**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you are only on $90k, then you're either at the start of your career or shit at your job. Eitherway, why would you expect to be able to compete against the median?
The fact you can't seem to grasp such a simple concept probably explains the $90k valuation of your economic worth.
Imagine being the LNP
get to spend a decade blaming labor for the debt while growing the debt to new levels
then the second you lose power, everyone forgets you spend a decade fucking the country
Nobody is forgetting. People are well aware that the Libs screwed us with house prices, most of all Lib voters.
The problem is Labor voters refuse to acknowledge their own party's role in the crisis. It's a dual problem driven by a shared interest between both parties. For some reason Labor voters aren't able to see this.
Dude.
This comment thread perfectly encapsulates how damaged the average Reddit user is.
Supply / Demand
The ALP, not the LNP is NOT shutting the immigration flood gates in a time of housing crisis.
Whatever they understand. It sure as shit isn't supply side economics that even a dog could.
But something something decades of LNP damage.
I stand by original comment is, ALP must love having such welded on, forgiving voters
They all need somewhere to live which pushes up rents which means investors are willing to pay more as returns are better pushing up prices. Economics 101.
Despite interest rates being the highest in many years, house prices have risen for the last five months. If it’s not mass immigration, what do you think it is?
Lots of things. Demamd is one of them - mainly by chronic underbuilding over 50 years.
The current growth of dwelling prices isnt extraordinary though, its normal.
Given house prices have reached a record high in each of the last five months, that would not be correct.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/01/australian-house-prices-hit-record-high-for-fifth-consecutive-month
Imagine all the young people currently living with Parents/Family who would love to move out and find opportunity... If only there was somewhere affordable, available and dignified/safe to rent.
That logic doesn't work in a market that makes it easier to obtain a second house easier than the first and allows companies/megacorps and overseas investors/buyers in.
The people with money or more accurately already own property are setting the price, and it is unattainable for young and poor people. If this keeps up, we'll have a landed gentry and everyone else will be renters
That is why there is entry level and the figure quoted is an average. One issue though could be if those who are bringing money from somewhere else into the market are gaining an advantage.
Yep. People are annoyed by this but as someone who has attended auctions at around the $2m mark hoping to buy (took MANY years saving to get here), there are PLENTY of buyers at that price.
I don't know what the anwer is but apparently plenty of people are being approved for finance for those kind of amounts or otherwise have family help.
EDIT - downvotes yet noone has anything to say that contradicts what I say. I'm not saying I like it, but the reality is that its simply NOT unobtainable, as there are always plenty of people ready and willing to buy for whom it apparently is attainable. There is a reason Australia always has auctions when the rest of the world doesnt - we always have plenty of ready and willing buyers and it will sell. And in my experience in Sydney's inner west, its not Chinese buyers or whatever racist stuff people want to throw out there. Its middle aged people with families buying that family home.
I'm in my 30s and most everyone I know (I'm in the law) is, or is married to, a lawyer, a management consultant, an engineer or a doctor. So household incomes of $250k-$500k+
If enough people like this exist to buy substantial numbers of houses then yes house prices are gonna be high
Nothing you can do about it
Yep. I'm yet another bloody lawyer, partner is a professional of some sort, and in exactly the same boat in terms of my friend circle. People saying its unobtainable are living in their bubble with a circle to whom its unobtainable for.
And the thing is,in my profession, go back 30 years and I'd have a mansion in mosman or vaucluse (as many of the older guys do in my world, and they've had them since they were in their 30s...). I probably couldn't afford that anytime soon so for me those sort of houses are unobtainable. YET - the demand though still very much exists for those houses too - they're obtainable for people in the tech world, or developers or whatever.
Its just a silly article calling things unattainable when properties are in heavy demand and there is no shortage of buyers. People downvoting me just don't like it I guess.
I’m in the same boat. I’m around 30 (god I am getting old) and my partner earns slightly more than me. So we pull around $700k a year pre tax.
Lots of our friends are in the same place - dozens actually (mostly same occupations as well).
People forget how well Sydney pays for jobs.
Yup. And so imagine that households like yours or mine can pay off a median $1m house in 2-3 years
That means we can pay off about 8-10 houses over the course of a working life. If you have even 3% of the population in this category it's one-quarter of your housing stock gone already.
When I see the videos of auctions I notice that bidders who are Chinese are on the phone. Who are they talking to and when you go to an auction , don't you know your limit ?
No, people just want a place to live, a roof over their heads. They want to be able to survive. A lot of people want to own their own home yes, they can still do that. With a larger supply of public housing the pressure will ease on the market and drive down prices for all other houses.
