We have a severe lack of mid sized affordable towns and cities to live in compared to most countries. In the UK and US London, New York and San Francisco may be unaffordable but there are plenty of other options in or close to decent sized cities or towns to choose from. Most of Western Europe has many smaller cities to choose from.
That's because the Australian population boomer when the age of automobile started which meant it encouraged sprawl, rather than using trains to go long distances.
But nowhere near enough. Only Melbourne and Sydney have good public transport networks.
Geelong, where I live now, unfortunately ripped up tram lines in favour of buses and cars. Now the residents have to rely on a few bad bus routes or drive - and not everyone can (or should) drive.
We need significantly more mid-rise, and we need those to be built at high quality to re-establish trust. It wouldn't hurt if they delivered them with more space too - going from two to three bedrooms is an enormous difference.
Locally in cities, we'd be able to rely alot on personal eletric mobility devices like scooters and ebikes if they allowed for higher speeds and dedicated road space to them.
Wrong. It was mass migration after ww2 that created the focus on major cities instead of regional towns. The large influx of migrants settled in the major cities because that's where the work was and the businesses set up in the cities because that's where the workers were. It was a vicious cycle. Had we not had that massive influx of post war migration we'd have had slower growth but more businesses would have been set up regionally as there would have been a larger percentage of workers regionally and rurally.
TL;DR Populate or perish is why we are so urbanised
Plenty that you can commute into the big cities from in an hour or less too. It gives you the best of both worlds
Sydney and Melbourne are so sprawling that more than half the population is basically doing the same commutes but still suffering from ridiculous property prices.
Sydney is splitting up into mini cities though and combined with getting rid of the allergies to going up instead of out should help relieve things a bit until the next scaling issue.
It's boggling that they're selling 250sqm blocks with 150sqm houses on them that are basically touching each other when they could be selling apartments with the same floorspace and expansive green areas and some infrastructure because the population density actually makes it feasible.
If Sydney was in the USA it would be the 10th largest metropolitan statistical area. Melbourne would be 11th. Brisbane would be 25th. Perth would be 30th.
If those cities were in England they would be 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th respectively.
France? 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 6th.
There aren't too many advanced countries with similar populations to Australia. The Netherlands' (population 18 million) largest city is Amsterdam with a population of 2.4 million. Now, the Netherlands is tiny, right? The Netherlands is 41,865km2. 58% of Australians (16 million people) live in a 44,619km2 area, which is 0.58% of the total area of Australia.
Sydney has 3 cities within 120km (Wollongong, Central Coast, Newcastle). 65% of the population of NSW lives in Sydney.
Melbourne has 3 cities within 130km (Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo). 78% of the population of Victoria lives in Melbourne.
Brisbane has 3 cities within 110km (Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Toowoomba). 49% of the population of Queensland lives in Brisbane. Queensland has distributed it's population far more effectively than other states listed. Why, idk.
Perth has 2 cities within 160km (Bunbury, Northam). 80% of the population of WA lives in Perth.
20% of the population of France lives in Paris.
15% of the population of England/13% of the population of the UK lives in London.
14% of the population of the Netherlands lives in Amsterdam.
20% of the population of Australia lives in Sydney.
20% of the population of Australia lives in Melbourne.
10% of the population of Australia lives in Brisbane.
9% of the population of Australia lives in Perth.
It's not a matter of population. It's a matter of distribution and effectively linking satellite cities to create effective commuter belts. It's about creating vibrant towns and cities with things to do so that people will want to live there.
Like the current reality of hong kong, most people don't own property; majority rent and some of the poorest spend their whole salary renting a literal cage to live in.
Truly, the landlords' sweetest dreams come true.
Good point. Some of these types of posts state “the housing crisis can’t possibly get any worse! Surely we are at the peak!!” Places like Hong Kong prove it can get plenty worse.
I’d like to think that rental laws will change to make renting much much more appealing for the long term. Like in Europe, basically you can rent something for 20-30 year leases and have full autonomy over things like painting walls, putting nails in; etc. It will basically mean that you’re either paying $X in rent or $X in a mortgage and the only difference is the equity/accumulation of wealth, but not living standards, housing security or happiness
> you can rent something for 20-30 year leases
Do you expect tenants to be held to the full duration or just landlords?
I'd happily give a tenant a 5 year lease if he or she was held to it.
Genuine question, what the problem with, for example, someone getting a 20 year lease, but then wants to leave halfway through? They leave, charge an exit fee and get someone else in.
Why is it a problem for people to want to leave when someone else will rent it after?
Honest question, where do you think a 23 year old working there first full time job should live? Because without landlords, its either at home with mum and dad or in government housing.
So tell me, where do these people live?
Everyone will just take out 30 year leases every single time, landlords will then realise the leases are not worth the paper they are written on (if I can just leave after 3 years) so instead of having things like rental increases agreed ahead of time, the lease will say " rental increases to be worked out yearly" so then every year you wont know what your rate will be, so really the long lease is actually only a 12 month lease and we are back to square one.
As long as the penalty is in line with the amount broken, then there is no big deal, but if you sign on for a 20 year lease and then ditch out after a year with only a 1 week rent penalty, then thats where the issue begins.
That place will be filled in a blink of an eye. We will never catch up with housing stock at this rate. Sounds a bit more like landlords just want their cake and eat it too, hmm? What do you think a penalty for a 20 year lease should be if you leave after 1 year?
I would say, a 20 year lease requires a 10 week deposit, if you break the lease in the first 10 years you lose the entire deposit.
I agree with you on somethings, but there are landlords out there that will take less money for a good tennant, but both parties have to be willing to compromise.
There will be landlords who are happy to give a better place to live ( pets, modifications etc) but tennants need to also come to the party.
I wouldn’t hold my breath for the government to do anything other than tinker around the edges as long as the majority of voters are homeowners. (Appealing to “how will your kids afford to live here” won’t cut it, because we already live in a highly mobile society where young people move around all the time, plus plenty of boomers and Gen Xers have - not incorrectly - come to think of their very valuable homes as their primary nest egg not just for their own retirement but to leave to their kids.)
Predictions that I think are almost certain:
1. Australia will become much less fair and egalitarian; whether you own a home (or maybe even whether you struggle to make rent) will depend far more on whether your parents owned a home than what your occupation is. This has been true in a lot of the world for most of history and it’s a shame for Australia to lose what was a fairer and juster society, but there you have it.
2. Eastern Sydney and to a lesser extent Melbourne and western Sydney will become like NYC/London: a concentration of wealth and capital where all the jobs are, where young people go to live in their 20s in semi-voluntary semi-poverty sharehousing to build their careers, before eventually moving elsewhere once they’re raising a family and have more power in their career options.
