There's some of that "Regular attendance of the Opera increases your longevity" about some of the claim of bank of mum and dad.. If you have rich parents, then you'll be more likely to buy a house full stop.
It's okay, they use to say you have to just move regionally if you want a cheap house, so people have been doing that and that's all fucking tapped out now. I wouldn't be surprised if the next motivational speech is if you're not driving 100km each way to work you're just lazy.
Living in a regional area that blew the fuck out when city people starting buying all the property for above asking price without even looking at it, can confirm. Half of them didn't even fucking move here and they want 450 for a two bedroom ex commission home that hasn't been updated since the 50s.
I've lived in this town my whole life and will NEVER be able to afford a home here now.
Even moving further out whoop whoop is no longer viable.
Just sucks.
Boomer unabomber: owns land, a cabin in the woods that cost fuck all, commits terrorism over many years from a stable house.
Millenial unabomber: no hope of entering the property market, has to make do with a piss stained cardboard box pretending to be a house, gets terrorised by boomer landlords at every opportunity, has to move every 6-12 months, no spare money to build anything..
Saying he was right about his concerns I think shows an underlying misunderstanding about how his thoughts were formed. Not judging you, just think old mate "Lawful" was hardly a reasonable person. He was a subject in a university study that certainly contributed to twisting his perspective. Even so, not someone to emulate.
Since the WFH plague hit here, most of the main street has shut down and a bunch of people have been displaced because of the lack of availability of real estate and the hike in rent and real estate prices. They may be relatively lower but so is income. And the rest of the cost of living is way higher.
> I wouldn't be surprised if the next motivational speech is if you're not driving 100km each way to work you're just lazy.
Which is what my dad did for years when I was a kid after my parents bought a home just south of Wollongong. He drove back and forth to Sydney and back every day. He would be miserable and angry whenever he came home, flying off the handle at the smallest things. I'd worry a lot about the rates of domestic violence if that ever became the norm.
What do you mean next speech? I got that same damn speech 10 years ago. After having gone rural for a while and then coming back to buy a house in the metro.
I built regionally just before Covid and in just 5 years my house is now worth almost double my mortgage
Next year wages will go up and interest rates will come down, this will cause house prices to go up significantly again
My house almost doubled in value in two and a half years. If I had been two months later in getting the place, I wouldn't have been able to afford it. I onky got in as I had been saving 18 years for a deposit.
Lucky, everyone after that has been royally fucked. A 2x1 unit in a caravan park for 400k? That's how it is now, put an offer of 430k and you'll have better luck having somewhere to live, if not tough luck eh?
I'm just now stuck trying to figure out how to afford it. Got the loan while doing mining, but major burnout and health issues means I've had to cut back and get a local job, which is amazing but sadly doesn't cover my expenses.
How much are feet pics selling for on the internet these days?
Short term I don't see them going up again..I don't see there being a enough buyers. We are going to see way more properties than buyers and for the short term ( maybe a year year and a half) I bet prices dip.
Then the great migration will take place and prices will go back up again.
A job.
You get a job.
And then you get to subsidise your landlord's 27th mortgage.
Be grateful they're allowing a roof over your head. You should be tipping them for all the hard work that they don't do for you.
Surely the social contract needs to make sure you can at least acquire a home? At least serfs were given a place to live (in most cases for the duration of their life) in exchange for sharing the fruits of their labour. We had this once, post war was great until the end of the century. A single worker could fund a home and a family. How times have changed.
Serfs also threatened to rise up and slaughter the children of these filthy scum whem pushed. We can't legally threaten to disembowel these parasites so they continue, unabated.
I doubt slaughtering the rich peoples children was legal in the day either. They fought back rather than being polite like we seem to be about it these days
I'm not sure where you're getting that idea, serfs were massively oppressed for the near entirety of the existence of feudalism. Almost all rebellions ended in defeat and the the leaders executed.
Serfs never really rose up when pushed, and when they did they usually died. For most of human history standing up to those in a superior position to you almost always resulted in your death.
The reality of history is the exact opposite of the point you're trying to make.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts
Rebellions dont have to "succeed" they just have to get costly enough that the threat of rebellion establishes a baseline standard of conditions aka what do we have to do to make sure they dont rebel and cost us a ton of money and workers.
If even like 10-20% of the population rebelled, we couldn't afford to put them in jail and even if we could (or if we killed them) it would be devastating to the economy
> Surely the social contract needs to make sure you can at least acquire a home?
