When Will There Be Affordable Housing?

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

• 

  Guerilla89 on 14/08/2024 - 11:59

  +2

  Honestly the answer is pretty simple. Australia has turned it's back on a generation and told them it doesn't want them to be able to afford to live here. People are already have less kids and the governments answer is to simply allow more immigrants. I think it's likely it will only get better if those living here take the hint and leave or accept a half measure like living in a house with more people or camping.

  The fact that we've decided the profit made by money is more noble and should be charged less tax than profit made by people should tell you all you need to know about how much we actually care about people. Take the hint and leave before you set roots too deep if you aren't tied down yet.

  • 

    ssfps on 14/08/2024 - 23:58

    +1

    if those living here take the hint and leave

    Not a solution, the same policies are being done worldwide in any non-third-world country.

    You could probably buy in certain parts of india, zimbabwe or bangladesh, good luck to you. (Why do you think those people are so eager to escape there? It's worse).
    What is happening is the world is equalizing slowly into one large global third world country.

• 

  RiseAndRuin on 14/08/2024 - 12:01

  +1

  Housing will get affordable again the day builders, tradies and everyone in the construction mafia accept to work for much less…

  • 

    localhost on 14/08/2024 - 12:17

    Yep, see prices of apartments over the building cost here - https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/the-shocking-figure-that…

    With building cost like $700k most of them are offered for sale for double price.

    And this is for apartments, for houses should be more.

  • 

    Some Human on 14/08/2024 - 13:11

    There's not exactly infinite land for them to build on in the major cities where everyone feels they are entitled to live.

• 

  Tiredman on 14/08/2024 - 12:32

  +2

  My kids are still very young. My aim is to buy houses for them now while i can. Going to be next to impossible for them next time. It's up to us parents to help them out as much as possible.

  • 

    coffeeinmyveins on 14/08/2024 - 15:07

    +2

    Good on you, but what about those that don't have families or their families aren't wealthy?

    The difference between the poor and rich is becoming larger and larger each day and it's scary.

    • 

      Ghost47 on 14/08/2024 - 15:38

      +1

      They'll be left behind sadly. I think there was an article yesterday about inequality growing in Australia. Property fetish in Australia is very strong.

• 

  OzzyOzbourne on 14/08/2024 - 14:10

  NEVER due to high immigration, not enough housing, little public transport, infrastructure and jobs outside of capital cities.
  Also too many politicians and influential rich people with investment properties worth millions, with favourable tax incentives, banks making billions from home loan interest and too much foreign cash coming in from Chinese property investors.
  General acceptance now that there are at least 2 working adults, or both parents working and that parents will buy their kids a house or at least give them a substantial deposit and kids will stay home into their 30's to save a deposit

• 

  LFO on 14/08/2024 - 16:17

  When Will There Be Affordable Housing?

  Perhaps the first question is: What is affordable housing?

  Most houses are bought with a bank mortgage (+ minimal deposit) so the affordability and easiness of bank mortgages could be the answer for housing.

  In a different world public housing will be the answer as not everyone will want to buy a dwelling to call it home.
  But I digress …

• 

  FlyingMiffy on 14/08/2024 - 17:56

  +1

  90% of the debate is on the demand side or how to control demand and reducing demand. That will solve 10% of the problem. This real issue is supply (cost, capability, density and infrastructure). The thing with supply though is that it takes time, and no one seem to have patience or the willingness to invest in something that doesn't provide immediate returns. It will be worst before it gets better.

  • 

    ssfps on 15/08/2024 - 00:02

    Demand is the variable that's been turned up to 11.

    Supply is still going strong, just not as strong.

    I don't want to live in your shithole shoebox apartment landscape, if you do, why not sell up and move to the UK or india?

    • 

      FlyingMiffy on 15/08/2024 - 00:16

      +1

      Yeap not sure what you are on about. You are just reinforcing my point. Most flock to the reflex reaction - reduce demand. And reduced demand has a whole heap of consequences which no doubt you know about. Supply is not going strong. Not sure which suburb you are in but if you love the non shitbox apartments, it means you are in the 600sqm block camp. Thats a great choice and i bet you want schools, amenities, hospitals, and a job near that block too. Guess what? That means infrastructure investment, urban planning and the people to build it. Thats what solves the problem, supplying the right housing to meet demand. Or is that too hard for you to comprehend?

      • 

        ssfps on 15/08/2024 - 00:20

        Whoops, you seem to have forgotten many decades existed where people had >600sqm blocks and schools and hospitals also existed.

        What's the primary difference between now and all those decades? Couldn't possibly be the demand, right?

        Lets look at your hyprocrisy another way. If, instead of +500k population this year, we had +5000k, would you still defend this notion that it's a supply problem and people talking about the demand are just "knee jerk"ing? How about +50000k? It's always a supply problem right? We just need to start living in dormitory accommodation! It's so simple!

        • 

          FlyingMiffy on 15/08/2024 - 00:27

          +2

          @ssfps: Great now you want to go back to when Australia was a population of about 10 million. So here is some economics 101 for you. Thats about 42% of current national productivity and i'm generously applying a linear rule without taking into account the rate of aging in the Australian demography minus immigration. Now what do you think happens when that 42% gets applied to everything you have, get or do today? Some simple ones for you, GDP at a 42% discount, import costs at a 58% premium, and national PayG tax receipts at 42% of it is today. Here is another secret. The USA is known to have a lower cost of living than here. One of the reasons is economies of scale. You need people for scale. Get it?

          • 

            ssfps on 15/08/2024 - 00:30

            @FlyingMiffy: Holy strawman.

