Your Thoughts on The Rental Crisis?

Sydneyswans on 15/10/2022 - 23:34

Hey guys sorry if I sound oblivious to the rental crisis situation affecting Australia because I haven't seen it first hand and I live in Sydney.

Just this month A friend and partner fully employed (Govt roles) finding an apartment in less than 2 weeks after selling the apartment they owned whilst awaiting construction of their dream home. Myself finding a four bedder a year ago within a month of looking mid covid19 mind you but 3 occupants fully employed plus children. For those looking and struggling I feel for you… I think the WFH situation has changed the way we live and made some parts of regional Australia unaffordable. Wish there was something I could do.

For those renting how long did it take you to find a place and how is your situation? How is the situation in your town or suburb? What should the governments do to alleviate the situation.

Home & Garden

Comments

  • baldur on 16/10/2022 - 00:04
    +39

    building up fewer houses than actual the need is not a sign of civilization anymore. increase the housing supply.

    • squaredonut on 16/10/2022 - 19:40
      +14

      It's going to be tough I feel.

      • Not enough skilled tradies and builders collapsing along with extremely expensive labour and material costs, it's unlikely this would fix itself anytime soon
      • Quality, this is seriously a major problem with housing in Australia as well. There's no doubt that if you want to live in popular areas or close to the CBD then there is only so much land available, so the only way to fit more people is building up, but my god I think there needs to be more reform around unit/apartment living: Like cheaper strata rates, strata that isn't useless, more decency amongst neighbours so you're not living with terrible neighbours, left, right, bottom and top. Most importantly quality of the builds, you can't keep having people go through so much stress buying lemons in this country.
      • Nirmitha on 17/10/2022 - 16:51
        +9

        Absolutely about the deteriorating quality. Even in the near million-dollar tiny shoebox townhouses in VIC. Have seen 2-bedders with 100+ defects in independent inspection reports still getting cleared for sale with a Cert. of Occupancy. The bar for doing a decent job in the building industry has gone to the dogs. The industry needs a royal commission.

        • squaredonut on 17/10/2022 - 20:57
          +5

          The problem with royal commission's is, it's like painting the obvious, but does anything get done? Maybe half of it gets taken seriously, even then most forgotten about. It really concerns me. It's hard to imagine how much pain and stress it goes through for a hardworking person to save hard, do the right thing, but something and think they've ticked off one of the major things in their lives only to be confronted with many issues, it would be breaking point stress. I can't imagine how the owners in Sydney Mascot and the ones in Homebush felt when they were told they had to vacate and they were left not having anyone speak up for them.

      • R4 on 17/10/2022 - 11:03
        +3

        'Supply was never the issue.'

        Traditionally maybe but right now it is. Many things in construction are in short supply - labour and materials. Our friend is a builder and he's currently constructing a house for a client. He's struggling to get certain skills (he can't do it all himself) and a lot of the stuff he needs is either not available, in very short supply and/or dramtically increasing in price. The guy behind us is building a huge trophy house and he's being smashed by increased costs (I'm not too worried as I don't like him).

        This is just not an issue here but worldwide - many of the problems our construction industry face are the same in the US and Canada for instance. There's no question the covid overreation has caused many supply side issues, which is driving inflation everywhere, but I've also been reading recently that this is starting to ease - which is understandable as the desire to make a buck will always bring supply back in line with demand.

        • Fuego on 17/10/2022 - 12:44
          +2

          Perhaps that's an issue of supply in the construction industry, but that doesn't automatically equate to a supply issues elsewhere. There is always a mass production of property in overheated markets and it's a common trait in property bubbles.

          The problem is it aims to fix a problem that doesn't exist as the housing market is a speculative market rather than a rational one. Supply and demand only applies where the market is rational.

          • R4 on 17/10/2022 - 12:50

            @Fuego: There are supply issues across the economy in many sectors - labour, semiconductors, diesel fuel, gas etc.

            Money will always flow to where it will get the best return - and often that is property. If real estate is often a speculative market then so be it - there are plenty of things that can be speculative. Unless we're going to force people (in a capitalism market economy) where to put there money, that's always going to be the case.

            • Fuego on 17/10/2022 - 13:15
              +1

              @R4: It's relevant because characterising the market helps identify the real cause of the issue.

              The real cause is reckless lending by financial institutions for the last 2 decades. The prices of property are not based on any rational market theory they are entirely based upon the amount of money banks are willing to lend out to the economy.