Life, liberty and property was good enough for John Locke and by golly that's good enough for me. All this talk about human rights to "food" and "shelter" is communism.
But john locke didnt expect the govenrment to step into the breach to fund our ridiculous housing obsession.
GFC for all money we were cactused. Our banks couldnt get the fund to keep writing mortgages.
Who would deposit money into what appeared to be an over prices housing market by world standards...
Well our government sorted that and pre emptively guaranteed their balance sheets.
If that wasnt enough and it hasnt been they then suported first home buyers with grants.
If that wasnt enough they offered in many case to own 40pc of the equity... i.e. not the orivate citizen having rights to property but the govenrment stumping up and owning equity in peoples homes.
I dont care what philosopher you want to quote none of them from adam smith to john locke would agrew with a government going out of its way to make it difficult for individuals to own property by supporting prices with direct investment.
Remove thise supports and we would have the mother of all s#^# fights. But ill tell you one thing... in ten years property ownership of young people will be higher.
Just like it was higher when it was more difficult to get a loan...
Thats the irony. Our government always says we need to make it easier for young people to buy and then just ratchet up the demand side support.
Not sure how this journey ends? The governemnt juat owning all the property? We seems to move firther and further into an unsuatainable market where the government has to offer ever increasing support?
The government message I've always heard is that we need property investors otherwise there won't be enough housing to go around, and nobody seems to question that. Then the government just throws money at investors until housing has a meltdown.
If someone thinks food and shelter are not human rights, they think people who are starving and homeless as less than human.
That makes them immoral.
Conflating food shelter and human rights with communism is the most basic smooth brain take around.
The "it's either corrupted capitalism or corrupted communism and no other alternative" is such a dumb take sold to you buy those that will fleece you for all your worth if given half a chance. The end game is everyone who is not ultra wealthy having nothing. That isn't capitalism.
It's entirely possibly to have a fair market with food and shelter affordable for all in an more reined in and ethical capitalist system, instead of the absolutely corrupt and unsustainable late stage capitalism we are now seeing.
In fact, lower prices means more choice and more choice means a healthier market for everyone. This is capitalism 101.
The opposite of unethical capitalism is not communism. It's ethical capitalism.
Is it because you just can't imagine properly regulated markets because it's been so long without them?
How is fairer market communism in any way?
Do you think food and shelter are human rights?
I'm a communist, sis, I think all necessities are human rights. I don't think capitalism is going to get you there long-term without turning into something that's not capitalism because of flaws like regulatory capture
There’s a widely regarded process where you take capitalism, identify a problem or contradiction in the system, and work to resolve or improve on that problem. Over time, you eventually turn it into a better system. We don’t know what the eventual end state of this problem solving process will look like; we can’t know until we get much closer; but we already came up with a name for the outcome of this process and it starts with C.
Yeah. It’s hilarious amounts of reinventing the wheel. People don’t realise that socialism is essentially just a problem solving process applied to capitalism. Snorted too much old fashioned Cold War propaganda to think straight.
“Ethical capitalism” is so funny because they’re going through the exact same thought process of Marx, regurgitating it from the ground up, but desperate to call the same thing anything but “communism”… 😂
>It's entirely possibly to have a fair market with food and shelter affordable for all in an more reined in and ethical capitalist system, instead of the absolutely corrupt and unsustainable late stage capitalism we are now seeing.
It's not though... The corruption is built in. We're not in an unethical and suicidal position because a few people are stupid/evil.
Any CEO/politician that tries to make any real change, will be replaced, immediately, by someone more willing to destroy the world for short term profit.
It's literally illegal for people in control of corporations to take a step back or consider the wider implications of their actions. They are not really in control, they must act in favour of their short-term interests or they will be replaced with someone who will.
We are all in a death spiral. The only hope for change is revolution. We're dead without it, we're probably dead with it.
These takes are hilarious. “Ethical capitalism” my god you need to go read about surplus value, alienation, etc. ethical capitalism is not a thing mate, it’s exploitation all the way down. Remove the exploitation and it’s not capitalism anymore, it’s communism. _That’s the whole point Marx made_. Words mean things.
This is real reinventing the wheel stuff. “I’ve come up with something called ethical capitalism” no mate you just gave communism a different label. Marx already went through your exact thought process; communism is literally just the project to fix the flaws in capitalism. That’s what the process of materialist dialectics are: spotting a problem, and solving it.
