When Will There Be Affordable Housing?

Ldatscheap on 13/08/2024 - 12:51
Last edited 14/08/2024 - 07:33

Background - I outright own my own home, and have kids approaching adulthood. Have previously been a landlord but now only own ppor.

Pre Covid there was always a opportunity to buy a cheap family home. Cheap meant a long drive to work/school and the house was tired. And you may not be able to live in a major city.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is: when/if will low end housing get affordable? And what will make it better?

Is it greedy landlords owning multiple properties causing this? Lack of public housing? No sting of 10%(the 90's) interest rates to trigger a sell off? Too much/too little immigration? Elevated labour costs to build new? Other factors?

As a gen x, it feels like when my boomer parents pass away all the inheritance will go to house deposits for the grandchildren - which will make the situation worse in the long run as people without family money will rent forever. Another options is to buy investment properties now and pass them to the kids later, but again thats just making the overall problem worse.

It seems kinda grim. Any thoughts?

Ed: I removed my realestate search as my-bad, sorry, my search included a filter that limited results.

Poll Options

  • 12
    Dollar is being devalued
  • 169
    Greedy landlords owning multiple properties
  • 13
    Lack of public housing
  • 2
    Soft interest rates
  • 363
    Too much immigration
  • 5
    Too little immigration
  • 21
    Elevated labour costs to build new
  • 229
    Not enough houses being built to meet the growing population
  • 21
    There are loads of Cheap/affordable regional areas
Home & Garden

Comments

  • El cheepo on 13/08/2024 - 12:54
    +5

    Any thoughts?

    Just the one that you already mentioned.

    It seems kinda grim.

    All the factors you mentioned are playing a part and the solution doesn’t seem forthcoming.

    • HeWhoKnows on 14/08/2024 - 18:58
      +9

      You aint seen nothing yet.
      More immigartion to come
      12 interest rates havent stopped this property boom
      Imagine the huge boom when interest rates start going down next year
      Plenty of people cashed up buying now or waiting on sidelines.
      This time next year you will be calling todays prices CHEAP!

      Looking back prices always look expensive
      But looking forward (as you should) prices look cheap

      Especially given the current circumstances

      • MisterNobody on 16/08/2024 - 21:06

        Each Govt term begins with more debt. It's not one party but both that do it. Then to service that debt you have two options….

        Option 1: lift the tax rate… neither will do that.

        Option 2: maintain the current tax rate, but just get more people paying tax…. i.e. immigration.

        They will both take option #2, even if there arent roofs for everyone to live under.

  • Jimothy Wongingtons on 13/08/2024 - 12:54
    +28

    is this a wind up post?

    • DashCam AKA Rolts on 13/08/2024 - 13:15
      +8

      Thanks for asking. Cheers.

      • drezy on 16/08/2024 - 15:57
        +3

        damnit i got rick rolled

    • Grunntt on 13/08/2024 - 22:14
      +4

      is this a wind up post?

      Well, my search on realestate.com for houses under $500,000 in NSW alone came out at
      2465 properties

      Properties under $500,000 shows 8912 properties
      Didn't bother doing it for the whole of the country after that.

      I'd really like to see the search the OP carried out over the whole of Australia that resulted in "406 listings, even less after removing listing errors and regions that have no industry".
      Looks like a wind-up post to me.

      • zerocritical on 14/08/2024 - 07:35
        +1

        You forgot he's from Tassie which is s country on its own.. hence the limited results.

      • Goremans on 15/08/2024 - 09:27
        +4

        There's finding properties in your budget - then there's living in an area that allows you to service the loan.

        Lots of houses we've looked at are in super small towns with little to few jobs. On top of that, its 5 hrs inland and away from services, family and friends.

        People need to remember - there buying a bargain and then there buying somewhere you can't eventually sell. Getting stuck with a property is a real thing.

    • Gunnar on 14/08/2024 - 07:00
      +1

      I would have asked why there’s no Delorean / 1885 option in the poll

  • trapper on 13/08/2024 - 13:02
    +20

    Not enough houses being built to meet the growing population.

    Two solutions: Build more houses, or grow the population slower.

    • leiiv on 13/08/2024 - 14:40
      +10

      You can do both to achieve synergy though: the immigration intakes have to give a lot more priority to qualified and experienced construction workers.
      At the same time, government must increase density in inner city suburbs (the "not on my neighbour" attitude is so prevalent) and should provide tax breaks or subsidy to building material industries/producers.
      It won't happen though, as they don't want the property price to crash.