              • R4 on 17/10/2022 - 13:23
                +1

                @Fuego: Sure and I agree to a degree - borrowing money has been easy for decades and many people have taken on more than they can realistically afford - but in a market where there is ample supply, prices will not rise as dramatically as they have. Mass immigration (especially into the East coast cities), a strong economy and growing prosperity have been driving factors. Many countries have also experienced what Australia has too. People are prepared to take on debt because they feel like they have prospects and a future - that's certainly the case in a, largely, successful country like Australia. For some bizarre reason, many people want to live in Sydney - and property prices just reflect that. You see this around the world in cities like Vancouver, Auckland, London, Munich etc.

                Right now, there's no easy answers to the rental crisis.

                • Fuego on 17/10/2022 - 13:29
                  +1

                  @R4: Absolutely false and a lot of what you are saying about mass immigration being one of the causes of increase in property prices was refuted years ago.

                  You seem to be firmly in the camp that the property prices are worth their current value despite clear indicators of a speculative market, so there's nothing further I can say to change that.

                  • R4 on 17/10/2022 - 13:37
                    +1

                    @Fuego: No, I'm not saying that - I own a house that I love and don't really give a shit what property prices are. I'm not selling (hopefully, never) so it doesn't affect me. Property prices are what they are and there's not a damn thing you or I can do about them, so I'm not going to worry about them.

                    Immigration may not be the main problm with property prices but it's defintely an issue - and to deny that is just burying your head in the sand. So many people, especially from Asia, want to move to Sydney - and they have. I don't get the attraction myself but there it is.

                    If people want to speculate in property then more power to them - it's not up to you or I (or government) how people, legally, spend their money.

                    • Fuego on 17/10/2022 - 13:41

                      @R4: Yes, it's a massive problem. Because when a huge amount of people borrow money recklessly, because the financial industry wants to lend money to anything that moves then it creates a problem for you, me, and everyone else in this country.

                      The damage has already been done and we are just waiting for the eventual outcome as we only start feeling the tremors.

                      You own property and are unwilling to hear any alternative view besides that you made a good financial decision to over leverage yourself on borrowed money. I'm very sorry, but that's not the reality and I will be blocking you now

                      • R4 on 17/10/2022 - 13:42

                        @Fuego: 'and I will be blocking you now'

                        lol! Whatever floats your boat, so party on with that Garth!

        • freefall101 on 17/10/2022 - 16:54

          Just to add to your excellent post - supply was an issue prior to covid as well, which didn't set us up well. While it feels like 100 years ago, back in early 2019 the housing market was falling, both housing and rental yields. As a result, new houses being started slumped as well. To highlight how bad 2019 was, there were less housing approvals in 2019 than 2020, the year where some virus thingy bent our entire economy over a barrel.

          You can see in the ABS data things started finally picking up steam in 2021 and should have corrected things then, but then the construction issues you mentioned came in as the second whammy.

          Thanks to the 2019 slump, 2020 covid and 2022 supply issues, we're at least 100k houses short on what we should have been. Although I still think there could be more work done by government on releasing land - property developers and investors banking land should be a crime.

          • R4 on 17/10/2022 - 18:35

            @freefall101: Fair enough about the situation pre-covid - house construction is not something that I really follow closely to be honest.

            Just driving around I still see plenty of houses being built. In the small town in the hills East of Perth that I live in, there's plenty of house construction going on - no different from before covid. The local shire has made a big deal about increasing density and you certainly see a lot of that going on.

            Given how important real estate is to the economy, Australia's home construction industry is massive. Sure, some businesses are failing but the desire to make a buck will see them being replaced by other companies and the market will recover (no speculation about prices on my part as I'm not interested in that aspect).

            • freefall101 on 17/10/2022 - 20:37
              +1

              @R4: Coming from Melbourne, land banking is a massive issue (open in incognito if you hit a paywall). And in Melbourne while I've been trying to buy recently I keep seeing big empty blocks, I look them up online and they haven't traded in years. Corruption is also rife in local councils.

              It amazes me a bit that we don't have a housing regulator like we do financial regulators. So much money is tied up in it and yet it's often left up to little city councils who have no real idea on what they're doing.

              But in general it's just market problems. Everyone wants to make money and if materials weren't so expensive we'd be going through a construction boom right now. However back in 2019 the state governments should have stepped up and used the lull to build more community housing. That's where a regulator could come in, they could have looked at the lack of building starts and picked up the slack. It'd be good for the industry and help stabilise housing prices, reduce the rollercoaster prices.

