When Will There Be Affordable Housing?

Ldatscheap on 13/08/2024 - 12:51
Last edited 13/08/2024 - 14:00

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.

Doing a realestate search houses up to $500000 over the whole country has 406 listings, even less after removing listing errors and regions that have no industry.
During covid there would have been more then 500 properties for sale under $300k just in Tasmania alone.

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?

Poll Options

  • 5
    Dollar is being devalued
  • 39
    Greedy landlords owning multiple properties
  • 2
    Lack of public housing
  • 1
    Soft interest rates
  • 53
    Too much immigration
  • 2
    Too little immigration
  • 5
    Elevated labour costs to build new
  • 19
    Not enough houses being built to meet the growing population
  • 2
    There are loads of Cheap/affordable regional areas
Home & Garden

Comments

  • El cheepo on 13/08/2024 - 12:54

    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.

  • Jimothy Wongingtons on 13/08/2024 - 12:54
    +10

    is this a wind up post?

  • trapper on 13/08/2024 - 13:02
    +3

    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
      +1

      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
        +1

        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.

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

        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.

    • abb on 13/08/2024 - 16:28

      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?

  • Trying2SaveABuck on 13/08/2024 - 13:02
    -8

    Loads of 'Cheap/affordable' Property in Australia the question is the location

    the biggest whingers are the people who refuse to live anywhere but Sydney and want to live a 20min walk to work in the CBD

    Outside of NSW property in Australias capitable cities are reasonable compared to our average wage

    • 87percent on 13/08/2024 - 13:34
      -1

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

      • altomic on 13/08/2024 - 15:00
        +2

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

        • abb on 13/08/2024 - 16:29

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

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

          Could just use the pool as a bathroom..

  • askbargain on 13/08/2024 - 13:05
    +1

    dollar is being devalued, house prices have dropped against gold

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

      Where can I see this on a graph?

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

        just google house price vs gold

  • scrambledeggs on 13/08/2024 - 13:06
    +2

    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

    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

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

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

          I blame Cook for all the financial woes

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

            @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

              @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
    +11

    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.

  • Fredfloresjr on 13/08/2024 - 13:37
    +2

    Until they limit foreign purchasers.

    • Dollar General on 13/08/2024 - 14:24
      +2

      That wouldn’t make any difference whatsoever

      • Drakesy on 13/08/2024 - 14:47
        +1

        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

        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

          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

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

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

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

          • Clear on 13/08/2024 - 17:06

            @May4th: Oh lord you genuinely believe that a real estate agency doesn't keep a record of who buys what? You think that they wouldn't have investors who come to them regularly to find them property. Oh dear.

            Or perhaps you think there's some kind of 'national list' that they're all subscribed too, because that's definitely not what I'm saying.

            Many, many REAs have an internal list of investors/buyers who they notify about upcoming properties. Many of these will put offers on houses before they hit the market and many people not on these "internal mailing lists" do the same when agents hint upcoming properties on their social media. There's no Facebook boomer conspiracies here.

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

              @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

              • Clear on 13/08/2024 - 20:41

                @May4th: Our regular group of investors are good. Pretty much buying up a few apartments in every planned development.

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

          ‘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…

          • Clear on 13/08/2024 - 18:37

            @Dollar General: And what percentage of buyers overall are purchasing properties before they hit the market?

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

              @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
      +1

      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
        +2

        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

          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

            @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.

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

          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.

  • cupcake on 13/08/2024 - 13:37
    +2

    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.

  • GordonD on 13/08/2024 - 13:39
    +6

    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
      +1

      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
        +2

        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
          +2

          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
      +2

      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.

  • DingoBilly on 13/08/2024 - 13:39

    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
    -4

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

  • samyall on 13/08/2024 - 13:57
    +2

    I think a big portion of it is stamp duty. As house prices rise, so does the absolute value of stamp duty. If it takes close to a years salary just to move between houses, you're not going to move very often.

    This results in fewer people moving because the cost must be spread over many years to make the move worthwhile. As a result, people are less inclined to downsize/upsize and so even if there are sufficient properties, they are occupied by the "wrong" people.

  • TheMindsetTraveller on 13/08/2024 - 14:11

    You left out WFH - when many no longer travel to work and spend discretionary money on coffee, a sandwich for lunch and post-work drinks - you now save lots of money and think you are rolling in cash.