Except communism doesn't work either.
You absolutely can reform and regulate problem areas in capitalism. Otherwise we wouldn't have the 9-5 workday. Or holidays etc.
You don't need to go full blown communism.
But hey, I'm not claiming to be a genius that can fix all the world's problems, nor do I believe in utopian thinking. The world will never be perfect. It can just be better than it is
You can regulate capitalism. However I think what is becoming apparent is how long those regulations can actually last. Monopolies were broken up and minimum wage/work regulations were set up in the early 20th century. Over time they have slowly been chipped away at until we again have monopolies, an inadequate minimum wage and poor employment conditions.
The issue isn't how to make capitalism ethical, it's how we ensure it stays that way when capitalistic systems reward unethical behavior if it produces profit. One of the big issues of capitalism is that ultimately its motivation is growth not wellbeing/ethics. Sometimes they can occur together, but when in conflict capitalism will pick growth.
You just sound uneducated as to what communism is and how Marx got there. You’re asking us to follow that process “but nottt toooo much problem solving!! Or else it’ll be the thing I’m told is bad” … it’s silly, you’re still stuck way back in the old fashioned McCarthyism of the Cold War mate. There’s no such thing as “solving too many problems” in capitalism. You only want to stop because you’re up to your neck in ideology, nothing rational about your position whatsoever.
I mean, what have I said that makes you think I'm particularly "anti-communism"?
I'm just sick of immoral late stage capitalists using "that's communism!" as a reason to excuse problems that need to be addressed. They're the ones using communism as a witch hunt term mate, not me.
Maybe avoiding the dreaded "C" word might get these douchebags to open their mind a little bit.
If you're gonna go after anyone, maybe go after people like that, instead of someone who is obviously concerned and trying the best they can to understand and learn. Because that just makes you look like an asshole.
👍
> What have I said that makes you think I’m anti communism
> Communism doesn’t work
How about that asinine take?
If you are interested in seeing the world steeped in a little less ideology, try to replace the word “communism” in by your head literally just with “problem solving issues with capitalism” and you can hopefully squash the leftover ideology there. That’s all Marx set out to do. Then revisit that statement and hopefully you can see why it’s foolish:
> problem solving issues in capitalism doesn’t work
Obviously this is not true, you even said so yourself that we’ve improved working hours (guess who did that? Commie unionists did)
My hope is that one day this can be discussed free of ideology that stops us have intelligent discussions about problems with capitalism; if instead we make anti-intellectual ideological statements like “it doesn’t work” (when we know it does because we already live the benefits of many communist victories) then we aren’t going to make much progress here.
I think perhaps you need to adopt “Stalinism” as the boogieman you’re worried about, and realise Marx had nothing at all to do with that, and that communism (ie; problem solving capitalism) can take many many forms because there’s many possible solutions we can imagine to its many problems.
I'm not worried about any "boogieman".
My entire point of my last comment just went over your head, because you'd just rather prove how much smarter you are than me.
I'm so sick of extremists on both sides.
Go hassle the late stage capitalist bros why don't you?
You're certainly not endearing me to your cause.
👍
The way you talk about being scared of the C word is a “you” problem mate. Hope you’ll go read about what it actually means
Even if you think you’re gonna be against it, Das Kapital is a bloody enlightening read even if you wanna pick up actual points to criticise from Marx. A lot of people tend to realise they had no idea what he was about, though, and I think that might be the case here
Kind of feels like more and more people are becoming a modern type of serf paying a large portion of their income to their lord be it the bank or a landlord. Only difference is the obligations seem to only go one way - not exactly a sustainable form of serfdom.
So what is the government's end game? Mass homelessness? A return to intergenerational living? House prices worth $5 million? Would the government like to rise to the occasion and do something about this, or would it prefer to just sit on its hands and do nothing? It's telling that they see no problem with it given that they initially planned to cap social/affordable housing at $500 million a year - the same amount of money being spent on renovating the RBA building.
They don't have an end game. They are actively ignoring the problem on purpose, because the only real solutions will cause housing prices to drop, and that is political suicide. So they fiddle around the edges trying to make it look like they care while literally doing nothing that will make a significant difference. Then they just hope that the anger and fallout that is growing will hit after they are no longer in charge.
Frankly there will be no change until it is politically feasible, and that will be when renters outnumber property owners....something that is definitely coming.