          • derrida derider on 20/12/2022 - 19:32
            +2

            @freefall101: It's really easy to prevent land banking - just tax the bejesus out of unoccupied land zoned residential. Put a huge surcharge on the council rates for it.

      • derrida derider on 17/10/2022 - 12:53
        +1

        So if supply is not the issue what is?

        Household formation rates (ie the number of new households being formed as a percentage of the population) have, with covid, been at historically low levels - and its the number of new households being formed (aka the number of people now needing homes) that determines demand. So demand has been low. If prices - including rental prices - are rising that logically means supply must have grown even more slowly. You can't get around it.

        All this stuff blaming greedy landlords or cheating RE agents or obscenely profitable banks avoids the issues. All three of these have ALWAYS existed so they cannot explain what the problem is.

        • R4 on 17/10/2022 - 13:08
          +1

          100%.

          Blaming landlords and RE agents is just tinkering around the edges with supply the main issue. Normally, supply will increase to meet demand but right now the things that are holding back supply - labour, material - are causing the problems in housing. Governments can try and step in and build housing, and that's fine, but they'd face the same supply issues as the private sector. There are no easy answers right now but supply will catch up to demand eventually (or get very close).

        • Fuego on 17/10/2022 - 13:17

          The cause is reckless lending by financial institutions. As banks lend more money out to the economy it causes property prices to rise due to easier access to credit.

          The problem we are experiencing is nothing caused by recent developments. It's caused by the last two decades of reckless lending.

          • R4 on 17/10/2022 - 13:27

            @Fuego: But if there's an ample supply of houses, then prices will not rise as dramatically as they have. Saying that, easy money may encourage people to borrow more in order to upscale their living standards - say opting for 4x2 instead of a 3x1 for instance. But that's not really a supply issue.

            • Fuego on 17/10/2022 - 13:30
              +1

              @R4: The supply is taken by speculative demand. It's not real demand.

              You are misunderstanding the basic fact that it's a speculative, and therefore irrational, market.

              • R4 on 17/10/2022 - 13:40
                +1

                @Fuego: Demand is demand - whether it's speculative or irrational. How people spend their money is their issue in a market economy.

                The alternative is government telling people what they should or should not buy - f**k that for a game of soldiers.

                • Fuego on 17/10/2022 - 13:42
                  -8

                  @R4: You have a real gap of knowledge towards financial literacy.

                  Best of luck to the future. blocked.

                  • R4 on 17/10/2022 - 13:43
                    +1

                    @Fuego: Thanks Blocky McBlockster.

                    Same to you.

          • derrida derider on 20/12/2022 - 19:44

            @Fuego: But if it was too much bank lending prices of capital goods like houses will rise, sure, but it would still make it a lot more profitable to build a house. In a capitalist economy greed usually results in money going to wherever it makes more profit. So the actual issue is - why weren't those houses built?

      • Reppunkamui on 18/10/2022 - 21:04

        I think you are confusing property prices with rental yields. Typically, the relationship is inverse due to mortgages. E.g. High interest rates typically mean high rental yields and lower property prices.

    • bigbadboogieman on 17/10/2022 - 10:13
      +11

      The quality of the existing supply is also questionable. From criminally poor workmanship down to toilet sized bedrooms. It's a disgrace.

      • supersabroso on 17/10/2022 - 10:59
        +1

        Unfortunately when it comes to making a profit, they don't bother with hiring site engineers to look after quality. That's an unnecessary expense that will just slow down construction and cost more money as dodgy shortcuts will be caught out during construction.

      • derrida derider on 17/10/2022 - 12:56

        Insisting on higher quality will probably pay for itself in the long run, but there is no way it is going to help our present affordability crisis. Quality never comes cheap.

        • bigbadboogieman on 17/10/2022 - 14:43

          The question is who is paying in the long run. Sure as hell not the builder at this time under their very limited warranty.

    • peekabooo on 18/10/2022 - 09:03

      Agree. Houses are for living and there should be no restrictions on the number of houses that can be built in area as long as the infrastructure can support it. Also empty houses needs to be taxed heavily.

  • Quantumcat on 16/10/2022 - 01:05
    +85

    What should the governments do to alleviate the situation.

    Build more houses for social housing to relieve the bottom end of the market, then there is less demand for the rest, plus fewer people will have to deal with homelessness

    • Hardlyworkin on 16/10/2022 - 08:41
      +27

      Not sure why people are down voting this. People need a roof over their head, especially children. Who knows, with a little support and stability in their lives they might just go on to become PM.

      I think this is one good step as part of many.