      • Ghost47 on 13/08/2024 - 15:26
        +6

        the immigration intakes have to give a lot more priority to qualified and experienced construction workers.

        There are qualified tradies in this country who don't give a crap about their work. What makes you think an immigrant would do a better job, especially if they come here and can hardly keep their head above water because of rents and COL?

        Developers see housing as a way to make money, and one way to make money is to use cheap materials and pay your workers less. It's a pipe dream that we'll import immigrants from other countries who will magically build amazing houses for us. Cheap, good, fast; pick two. We shouldn't even be allowing so many people from other countries in, by taking the best and brightest (or the most abled people) from other countries we are robbing those countries of people who have the ability to make their own country better.

        • greatlamp on 14/08/2024 - 00:14
          +13

          In my experience immigrants actually do a much better job. There is no reason to assume that immigrants would do anything to the construction industry except put downwards pressure on wages. Whether or not that is a good thing depends on which side of CFMEU you sit on

        • leiiv on 14/08/2024 - 12:40
          +4

          There are qualified tradies in this country who don't give a crap about their work

          Irrelevant, that happens in any other professions too.
          The point is to make the supply of tradies exceeds the demand.

          … we are robbing those countries of people who have the ability to make their own country better.

          That's what some developed countries have been doing for decades. A little too late to reconsider that. And I think it is a good policy anyway. The best and brightest wouldn't want to migrate anyway if they already feel valued by their birth country. It's survival of the fittest, let the failed countries fail.

          • Ghost47 on 14/08/2024 - 21:03
            +1

            @leiiv:

            The point is to make the supply of tradies exceeds the demand.

            Hmm, that's fair. In that case theoretically it would make it cheaper to build homes… but it doesn't mean that developers will drop prices though, they'll just have fatter margins. Either way, we build shoddy houses already, my concern was more about immigrant tradies doing a better job.

            And I think it is a good policy anyway.

            Why is it a good policy? IMO immigration used to be a net benefit for this country decades ago but recent mass immigration is doing more harm than good, for the average Aussie anyway. If you're a rich CEO or landlord who can cram 10 people into a 3 bedroom house you would probably benefit from it.

            • leiiv on 15/08/2024 - 14:58
              +1

              @Ghost47:

              but it doesn't mean that developers will drop prices though

              That's very true. But hopefully if the building cost can go down, we can have more smaller developers to ramp up the competition too.

              Why is it a good policy?

              I was referring to the policy of "stealing" the best and brightest from other countries.

              • Ghost47 on 15/08/2024 - 15:41

                @leiiv:

                But hopefully if the building cost can go down, we can have more smaller developers to ramp up the competition too.

                Hopefully material costs can also decrease… not sure how that will happen at this stage though.

                I was referring to the policy of "stealing" the best and brightest from other countries.

                Oh right, yeah that makes sense. Although I don't feel like this country has been getting better the past 10-15 years.

        • Ozbargainite on 14/08/2024 - 20:37
          +2

          Infinity immigration has never been tried.

          • cloudy on 15/08/2024 - 07:08
            -2

            @Ozbargainite:

            Infinity immigration has never been tried

            That’s because there isn’t an infinite amount of people. Silly comment

        • CommuterPolluter on 18/08/2024 - 18:47

          Best and brightest? Keep dreaming.

      • Antikythera on 13/08/2024 - 19:01
        +13

        increase density in inner city suburbs

        blanket approval for up to 10 story developments 1km from ALL train stations. (profanity) the NIMBY in Toorak and other inner suburbs.

        • akl977ad on 14/08/2024 - 08:22
          +7

          If you want something that takes the cake look at Cherrybrook in NSW.

          They have a station that will be running 12 per hour (every 5 mins) in the off-peak (15 per hour every 4 in the peak) and a ramp up capacity of 30 per hour (every 2 mins).

          Turn up and go frequencies but it's just Mcmansions there and I haven't seen any plans to increase the density yet. What a waste.

          It really should be given approval for a few 150m towers near the station then density decreasing as you go further away from the station.

          • smartazz104 on 14/08/2024 - 09:19
            +7

            @akl977ad: Forget just near the station, the station itself should have 10 stories on top.

            • leiiv on 14/08/2024 - 12:51
              +1

              @smartazz104: I am not sure if states and councils policy has any role in restricting this or not. But that's what would happen naturally in a free market when population gets higher. Apparently our land price is not high enough to make high rise centres feasible. Look at our biggest shopping centres, how many of them are even higher than 5 stories.