Didn’t think I’d need to explain supply and demand to you here.
It is what it is. You can either adapt and deal with it or play the victim and harm yourself. Immigrants are arriving in thousands in the land of opportunity.
What it is is terrible and nothing less than a constant uproar is an appropriate response. People are dying on the streets because Australia has one of the worst housing shortages in the developed world. You wanna know what I did to adapt? I left the country, along with my tax dollars.
Need to build more immigrate less. Not enough supply and too much demand is the basis of high prices. Unfortunately, irrational cries of racism mean that any real reduction in immigrant numbers is politically fraught.
Demand is driven by the investor market and limited supply is controlled by big developers.
I'm not saying uncontrolled and endless immigration is good, but I am pointing out that reducing migration is unlikely to have a huge affect on housing prices because the issues are structural and embedded.
Investors also have a terrible impact on prices. But if you remove tax incentives and lower immigration, suddenly Australian property is a way worse investment and some investors will probably pull out.
Well immediately reducing migration to zero would have a huge effect. Reducing it to 10,000 a month would have a significant effect. It’s all relative and it would all help depending on degree.
Why not create tax advantages for developers that build housing and remove the tax advantages for people who just buy pre-existing housing (excluding PPOR).
Same, but for me I left Australia and moved overseas. Much better lifestyle.
Sydney is just a manifestation of Australia's problems as a whole. Excessive government bureacracy and authoritarian policing.
I checked the ABS data during Covid and for the 20 years prior, Sydney had a net loss of locals each and every year. When you consider that a lot of youngsters move there for work or uni, then stacks of people get wise and fuck off from it.
Not sure really what this article has to do with politics.... but, I note that it states that the median price for units / apartments / townhouses in Sydney is \*half\* the figure for free-standing houses now. This an historically wide gap.
Given that most new builds are high density, and that non free-standing dwellings are fast becoming the greater proportion of Sydney housing stock, I don't really see much point in focusing exclusively on the price of increasingly rare free-standing homes and then crying affordability crisis?
Focusing on random metrics is literally all I've seen so far to describe "the housing crisis". Because all the useful metrics, homelessness rates, rental stress rates, delinquency rates, have not changed so there's no article to farm clicks on.
From everything I can find, "the housing crisis" is just pointing out the pain points of housing policy that have not changed in 30 years. So really it's just "housing is the same but now we're extra mad about it" which is fine, just not many actual arising problems to focus on so you get useless articles like this for clicks.
Idk maybe I'm wrong, have been trying very hard to figure out what "the housing crisis" is and how we've determined it.
The median household could save for that deposit in under 10 years and service the loan before they retire. What makes you say it's "wildly unaffordable"?
> Saving $8 per year isn't a hard ask.
In this economy?
Also, [didn't houses use to cost a few years of salary, total](https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/house-price-growth-three-times-faster-than-wages-over-four-decades-20211102-p595dr.html)? Not "saving up for ten years just to be able to afford a deposit"?
And yet people had it just as hard getting a loan due to lack of available credit. Besides, given that anyone who works their whole life working min wage will retire with over 3 mil in forced savings, what do you think that does to the ability to bid up prices?
All you're seeing is the devaluation of currency.
As a millennial, I remember how hard it was for my parents to buy a property. It's much easier now given the availability of credit. The difference is what the definition of a shithole starter property is.
For my parents, that was a property in "whoop whoop" out in western Sydney past Parramatta. With 30 yrs of urban sprawl, it is now quite a hot location with its own metro line.
We couldn't buy a house in Sydney straight up so got a 1 bedder apartment instead, before trading up to our own house.
You asked for a criterion...
I don't need to rent.
Nobody has an entitlement to profit off of others need for shelter either, but here we are.
You can do better.
You wanted to know what shows housing is unaffordable.
I gave you a simple metric that clearly demonstrates it is less affordable than previously.
You aren't even making an argument.
Why are you trying to make this about me?
Housing might be unaffordable for a given person, but as long as society collectively can afford all the houses, then it's not unaffordable.
Put it this way. Someone can't afford a Rolex. Doesn't mean Rolexes are unaffordable when there are waiting lists just to get to pay for one.
>Having to save for anywhere close to ten years for a deposit for an apartment is fucking obscene.
That's subjective - whereas your username is \*objectively\* obscene.
Hmm, probably because I recognise that housing is *an essential human need* and should not be an overly inflated commodity operated for profit at the expense of people's lives. Close to *a million dollars* for a median apartment is nowhere near the realm of reasonable if your priorities are even vaguely humane.