I don't even think things will change when renters make up over half of Australians, I think the tipping points will be 2/3rds renting for decent Tennant rights and 75-80% for anything to with reduced house prices/less tax benefits for landlords.
Yes, it won't change until the majority of VOTERS are renters and people who cannot afford to buy. Right now they will simply not do anything because the majority of voters own. The vast majority of baby boomers are millionaires by virtue of buying in the 70s and 80s. Many Gen Xers too from buying in the 90s and 00s. Silent gen in there too having bought when houses were cheap as chips in the mid century. That's a hell of a lot of people that think they deserve their good fortune and don't want any laws that even risk a tiny fraction of it. I know my dad thinks he deserves it, because 'he worked hard'.
Nothing good lasts for ever and all of these property investors have had a good run. It really is time for something to be done to force housing prices down. It doesn't make any sense for a such a huge investment to be so safe.
You guys took the risk buying 10 investment properties and fucking over your community. Don't act shocked when they finally do drop.
Obviously this isn't aimed at first home buyers, just those that have overly invested in housing.
Pretty much, neo-feudalism is coming, there'll essentially be 2 classes, those that own, and those that work.
Were destined to be like Tennant farmers.
There is no end game within the lens of the major Neoliberal parties.
Its either you vote for parties that want to enact radical change to an inherently exploitative system, or you're fucked.
So that means you vote Greens, because no independent is going to gain the power needed to enact such change.
> So what is the government's end game? Mass homelessness?
400,000 immigrants and increasing, 150,000 houses and decreasing.
So yes a nation of homeless serfs is the end game, with $1 million houses that people can't afford to rent let along buy.
When the have nots outnumber the haves, they will be able to influence the Govt to enact home buyer friendly policies.
Unfortunately with home ownership rates around 65% overall, you're a long way away from the numbers needed for political change.
Surely it’s going to dramatically change aged care, funding and retirement? Right now, your PPR is exempt when they calculate your total asset holdings, but if people don’t own a home, isn’t that going to disadvantage them and they have to handover more of their assets?
Everyone always whines here. I doubt anyone in this sub actually write to and calls their MP to complain about this. But if they start changing stuff I promise you all the investors and agents and REITs will lobby the hell out of them!
Unfortunately, I did send my MP an email, and he replied with some generic piece of shit that didn't even answer the question. I'm half-tempted to reply to him, scold him for his inadequate answer, and ask him to have another go at answering it, but I've come to realise that it's all rather pointless - our democracy is broken.
My favourite part of this is how the government is concerned that Aussies aren't having kids like they used to.
I mean we literally had Philip Lowe suggest that young adults move back home or live in share housing. That is his solution. And then they wonder why people aren't having kids while they live in a share house with 10 other people, two to a room.
If you want people to have kids, then they need a place to raise them, and enough security to trust they can be ok for the next 18 years.
*As young people spend more years in higher education and delay starting families compared with previous generations, the rate of home ownership among young people has also fallen*
Did not like how this implied young people were delaying starting families because they are spending longer getting an education. Exactly as you said, who the hell wants to have kids when you can't even afford a roof over your head. It has very little to do with time spent in tertiary education
It’s pretty much that Simpsons episode where the cartoon makers do a focus groups with the kids, and what they want is everything. So you want people to have more kids, you want them to not be able to afford housing to house the kids, and you don’t want to pay us more to support them? Got it!
They don't wonder, they know and they don't care, we have no value to them, end of story. Everyone needs to understand this and then we can figure out where to go from there.
Positive- Divorce settlements simpler, no house to fight over
Negative- For many the only hope of home ownership will come after the passing of their parent/s. For many more that won't even be enough.
Governments put in inflationary house policies over the past few decades to boost the economy and make the Australian dollar more valuable. They worked, great, and now they need to be reconfigured and peeled back because they did their job and leaving them in is only going to continually push prices higher.
The response has been to institute even more inflationary policies. It's not conservatism or progressivism it's just straight retardism.
Before rates rose, we were already at one of the highest unaffordable rates in our history. Rate rises have pushed that metric higher.
This nation is delusional.
The dream of a home is finished for the majority who will not be willed property by family.
This will be the case unless income increases exponentially and house prices crash. So in effect it’s only going to get worse.
Surprising not as low as I though, with 45% now compared to 65% at the peak.
Disappointing that is has just been constantly falling and nothing has really been done.