      • mikekiwimike on 14/08/2024 - 07:54

        You don't want property prices to crash either if you own one…… what about all the people who have a mortgage and all their funds tied up in their PPOR…. there are always pluses and minuses, thats life.

        While there is a finite resource (homes) and people who see them as great investments, there will always be problems with affordability, there will also be those that claim "Oh its so expensive I will never be able to afford my own home because of xyzzy (sorry to any xyzzy's)", yet own (paying off) their brand new car/suv/ute all tricked out x2 for the partner as well, along with their 85 inch TV's whilst eating out every week and swigging down lattes and avoiding toast……

        To get somewhere you have to work at it, you might have to move away from the suburb you live in now blah blah, it is bullshit to think that the upward pressure won't continue so work and save and look to new areas, yes it is harder, yes it is possible.

        • Miss B on 14/08/2024 - 10:32
          +5

          I'm single and saved a 5% deposit on my own on $65k, bought when I was on $75k. I used the government scheme where you add extra money to your super to save for a deposit. I used one of the government schemes where they buy some of the house. Part of it is getting into a mentality of it will never happen and not trying to find ways to make it happen or resources available to help. I'm fortunate to be in a better position financially now and able to pay off extra each fortnight. I'm also coming into some money which means I will be able to buy out the government portion, most people probably won't be that lucky, but it's also not necessary. I'm glad I bought when I did, about 2 years ago. It's only getting harder. House prices go up faster than wages. It doesn't hurt to have money saved, whether it's going on a house deposit or not, might as well try. I honestly had no idea if it would happen when I started saving, I thought I probably wouldn't get the loan, but I wanted to at least try.

        • ssfps on 14/08/2024 - 23:31
          +2

          You don't want property prices to crash either if you own one…… what about all the people who have a mortgage and all their funds tied up in their PPOR…. there are always pluses and minuses, thats life.

          Nonsense. Unless you're cashing out of the market (to die, or go into a home) its irrelevent if the market is up or down. It only effects new home buyers, people entering the market, and "investors".

          • larndis on 15/08/2024 - 19:11
            +1

            @ssfps: Most people don't see it this way (no one wants to have negative equity), and a crash in house prices would likely be accompanied by significant unemployment. When you can't make your repayments and your house is worth significantly less than what you owe, apparently house prices DO matter.

          • mikekiwimike on 16/08/2024 - 07:45
            +1

            @ssfps: Clearly you missing an understanding of how assets work….. no one including new home buyers would be buying homes if the price was something expected to fluctuate. No bank would loan 80% on a property that was expected to fluctuate over its life time at affordable interest rates because they also want to protect their money (and make insane profits because they can).

            If most young people are taking a 20-30 year mortgage on their first home, which they will likely want to sell and move to something larger in 5-10 years then how would this work in your scenario? How would someone refinance their mortgage? They couldn’t because the value could be less that what they purchased the property for.

            Getting rid of stamp duty for all first home buyers everywhere for any home purchase would be a start.

          • jellykingdom on 17/08/2024 - 06:47

            @ssfps: Such a simplistic view. Ignoring all of the negative consumer confidence (ie often youre as rich as you feel) which would tank the service industry (our largest employer nationwide), the banks would be in the shit and unable to lend money, the super funds are exposed to property, etc etc

            Why do you think 2008 financial crisis did so much damage? It didnt just impact people wanting to sell their houses

    • abb on 13/08/2024 - 16:28
      +1

      There are many properties that have been bought by investors and left unoccupied.

      How many homes would we need to build before they stop being snapped up by property hoarders?

    • 87percent on 13/08/2024 - 13:34

      And have 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, swimming pool and garage

      • altomic on 13/08/2024 - 15:00
        +13

        I want 4 swimming pools, 1 bedroom, 2 garages and 5 bathrooms

        • abb on 13/08/2024 - 16:29
          +2

          Best I can do is 5 puddles of mould on your bedroom ceiling.

        • 87percent on 13/08/2024 - 17:40
          +1

          Could just use the pool as a bathroom..

  • askbargain on 13/08/2024 - 13:05
    +3

    dollar is being devalued, house prices have dropped against gold

    • Ozbar Gain on 13/08/2024 - 13:56
      +1

      Where can I see this on a graph?

      • askbargain on 13/08/2024 - 14:36
        +1

        just google house price vs gold

  • scrambledeggs on 13/08/2024 - 13:06
    +4

    Cost of building a new home a larger driver for house pricing, construction inflation never stopped and continues to be out of control.

