Housing affordability

[SirRumpole]

The RBA issued a research paper on housing and the rentl crisis.
In what will come as no great surprise to many, it concludes that excessive popu;ation growth is behind it.
from Macro business
View attachment 187313
View attachment 187315
View attachment 187316
View attachment 187317

In my humble opinion, the housing crisis is the way it is because the market is dominated by people who want to make the most money they can.

Investors, developers , real estate agents, banks, building companies et al all want the maximum profits and the consumer (home buyers and renters) are the ones who pay the price.

So the only way to moderate the situation is with the entry into the market of people who care less about making money, and more about solving problems and that basically means government whether local , state or federal.

Bring back the Housing Commissions of old to provide entry level accommodation to set people up while they increase their education and experience and move on to better jobs and better pay and can afford more up market housing.

 

[wayneL]

Overheads always a killer.
Housing having to support Banks via mortgage interest rates, local Government in the form of rates , State Governments in the form of stamp duty on sales, and of course the huge number of real estate agents that need to be kept.
Mick

View attachment 186151

Wow that RE agents per 1000 dwellings figure is illuminating.

I wonder what the comparative turnover of properties is?

 

[Smurf1976]

Bring back the Housing Commissions of old to provide entry level accommodation

Also a good opportunity for trades training.

 

[mullokintyre]

In 1990, we were approaching the era of 17% house mortgage rates.
Mick

now compare the above with this one.
This is the percentage of averge earnings that went into paying the mortgages of 1990 versus today.
Not a lot of difference here folks, except of course the tax rates on the average full time time earnings are tad higher.
Mick

 

[mullokintyre]

Jim Chalmers has leaned on the banks to relax some rules on mortgage qualifications.
The bloke is supposed to be pretty smart, so I guess its pretty smart politics.
Whether tis all that smart economically is a moot point.
Why not go further and tell the banks to ignore credit card debt, personal lines of credit, or novated leases on cars.
Not sure if the banks will actually follow up on it, probably does not worry Jim.
its all about the optics.
If indeed it does work, it will put more people into the already long queue for the stock os houses and push prices up further.
It will not help increase the supply side one iota.
Mick


From Evil Murdoch Press

 

[SirRumpole]

Jim Chalmers has leaned on the banks to relax some rules on mortgage qualifications.
The bloke is supposed to be pretty smart, so I guess its pretty smart politics.
Whether tis all that smart economically is a moot point.
Why not go further and tell the banks to ignore credit card debt, personal lines of credit, or novated leases on cars.
Not sure if the banks will actually follow up on it, probably does not worry Jim.
its all about the optics.
If indeed it does work, it will put more people into the already long queue for the stock os houses and push prices up further.
It will not help increase the supply side one iota.
Mick


From Evil Murdoch Press
View attachment 193079

Labor still refuses to acknowledge that it's negative gearing and CGT deductions that are pricing first home buyers out of the market in favour of investors.


Until they come to their senses about that, the situation won't change.

 

[investor13]

Jim Chalmers has leaned on the banks to relax some rules on mortgage qualifications.
The bloke is supposed to be pretty smart, so I guess its pretty smart politics.
Whether tis all that smart economically is a moot point.
Why not go further and tell the banks to ignore credit card debt, personal lines of credit, or novated leases on cars.
Not sure if the banks will actually follow up on it, probably does not worry Jim.
its all about the optics.
If indeed it does work, it will put more people into the already long queue for the stock os houses and push prices up further.
It will not help increase the supply side one iota.
Mick


From Evil Murdoch Press
View attachment 193079

a house can only be built as fast as councils approve the DA and the tradesman can build it. the price of the property is sold as or rented out at what the market demand is. the hocas poscas labour plan hasnt produced **** yet only continue to have borders opened and no increase in the building supply

you simply cannot make this **** up that labour continue to dribble out and people still believe they could care for a change like they havent done already for the past few yearls of the Albo circus
the ALP build to rent properties by forign investment companies who recieve discounts on taxes LOL