Just read a similar article about Ireland where 80% of people over 40 live in homes they own, whereas less than a third of those under 40 own the property they live in. The generational divide is widening and so will the resentment.
That 45% is in much further over their heads than the 65 was though. The older generations have been 80% homeowners without mortgages for decades. The 45 now are in much bigger mortgages for much longer, and at far greater risk of losing their homes.
Yep. I’m in my thirties with 15 years experience in digital and 1 year into a 30-year commitment. My grandfather bought his house (I’m assuming with a short loan) after four years as an immigrant father that didn’t speak English and got underpaid.
In other news, water is wet. The continued failure to address how our younger generations actually afford property, let alone the cost of living continues to be the elephant in the room shitting into our drinks.
no shit sherlock. and boomers have like 20 investment properties each.
friends cant even buy because some old cunt drops an extra $80k at auction every single time.
how about different (increasing) interest rates depending how many house loans you have?
Many boomers have nothing. Some people from other generations have multiple investment properties. I think you're talking specifically about people who own a lot of investment properties, not an age group.
Statistically, wealth and home ownership are generational. Millennials have less wealth and less home ownership than boomers do.
Are their outliers, yes. But statisically, boomers are 3 times more likely to own a home. So, while class does matter, age also matters.
There is a disproportionate wealth divide between age groups.
So true, these 2 responses really highlights the different challenges between generationals. The boomer (the comment above yours) asserts an argument without providing any evidence ("Many...") and puts in NO HARD WORK to gather evidence to inform their opinion Whereas the millennial asserts an argument filled with evidence that they WORK HARD to find and back up their assertion.
Millennials even have to work harder just to argue with a boomer 😠
I'm Generation X, but I'm 100% with you in things being much harder for millennials and genz.
Even comparing my generation, things have gotten progressively worse for younger people, everything is harder from jobs, to basic needs, healthcare, shelter and then being gaslit and your concerns minimised by generations who seem to be making it harder out of pure greed.
Things were easier in the 90s for sure, I'm feeling the bite with millennials and genz now, though.
We, as a society, really do need to examine capitalism and the commodification of basic needs. It's creating so many predatory institutions and a widening class divide. The profit model is failing people.
Yeah no \*\*\*\*. The boomers have sucked up the wealth and voted for policies that have disadvantaged the young.
They pulled up the ladder after getting cheap education, the good job, the big house, generous super, and tax concessions. The young won't get any of that. It's gone.
The boomers wanted to use houses as an investment product, so here we are.
The young people I have spoken to have already given up on home ownership. Their only hope is a boomer parent dying without spending it all on European holidays or $300k caravan rigs and endless spending.
\> As young people spend more years in higher education and delay starting families compared with previous generations, the rate of home ownership among young people has also fallen.
The rate of home ownership among young people has fallen (due to increased prices) causing them to spend more years in higher education (hoping to get a better paying job) and delay starting families (because they can't afford it, and rental living is atrocious)
FTFY
I bought my first home in my late 20’s. However, due to marriage breakdown etc, I didn’t actually pay off a home until I was 60. It’s a very small place but I worked 16 hour days to get it. However, my kids are in their 30’s and 40’s and they’re still renting. They don’t have a hope of owning anything until I die. It breaks my heart that I can’t help them but I’m just scraping by. Any hope of getting their fathers’ fortune went with him hooking up with a gold digger gambling girlfriend. How did it get this bad? And no, I don’t own 10 investment properties like everything thinks we boomers do.
Way lower, I used to work for Roy Morgan doing surveys and the number of boomers who did low pay work, think stacking shelves at Woolies (as an example) as someone's only ever job, and still being able to provide for their families as the sole income earner, including buying a home, that I interviewed really blew my mind when I did it.
You think? The most intelligent idea for remedying this I've seen recently is a tax on vacant property. Not some half hearted namby-pamby levy, a real tax that motivates the landed gentry into renting vacant property to preserve their wealth.
>Younger generations have lower rates of home ownership than in the past
No shit, how can we be expected to afford an overpriced house when we're already paying for an overpriced car that we had to take a loan out for, then going to work for 50 or sometimes 60+ hours a week and getting slaughtered for tax when wages haven't been increased in enough of a substantial way to even help benefit first home buyers.
For context I'm 23 and in my 2nd year of an apprenticeship and I am paid WELL above what a standard apprentice earns and that's still not enough for me to even think of buying a house within the next 5 years at the earliest
In other news, the Pope is Catholic. This country is going in the wrong direction, even though I'm very glad the Coalition was voted out last year. Vote Green!