  • jv on 13/08/2024 - 13:15
    +3

    In 1896

    • pharkurnell on 13/08/2024 - 14:18

      I thought it was before 1770? After that, things skyrocketed…

      • jv on 13/08/2024 - 14:22
        +2

        Nah… Someone called Andrew tried to sell me a Billabong in 1895 for 5 pounds…

        • pharkurnell on 13/08/2024 - 14:22
          +2

          I blame Cook for all the financial woes

          • Cluster on 13/08/2024 - 14:29
            +1

            @pharkurnell: Willem Janszoon was the first European to arrive in Australia in 1606. He turned up to the WA coast, thought there was nothing valuable there, and left. So 1606 was the last time property was cheap here.

            • CurlCurl on 13/08/2024 - 15:35
              +1

              @Cluster:

              He turned up to the WA coast,

              Nope.

              He turned up on the Western side of Cape York and mapped it.

  • Ghost47 on 13/08/2024 - 13:20
    +39

    It’s got to the point where those who get into office (on all sides) only want to further their own interests whilst gaslighting the public that they’re working hard to solve the problem. Since many politicians own investment properties it’s not really in their interest for prices to weaken so it’s not going to happen through policy.

    Prior to the election Labor said they didn’t support the LNP’s mass immigration policy yet look at what they’ve done, imported something like 700k people in 18 months. Our population hit 27m ~16 years before projections said it would. Around 10,000 people arrive in the country each week. We’re actually importing 1.4 people per new job created and last year 1/3 of jobs created was for the NDIS and guess who pays the wages for NDIS workers? The taxpayer.

    Look closely at everything you see in the media and you will see one common narrative, they gaslight everyone saying “supply” is the issue and we need to build more homes to fix the shortage. Demand is never (or very rarely mentioned) yet we can easily ameliorate issues if demand wasn’t out of control. Immigration is never mentioned as an issue because you’ll be called a racist even though many people migrate here from other western countries (e.g. Commonwealth countries).

    It’s an absolute disaster the mess we’re in and it’s just going to get worse. More people are living in tents as each day passes and people who move here will not leave quietly. And it’s all solely so that politicians can enrich themselves and help their big business mates with wage suppression.

    Houses deteriorate over time too, they require constant maintenance, something as innocuous as water can really damage a home. Imagine as time goes on with all the houses we have how they’re going to be maintained if materials and labour costs skyrocket. DIY is an option which is viable for aesthetic features but you’d be insane to mess with anything structural. Houses get to the point where they need to be knocked down and rebuilt eventually. My point here is that we’re sinking so much money into houses already and that will only increase in the future. People will say it’s the land that holds value which is true but I don’t see people living in tents on a block of land. Oh and I haven’t even mentioned the quality of properties that are built these days by developers and tradies who couldn’t give a damn about quality since housing has become more about ROI than a place for people to live for the rest of their lives.

    So yeah, there won’t be affordable housing unless the bubble bursts completely which the gov will never allow. What’s affordable is for you to move somewhere cheaper or buy something cheap like a one bedroom apartment.

    • larndis on 14/08/2024 - 07:58
      +16

      those who get into office (on all sides) only want to further their own interests

      This is a misleading trope, the reason neither major party will touch negative gearing is because when Shorten tried he got smashed. The ugly truth is, Australia had the chance to reduce investor demand for property and they voted no.

      • AaronRain on 14/08/2024 - 10:05
        +3

        Yes because I was sure that was the only issue with voting for Shorten.

        • Sweet3st on 14/08/2024 - 11:59
          +8

          Pretty sure it was the major issue.
          Think it comes back to Australians wanting it both ways. All the people complaining about housing affordability also want to get on the property will make me rich one day bandwagon.

          • Ghost47 on 14/08/2024 - 17:52
            +4

            @Sweet3st:

            All the people complaining about housing affordability also want to get on the property will make me rich one day bandwagon.

            Not everyone. I'd rather have a paid off PPOR with money invested elsewhere earning dividends than in an IP where I have to worry about maintenance, tenants etc. I'm sure there are others out there who also complain about how crazy property prices are who have zero interest in investing in property.

            • Sweet3st on 14/08/2024 - 19:48

              @Ghost47: Maybe not investing in IPs, but hoping that the family home ends up worth a ton.

              • Sweet3st on 14/08/2024 - 20:00
                +1

                @Sweet3st: Which is fair enough really, you're putting a lot of $ in. Maybe if other forms of investment were more attractive, people would consider pursuing those, and renting instead. They do in Europe.

                • Ghost47 on 14/08/2024 - 20:51
                  +1

                  @Sweet3st:

                  Maybe not investing in IPs, but hoping that the family home ends up worth a ton.