This article is more than 10 months old

Migration rose by one-third last year to lift Australia’s population by a record 659,000​

This article is more than 10 months old
The net annual rise was revealed as Labor signalled moves to reduce migration arrivals

• Follow our Australia news live blog for latest updates
• Get our morning and afternoon news emails, free app or daily news podcast

Luca Ittimani and Paul Karp
Thu 21 Mar 2024 17.36 AEDT


Australia welcomed more than 2,000 migrants a day in the year to September, helping to swell the country’s population by a record 659,800, reigniting political debate about measures to reduce arrivals.
Migration arrivals rose by a third compared with the previous year to hit 765,900, driven by international students and workers on temporary visas, while departures slipped to 217,100.

Migration rose by one-third last year to lift Australia’s population by a record 659,000

The net annual rise was revealed as Labor signalled moves to reduce migration arrivals

www.theguardian.com

Overseas Migration, 2023-24 financial year

Statistics on Australia's international migration, by state and territory, country of birth, visa, age and sex.

www.abs.gov.au

 

[Knobby22]

 

[Smurf1976]

Jim Chalmers has leaned on the banks to relax some rules on mortgage qualifications.

Equivalent to a drug addict making an excuse to use the drug once more.

Loose lending standards and low interest rates are a big part of the problem in the first place.

 

[mullokintyre]

the ABS released its latest lending stats yetserday.
There just

Housing investment loans decreases may be attributable to expectations of negative gearing changes, plus there may be more investors sufficiently well heeled to pay cash.

Of a more worrying nature is the fall in firt home buyer loans.
Are they waiting for a fall in interest rates?

Mick

 

[SirRumpole]

Of a more worrying nature is the fall in firt home buyer loans.
Are they waiting for a fall in interest rates?

That would be a reasonable assumption in my opinion.

 

[basilio]

Where the Housing affordability situation stands from the inside.

Great job, good education, no home: is Australia’s bloated property market destroying the middle class?​

A fresh cycle of interest rate cuts have propelled house prices in capital cities to peak levels – locking new buyers out of the market

• Get our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcast

Jonathan Barrett Business editor
Sat 12 Jul 2025 16.00 EDT

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...y-market-destroying-the-middle-class#comments
281
Ross Hamilton spends his work days in a laboratory developing treatments for fibrosis. At home, he sets aside as much time as possible to be with his partner, their four-year-old daughter and their baby boy, who was born just a few weeks ago.
The 43-year-old is well educated, works in a cutting-edge industry and is part of a dual-income household. But despite this, the couple cannot afford a family home anywhere near his Sydney workplace or prospective schools as property prices increase at a faster pace than the family can save for a deposit.

“It’s just capitalism gone crazy. A house is no longer a domicile. It’s an investment, and it’s pushed people out who just happened to be born later. That’s all it is,” says Hamilton.

“There’s a huge population now that had a bit of wealth years ago, and they bought property, and then it’s gone up dramatically since then.
“I don’t blame the players. I blame the game.”

Backed by favourable tax arrangements, property has been such a lucrative moneymaker over the past quarter century that affordability has deteriorated faster in Australia than in almost every other comparable country.

Great job, good education, no home: is Australia’s bloated property market destroying the middle class?

A fresh cycle of interest rate cuts have propelled house prices in capital cities to peak levels – locking new buyers out of the market

www.theguardian.com

 

[SirRumpole]

Where the Housing affordability situation stands from the inside.

Great job, good education, no home: is Australia’s bloated property market destroying the middle class?​

A fresh cycle of interest rate cuts have propelled house prices in capital cities to peak levels – locking new buyers out of the market

• Get our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcast

View attachment 203696
Jonathan Barrett Business editor
Sat 12 Jul 2025 16.00 EDT

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...y-market-destroying-the-middle-class#comments
281
Ross Hamilton spends his work days in a laboratory developing treatments for fibrosis. At home, he sets aside as much time as possible to be with his partner, their four-year-old daughter and their baby boy, who was born just a few weeks ago.
The 43-year-old is well educated, works in a cutting-edge industry and is part of a dual-income household. But despite this, the couple cannot afford a family home anywhere near his Sydney workplace or prospective schools as property prices increase at a faster pace than the family can save for a deposit.