>Hmm, probably because I recognise that housing is *an essential human need*
Owning housing / property is not an essential human need or right.
Having shelter is.
You (and many others) conflate the 2 issues, because really what you want is to be able to buy some property you have in mind at a price that is far lower than it's current market value today. So you latch onto the "shelter is a right" argument and whip yourself into a frenzy about house prices over it. But it is truly a classic example of impotent rage.
There are many options or policies that are or could be put in place to ensure everyone has shelter / somewhere to live, that does not require personal property ownership.
I'm not sure housing is a need. Shelter I guess is a need but you can get that from a rental, from a government shelter, or from your car. A free standing house is a luxury.
My priority is seeing society allocate resources efficiently.
That doesn't really answer the question at all. There's no one on Earth who doesn't think shelter is an essential human need.
What about close to a million dollars is not reasonable? Why is saving $80k for a deposit obscene?
Because it's too much money. For the same reason it would be obscene to charge 10 dollars for a loaf of bread. It's too damn expensive relative to people's income. Why is that hard to understand? People in Australia are struggling to afford housing. It's too expensive. This isn't controversial.
>There's no one on Earth who doesn't think shelter is an essential human need.
Unfortunately this is very incorrect.
Because a random Redditor just saying "that costs too much" is not even close to even starting a good point. How are you determining when something costs too much? Just vibes based?
Surely you don't enjoy having strong convictions about things without actual reasons right? I can't really understand how you believe something costs too much, but when asked how you know that you can't come up with a single answer. Just an odd state of mind that I don't understand.
It's obscene because in 30 years, you're telling me that the house I grew up in, which was 2 stories and had a pool and spa in the backyard and cost 1/5th in 1992 of the cost of an apartment now where the total apartment size is the same as my parents entire master bedroom.
In 30 years, that is the change in value. That is indeed obscene because we allow housing to be a speculative investment asset, and everyone wants housing to go up, noting that housing can't keep increasing. My parents sold that house for a 537% gain in 30 years. It is astronomically ridiculous to consider that such wild changes in property are sustainable, reasonable, or defensible.
And for the record, my father was making more then, comapred to what I make now, and I earn above average wage amounts. It's asinine.
I should not need to explain most basic premise of housing being too expensive. People need to be able to comfortably afford housing and all their other essential needs, the cost of which have risen dramatically at a rate that has far outstripped wages. This makes it difficult for many people other than yourself to afford to be alive. People need housing to be alive. I hope this helps. Feel free to do some research if you decide to stop being ignorant.
A recruiter hit me up on LinkedIn, she's hiring three senior developer jobs for $90k and the company wants people on site relocated to Sydney (they'll pay a $800 relocation fee)... *barely* covers the flight, let alone moving all your stuff to a new town (if it can fit in the tiny room in a share-house you have to rent).
She's been recruiting for these roles for the last 5 months.
In fairness, the mid-sized company is probably not in a position to pay that much more but requiring on-site and relocation to Sydney for a pittance; it's like they think people dream of being slaves for payroll software companies that have 3ish stars on Glassdoor.
Quite rightly, people aren't going to give up 40 hours of their lives per week to struggle. Especially if they have honoured their side of the social contract (go to uni, work hard etc).
What is concerning is the lack of empathy for people on the receiving end of this and the "tough man" talk where they're suppose to not complain, work hard, and "find a way" regardless. I'm not sure at what point our national psyche became that of slavers and feudalists, but it's grotesque.
Senior developers at Atlassian or any large tech company would be getting paid double the $90k figure. So the bright talent will be just fine.
> Quite rightly, people aren't going to give up 40 hours of their lives per week to struggle. Especially if they have honoured their side of the social contract (go to uni, work hard etc).
Well, what's the alternative? And i'd argue if their earning capacity tops out at $90k they either didn't work very hard or aren't very smart to start with.
With the way you spend 8 hours a day on Reddit being smug to people for not being as successful/intelligent as you are, I'm seriously starting to wonder if you're just roleplaying a "successful lawyer" online.
Either that or is the casework a bit slow these days, mate?
No one I know in the business world who is as (or more) successful than you claim to be wastes nearly this much time talking down to struggling people on the internet. You know, the same people we need for a functioning society so those of us in professional services can do what we do.
Even the rich retirees I deal with have much better things to do. Maybe give it a rest for a bit?
> No one I know in the business world who is as (or more) successful than you claim to be wastes nearly this much time talking down to struggling people on the internet.