            The imaginary position your attacking is very specific, and even then is relying on "GDP" as a measure of national wealth, which is a hilarious position to base your faux-humanitarian argument on.

            • 

              FlyingMiffy on 15/08/2024 - 00:43

              -1

              @ssfps: Attacking? Do you need a box of tissues? I dont really want to make you cry! The GDP is not a measure of wealth. Its productivity but sure… let me adjust myself since your education level seems a little low.

              If there was 3 babies and 3 bottles, you have balanced supply and demand. If you have 4 babies but 3 bottles, you have over demand and under supply. 3 babies and 4 bottles its under demand and over supply. In order for the community of babies to live better, the aim is for the community to get larger because larger give you greater bargaining power and productivity over time. So its always better to lift supply to meet demand than reduce demand to meet supply. Now go get youself some bottles!

              • 

                ssfps on 15/08/2024 - 01:33

                @FlyingMiffy:

                misconstrues regular usage of the word 'attack'
                uses phrase "since your education level seems a little low."

                now i get it, you're an ESL immigrant

                In order for the community of babies to live better, the aim is for the community to get larger because larger give you greater bargaining power

                If you actually believe this, just move back to india, the bargaining power there must be astronomical.

                So its always better to lift supply to meet demand than reduce demand to meet supply.

                lmao

          • 

            ssfps on 15/08/2024 - 01:38

            +1

            @FlyingMiffy:

            import costs at a 58% premium

            That's a complete non-sequitur. Australia's wealth predominantly comes from primary industry, not secondary/tech. We have the same capacity of primary industry whether we're at 5 million or 500 million people, and it's only getting more industrialized and relying on fewer people to generate. Regardless of the actual numbers, which are semi-irrelevent, individual purchasing power is not going to take a 42% hit if the population were reduced to 10 million (which, again, is a number you've pulled out of nowhere to make your strawman argument.)

            Your whole angle in these posts is i'm a dummy and you're here to "simplify" things, but you don't grasp the basics of our economy, you're a stunning example of the dunning-kruger effect.

        • 

          FlyingMiffy on 15/08/2024 - 00:29

          @ssfps: 90% is a supply issue (i did say 10% of the problem was demand). Get better at supply and watch the problem go away.

          • 

            localhost on 15/08/2024 - 00:47

            @FlyingMiffy: 100% is expectation issue. Everyone wants 4b2b2c house in good suburb for $600k.

            Nope, $2-3M and we are talking.

            It's a market and we should deal with it.

          • 

            sakurashu on 17/08/2024 - 15:49

            @FlyingMiffy: You lost me at gdp as a useful measure of anything - pushing both parents out to work has jacked gdp up and helped who? I'd love to drop back to a population of 10m

• 

  drick on 14/08/2024 - 17:59

  +1

  your poll should also have an option of "controlled release of land and building resources to inflate the price of housing"

• 

  Seraphin7 on 14/08/2024 - 18:12

  The question I always ask people is "what do you mean by affordable?"

  If the answer is along the lines of an expectation that properties you can buy today for $x suddenly fall markedly in value, then the response is never.

  If the answer is along the lines of building more affordable properties in "prime" locations, then the response will really come to whether or not relevant authorities allow supply in that area to increase, noting that "an affordable property" may be more along the lines of a two bedroom apartment, rather than a four bedroom free-stander.

  • 

    OzzyOzbourne on 15/08/2024 - 14:20

    +3

    One generation ago it meant; dad with a full time job could support his wife and kids and buy a house and go on holiday once a year.

    Now it means 2 full time working parents in reasonably well paid jobs can just afford to support their family and the mortgage repayments providing someone gave them a deposit and whilst saving to give their kids a deposit for a house they'll never afford, as long as they don't use the heating too much

• 

  eddyah on 14/08/2024 - 19:07

  +2

  Wow too much immigration being the leading vote - who knew it was ozstupid season

  Are immigrants buying houses by outbidding aussies? Are immigrants stockpiling their wealth in Aus housing assets?

  Would love to see actual proof / data to backup the votes. I'm pretty sure it's a standard ponzi scheme where the earlier you got into property the easier it's been to accumulate wealth through it. So most of property owned is actually by wealthy Australians. See our politicians and notice how much of their wealth is in property? Heard of Bruz? Heard of Allegra Spender and her property portfolio?

  For the record - i think it should be illegal for any non resident to buy property in Aus. We should also heavily tax any property that's an 'investment'.

  Everyone needs water to drink and we wouldn't privatise it so it was owned by internationals. Same goes for a roof over everyones head.

  OzIdiots need to read a book and stop looking at the news and blaming 'immigration'.

  • 

    Danger on 14/08/2024 - 19:14

    +3

    Agree, it's not like immigrants are coming with bag full of money to buy property once they land here. For me it took, 10 years to buy one.

    • 

      Ghost47 on 14/08/2024 - 21:47

      +4

      I've actually met immigrants from other Commonwealth countries who have come here with "bags of money", hundreds of thousands in fact after selling their assets overseas (and are currently renting here, trying to get into the market). They may not represent the majority of immigrants, I can't say for certain what proportion of immigrants come here with wealth but they do exist.

      Plus, affordable housing isn't just about buying houses, it's also about renting. Rents are driven mainly by demand, which is pushed up when the country is flooded with people.

      • 

        eddyah on 15/08/2024 - 13:02

        -2

        I work in IT and every immigrant I've ever met has worked hard and hasn't come with a bag of money so my impression is you have to have shit for brains to think immigration is the cause of high house prices.

        Everyone is an immigrant to this country. The political rhetoric now is the same theatre as what 'boat people' were in Tony Abbott days. If you have too much of a jelly brain to remember you probably shouldn't have a vote IMO.

