home pay and lived with my parents until 30s but still saved 0 money…

          • gromit on 19/10/2021 - 08:47

            @djsweet: fair enough. I think the point though is someone not even willing to make such sacrifises is unlikely to make even more difficult bigger ones, once you start looking at the smaller things then the larger savings become more obvious. Which definitely seems the case with this pair of muppets, Too hard to find cheaper rent, can only save a measly 10% and are financially stressed with a rent that is just around 25% of their take home pay. Obviously they are making no real sacrifises at all and are probably of the mindset that my sister had where she expected to be able to save for a house without ever changing a single thing about her spending, "its only twice a week I go out drinking and like 3 times a week I have breakfast in cafe with friends that is hardly a lot" and then proceed to complain about not being able to save enough for a deposit.

            • CrushJelly on 19/10/2021 - 08:56
              +1

              @gromit: Drinking twice a week + 3 brunches.
              Let's say we're super conservative and calculate $50 each night out and $25 for brunch + coffee.

              That's $175 a week. $9.1k a year.

              She doesn't have to hermit, but even if she halved those expenses, she could save an easy $4.5k a year. Going out drinking once a week + 1.5 average brunches per week is hardly living like a hermit.

              • gromit on 19/10/2021 - 09:01

                @CrushJelly: yep exactly, I had to put it all down on paper in front of her (incidentally it was more like $250-$300 a week once you add in the Ubers for her nights out). Sadly even then her response was "whats the point in saving if I don't get to live", complete unwillingness to even cut back slightly anywhere. since then I am not willing to listen to any of her complaints about not being able to afford a house.

                • CrushJelly on 19/10/2021 - 09:06
                  +2

                  @gromit: I empathise with you mate. Sometimes good advice falls on deaf ears.

                  Hopefully, sometime in the (near) future, she'll realise what she's done/failed to do.

                  Hopefully, she'll thank you for trying to look out for her.

                  The disappointing reality, however, might be that she'll never understand - and continue pointing the blame at everything else but herself.

                  Hopefully not though.

              • zephyrfox on 19/10/2021 - 09:40

                @CrushJelly: $50 a night doesn't buy many of those fancy colourful cocktails…

                • CrushJelly on 19/10/2021 - 10:26

                  @zephyrfox: Hence my using a very conservative number as an estimate. You can spend upwards of $200-300 on a night out.
                  In such a case, the potential expenses (and savings) are even greater.

          • cadwalader on 19/10/2021 - 10:50
            +2

            @djsweet: I've been taking my lunch with me since I started working. Its not even a sacrifice. Food near my work sucks and is unhealthy. Much easier to microwave my own food and having a quiet time in my office compared to walking around and waiting for overpriced grease.

        • CrushJelly on 19/10/2021 - 08:33
          +3

          A few bucks here and there, multiplied by tens, hundreds or thousands of individual transactions… all adds up. 100%.

    • strongzero on 18/10/2021 - 16:10
      +4

      Ok boomer

    • skidexa on 18/10/2021 - 16:12
      +1

      I didn't see anything about buying coffee daily in the article…

  • Hugh G Rection on 18/10/2021 - 11:46
    +1

    its sydney, one of the most expensive places to live.
    if you go to perth you will play 1/2 that.
    sydney is like california and new york, you pay a lot for something old and little, but if you move to less popular states, you can spend 1/2 that on a new house and it will be double the size. it's all about location.

    • markathome on 19/10/2021 - 00:13

      Tell Mark I'm getting on the plane right now. I just rock up and say Rickrone approved me right?

      • Hugh G Rection on 19/10/2021 - 08:19
        +2

        fo shizzle dizzle. marky mark is my homie.

  • cuteseal on 18/10/2021 - 11:48
    +9

    Not sure if they have done the sums but if 10% of their paycheck is all they can manage, they won't be able to meet mortgage repayments, let alone the deposit.

    Combined $160k salary = approx 9.5-10k take home per month.
    So 10% = 1k plus $600 of what they are already paying in rent = $1.6k monthly mortgage payment per month.
    That works out to be like a $425k property?

    • KaTst3R on 18/10/2021 - 13:14
      +4

      The were never in the market anyway so it doesnt matter how much they earn or save. Absolutely no way of getting a place in Sydney unless they are willing to make drastic changes to their lifestyle including potentially relocating to a more regional area.

      ABC could change the location to Canberra and the situation is still the same.

      • morse on 19/10/2021 - 04:37

        They live in South West Sydney. If they had saved a deposit which should have been doable based on their incomes they should be able to borrow enough to buy a $1million property which would get them a modest freestanding house in south west Sydney. So actually it does matter how much they earn and save if buying property is what they want to do. Without knowing their exact circumstances, if her and her partner had saved an average of $10k/year each between the ages of 25-35 they’d have a combined deposit of $200k. On their salaries it would be easy to save $10k/annum and live pretty well. Only saving 10% of their income really doesn’t make sense if they wanted to own property. It seems they’ll have to save a lot more now if they haven’t been over the years. This couple is genuinely a poor example of the issue of housing affordability.