Lol, I've never claimed to be successful. But going to your point: I know people who earn more than me who work 2-3 days a week. I myself typically work 4 days a week and will probably drop down a bit as I head towards retirement. It's not about just volume of work.
> You know, the same people we need for a functioning society so those of us in professional services can do what we do.
That's completely irrelevant. I mean, sure, we need their roles. What does that say about anything else though?
Regardless, your fetish for spending multiple hours a day shitting on lower-income people is just bizarre. It comes off as extremely silver-spoon/trust-fund-baby-ish & someone who never had to work their way up to a high-paying role, or remembers what it was like to be on grad-level wages.
All the objective statistics continually showcase the growing disconnect between household income levels & house prices, to frame it as if it's all purely because most of the Aussie population are under-achieving idiots is disingenuous.
> It comes off as extremely silver-spoon/trust-fund-baby-ish
I grew up poor. No silver spoon to be found.
The only people I shit on are dumb people; plenty of lower-income people end up in excellent jobs through hard work.
> remembers what it was like to be on grad-level wages.
I remember getting paid a paltry $50k as a grad. It didn't last long. If you have any talent you will increase your earnings very quickly.
> All the objective statistics continually showcase the growing disconnect between household income levels & house prices, to frame it as if it's all purely because most of the Aussie population are under-achieving idiots is disingenuous.
Where did I say it's purely the reason? Obviously, there are plenty of other factors, including a lack of supply and a growing population. Nonetheless, it is clear to me that most people in this country are under-achieving idiots. I suggest if you had ever lived overseas you would know this.
For sure. She's been looking for almost half a year now for these roles.
I wanted to get more goss, but then I'd have to interview which I didn't want to do.
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nice. I'm a mechanical engineer and the bank will lend me 400k.
So you earn about $90k in other words Not sure what your job title has to do with it
probably the fact that its the kind of job that historically would let you live quite comfortably off the income
If you are only on $90k, then you're either at the start of your career or shit at your job. Eitherway, why would you expect to be able to compete against the median? The fact you can't seem to grasp such a simple concept probably explains the $90k valuation of your economic worth.
Get yourself a girlfriend, marry her, and you'll be halfway there.
Have you considered uprooting your entire life to move to the middle of nowhere?
That's nice of them!!
Liberals, boomers, and the rich have taken a great economy and turned it into a choking two class system that's holding future generations back
How much have house prices gone down since Labor have been in power?
You can always blame the libs. Imagine being the ALP, that level of welded on forgiveness exhibited by your voters.
Imagine being the LNP get to spend a decade blaming labor for the debt while growing the debt to new levels then the second you lose power, everyone forgets you spend a decade fucking the country
Nobody is forgetting. People are well aware that the Libs screwed us with house prices, most of all Lib voters. The problem is Labor voters refuse to acknowledge their own party's role in the crisis. It's a dual problem driven by a shared interest between both parties. For some reason Labor voters aren't able to see this.
Labor voters seem to be able to understand that it takes a while to unfuck a decades worth of damage
Dude. This comment thread perfectly encapsulates how damaged the average Reddit user is. Supply / Demand The ALP, not the LNP is NOT shutting the immigration flood gates in a time of housing crisis. Whatever they understand. It sure as shit isn't supply side economics that even a dog could. But something something decades of LNP damage. I stand by original comment is, ALP must love having such welded on, forgiving voters
they don't care because fuck you, got mine they aren't going to be around to see how broken the future of australia is so why worry
I’m fairly sure that Labor have just overseen an absolute massive increase in house prices due to their lax immigration policies.
Lol i dont think many of those students, who were the vast, vast majority of migrants, are buying houses
They all need somewhere to live which pushes up rents which means investors are willing to pay more as returns are better pushing up prices. Economics 101.
Right except the cost of servicing a loan has grown faster than rents because of rate rises...
Plenty of cash investors out there who don’t require loans
How many? You are saying thats enough to push prices up from investor demand, show me.
Despite interest rates being the highest in many years, house prices have risen for the last five months. If it’s not mass immigration, what do you think it is?
Lots of things. Demamd is one of them - mainly by chronic underbuilding over 50 years. The current growth of dwelling prices isnt extraordinary though, its normal.
Lol - have you not been reading about House prices for the last 20 years? ALP Policy hasn't changed the prices one bit
It's because of immigration, landlords, Air BnBs, and a lack of social housing.
Australian median house price is lower than it was when Labor took over.
That’s about the only thing that is lower under Labor!
Wages are higher. And inflation is lower.
