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
  • 170
    Greedy landlords owning multiple properties
  • 13
    Lack of public housing
  • 2
    Soft interest rates
  • 364
    Too much immigration
  • 5
    Too little immigration
  • 21
    Elevated labour costs to build new
  • 230
    Not enough houses being built to meet the growing population
  • 21
    There are loads of Cheap/affordable regional areas
Home & Garden

Comments

    • qvinto on 14/08/2024 - 21:42
      +3

      The green are all for migration even though they can't seem to see how it is bad for the environment. Maintaining high migration will continue to increase house prices and reduce quality of life for everyone except the wealthy land-owning class

      • AustriaBargain on 14/08/2024 - 21:49

        Yes, the Australian Greens are still advocating for a higher migration intake, even in the context of housing shortages. They argue that the solution to housing shortages lies in increasing the supply of affordable housing rather than reducing migration. The Greens propose significant investments in public and affordable housing to address the housing crisis while still welcoming more migrants to Australia.

        Do you have any concerns about how this might impact housing or other areas?

  • samyall on 13/08/2024 - 13:57
    +4

    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.

    • AustriaBargain on 14/08/2024 - 18:55

      UberEats has replaced the coffee shop and noodle stand near your office.

  • CurlCurl on 13/08/2024 - 14:11
    +2

    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
      +6

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

    • Dollar General on 13/08/2024 - 14:25
      +3

      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
        +6

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

    • AustriaBargain on 14/08/2024 - 18:55
      +1

      We made Bluey, a global sensation. Though we gave a lot of rights to it to the BBC just because they co-funded it. If we had more faith in local animation we would have funded it wholly ourselves and then rented it out to the BBC at the full value.

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

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

      • tsunamisurfer on 13/08/2024 - 15:01
        -4

        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
          +4

          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
            -3

            @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.

        • smartazz104 on 14/08/2024 - 09:25
          +1

          Does my status of owner / renter / investor matter?

          When people make that claim that "home ownership is not a right, not a life requirement nor a rite of passage", it usually means they own at least one property and don't give a stuff about anyone else.

    • pegaxs on 13/08/2024 - 15:37
      +20

      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
        -6

        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
          +4

          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
              +1

              @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
      +3

      Bahaha.

      no.

      Almost as bad as your Reddit comments @tsunamisurfer

    • AustriaBargain on 14/08/2024 - 18:57
      +1

      If home ownership isn't something we expect a lot of people to achieve, then we need to keep rents low to make up for it.

      • tsunamisurfer on 14/08/2024 - 22:52
        -2

        No.

        No we don't.

        Let's let the market handle the price

        • AustriaBargain on 14/08/2024 - 23:28
          +1

          That sounds like a stupid plan to deal with a massive problem.

          • tsunamisurfer on 15/08/2024 - 10:49
            -1

            @AustriaBargain: So stupid that societies across the world have used it for centuries, and continue to today.

        • Eeples on 18/08/2024 - 19:13

          But the market isn’t a fair one. Eg. Neg gearing,

          The real problem, of course, is that houses are both shelter and an investment.

  • CurlCurl on 13/08/2024 - 14:13
    -2

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

    Try 17%

    • DingoBilly on 13/08/2024 - 14:17
      +7

      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
        +1

        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
          +3

          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
            +2

            @Drakesy:

            Wasn't aimed at you

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

            • smartazz104 on 14/08/2024 - 09:28
              +2

              @CurlCurl: You have to be more clear when bringing up 17% interest rates, as only boomers keep whinging about them.

              • CurlCurl on 14/08/2024 - 11:26
                -3

                @smartazz104:

                You have to be more clear when bringing up 17% interest rates, as only boomers keep whinging about them.

                Nope. I don't need to be more clear. You need to put your thinking cap on.

                BTW. Your name seems to fit.

    • 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.

    • MrFunSocks on 14/08/2024 - 12:32
      +1

      17% of $20k is still much, much better than 7% of $800k.

