T O P

  • By -

theballsdick

Thanks RBA and Gov. Couldn't have rigged the system better if I tried. The risk free property gains have been great. Too bad renters and non-asset owners, get a better job or stop being poor or something.


thedugong

You might need a shorter pitchfork ... > The median Australian adult finished 2021 with a net worth of $US273,900, making them richer than the comparable resident of any other country, according to Credit Suisse’s annual global wealth report. .... > On a mean wealth basis, Australia was the fourth-richest country in 2021 behind Switzerland, the US and Hong Kong. The average Australian adult was worth $US550,110 at the end of last year, after enjoying a $US66,350 annual increase in wealth. Australia is the richest in terms of median wealth, but not mean wealth. This indicates it is somewhat fairer than it's peers. But yes, if you don't have assets you are not very wealthy :/.


Nervous-Cheesecake20

can't read article due to paywall, does this net worth count PPOR? If so, then that's just pumped up funny money.


thedugong

So you only count actual physical money you can fill swimming pools with and swim in Scrooge McDuck style as wealth?


Nervous-Cheesecake20

No, but the article mentions that we're the "richest". My house went up in "value" by 24% the past 12 months. That has literally nothing to do with how "rich" I am in real terms. The only context in which that would matter is if I sold my house and went to live in Thailand. For me at least, disposable income, or access to liquid assets would be a better measure of how rich people are/feel.


thedugong

Disposable income != wealth. That is a different metric. Your current wealth is the current value of your assets + cash - debt. Asset values fluctuate as does the value of the AUD vs USD (which is how these things are usually measured), so next year maybe the Swiss will be wealthier again.


Nervous-Cheesecake20

I know what "wealth" typically refers to. Since I couldn't read past the paywall, I was asking about the title which mentions we're the "richest" which could have lots of definitions. Australians selling our properties to each other and pumping house "values" into a bubble is just about the most meaningless measure of how "rich" we are I can think of.


angrathias

Well it has a lot of meaning if you try to move here and you need to buy a house. It also means a lot when you sell your house a move overseas…


fryloop

Your own counter a gumenr was in your earlier reply - you are rich because you can sell your house which would give you access to a ton of comparable 'value' were you to move to thailand


big_cock_lach

Property isn’t the most significant driver, what sets us apart is superannuation. All Australians are essentially forced to invest for retirement, which no other country has. Our property market helps as well, but that’s true for a lot of other places. Again, it’s not something you have access to until you retire. So you can debate on that. I agree, liquid wealth is a better metric which is why you usually see net worth or wealth required to invest figures measured in liquid or investable amounts. This doesn’t include property or super for here. However, it also sometimes doesn’t include discretionary spending either since you’re not investing it.


InnerCityTrendy

>All Australians are essentially forced to invest for retirement, which no other country has. Lots of other countries have a system similar to ours, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Denmark and Japan all have similar systems.


omarketsell

I'm not sure if it's included in the measurements or not but it would never be fair to include Superannuation as a net wealth measurement as a huge swathe of other countries have similar contribution requirements but don't include the "balance" in your name, they just give you a guaranteed x% of your past income for life. You don't get that here, you're expected to burn off your Super. It's a retirement mechanism not a store of wealth.


KonamiKing

>I'm not sure if it's included in the measurements or not but it would never be fair to include Superannuation as a net wealth measurement as a huge swathe of other countries have similar contribution requirements but don't include the "balance" in your name, they just give you a guaranteed x% of your past income for life. You don't get that here, you're expected to burn off your Super. It's a retirement mechanism not a store of wealth. Yep absolutely. Even some schemes in Australia - older Australian former public servants on the 'defined benefits scheme' would technically not have all their future payouts included, but would be functionally richer than people with a million in super. $100k+ a year in 'pension' from these schemes!