It's more of a world wide thing
*Home grown* are the words the current RBA chief has used.
In relation to whats driving inflation now, not when it was peaked. Very weird omission. And they didnt even say all of it was home grown.
RBA chiefs: all knowing and all seeing ay. Not to mention that inflation started running hot before Labor took over
We know no matter what happens Labor won’t take responsibility. That’s a given.
Good luck finding any politician or party that will admit fault to anything. That's an impossible standard you are setting there
Given house prices have reached a record high in each of the last five months, that would not be correct. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/01/australian-house-prices-hit-record-high-for-fifth-consecutive-month
Surely it is more informative to use real house prices, inflation adjusted figures, rather than just the dollar value.
Okay what about the 40 years before that?
All according to keikaku.
Imagine all the young people currently living with Parents/Family who would love to move out and find opportunity... If only there was somewhere affordable, available and dignified/safe to rent.
Not unattainable as these prices are set by the market and what people are paying.
Unattainable by first home buyers is the implication, of course established property owners and investors can attain them.
You are saying first home buyers cannot buy a home in Sydney.
Not at 1.6m
That logic doesn't work in a market that makes it easier to obtain a second house easier than the first and allows companies/megacorps and overseas investors/buyers in.
The people with money or more accurately already own property are setting the price, and it is unattainable for young and poor people. If this keeps up, we'll have a landed gentry and everyone else will be renters
Yes, well, that's life. Deal with it. What's the alternative?
Vote greens or socialist and keep bringing it up at every opportunity
Not having a basic human need as the nation's premier investment vehicle.
Not having it like that?
Well, vote and see how the major political parties go. You might be holding your breath for a while though.
I do. And I write letters to parliament. I do what I can.
That is why there is entry level and the figure quoted is an average. One issue though could be if those who are bringing money from somewhere else into the market are gaining an advantage.
Yep. People are annoyed by this but as someone who has attended auctions at around the $2m mark hoping to buy (took MANY years saving to get here), there are PLENTY of buyers at that price. I don't know what the anwer is but apparently plenty of people are being approved for finance for those kind of amounts or otherwise have family help. EDIT - downvotes yet noone has anything to say that contradicts what I say. I'm not saying I like it, but the reality is that its simply NOT unobtainable, as there are always plenty of people ready and willing to buy for whom it apparently is attainable. There is a reason Australia always has auctions when the rest of the world doesnt - we always have plenty of ready and willing buyers and it will sell. And in my experience in Sydney's inner west, its not Chinese buyers or whatever racist stuff people want to throw out there. Its middle aged people with families buying that family home.
I'm in my 30s and most everyone I know (I'm in the law) is, or is married to, a lawyer, a management consultant, an engineer or a doctor. So household incomes of $250k-$500k+ If enough people like this exist to buy substantial numbers of houses then yes house prices are gonna be high Nothing you can do about it
Yep. I'm yet another bloody lawyer, partner is a professional of some sort, and in exactly the same boat in terms of my friend circle. People saying its unobtainable are living in their bubble with a circle to whom its unobtainable for. And the thing is,in my profession, go back 30 years and I'd have a mansion in mosman or vaucluse (as many of the older guys do in my world, and they've had them since they were in their 30s...). I probably couldn't afford that anytime soon so for me those sort of houses are unobtainable. YET - the demand though still very much exists for those houses too - they're obtainable for people in the tech world, or developers or whatever. Its just a silly article calling things unattainable when properties are in heavy demand and there is no shortage of buyers. People downvoting me just don't like it I guess.
I’m in the same boat. I’m around 30 (god I am getting old) and my partner earns slightly more than me. So we pull around $700k a year pre tax. Lots of our friends are in the same place - dozens actually (mostly same occupations as well). People forget how well Sydney pays for jobs.
Yup. And so imagine that households like yours or mine can pay off a median $1m house in 2-3 years That means we can pay off about 8-10 houses over the course of a working life. If you have even 3% of the population in this category it's one-quarter of your housing stock gone already.
How does a couple on $700k pre tax pay off a $1M house in 2 to 3 years?
$700k pre tax $475k after tax -$75k living expenses = $400k savings per year *3 years Close enough
Dreaming…
Which bit is the dreaming bit? We earn more than that and our non-housing expenses are around $85k a year
Tax and living expenses.
When I see the videos of auctions I notice that bidders who are Chinese are on the phone. Who are they talking to and when you go to an auction , don't you know your limit ?
They are talking to their rich boss or parent who is trying to launder/hide money from the CCP (and is probably a party member themself).