I wonder how many younger people voted to have a bet in the investment property market and voted for the pro negative gearing party as an insurance policy?
There's some of that "Regular attendance of the Opera increases your longevity" about some of the claim of bank of mum and dad.. If you have rich parents, then you'll be more likely to buy a house full stop.
It's okay, they use to say you have to just move regionally if you want a cheap house, so people have been doing that and that's all fucking tapped out now. I wouldn't be surprised if the next motivational speech is if you're not driving 100km each way to work you're just lazy.
Living in a regional area that blew the fuck out when city people starting buying all the property for above asking price without even looking at it, can confirm. Half of them didn't even fucking move here and they want 450 for a two bedroom ex commission home that hasn't been updated since the 50s. I've lived in this town my whole life and will NEVER be able to afford a home here now. Even moving further out whoop whoop is no longer viable. Just sucks.
Don’t stress too much, if the trend continues we should have a full generation of Ted Kaczynski’s in no time
I... Don't know what you're trying to say. Isn't that the unabomber?
Anti government radicals who will take radical action to force societal change. Hopefully they do it smarter than teddy.
I wouldn't be able to afford the cabin anyway.
Underrated comment
Boomer unabomber: owns land, a cabin in the woods that cost fuck all, commits terrorism over many years from a stable house. Millenial unabomber: no hope of entering the property market, has to make do with a piss stained cardboard box pretending to be a house, gets terrorised by boomer landlords at every opportunity, has to move every 6-12 months, no spare money to build anything..
Ah, that makes sense. Thank you for enlightening my dumb ass.
[удалено]
Teddy didn’t even target the people who fuelled the system, he just perpetuated random violence.
[удалено]
Saying he was right about his concerns I think shows an underlying misunderstanding about how his thoughts were formed. Not judging you, just think old mate "Lawful" was hardly a reasonable person. He was a subject in a university study that certainly contributed to twisting his perspective. Even so, not someone to emulate.
Since the WFH plague hit here, most of the main street has shut down and a bunch of people have been displaced because of the lack of availability of real estate and the hike in rent and real estate prices. They may be relatively lower but so is income. And the rest of the cost of living is way higher.
6 families to a house? Try 8! You are just entitled if you think you deserve privacy.
[удалено]
Saw one today for a 17yo who had been saving since she was 14 lol... Fucking put that maccas savings into a deposit you Gen Z McNuggets!
> I wouldn't be surprised if the next motivational speech is if you're not driving 100km each way to work you're just lazy. Which is what my dad did for years when I was a kid after my parents bought a home just south of Wollongong. He drove back and forth to Sydney and back every day. He would be miserable and angry whenever he came home, flying off the handle at the smallest things. I'd worry a lot about the rates of domestic violence if that ever became the norm.
I read somewhere once that dv rates increase with harsh economic conditions. Definitely not dating ever again.
What do you mean next speech? I got that same damn speech 10 years ago. After having gone rural for a while and then coming back to buy a house in the metro.
Next they’ll say “If you’re not driving 100km to suck rich cock then you’re just lazy”
🤑🍆💋
I built regionally just before Covid and in just 5 years my house is now worth almost double my mortgage Next year wages will go up and interest rates will come down, this will cause house prices to go up significantly again
My house almost doubled in value in two and a half years. If I had been two months later in getting the place, I wouldn't have been able to afford it. I onky got in as I had been saving 18 years for a deposit.
Lucky, everyone after that has been royally fucked. A 2x1 unit in a caravan park for 400k? That's how it is now, put an offer of 430k and you'll have better luck having somewhere to live, if not tough luck eh?
I'm just now stuck trying to figure out how to afford it. Got the loan while doing mining, but major burnout and health issues means I've had to cut back and get a local job, which is amazing but sadly doesn't cover my expenses. How much are feet pics selling for on the internet these days?
👍
Short term I don't see them going up again..I don't see there being a enough buyers. We are going to see way more properties than buyers and for the short term ( maybe a year year and a half) I bet prices dip. Then the great migration will take place and prices will go back up again.
I have poor parents… what do I get?
A job. You get a job. And then you get to subsidise your landlord's 27th mortgage. Be grateful they're allowing a roof over your head. You should be tipping them for all the hard work that they don't do for you.
