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

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)

Comments

              • @crentist:

                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.

                Based on how they impact our children's education, good teachers deserve to get paid more.

                Unfortunately teachers' labour are more easily alienable and replaceable by someone else.

                Teachers could band together and demand more pay, but someone else can step in.

                Not everyone can step into be a stockbroker or lawyer.

                • @tsunamisurfer:

                  Teachers could band together and demand more pay, but someone else can step in.

                  Only if we let them. If we didn't consider teachers replaceable, we'd make sure they weren't.

                  Not everyone can step into be a stockbroker or lawyer.

                  That's not really it though. Stockbrokers aren't a protected title, and the law industry probably makes its own entry requirements. But both are highly competitive meritocracies, because people who excel can bring in a lot of money, and be paid accordingly. Hence, it's hard for just anyone to walk into these roles, and performance is easily measured.

                  Teachers have entry barriers and salaries set by the education department. Both could be very high, or very low, it's kinda arbitrary. And then performance is opaque, so it's difficult for a good teacher to be recognised, and impossible to generate more money. Which results in a fixed ceiling.
                  Hence, it's only that arbitrary entry barrier&salary combo that controls the quality of teachers, and how easily they can be replaced.

                  If the money was higher, I'm sure you'd get a lot of lawyers switching over, and the entry could be lifted to enforce that standard. It seems more likely to go the other way though, with the government more interested in letting more and more people "step in" to keep wages down.

        • There would have been plenty of ways to get around her predicament without having to change her career passion.

          Though it is a little concerning that someone could be so financially inept and be responsible for teaching the next generation.

    • @tsunamisurfer

      Followed all of your replies and must hand it to you - well responded. Tough crowd here.

      Saying that, hard not to be sympathetic to those that are struggling now. Many of the decisions we make when we were young can haunt us later on.

      I suspect those that have neg'ed you are generally in that camp as your replies are pragmatic but not unreasonable. Its simply how society works, sadly.

  • +2

    Shouldn't she be earning around $100k as a teacher with around 12 years experience? That leaves her partner on $60k. Lots of room to improve in the income department before complaining they can't afford a house.

    • +7

      Not a teacher, but I hear a lot of them these days are casual since the boomers are taking so long to retire.

      • But are they taking so long to retire because they cant afford to retire?

    • Here's a plus to offset the neg.

    • +3

      That was actually the part of the article I found strangest…

      "We have decent jobs but we've both hit the top of our pay scale so we're never going to earn any more than we are now," she said.

      The thing I find weird about this discussion is everyone is so pro-saving. Every cent saved contributes to escalating house prices. If you value affordability you should be encouraging people to live large when they are young. You're, after all, only young once. Trust me, you'll have heaps of time to post bogus financial tables to forums as you grow older.

  • +19

    You have completely missed the point OP that housing is a basic right and should be affordable. And renters need rights… how can a landlord just raise rent by $100 a week and people think that is ok???

    • +2

      Housing is affordable for this couple. After their rent is paid, they have $1764 of after tax income to buy a house with. They simply choose to spend this money on something other than housing.

  • +9

    Lived with parents until 31 but didn't save? This person is a kidult.

  • +25

    Not going to lie, but in a way the uncontrolled property growth can all be tracked back to the RBA/government wanting us to work longer, into our later years so we can pay more tax over our life time. No more retiring at 60 and living on a passive income in a large house that you paid down at the age of 50.

    Today's generation will never experience that. And before you go about saying that they're entitled, i don't think they are. The Y and Z gens are some of the most financially educated 20 somethings in history. Never before has there been this much information and transparency around household finances.

    It's more when you're faced with scaling a small mound of debt in the 80's/90's vs climbing up Mount Everest for the rest of your life (plus somehow afford to have kids) you can see why they're hesitant to dive in.

    I was lucky enough to stay with my parent so i could secure a 30% deposit on a house, but unfortunately many people aren't in the same position and will have a hard time even getting a foothold.

    • +5

      I agree with you.

      Government only sees profits. In Victoria land tax thresholds haven't gone up. There isn't a piece of land in Metro Melbourne which wouldn't be over the $250k threshold to have to pay land tax. Yes it might be small amounts but it can really add up especially those who may have 3 properties from 20 years ago and suddenly find themselves wacked.