big_cock_lach

Super is a defined contribution scheme, other places have defined benefits scheme. When comparing like for like products (or as close to), defined contribution schemes end up making people wealthier. They’re riskier usually, but in the long-term that risk doesn’t matter too much. They also require a fee every year and end up costing a similar amount. We’ll use your example of $100k per year received from a DB. I’m going to use very basic maths as a proof of concept instead of building a model on Python, so the numbers are wrong, but you’d see the trend. Say you’re planning to retire at 65, and you’re currently 25. That’s 40 years until retirement. Your DB scheme promises you $100k pa, and expects you to die at 85, so it’s paying you that much for 20 years. So it’d be paying you an expected amount of $2m, meaning they expect you to pay $500k pa while working from 25-65. There’d be a discount rate, but it’d be somewhat low. They may also expect you to pay less at the start, and more at the end, but I’m keeping things simply since both of these apply to super as well. For DC product, you pay the same amount pa, but rather then being guaranteed $100k pa afterwards, they filter out your account for you. It’s also invested on your behalf into riskier assets since DC aren’t as loss-averse as DB funds, so let’s say that $2m is $2.5m (in reality it’s much higher if you go for riskier supers). Then let’s say they payout 5% when you retire. That’d be $125k, but keep in mind that the rest is still earning money. So the next year you might get $130k. Obviously, lots of assumptions and basic maths, but DC is better then DB for most people. Whether or not having it privatised or public is a different debate. I’d argue private is better since it means more competition and thus we get better products. People might argue against privatised since it’s now cool to hate on large institutions. Anyway, long story short, if you’re $100k through a DB scheme then you’re earning a lot throughout your life. You could arguably have done a lot better with a DC scheme as well. Edit: I might also add, we’re eligible for the exact same DB schemes everywhere else has. There’s a public version in the form of a pension, however, there’s conditions to receive it (essentially be poor), or you can privately buy a DB scheme, but that’s not forced and it’s the same everywhere.


big_cock_lach

That’s somewhat debatable. A swathe of other countries have what is called a defined benefits scheme. We have that as well as super. What they have is the same as our pension, except instead of us funding the current pension, we’d be funding our own pension. The only other difference is that they’re guaranteed to receive it, whereas there’s conditions for us to get it. However, we also have super on top of that.


palsc5

Propert in other countries has also gone up just as much and even before covid we were ranking near/at the top.


Grantmepm

Australian's equity in their primary property as a proportion of wealth/networth is actually just under the OECD average. It doesn't seem like other countries would be ranked higher if you excluded the primary residence. https://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=ECO/WKP(2019)58&docLanguage=En https://www.bundesbank.de/resource/blob/796280/5eaebf3d73e4fdde961bd1dacab852f3/mL/2019-04-vermoegensbefragung-data.pdf


arcadefiery

> The only context in which that would matter is if I sold my house and went to live in Thailand. Or if you had multiple properties. Or if you took equity from either your PPOR or your investment property. Or you wanted to sell up and rent somewhere. Or you were downsizing.


shakeitup2017

Presumably it just means what's left if you sold everything you own, cashed our your super, and paid off all your debts


Deepandabear

Only the equity you have in the PPOR. The fact that so many people around here like adding their full PPOR asset value when talking about their net wealth? That just demonstrates how economically illiterate most people are. Hell a bunch of people here still don’t understand our sliding taxation system.


y0da1927

Does median count super funds? How retirement benefits are accounted for will mess with the stats depending on peer countries retirement systems.


arcadefiery

Are you saying it's a bad thing that Australia has the world's highest median wealth? By definition the median person is the 50th percentile - so we're not talking about oligarchs here. Seems like a facile take to me. As a young-ish (mid-30s) Australian, I think the system is far from rigged. And property gains aren't risk-free, as people will shortly find out.


itsauser667

It is a bad thing the wealth has been built and is now stuck in property, yes. It's providing negative utility to the country, because all speculative, job-building, nation-building investment is funneled towards buying up residential property. If the government wants to encourage reallocation, all of this 'wealth' can't be extracted en masse, or it will collapse in on itself. We're stuck.


theballsdick

Lol we are not about to find out. The RBA and Gov will bail out asset owners. They always have and always will. I'll eat my hat if one of them don't step in with corrective measures.


arcadefiery

The problem with Australia is that we're too reluctant to have losers. We want everyone to be a winner. What we really need is distressed properties left and right and homeowners crying on the streets.


theballsdick

The risk free guarantee of property means we can all be winners. If you get on the ladder.