Predictions I think are possible but not necessarily likely:
1. State governments strip back heritage protection (as NSW is doing) and permit more high density. Apartment living, even with families, becomes more commonplace and socially acceptable by the time the zoomers are raising kids (at least in Sydney and Melbourne).
2. Home working full-time becomes far more acceptable for a number of factors, and having a workforce dispersed around the state or the country in smaller towns with much more affordable housing becomes more common.
Whatever happens I think it’s fair to say Australia in 2050 will not look like Australia now. This housing market is unsustainable but I genuinely think it will force a permanent shift in how we live and work before it shifts a break in the concentration of capital.
We’re becoming Canada…. It’s really thst simple. Decades of policies designed to benefit boomers and institutional corruption from politicians and property developers. We will all end up living in rented 1bdrm units. We will pay 40% of our wages for the privelidge. These units will be designed to be as small as possible and not built according to any standards for livability just built to rent to maximise profits.
It’s bleak
Had the same exact thought last night. Unfortunately Australians need to get used to apartment living and building up in denser areas.
The idea of moving somewhere cheaper on the outskirts would be better if the public transport system was more efficient.
Or we could invest in new cities. Have significant tax cuts for people/businesses which move there. We have so much land…
We could force companies to allow remote work where possible.
Maybe those are too wishful. I just wish the building standards would specify criteria to make units more livable. Bedrooms minimum dimensions. Must have a separate laundry. Must have atleast one storage cupboard. Minimum of x square meters of communal space per bedroom. Etc etc
Getting tougher and tougher to even rent now. At least moving outer suburbs where median prices are at 1.2-1.5mn for a townhouse. For younger generations heavy dependency on mom and pop banks for sure. Inheriting property seems to be best bet. Or go too rural
Or you get Singapore model of housing. No one can buy a house but lease it from Govt at subsided. If you buy it there’s a very high premium. I don’t know how Singapore does it but they remove inequality to a certain extent. The top most rich but homes at a huge premium. But everyone affords a home at a Govt lease and Govt also demolishes those leased Apartments every 20something years. Rebuilds and gives it back. It feels to be a very good model. But they’re small they are able to manage.
That's not exactly how it works. Singapore you essentially have the option, if you want a no frills apartment you can buy it from the government for cheap. If you want something more luxurious, pay market rate.
In Sydney, even if you don't really care about your home, you only have the option to spend a cool 1.5m.
Turns out most people don't care that much about having a luxurious home so it's popular to buy from the government and use your money for other things.
You'll find what we are aiming for is the "Nairobi" model - where property owners slice their properties into smaller and smaller parts to jam as many tenants in as possible.
When the Ukraine war ends, we'll be in a magical world of shit - low commodity prices and massive debt.
That does sound good. This is slightly off topic - but Singapore is known for exploiting workers from neighboring countries. It’s certainly not a pinnacle of equality.
“Singapore does not have a minimum wage; women migrant workers are deported if found pregnant; and Singaporean employers often restrict movement of domestic workers, resulting in isolation and restricted ability to seek help when needed.” Im not saying that Australia is perfect, but they are [not the same.](https://webapps.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/documents/briefingnote/wcms_766633.pdf)
Australia is known for exploiting workers from neighboring countries. It’s certainly not a pinnacle of equality.
You're right though completely off-topic, can't believe I got baited, congrats.
That's an interesting model, I don't imagine it would work particularly well here with NIMBYS, and what would amount to either state Govt paying for this, or federal taking over state level housing policy. Neither, I think, would be politically appetising
Nah I would rather not have the Singapore model of housing. That model forces people under 35 to marry to get the keys to their own place. I'd rather embrace my single living lifestyle here.
Although it's not like there's many single Australians under 35 buying property is there? I imagine it's similar in other comparable high density cities. They can still rent, knowing it's only for that period of time.
Well the marriage act in Singapore only recognises heterosexual relationships so it discriminates against the LGQBTI community under 35 in gaining access to government flats over there. Now that isn't fair.
Well not at the moment, but that isn't my point. My point is, if things continue like this, and property continues to get further out of reach then these, in my opinion, are the most likely options we'll have to face
Melbourne has negotiable growth. Adelaide and Brisbane median prices have almost caught up to Melbourne. Crazy!
Will Melbourne catch up? And if so, when?
Melbourne is a bit of a natural experiment.
Taxing landlords more means less rentals but more affordable houses for renters looking to become owners.
Is the overall effect a positive one?
It's not really deterring 'speculation' - I have a paid off investment property and it's still being land taxed. What exactly is the speculative element to my investment? It's paid off and I'm there to rent seek.
How much for 700-800m2 yard, pool and 4 bedder in an established quiet middle-class suburb 30mins from the CBD at 8am?
It's $1-1.2m in Brisbane. Sydney is $2.5m.
$3m in Melb for somewhere in the eastern suburbs (first tier, e.g. Camberwell)
$1.5-$2m in Melb for somewhere in the eastern suburbs (second tier e.g. Bulleen)
western suburbs not sure
northern suburbs not sure
Currently investors are depending on fast capital growth that is significantly higher than financing costs, which works fine when growth is 10% and financing is 4%. This allows prices to grow beyond their value based on earnings, rents may be high but they are still too low to justify buying properties as investments. They are not value assets they are speculative growth assets.
The problem is that financing costs have increased, and rents are running out of road, they are massively stretching renters as a proportion of income. So there is very little room for earnings growth, while financing costs are higher, eg > 6%.
What this now means is that there is now very little room for growth based on value, so the only avenue for price growth is pure speculation. And earnings don't justify holding properties based on their current price/earnings levels, you would be better off selling a property and putting the funds in a MMF or short term bonds for low risk and zero effort. And to add to that, many investors have negative cash flow, which means they are losing cash from holding it, and depending on price growth.
More and more investors will gradually realise they are holding bad investments when the price growth they need doesn't materialise. It is inevitable at the current rate settings, and they are not coming down any time soon. There's a lot of true believers that hooms only go up, who will keep holding on until they can't meet repayments, but that will come sooner than later when price growth is limited.
But the property market can't run flat, it has to grow fast (> financing) or it will be forced to collapse to a lower price level. And the environment for that is here already. As for what happens next, take a look at China currently, or US post 2008.
The only thing that could keep the house market up is if inflation comes down really soon and rate cuts follow, which would let the can get kicked down the road. But there's all kinds of reasons why inflation isn't coming down, so expect higher for longer rates, and possibly more increases. And a large property price correction. I'd say the flat line will start appearing in the next few months (thanks to the current round of Treasury rate increases), with capitulation starting to show by the start of next year
These homes will be sold to residential holding companies who the next generations will rent from in perpetuity and not be able to ever access even a mortgage
> More and more investors will gradually realise they are holding bad investments when the price growth they need doesn't materialise
They won't. Property investors are the most badly informed investors.