      And before you go about saying that they're entitled, i don't think they are

      They know they want to live somewhere but frustrated they can't afford it. Unfortunately it is their prior generation that keeps on ramping up the prices. Some how they are to pick up the tab before they get inheritance.

      RBA/government wanting us to work longer, into our later years so we can pay more tax over our life time.

      Only way out of this is if people are going to get a large inheritance. But unlikely I would say.

      Given the cost of living driven by house prices I'd be surprised people can live on passive income (dividends) even if they had $1m as a couple. If you have nothing and try to survive on the pension is almost impossible.

      • +3

        Also the critical factor at play here is that everyone is trying to save a deposit, in turn taking money out of circulation and hence hampering the economy's ability to turnover funds. And Frydenburg wonders why they have a problem.

        The economy isn't going to come back until people get their disposable income back
        They're not getting their disposable income back until the house prices come back to earth/wages catch up.

        Even then throwing a million at a house (a million of the bank's money.) is effectively locking up those funds in a retiree's portfolio, never to see the light of day and make them passive income until they die and inevitably pass it onto their well heeled offspring.

        • And Frydenburg wonders why they have a problem

          What is because the states are getting stamp duty that he should be getting in consumption taxes.

  • +26

    Wow OP, despite house prices AND rent shooting up, you are saying they should have saved up? You are coming across very snobbish. I hope you get taxed heavily on your non PPOR, less so if you're renting it out. Why? Because you and others are sitting on homes that people could live in permanently. Go invest in shares or something else.

    • Translation : If I can't have 'X' no-one else should be able to have 'X' either.

  • +30

    I might be missing something here, but this reeks of entitlement.

    AS does your post:

    I am just over double that age now and have 2 apartments

    Good for you. Entitled much? Not everybody has the same savings goals at that age.

    Grow up

    • +7

      I'd be interested to know what OP's youth looked like and precisely how often he bailed a moment before it was his turn to buy the round.

      • Imagine thinking that drinking/buying a round is important to a youth's life.

      • -1

        I've bought more rounds for friends (and family) than I've drunk myself.

    • I read this in a similar way. An inconsiderate, myopic, flex post from OP.

  • +6

    ABC writing click bait articles. What a surprise!

    • They also love posting ridiculous articles such as “I sold my apartment. Here is what I learned”.

      And the article is basically the same thing that you read everywhere else with zero useful info.

  • +5

    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.

    You obviously aren't flipping burger at the age of 30.

    We have no idea what is going on with people in the article. News outlets always choose what they believe is the best story to get their point across. You just can't really tell what is going on.

    This kind of goes well with the other forum post about a person on single $200k income feels ripped off income tax wise while their partner is at home looking after the kids. It looks like a couple of $160k isn't doing much better.

    I'd suggest the couple move to Melbourne where on their income they could afford to buy within 30 mins by train of the city.

  • -2

    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 paycheque towards a deposit

    The problem here is that people still keep their savings in fiat money.

    This is the wrong way to save one's wealth.

    This chart will one day be at a 1:1 ratio and it will happen soon than most people think.
    https://usdsat.com/

    • +2

      Sure I'll put it into a currency and hope the great wizard Elon doesn't tweet Bitcoin sucks and tanks it over night.

      • When in doubt, zoom out.
        https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/393946/91767/img-b1118…

        I like numbers and will let them speak for themselves.

        Investing $10 in BTC from Oct 2017 to Oct 2021 every 7 days ($2,090 in total) would result in $13,405.16 of value! Average price of $8,962.96 per 1BTC. +541.40%!
        https://www.dca-cc.com/dca/bitcoin?investment=10&investmentI…

        • +7

          https://www.dca-cc.com/dca/dogecoin?investment=10&investment…

          Investing $10 in DOGE from Oct 2017 to Oct 2021 every 7 days ($2,090 in total) would result in $145,165.35 of value! Average price of $0 per 1DOGE. +6845.71%!

          Cheery picking stats doesn't work mate.

          DCA'ing Apple in that time monthly (ignoring dividends) would get you 304.5% return https://www.buyupside.com/alphavantagelive/dollarcostavecomp…

          Now show me how you are going to go back in time.

          past performance is not an indicator of future results

        • +2

          When in doubt, zoom out.

          I believe that phrase came before the likes of Enron, WorldCom and Bernie Madoff went bust.

          Bitcoin could just have easily gone to zero.