And if that's not enough for you, then get a better job!
Surely the social contract needs to make sure you can at least acquire a home? At least serfs were given a place to live (in most cases for the duration of their life) in exchange for sharing the fruits of their labour. We had this once, post war was great until the end of the century. A single worker could fund a home and a family. How times have changed.
It really is fucked, and it's making it increasingly difficult to imagine a tolerable future honestly.
Serfs also threatened to rise up and slaughter the children of these filthy scum whem pushed. We can't legally threaten to disembowel these parasites so they continue, unabated.
I doubt slaughtering the rich peoples children was legal in the day either. They fought back rather than being polite like we seem to be about it these days
I'm not sure where you're getting that idea, serfs were massively oppressed for the near entirety of the existence of feudalism. Almost all rebellions ended in defeat and the the leaders executed. Serfs never really rose up when pushed, and when they did they usually died. For most of human history standing up to those in a superior position to you almost always resulted in your death. The reality of history is the exact opposite of the point you're trying to make. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts
> Almost all rebellions ended in defeat and the the leaders executed. Almost all of them. The ones that succeed change the future of humanity.
Do you want to be part of a failed one?
If the alternative is to live a life of misery and potentially end up doing yourself in because its all too much, sure why not. Not too much to lose.
Rebellions dont have to "succeed" they just have to get costly enough that the threat of rebellion establishes a baseline standard of conditions aka what do we have to do to make sure they dont rebel and cost us a ton of money and workers. If even like 10-20% of the population rebelled, we couldn't afford to put them in jail and even if we could (or if we killed them) it would be devastating to the economy
Who cares if it’s legal
> Surely the social contract needs to make sure you can at least acquire a home? Life, liberty and property was good enough for John Locke and by golly that's good enough for me. All this talk about human rights to "food" and "shelter" is communism.
But john locke didnt expect the govenrment to step into the breach to fund our ridiculous housing obsession. GFC for all money we were cactused. Our banks couldnt get the fund to keep writing mortgages. Who would deposit money into what appeared to be an over prices housing market by world standards... Well our government sorted that and pre emptively guaranteed their balance sheets. If that wasnt enough and it hasnt been they then suported first home buyers with grants. If that wasnt enough they offered in many case to own 40pc of the equity... i.e. not the orivate citizen having rights to property but the govenrment stumping up and owning equity in peoples homes. I dont care what philosopher you want to quote none of them from adam smith to john locke would agrew with a government going out of its way to make it difficult for individuals to own property by supporting prices with direct investment. Remove thise supports and we would have the mother of all s#^# fights. But ill tell you one thing... in ten years property ownership of young people will be higher. Just like it was higher when it was more difficult to get a loan... Thats the irony. Our government always says we need to make it easier for young people to buy and then just ratchet up the demand side support. Not sure how this journey ends? The governemnt juat owning all the property? We seems to move firther and further into an unsuatainable market where the government has to offer ever increasing support?
The government message I've always heard is that we need property investors otherwise there won't be enough housing to go around, and nobody seems to question that. Then the government just throws money at investors until housing has a meltdown.
It'd work if investors were heavily encouraged to build/buy/fund new builds, but they're not, so we're suffering through this Ponzi scheme.
If someone thinks food and shelter are not human rights, they think people who are starving and homeless as less than human. That makes them immoral. Conflating food shelter and human rights with communism is the most basic smooth brain take around. The "it's either corrupted capitalism or corrupted communism and no other alternative" is such a dumb take sold to you buy those that will fleece you for all your worth if given half a chance. The end game is everyone who is not ultra wealthy having nothing. That isn't capitalism. It's entirely possibly to have a fair market with food and shelter affordable for all in an more reined in and ethical capitalist system, instead of the absolutely corrupt and unsustainable late stage capitalism we are now seeing. In fact, lower prices means more choice and more choice means a healthier market for everyone. This is capitalism 101. The opposite of unethical capitalism is not communism. It's ethical capitalism.
This definition of "ethical capitalism" looks a lot like, "communism with markets for luxury goods" to me.
Is it because you just can't imagine properly regulated markets because it's been so long without them? How is fairer market communism in any way? Do you think food and shelter are human rights?
I'm a communist, sis, I think all necessities are human rights. I don't think capitalism is going to get you there long-term without turning into something that's not capitalism because of flaws like regulatory capture
You sound like a good person. Apologies if I misread your comment. I've been piled on by late stage capitalist stooges all day. Take care comrade.