    • CaptainJack on 13/08/2024 - 17:00

      Yeah. How many people now need an extra bedroom for the home office?

      Plus things like well salaried employees now moving regional for lifestyle, but making it hard for locals etc.

  • CurlCurl on 13/08/2024 - 14:11

    We manufacture bugger all in OZ.

    We used to manufacture, washing machines, fridges, freezers, TV's, small appliances, furniture (Parker, Fler, Everet Worthington and others), shoes, clothing, cars, car radios, car parts, tractors, Sydney had two tyre manufacturing plants (Goodyear and Firestone), we spun our own wool, all household cleaning goods, cigarettes and many more.

    When companies like Bonds pack up and move overseas you have to ask why?

    • leiiv on 13/08/2024 - 14:22
      +3

      Capitalism and globalisation trump over self-sufficiency and sustainability. Profit to the max..

    • Dollar General on 13/08/2024 - 14:25
      +2

      Why? Because consumers want a bargain price so they can spend more money on European cars and holidays

      • Ghost47 on 13/08/2024 - 15:43
        +1

        And then people love to bash China about their CO2 emissions even though the entire western world basically off-shored their manufacturing to them.

  • tsunamisurfer on 13/08/2024 - 14:13
    -6

    First and foremost people need to accept that home ownership is not a right, not a life requirement nor a rite of passage.

    It is a dream. I have dreams too, like a three way with Sydney Sweeny and Mia Khalifa.

    Furthermore, based on the historical trend of house prices, the property ladder will be harder to get onto.

    The only thing the government can do is to reduce immigration, to only those that bring skills to the country and full fee paying tertiary students (remembering education is one of our top exports that we cannot just kill).

    The government cannot do anything else.

    It cannot offer more demand side inducements thereby pushing up prices further.

    It cannot offer more supply side inducements because trades and materials are already very expensive because of the post COVID construction cash splash. Many builders have since gone under as well.

    It cannot super charge public housing spending, because it competes against the private sector for precious trades and materials making it more expensive for everyone. For example, Brickies are now wanting $3 a brick, this is insane.

    It cannot unwind previous tax policies. We tried scaling back Negative Gearing in the 80's. The results of which were so horrible, they reinstated it after 18 months. Shorten tried two elections ago again and lost to Scomo, that went so bad Labor said they wouldn't try that again. The CGT discount was not a new discount, it replaced the horrible Indexation method that required me to carry around the table of indexation together with the Master Tax Guide in the 90s.

    Things like Vacant properties and AirBnB are such a small subset of the total stock that its not going to make a dent into the problem.

    The most impactful thing after cutting back immigration is at the individual level.

    As an individual :
    - You control your mindset.
    - You largely control your income, the number of jobs you do. Barring disablement.
    - You control your expenses.
    - You control where you live, who you live with.

    Renting is a perfectly legitimate lifestyle. And when coupled with sharing a property with others, renting becomes affordable very easily.

    Rather than blame John Howard (CGT discount) / Landlords (greed) / AirBnB (Greed) / Tax Code / lack of Public Housing, look introspectively. Simply saying my parents were able to buy a 4x2 on 500sqs on my Dad's median income, does not mean that applies today.

    • SBOB on 13/08/2024 - 14:38
      +6

      And, out of an interest in better understanding your argument, how many properties do you own?

      • tsunamisurfer on 13/08/2024 - 15:01
        -3

        Does my status of owner / renter / investor matter?

        Are there any of my above statements that are invalid because of my accommodation status?

        • ForkSnorter on 13/08/2024 - 15:11
          +2

          I don't really get the point of your message.

          You suggest several times that it's more difficult to buy a house nowadays, but that the government is not to blame.

          Then you suggest that the only thing we can do is accept this situation, and try to make the best of it. How does this add constructively to the conversation?

          Considering:

            1. the incredible amount of space in Australia
            1. the incredible quantity of natural resources in Australia, and
            1. the fact that the federal, state, and local governments do create ALL the laws and regulations that govern housing and the real-estate industry,

          there surely are a number of things they could do to genuinely improve affordability if they were actually determined to do so, and if they were not afraid of losing the votes of the property-investment class who have already gained so much wealth and privilege via property investment under the current laws.