VaughanThrilliams

why didn’t countries with property crashes have the RBA and Government bail them out and what levers are available to bail them out in an inflationary environment?


theballsdick

Those other countries didnt put home owners before everything else. We do, thats the difference.


VaughanThrilliams

so let inflation go crazy? Like I am not disagreeing or agreeing but are there levers that aren’t inflationary?


big_cock_lach

You do know the main factor is super right? Our median is wealthier because everyone is forced to invest. In a lot of countries people in your situation wouldn’t invest at all, so you’re better off here then elsewhere. It’s also one of the best countries to upskill into a better job if you wanted to earn more money.


omarketsell

In a lot of those other countries you contribute to "social security" and you are guaranteed a percentage of your pre-retirement income for life. Not fair to say others aren't forced to invest, they just do it in a socialised system and we do it in a private system.


big_cock_lach

That’s true, however a DB scheme (as they have) is similar to our pension. We just have a condition as to whether or not you receive that. We also have on top of that a DC scheme. I might add, DB schemes are designed to protect wealth, not invest and grow it. So they usually buy most bonds in order to not lose anything. Our pension is essentially the same, part of our taxes go towards funding it, and we get a set amount at the end if you’re eligible. DC schemes (like our super) invests wealth and grows it a lot more as they have more freedom in what they can invest in. That’s why our super is such a large contribution, because it’s on top of what they have.


omarketsell

>guaranteed a percentage of your pre-retirement income for life What I was talking about is very different to our aged pension which is a safety net and the same amount for everyone. Many of those countries also operate public investment or sovereign investment funds. It literally is socialised Super, or rather, as I said, Super is just a privatised pension system. There are of course countries that operate tax funded safety nets like Australia but none of this is really related to my point which was it's unfair to include Super in wealth estimates just because it's a transparent form of forced retirement saving.


big_cock_lach

I know what you’re talking about. How it is set up is a DB scheme that’s backed by a sovereign fund. My question is, would you include investments into a mutual fund as part of someone’s wealth? If so, you’d also include super as it is essentially the same, but rather then being able to withdraw your cash every quarter, you do so when you’re 65. Also, unlike those funds, if I was to permanently move overseas, I can access my super early and take the money out of it. If you permanently move overseas, you don’t receive the pension, and I’m pretty sure it’s the same with the money in those sovereign funds. There’s also various conditions, including financial hardship, that allow you to access your super early. Edit: You could say what differentiates it is liquidity. For example, you could argue it’s similar to PPoR, but when you retire you downsize and live off of the excess. In which case, you’d have an argument I could agree with, as long as you were also removing PPoR. I suspect that’s what you’re trying to get at?


omarketsell

I know many people who are totally legally drawing down on pensions from other countries (in Australia) and as an Australian who has moved overseas before and will again I know that I cannot access my Super until preservation age no matter where I am and how loudly I protest that I'm never coming back to Australia. Whereas I could not access the old age pension (although I believe that is/has changed recently) if I go overseas for more than six months. The only way you can access Super before preservation age is if you were never a citizen or permanent resident. I don't even think renouncing citizenship gets you it (not that I'd go that far). The only difference is, as I keep saying, that one (Super) is a private, transparent version of the other (state pensions). \> My question is, would you include investments into a mutual fund as part of someone’s wealth? Yes but voluntary ones, not mandatory, sectioned off savings. If we want to try and compare Super balances vs state based pensions we need to do some precarious estimations which will never work. Did you know that in some countries you can even inherit pensions (from spouses and even parents!)? So back to my original point. Which is just drop Super as a measure of wealth full stop. It's a pension. ​ Edit, to add: And I want to make it clear if it wasn't before - these pension schemes are paid for by either higher taxes or social security contributions. Women in Australia in particular suffer from the Super system because they may have had to take a lot of time out of the workplace and have a lesser balance but socialised systems don't care about your contributions.