      • CurlCurl on 14/08/2024 - 15:41

        17% of $20k is still much, much better than 7% of $800k.

        It was 17% on $135,000 for us.

        • MrFunSocks on 16/08/2024 - 09:09
          +1

          Still much, much better than what it is today.

  • coffeeinmyveins on 13/08/2024 - 14:14
    +4

    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
      +3

      Banks also cant afford for it to happen.

      • MrFunSocks on 14/08/2024 - 12:35

        The same banks that have been making record profits every year for a decade? They absolutely can. CBA just announced they made $10bil profit.

        • pharkurnell on 14/08/2024 - 14:44

          They make most of their profit from loans.

          and without loans banks wont make much profit. So they cant afford the world to crumble.

        • CurlCurl on 14/08/2024 - 15:46

          The same banks that have been making record profits every year for a decade? They absolutely can. CBA just announced they made $10bil profit.

          Your super fund most likely is a Com Bank shareholder. Be thankful.

    • 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
    +6

    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
    +4

    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
    +3

    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
      +2

      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
        +10

        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".

        • MrFunSocks on 14/08/2024 - 12:41
          +2

          Yep, we're now seeing all the big western countries that have opened up their borders for record numbers of immigrants over the last few years facing the consequences of doing so. Unaffordable housing, rising crime, rising homelessness, cost of living spiraling out of control, etc, etc. Most people with an IQ higher than their age could see it coming, but unfortunately ideology trumps everything for a large portion of the population these days - especially politicians and their stuck in the mud supporters.

    • 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
        +2

        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.

    • Gdsamp on 13/08/2024 - 21:54
      -5

      Don't say Albo's Australia you will get negged

      • smartazz104 on 14/08/2024 - 09:30
        +6

        Because it was such a utopia under the previous mob.

  • 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
    +2

    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
    +10

    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.

    • knk on 14/08/2024 - 11:36
      +2

      They're already doing this to an extent by slapping all the extra rental requirements, land tax etc on landlords. It's a less desirable investment than it was years ago at the very least.

      Couple that with the interest rates being quite high etc.

      Just sold my only IP / ex PPOR recently and with all the above, interest rate hikes etc it made more sense for me to sell at this stage given the shit capital growth I've had recently.

      The only way I could see myself getting back into it would be for the sake of negative gearing in the event my income got high enough it would be stupid not to (that's not happening for a long while though realistically)

      I'm in Melbourne, not sure if the above varies state to state at all.

      • JimB on 14/08/2024 - 15:37

        Negative gearing is stupid even on a high income.

        I thought about selling a couple of properties in VIC but they are neutrally geared, so keeping them in the hope they increase in value once interest rates come down.

        Due to transaction costs, it's not feasible to sell the properties and jump back in, plus I don't want to kick the tenants out.

        VIC properties are due for a rebound.

        • knk on 14/08/2024 - 15:44

          Care to elaborate on why it's stupid?

          • JimB on 14/08/2024 - 15:58

            @knk: To continually lose money in the hope of future capital gains isn't a great investment strategy. Good for tax but so is donating to a charity.

            No guarantee that properties will continue to climb perpetually. Look at Melbourne.

            You're better off to purchase 2-3 neutrally geared houses in different cities rather than one expensive negatively geared house.

            Those 2-3 neutrally geared houses will become positively geared over time and will also increase in value due to the rent.

            The less said about negatively geared apartments the better.

            • knk on 14/08/2024 - 16:09

              @JimB: Yeah but that's why the bullshit depreciation schedule and a relatively new build really help on the tax side.

              Just because it's negatively geared doesn't mean you're actually at a net loss, then the whole capital gain etc ends up a win win. Sure you'd cop CGT but that's reasonable given the outcome.

              Of course that's in a world where we continue to see property prices rise, I don't have a crystal ball but there's gotta be a (profanity) limit.

              • JimB on 14/08/2024 - 16:38

                @knk: I actually prefer to buy older houses, you're not paying for the shiny new kitchen, bathroom etc that the tenants will eventually use.