          Maybe we should zoom out on the El Salvador economy. If all of El Salvador put their money into bitcoin and sat back they'd all die to starvation.

          • @netjock: Yes, any asset can go to -99.99%.

            While I'm waiting for my assets to zero, I'll see it up to the right first.

            El Salvador only took the orange pill 4 weeks ago. Give them time to buidl up their savings and see what happens in 12 months.

            • @rektrading:

              El Salvador only took the orange pill 4 weeks ago. Give them time to buidl up their savings and see what happens in 12 months.

              You forget that poor people that live pay check to pay check uses money as a medium of exchange not accumulate wealth.

    • The problem here is that people still keep their savings in fiat money.

      This is the wrong way to save one's wealth.

      I honestly think you're a bot whenever you post but I completely agree with you here.

      • 01001001 00100000 01100100 01101111 00100000 01101110 01101111 01110100 00100000 01100011 01101111 01101101 01110000 01110101 01110100 01100101 00101110 00100000 01010000 01101100 01100101 01100001 01110011 01100101 00100000 01100001 01110011 01101011 00100000 01101101 01111001 00100000 01101101 01110101 01101101 00101100 00100000 01010011 01101001 01110010 01101001 00101110

        https://binarytotext.net/

        ;)

    • +4

      What if you put your savings in BTC when it was at $80K AUD, then needed it for an emergency a few weeks later when it was worth $40k AUD? the volatility is extreme. Maybe not such a great idea to keep your savings there if you plan on using them in the short term. If you like to do speculative gambling then cyrpto is for you, but not for short term store of savings

      • I can lend out the BTC and borrow stablecoins.

        This way I get to keep the asset and get fiat money to buy that delicious cup of coffee that everyone should have every morning.

        • +4

          Buy an asset at $80k then find it is worth $40k and have to then pawn it to live. No wonder bitcoin is going up. Full of people with zero financial sense.

          • @netjock: People that bought the dip is now sitting on a 107% profit after 153D.

            https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/393946/91767/img-b1118…

            BTFD has always been a good DCA strategy to invest in alpha assets.

            • @rektrading: You still haven't explained how someone is going to bridge the $40k gap of savings they thought they had!

              Problem with DCA you bought some at last time it was US$60k and some when it was $30k. It isn't a 107% profit. It is only on proportion that you bought at the bottom.

              Quoting 107% is simplifying it to suck people in.

              • @netjock: I don't know what people do with their savings. What I know is that they always complain about their savings. They keep doing the same thing and expect a different result. If something doesn't work, change it.

                What I do is keep 99.99% of my savings in digital assets. If it goes up, I take out a loan and DCA in the same asset or look for low Mcap that hasn't popped and/or farm them. If it goes down, I take fiat money and DCA. Simple and effective plan.

                I BTFD with DCA. It works every time.
                https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/393946/91796/0-02-0a-c…

                • @rektrading: You think you're the first one to come up with that.

                  • @netjock: Of course not.

                    I learned from a friend of a friend from their GF, that got it from their mum's uncle, that got it from YT/TikTok, that was a copy from a 1900s trader.

                    The saltiest people are the ones that try and poke holes in something that works. The happiest people are the ones that have a plan and seeing it work.

                    • +1

                      @rektrading:

                      The saltiest people are the ones that try and poke holes in something that works. The happiest people are the ones that have a plan and seeing it work.

                      Problem is you think your "thing" works. Enron worked until it didn't, so did Lehmans, Bear Sterns and there is many more smart people there than you I dare say. Hence my point.

                      If you look at your comment history it is purely crypto peddling, relevant or not to the thread. I own crypto as well as other asset classes but I am not going to talk about it relevant or not.

                      We've got the most connected generation with an avalanche of available information, but we also (depending on which side you are on) the highest number of financially irresponsible people or people giving irresponsible advice.

                      Even general financial opinions on OzB should carry warnings.

                      • @netjock: I talk about things I understand and that is to invest and/or trade the best performing asset class.

                        If people don't like to make money and protect their savings at the same time, then that is ok. There is a "hide" option at the bottom of my post. Use it. I promise to not take it personally.

                        • @rektrading:

                          I talk about things I understand and that is to invest and/or trade the best performing asset class.

                          Don't forget to mention volatility. There is no rewards for taking on risk. You pretend it is a riskless profit.

                          I'll keep on pointing out you're "peddling" without relevant disclosures. Don't you worry about that.