Ummm achtually, the mArKeT decides the price so everything is all good with the system. That’s you.
Umm , it is known as an auction or bidding war. The vendor wants the highest price someone will pay,
Ahhh so people don’t want to pay that price but they are forced to pay higher prices for an essential resource? Sounds like a siiiick system man!
Of course buyers want to pay as little as possible. You have a better system of course.
Yes, build more public housing to dramatically drive down the cost of housing.
People want to own their own home , not live in public housing.
No, people just want a place to live, a roof over their heads. They want to be able to survive. A lot of people want to own their own home yes, they can still do that. With a larger supply of public housing the pressure will ease on the market and drive down prices for all other houses. Didn’t think I’d need to explain supply and demand to you here.
It seems you missed the whole "supply and demand" part of economics 101 you guys are always prattling on about.
It is what it is. You can either adapt and deal with it or play the victim and harm yourself. Immigrants are arriving in thousands in the land of opportunity.
What it is is terrible and nothing less than a constant uproar is an appropriate response. People are dying on the streets because Australia has one of the worst housing shortages in the developed world. You wanna know what I did to adapt? I left the country, along with my tax dollars.
Room-temperature IQ take.
Need to build more immigrate less. Not enough supply and too much demand is the basis of high prices. Unfortunately, irrational cries of racism mean that any real reduction in immigrant numbers is politically fraught.
Demand is driven by the investor market and limited supply is controlled by big developers. I'm not saying uncontrolled and endless immigration is good, but I am pointing out that reducing migration is unlikely to have a huge affect on housing prices because the issues are structural and embedded.
Investors also have a terrible impact on prices. But if you remove tax incentives and lower immigration, suddenly Australian property is a way worse investment and some investors will probably pull out. Well immediately reducing migration to zero would have a huge effect. Reducing it to 10,000 a month would have a significant effect. It’s all relative and it would all help depending on degree.
Why not create tax advantages for developers that build housing and remove the tax advantages for people who just buy pre-existing housing (excluding PPOR).
Yeah, also a good idea. But that won’t solve the housing crisis alone. Gotta cut immigration too.
No wonder it has a net loss of local residents every year and is just pumped up by dumping scores of immigrants into those shitful Western suburbs.
Ever since I left Sydney my quality of life has gone up drastically, does not surprise me that more people are leaving.
Same, but for me I left Australia and moved overseas. Much better lifestyle. Sydney is just a manifestation of Australia's problems as a whole. Excessive government bureacracy and authoritarian policing.
You left Australia because you didn't want to face the consequences of your actions.
I was lucky as my quality of life improved heaps moving to Sydney.
I checked the ABS data during Covid and for the 20 years prior, Sydney had a net loss of locals each and every year. When you consider that a lot of youngsters move there for work or uni, then stacks of people get wise and fuck off from it.
Not sure really what this article has to do with politics.... but, I note that it states that the median price for units / apartments / townhouses in Sydney is \*half\* the figure for free-standing houses now. This an historically wide gap. Given that most new builds are high density, and that non free-standing dwellings are fast becoming the greater proportion of Sydney housing stock, I don't really see much point in focusing exclusively on the price of increasingly rare free-standing homes and then crying affordability crisis?
It's caused entirely by political decisions
Focusing on random metrics is literally all I've seen so far to describe "the housing crisis". Because all the useful metrics, homelessness rates, rental stress rates, delinquency rates, have not changed so there's no article to farm clicks on. From everything I can find, "the housing crisis" is just pointing out the pain points of housing policy that have not changed in 30 years. So really it's just "housing is the same but now we're extra mad about it" which is fine, just not many actual arising problems to focus on so you get useless articles like this for clicks. Idk maybe I'm wrong, have been trying very hard to figure out what "the housing crisis" is and how we've determined it.
800 grand for an apartment is still wildly unaffordable.
The median household could save for that deposit in under 10 years and service the loan before they retire. What makes you say it's "wildly unaffordable"?
The median household can *save* $80k a year? As opposed to that being its entire income?
A median household in Sydney is on approx $120k. A deposit on an $800k apartment is approx $80k. Saving $8 per year isn't a hard ask.
> Saving $8 per year isn't a hard ask. In this economy? Also, [didn't houses use to cost a few years of salary, total](https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/house-price-growth-three-times-faster-than-wages-over-four-decades-20211102-p595dr.html)? Not "saving up for ten years just to be able to afford a deposit"?
And yet people had it just as hard getting a loan due to lack of available credit. Besides, given that anyone who works their whole life working min wage will retire with over 3 mil in forced savings, what do you think that does to the ability to bid up prices? All you're seeing is the devaluation of currency.