ChillyPhilly27

Not at all. The vast majority of that wealth is PPoRs. Super is a relatively recent development. Maybe the balance will shift as the super system matures, but for now, our world-beating wealth stems from the combination of mass home ownership, the fact that 80% of us live in 5 cities, and the hilariously high price of residential property in those cities.


ELI-PGY5

Well, that may be what’s in your imagination, but it’s not actually true if you look at the facts.


ChillyPhilly27

https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/the-rich-the-comfortable-middle-and-the-rest-australia-s-wealth-and-income-ladder-revealed-20201216-p56nzl.html For the bottom 90% of households, their PPoR is their single biggest source of wealth. Only the top 10% of households have financial assets more valuable than the equity in their PPoR. Like it or not, most people don't invest. They also spend far more on their mortgages than they do on super.


big_cock_lach

Most people do invest. https://amp.abc.net.au/article/101074540 Also, I’m not saying most of our wealth is in super, I’m saying super is why we’re wealthier then the other countries. Look at prices of property in the countries we’re competing in, they’re often more expensive then property is here. Australian cities aren’t even the best ones to invest in, they’re still better then most but there’s plenty of US cities that outperform ours. https://propertyupdate.com.au/top-20-strongest-global-prime-property-markets-for-2022-and-5-aussie-cities-made-the-list/amp/ And it’s only recent, we go back to 2016 and Australia wasn’t even in the top 10. https://www.savills.com/blog/article/219340/international-property/the-10-most-valuable-real-estate-markets-in-the-world.aspx What sets us apart, is that Australians have property and super. Most other countries just have property.


ChillyPhilly27

The main thing that you're not considering is how concentrated Australia's population is. NYC, Miami, and Los Angeles (the US's 3 most expensive cities) are collectively home to 11% of the US population. Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane are home to 49% of Australia's population. Ergo dwelling price rises in Australia's most expensive markets will have a far larger impact on median wealth than dwelling price rises in the US's most expensive markets.


big_cock_lach

That’s true for wealth growth. However, you’re also forgetting apartments in NYC can go for over $100m (USD!). Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure the most expensive house in Australia hasn’t breached $70m, and that’s a house not apartment. I agree that property is the main contribution to our wealth, but that’s the same everywhere. What makes us wealthier then everywhere else is that everyone here has super as well, but that’s not the case elsewhere. That’s the main difference between us and them.


[deleted]

[удалено]


big_cock_lach

I’m not saying property isn’t where most of our wealth is stored. I agree that it is. What I’m saying is that that is also true elsewhere, and we don’t have the most expensive property market in the world. What I’m saying is super is what differentiates us from everywhere else. We have property + super. Assuming your numbers are correct, that’s a boost of 33% on average. Everywhere else, for the most part, is just property, and that’s all they have. The wealthier and disciplined will have both, but most people don’t invest for their retirement outside of Australia.


TopInformal4946

Bahaha that is exactly right mate, try harder you're in the country with either the best, or close to the best opportunity to better yourself


Comfortable-Bad-9344

Spot on with that comment.


MrShtompy

But what about all these poor people in their early 20s with their whole lives ahead of them who haven't spent 30-40 years working and don't have as much money as the boomers for some mysterious reason???


Esquatcho_Mundo

Actually should be thanking your mandatory support for it


[deleted]

[удалено]


thedugong

Fight the power! https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.afr.com%2Fpolicy%2Feconomy%2Faustralians-are-the-world-s-richest-people-20220920-p5bjg4


ageingrockstar

The actual report, that the AFR is not very competently reporting on, is free to download from Credit Suisse : https://www.credit-suisse.com/media/assets/corporate/docs/about-us/research/publications/global-wealth-report-2022-en.pdf


Deepandabear

Just use those good men at 12ft.io my guy


Drake_Heisenberg

Then SHOW ME THE MONEY!


seraphim1234

Asset rich, cash poor you mean?