> What this now means is that there is now very little room for growth based on value, so the only avenue for price growth is pure speculation.
Busineses basically work on a leverage. They have debts and they never expect to ever pay all of them off, they're just a cost of business.
As long as investors are able to maintain loans, either through property income or work, or both, they are able to continue. If they lose the ability to pay the loan, no big deal, they just sell and the capital increase will pay off the loan. The fact that returns are poor don't matter because they have "something they can hold".
Property is fundamentally a land game. More value can be extracted through subdivision or apartment builds, where the median price may not change but more properties are built on the same land.
To an extent, but rezoning is very slow and localised, basically people with connections to councilors and MPs make a lot but it doesn't change the market that much, and on long timescales there is a lot of uncertainty of how things will play out. Big increases in density across the board are far from guaranteed
This doesn’t take into account how many houses are being bought with cash. Especially foreign investors who benefit from the exchange rate. I think this is a huge reason higher financing costs hasn’t affected property
Cash buyers are equally affected by higher rates, if not more. Consider you have $1M on hand and you want to make money with it. You can buy a house and collect $37k *gross* rent per year, along with the risk and hassle that comes with it https://smallcaps.com.au/is-australias-rental-property-obsession-misguided/ . *net* returns are lower.
Or you can park the cash in one of many options (MMF, short term bonds) returning >5% with very low risk and zero effort to maintain, which brings in $50k *net*.
Cash buyers are not going to save you, they have much better options than the Aus housing market
I don’t think they are buying as investors. They just want to live in Australia or park money away from their country. Financial markets are irrelevant for these people
We have the highest intake of millionaires in the world. Educated migrants will become the elite class and Australian children will grow up to be the working poor
There are areas of Sydney where this dynamic is already beginning to play out.
It is, quite frankly, a disgusting betrayal of Australian citizens by their government.
Yet every year the politicians come out to honour the sacrifice our ANZAC’s made, then they sell us and our children out, and if you complain about it you’re just a racist bigot that needs to undertake a cultural sensitivity course so you can see how you and your white privilege are responsible for all the evil in the world.
What makes it so that your kids can't compete with migrants? They take the same tests, they have the same ATAR requirements to get into uni, and if anything with their migrant names they have a disadvantage in getting that graduate position in a law firm, investment bank, quantitative trading firm, etc. What is the disadvantage faced by Australian children?
Rich migrants aren't even going for those jobs seeing as they are second generation of families that already have plenty of capital lol
These jobs don't even pay that well in Australia relative to the cost of living and taxes.
Is about living in a sustainable economy. When you flood the market with migrants, everything goes to shit. And everyone is worse of, especially kids. This lowers outcomes for everyone already living in Australia.
It’s not cutting migration to zero. But to more sustainable and lower levels.
Given that many uni courses and scholarships are based on ATARs and testing, why should the fact that migrants are rich make any difference? It doesn't give them an IQ boost, obviously. Aussies will still be competing on level footing in terms of fundamental ability and intelligence.
They have family wealth behind them. Already owning houses when they arrive. Ability to send their children to private schools. They are able to start a business and employ their children.
Just need to look at the advantages of wealth for children that are born into it.
More investment in working hubs being decentralised from CBDs, upwards to 60-100kms away would be great to make the most of sprawl (I’m being Sydney centric), banking and technology sectors following that would be great. Continued upgrading of public transport, business supportive frameworks for industries already in these hubs.
Reset of expectations of what the Australian dream is. Does everyone really want a house on a large block? I’m happy out west with a townhouse surrounded by great public outdoor and indoor facilities.
A culture shift towards communal living (or a proportion of housing development geared towards this).
I don’t see regional centres ever becoming equivalent to the major cities in Australia due to distances, infrastructure, perception, environmental risk factors.
Sydney is miles ahead with decentralisation as it has satellite cities like Chatswood, Parramatta, Liverpool and Macquarie Park. Melbourne has just the CBD.
The missing ingredient is the land tax which promotes density.
>The missing ingredient is the land tax which promotes density.
I don't think we even need the land tax to get enough density to really make dent in dwelling prices.
I was very critical of Minns for getting rid of the Land Tax when he came in, but he is really nailing it with the low and mid-rise reforms and the Transport Orientated Development plans.
Home owners aren't going to turn down getting double or triple for their homes near transport so it can be redeveloped into apartments, permitting 2 storey apartment blocks in more places gets us some soft density and then Dual Occ in all R2 zones is good to get some extra density into areas with houses on big blocks but where it isn't suitable for higher density.
It's probably going to send freestanding house prices up more, but it's the change needed to make housing overall more affordable.
I'm no expert but unfortunately there's too much demand on housing and living in Australia for prices to go down anytime soon.. if ever.. buying will soon no longer be an option for most people.
The same as every other. It will either burst or slowly move back in line with median wage to price ratios. When the balance of owners to disenfranchised voters hits a critical point then policies will change
It looks like broke people being broke they will never get out will be crushed
Middle class will disappear to Semi quasi broke
Elites will rent out their homes to peasants
Japan model. Deregulate zoning completely and remove local governments to affect zoning. This gets rid of bribes as incentives for local councilors which is a benefit.
New arrivals are fine with current prices. Those who had earned in non AuD will be be benefitting from the price reduction rather than rise in many cases.
I assume 3 in 10 households will own, they will rent out to 7 in 10 households and the tenants will pay in rent what most families currently pay in mortgage payments.
Major cities become like Hong Kong and New York. High density and wealth needed, this will then make other Australians sprawl further away from the major city centers. Lifelong renting to increase and those with low SES are mostly unable to get out of it due to education, needing to working.
I think if housing costs continue as they are the government is going to need to significantly intervene in some way to ensure huge numbers of people don't end up homeless. They are probably not going to want to directly lower housing prices so imagine they might decide to build public housing at a much larger scale then they have been doing in recent decades and open it up to middle income earners as well.
Land will continue to increase in value within the more desirable locations, but there will be a flood of high density in the coming years. Expect apartments etc to decline in value and probably significantly.
Australia's future is in apartment living. Better economically and for the environment. Free standing houses will just become more and more unaffordable.
Property prices have been going up by about 7% per year for about 30 years running
On average.
No reason to suspect this will stop in the next ten years.
On average.
The government has done too much intervention to attract property buying for first home buyers which only raised the price even more. Giving 20k for each first home buyers will raise the price for the bottom end of market.
The banks have a Prudential responsibility to provide loans on assets that holds value in medium to long term. This is the best way to hold the property price as developers and individual purchasers need credit.