        • 

          Ghost47 on 15/08/2024 - 14:54

          +2

          @eddyah: I’m sure there are some poor immigrants who come here and work in IT. Just like the immigrants who come here and work as Uber drivers. Just because immigrants don’t buy houses it doesn’t mean that they don’t make housing unaffordable. Rents are sky high right now and guess why? Because people are flooding the country and pushing up demand for housing, meaning landlords and real estate agents can call the shots.

          Everyone is an immigrant to this country.

          An immigrant is someone who moves to another country and lives there permanently, if I was born in this country does that make me an immigrant? Are the millions of people who were born in this country immigrants? Because by that logic then yeah, immigrants would still be pushing up rents and house prices wouldn’t they?

        • 

          Bargainz on 16/08/2024 - 14:21

          @eddyah: We dont want them here, i dont care what they contribute as all they add is inflating the ponzi scheme

      • 

        JDMcarfan on 15/08/2024 - 14:54

        +3

        but thats how the world works. If they have the legal "right to live" here then they should be able to bring their funds to find a source of accommodation.

        There's thousands of Aussies who do the same across the world, and honestly the impact of Aussies overseas would be even more profound (esp in developing countries) as we can afford much more than a local can, pricing them out of their regions too (except at a scale much worse than we see here).
        I come from a Commonwealth country that has seen large emigration to G20 countries, and following 20-40 years in there, return to said country and price out the locals so bad, that housing is quoted in USD and is priced to the equivalent of American house prices for a country with a median wage less than $10k.

        I say specifically the "right to live" here, to remove speculatory (int. student) /captial flight migrants who bring money from other countries (mainly China) purely to invest in a stable secure asset outside of their domestic control. They need to be restricted or taxed to oblivion.

        • 

          Ghost47 on 15/08/2024 - 19:07

          +1

          @JDMcarfan: Yep, agree with everything you've said. Don't hate the player, hate the game. Immigrants come here to try and make a better life for themselves, it's the uniparty that has enabled these reckless levels of immigration and everyday Aussies are starting to suffer more and more. First the poorest will suffer and then it will slowly creep upwards into the "middle class" and then the upper class and it won't stop.

          And yes, I agree with Aussies/Westerners moving to places like SE Asia affect the locals there even worse. You could be average in Australia but rich in SE Asia, and why do they move? Because they're fed up with what's happening in this country.

  • 

    ssfps on 15/08/2024 - 00:02

    +7

    "Show me proof that increased demand causes prices to increase"

    Seriously…?

    Investment only works because there is a sustained and increasing demand. If you cut immigration all those big evil "investors" would have nobody paying to live in those homes - then they stop being investments, and they become tulips. All the arguments about negative gearing, or foreign investors, or taxation or subsides for investment homes etc would all become completely irrelevant.

    This is not theoretical. Look at japan's housing market due to no immigration/population growth.
    OR
    Look at farming regions in australia with decreasing populations due to increased industrialization of agriculture (yes, there are regions that had lowering pops for decades). Those houses GOT CHEAPER. Nobody wanted to invest there, because houses were sitting empty and prices didn't increase.

    Yet another example, mining towns. Mining is cyclicial and there are towns where the average property price would jump up to $1 million during a boom, then drop to $150k in a bust cycle when the town is a ghost town.

    This shouldn't shock you, because it's literally the most basic principle of economics - supply and demand.

    It floors me how obtuse so many of you 'immigration white knights' will be.

    • 

      eddyah on 15/08/2024 - 13:03

      -3

      Wow I didn't write that at all so clearly you are an idiot for lying about what i've written.

      • 

        Ghost47 on 15/08/2024 - 14:56

        +2

        What’s with the insults? What’s wrong with you?

        • 

          eddyah on 19/08/2024 - 22:42

          @Ghost47: the dude was quoting me as if i said the below which i did not:

          Show me proof that increased demand causes prices to increase

    • 

      tempco on 17/08/2024 - 14:41

      Japan's housing market isn't affordable because of the lack of immigration, but because the Japanese government basically nationalised the housing finance market after WW2.

  • 

    whatgift on 15/08/2024 - 17:00

    -2

    Yeah immigration is the current scapegoat, and yet there doesn't seem to be any conclusive data backing that up. Immigration is important to Australia.

    • 

      Ghost47 on 15/08/2024 - 19:03

      +3

      There's data out there actually. Check out the last two charts on this page. It's rents but not house prices, but considering more and more people can't afford to buy anymore that makes rents even more important.

      There's just too many people competing for too few properties/resources. It's not only affecting people's ability to get housing, we are now importing 1.4 migrants per job created. Nearly 1/3 of Australians are now born overseas. IMO the social cohesion in this country is being destroyed because more and more of us are coming from completely different backgrounds. Our GDP per capita is in recession now and our living standards have worsened. Some people who we have happily allowed into the country are dishonest and happy to screw other people over (inb4 rAcIsT), so we're effectively importing scamming grifters and thieves. Tent cities have started to appear in various states over the past few years because a) there aren't enough houses and b) people are rent-bidding (which is banned in most states and territories) to secure them. Inflation (if the numbers are at all accurate) has started to increase since the March quarter and is still above the RBA's target band and inflation hurts everybody, importing heaps of people simply pumps up aggregate demand and just makes it even worse.

      If people don't want to acknowledge immigration as being a problem for the housing market they can at least acknowledge that it's turning into a net negative for this country. It is completely possible for something that was once beneficial to become detrimental. We do not have the infrastructure to support such a booming population, it is only sensible to put that in place first before allowing so many people into the country.