          • tsunamisurfer on 13/08/2024 - 15:39
            -1

            @ForkSnorter:

            You suggest several times that it's more difficult to buy a house nowadays, but that the government is not to blame.

            I avoided the blaming part in so far as this and that is their fault. Rather I highlighted the impacts of previous policy.

            Then you suggest that the only thing we can do is accept this situation, and try to make the best of it. How does this add constructively to the conversation?

            I was trying to highlight people shouldn't expect home ownership as a given, that this mindset will need to change in order for people to progress.

            the incredible amount of space in Australia

            There is actually precious little space that people actually want to live. Look at the heat map of population.

            the incredible quantity of natural resources in Australia, and

            And? Just because there are tonnes of base irons and precious minerals does NOT mean every Australians get a house.

            If you work in those industries and have an income commensurate with the market then Yes, home ownership is possible for you. If you deliver Uber Eats, how does that impact you? BHP, Rio Tinto and Fortescue Metals already pay about a third of the Australian Corporation tax receipts, just those 3 alone. Then there are the royalties, state level payroll taxes and the countless jobs they create on the periphery industries of mining. Miners already pull their weight.

            the fact that the federal, state, and local governments do create ALL the laws and regulations that govern housing and the real-estate industry,
            there surely are a number of things they could do to genuinely improve affordability if they were actually determined to do so,

            I have outlined the key things that gets discussed each and every time this comes up, and how the government has lost the ability to (or won't) use them as levers.

            Do you have any policies that you feel will work?

            I don't really get the point of your message.

            Simply, the government's hands are now tied. Each action they take will likely pull the ladder up further for the next guy. The only thing you can control is within you.

    • pegaxs on 13/08/2024 - 15:37
      +7

      Holy shit, you lost me in that first paragraph, champ. Holy (fropanity) that is a hot take and a half. That is some S tier level shit I would expect from some LNP voting boomer landlord with a bunch of houses. Absolutely disgusting view of housing.

      Enjoy your negs.

      • tsunamisurfer on 13/08/2024 - 15:41
        -1

        Holy shit, you lost me in that first paragraph, champ. Holy (fropanity) that is a hot take and a half. That is some S tier level shit I would expect from some LNP voting boomer landlord with a bunch of houses. Absolutely disgusting view of housing.

        If you believe home ownership, not housing but ownership, is a right?

        How would you make it happen?

        Edit : I just read your comment below.

        Socialism is not the answer.

        • SBOB on 13/08/2024 - 16:14
          +1

          Socialism is not the answer.

          But government manipulated housing markets (via land restrictions, negative gearing laws etc) are?

          Just depends what end of the ladder you're currently on as to whats acceptable government intervention within housing markets.

          • tsunamisurfer on 13/08/2024 - 16:28

            @SBOB:

            But government manipulated housing markets (via land restrictions, negative gearing laws etc) are?

            If that's the argument then isn't everything manipulation?

            The government is taking my weekly pay thereby manipulating my ability to buy what I desire.

            Shouldn't the government have land restrictions? Can you imagine if many decades ago they just allowed free for all? Would they be any land left for the next generation?

            Negative Gearing is not the monster the people make it out to be. I go out of my way to find an investment to spend $1 and just to claim back 40c and in the hope that in the future there is capital gains to offset that loss. It is not a sure thing.

            The main advantage investors have over owner occupiers is the fact they will immediately derive an income stream not because of NG.

            • SBOB on 13/08/2024 - 16:44

              @tsunamisurfer:

              then isn't everything manipulation

              You're the one that labelled a tax structure to disincentives multiple signals wonder investment properties as "socialism"

              I'm not sure we're working within the same realms of generally agreed terms

    • Drakesy on 13/08/2024 - 16:13

      Bahaha.

      no.

      Almost as bad as your Reddit comments @tsunamisurfer

  • CurlCurl on 13/08/2024 - 14:13

    No sting of 10%(the 90's) interest rates

    Try 17%

    • DingoBilly on 13/08/2024 - 14:17
      +3

      This always comes up - but it's just not the same. My parents on basic wages paid even higher interest rates of 20-30% as banks wouldn't loan to them, and they paid off their house in 4 years. You just can't do that today.

      17% of $40,000 to buy a house is much much less than 5% of $1,000,000 in that same area.