                          • @netjock: Traders love volatile assets.

                            Digital assets are the only asset class that can be traded without leverage and still show a 100% 1D PnL. It's also the only asset class that is a store of value and can be used as savings.

                            What is there to disclose? People that have read my posts know that I keep 99.99% of my savings in digital assets and 0.01% in fiat money for coffee. Yes, I drink coffee to stay awake for a market that never sleeps.

        • ..until you get liquidated overnight :)

          • @May4th: I don't do irresponsible leverage trading.

            I do like to see other traders getting rekt. Buying their cheap liquidations is quite profitable.

    • +3

      "It's a bloody state sponsored broadcaster of course it's not fair or balanced"

      This is exactly why shows like Mad As Hell don't exist on the ABC, because the ABC is complicit with the government in making sure they're getting partisan support.

      • I thought it did? My grandma keep talking about it.

        • The ABC shows all sorts of shows for all sorts of viewers. Still, I'm glad you enjoyed Brum.

      • +2

        Mad as hell should get double the funding it does.

    • +17

      To see why ABC is becoming more clickbait, look at the ABC management, stacked with LNP mates from magazine industry. Even the chairwoman was in charge of Woman's Day! Those LNPs have two objectives:
      - Degrade ABC to the point that the public demands ABC defunded / sold off
      - Leech taxpayer dollars as thanks for sucking off rich mates in media

      The LNP stooges need to be purged.

      We should be funding ABC more.

      • Ugh, no wonder their quality has been shit as of late.

      • ABC is completely stacked with LNP puppets now.

      • If it was just them I would maybe believe it. But this is a trend from all the major news providers now, poorly researched stories, usually with reporters that have such a poor background in the topic at hand that any old rubbish gets passed off, doesn't seem to matter what political bent the outlet has, quality has plummeted.

    • +4

      The state that's…a highly conservative Liberal National Coalition that hates the ABC's guts?

      And that's why they're apparently writing so many lefty pinko articles? Because they're funded by said conservative state?

      F'n thought that one through, didn't you champ?

    • +2

      Each time I see a comment about how much the ABC and/or the MSM sucks, I wish they'd also drop the name of a news org, newspaper, or even youtuber they think is doing journalism well.

      Care to put yourself out there @deme?

  • +2

    Irony they prob been so broke and can only save 10% because they own 2 hybrid rav4's and whatever else is cool
    Ozbargain also loves being sucked into consumerism and whatevers cool.

    • Yep, this. If they own cars that cost any more than, say, $15k, then they can give themselves an uppercut.

      • Or invest in a $60k Tesla because it is cheaper than a Hybrid Camry. Soon they'll make it cheaper than a Kia Piccanto. Reason is because the resale value is assumed to be a lot lower for ICE. Never mind the $40k difference you might need to get you across the line for a deposit.

  • +1

    Gov needs to make housing a social need. Places like singapore allow housing for married couples, under 300k.

    Its a flat, but cheap housing is a net benefit.

    Now i doubt many aussies will want to live in flats.

    • +7

      I'm happy to live in a flat.

      But ignoring all the scams and lies…

      The builder is not required to get warranty insurance for more than three stories in NSW recently thanks to ANTI regulation LNP!

      Plus, it was found that new apartments (40%?) had serious issues, of which 5%(?) were paid by builder.

      Equals that flats are a potential money blackhole or nuclear bomb to the wallet.

      • +1

        Yeah it’s pretty disgusting how risky it is to buy an apartment in this country. They’re built like absolute crap, and newer ones are literal shoeboxes.

        I think I read somewhere someone was having mold issues in their bathroom because they had no extractor fan and they could only open their window at a downward angle and only open it 15 cms.

        In a decade those apartments will be infested with mold and then eventually we’ll have the headache of deconstructing them in a safe manner. Developers want to cram as many people into a building as they can to make the most profits, reducing the quality of livability. It’s just shameful. I feel sorry for people who bought an apartment in the Opal and Mascot towers, talk about being on suicide watch.

        • Yes sir, if you live in mel and drive pass middle footscray station, you can see how they build 3 stories building, it might be good for couple of years but it looks cheap AF and the speed they build is amazing, a bunch of 3 stories houses, nearly complete within 3,4 months and i dont know how but they obtained permit to build next to train line ( it has a metal fence but pretty much next to train line

    • +1

      Now i doubt many aussies will want to live in flats.