        • JH100 on 16/10/2022 - 13:50
          +16

          If compassion doesn't work for you try enlightened self-interest.

          If your stated position was the majority the hordes would be squeezing through every crack in your walls to take what you have. You'd never be safe.

        • ozbjunkie on 16/10/2022 - 20:39
          +3

          You realise greater housing insecurity means more homeless people in your suburb robbing you at needle point.

          You know that right?

          If not, this next couple years we might all be finding out …

          • Seni0r El Cheapo on 16/10/2022 - 21:08
            +1

            @ozbjunkie: What makes you think that if you put that homeless guy in social housing, he will not rob you?

            Giving him public housing should be tied with goals. Upskill them. Help them learn a skill. Teach them how to fish.

            • greatlamp on 16/10/2022 - 22:22
              +11

              @Seni0r El Cheapo: You either build public housing and give it to them, or pay their rent. There is no option where the taxpayer isn't paying.

              Public housing will be cheaper in the long run, because it's theirs they have an incentive to look after it, and their children might not end up in the same place they are.

              This is teaching them how to fish, secure housing is important

        • Poor Ass on 17/10/2022 - 00:21
          +15

          I'm a taxpayer and I don't mind if it gets spent on housing

          It's better than spending on submarines

          • Assburg on 17/10/2022 - 11:06
            +7

            @Poor Ass: Or submarine cancellation fees…

          • R4 on 17/10/2022 - 11:07
            -4

            @Poor Ass: I prefer submarines but governments can afford both - they just need to cut their size. All our governments are far too big with too many public servants and too much waste. Cutting a lot of that would free up a ton of money that could be used better in our economy and society.

            As long as government keeps getting smaller and taxes are falling, we're on the right track.

            • Poor Ass on 17/10/2022 - 11:19
              +2

              @R4: Campbell Newman did that already in Queensland and Labor just hired everyone back when he lost.

              Funny enough most people I know that works for the government say they are understaff all the time. Either that or they are just a bunch of bludgers.

              I think cutting foreign aid first before culling public servants…. I mean public servants are needed to fill a "demand"

              • greatlamp on 17/10/2022 - 12:57
                +7

                @Poor Ass: "Cutting the size of government" is Liberal party spin for "outsourcing the project to private contractors"

                Believe it or not, it is much cheaper to directly hire public servants than "cut the size of government" by paying contractors 50% more to do the exact same job (not an exaggeration). Government employees also care more about delivering a good project than a contractor on a 4 month job.

                People need to stop believing the libertarian fantasy that you can just "cut government" by firing people. That's why the public servants get rehired- it's what you do when you aren't just running a scam for your corporate mates

                • Poor Ass on 17/10/2022 - 13:45
                  +2

                  @greatlamp: yes now tell R4 that

                • darkmattersunB6c0MV on 23/10/2022 - 09:37
                  +1

                  @greatlamp: At least have KPIs for the public servants.
                  If you are not meeting KPI, then…

                  Anyway, I have seen too many incompetent people in the government at very senior positions. Please don't even get me started.

                  Efficiencies can be built in, but people prefer status quo.

                  Agree completely that outsourcing is not a solution.
                  But serious upskilling is necessary. At all levels.

            • derrida derider on 17/10/2022 - 13:08
              +3

              @R4: Ah, the traditional neoliberal magic pudding. We can keep defence and social spending, slash taxes and avoid debt just by cutting "waste".

              Sorry, it is complete crap - why don't you take the trouble to work out exactly where your tax dollars go? Hint - much less than you think on Canberra politicians and public servants.

              And there are fundamental reasons governments will always tend to get bigger as society gets richer - basically, as people get richer they want more of their income to go on services (including security, national or otherwise) rather than on food or widgets. Which means services become ever more expensive relative to food and widgets. It's called "Baumol's curse" after the economist who identified it. Governments do not make food or widgets - they provide services.

        • VictoriousBboy on 17/10/2022 - 00:29
          +8

          This is just factually incorrect. You need to stop mindlessly following whatever A Current Affair and News Corp tell you about people in lower socioeconomic status positions than you.

          If your comment was truthful and not based on punishing poor people, you'd have referenced countries where your approach is successful. However, you can't. Housing and having basic shelter are human rights and the fact you seem like you'd prefer people to be homeless is so repugnant, it's almost not worth engaging with you. Perhaps do some basic, BASIC critical thinking and work out where tax dollars actually go, before making a total fool of yourself next time.