                  A PPOR that's worth a ton in retirement is kind of pointless IMO because to access that value you'd either have to sell the place or reverse mortgage it. If the property/land appreciates in value over time then your taxes and insurance will increase as well which is more of a pain in the butt because who wants to pay higher taxes or insurance when they're retired? Who knows what the world will be like in 30-40 years too, we're already seeing some pretty hardcore flooding in Australia in recent years. Sydney had rain for pretty much six months straight in 2022, Melbourne had a vicious storm this year on February 13 where winds reached ~140km/hr or something. Houses deteriorate over time and storms certainly don't help. Insurance claims are on the whim of the insurer too, some insurers overseas in the US are no longer insuring houses because of climate change.

                  Maybe if other forms of investment were more attractive, people would consider pursuing those, and renting instead. They do in Europe.

                  I'd say other forms of investing like shares and ETFs are actually attractive. You don't need a large amount of money to start investing, transaction costs are low, you can do it all from your computer etc. The issue is that property investing is glorified in this country.

      • Ghost47 on 14/08/2024 - 17:50
        +3

        I don't think you're wrong either, we definitely had the chance to fix things in 2016 and 2019 but I don't think it's a misleading trope.

        If politicians weren't interested in furthering their own interests why would they keep immigration so high for example? Who benefits from mass immigration (i.e. 700k NOM in 18 months) especially when immigrants end up doing things like delivering food (which is hardly a country-building job)? The labour market expands when more people come here which makes the job market more of an employer's market. More people means more demand for housing and we can see that vacancy rates are extremely low, I mean it's at the point where more and more people are living in tents. There have been segments in the news recently focussing more on higher education and how international students pay the majority of the fees for our unis (and university vice chancellors can collect salaries of $1m a year).

        It may be a misleading trope that they want to further their own interests, it may be more accurate to say they want to further their own interests and those of their donors which isn't something I would disagree with either.

        • larndis on 14/08/2024 - 19:38
          +3

          It's true that they are self interested, but their self interest is primarily in getting/remaining elected. They keep immigration high because our entire economy is a ponzi scheme built on continually importing more tax payers, and no one wants to be the one in charge when is all comes crashing down. Same as with house prices.

          So I'm definitely not saying they aren't self-interested, but I don't believe they would all happily change negative gearing/CGT arrangements if not for their own (or even their donors) investment properties. The libs can't touch it because they're the ones who won an election on the back of campaigning against Labor's changes, and Labor are still burned from how badly it went for them.

          Anyone complaining about the tax arrangements needs to accept that we had a chance to change it and Australians didn't want to. No party is going to persist with policies that lose elections. We might not get another chance.

          • Ghost47 on 14/08/2024 - 20:32
            +1

            @larndis: Hmm fair enough. I still think that their main interest is to enrich themselves further even if they don't get re-elected so have to agree to disagree with you there. I think it's at the point where most politicians don't actually care about the country anymore, even if they're voted out of office they'll land a cushy corporate job somewhere anyway.

            I definitely do agree that we had our chances to reform negative gearing and we lost them. Things were always going to get worse if negative gearing wasn't fixed and now here we are.

            • larndis on 15/08/2024 - 19:07

              @Ghost47: If you don't get elected you don't get to make the rules (whatever your interest is), so that still needs to be the top priority.

              I think a lot (or at least some) of them get into politics to make the country a better place, but get caught up in all the games/back stabbing/trade offs/lobby groups and completely lose sight of what they were actually trying to achieve (other than getting/remaining elected, obviously). It seems like anyone not willing to sell themselves out just wouldn't survive.

              • Ghost47 on 15/08/2024 - 19:12
                +2

                @larndis: True, I would say most politicians gaslight people for votes and then flip the script once they get into office.

                get caught up in all the games/back stabbing/trade offs/lobby groups and completely lose sight of what they were actually trying to achieve (other than getting/remaining elected, obviously). It seems like anyone not willing to sell themselves out just wouldn't survive.

                That's all true I think. The MSM also plays a big role, if someone wants to make this place better or fix things and the MSM disagrees with you then you're done.

          • Miss B on 15/08/2024 - 11:25
            +1

            @larndis:

            They keep immigration high because our entire economy is a ponzi scheme built on continually importing more tax payers, and no one wants to be the one in charge when is all comes crashing down

            I don't feel like it gets talked about as much now, but I used to hear a lot about aging boomer populations, plus people having less children, things would be problematic about now. It's not just tax payers, but also a work force as the boomers retire. We have an intentional unemployment rate (and then make people feel like shit if they're unemployed), but we still need enough working age people to keep the country running.