                Plus when I do eventually sell, I'll renovate it. That's the plan, I've never sold any so far but would expect a $2 gain for every $1 spent on paint, flooring, kitchen and bathroom.

                Anyway that's my strategy. Will eventually sell some properties to stick into the sharemarket/super after retirement.

                • knk on 14/08/2024 - 17:15

                  @JimB: Yeah, I've only bought 2 properties including the one I just sold and while the 2 weren't all that old they were (profanity) inside. Just lived in by absolute animals and were essentially gutted by yours truly.

                  They were both bought as PPORs so it worked well, but I think (and I'd need to check the math) that the wild depreciation you get on a new build is worth the expense from a tax perspective if you were on a higher income.

                  Unrelated but It was rather eye opening to see how far my skills had come by witnessing the true horror of my first DIY efforts on my first place.

                  • JimB on 14/08/2024 - 18:28

                    @knk: I don’t mind a DIY, I’m pretty good at it if I say so myself.

                    I prefer to buy older properties so I don’t have to worry too much about how the tenants treat the house. I think of it as a business.

                    Every dent or scratch in the plaster can be filled and repainted. The carpet can be replaced. When I eventually sell it, I will fix everything and will be brand new again, or depending on land value, bulldoze it as sell it as land value only.

                    Having said that, I fix everything asap. It’s my job to keep the house in good working order/compliant. The tenants are also your customers.

    • JimB on 14/08/2024 - 15:20

      "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."

      So what you are saying is that it will never happen.

      "By banning corporations from owning residential housing."

      This is a myth in Australia. I hear stupid US property spruikers/scammers say corporations are buying residential housing but there's none of that going on in Australia. Maybe a few are building apartments to rent but not detached housing.

      • Ghost47 on 14/08/2024 - 15:36

        Actually Raiz have a property portfolio now which consists of a few properties so it is happening, but very small scale hopefully….

        • JimB on 14/08/2024 - 15:46
          +2

          Never heard of Raiz before but it looks like BrickX or DomaCom.

          BrickX has been around for a long time but you are correct, they are all small scale in the overall scheme of things.

          Property returns themselves aren't great if you can't leverage them. That's where all the money is to be made, the leveraging of the growth compared to just the growth.

  • netjock on 13/08/2024 - 15:30
    +4

    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
    +1

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

  • localhost on 13/08/2024 - 15:39
    -7

    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
      +1

      So better host Ozb xmas party this year then.

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

        With pleasure but will be in Europe.

    • datscheap on 13/08/2024 - 16:16
      +3

      As per OP- I outright own my house, I dont need to discuss its worth as unlike you I dont care about dick length contests.

      I don't want a house for $500k, this post is about people starting with their first 'cheap' home - ie my kids in the future.

      • Ghost47 on 13/08/2024 - 16:26
        +6

        Your kids' first home will likely be a shoddily built 1 bedroom apartment with annual strata fees of $5000 in a high rise with two elevators, one of which will often be out of order which means it'll be a 20 minute wait each morning to get to the ground floor to go to work.

        It sucks but that's the future we're heading towards and this will be the reality for many Australians. It could be stopped if we stopped artificially growing our population so much via immigration, but it won't be because the rich people who are in control only care about themselves.

      • localhost on 13/08/2024 - 17:21
        +4

        As other people said - plenty of 1 bedroom units for $300-500k in Sydney for example, which is a good starting point in property market.

        Unfortunately no 4bd,2bath,2car houses for that price. Accept the reality, it's no longer 1990.

        • greatlamp on 15/08/2024 - 13:21

          I would expect 1 bedroom units to - at best - maintain their value over time.

          The next generation can get on the ladder but it's going nowhere.

          Meanwhile people who own land will continue to make gains well in excess of any risk taken.