      Flats? No WAY!!

      I need to have a big backyard to my kids to run around. And a pool for them to jump into.

      Where am I going to have my weekend barbie without a patio?

      And lastly, where am I going to park my Hilux pickup and Prado?

  • +3

    I personally started setting aside money when I first started earning money - before I was even 15.

    Are you after a pat on the back?

    • +1

      They want free OzB legal advice on how to bring a claim for wage theft. Statute of limitation probably haven't expired yet.

  • +14

    The article is bad but so is your post.
    The example in the article is bad (yes no surprise they can't afford a place with those quoted circumstances).
    But then you go ignoring the housing market is a completely over the top in price and many far more responsible or dedicated people still can't afford much.

    Then the usual top-off brag about "I have X properties". At least it's only two and you admit you still owe 50% on them. Better than the trashy dozen-properties-by-25 articles.

    • -3

      I didn't ignore the housing market, I simply specified my post to focus only to the 35 year old couple.
      A far more responsible 35 yo would have started saving well before 4 years ago, and would have set aside a lot more than a measly 10% of their income.

      This couple is clearly living above their means - and their sense of entitlement shines through.

  • +9

    yes the article is pathetic, especially using such an entitled couple as an example, only 4 years and saving just 10%. But house pricing is bad, that was not a good example of it though. The only articles I hate worse is those dumb arse real estate genius articles that claim 25 year old X purchased 3 houses working 2 minimum wage jobs etc etc. Then you read into the story and it is their parents that stumped up the deposit and gave them rent free place to live while they saved yet the article imply's if they can do it anyone can.

    • Friend was saving 25-30k a year for the past 2 years for a house deposit. Given how fast they rise, they literally haven't gotten anywhere.

      • +5

        They literally have gotten $50k–$60k closer to having a house deposit (which is $50k–$60k closer than many). Perhaps half way there, depending. Not shabby at all. They should keep it up.

  • Good for you!

  • The article is probably be pandering to a majority

  • +1

    And from further down in that article (from a different renter)…

    "We'll just probably move from rental to rental so we can keep the jobs we like, stay close to the family, in the leafy neighbourhood here [that offers] great amenities like being a 30-minute train ride away from the CBD."

    • -1

      I want to have my cake and eat it too, damnit!

  • +6

    I think you are over simplifying the argument based on your own experiences. You cant compare your situation with that of everyone else. Everyone has a story to tell.

    Investments that go bad through no fault of their own, personal tragedy or having to care for loved one throughout the earlier years. Stop being so judgemental of others and be thankful for the position you are in. Yes hard work plays a part but so does the random curveballs that life tends to throw peoples way.

    I know plenty of people who have made money, not through sound investment choices, but pure blind luck and being in the right place at the right time.

    "Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle".

  • +4

    Yea the example in the article is bad. But what OP said is just as bad. Is OP being more “responsible” by owning 2 properties while people are struggling to get even 1? Nothing wrong with wanting to make more money by investing. The problem is that we are culturally obsessed with owning property. And when people are slightly ahead it’s easy enough to buy an investment property and fuc others over.

  • +5

    Honestly this article just looks like its just trying to make the readers defend the housing market. If they just show gross income and rent people will without even assume they have 90k+ disposable income a year. Shift blame to their own life choices and act like spending any money on leisure means its their fault they cant afford it. 20+ years ago leisure and buying a house were not mutually exclusive, as they shouldn't be

    You would have to lead a miserable life if they only expenses you have are car expenses, Health Insurance,
    mobiles, internet and groceries.

    Wanna go to the zoo with your friends? Absolutely not, a date? oh, you want to be poor.

    are you really living if your whole life is just saving, at that point don't you merely exist.

    • +1

      Its called delayed gratification -

      And there are lots o stuff you can do on the cheap,

      I dislike how there has just been spending creep in our society,

      People now get the newest phone every three years,

      Spend crazy amounts on weddings,

      Its common to see people spend $200 per person at resturants,

      10 years ago, going to kmart, and then the local chinese shop was considered going out,

      Are we happier now? If going to KFC for dinner makes you miserable, consider what types of messaging you are hearing

      • Going to the zoo or on a date is not exactly expensive.

        If going to KFC for dinner makes you miserable, consider what types of messaging you are hearing

        My point is that a lot of people would blame a KFC trip as to why someone couldn't save for a house.