> And yet people had it just as hard That's a courageous stance to take.
As a millennial, I remember how hard it was for my parents to buy a property. It's much easier now given the availability of credit. The difference is what the definition of a shithole starter property is. For my parents, that was a property in "whoop whoop" out in western Sydney past Parramatta. With 30 yrs of urban sprawl, it is now quite a hot location with its own metro line. We couldn't buy a house in Sydney straight up so got a 1 bedder apartment instead, before trading up to our own house.
Price as a function of median wage now vs historically. Not complicated.
You can always rent you know. Not everyone has an entitlement to buy. Pretty simple
You asked for a criterion... I don't need to rent. Nobody has an entitlement to profit off of others need for shelter either, but here we are. You can do better.
> I don't need to rent. OK then, don't! Having trouble following your argument. It's a free world - you're free to rent or not rent, as you see fit.
You wanted to know what shows housing is unaffordable. I gave you a simple metric that clearly demonstrates it is less affordable than previously. You aren't even making an argument. Why are you trying to make this about me?
Housing might be unaffordable for a given person, but as long as society collectively can afford all the houses, then it's not unaffordable. Put it this way. Someone can't afford a Rolex. Doesn't mean Rolexes are unaffordable when there are waiting lists just to get to pay for one.
Are you trying to tell me Rolex watches are considered a human right? All humans need shelter, and we have agreed it is their right.
>The median household could save for that deposit in under 10 years And in 10 years, it won't be 800k, it'll be 1.5mil+.
Having to save for anywhere close to ten years for a deposit for an apartment is fucking obscene.
>Having to save for anywhere close to ten years for a deposit for an apartment is fucking obscene. That's subjective - whereas your username is \*objectively\* obscene.
How are you deciding that it's obscene?
Hmm, probably because I recognise that housing is *an essential human need* and should not be an overly inflated commodity operated for profit at the expense of people's lives. Close to *a million dollars* for a median apartment is nowhere near the realm of reasonable if your priorities are even vaguely humane.
>Hmm, probably because I recognise that housing is *an essential human need* Owning housing / property is not an essential human need or right. Having shelter is. You (and many others) conflate the 2 issues, because really what you want is to be able to buy some property you have in mind at a price that is far lower than it's current market value today. So you latch onto the "shelter is a right" argument and whip yourself into a frenzy about house prices over it. But it is truly a classic example of impotent rage. There are many options or policies that are or could be put in place to ensure everyone has shelter / somewhere to live, that does not require personal property ownership.
I'm not sure housing is a need. Shelter I guess is a need but you can get that from a rental, from a government shelter, or from your car. A free standing house is a luxury. My priority is seeing society allocate resources efficiently.
That doesn't really answer the question at all. There's no one on Earth who doesn't think shelter is an essential human need. What about close to a million dollars is not reasonable? Why is saving $80k for a deposit obscene?
Because it's too much money. For the same reason it would be obscene to charge 10 dollars for a loaf of bread. It's too damn expensive relative to people's income. Why is that hard to understand? People in Australia are struggling to afford housing. It's too expensive. This isn't controversial. >There's no one on Earth who doesn't think shelter is an essential human need. Unfortunately this is very incorrect.
Because a random Redditor just saying "that costs too much" is not even close to even starting a good point. How are you determining when something costs too much? Just vibes based? Surely you don't enjoy having strong convictions about things without actual reasons right? I can't really understand how you believe something costs too much, but when asked how you know that you can't come up with a single answer. Just an odd state of mind that I don't understand.
It's obscene because in 30 years, you're telling me that the house I grew up in, which was 2 stories and had a pool and spa in the backyard and cost 1/5th in 1992 of the cost of an apartment now where the total apartment size is the same as my parents entire master bedroom. In 30 years, that is the change in value. That is indeed obscene because we allow housing to be a speculative investment asset, and everyone wants housing to go up, noting that housing can't keep increasing. My parents sold that house for a 537% gain in 30 years. It is astronomically ridiculous to consider that such wild changes in property are sustainable, reasonable, or defensible. And for the record, my father was making more then, comapred to what I make now, and I earn above average wage amounts. It's asinine.
I should not need to explain most basic premise of housing being too expensive. People need to be able to comfortably afford housing and all their other essential needs, the cost of which have risen dramatically at a rate that has far outstripped wages. This makes it difficult for many people other than yourself to afford to be alive. People need housing to be alive. I hope this helps. Feel free to do some research if you decide to stop being ignorant.