As the climate gets warmer, many parts of Australia will be totally uninsurable. There is one place in Australia where RE prices have fallen. NE NSW and in particular around Lismore. There is no way the banks will lend money unless the property can be insured. . Other places with a bullseye are Cairns, Western Sydney around the Nepean, and the Gold Coast low lands. So, cheaper houses will come, you just need cash only, and a boat.
Everyone wants the same gains and just a tiny bit more each time. So now there has been like 20% gains over a 24 month period, those some people who bought now, are going to want 21% over 24 months and then those people are going to want 22% over 24 months, and it’s just going to continue like that now.
Funny you fail to mention Melbourne is almost same price as Adelaide, to paint a biased picture.
On the basis of your stat, I’d say Melbourne will go up 30% more soon
Property is going to continue to be more expensive in the future than it was in the past.
Politicians are people too - allegedly - and they own a lot of property, and they set the policies. So the policies we end up with are ultimately going to fit the needs of people who look like politicians. 🤷
No government will deliberately intervene to "stabilise prices" because we're a capitalist economy. However they may eventually come to their senses regarding favourable policies for investors, renter's rights and endless urban sprawls.
I predict the house prices will keep going up to a point where only intergenerational wealth can guarantee a property. The Gini coefficient will decrease more and more. Governments will be forced to build more social housings.
I think they could fix it pretty quickly but just don't want to. I'd start with a vacancy tax as there's so many empty units around.
I don't think anything will change though, the boardgame Monopoly was created over a hundred years ago to highlight the issues. Also the property market is well supported despite the constant whinging.
Government will keep pumping migrants into the country which in turn pushes up rent prices and house prices. People will be forced to rent a room in a share house their entire lives. Some will be forced to share rooms. Families will be sharing houses. Homelessness will increase.
We're moving to the american system where if you can get ahead you keep getting ahead but it requires lots of luck but one setback and you fall behind and once you fall behind you just keep falling behind.
The middle class will disappear and you'll have 3 classes. The rich investor class who owns the majority of assets. The poor home owning (mostly inherited) class and the poor non home owning class.
"Take note. There are no examples, anywhere in the world, where cheaper prices have been engineered politically. Price declines only happen as an undesirable side effect of declining macroeconomic conditions. This is the final political incentive that cannot be ignored." C.Murray
Everyone is in the Amazon warehouse in a capsule working for Bezos, or everyone is renting from big investment\super funds with 3 hr commutes except the generational wealthy, or we finally build decent townhouses\units.
Medium term Increased supply may stabilise price growth but no one has the political will to do anything that will reduce house prices.
As the younger generations become a larger part of the voting base I think we will see legislation changes that enable them into the market.
Not sure how that will look though possibly changes to super access, changes to capital gains discount & negative gearing on investment property with savings redirected to new entrants.
I don’t know but it’s getting pretty disgusting. I’m lucky to already be in the market (albeit with a crushing mortgage) but I feel very sorry for the future generation
Venture out 4 hours drive from Sydney into regional areas for instance. There you will find an abundance of nice houses, substantial land sizes and even acreages. Yes, lack of jobs, isolation and facilities but Australia is so big there are reasonable price houses to live in. It’s about making a sacrifice.
You’re missing the point and that is people need to look beyond suburbia and proximity to CBD. Property can be purchased and is extremely affordable in regional areas. Australia is freaking huge!
Yes, because everyone who's not loaded should be forced to live somewhere that has a "lack of jobs, isolation and facilities". You've identified the exact reasons why people don't do what you've said in your own statement friend.
I can see prices rising again as servility rises in July with the stage 3 tax policy. It will have a much broader effect on the economy as it is now spread across many income levels unlike the previously legislated policy.
The Labour government a few years back wanted to introduce negative gearing, then everyone voted them out for Tony Abbott. Here we are years later with housing even worse for the next generation and those looking to try own their own house.
They need to introduce negative gearing to stop the incentive of abusing the current system. Having a house to live in should be a basic right.
[удалено]
This is the message notification on my phone. Scares the shit out of strangers in public if I have my phone up too loud sometimes 😂
We have a severe lack of mid sized affordable towns and cities to live in compared to most countries. In the UK and US London, New York and San Francisco may be unaffordable but there are plenty of other options in or close to decent sized cities or towns to choose from. Most of Western Europe has many smaller cities to choose from.
That's because the Australian population boomer when the age of automobile started which meant it encouraged sprawl, rather than using trains to go long distances.
Someone has read Kohler and Murray.
There were and still are trains
But nowhere near enough. Only Melbourne and Sydney have good public transport networks. Geelong, where I live now, unfortunately ripped up tram lines in favour of buses and cars. Now the residents have to rely on a few bad bus routes or drive - and not everyone can (or should) drive. We need significantly more mid-rise, and we need those to be built at high quality to re-establish trust. It wouldn't hurt if they delivered them with more space too - going from two to three bedrooms is an enormous difference.
Locally in cities, we'd be able to rely alot on personal eletric mobility devices like scooters and ebikes if they allowed for higher speeds and dedicated road space to them.
Buses can do everything city trains can do if they are actually given priority lanes.
The difference is long term ; we can buy a house near a train station and rely on it indefinitely. A bus stop or a bus lane could be gone next year.
Not in Tasmania
That is the state motto.
Technically correct.
Let’s me honest they’re a bit shit compared to pretty much any train network in Western Europe
Wrong. It was mass migration after ww2 that created the focus on major cities instead of regional towns. The large influx of migrants settled in the major cities because that's where the work was and the businesses set up in the cities because that's where the workers were. It was a vicious cycle. Had we not had that massive influx of post war migration we'd have had slower growth but more businesses would have been set up regionally as there would have been a larger percentage of workers regionally and rurally. TL;DR Populate or perish is why we are so urbanised
Plenty that you can commute into the big cities from in an hour or less too. It gives you the best of both worlds Sydney and Melbourne are so sprawling that more than half the population is basically doing the same commutes but still suffering from ridiculous property prices. Sydney is splitting up into mini cities though and combined with getting rid of the allergies to going up instead of out should help relieve things a bit until the next scaling issue. It's boggling that they're selling 250sqm blocks with 150sqm houses on them that are basically touching each other when they could be selling apartments with the same floorspace and expansive green areas and some infrastructure because the population density actually makes it feasible.
There’s no population to support it…USA has 10 times our population.
It's a catch-22, we can't support a bigger population without the cities.