      I just don't know how anyone can advocate for these extreme levels of immigration if they actually care about this country and the people who live here. We used to import 80k - 120k people into the country each year but since ~2008 both sides of the uniparty have started to import 200k+ per year. It is simply unsustainable and reckless.

      • 

        whatgift on 15/08/2024 - 19:35

        Some interesting points there - any data on the contribution migrants make for this country, the jobs they take that Australians are either unqualified or unwilling to take?

        While there is some argument to make that the amount of housing is insufficient, cutting immigration isn’t going to suddenly change that or make it go away.

        • 

          Bargainz on 16/08/2024 - 14:20

          @whatgift: Lets have a referendum on it then. Mass deportations would drop housing overnight

          • 

            JIMB0 on 16/08/2024 - 22:10

            @Bargainz: I'd vote for deporting the riff raff. Only trouble is which country would be willing to take in the ferals.

        • 

          Ghost47 on 16/08/2024 - 18:16

          +1

          @whatgift: I don't really have much data on that except for what I've experienced personally. I've met plenty of immigrants in white collar roles, it's not uncommon in large organisations I would think. Some of these immigrants arrived here a long time ago and some have arrived more recently. Some of these roles I would think that someone fresh out of uni could be able to do with some training/certification through the employer (e.g. scrum leader, digital marketers, data scientists, BDMs). I have read about cases where doctors have come from overseas but had a hard time landing a role because they have no local experience.

          There are definitely a lot of immigrants doing jobs that Aussies are unwilling to take, e.g. food delivery, cleaners etc. Whether that is a good or bad thing I'm not sure, to me it seems like we're importing people and conning them into a good life in Australia but they're working for (presumably) low wages that would be hard to sustain a decent living, and I noticed this in Sydney where the COL is high. I'm not sure if their employers set them up with accommodation or if they share house together with several other people to keep costs low though.

          Didn't downvote you FYI.

          • 

            whatgift on 17/08/2024 - 16:45

            +1

            @Ghost47: I don't mind being downvoted, since I still haven't seen any actual link between migration and the housing crisis, other than broad correlations which do not necessary mean causation.

            Some interesting counterpoints here: https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/article/2024/may/3… and https://theconversation.com/think-curbing-overseas-migration….

      • 

        eddyah on 19/08/2024 - 22:47

        Tent cities have started to appear in various states over the past few years because a) there aren't enough houses and b) people are rent-bidding

        Yeah tent embassy in Canberra is run by immigrants. The ones that came 40000 years ago by boat or land bridge or whatever…robbing hard working Aussies 40000 years ago of their land.

  • 

    Bargainz on 16/08/2024 - 14:23

    +1

    Clearly youre an immigrant. Founding stock have had enough. Its blatantly obvious looking at a basic line graph what has caused it (net immigration vs housing cost). HINT: IMMIGRATION

    • 

      whatgift on 17/08/2024 - 16:47

      I'm assuming you're being sarcastic - but yes, it is indeed a correlation being made without any causation being proven!

  • 

    Wayne7497 on 16/08/2024 - 16:24

    You assume all immigrants are going to buy, nope most will rent which then has large impact on property prices simple supply and demand.

• 

  MindGrenadius on 14/08/2024 - 20:25

  +6

  Between the:
  - DeBeers style slow release of supply by government
  - Ridiculous, excessive tax concessions for property that you won't find anywhere else and
  - extreme debt re-leveraging & mortgage gambling encouraged by all of the above
  - record population growth (despite birthrates being below replacement because no one can afford it)

  …it's not going anywhere anytime soon.

  There is a constant throughout history though - manipulated markets don't last. Being in a one of a kind 40-year+ bull market has conditioned the participants to think this will go on forever and gains are always guaranteed so it's OK that it bleeds money every day. It will unwind and snap back to truer values at some point.

  As soon as people start seeing capital losses and wealth destruction as well as real losses every week, property will become hot potatoes pretty quickly leading to oversupply and even more drops and the vicious cycle begins. Yeah, people have been calling for a crash in Aus property for eons, but when it does eventually happen it will be spectacular.

  The really sad thing is all that "wealth" that most hold in their PPOR is worth diddly. You can't ever realise it without being homeless or going into debt with the exception of downsizing. Zero sum game.

• 

  furyou on 14/08/2024 - 22:00

  +4

  heaps of Affordable Housing. Affordable Housing occurs when nobody wants to buy so prices drop. So in whoop whoop and beyond. Where there are no jobs etc.

  Oh, you want Affordable Housing in Desirable Locations?
  Yeah nah.

  • 

    ssfps on 15/08/2024 - 00:12

    +3

    So in whoop whoop and beyond.

    Not even true anymore, the regions have seen a big increase in demand, partly from city dwellers looking for an investment they can afford when their metro area is out of reach, and partly from people going for a sea change because they want to buy and can't afford in the city.
    A large region area around me has increased +25% in the last ~18 months…

• 

  fprjet on 14/08/2024 - 22:31

  +1

  Greedy Landlords…lol …..What a joke. Government has taken away mostbenefits of owning an investment property, then in Vic hit With $1ooo co vid tax per year for 10 years, increased land tax, annual / bi yearly electricity/ gas inspections, fit split cycle by 2025. During Co vid have to discount rent at Landlords expense ( goverment called it negotiate). In Victoria landlords are selling up big time yet property prices are not dropping…Go figure and then to add icing to the cake the goverment doesn't want Mum and dad investors as landlords they want to use your super and be your landlords….https://www.smh.com.au/money/super-and-retirement/why-super-funds-may-be-hesitant-to-invest-in-australian-housing-20220907-p5bg5r.html ….Good luck with that….Remember when childcare was affordable????Then the goverment got involved……

• 

  wimphrel on 14/08/2024 - 23:16

  +1

  What you've described seems to be the norm: google cost of 'houses' in Hong Kong, Singapore, hell it was even crazy over in NZ when I looked out of curiosity.