      • pharkurnell on 13/08/2024 - 14:19
        +1

        and they paid off their house in 4 years

        That would be a 1 in a zillionteen occurrence…

      • CurlCurl on 13/08/2024 - 16:24

        Gotta love boomers saying they had it worse.

        Foot in mouth again Draksey!

        I'm not a boomer.

        • Drakesy on 13/08/2024 - 16:29
          +1

          Wasn't aimed at you, moreso my mum, dad, grandad, grandma, work colleagues who all sit on their multi million dollar homes saying they had it pretty hard…

          • CurlCurl on 13/08/2024 - 17:29

            @Drakesy:

            Wasn't aimed at you

            Been accused or insinuated of being a boomer here many times.

    • datscheap on 13/08/2024 - 18:25

      17%, yikes. I think I locked 7% for 5 years as that was lowest it had been for a long time and it still took all our money for 20 years until it was paid off.

  • coffeeinmyveins on 13/08/2024 - 14:14
    +1

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

    It won't. Because for that to happen there needs to be a crash. And not a "20% crash" like people think will do anything, a complete crash, which will ruin the economy and put is in a very bad position.

    The gov won't and can't allow that to happen.

    • pharkurnell on 13/08/2024 - 14:20
      +1

      Banks also cant afford for it to happen.

    • Drakesy on 13/08/2024 - 16:19

      The gov won't and can't allow that to happen.

      Gov doesn't really get a say in where China sources its lithium or Iron Ore from unfortunately. The gravy train only goes on for so long and iron ore looks to be running out of steam.

      Just because we haven't had an official recession in 30 years doesn't mean that we're not due for one.

  • Cluster on 13/08/2024 - 14:20
    +2

    When will housing become affordable in Australia? Well, it already exists. Problem is few people want to live in regional areas.

    When will housing become affordable in major cities? The simple answer is: never. On all levels, from banks, to governments, to existing home owners, to investors, no one wants to see a large amount of cheap housing enter the market. As a country we've leveraged ourselves up to our eyeballs in debt and it would be an economic disaster to see a flood of cheap housing hit the market.

    Even if lots of cheap and desirable housing is constructed you know investors will be doing everything possible to buy it up. The investor earns too much to be eligible to buy? Send in the kids (subsidised by mum and dad) to buy and invest.

  • Sweet3st on 13/08/2024 - 14:21
    +2

    Once upon a time, people just bought a house to live in. Now so many people with IP (or multiple). People who aren't especially rich have their property portfolio. Unsurprising, the way prices keep on increasing, its a good investment. So, yes, everybody in a mad scramble to buy, buy, buy… which only makes things worse. 1.3% of houses unoccupied.

  • ForkSnorter on 13/08/2024 - 14:41
    +2

    It's too late for me, but if I was in my 20s or 30s now, I would absolutely get out of Australia, and buy a house overseas: in the US, Europe, or Asia. I'm absolutely shocked at what has happened in Australia, and even more shocked that our current Labour government appears to not give a s**t. Not surprising given Albo and most politicians in both major parties own multiple houses.

    If I'd known this was going to happen, I would have either bought a derelict house or even empty land in a country town 15-25 years ago and started building/renovating, or I would have looked to move to Europe or Asia somewhere nice, and buy an old house in a city/town that actually has rich culture and history.

    • Caped Baldy on 13/08/2024 - 14:43

      It's not an issue isolated to Australia. I'm looking at accommodation in Canada for a holiday and it is dire there too.

      • Ghost47 on 13/08/2024 - 15:52
        +4

        Canada and Australia are extremely similar overall in terms of what's happening. Both Commonwealth countries, high house prices, not much manufacturing, abundant natural resources, extreme levels of immigration. I would say we're a few years behind them though. Canadians are starting to realise immigration is no longer working in their favour or the nation's favour but in Australia people will still happily call you a racist for calling out immigration even though we accept a lot of people from other Western nations (Commonwealth nations especially) and they will happily parrot that "supply of houses is the issue, not demand".

    • freefall101 on 13/08/2024 - 15:18

      If I was in my 20s or 30s and had a million dollars laying around, sure. But when you need to work in that country, you'd better hope you have skills to earn an above average wage.

      The US has crap working conditions and salaries, the only reason there's somewhat affordable houses is their housing boom funded by debt that they spread all around the world with their mortgage backed securities, but even then you need to pick from a handful of places like Illinois or Minnesota. Parts of Europe have good socialist housing that's funded by high taxes, but a lot of those quaint Greek and Italian towns are also beset by high unemployment. Asia the houses are relatively cheap compared to here, but you won't find the average person living in a huge house, you need an Australian or US backed company to hire you.