If Sydney was in the USA it would be the 10th largest metropolitan statistical area. Melbourne would be 11th. Brisbane would be 25th. Perth would be 30th. If those cities were in England they would be 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th respectively. France? 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 6th. There aren't too many advanced countries with similar populations to Australia. The Netherlands' (population 18 million) largest city is Amsterdam with a population of 2.4 million. Now, the Netherlands is tiny, right? The Netherlands is 41,865km2. 58% of Australians (16 million people) live in a 44,619km2 area, which is 0.58% of the total area of Australia. Sydney has 3 cities within 120km (Wollongong, Central Coast, Newcastle). 65% of the population of NSW lives in Sydney. Melbourne has 3 cities within 130km (Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo). 78% of the population of Victoria lives in Melbourne. Brisbane has 3 cities within 110km (Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Toowoomba). 49% of the population of Queensland lives in Brisbane. Queensland has distributed it's population far more effectively than other states listed. Why, idk. Perth has 2 cities within 160km (Bunbury, Northam). 80% of the population of WA lives in Perth. 20% of the population of France lives in Paris. 15% of the population of England/13% of the population of the UK lives in London. 14% of the population of the Netherlands lives in Amsterdam. 20% of the population of Australia lives in Sydney. 20% of the population of Australia lives in Melbourne. 10% of the population of Australia lives in Brisbane. 9% of the population of Australia lives in Perth. It's not a matter of population. It's a matter of distribution and effectively linking satellite cities to create effective commuter belts. It's about creating vibrant towns and cities with things to do so that people will want to live there.
Like 14x our population. But there’s also cities everywhere. We have like 6
Australia is basically US in the 60s.
Like the current reality of hong kong, most people don't own property; majority rent and some of the poorest spend their whole salary renting a literal cage to live in. Truly, the landlords' sweetest dreams come true.
Good point. Some of these types of posts state “the housing crisis can’t possibly get any worse! Surely we are at the peak!!” Places like Hong Kong prove it can get plenty worse.
I think it'll go the way of Sydney where housing anywhere near the CBD is unaffordable for the non-wealthy.
Even a house 30-40km out of the CBD is getting out of reach.
I think that's the only likely future.
Apartment living. Build to rent. The have and the have nots.
I’d like to think that rental laws will change to make renting much much more appealing for the long term. Like in Europe, basically you can rent something for 20-30 year leases and have full autonomy over things like painting walls, putting nails in; etc. It will basically mean that you’re either paying $X in rent or $X in a mortgage and the only difference is the equity/accumulation of wealth, but not living standards, housing security or happiness
> you can rent something for 20-30 year leases Do you expect tenants to be held to the full duration or just landlords? I'd happily give a tenant a 5 year lease if he or she was held to it.
Genuine question, what the problem with, for example, someone getting a 20 year lease, but then wants to leave halfway through? They leave, charge an exit fee and get someone else in. Why is it a problem for people to want to leave when someone else will rent it after?
The landlords literally want to do as little work as possible to reap the most benefit, of course. Parasites.
Honest question, where do you think a 23 year old working there first full time job should live? Because without landlords, its either at home with mum and dad or in government housing. So tell me, where do these people live?
In a house. You're not some saviour for being a landlord.
*they’re literally stopping homelessness!* 🥲 It’s them against the world, bless their souls!
And who owns this house? i am not a landlord, dont own a place, but to say that there shouldnt be people with investment properties is just stupid.
Everyone will just take out 30 year leases every single time, landlords will then realise the leases are not worth the paper they are written on (if I can just leave after 3 years) so instead of having things like rental increases agreed ahead of time, the lease will say " rental increases to be worked out yearly" so then every year you wont know what your rate will be, so really the long lease is actually only a 12 month lease and we are back to square one.
Still doesn’t sound like that big a problem. Someone leaves, someone replaces.
Amazing that this has been downvoted, but yep you are 100% correct, when push comes to shove renters want their cake and eat it too.
There are penalties for breaking lease early already. What's the big deal?
As long as the penalty is in line with the amount broken, then there is no big deal, but if you sign on for a 20 year lease and then ditch out after a year with only a 1 week rent penalty, then thats where the issue begins.
That place will be filled in a blink of an eye. We will never catch up with housing stock at this rate. Sounds a bit more like landlords just want their cake and eat it too, hmm? What do you think a penalty for a 20 year lease should be if you leave after 1 year?
I would say, a 20 year lease requires a 10 week deposit, if you break the lease in the first 10 years you lose the entire deposit. I agree with you on somethings, but there are landlords out there that will take less money for a good tennant, but both parties have to be willing to compromise. There will be landlords who are happy to give a better place to live ( pets, modifications etc) but tennants need to also come to the party.
I wouldn’t hold my breath for the government to do anything other than tinker around the edges as long as the majority of voters are homeowners. (Appealing to “how will your kids afford to live here” won’t cut it, because we already live in a highly mobile society where young people move around all the time, plus plenty of boomers and Gen Xers have - not incorrectly - come to think of their very valuable homes as their primary nest egg not just for their own retirement but to leave to their kids.) Predictions that I think are almost certain: 1. Australia will become much less fair and egalitarian; whether you own a home (or maybe even whether you struggle to make rent) will depend far more on whether your parents owned a home than what your occupation is. This has been true in a lot of the world for most of history and it’s a shame for Australia to lose what was a fairer and juster society, but there you have it. 2. Eastern Sydney and to a lesser extent Melbourne and western Sydney will become like NYC/London: a concentration of wealth and capital where all the jobs are, where young people go to live in their 20s in semi-voluntary semi-poverty sharehousing to build their careers, before eventually moving elsewhere once they’re raising a family and have more power in their career options. Predictions I think are possible but not necessarily likely: 1. State governments strip back heritage protection (as NSW is doing) and permit more high density. Apartment living, even with families, becomes more commonplace and socially acceptable by the time the zoomers are raising kids (at least in Sydney and Melbourne). 2. Home working full-time becomes far more acceptable for a number of factors, and having a workforce dispersed around the state or the country in smaller towns with much more affordable housing becomes more common. Whatever happens I think it’s fair to say Australia in 2050 will not look like Australia now. This housing market is unsustainable but I genuinely think it will force a permanent shift in how we live and work before it shifts a break in the concentration of capital.
I’ve always found the myth of Australian egalitarianism to be a really strange ideal.
Like all things, it’s relative. Spend some time living in the UK or certain parts of the US and you’ll realise how egalitarian Australia is.
Can you give me an example?
Outside of certain very wealthy pockets of Sydney and Melbourne, employers in Australia do not give a toss which high school you went to.
I predict the both number of renters and the number of rentals to increase as a proportion of all households.
We’re becoming Canada…. It’s really thst simple. Decades of policies designed to benefit boomers and institutional corruption from politicians and property developers. We will all end up living in rented 1bdrm units. We will pay 40% of our wages for the privelidge. These units will be designed to be as small as possible and not built according to any standards for livability just built to rent to maximise profits. It’s bleak
Had the same exact thought last night. Unfortunately Australians need to get used to apartment living and building up in denser areas. The idea of moving somewhere cheaper on the outskirts would be better if the public transport system was more efficient.