    • djsweet on 18/10/2021 - 14:02
      +1

      I think rent is $620pw not per month. So they would be able to afford about 3.5k monthly repayments on a mortgage.

      • cuteseal on 18/10/2021 - 14:04

        Ah my bad… that would put them in $900k territory which is below average for Sydney but still pretty respectable.

    • cadwalader on 19/10/2021 - 10:52
      +1

      Its clear from how they allocate their money that owning a property is quite low down their list of priorities. Let them have their moment in the limelight. People convinced by the article in the first place are never going to change their mind anyway.

  • ajsr8 on 18/10/2021 - 11:52
    -3

    The fact that she started saving at 31 and only saves 10% is both pathetic and hilarious.

    Hopefully she'll be able to buy a Toyota Hiace to live in.

    • Hardlyworkin on 18/10/2021 - 17:40
      +10

      I was in the same boat. Spent every last cent on travel in my 20s and early 30s. Just had to save harder for a couple of years after. I certainly don't think my life before saving for a house was pathetic. Infact it was frickin amazing!

      I see people that age now who are so preoccupied with thinking owning a house is all life is about.

      • Dogsrule on 18/10/2021 - 22:34
        +8

        The part that makes this pathetic is that the couple featured in the article believe they are hard done by. You made your choices, you shouldered the consequences and didn't whinge to the ABC about it, ergo you are not pathetic.

        • od810 on 18/10/2021 - 23:00
          +1

          That is right, you can do whatever the hell you want to do with your money but don't go complain about it later on.

      • ajsr8 on 19/10/2021 - 14:11
        +1

        I don't disagree.

        I'm in my 20s and I'm going to blow a whole lot of money on a car. I could splash $25k and be doing alright after uni. Or I could splash $60k and having nothing for a house.

        It is pathetic to cry to a newspaper when things could have been made to be more balanced.

  • raptormesh on 18/10/2021 - 11:55
    +32

    Lot's of privileged comments here. Bootstraps amirite?

    • Dogsrule on 18/10/2021 - 22:38
      +6

      The $1764 of after tax income this couple has each week after rent is a hell of a bootstrap.

      Too bad they're only bootstrapping $240 of it each week and acting like it's some kind of impressive achievement.

      • Kangal on 19/10/2021 - 10:03
        +3

        Now, what if the person in the story was different?

        Say they didn't have family/dependable. So until the age of 30 couldn't save much. And let's say their circumstances were much less privileged, that only making $60k per year, doesn't have a partner, but has a very modest living such as only $250 expenses and $350 in rent.

        Let's project their savings for 5 years. $600/wk is (round up) $32k per year. While post-tax earnings is (round down) $48k per year. If she saved 99% of that, that is $15k saved. In 5 years that is roughly $75k saved, which for a 20% deposit is only for a $380k house. Or 10% for a $750k house. Or a 5% for a $1.5M house.

        This makes things more clear/realistic imho. The best way to save money is not to cut-back on expenses, it is to increase your earnings. Then get out of the inflation trap, and invest that money in Super, Housing, Stocks, Crypto, etc etc.

        • raptormesh on 19/10/2021 - 11:43
          +2

          Exactly. People don't understand that not everybody has the same life experience or able to start at the same line. I really hate this USA centric "(profanity) you got mine" mentality.

        • Dogsrule on 19/10/2021 - 12:09

          The ABC should have profiled the people in your scenario, instead of the irresponsible spendthrifts featured in this one.

    • fantombloo on 18/10/2021 - 12:34
      +43

      If you choose a career with this level of income ceiling, then you need to be prepared for the impacts on lifestyle. This includes the possibility of exclusion from ownership in the property

      Not about this specific case but if an essential worker can never afford a home then that is a problem with the system, not the essential worker.

      The fact that people can have such contempt for essential workers is a large part of that problem.

        • fantombloo on 18/10/2021 - 13:34
          +14

          I never said anything bad about teaching.

          No, you're just ok with them systemically earning less than that which enables them to ever own a home.

          Also:
          Germany 1937, USSR 1965, China 2021: "that's life."

          • tsunamisurfer on 18/10/2021 - 13:46
            -4

            @fantombloo:

            No, you're just ok with them systemically earning less than that which enables them to ever own a home.

            See how you easily you twist things to make it look like there is a force (that I am in favour of) that oppresses them (somehow)?

            I am OK with the current equilibrium rate of this profession, after which their labor becomes alienable, if they don't take it someone else will.

            You are barking up the wrong tree.

            Even Miss Smith recognises she has already hit her career ceiling. And she herself has no issue with the ceiling.

        • Autonomic on 18/10/2021 - 16:09
          +20

          Sydney needs teachers. Teachers need to be able to afford to live near the schools.

          • tsunamisurfer on 18/10/2021 - 17:14

            @Autonomic:

            Sydney needs teachers. Teachers need to be able to afford to live near the schools.