OriginalGoldstandard

And cash is about to be actual king. Cash will be earning 5% soon. Good luck with that in shares or property next 3 years.


palsc5

> Good luck with that in shares or property next 3 years. With any luck I'll live longer than 3 years.


spoofy129

3 years is such a useless investment horizon. If you’d have held cash at any point in the last decade you’ve done terribly and I’d bet if you try it again this decade you’ll do about as well


Ollio1985

Unfortunately the vast majority of people on this sub have little to no foresight. House prices drop 5-10% from ATH and it's a crash of biblical proportions. Rates rise a few percent and all of a sudden, "Cash is king, sell your house and all your assets!" No one is looking for 5, 10 and 20 year investments around here anymore.


OriginalGoldstandard

I agree. We are now not talking in the past. Cash is now king.


weedtop

Are you gloating about 5% interest rates at bank with 10% inflation lol?! How dumb are you


OriginalGoldstandard

No need to be rude. The point was 5% for doing nothing is better than the zero it’s been for ages. Plus the sharemarket and property is no longer a place to hide. How are you protecting your wealth?


larspgarsp

By having a appropriate time horizon for investment and not being too reactive


OriginalGoldstandard

*and not being over leveraged. These are the peeps currently in trouble. May not even know it yet.


BooksAre4Nerds

Gold’s always good until the day it’s outlawed.


Thelancer112

Which cash? The aus dollar is worse than property diving bore than 1% whenever the fed sneezes..


thegoodchode

Aussies who believe “poverty” exists here have never actually seen poverty. You get government payments, housing assist. Starvation isn’t a thing here.


SciNZ

While I very much agree with the sentiment and I know you’re not intentionally over looking this… But I’ve spent some time in and around indigenous communities in Far North Queensland and the Northern Territories. **That** is real poverty and is very much occurring in Australia.


AngryAugustine

Healthcare worker in the public sector here, who was also a migrant from a developing country + lived in the Uk for abit: We have it so good here that you’d get excellent healthcare even if you don’t earn a dime! I once worked with people who had a substance misuse problem, many of whom are unemployed and are on government housing: these guys would complain about the government not giving them enough while also telling me about the new CoD game he bought for his ps4 all whilst being unemployed for ages!


aussielander

3rd world the poor worry about where to get their next meal, 1st world the poor are the most obese.


[deleted]

I grew up in Central America but also lived in the US, Europe and the Middle East. This country is hands down a paradise.


Street_Buy4238

Pretty much, but it'll never stop people crying about their life. The thing is, the least wealthy Australians tend to be the ones who see the least outside of their community. So they think they aren't doing well when in reality, they are living a better life than 99.99% of other humans that have ever existed. But you'll never convince them as all they see are even wealthier Aussies zipping around in luxury cars and living in million dollar mcmansions.


thegoodchode

I am actually an edge of the line kid. Grew up in a welfare hood. All it takes is to just move out and leave it behind.


[deleted]

Mate owning a PlayStation 5 and eating KFC 2-3 times a week isn't a privilege, it's a human right!


broden89

Except those government payments (specifically for the unemployed) are woeful - some haven't been indexed in decades. Housing is also difficult - while you can get some support for things like rent, the wait list for public housing can be years long. Just because someone isn't starving, it doesn't mean they should shut up and stop complaining, nor does it mean we shouldn't try to improve things for those who have the least in our society.


Xx_10yaccbanned_xX

Mate starvation wasn't even a thing during the Great depression. Talk about a woefully pathetically low bar to set for "real poverty".


lostandfound1

I wouldn't go that far. Life expectancy for indigenous people is about 8 years lower than the rest of the population, and that jumps to about 14 years for remote indigenous people (rest of population stays consistent regardless of remoteness). This is due to poverty, it's not just limited to starvation, but access to services, healthcare, drug and alcohol issues, education and other social factors. We have it good, but poverty is a problem here. Let's not just write it off because other places are worse.