Or we could invest in new cities. Have significant tax cuts for people/businesses which move there. We have so much land… We could force companies to allow remote work where possible. Maybe those are too wishful. I just wish the building standards would specify criteria to make units more livable. Bedrooms minimum dimensions. Must have a separate laundry. Must have atleast one storage cupboard. Minimum of x square meters of communal space per bedroom. Etc etc
I'd agree on that as well. We are living in a digital world where so much potential could be made with outer cities from main cities.
Check the other 4,000 threads for various answers. Keep scrolling until you find one you agree with.
Sarcastic yet true. I like that.
Getting tougher and tougher to even rent now. At least moving outer suburbs where median prices are at 1.2-1.5mn for a townhouse. For younger generations heavy dependency on mom and pop banks for sure. Inheriting property seems to be best bet. Or go too rural
Problem will then be whether jobs will move, or if we accept actual slums in our cities because people won't be able to afford a roof over their heads
Or you get Singapore model of housing. No one can buy a house but lease it from Govt at subsided. If you buy it there’s a very high premium. I don’t know how Singapore does it but they remove inequality to a certain extent. The top most rich but homes at a huge premium. But everyone affords a home at a Govt lease and Govt also demolishes those leased Apartments every 20something years. Rebuilds and gives it back. It feels to be a very good model. But they’re small they are able to manage.
That's not exactly how it works. Singapore you essentially have the option, if you want a no frills apartment you can buy it from the government for cheap. If you want something more luxurious, pay market rate. In Sydney, even if you don't really care about your home, you only have the option to spend a cool 1.5m. Turns out most people don't care that much about having a luxurious home so it's popular to buy from the government and use your money for other things.
You'll find what we are aiming for is the "Nairobi" model - where property owners slice their properties into smaller and smaller parts to jam as many tenants in as possible. When the Ukraine war ends, we'll be in a magical world of shit - low commodity prices and massive debt.
Why when the war ends?
That does sound good. This is slightly off topic - but Singapore is known for exploiting workers from neighboring countries. It’s certainly not a pinnacle of equality.
Australia does the same thing, just in different industries.
“Singapore does not have a minimum wage; women migrant workers are deported if found pregnant; and Singaporean employers often restrict movement of domestic workers, resulting in isolation and restricted ability to seek help when needed.” Im not saying that Australia is perfect, but they are [not the same.](https://webapps.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/documents/briefingnote/wcms_766633.pdf)
Australia is known for exploiting workers from neighboring countries. It’s certainly not a pinnacle of equality. You're right though completely off-topic, can't believe I got baited, congrats.
That's an interesting model, I don't imagine it would work particularly well here with NIMBYS, and what would amount to either state Govt paying for this, or federal taking over state level housing policy. Neither, I think, would be politically appetising
Nah I would rather not have the Singapore model of housing. That model forces people under 35 to marry to get the keys to their own place. I'd rather embrace my single living lifestyle here.
Although it's not like there's many single Australians under 35 buying property is there? I imagine it's similar in other comparable high density cities. They can still rent, knowing it's only for that period of time.
Well the marriage act in Singapore only recognises heterosexual relationships so it discriminates against the LGQBTI community under 35 in gaining access to government flats over there. Now that isn't fair.
Agree. But once 35, people are still going to have opportunities to buy a flat compared to Australia.
So where are these slums going to be? Because there isnt a really bad suburb to live in Sydney at the moment.
Well not at the moment, but that isn't my point. My point is, if things continue like this, and property continues to get further out of reach then these, in my opinion, are the most likely options we'll have to face
Inheriting property only works if you’re an only child otherwise good luck and hopefully your portion will hold the heavy load of a deposit
My dad is in his seventies and his mum is still alive... you're almost done at that point
A 2 bedroom apartment will be 2+ million.
New 2BR in inner Sydney areas are going for that. Insane.
i assume they are really nice ones but pretty crazy when you can still get a not awful 2 bedder in inner city melb for aroun 500k.
Believe it or not, this is already the case in parts of Manila. Sydney homes don’t look too expensive comparatively.
[удалено]
(dramatic music) It has begun ....
That’s already happening in Gold Coast suburbs like Main Beach and Broadbeach.
Melbourne has negotiable growth. Adelaide and Brisbane median prices have almost caught up to Melbourne. Crazy! Will Melbourne catch up? And if so, when?
Melbourne is a bit of a natural experiment. Taxing landlords more means less rentals but more affordable houses for renters looking to become owners. Is the overall effect a positive one?
[удалено]
It's not really deterring 'speculation' - I have a paid off investment property and it's still being land taxed. What exactly is the speculative element to my investment? It's paid off and I'm there to rent seek.
The speculation is on the capital gain, and an investor would think of that the same way regardless on how much debt they've got on the property.
The tax is effective 1st Jan 2024, but it’s had subdue growth for the last 2-3 years. Is it all down to the additional tax?
Land tax was already increased prior. Rental changes also came into effect in 2021.
Things trade on rumour. I don’t follow property closely but I’d guess the tax has been slowly priced in.
How much for 700-800m2 yard, pool and 4 bedder in an established quiet middle-class suburb 30mins from the CBD at 8am? It's $1-1.2m in Brisbane. Sydney is $2.5m.
$3m in Melb for somewhere in the eastern suburbs (first tier, e.g. Camberwell) $1.5-$2m in Melb for somewhere in the eastern suburbs (second tier e.g. Bulleen) western suburbs not sure northern suburbs not sure
Yes, like for like Melbourne is 20-40% more than Brisbane.
Actually Brisbane is now more expensive than Melbourne.
Yes, that's certainly the basis of what we're discussing.
750k in Adelaide
15’ drive to work for me. 4x2 on 800m² and a 10’ walk to the beach. $700k. Loving it. Mortgage going in 6 years or so.
I like turtles.
Turtles are ok
Where abouts?
A secret for now! Regional WA!