  Only the rich will be able to afford houses in the big capitals in countries with educated & well-rounded people, free healthcare & education.
  Further away from the CBD, you can still find sort of affordable 'housing' (not houses - i.e. apartments & townhouses). WFH, if a company can tolerate it, can be a blessing (I understand not all industries can do that), but it does allow staff to decentralise & live further away to save $$$. Some of my colleagues live in outer Brisbane and they've paid off their 4 bedder cos they didn't cost much before covid. You don't really need a high salary if you've paid off your PPOR.

  I sold my old 2 bedder (PPOR turned into IP) in Jun this year for something that is achievable on Sydney median salary, not much gain over the 12 years I had it for. Sold it to a young couple starting a family. I sold it for the reasons outlined above: interest rate is high & having all the money in the offset would beat rent + gains (It's return was worse than a savings account). The council has a good habit of supporting high density zoning, and they plan to build another 20K apartments (hopefully they can keep up with the schools/infrastructure around that). It's a nice suburb to live in for the price.

  One thing I'd point out -> forcing all landlords to sell their houses would be a small reprieve to any affordability issues for 'houses'. You have plenty of apartment owners ready to pounce to upgrade their PPOR to cushion any fall in 'house' pricing due to the small supply increase (i.e. it will probably benefit middle-income earners, but would still not help low-income earners). If you want young people to all own land, you'd need the government or some philanthropic billionaire to build a crapload of houses further away from CBDs & reserve a lot of them at a low price for low income earners (e.g. rent to own models). The mini CBD idea has worked well in some suburbs. Sydney has huge housing estates 1.5 hours west that now have homes exceeding $1M cos the councils & govt build a lot of infrastructure to support them (I remember they were selling off the plan for around $600-700K a decade ago).

• 

  Stevecro on 15/08/2024 - 09:15

  +5

  We will never be able to build enough houses with the immigration levels as they are now. All the current government seems to think is we can build our way out of this mess which is impossible with the amount of people coming into this country. Immigration needs to be drastically reduced or stopped for at least 5 years while trying to build more houses otherwise we will never catch up.

  Like others have already said, the immigrants coming into this country are not benefitting the housing industry, they aren't skilled builders, carpenters, tilers etc. many are unskilled and sit on government benefits for years, I have seen this with first hand experience.

  Stamp duty needs to be abolished for all first home buyers. Foreign buyers should be restricted from purchasing properties or heavily taxed with additional duties and fees

  • 

    cloudy on 16/08/2024 - 06:52

    the immigrants coming into this country are not benefitting the housing industry, they aren't skilled builders, carpenters, tilers etc. many are unskilled and sit on government benefits for years, I have seen this with first hand experience

    Can you elaborate more on your first hand experience?

    How does immigrants on government benefits afford the houses? I know many people on wages well above government benefits that can’t afford a house.

  • 

    Bargainz on 16/08/2024 - 14:19

    +3

    Immigration is a ponzi scheme, housing and consoomers for infinite growth so the rich traitors get richer

• 

  Goremans on 15/08/2024 - 09:33

  The answer is all of the above. Its death by a thousand cuts. But the obvious big tickets everyone knows.

  When, will it be affordable? Crystal Ball 🔮 anyone?

  Lots of moving parts, manufacturing leaving China, Russia/Ukraine, Iran/Israel (imo unlikely to be a large conflict (could be wrong)), supply issues post covid ripples (I was in international logistics during covid…not fun).

  We give China the ability to build with steel. Their economy is tanking - they'll either keep blowing up perfectly ok bridges, only to rebuild so to prop up GDP - or they'll do Taiwan (imo unlikely). Already rumours about Xi's fall on the way.

• 

  thermal66 on 15/08/2024 - 10:40

  i'm more annoyed at the poll options not matching the subject question.

• 

  Brianqpr on 15/08/2024 - 12:17

  +1

  Missing the option of the tax system overly encouraging buying multiple properties.

• 

  pebee47 on 15/08/2024 - 12:43

  Never.
  No matter which era, ‘housing’ has always been considered expensive by the average Joe.

• 

  Gdsamp on 15/08/2024 - 12:43

  +1

  No never. Nothing ever happens

• 

  jsediv on 15/08/2024 - 13:01

  My Magic 8 Ball says: Don't count on it

• 

  Grunntt on 15/08/2024 - 14:28

  -2

  These threads are always so hilarious - all of the armchair experts who know the simple answer to extremely complex issues.
  Why are none of them out there actually doing something about it?
  Easier to sit at the computer with the answer to everything and expect others to fix it because you said this is the way.
  Or, just maybe, you don't actually know as much about everything as you think?
  All these threads do is get people riled up and pointing at their favourite target to blame for everything wrong with the world. eg it's the government, boomers, immigrants, foreign investors, the capitalist system etc etc ad nauseum.

  I guess this is the current version of all the old guys sitting in the village square fixing the problems of the world.

  May be we should just tack these threads onto the end of the one about the problems with Whirlpool forums - looks like the users have migrated here to avoid the mods over there.

  • 

    askbargain on 15/08/2024 - 14:33

    Since you’re so smart, why doesn’t government get rid of negative gearing if not self interest

    • 

      JimB on 15/08/2024 - 15:40

      Because negative gearing isn't solely related to properties.

      Negative gearing also applies to shares and other investments.

      FYI, I'm not a fan of negative gearing. I prefer an investment that makes me money rather than lose money.