          We won't fix this as a nation which means it will get fixed in a less pleasant way when extreme political parties start gaining in popularity

          • localhost on 15/08/2024 - 14:06

            @greatlamp: I don't see drama here.
            If 1BR is about $500k initial savings are not that much. Anyone on single salary, living with mom and dad can save it for 2-3 years without help.

            • greatlamp on 15/08/2024 - 16:15

              @localhost: I'm talking about growing wealth inequality

              • localhost on 15/08/2024 - 16:29

                @greatlamp: That is normal. Not everyone have the same abilities to risk, study, etc..
                Some people spent their life on welfare and whinging all the time how bad their life is. When ask them to find a job - Nah…

                • greatlamp on 15/08/2024 - 20:13
                  +1

                  @localhost: I'm not sure you understand what I wrote based on your comment

                  I'm talking about growing wealth inequality

                  The next generation buying apartments may be able to get on the property ladder but they will not grow wealth.

                  Meanwhile people who own land will continue to grow wealth.

                  People who buy 500k apartments are not on welfare, unemployed or lazy.

                  • localhost on 15/08/2024 - 21:22

                    @greatlamp: Thanks, got your point.

                    I am from generations in the middle - came to Australia in 2009. Now our 2BR unit is fully paid and we have substantial savings to buy another (or house). I don't think this will change more in the feature - there will be always houses for sale, of course not for $500k :)

  • zanzir on 13/08/2024 - 15:44

    3d printing of houses should make it cheaper to produce. They can do cement printed houses now which look like art deco pieces lol

    • smartazz104 on 14/08/2024 - 09:31
      +3

      Now we just need to 3D print some land…

  • djsweet on 13/08/2024 - 15:49
    +3

    Not enough houses to meet the demands of mass immigration.
    Investors buying up properties.
    Something has got to give. But until then…
    If we continue this route, it will likely lead to the abolition of the middle class and lead to a economic chasm between those who have inheritances and can afford property, and those who do not. The rich will get richer by leveraging their existing assets, and those who couldn't get a foot in the door will get more and more screwed.

    • greatlamp on 15/08/2024 - 20:26

      No need to wonder what will happen, just look to the UK economy. Highest inflation in Europe, manufacturing all outsourced years ago, public services gutted, public housing sold off, and the beginning of long term brain drain

  • ihbh on 13/08/2024 - 16:01

    2064-2086 - in 40-60 years' time the global population will peak and then decline. There will be more affordable housing around the world.

    Source: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/when-will-the-global-popula…

    As for Australia, it depends on how popular Australia is vs other countries and the level of immigration we let in.

    • greatlamp on 15/08/2024 - 20:29

      Well good news, Australia's population is growing unlike the rest of the world due to high immigration. I've never seen any estimate say otherwise. Our population will surpass Japan by 2060 (this includes the assumption that Japan shrinks, they will be 60 million each).

  • ihbh on 13/08/2024 - 16:06
    +1

    The greedy landlords option doesn't reflect reality (the multiple adjective is irrelevant). The % of home ownership has only reduced a small amount over the last few years.

    https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Depart…

    • Drakesy on 13/08/2024 - 16:26
      +3

      I don't really know about that.
      The falloff is pretty significant. For the 25–34-year-old age group 60% owned a house back in 1980, it was 45% in 2016 and it's only declining, i'd imagine it's now well into the 30%'s.

      That's a halving of home ownership levels.

      • ihbh on 13/08/2024 - 16:34

        What do you think will happen when the oldies die?

        • Drakesy on 13/08/2024 - 16:39
          +4

          Their kids who are now past family making age (in their 40's) inherit a 5 bedroom home for them and their partner. And the population decline continues. Only way out it seems (at least to the government) is to import more migrants.

          • Ghost47 on 13/08/2024 - 16:43
            +4

            @Drakesy: Makes sense but wow that's fkn bleak.

        • mitt on 13/08/2024 - 18:53
          +4

          Many oldies are liquidating their properties to fund an extended retirement/exploding medical costs.

          The wealth transfer is being altered to go to corporations/developers rather than children & grandchildren.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join