          • Poor Ass on 17/10/2022 - 11:22
            -1

            @VictoriousBboy: they pulled out that where tax dollars go summary page after doing their tax return and it said $0 contributed to society because it was under the tax free threshold

    • Unorthodox on 16/10/2022 - 17:13
      +13

      Friend works in this area and unfortunately reality is that whilst social housing is meant to be transitory (people living there get a low cost place to build up their finances, career prospects etc and then move out for the next family), more and more the people there are staying longer and longer.

      There's also the disregard for the actual upkeep of the property, people have little respect for public and shared spaces/property in Australia.

      Realistically, a solution would be to filter and prioritise families based on criteria. There's a lot of research and business cases put together on this that's really interesting.

      • CalmLemons on 16/10/2022 - 19:04
        +2

        This.

        Even the hotels and temporary accommodation that was given to people without homes during covid most were completely trashed. I am talking about hundreds if not thousands of hotel rooms completely trashed.

        Unfortunately the mindset of someone or their behaviour is not something you can solve overnight, and there isn't one perfect solution.

        This all goes into the realm of basic economics and human behaviour.

        The best is when the government doesn't intervene in the free market. Also when you start going into pricing controls or telling land lords who they must or cannot rent to then that's when you go into fixed markets and communism and everyone ends up worse off in the end and you actually decrease the available amount of housing.

        • Seni0r El Cheapo on 16/10/2022 - 21:11
          +1

          Agree. If govt is gonna tell a landlord how much he can charge, then they should tell the banks to charge proportionally.

          Disclaimer: not a landlord but firmly believe in common sense.

        • Jolakot on 16/10/2022 - 21:27
          +4

          The vast majority of that damage to hotel quarantine rooms was caused by overuse not malice: https://www.3aw.com.au/quarantine-hotels-call-for-compensati…

          You're not wrong though, putting someone with untreated severe mental health issues into public housing and just leaving them to their own devices rarely works out well, just trashed houses and pissed off neighbors

          We really need to fund more specialist group-homes or assisted-living programs for them, as these programs currently have decade-long waitlists

          • CalmLemons on 16/10/2022 - 22:04

            @Jolakot: I'm not talking about the quanrantine hotel rooms. I'm talking about the rooms the government put the homeless in - if anybody didn't notice, hundreds if not thousands of people were moved off the streets into long term hotel rooms.

            Government paid for a lot of the damage but some agreements did not cover the damage at all at the rationale that they paid a bit more and for longer housing.

            I've seen the rooms and the invoices related to the damages, I'm talking about whole levels of hotels and motels trashed.

            Most of it relates to purely mental health issues/or just pure lack of education/someone raising up these people in a caring environment growing up. There is no simple fix unfortunately. And there is no 'system' in place to appropriately deal with this nor personnel.

            • markathome on 17/10/2022 - 19:38

              @CalmLemons: Okay I'll bite. Even though this seems to have a tenuous connection to the rental crisis. How have you seen the invoices?

              Are you a public servant? Works contractor? Hotel employee? Investigative journalist? Herald Sun reader? Work for the auditor-general?

              I appreciate it's impractical to expect you to answer. But at least appreciate that a works contractor is going to have a much narrower view of the issue than someone who works for the auditor-general?

              I'm unconvinced by your post or its relation to the topic at hand. But, since you're making the point, if you feel this is correct…or maybe feel that it would have been possible to navigate COVID without vying for a world-beating 260+ days in lockdown. Then, for heaven's sake, vote based on this in 30 or so days' time. And tell your friends to too.

              Dan Andrews is not the fault of the homeless - very few of whom vote.

              • CalmLemons on 18/10/2022 - 00:06

                @markathome: Thanks for biting.

                I've been onsite and one of our project businesses has been doing the refurbs of the destroyed rooms, that particular contract is doing about 80 rooms across two hotels.

                I'm not sure if you're blaming Dan Andrews for something because what you have typed is pretty convoluted.

      • gromit on 17/10/2022 - 11:05
        +1

        There's also the disregard for the actual upkeep of the property, people have little respect for public and shared spaces/property in Australia.

        my parents used to have contracts for defense housing and some social housing for floor coverings. It was truly appalling the state of houses, some of which were relatively new but required complete gutting internally over the abuse from the tenants (this problem was just as bad for the defense properties as it was for the social housing). Seems to be a total disregard when there is the perception the government is responsible for it.

        • maximum on 17/10/2022 - 16:50

          A colleague of mine got a role at housing and came back with some unbelievable stories.
          One of the tenants had all the ground floor floorboards taken put and had a pony inside like it's own little stable.