      • 

        cloudy on 16/08/2024 - 06:49

        Excuses, if you wanted you can simply state debt taken for property is not deductible and your problem is solved.

        • 

          JimB on 16/08/2024 - 11:59

          @cloudy: You can but why should the tax office single out property interest deductions over other assets?

          • 

            cloudy on 16/08/2024 - 22:29

            @JimB: Thats not for the ATO to decide, if we make it our policy its policy. If people care about this issue and determine its in the best interest to do so and legislated by parliment then the ATO will have to enforce it and we need to respect its the law.

  • 

    Ghost47 on 15/08/2024 - 19:24

    +1

    Why are none of them out there actually doing something about it?

    People who raise awareness about this issue and discuss it even if it's on an online forum do way more than people who complain about those people on an online forum.

    Do you not see the irony in your comment?

• 

  Darude Sandstorm on 15/08/2024 - 17:36

  more wfh more affordable houses get bought elsewhere, more suburbs and cities grow, more houses get built. ez
  Stop investing in commercial real estate where people cannot live and 40% of our labour building force is.

• 

  91rs on 15/08/2024 - 18:13

  +2

  "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."

  No not really, that's not really true for most people and seems more of a "oh it was cheap looking back" situation.
  I know plenty of people with 60-120min commutes each way who moved as it was cheaper than being closer to a East coast city so they could buy something, but it still wasn't cheap and required 2 FT salaries to service or even be given the loan by the bank.
  Some of those are now much worse off now as they still have long commutes, higher fuel prices, higher interest rates to go with it.

  I don't think we will see the return of affordable housing and there will always be a higher barrier to entry while people want to move/live in Australia.
  If does become cheap then it will wipe out so many people we will have bigger issues as a country, but then watch as foreign people and companies around the world scramble to buy up housing.
  We can't build enough for the amount of people who become residents and that number is compounding each year making rentals so much worse for everyone who lives in them or is trying to secure one. People will put up with lower living conditions if it means they have something.
  The cost of building from a materials and labor side has gotten worse since 2020/21 with even more builders going bust leaving people without houses arguing with insurance companies.

  Then there are the ones who arrive with cash in hand for deposits or large chunks of a mortgage for property, both neighbors on either side of me were like that, both also have family who have either moved here or are in the process doing the exact same thing to get away from home.
  That wont be the majority but its more than it used to be, that also puts strain on everything else that the govt has under funded and neglected for decades, schools, hospitals, PT, roads.
  Urban planning is a disaster and developers take the cash and run without contributing anything but problems to an area that gets developed, this happens time and time again with no consequences.

  Quality of life for many Australians has gone down significantly due to all of this in the last 10-15 years or more as its ramped up at our expense.

• 

  ozb4rgained on 15/08/2024 - 19:33

  Its simple.

  Everything is relative, take this video for example. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=3508669102793244
  The young couple thinks its too expensive, the older generation who though it was satisfactory.

  There have been so many opportunities for the majority of people who now complain they cant afford to buy a house, to have bought a house. But many of them are entitled, poor minded, and not willing to take a risk. When housing was cheap, people didn't see the need to buy it. Leaving the risk takers, investors to take a chance and buy the property themselves. People will always want what they can't have and take for granted the things that they can.

• 

  cloudy on 16/08/2024 - 07:15

  I’m surprised WFH hasn’t been mentioned here.

  I know of a couple, both on high incomes - DINK- living in their 2 bedroom place all their lives. But recently they mentioned they’re looking for a 3 or 4 bedder. Which surprised me, I asked why, and they said they wanted more room for when they WFH they don’t need to clean the dining table to make space for the laptop etc. having an extra bedroom as an office would be ideal.

  Here I am looking at the same real estate with a family of 4 in competition with a couple for the same house.

  aside note, there are zero immigrants competing for houses where I’m looking, zilch.

  But I do know of many crappy apartments where people don’t want as permanent homes housing immigrants as they are cheap and affordable but locals don’t want to live there as they are not considered desirable.

• 

  someone else on 16/08/2024 - 09:29

  When the problem is actually addressed without BS: more houses.

  As that's not interesting for the government and its supporters/members, probably never.

• 

  Prosp24 on 16/08/2024 - 10:43

  +6

  I have worked in the land development industry for over a decade, things will only get worse.

  The government only has a very shallow focus and is top heavy with bureaucrats more interested in comms, PR, positive "engagement", public perception, media and marketing than solving any real issues.

  Unlike 30+ years ago, government departments now only do that which is conventional to avoid potential litigation or negative media attention at all costs, this means avoiding anything even slightly new, innovative or risky. Instead everyone plays dumb, outsources decision making, falls in line, avoids drawing attention and "groupthink" is the new norm.

  The real work is left to the private development industry, which serves the interests of the extremely wealthy large landowners, they develop and subdivide their holdings at their own slow pace (drip feeding the market) to maintain the current high prices and the profitability of their operations. It simply would not be in their interests to oversupply the market contrary to the many narratives in the public of supply and demand. This is commonly referred to as "land banking"

  The government has all the ability to disrupt this, for example to become a player by creating an authority, to selectively acquire large agricultural lots, rezone, subdivide/develop and mass release them at cost neutral prices. But this would be new (actually innovative, not just a name), risky, step on the toes of the rich and powerful, and be subject to criticism, scrutiny, subject to mismanagement or exploitation (look at NDIS) and most importantly not be well understood or marketable to the public.

  Without proper public education, issues will only get worse as those with the power to make a difference are not held accountable. The many comments in this post are a good example of how limited public understanding is to what has been presented in the media.