  • Fredfloresjr on 13/08/2024 - 13:37
    +6

    Until they limit foreign purchasers.

    • Dollar General on 13/08/2024 - 14:24
      +9

      That wouldn’t make any difference whatsoever

      • Drakesy on 13/08/2024 - 14:47
        +9

        You get rid of the money laundering, you get rid of the fire that's helping prop up the market.

        We're the most indebted country in the world not prepared for a recession.

      • Clear on 13/08/2024 - 16:34
        +2

        There's so many houses around Melbourne and Sydney that don't make it to the market because the agencies have a big list of foreign investors that'll buy it up first. Then they become rentals.

        • CaptainJack on 13/08/2024 - 16:56
          -2

          Is that an issue though? You need to have rentals available as well. And I doubt renters care about the nationality of the landlord.

          • Clear on 13/08/2024 - 17:04
            +3

            @CaptainJack: It causes a shortage of affordable homes for buyers. Not everyone wants to rent.

            • CaptainJack on 13/08/2024 - 21:23

              @Clear: The obvious (I thought) counterpoint is not everyone wants to buy. So not actually a problem.

              • smartazz104 on 14/08/2024 - 09:22
                -3

                @CaptainJack:

                I thought

                I see your problem.

              • Drakesy on 14/08/2024 - 18:25

                @CaptainJack: Home ownership is at record low levels whilst the proportion of renters is at an all time high…

                Everyone does eventually want to buy, they just can't afford it.

            • cadwalader on 14/08/2024 - 12:36

              @Clear: More foreign investment actually suppresses rent because they are only allowed if they contribute to supply.

              Look at the building boom foreign investment led to between 2011 and 2018. Apartment prices and rent stagnated in cities where the boom happened. Local landlords started screaming about the glut that might cause a housing crash because they wanted their rents to keep going up. So the easily manipulated hopped on the foreigners-bad bandwagon and helped support a bunch of disincentives to cut down on one avenue through which supply can easily enter the market.

        • May4th on 13/08/2024 - 17:04
          +1

          are you a REA and have this list or did you read about it on facebook?

            • May4th on 13/08/2024 - 20:40
              +1

              @Clear: as a seller of multiple properties I can tell you every agent will claim to have their database but they are next to useless, a far cry from the sensationalist queue of foreign buyers waiting to snap up properties that you claim

        • Dollar General on 13/08/2024 - 18:12
          +5

          ‘foreign buyers only account for around 1 per cent of total transactions in the Aussie property market and 4.6 per cent of new development purchases’

          https://www.apimagazine.com.au/news/article/should-australia…

            • Dollar General on 13/08/2024 - 19:33
              +3

              @Clear: The data is from the ATO so will include all sales regardless if advertised or not

    • soan papdi on 13/08/2024 - 15:00
      +10

      Agreed that foreign buyers need to be stopped but they're not that much of a factor.

      But foreigners still make up about only 1 per cent of all purchases in Australia, which were valued at more than $407 billion over the past financial year.
      https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-27/foreign-buyers-china-…

      • Fredfloresjr on 13/08/2024 - 15:06
        +4

        2022-2023 report: The latest data from the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) shows foreign buyers made 5,360 purchases worth $4.9 billion in 2022–23, compared to 4,228 worth $3.9 billion in 2021–22. Their average purchase price was $914,000.

        Imagine that 5,360 purchase opportunities were given to Australians FIRST and stopped these foreign buyers with $900k budget lol.

        • Drakesy on 13/08/2024 - 16:09
          +2

          Precisely, every little bit counts. And its these properties that are least likely to be rented out as they're purely capital hedges against international markets or just purely there to clean money.

          The best part is a large number go unreported as they get relatives/friends to buy property on behalf of them here to escape the excessive stamp duty and taxes on international investors.

          • abb on 13/08/2024 - 16:32
            +1

            @Drakesy: Ahh, if we make friends with rich foreigners we can get a free house!

            1. Buy house "for them", but in our own name, to avoid the taxes
            2. Ghost them
            3. Hopefully they don't know any bikies…
            • Drakesy on 13/08/2024 - 16:40

              @abb: It's more common than you think.