      The only people I know doing what you suggest are in their 50s, because the kids are done at school, they have jobs where they can work remotely and keep their Aussie wage and are living the dream. Someone in their 20s though? I'd expect to have a great time and in 20 years have no savings and a house that still isn't worth much.

      • ForkSnorter on 13/08/2024 - 15:34
        +1

        All I know is, I left Australia in my 20s for adventure and experience, then came back to create a career and wealth.

        Turns out, it was all a sham, constantly chasing a life that is continually out of reach, unless you happen to decide to take on a mountain of debt and step on the property ladder at the bottom of the rung and say: "Yes, I'll accept a life of banality, living in a pointless property in the most boring suburb I've never heard of, driving hours along congested roads to a job I hate. All to one day (maybe) achieve a nice property."

        I should have kept going on that adventure. I know people who did, and they don't regret it.

        • freefall101 on 13/08/2024 - 15:50

          I did the same, only difference is I'm quite happy with the banality. I have significantly better holidays and quality of life than when my whole life was a "holiday", filled with share houses, visa issues, eating a hell of a lot of cheap food, working long hours to make ends meet sometimes. Granted, I still made sure I was building skills for a career.

          I was a lot skinnier though. That was nice.

          But 10 years back home I have a house without a huge mountain of debt (still a boring suburb an hour from work), a well paying job, I eat well, I travel, I have a significantly healthier super account and I only moderately hate my job. I am exhausted though. Nothing stops me from finding a share house and living cheap again though, except that no one wants a 40 year old flatmate. I'd be able to save a small fortune if I did so though and blow it on plane tickets, only working 30 weeks a year and some of the unmentionable things I did in my 20s.

  • Caped Baldy on 13/08/2024 - 14:42
    +1

    There's a shit ton of homes that are sitting empty and heaps that are foreign owned/deceased. If someone had the means, it may be possible to look up records and squat it in them.

  • altomic on 13/08/2024 - 15:08
    +1

    Overseas investors are riding the wave of housing price increases that come from negative gearing. Primarily it is people who buy investment properties that they can rent out at a rate for which the rent is covering the interest . They then sit on the house and wait for its value to increase, and then borrow against that to fund their next acquisition, etc etc. And when interest rates increase then they increase the rent because "that rental market rate".

    Cut negative gearing on investment properties.

    The foreign ownership ,according to the ABC, makes up 1% of all purchases.

  • pegaxs on 13/08/2024 - 15:25
    +3

    The only time housing is going to be affordable is when the government plugs the holes in the Ponzi scheme that housing is. By limiting the amount of houses a single person can own. By banning corporations from owning residential housing. By removing negative gearing and punishing landlords on each extra residential property they own to a point where there is a 100% tax rate on selling that property. They need to de-incentivse collecting properties like they are tourist spoons or coasters.

    About the only way that Gen Y and younger are ever going to be able to afford a house is when all the boomers die and hand their portfolios down to the Gen X’rs, and then wait for Gen X’rs to die out.

  • netjock on 13/08/2024 - 15:30
    +2

    Only a matter of time. Look at Italy. When young people realise they are being made fools of and decide to move elsewhere just like all the people who migrate here and find out it is all marketing.

    Was an article on the ABC where a family moved from Singapore and it turns out it is more expensive here than Singapore.

    When Sydney house prices rival London I knew it is nuts. People keep pretending people want to live here. Yes, the marketing version of here but on day to day basis it is pretty difficult.

  • loropy9 on 13/08/2024 - 15:38

    Housing in the western world will normalise right after the Apocalypse.

  • localhost on 13/08/2024 - 15:39
    -4

    I don't see big drama. 2014 when we bought our unit price was $700k. Now is about $1m.
    At the same time my salary jumped from $110k to $160k - so it's the same ratio.

    Problem is with what OP wants - house, and of course for $500k. Try looking for $1.5-2m and will find plenty of them.

    • Fredfloresjr on 13/08/2024 - 16:01

      So better host Ozb xmas party this year then.

      • localhost on 13/08/2024 - 16:06

        With pleasure but will be in Europe.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join