  • 

    mrdean on 16/08/2024 - 10:47

    +1

    Have you thought about sharing your experience, views, potential solutions to a political party like One Nation? It might help them formulate a better vision for how things could/should be done in this area, as well as highlighting how things really work.

  • 

    cloudy on 16/08/2024 - 22:35

    selectively acquire large agricultural lots, rezone, subdivide/develop and mass release them at cost neutral prices

    I don't see how building a ton of houses on farm land will help, who wants to live on farm land when their place of work is probably 2 hours away during peak commutes?

    I've seen some new housing estates in the outskirts…no one wants to live there. Often there is one major road in or out of the estate and to head into nearest town you gotta drive a few km away first before you can U turn on the highway back towards civilisation.

• 

  justworld on 16/08/2024 - 11:18

  Building more houses isn't going to change the fact that some households have 5x the income of other households and can afford to buy IPs.

  Housing is affordable by definition: otherwise sellers wouldn't find buyers and there'd be a market crash. What OP is really asking is, when will poor people be able to afford detached houses. Answer - never. You can still find a cheap unit anywhere (plenty of 2BR Melb units selling for $600k) but then people want a detached house, with a yard, in a half-decent suburb…and that's gonna cost you.

• 

  pnt on 16/08/2024 - 11:37

  Imo, serviced, ready to build, land can be produced for $65k - i.e. (https://www.realestate.com.au/property-residential+land-nsw-….

  Everything else on top (i.e $300k+) of that for fringe city development is unsusustainable, and cannot last (in a competitive and efficient market).

  I've been wrong for 25 years now, so i guess "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.".

  • 

    JimB on 16/08/2024 - 12:06

    Very few people will want to uproot their lives to live in Coonabarabran.

    The town has less than 2,500 people. Where are all the jobs?

    I’d be willing to bet half the people would leave Coonabarabran if they had the means to.

    Median property price is $275k, so if they sold up, where could they afford to move to?

    • 

      pnt on 16/08/2024 - 12:30

      The point is not location, the point is the cost to supply serviced land. It is cheap, we have heaps of fringe land in major and regional cities, and it is all overpriced far above the cost of supply.

      • 

        JimB on 16/08/2024 - 12:45

        Infrastructure for a new development isn’t cheap.

        The land owners would want to sell it for as much as they can, so do the developers, council wants a clip etc etc.

        It will last as long as people wish to live in the city.

• 

  Bargainz on 16/08/2024 - 14:17

  +5

  When mass deportations finally start

• 

  rilebags on 16/08/2024 - 14:30

  +2

  Close the borders, negative immigration, I don't care if your boomer property portfolio requires infinite third world demand.

• 

  squaredonut on 16/08/2024 - 15:15

  +2

  I think we will never get out of this cycle, call me a cynic, but there's quite a bit to it, there won't be any projected date or time frame where you would think it is going to be affordable. Firstly, it's demand, and lets not mistake that there's always going to be people who have the money and capacity to take over from people who can no longer afford it.

  I mean another GFC might cool the market and end up weeding out people who over leveraged and greedy with hanging onto multiple properties. But you gotta look to how our government behaves. During the beginning of COVID I was really expecting it to dip, but you never really accounted that the governments would all but protect the country by printing more money. Any time the government intervenes they usually screw things up even more, and I feel that the money printing honestly destroyed a lot, if anything it should have been interest free loans that got people over the line.

  Now back to the issue at hand, I don't know what industry you work in, but I'm in IT, and if you've ever been in an organisation where there is backlog of debt work, this is how the housing market is, rushing it won't help as you introduce more poor quality work, but not doing anything will make things difficult. So you're likely going to try and splash money at the problem and try to solve it, but without good reform and changes I can't see how this will help.

  There is no doubt the future generation won't be living in stand alone dwellings, not unless they live out. But can you even trust apartments being built in this country? It provides absolutely no guarantee with it's poor quality. It honestly leads to no hope for many in the future I feel.

  • 

    Poor Ass on 16/08/2024 - 16:08

    +1

    I mean another GFC might cool the market and end up weeding out people who over leveraged and greedy with hanging onto multiple properties

    Unless they don't have any loans on them

• 

  syousef on 16/08/2024 - 17:07

  -5

  Go to love the casual racism. "Too much immigration" leading the poll by a huge margin, completely ignoring the waves of migration that helped build this country, latest of which was the post WW2 migration of the 50s and 60s. The difference was there was plenty of supply added to meet the demand. If we're going to be a bunch of racists, maybe rename the board to OzBogan, and be done with it.

  • 

    Maz78 on 16/08/2024 - 17:45

    +2

    How is it racism when it's a fair observation of the current landscape?!
    We have too many people in our capital cities and shithouse infrastructure.
    Governments and their building mates/lobbies only want more people.
    More people = more demand. More demand = higher prices. (Especially when supply is outstripped or deliberately restricted). It's basic economics.

    • 

      cloudy on 16/08/2024 - 22:42

      TBF, we've had unaffordable housing well before the current fashion of bash the immigrants. In fact, when we had zero migration due to covid house prices was still unaffordable to many by most measures. As long as I've been looking, property prices has only gone one way and its been outstripping wage growth for a long time.

      Sometimes I wonder if shows like the Block has to answer for anything by creating all this housing porn feeding the national addiction to property.

    • 

      syousef on 17/08/2024 - 07:44

      The reason we have too many people is planning that has focused on artificial scarcity to intentionally drive up prices and therefore profits. The immigration isn't the issue at all. You could have made the same argument about demand in the 60s, but they actually developed not just parcels of land, but supporting infrastructure.

  • 

    drprox on 16/08/2024 - 18:53

    I think you better dial back your sensitivity and look up a definition of racism.