          • gromit on 17/10/2022 - 17:32

            @maximum: sadly it doesn't surprise me. At the time my parents had the contracts I did some uni holiday work ripping up carpets and flooring to replace it. some of the places were so bad you had to wear a mask to go in, everything from animals living inside to garbage left rotting on the floor. Was barely believable anyone could live like that.

      • derrida derider on 17/10/2022 - 13:20

        It is only in the last few decades that social housing has even been meant to become "transitory". What we see is the the classic long term result of rationing services by tight means testing - more and more of it then only goes to the most desperate - the underclass - rather than to ordinary working class people. So it becomes seen as something for the underclass only, which justifies cutting it even further ….

        This is a very familiar pattern in Australia (we have been called "the means testing capital of the world"), arising from a ridiculous obsession with "middle class welfare" (of which we have less than ANY country in the world - including the US BTW). It is the root cause, in fact, of why we are not buidling anywhere near enough public housing for our population growth - which feeds directly into the affordabilty of private housing.

        • Unorthodox on 17/10/2022 - 14:07

          Definitely agree but caveat that social housing or public housing is a very broad term and these days, there's greater need to distinguish the type of tenant/recipient.

          A refugee family where the parents can work but may need to learn better English and their young children are going to school will need a different environment to someone facing drug rehabilitation or facing mental illness.

          The latter also need specialist support that would be better placed locally or within the environment to support other like cases.

          Unfortunately, if you triage more and more or filter/prioritise, you add more and more prejudice.

    • Thaal Sinestro on 17/10/2022 - 00:35
      +1

      The problem with public housing is that it locks you into poverty. You are just renting from the government and get 0 equity in your place of residence (government currents takes 25% of your income in rent). People who own houses get a 10% a year capital gain.

      The government should build new, decent quality homes and give people who qualify a mortgage with 0% interest rates. Give them 10% equity to start with. They will look after their homes beause they now part own them.

      • miwahni on 17/10/2022 - 00:52
        +1

        Not sure about other states but quite a few years ago NSW had the "Sale of Homes Agency" through which public housing was sold to the tenants - interest rate wasn't nil but it wasn't all that high for the time - around 3.5% - 4% if memory serves. This was in the 70s. The loans were administered through the Rural Bank of NSW.

        Problems arise however when the stock isn't replenished. There will always be people requiring public housing but if you're selling it off to the tenants (those who have jobs and ability to repay at least) then you need to be replenishing the sold stock. And this wasn't happening.

        The Rudd Govt's NRAS scheme was a great idea, to try and plug the gap, but Abbott's govt canned that without replacing it.

      • Quantumcat on 17/10/2022 - 00:59
        +1

        The problem with public housing is that it locks you into poverty. You are just renting from the government and get 0 equity in your place of residence (government currents takes 25% of your income in rent). People who own houses get a 10% a year capital gain.

        Not really. When you are renting you might have to pay more than 25% of your income, potentially a lot more in people with low incomes. It is also pretty hard to save if you are having trouble getting and keeping a job due to being homeless.

    • echelon6 on 17/10/2022 - 10:13
      -2

      but they don't deserve it

    • USER DC on 16/10/2022 - 02:47
      -1

      Start building Holdens

      Yea the same company that took over so much tax payer's funds while Aussies nothing much back. No promises kept with customers. Down trajectory quality of components.

      Gotta have stuff actually made in Australia, unlike Holden which is basically rebadged GM from korea/veitnam/german/uk etc.

      • JIMB0 on 16/10/2022 - 08:50
        +6

        But think of all the employment they create for mechanics, tow truck drivers and the spare parts industry.

        • Kangal on 16/10/2022 - 15:20
          +1

          Australia stupidly and totally missed out on the opportunity to manufacture eCars. We have the land, we have the workers, and we have the Sun.

          An Electronic Vehicle certainly does NOT need to have fancy AI and semi-autonomous driving capability. It can be built as a bog standard vehicle, think just like a Toyota Corolla Hatch, but with even less parts that can malfunction. Doesn't have to compete with the Luxury Tesla's, give it an 8sec 0-100 acceleration, FWD, 200km real-world range and standard charging in a couple hours. Which is fine for +80% of Aussie motorists who drive 100km or less per day, fuel up once a week or less, and don't drive with a lead foot. It would remove our dependency on offshore fuels, and make us self-reliant on coal and solar energy. If you think the strain on the grid would be too much, that's just your estimation, it could even go the other way where it stabilises the grid. Overnight slow charging, like an iPhone, and use of more solar panels might make the steep changes between on-peak and off-peak more manageable.