            They can.

            This article actually proves this.

            $160k pre-tax and rent is ~$32k.

          • Dogsrule on 18/10/2021 - 22:48

            @Autonomic: These teachers can. After their rent is paid, they have $1764 of after tax income each week with which they could easily use to enter the housing market.

            The fact that they choose to set aside only $240 of this windfall every week towards this goal and then proceed to complain about how long it is taking is not indicative of a widespread failure of the housing market or systematic undervaluing of their chosen career path.

            This is all on them.

        • GrueHunter on 18/10/2021 - 16:10
          +9

          "I'd like to own a house one day"'

          "Ooh, look at Mrs Mercedes Lifestyle over here. Too good for a cardboard box under a bridge, are we? Better to just keep paying me rent forever and ever, eh?"

          Next your going to tell me lawyers, stockbrokers, real estate investors, should earn $10k a year because of their perceived societal value.

          I'd back that.

          • tsunamisurfer on 18/10/2021 - 17:25

            @GrueHunter:

            "Ooh, look at Mrs Mercedes Lifestyle over here. Too good for a cardboard box under a bridge, are we? Better to just keep paying me rent forever and ever, eh?"

            Miss Smith is currently living in a nice place which suits her needs, not sure where bridge or box came from.

            I am not a landlord nor can I afford a property in Sydney.

            • fantombloo on 18/10/2021 - 17:56
              +4

              @tsunamisurfer: So you're a poor person doing the bidding of the wealthy, the Australian analogue of one 'dem working class christians who voted a philandering billionaire in to make Merica great again.

              The establishment has essentially erased class consciousness by bribing us with its demonstrably false ideas of broad social mobility. You don't necessarily need to sport a red star to want a fairer society; you have been duped.

    • ajsr8 on 18/10/2021 - 12:50
      +9

      Wouldn't pin it on the career. Especially considering that teaching is a pretty important branch of society.

      If she'd started saving at age 20 whilst living at home she would have a lot in savings by now.

      • tsunamisurfer on 18/10/2021 - 13:32
        -3

        Wouldn't pin it on the career. Especially considering that teaching is a pretty important branch of society.

        The career choice is the #2 determinant of Miss Smith's predicament.

        1 is the choice of property market.

        Incomes have never been paid in accordance to their societal importance. Never.

        One can argue and teacher and a nurse is more important than a stockbroker, a stock broker cannot teach or administer medical care. But the stockbroker can make more because their value in dollar terms is considerably higher, tangible and quantifiable.

        • deme on 18/10/2021 - 13:41
          +11

          One can argue and teacher and a nurse is more important than a stockbroker, a stock broker cannot teach or administer medical care. But the stockbroker can make more because their value in dollar terms is considerably higher, tangible and quantifiable.

          LMAO

          higher, tangible and quantifiable.

          higher

          25 kids per classroom (probably more since I was at school) at the most malleable part of their life, providing education that can lead to immense value for society in the future.

          The other is someone that shill shitty stocks in order to get commission doesn't matter what the volume is imporant. ie a leech.

          quantifiable

          https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0964529940000001…

          Pretty sure a stockbrokers socially impact is negative.

          tangible

          "perceptible by touch."

          • tsunamisurfer on 18/10/2021 - 13:57
            -1

            @deme:

            25 kids per classroom (probably more since I was at school) at the most malleable part of their life, providing education that can lead to immense value for society in the future.

            The other is someone that shill shitty stocks in order to get commission doesn't matter what the volume is imporant. ie a leech.

            Its regrettable that we have to turn to emotive context of works like kids, future, leech.

            I don't particularly like stockbrokers, real estate agents and lawyers, but like it or not the perceived value of their work is higher, its not anyone's fault.

            When I am sick I would like to be tended to by caring and competent medical professionals. That is being achieved today at these remuneration levels.

            The market then sees no reason to change that.

            • rektrading on 18/10/2021 - 14:15
              +3

              @tsunamisurfer: Stock(brokers) doesn't add any value to the market.

              Traders are being replaced by quants, high-frequency bots and brokers will in time be unemployed when code takes over the market.

            • crentist on 18/10/2021 - 20:24
              +1

              @tsunamisurfer:

              I don't particularly like stockbrokers, real estate agents and lawyers, but like it or not the perceived value of their work is higher, its not anyone's fault.

              But the actual value of their work isn't higher. They just operate within the flow of lots of money, in a position that lets them skim a little off the top. Easy to make a good living when it's a small percentage of others making large purchases.
              Similar to how a butcher could bring home prime steaks every night, and a baker probably eats lots of bread.

              Teachers have no direct connection with any kind of production or economic activity. They have a very significant indirect influence, but are essentially at the mercy whatever financial compensation society decides to give them.

              A wealthy society could just as easily give teachers high credit for overall economic performance and value their role with $250k salaries and high barriers to entry, as they could undervalue them based on direct output and pay $40k to any idiot who comes along.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join