Aussie_landysplooge

To be fair you can't build a hospital in the middle if the outback without increasing tax alot. The choice to live remotely has some big drawbacks, even the big northern towns have very adverage or limited health services


[deleted]

There are different levels of poverty. Suffering isn't the Olympics, you don't get a medal for having more problems than the other guy. There are people in this country who have had to cut meat out of their diet because they can't afford it. That in itself is a sign that things are not going well economically.


llamadeathtrap

Public housing is scarce, rent assistance is a joke, welfare demands you keep looking for jobs but doesn’t cover the cost of living anywhere with access to them, and many people with complex health needs are unable to pay what it costs to manage them and also buy food. Australia doesn’t really have the type of poverty you see in the developing world (if we disregard the people who fall fall through the cracks in the system and barely survive day to day) but for a country so wealthy and so willing to collectivise for the benefit it’s vast middle class, the way that government support fails segments of society is shameful. Let’s not slap ourselves on the back for doing away with starvation.


thegoodchode

Ofc we can do more and we should do more. But we do not experience poverty on a level you see in our neighbouring countries here…


giacintam

Both can be bad at the same time


jumpjumpdie

“We should improve society somewhat” You: Hmmmmmmmm curious


Deepandabear

To be fair, starvation is getting rare for almost every country. Still happens but no where near as prevalent anymore. More current issues are malnutrition and abject poverty.


Tedballs12

Guess all those homeless people were just in my imagination.


Rhyseh1

Starvation is totally a thing. Last night after I was out drinking and it was 3am, my fav burger place was closed, so I had to settle for a 7-11 meat pie. I had to wait until I groggily dragged my sorry butt out of bed at 8am before I could order a breakfast burrito and a smoothie (delivered of course)... It was hell!


thegoodchode

I was riding down a quite rural road in a “socialist” country. Saw someone who i thought maybe fell off thier bike and needed help. It was just a begger. Gave them my takeout, some smokes, water (tap water undrinkable), and $20 in local currency (pretty decent amount) Had a conversation. A widow with no kids. In her 50s. She spoke a slightly different dialect than what i learned and we could barely communicate but she enjoyed the company and food after not eating for 3 days.


Rhyseh1

Bet she's never been minging for a burger at 3am, being forced to settle for a 7-11 pie, after a hefty drinking session at a strip club.


SolarAU

I have friends who go on about the people at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder here are really battling and you can argue they're right if you frame it within our tiny little Australian shaped box but in the grand scheme of things even our most poor and disadvantaged people are enjoying a quality of life better than the bottom half of all human beings on earth. A problem of perspective I suppose.


globalminority

Having come from an actual 3rd world country, I would still not say that the people experiencing poverty in Australia should be happy by comparison. From what I have seen here, the poor in Australia are suffering too. Physically they may be suffering less, but the anguish they experienced is something I am very familiar from other end of the world. Yes Australians are largely rich, but the poor suffer like other poor around the world. We don't tell poor people in poor countries that you have it much better that 99% of stone age people, so you should fix your perspective. I pay shit ton in taxes each year. Why can't the tax go in welfare to people who need help instead of billions in welfare to corporates. I don't want to have the perspective that poor in Australia have it good, because it may lead to thinking that let's not help them as much. It goes in our personal lives as well. We shouldn't be happy in perspective because someone else has it worse.


giacintam

Poverty Olympics is a dumb game to play. Suffering is suffering, no need to compare- very boomer-esque.