          …but I guess there wasn't any money there for the lobbyists, pollies, and big businessmen.

      • greatlamp on 16/10/2022 - 22:34
        +1

        GM treated Australia like a backwater. People don't want to hear it, but the government was right to cut off the free money.

        People remember GM telling Australians it was not economical to make cars in Australia. Lies.

        "Over the course of its three-year lifespan (2004-06), production of the Australian-made Pontiac GTO was capped at just over 40,000 units"
        https://autos.yahoo.com/black-red-2006-pontiac-gto-130000754…

        These caps were put in place by GM themselves to appease the US auto workers union. The one model that was made in Australia and exported to the USA had production limits that ensured economies of scale would never be possible.

        It's true wages in Australia are higher than in the USA, however a modern plant uses more machines and less people. This is how Japan, South Korea, and Germany are still able to make cars.

        Not in Australia, why would GM invest in modern manufacturing techniques when they already receive millions in government subsidies, and all their competitors models have import tariffs.

    • hasher22 on 16/10/2022 - 01:26
      +30

      IMO: Offering more than the suggested rental listing price does so much harm to the area and the industry. It just creates this snowball effect where the price keeps going up and up and up because people are willing to pay X to live in X area/home. Then there are the other 1000 factors that drive up prices. crying

      • AustriaBargain on 16/10/2022 - 01:33
        +5

        What's the alternative, living an a caravan park for 6 months, and paying for storage for all your stuff?

        • hasher22 on 16/10/2022 - 01:39
          +3

          If that's what people can afford and feel they need to take that route then yes.

          Not everyone can offer above the listing price to beat the competition. The alternative is trying to find a place within your financial and lifestyle means, when these tactics are deployed by tenants, while it benefits both parties, if every tenant is offering more then it hurts everyone that is renting in the long run.

        • derrida derider on 17/10/2022 - 13:24
          +2

          Try finding a caravan park in the city that lets you live there for 6 whole months. Plenty of Australians cannot even afford to be "trailer trash".

      • tsunamisurfer on 16/10/2022 - 11:23
        -2

        Offering more is the basic economic tool that people have used since the dawn of trade.

        Remember its peaks and troughs.

        About 4 years ago, the median rent in Perth had dropped from $450 to about $360 a 25% drop, tenants were gleefully wringing their hands and now its gone the other way somehow its a national disgrace?

        • VictoriousBboy on 17/10/2022 - 00:33
          +5

          When you have professionals employed in full time roles who cannot afford to pay rent, yes, that is a national disgrace. You sound like someone who's very driven by the profits in the Perth market, and not someone concerned with housing as a human right.

    • this is us on 16/10/2022 - 19:10
      +1

      But this is not a solution, is it?

      The solution for "people can't afford a house because it costs 500,000 and people can't afford 500,000" is not to offer $600,000 for the same house. You are clearly missing the point here…

      • AustriaBargain on 16/10/2022 - 19:41

        A friend and partner fully employed

        • this is us on 16/10/2022 - 19:56

          Fully employed with a salary of 70,000 or 700,000 a year? We don't know… Probably not 700,000.

          • AustriaBargain on 16/10/2022 - 20:21
            +1

            @this is us: A couple with each making 70k should be able to afford to rent a home worth 500k, and should be able to afford to offer 10% more if that's what it took to not be homeless for six months. You are clearly missing the point of OPs question, which was about a full-time working couple wanting to rent a home.

    • Smol Cat on 16/10/2022 - 19:12
      +1

      How bout no, you crazy Dutch bastard.

    • ozbjunkie on 16/10/2022 - 20:41

      Sure it's ridiculous and illegal, but have you tried this?

      You're not selling it, and it's your own advice lol

      • AustriaBargain on 16/10/2022 - 20:43

        I have offered six months rent upfront to secure a townhouse. And it worked. Maybe they would have given it to me anyway, I guess I have no way to know.

  • hasher22 on 16/10/2022 - 01:23
    +10

    Walked out of my unit today and approx 15 people waiting to see a unit when I asked someone what was going on! I saw on realestate.com.au the unit and it was a damn good rental price p/w in our area at 570p/w as similar units going for 630+!

    No wonder people are flocking to it. Congrats who ever got it!

    Finding a rental is really hard, 2nd lockdown I was lucky cause the unit I wanted was given to someone else but a week later, the same layout unit below was up and we got it, we had to pay double the rent for 2 units for 2 weeks but it was worth it. Our rent went up 3 times already and next August when it's up again, it's gonna jump MASSIVELY and I dont think I am prepared mentally and financially when that letter comes.