          • cloudy on 15/08/2024 - 07:21

            @Drakesy:

            Precisely, every little bit counts

            Does not. Ask anyone 2 years ago what’s the biggest bit that counts most is IR, and a sudden surge in IR and reduction in borrowing capacity did nothing to stop rising prices.
            So little bits don’t count, it won’t matter

        • soan papdi on 13/08/2024 - 17:44
          +5

          Imagine that 5,360 purchase opportunities were given to Australians FIRST and stopped these foreign buyers with $900k budget lol.

          Problem is not about Australians buying, it's the speculation frenzy that's driving prices up to unreasonable levels. It is very much possible that a majority of these houses will be picked up as IPs instead of PPOR which is where we should focus.

          I am agreeing with you! Foreign buyers need to be stopped. However it's going to make a very small difference overall. IMO we have to make IPs less attractive, so that first home buyers can get those houses. Remove the CGT discount of selling IPs, remove negative gearing, make higher deposit requirements for subsequent IPs (20%, 25%, 30%, etc) which will prevent people from owning too many IPs.

    • freekay on 14/08/2024 - 07:56
      +3

      I equate foreign buyers to searching for parking at a packed out carpark and seeing a motorcycle in one of the spaces. I get irrationally angry even though they've done nothing wrong and they make up about 1% of the total vehicles there.

  • cupcake on 13/08/2024 - 13:37
    +3

    Yes.

    The government says we need to make more money, find a higher paying job.
    They let 400,000 people settle in Australia each year and there isn't enough housing for everyone.

    To buy an affordable house, you have to look in regional areas - or buy a unit which isn't new and in a desirable area.

    • skittlebrau on 14/08/2024 - 13:23
      +2

      To buy an affordable house, you have to look in regional areas

      While still cheaper than urban generally, house prices in many regional areas went up a lot as well didn't they?

  • GordonD on 13/08/2024 - 13:39
    +21

    Just recently there was a shock horror, Japan's population is falling, it'll be a disaster story in mainstream media outlet.

    But, you know what, you can actually afford to buy a home in Japan precisely because of that.

    And that's the answer, Stop trying to grow the population by unnaturally large amounts each year with big immigration so the GDP goes up and up and up. Accept the planet doesn't need more humans on, and neither does the country. And suddenly you and your kids can afford a home of their own.

    Over my life I've realised who the rest of us' biggest enemies are. I'll skip over the first two groups as not relevant to this discussion. The third group that the rest of us should be lining up against the wall and shooting are the economists. They have a pitifully simplistic idea of how everything works, and they are wrecking the economy and the rest of us' standard of living by telling the politicians to do things like have lots of population growth. Right now, for example, the Albanese Labor government is going to spend billions trying to regrow manufacturing in this country. And why don't we have any manufacturing in this country? Because the economists back in the 1990s convinced Keating to shut it down.

    There was a time in humankind's history when every additional mouth increased the chances of the tribe surviving. But we've outgrown the planet. Every additional mouth now reduces the standard of living and quality of life of our kids and our kids kids. Its time to end this destructive obsession with population growth. I was alive when Australia had less than half the population it does now. That's how fast it's growing. Its got to stop. But how do you stop it when the two political parties offer us only the chose of big population growth, or huge population growth.

    • Drakesy on 13/08/2024 - 13:52
      +2

      And our biggest trading partner China has just started to slip backwards in population growth.

      Ruh ro.

      Means there'll be less houses needed there, less iron ore needed - Australia's iron ore market starts to contract.

      We think there'll be a get out of jail free pass like the GFC, i have a feeling that won't be coming and when people can cover their loans then there'll be forced sales.

      Will show who really is drowning then.

      • freefall101 on 13/08/2024 - 15:07
        +6

        China is looking to kick off a new boom in batteries, which this time they were smart enough to control the mineral supply on. We'll finally be left with no wave to ride once mining starts to falter. It's going to suck to live in WA or Queensland.

        We kid ourselves that we're any better than the oil rich countries - only the oil rich countries have generally been smart enough to bank royalties from it rather than letting it go to shareholders or funding election spending sprees.

        • Drakesy on 13/08/2024 - 15:11
          +4

          Username checks out.

          But completely right. China is not far off from controlling the entire supply chain and Australia's stagnating lazy policy making have opened us up to being undercut by other, cheaper nations.

          Investors about to find out Perth and QLD cities are just mining towns prone to boom bust cycles.

    • Benoffie on 13/08/2024 - 14:03
      +1

      Except housing prices in Tokyo have ballooned in the last 24 months due to foreign ownership and there's massive complaints regarding affordability especially for young Japanese couples trying to start a family.

      Japan is cheap from a foreign perspective but more difficult as a local on local wages.