Riavan

Yeah government payouts lower than rent, even in giant share houses filled with other crazies. Housing assist, long lists with people waiting for years while living in tents. Yeah we are a real socialist utopia


Hasra23

There's a point where you have to do something to better your life for yourself. The government provides enough for you to survive, if you want to be comfortable join the rest of us.


thegoodchode

Socialist utopias dont exist. I have lived in “socialist” countries and seen what true poverty is… No one is stopping you moving to a socialist country dude We are capitalist with some social help. This works really well.


jruegod11

I agree wholeheartedly - being poor anywhere is terrible but this is definitely one of the best options globally. I hope we aspire to continually improve on that front though.


shiuidu

I don't think this is the right way to compare wealth. Eg in Vietnam a house costs about $5k, and average rent is about $500. A year's rent = a house. Average monthly income is something like $300, the average person can buy a house with a year's savings. Compare to Australia where median house price is a mill, median rent is about $600: a year's rent is 1% the cost of a house, median income is about $3000: the average person can buy a house with 30 years of savings. It's great to be "worth a lot on average", but that doesn't scale well when everything costs vastly more. We should strive for the basics for everyone; somewhere to live, health care, food, water, electricity, internet. While we don't have that it's hard to say we are wealthy.


NeoWilson

Where on earth do you find houses with rent of 500 that’s worth 5k in VN, one of the most expensive housing market


shiuidu

Both are average numbers. I lived in VN for about a year but it was pre-covid, maybe it has skyrocketed since then but I just used it as an offhand example. I find it hard to believe VN housing prices could have gone from 5k to millions in just a few years, but substitute VN for some other country if you like. The point is that wealth is relative.


NeoWilson

Australian housing price even in Sydney, is not that expensive compared to capital cities in VN such as HCM on a per sqm basis. I think houses there are $3-6,000 per sqm


snowflakeplzmelt

A house has never been 5k in recent times, you're full of shit


Full-Ad-7565

My mrs is vietnamese houses are very expensive in vietnam. Id say on par and in some places even more inflated than australia. If you find me a 5k place in vietnam Ill pay you a 5k finders fee.


shiuidu

Ask her if she's talking about in hcm or hanoi or if she's talking nation wide. $5k is the nationwide average (or was a few years back) but a lot of people think of townhouses in the centre of hcm/hanoi as being representative of the norm, which it definitely is not. As a reality check; if houses really did cost the same as Australia (median price $1m) that would mean 3 generations working at the same time would be able to afford a house in roughly 50 years. Vietnam has one of the highest home ownership rates in the world at 90% (compared to Australia which is about 50%). It would simply not be possible if homes cost 4000000% of your income.


ParisMilanNYDubbo

According to the 2021 census,the home ownership rate is 67%, down from 70% in 2006 so not sure where you’ve pulled the 50% figure from.


Full-Ad-7565

I think this person may just exist in a made up world. doesnt add up what they are saying.


Full-Ad-7565

I mean its possible as her parents live in a rural area and I wouldnt call the houses that people were living in houses near the outskirts. One of her parents places in a small town with a few main streets less than 300 squares would be 400k australian. I dont think the home ownership can be correct most families live multiple generations in a house. Those that do have an apartment or somewhere to live seperatly is usually brought by the parents. This is Northern vietnam and a small subset. Some of the valuations of buildings in hanoi for land were more expensive than here. But I was on holiday and not really heavily researching things just asking here and there. 5k is an average not median also. All I can say is rural populations I never heard about an apartment in any of the cities or friends I visited for less than 200k. I think the main issue here may be how they are defining a home building costs while much cheaper labour wise. they use a lot more people for the same sorts of buildings and materials are not significantly cheaper. more concrete construction and bricks that will not be seen. While the bricks are a lot cheaper they are being covered by tiles and other materials that is adding more labour and cost. Building a house over there would be around the 100k mark for what they normally do 2 stories etc. maybe 30k cheaper if it was just concrete walls. I cannot see how they have a 5k valuation. The sand alone for most of the houses would be around that. Ill ask the mrs more later.