“It’s just capitalism gone crazy. A house is no longer a domicile. It’s an investment, and it’s pushed people out who just happened to be born later. That’s all it is,” says Hamilton.

“There’s a huge population now that had a bit of wealth years ago, and they bought property, and then it’s gone up dramatically since then.
“I don’t blame the players. I blame the game.”

Backed by favourable tax arrangements, property has been such a lucrative moneymaker over the past quarter century that affordability has deteriorated faster in Australia than in almost every other comparable country.

Great job, good education, no home: is Australia’s bloated property market destroying the middle class?

A fresh cycle of interest rate cuts have propelled house prices in capital cities to peak levels – locking new buyers out of the market

www.theguardian.com

This is a societal polarising issue that has to be solved, but the politicians are too scared to do it or have their own snouts in the trough.

 

[Dona Ferentes]

.
.
I accept the numbers but don't agree with the interpretation

 

[macca]

View attachment 203699
.
.
I accept the numbers but don't agree with the interpretation

The whole mess is caused by too many immigrants in too short a time

All the rest is BS generated to protect the Government

 

[Smurf1976]

The whole mess is caused by too many immigrants in too short a time

Taking a further step back, the reason we're running immigration so hard is in an effort to delay the inevitable demographic shift.

Average age of the Australian population is 38.3 years.

The median age of migrant arrivals in 2023-24 was 27.

Both from ABS data that Google brings up.

So flooding the country with migrants is a means to slow, but not halt, the ageing of the population. Trouble is it's of limited effectiveness given the gap is only 11 years, meaning we need a seriously large number of migrants arriving on a constant basis for it to work.

Far more effective mathematically would be to make our own. That is, for existing Australian women to have a sufficient number of children to stabilise the population. That fixes the demographic problem and does so without constant growth. It's far more potent than immigration since by definition the average age of a child at birth is zero, meaning they're 38.3 years younger than the population versus the comparatively small 11 year gap with migrants.

That then gets into the real issue - the destruction of the family as the core, fundamental unit of society. I'm not advocating we go back to 1950 and lock women in kitchens and I'm not saying we shouldn't accept same sex relationships and so on. But creating a situation where most adults marry and have 2 or 3 children would be a good thing.

The next step back is with relationships and "chicken or egg" argument with housing itself. How to get to a situation where relationships are at least reasonably stable, or at a minimum not seen as a threat, and the issue that people without suitable housing often avoid having children thus continuing the cycle.

I'm not against immigration per se, indeed my own mother was born overseas, but at present Australia's using it in an attempt to offset serious structural problems in society and that just isn't working out at all well. It requires exponential growth to continue and at some point that's not going to happen, the game's up.

 

[Dona Ferentes]

Taking a further step back, the reason we're running immigration so hard is in an effort to delay the inevitable demographic shift.

Average age of the Australian population is 38.3 years.

The median age of migrant arrivals in 2023-24 was 27.

Both from ABS data that Google brings up.

So flooding the country with migrants is a means to slow, but not halt, the ageing of the population. Trouble is it's of limited effectiveness given the gap is only 11 years, meaning we need a seriously large number of migrants arriving on a constant basis for it to work.

Far more effective mathematically would be to make our own. That is, for existing Australian women to have a sufficient number of children to stabilise the population. That fixes the demographic problem and does so without constant growth. It's far more potent than immigration since by definition the average age of a child at birth is zero, meaning they're 38.3 years younger than the population versus the comparatively small 11 year gap with migrants.

That then gets into the real issue - the destruction of the family as the core, fundamental unit of society. I'm not advocating we go back to 1950 and lock women in kitchens and I'm not saying we shouldn't accept same sex relationships and so on. But creating a situation where most adults marry and have 2 or 3 children would be a good thing.