    • 

      syousef on 17/08/2024 - 07:44

      -2

      I think you better go fly a kite. Don't like my opinion? GOOD! If you play bash the immigrant, I hope my comment is as irritating as sand in your underwear. Many of the things you enjoy and take for granted were built with immigrant labour. Is that insensitive enough for you, champ?

  • 

    meowbert on 17/08/2024 - 11:51

    -1

    So your argument is that there was limited immigration in the past, therefore we should accept a massive amount of immigration now? Even though our country, world, and people in it have massively changed?

    • 

      syousef on 19/08/2024 - 07:28

      -1

      No that's not my argument. That's just your reductio ad absurdum strawman hybrid junk argument. Please point to the place on the straw man dolly where I said "we should accept a massive amount of immigration now". Also by "limited immigration in the past" you mean waves of immigration that literally helped build infrastructure, agriculture and industry. You should have studied that at school, along with logical fallacies.

• 

  James Tabby on 17/08/2024 - 11:04

  1 in 33 people in Australia is an International Student.

  Proof

  Mandate International Students to be confined to working in the Construction Industry.

  That should solve the issue. It's a construction costs issue. This is why so many construction companies have gone under within the past two years. Apparently one is going under each week.

  Actually it's worse, two construction companies are going bust every day

  4 every day in the last financial year? Points to dailytelegraph.

  • 

    Trying2SaveABuck on 17/08/2024 - 16:24

    Blame the current government they have poured petrol on all the issues you mention

    the same people who are complaining about rent/housing costs are the same ones that voted for them

    Im not saying the last government where good but the current leadership is freaken woeful (honestly dont think i have seen a worse PM then Albo and i have seen Abbott, Turnbull and Ruud) but the same people moaning will vote for them again so i couldnt care less - i have kind of lost empthay for the moaners if im being honest

• 

  TheMindsetTraveller on 17/08/2024 - 11:35

  100% NIMBYs who cause planning laws to be so 1900s

  I mean, I would love to build a low-density 8 x 1 or 2 bedroom units on my land (instead of the 1 home that is on it right now) but I can't because the council (let alone all the neighbours will cry) won't let me.

  It is my land, I should do the heck the want with it - that's the principle.

• 

  tempco on 17/08/2024 - 14:35

  I feel like millennials/Gen Y were the last gen to realistically buy a PPOR without family help. Gen Z and younger are screwed, so they'll be the cohort to push through real reform to make housing affordable again. We need a Japan-like revamp of housing:

  After millions of houses were burned in the Second World War, there was a shortage of about 4.2 million units, exacerbated by the postwar baby boom. In that context, the government of Japan undertook a “three-pillars” approach:

  • The Government Housing Loan Corporation (GHLC) was established in 1950 to provide liquidity to mortgage markets;
  • the 1951 Publicly-Operated Housing Act authorized “Local Government Units” (LGUs) to construct public rental houses for low-income people;
  • in 1955 the Japan Housing Corporation (JHC), established “to promote collective construction of housing and the large-scale supply of residential land for middle-income people, mainly in major urban areas,” addressed the needs of people migrating from rural to urban areas.

  Between 1954 and 2019, cumulative migration into three of Japan’s major metropolitan areas was 12 million people – of whom 10 million moved to Tokyo’s metropolitan area. This massive migration created a significant housing shortage in urban areas, especially during the 1950s and 1960s. It was alleviated in part by large public sector loans from the Fiscal Investment and Loan Program (FILP) under the Ministry of Finance.

  FILP raised funds from postal savings and national pensions nationwide, thus mobilizing unused financial resources that otherwise might have been devoted to less productive uses – an excellent example of how Japan both encouraged and capitalized on its famously high savings rate. As a result, the GHLC financed the construction of 19.4 million homes nationwide between 1950 and 2007, when it was replaced by the Japanese Housing Finance Agency (JFA). Overall, the “three pillars” oversaw the construction of 76.7 million units for 54 million households between 1948 and 2020.

  Source

• 

  Gros21 on 17/08/2024 - 16:35

  +2

  its going to be a combo of every thing.

  I think the growth of WFH and hybrid work arrangements have meant a 4 person family (2 adults 2 kids) now wants a 4 or 5 bedroom house the office isn't simply a kitchen table or desk in the kids bedroom.

  Its no tthe landlords fault for owning property nor wanting market rates. I bet people selling cars that have held or went up in value are asking market rates not well i bought this XE falcon 20 years ago its done 250k km for 5k ill better only ask 1k. No they don't the ask for market prices.

  I do think every property past your first should be taxed at a extra 1% so ma and pa can afford a rental property with minimal excess but investor joe with 10 property's is paying 10% extra would be ideal.

  Also adjust the pension to take into consideration the persons PPOR value any thing above states average is included in the means test this would force people to down size. Plus stop grandma Karren from sitting on 2mill+ of property, while still on the pension.

  You would be amazed hoe many pensioners are towing 300k down the road in a 300 series and massive caravans while still wanting pension discounts.

  Encourage trades and reduce stamp duties, taxes and other BS.

  Social housing should have a very strict rules you fuk up you are out. Place trashed or damage and evict them hold them to the same standards as a standard tenant.
  Having said that govt builidng masses of social housing isnt really an option the ROI is horrible and well its not all about ROI it should be considered a ~300k place would help one family.

  What social housing thats being built should be spread out ALOT further, im not talking the sticks but instead of brissy im talking more places Toowoomba, Bundy, gladstone, Rockhampton, Mackay, Townsville and cairns. Surly its better helping 2 family's over 1 family.

  Someone should not be living in a 1mil property well on wellfare. That could buy a set of 4 units elseware.

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5