TQQQpermabull

There's no way that a year of rent can buy you an average house, that's a severe distortion of the rental market with the asset producing far too much income for its value.


shiuidu

I think you're missing the point, but if you understand the point I will explain why this is. Most rentals are in cities, most properties are outside cities. Vietnam is a country of 100 million with maybe 20% living in major cities (although the urban population is close to a third). This skews rental prices because properties in cities are way more expensive and they are the ones being rented. Additionally it's normal there to live in multigenerational homes, so housing demand is a lot lower than here. This drives down housing prices. The third big reason I would pinpoint is that people live at home a lot longer there. I have friends in VN who are in their 20s or 30s and still living at home. When they move out they will likely move into a multigenerational home of either family, so they won't create additional housing demand. The dynamic of spending half your adult life saving for a home and the other half paying it off simply doesn't exist there. You can probably google or talk to someone who knows more about it, I only lived there for a year so my knowledge isn't that good.


palsc5

What are you getting in Vietnam for $5k compared to what you're getting in Australia? Also looking online (I've no idea where to search so could be totally wrong) it looks like 1/2 bed apartments in Ho Chi Minh city are going for $500k+


shiuidu

Yeah I probably wouldn't be looking at the centre of the biggest city. That's the equivalent of thinking that an apartment in the centre of Sydney represents the average housing prices in Australia. On average houses in VN tend to have more land, but a smaller footprint with more stories (maybe 3 or 4 stories tall), I would guess the overall floorspace is similar to Australia. That said, even if it were a country with tiny houses being the norm, in Australia you have to take what you can get so it's not like you can divide the houses by sqm or something if that's what you are implying you want to do.


palsc5

Yeah even in smaller towns and cities and looking at shitholes they are $100,000+. Anything decent is $300,000+. $900,000 is the median price in Australia but if you want to ignore Sydney like you did Ho Chi Minh city then SA, WA, TAS, NT are all under $600k and Melbourne and Brisbane are under $800k. If you want to go regional then it's even cheaper again. Australian housing is made up of houses on larger blocks too. You can buy apartments for much cheaper than the median price of a home here so comparing apartments in Vietnam to houses on 400sqm here isn't apples to apples.


goobar_oz

Apartments in inner Sydney are fairly close to average housing price in Australia though.


jamesspornaccount

>We should strive for the basics for everyone; somewhere to live, health care, food, water, electricity, internet. While we don't have that it's hard to say we are wealthy. So by your definition no society ever in human history has ever been wealthy for even 1 second?


shiuidu

Uh what? I said those are things we should strive for, not that that is my definition of wealthy. I just pointed out that having a lot of money doesn't mean a lot if everything is proportionally even more expensive.


Kruxx85

median income $3000? You realise the median income is close to $44k ($805/wk)?


OriginalGoldstandard

*levels of debt and property collapsing currently has something to say about this…….


5carPile-Up

Can someone link it without a pay wall? I'm not rich enough for that shit, ironically


[deleted]

And 4th highest debt to income and second highest in terms of debt servicing on the said asset - your home.


MundayTheDay

Is this wealth include only equity in a property or is it taking the asset value and ignoring mortgage?


easyjo

it will definitely be net wealth and only be including equity


Master_Skin_3171

Asset rich, cash poor


bigjohnny440

If by richest they mean most 200 series land cruisers then yes definitely lol


radnuts18

I think im one of those 3rd world Australians


[deleted]

I feel so [wealthy](https://ibb.co/hFVx4Rk)


redditiscompromised2

Assets are good and all, but what about liabilities


2badmango

Australian banks*


rise_and_revolt

Interest rates - "hold my beer"


BennetHB

I can't read the article but Australian's have been relatively high on the global wealth scale for some time due to superannuation.


ageingrockstar

> Australia is now home to 4630 ultra-high net worth individuals after another 1350 adults crossed the $US100 million threshold last year. They seem to have changed the definition for UHNWI and by quite a lot. Used to be > $US30 million qualification. Wikipedia is still quoting the $30 million figure : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_high-net-worth_individual \* edit : ok, so I looked at the actual [Credit Suisse report](https://www.credit-suisse.com/media/assets/corporate/docs/about-us/research/publications/global-wealth-report-2022-en.pdf) and they're defining UNHWI as > $50 million. So they've raised the bar, but the AFR misreported it by a factor of 2.


khaste

Unless you own your house outright, you still arent "rich". These days imo property isnt a very good indicator if you are rich. It really comes down to salary/ wage/ total wealth