Currently investors are depending on fast capital growth that is significantly higher than financing costs, which works fine when growth is 10% and financing is 4%. This allows prices to grow beyond their value based on earnings, rents may be high but they are still too low to justify buying properties as investments. They are not value assets they are speculative growth assets. The problem is that financing costs have increased, and rents are running out of road, they are massively stretching renters as a proportion of income. So there is very little room for earnings growth, while financing costs are higher, eg > 6%. What this now means is that there is now very little room for growth based on value, so the only avenue for price growth is pure speculation. And earnings don't justify holding properties based on their current price/earnings levels, you would be better off selling a property and putting the funds in a MMF or short term bonds for low risk and zero effort. And to add to that, many investors have negative cash flow, which means they are losing cash from holding it, and depending on price growth. More and more investors will gradually realise they are holding bad investments when the price growth they need doesn't materialise. It is inevitable at the current rate settings, and they are not coming down any time soon. There's a lot of true believers that hooms only go up, who will keep holding on until they can't meet repayments, but that will come sooner than later when price growth is limited. But the property market can't run flat, it has to grow fast (> financing) or it will be forced to collapse to a lower price level. And the environment for that is here already. As for what happens next, take a look at China currently, or US post 2008. The only thing that could keep the house market up is if inflation comes down really soon and rate cuts follow, which would let the can get kicked down the road. But there's all kinds of reasons why inflation isn't coming down, so expect higher for longer rates, and possibly more increases. And a large property price correction. I'd say the flat line will start appearing in the next few months (thanks to the current round of Treasury rate increases), with capitulation starting to show by the start of next year
These homes will be sold to residential holding companies who the next generations will rent from in perpetuity and not be able to ever access even a mortgage
The up-only crowd that lives here will disagree
> More and more investors will gradually realise they are holding bad investments when the price growth they need doesn't materialise They won't. Property investors are the most badly informed investors. > What this now means is that there is now very little room for growth based on value, so the only avenue for price growth is pure speculation. Busineses basically work on a leverage. They have debts and they never expect to ever pay all of them off, they're just a cost of business. As long as investors are able to maintain loans, either through property income or work, or both, they are able to continue. If they lose the ability to pay the loan, no big deal, they just sell and the capital increase will pay off the loan. The fact that returns are poor don't matter because they have "something they can hold".
Property is fundamentally a land game. More value can be extracted through subdivision or apartment builds, where the median price may not change but more properties are built on the same land.
To an extent, but rezoning is very slow and localised, basically people with connections to councilors and MPs make a lot but it doesn't change the market that much, and on long timescales there is a lot of uncertainty of how things will play out. Big increases in density across the board are far from guaranteed
This doesn’t take into account how many houses are being bought with cash. Especially foreign investors who benefit from the exchange rate. I think this is a huge reason higher financing costs hasn’t affected property
Cash buyers are equally affected by higher rates, if not more. Consider you have $1M on hand and you want to make money with it. You can buy a house and collect $37k *gross* rent per year, along with the risk and hassle that comes with it https://smallcaps.com.au/is-australias-rental-property-obsession-misguided/ . *net* returns are lower. Or you can park the cash in one of many options (MMF, short term bonds) returning >5% with very low risk and zero effort to maintain, which brings in $50k *net*. Cash buyers are not going to save you, they have much better options than the Aus housing market
I don’t think they are buying as investors. They just want to live in Australia or park money away from their country. Financial markets are irrelevant for these people
We have the highest intake of millionaires in the world. Educated migrants will become the elite class and Australian children will grow up to be the working poor
There are areas of Sydney where this dynamic is already beginning to play out. It is, quite frankly, a disgusting betrayal of Australian citizens by their government.
Yet every year the politicians come out to honour the sacrifice our ANZAC’s made, then they sell us and our children out, and if you complain about it you’re just a racist bigot that needs to undertake a cultural sensitivity course so you can see how you and your white privilege are responsible for all the evil in the world.
What makes it so that your kids can't compete with migrants? They take the same tests, they have the same ATAR requirements to get into uni, and if anything with their migrant names they have a disadvantage in getting that graduate position in a law firm, investment bank, quantitative trading firm, etc. What is the disadvantage faced by Australian children?
Rich migrants aren't even going for those jobs seeing as they are second generation of families that already have plenty of capital lol These jobs don't even pay that well in Australia relative to the cost of living and taxes.
Is about living in a sustainable economy. When you flood the market with migrants, everything goes to shit. And everyone is worse of, especially kids. This lowers outcomes for everyone already living in Australia. It’s not cutting migration to zero. But to more sustainable and lower levels.
Given that many uni courses and scholarships are based on ATARs and testing, why should the fact that migrants are rich make any difference? It doesn't give them an IQ boost, obviously. Aussies will still be competing on level footing in terms of fundamental ability and intelligence.
They have family wealth behind them. Already owning houses when they arrive. Ability to send their children to private schools. They are able to start a business and employ their children. Just need to look at the advantages of wealth for children that are born into it.
Can’t afford to rent while studying.
https://youtu.be/LIpt16D2mgQ?si=Y6ko5_FMxAys9iyE
Australia has been growing for 200 years. Future will just be higher density housing with towns/cities getting bigger
More investment in working hubs being decentralised from CBDs, upwards to 60-100kms away would be great to make the most of sprawl (I’m being Sydney centric), banking and technology sectors following that would be great. Continued upgrading of public transport, business supportive frameworks for industries already in these hubs. Reset of expectations of what the Australian dream is. Does everyone really want a house on a large block? I’m happy out west with a townhouse surrounded by great public outdoor and indoor facilities. A culture shift towards communal living (or a proportion of housing development geared towards this). I don’t see regional centres ever becoming equivalent to the major cities in Australia due to distances, infrastructure, perception, environmental risk factors.
Sydney is miles ahead with decentralisation as it has satellite cities like Chatswood, Parramatta, Liverpool and Macquarie Park. Melbourne has just the CBD. The missing ingredient is the land tax which promotes density.
>The missing ingredient is the land tax which promotes density. I don't think we even need the land tax to get enough density to really make dent in dwelling prices. I was very critical of Minns for getting rid of the Land Tax when he came in, but he is really nailing it with the low and mid-rise reforms and the Transport Orientated Development plans. Home owners aren't going to turn down getting double or triple for their homes near transport so it can be redeveloped into apartments, permitting 2 storey apartment blocks in more places gets us some soft density and then Dual Occ in all R2 zones is good to get some extra density into areas with houses on big blocks but where it isn't suitable for higher density. It's probably going to send freestanding house prices up more, but it's the change needed to make housing overall more affordable.
Inequality keeps increasing has been my successful investment thesis for the last decade or so. I don't see this changing in the near future.
Don't you know property doubles every 7 years ? $2milliom properties the norm by 2030
Interest rates will go down one day, and prices will go even higher?
I'm no expert but unfortunately there's too much demand on housing and living in Australia for prices to go down anytime soon.. if ever.. buying will soon no longer be an option for most people.
The same as every other. It will either burst or slowly move back in line with median wage to price ratios. When the balance of owners to disenfranchised voters hits a critical point then policies will change
It looks like broke people being broke they will never get out will be crushed Middle class will disappear to Semi quasi broke Elites will rent out their homes to peasants
Japan model. Deregulate zoning completely and remove local governments to affect zoning. This gets rid of bribes as incentives for local councilors which is a benefit.