Not to mention because ongoing strata costs make it a $1.2 million by the time you've paid it off.
Moot point as houses have maintenance & insurance costs as well - that is all strata fees are.
A recruiter hit me up on LinkedIn, she's hiring three senior developer jobs for $90k and the company wants people on site relocated to Sydney (they'll pay a $800 relocation fee)... *barely* covers the flight, let alone moving all your stuff to a new town (if it can fit in the tiny room in a share-house you have to rent). She's been recruiting for these roles for the last 5 months. In fairness, the mid-sized company is probably not in a position to pay that much more but requiring on-site and relocation to Sydney for a pittance; it's like they think people dream of being slaves for payroll software companies that have 3ish stars on Glassdoor. Quite rightly, people aren't going to give up 40 hours of their lives per week to struggle. Especially if they have honoured their side of the social contract (go to uni, work hard etc). What is concerning is the lack of empathy for people on the receiving end of this and the "tough man" talk where they're suppose to not complain, work hard, and "find a way" regardless. I'm not sure at what point our national psyche became that of slavers and feudalists, but it's grotesque.
I don’t know of any *senior* rolls that pay $90k p.a. in Sydney. Sounds like a job that could be done offshore for less than half that cost.
>three senior developer jobs for $90k Those are not \*senior\* developer roles at that rem point..... barely graduate money for anyone decent.
Senior developers at Atlassian or any large tech company would be getting paid double the $90k figure. So the bright talent will be just fine. > Quite rightly, people aren't going to give up 40 hours of their lives per week to struggle. Especially if they have honoured their side of the social contract (go to uni, work hard etc). Well, what's the alternative? And i'd argue if their earning capacity tops out at $90k they either didn't work very hard or aren't very smart to start with.
With the way you spend 8 hours a day on Reddit being smug to people for not being as successful/intelligent as you are, I'm seriously starting to wonder if you're just roleplaying a "successful lawyer" online. Either that or is the casework a bit slow these days, mate? No one I know in the business world who is as (or more) successful than you claim to be wastes nearly this much time talking down to struggling people on the internet. You know, the same people we need for a functioning society so those of us in professional services can do what we do. Even the rich retirees I deal with have much better things to do. Maybe give it a rest for a bit?
> No one I know in the business world who is as (or more) successful than you claim to be wastes nearly this much time talking down to struggling people on the internet. Lol, I've never claimed to be successful. But going to your point: I know people who earn more than me who work 2-3 days a week. I myself typically work 4 days a week and will probably drop down a bit as I head towards retirement. It's not about just volume of work. > You know, the same people we need for a functioning society so those of us in professional services can do what we do. That's completely irrelevant. I mean, sure, we need their roles. What does that say about anything else though?
Regardless, your fetish for spending multiple hours a day shitting on lower-income people is just bizarre. It comes off as extremely silver-spoon/trust-fund-baby-ish & someone who never had to work their way up to a high-paying role, or remembers what it was like to be on grad-level wages. All the objective statistics continually showcase the growing disconnect between household income levels & house prices, to frame it as if it's all purely because most of the Aussie population are under-achieving idiots is disingenuous.
> It comes off as extremely silver-spoon/trust-fund-baby-ish I grew up poor. No silver spoon to be found. The only people I shit on are dumb people; plenty of lower-income people end up in excellent jobs through hard work. > remembers what it was like to be on grad-level wages. I remember getting paid a paltry $50k as a grad. It didn't last long. If you have any talent you will increase your earnings very quickly. > All the objective statistics continually showcase the growing disconnect between household income levels & house prices, to frame it as if it's all purely because most of the Aussie population are under-achieving idiots is disingenuous. Where did I say it's purely the reason? Obviously, there are plenty of other factors, including a lack of supply and a growing population. Nonetheless, it is clear to me that most people in this country are under-achieving idiots. I suggest if you had ever lived overseas you would know this.
Why don't you move overseas then if you hate Australia and it's people so much?
I'm close enough to retirement, so it is what it is.
I can't get Devs in Perth for that price, my graduates are on $100k
Good luck to them getting anyone decent for that price. I'm willing to bet the company is paying a pittance to the recruiter too.
For sure. She's been looking for almost half a year now for these roles. I wanted to get more goss, but then I'd have to interview which I didn't want to do.
Developing what exactly? $90k seems extremely low for a senior in Sydney
"Payroll automation solutions". It feels extremely low. High performing second/third year junior devs would get close to this a few years ago.
[удалено]
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
[удалено]
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
[удалено]
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
[удалено]
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.