The next step back is with relationships and "chicken or egg" argument with housing itself. How to get to a situation where relationships are at least reasonably stable, or at a minimum not seen as a threat, and the issue that people without suitable housing often avoid having children thus continuing the cycle.

I'm not against immigration per se, indeed my own mother was born overseas, but at present Australia's using it in an attempt to offset serious structural problems in society and that just isn't working out at all well. It requires exponential growth to continue and at some point that's not going to happen, the game's up.

that or more babies

 

[macca]

Taking a further step back, the reason we're running immigration so hard is in an effort to delay the inevitable demographic shift.

Average age of the Australian population is 38.3 years.

The median age of migrant arrivals in 2023-24 was 27.

Both from ABS data that Google brings up.

So flooding the country with migrants is a means to slow, but not halt, the ageing of the population. Trouble is it's of limited effectiveness given the gap is only 11 years, meaning we need a seriously large number of migrants arriving on a constant basis for it to work.

Far more effective mathematically would be to make our own. That is, for existing Australian women to have a sufficient number of children to stabilise the population. That fixes the demographic problem and does so without constant growth. It's far more potent than immigration since by definition the average age of a child at birth is zero, meaning they're 38.3 years younger than the population versus the comparatively small 11 year gap with migrants.

That then gets into the real issue - the destruction of the family as the core, fundamental unit of society. I'm not advocating we go back to 1950 and lock women in kitchens and I'm not saying we shouldn't accept same sex relationships and so on. But creating a situation where most adults marry and have 2 or 3 children would be a good thing.

The next step back is with relationships and "chicken or egg" argument with housing itself. How to get to a situation where relationships are at least reasonably stable, or at a minimum not seen as a threat, and the issue that people without suitable housing often avoid having children thus continuing the cycle.

I'm not against immigration per se, indeed my own mother was born overseas, but at present Australia's using it in an attempt to offset serious structural problems in society and that just isn't working out at all well. It requires exponential growth to continue and at some point that's not going to happen, the game's up.

With housing such a problem most people simply cannot afford to buy a house then start a family

The major cities are over crowded now with more to come.

Lots of political hot air on more housing but we are allowing people in faster then we can build the houses.

Utter stupidity and incompetent Government and our younger generation are bearing the brunt of it.

 

[SirRumpole]

Taking a further step back, the reason we're running immigration so hard is in an effort to delay the inevitable demographic shift.

Average age of the Australian population is 38.3 years.

The median age of migrant arrivals in 2023-24 was 27.

Both from ABS data that Google brings up.

So flooding the country with migrants is a means to slow, but not halt, the ageing of the population. Trouble is it's of limited effectiveness given the gap is only 11 years, meaning we need a seriously large number of migrants arriving on a constant basis for it to work.

Far more effective mathematically would be to make our own. That is, for existing Australian women to have a sufficient number of children to stabilise the population. That fixes the demographic problem and does so without constant growth. It's far more potent than immigration since by definition the average age of a child at birth is zero, meaning they're 38.3 years younger than the population versus the comparatively small 11 year gap with migrants.

That then gets into the real issue - the destruction of the family as the core, fundamental unit of society. I'm not advocating we go back to 1950 and lock women in kitchens and I'm not saying we shouldn't accept same sex relationships and so on. But creating a situation where most adults marry and have 2 or 3 children would be a good thing.

The next step back is with relationships and "chicken or egg" argument with housing itself. How to get to a situation where relationships are at least reasonably stable, or at a minimum not seen as a threat, and the issue that people without suitable housing often avoid having children thus continuing the cycle.

I'm not against immigration per se, indeed my own mother was born overseas, but at present Australia's using it in an attempt to offset serious structural problems in society and that just isn't working out at all well. It requires exponential growth to continue and at some point that's not going to happen, the game's up.

Absolutely right. And couples are less likely to have children I f they can't afford housing for them.

But then, who Is going to build the houses?

There seems to be a genera l lack of tradespeople, brickies, sparkles plumbers etc.

So immigration is being called on again.

Chicken and egg as you say.

If we had a "temporary workers" policy, we may be better off.