      • Ghost47 on 13/08/2024 - 16:11

        That is the problem with foreigners moving to Asia. It's cheap for them but it screws over the local population.

        • Benoffie on 13/08/2024 - 16:54

          Largest complaints is the money pouringbout of China > Japan. Obviously there's also cultural and historical issues tied up in that but if any brakes come on first itll be against Chinese buyers, especially of apartments.

    • Ghost47 on 13/08/2024 - 15:41
      +5

      Japan's population is falling, it'll be a disaster story in mainstream media outlet.

      Exactly. The reason why the MSM report this kind of thing as being a disaster is simply because big business and the uniparty expect infinite growth on a finite planet. They gaslight people into thinking that population growth is a necessity just so they can enrich themselves when it ends up degrading both our natural and built environments.

      There was a time in humankind's history when every additional mouth increased the chances of the tribe surviving. But we've outgrown the planet. Every additional mouth now reduces the standard of living and quality of life of our kids and our kids kids. Its time to end this destructive obsession with population growth. I was alive when Australia had less than half the population it does now. That's how fast it's growing. Its got to stop. But how do you stop it when the two political parties offer us only the chose of big population growth, or huge population growth.

      Amen to that. If you look at the chart of human population over the past 5000 years when the industrial revolution occurred population growth went vertical. Our population hit 27m 15 years (or something) ahead of forecasts, it's just fkn ridiculous. People have no issue with population growth until it reaches their suburb. Is our quality of life better than it was 10 years ago?

      When you think about it, the earth has stored energy from the sun for millennia. Sunlight helped plants to grow which animals fed on, and then other animals fed on those animals. Animals and plants died and eventually became fossil fuels. Our current civilisation is based on cheap and abundant fossil fuels simply because we are using up all of that stored energy. The ancient Romans, Egyptians, Mayans etc. never had access to the cheap and abundant energy we have now. We wouldn't have anything we have these days if it wasn't for fossil fuels. You can't watch people half a world away swim in a pool or run around a track without paying the price for it. We can't have laptops or smartphones or supermarkets (all things that never would've occurred naturally) without large inputs of energy. Our population spiked simply because we tapped huge amounts of energy reserves. The thing is that eventually fossil fuels will run out or they will become too expensive to extract and everything will change especially for future generations. We live in the greatest period in history in terms of what is available to us.

    • gaosong2101 on 14/08/2024 - 23:06

      I agree with you, but I just don't think we know what to do with the economy if the population plateaus or declines…

      Japan's population is not increasing, so does its GDP. And their quality of life hasn't improved, or in some cases, slightly reduced, especially when compared to other countries with growing population. China and South Korea are also facing the same problem as Japan as their population stops rising.

      Population growth has been a Ponzi scheme since the beginning. It's probably too late now

      • bokka on 17/08/2024 - 14:11

        I'll just add that the population growth Ponzi scheme hasn't lead to increasing real GDP per capita for about 20 years. It has solely benefited the rich (capital class) who have increased their share of profit relative to workers.

    • cloudy on 15/08/2024 - 07:30
      +1

      Japan's population is falling, it'll be a disaster story in mainstream media outlet.
      But, you know what, you can actually afford to buy a home in Japan precisely because of that

      To be fair, Japanese property prices have been falling since 1993!

      And yes population in Japan is greater today than in 1993.

      Now, I understand you said affordability not property prices, but I also know Japanese standard of living has increased from 1993 as well, so that should address the wage side of things.

      It’s too simplistic to say look at Japan.

  • DingoBilly on 13/08/2024 - 13:39
    +4

    I doubt there's a single simple answer. But fundamentally it would be too much demand, not enough supply. Then you can argue whether that's because of immigration, or not enough housing approvals, or plenty of other reasons.

    One thing I find interesting is that Australia as a whole has a declining population regarding birth rate. If you look to Japan with a similar situation, when this occurred in the 1980's at similar rates their economy ended up bursting and everything went down in price and value (noting that there were also other factors at play there). But our borders are a lot more open so our population keeps growing when in reality it should be contracting.

    But as I said, it's just one factor of many.

  • AustriaBargain on 13/08/2024 - 13:41
    -7

    When the greens get in power, or share power after permanently displacing the coalition, so probably like 30 years from now.

    • cfuse on 14/08/2024 - 18:25
      +4

      Marxists aren't big on private property.

      • AustriaBargain on 14/08/2024 - 18:54
        -1

        They'll be fine with private property, they will just want to devalue that private property to its utility value, and they will further lower the utility value by controlling migration to housing supply.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join