    IMO: Finding rental is hard enough as it is, but also popular areas will be very tough. It will just get worse when skilled migrants and students come flooding in.

    I want to buy, but I am a sole trader, 15+ years of paid rent on time, never had a problem but it's very hard for me to get a loan :(

    • Ghost47 on 16/10/2022 - 11:19
      +12

      I wish the government would stop importing people. Or import them to train up Australians to do the job where possible.

      Sydney and Melbourne are already crowded af, if people want to escape their third world country and live here send them to the other capital cities.

      • john_conner on 16/10/2022 - 11:35
        +26

        We aren’t importing people because they have skills we don’t have.

        Importing people is the whole strategy for growth in Australia. Keeping everything the same if you just open the flood gates, demand (and profits) will keep growing as the population increases. The “skills crisis” is really a “cheap labour crisis”. Why bother with investment in the people when you can import cheap labour from over seas to pick your fruit and wait your tables. Meanwhile the industry bodies restrict university numbers for professions to drive up wages and make it virtually impossible to practice in Australia if you haven’t studied here.

        • Ghost47 on 16/10/2022 - 15:04
          +1

          So is the whole “skilled migration” thing a complete scam? I know of some highly skilled people (think engineers with decades of experience) who have migrated here but if it’s mostly a ruse I wouldn’t be surprised.

          I don’t disagree that importing people is the growth strategy for Australia. The sad thing is that with houses so expensive in Australia I wouldn’t be surprised if there were people delaying having kids until after they buy a house. High house prices have large flow on effects on society that aren’t always realised by some people in this country.

          • CalmLemons on 16/10/2022 - 19:07
            +1

            @Ghost47: This is basic capitalism though. High house prices aren't a result of importing people over, they are just the result of capitalism itself.

            People delaying having kids is literally a fundamental feature of wealthy societies, even having reduced kids or not having kids at all. As societies become more propserous and educated, the birth rate goes down astronomically.

            Australia is a wealthy country and we don't have the critical mass (population) to have sustainable population growth.

            • greatlamp on 16/10/2022 - 22:47
              +13

              @CalmLemons: Corporate lobbying keeps the gates open.

              If the locals complain about too many migrants, just call them racist and tell them to learn to code.

              Australia's population growth is approximately 1.4% p.a. over the long term, around half of that is local, and half is migration.

              Instead of strengthening maternity and paternity leave, and providing child care, making it possible for Australians to have children, we prefer to import the children of other nations.

              While we keep importing half our new population, in a generation we have completely lost any sense of Australian culture, noone has any shared values, noone feels any connection to their neighbours, and the divided population can easily be manipulated and controlled.

              This isn't sustainable, this is just what is most profitable for those at the top.

        • BeoWulf on 16/10/2022 - 19:56
          +5

          I worked in the AML before and can you alot of indian/nepalese on student visas earn more than the average Australian by doing uber/didi/menulog/uber eats etc. (more than $1000 per week) by enrolling in some no-name degree college and completing some easy degree and then transition to full PR. No other group does this and they have 10x'ed from 100k indians to 1 million indians in Australia in less than 10 years. It gets worse when the old ones also from below top 500 universities directly come to Australia and get put into various jobs.

      • pharkurnell on 16/10/2022 - 11:47

        that would be a good start…

      • mitt on 16/10/2022 - 14:05
        +1

        But how else are they going to suppress wages? We have decoupled wages from productivity for 4 decades now, the investor class wont let it stop.

        • derrida derider on 17/10/2022 - 13:32

          This is absolutely correct. "Skilled migration" is all about not forcing employers to bid up wages in selected occupations. I have been saying for decades now that if a job does not pay at least double the current average wage, then there is simply no shortage of that occupation.

          There is just no way we should be importing cooks, hairdressers, motor mechanics and most IT workers - there are indeed chronic shortages of them but that is purely because they are too low paid.

      • DingoBilly on 16/10/2022 - 20:20

        They took our jerbs.

        But on a more serious note, please stop being so xenophobic.

        • greatlamp on 16/10/2022 - 22:51
          +6

          Peoples parents could afford a home on one income in a blue collar job, but they can't afford an apartment even after completing university studies. Just tell them to shut up and stop being racist, what they see with their own eyes isn't actually happening, they are just bigots

        • derrida derider on 17/10/2022 - 13:33
          +1

          They didn't take our jerbs, but they did take our houses. But that is purely because we haven't built enough houses for everyone.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join