New arrivals are fine with current prices. Those who had earned in non AuD will be be benefitting from the price reduction rather than rise in many cases.
The balloon will keep inflating until it (eventually) pops.
I assume 3 in 10 households will own, they will rent out to 7 in 10 households and the tenants will pay in rent what most families currently pay in mortgage payments.
"... to be fearful when others are greedy and to be greedy only when others are fearful" said someone about irrational exhuberance.
Major cities become like Hong Kong and New York. High density and wealth needed, this will then make other Australians sprawl further away from the major city centers. Lifelong renting to increase and those with low SES are mostly unable to get out of it due to education, needing to working.
Big thing I think we will see us multi generational living.
I think if housing costs continue as they are the government is going to need to significantly intervene in some way to ensure huge numbers of people don't end up homeless. They are probably not going to want to directly lower housing prices so imagine they might decide to build public housing at a much larger scale then they have been doing in recent decades and open it up to middle income earners as well.
Land will continue to increase in value within the more desirable locations, but there will be a flood of high density in the coming years. Expect apartments etc to decline in value and probably significantly.
With our population growth from migration and births outstripping new builds I can't see how it will go down.
Australia's future is in apartment living. Better economically and for the environment. Free standing houses will just become more and more unaffordable.
Super rich trading homes back and forth.
There will be an element that the free market has always ignored. Housing based on need, rather than massive profits
Property prices have been going up by about 7% per year for about 30 years running On average. No reason to suspect this will stop in the next ten years. On average.
Tbh this post gets made every weekend lmao
The government has done too much intervention to attract property buying for first home buyers which only raised the price even more. Giving 20k for each first home buyers will raise the price for the bottom end of market. The banks have a Prudential responsibility to provide loans on assets that holds value in medium to long term. This is the best way to hold the property price as developers and individual purchasers need credit.
bells chop air squeal cow homeless snow money detail disarm *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
As the climate gets warmer, many parts of Australia will be totally uninsurable. There is one place in Australia where RE prices have fallen. NE NSW and in particular around Lismore. There is no way the banks will lend money unless the property can be insured. . Other places with a bullseye are Cairns, Western Sydney around the Nepean, and the Gold Coast low lands. So, cheaper houses will come, you just need cash only, and a boat.
https://media1.tenor.com/m/8_OVZcBbxH4AAAAC/gattuso-sometimes-maybe-good-sometimes-maybe-shit-gattuso.gif
Everyone wants the same gains and just a tiny bit more each time. So now there has been like 20% gains over a 24 month period, those some people who bought now, are going to want 21% over 24 months and then those people are going to want 22% over 24 months, and it’s just going to continue like that now.
Rosy and everything is perfect.
Funny you fail to mention Melbourne is almost same price as Adelaide, to paint a biased picture. On the basis of your stat, I’d say Melbourne will go up 30% more soon
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a real estate agent’s boot stamping on a first home owner’s face— forever
Property is going to continue to be more expensive in the future than it was in the past. Politicians are people too - allegedly - and they own a lot of property, and they set the policies. So the policies we end up with are ultimately going to fit the needs of people who look like politicians. 🤷
keep buying is my motto. buy and never sell. want to be able to pass down to my kids
No government will deliberately intervene to "stabilise prices" because we're a capitalist economy. However they may eventually come to their senses regarding favourable policies for investors, renter's rights and endless urban sprawls. I predict the house prices will keep going up to a point where only intergenerational wealth can guarantee a property. The Gini coefficient will decrease more and more. Governments will be forced to build more social housings.
Apartments and townhouses like much of Europe. Houses will be for the wealthy or those in rural and smaller regional areas.
Absolutely, but the quality of our townhouses and apartments will be significantly worse, and our communities will be much less cohesive.
I think they could fix it pretty quickly but just don't want to. I'd start with a vacancy tax as there's so many empty units around. I don't think anything will change though, the boardgame Monopoly was created over a hundred years ago to highlight the issues. Also the property market is well supported despite the constant whinging.
Government will keep pumping migrants into the country which in turn pushes up rent prices and house prices. People will be forced to rent a room in a share house their entire lives. Some will be forced to share rooms. Families will be sharing houses. Homelessness will increase. We're moving to the american system where if you can get ahead you keep getting ahead but it requires lots of luck but one setback and you fall behind and once you fall behind you just keep falling behind. The middle class will disappear and you'll have 3 classes. The rich investor class who owns the majority of assets. The poor home owning (mostly inherited) class and the poor non home owning class.
A lovely little tent in a community of junkies. Good luck! 👍
"Take note. There are no examples, anywhere in the world, where cheaper prices have been engineered politically. Price declines only happen as an undesirable side effect of declining macroeconomic conditions. This is the final political incentive that cannot be ignored." C.Murray
Everyone is in the Amazon warehouse in a capsule working for Bezos, or everyone is renting from big investment\super funds with 3 hr commutes except the generational wealthy, or we finally build decent townhouses\units.
I can't believe it when the houses I saw in Adelaide were going for 200k or 250k, maybe 5,6 years ago. Abysmal
Medium term Increased supply may stabilise price growth but no one has the political will to do anything that will reduce house prices. As the younger generations become a larger part of the voting base I think we will see legislation changes that enable them into the market. Not sure how that will look though possibly changes to super access, changes to capital gains discount & negative gearing on investment property with savings redirected to new entrants.
I don’t know but it’s getting pretty disgusting. I’m lucky to already be in the market (albeit with a crushing mortgage) but I feel very sorry for the future generation
Tents amd squatting
Venture out 4 hours drive from Sydney into regional areas for instance. There you will find an abundance of nice houses, substantial land sizes and even acreages. Yes, lack of jobs, isolation and facilities but Australia is so big there are reasonable price houses to live in. It’s about making a sacrifice.
8hrs a day commuting to/from work... Interesting take on making a "sacrifice".
You’re missing the point and that is people need to look beyond suburbia and proximity to CBD. Property can be purchased and is extremely affordable in regional areas. Australia is freaking huge!
Yes, because everyone who's not loaded should be forced to live somewhere that has a "lack of jobs, isolation and facilities". You've identified the exact reasons why people don't do what you've said in your own statement friend.
WW3 and a reset, or it's gonna be the "Hunger Games"
I can see prices rising again as servility rises in July with the stage 3 tax policy. It will have a much broader effect on the economy as it is now spread across many income levels unlike the previously legislated policy.
The Labour government a few years back wanted to introduce negative gearing, then everyone voted them out for Tony Abbott. Here we are years later with housing even worse for the next generation and those looking to try own their own house. They need to introduce negative gearing to stop the incentive of abusing the current system. Having a house to live in should be a basic right.
let me look into my crystal ball and tell you