        Take the maths in the post. there is literally no allowance for leisure spending.

          • Take the maths in the post. there is literally no allowance for leisure spending.

          Yes there is. There's literally $1088 per week left after all "necessities" are met. From there you can decide how quickly you'd like to save.

          Blow $1088 a week and have nothing

          Save 688 a week and spend a more conservative $400 a week on hobbies, dates, outings, and you'll have 143k saved after 4 years.

          • @CheapWrangler: ah when I looked at that I was assuming it was the costs in there as the costs of living and the rest as savings. I typically add an allowance for leisure into the budget itself

  • +4

    Okay, your thing is that they could have saved more. But why? Why do houses need so much savings, that you have to live like a pauper for 5 years just to even afford a deposit on one of them?

    Its not like Australia has a lack of space. There's plenty of it. Only you need a job to live, and the jobs don't exist where the cheap space is. And it just so happens that the people who benefit from this, are the same people who control the ability to change that. Quite a conflict of interest if you ask me

    You made it happen, you managed to squeeze though. Good for you. But what about when it gets harder? Will you still be saying the same thing? What happens when you need to start working at 10 years old, spending every recess selling candy bars to other students, saving every birthday dollar and never having any fun, just to eventually afford a deposit on a house that cost 1/20 of what you payed to construct it. Will you still be saying that people need to try harder?

  • +1

    Interesting observation and opinion from OP, who basically is of the opinion that:
    - Everyone needs to learn to save since they start earning
    - A couple (assuming 160k gross income) should be able to save more than 10%

    What is implied from the above (taking into example OP's current ownership of 2 properties) is that most couple fitting the profile in the ABC article should be able to afford a home.

    I think OP has a point and is very entitled to their opinion. However, (even as a habitual saver) I found it disheartening that house prices kept going up.

    I can relate to the article, so I disagree that it is a feeling of entitlement. However, provided that the couple mentioned really wants to own a home, they probably need to make some sacrifices (be it by saving more or other means).

    In my opinion, the article reflects the general feel of younger generation feeling that home ownership is out of reach. However, I do understand and realise that not many people I know have the discipline to save like some of us. I don't believe we should go by the mantra "I can do it, you can do it too" as everyone has their own principles on things like savings and expenses.

    • I understand what you're saying.

      But the fact of the matter is, the couple are in their mid 30's. They aren't part of a younger generation. Heck, even I'm younger than them and I've seen a LOT happen in the property market over the years.

      The couple aren't 20 something year old's that are starting off their careers. They've worked for at least 15 years and simply haven't demonstrated any smarts with their financials.

      • +2

        I think everyone is entitled to their own opinions and how they look after their finances.

        Your situation seems great, so good on you and keep it up.

        However, I simply don't agree with labelling people as entitled and judging people purely on a newspaper article.

        There are always real people behind every story and everyone's situation is very different.

        Note: I am speaking from a very different angle, where I have been labelled a scrooge by many.

        What I have learned so far is people can see money/house/investments from different lenses, so it is better not to assume why people do things very differently from ourselves.

      • I was listening to these 2 episodes of this podcast. It reaffirmed my thinking on this topic and the different views people have.

        https://freakonomics.com/podcast/nsq-binary-thinking/

        https://freakonomics.com/podcast/nsq-envy/

        Lesson learned: We are all human with imperfect traits.

  • +4

    @CrushJelly, chuck in the fees for the kids:

    Daycare (let's say 130 a day with 50% CSS) - $65 x 5 (days) x 2 (kids) = $650 a week
    Medical expenses, nappies, etc.
    Groceries -> make it like ~$300 a week with two kids
    Maybe one vacation a year: ~2k
    Occasional whitegoods/etc
    Clothes

    It all adds up.

    • +6

      I think the problem is most people are financial illiterate.

      Their budget should always be Income - Saving = Money they can spend. Most people are doing Income - Money they WANT to spend = saving.

      Some people can get help from parent, but a lot of people achieve their goal of house ownership via frugality as well. Instead of showing them as a victim of current system, and blame everyone, ABC could have an expert to guide that couple out of their situation. At least the viewer can learn something as well

      • +1

        I think the problem is most people are financial illiterate.

        Some people are great trades people, some great artists. Some are accountants and some doctors.

        You cannot expect all people to be great money-gurus like you. Give people a break!

Login or Join to leave a comment