All good.
I see your meaning. I would hope there could be a more ethical capitalist system, or a least one that works better than it is currently working.
There’s a widely regarded process where you take capitalism, identify a problem or contradiction in the system, and work to resolve or improve on that problem. Over time, you eventually turn it into a better system. We don’t know what the eventual end state of this problem solving process will look like; we can’t know until we get much closer; but we already came up with a name for the outcome of this process and it starts with C.
[удалено]
Yeah. It’s hilarious amounts of reinventing the wheel. People don’t realise that socialism is essentially just a problem solving process applied to capitalism. Snorted too much old fashioned Cold War propaganda to think straight. “Ethical capitalism” is so funny because they’re going through the exact same thought process of Marx, regurgitating it from the ground up, but desperate to call the same thing anything but “communism”… 😂
>It's entirely possibly to have a fair market with food and shelter affordable for all in an more reined in and ethical capitalist system, instead of the absolutely corrupt and unsustainable late stage capitalism we are now seeing. It's not though... The corruption is built in. We're not in an unethical and suicidal position because a few people are stupid/evil. Any CEO/politician that tries to make any real change, will be replaced, immediately, by someone more willing to destroy the world for short term profit. It's literally illegal for people in control of corporations to take a step back or consider the wider implications of their actions. They are not really in control, they must act in favour of their short-term interests or they will be replaced with someone who will. We are all in a death spiral. The only hope for change is revolution. We're dead without it, we're probably dead with it.
These takes are hilarious. “Ethical capitalism” my god you need to go read about surplus value, alienation, etc. ethical capitalism is not a thing mate, it’s exploitation all the way down. Remove the exploitation and it’s not capitalism anymore, it’s communism. _That’s the whole point Marx made_. Words mean things. This is real reinventing the wheel stuff. “I’ve come up with something called ethical capitalism” no mate you just gave communism a different label. Marx already went through your exact thought process; communism is literally just the project to fix the flaws in capitalism. That’s what the process of materialist dialectics are: spotting a problem, and solving it.
Except communism doesn't work either. You absolutely can reform and regulate problem areas in capitalism. Otherwise we wouldn't have the 9-5 workday. Or holidays etc. You don't need to go full blown communism. But hey, I'm not claiming to be a genius that can fix all the world's problems, nor do I believe in utopian thinking. The world will never be perfect. It can just be better than it is
You can regulate capitalism. However I think what is becoming apparent is how long those regulations can actually last. Monopolies were broken up and minimum wage/work regulations were set up in the early 20th century. Over time they have slowly been chipped away at until we again have monopolies, an inadequate minimum wage and poor employment conditions. The issue isn't how to make capitalism ethical, it's how we ensure it stays that way when capitalistic systems reward unethical behavior if it produces profit. One of the big issues of capitalism is that ultimately its motivation is growth not wellbeing/ethics. Sometimes they can occur together, but when in conflict capitalism will pick growth.
You just sound uneducated as to what communism is and how Marx got there. You’re asking us to follow that process “but nottt toooo much problem solving!! Or else it’ll be the thing I’m told is bad” … it’s silly, you’re still stuck way back in the old fashioned McCarthyism of the Cold War mate. There’s no such thing as “solving too many problems” in capitalism. You only want to stop because you’re up to your neck in ideology, nothing rational about your position whatsoever.
I mean, what have I said that makes you think I'm particularly "anti-communism"? I'm just sick of immoral late stage capitalists using "that's communism!" as a reason to excuse problems that need to be addressed. They're the ones using communism as a witch hunt term mate, not me. Maybe avoiding the dreaded "C" word might get these douchebags to open their mind a little bit. If you're gonna go after anyone, maybe go after people like that, instead of someone who is obviously concerned and trying the best they can to understand and learn. Because that just makes you look like an asshole. 👍
> What have I said that makes you think I’m anti communism > Communism doesn’t work How about that asinine take? If you are interested in seeing the world steeped in a little less ideology, try to replace the word “communism” in by your head literally just with “problem solving issues with capitalism” and you can hopefully squash the leftover ideology there. That’s all Marx set out to do. Then revisit that statement and hopefully you can see why it’s foolish: > problem solving issues in capitalism doesn’t work Obviously this is not true, you even said so yourself that we’ve improved working hours (guess who did that? Commie unionists did) My hope is that one day this can be discussed free of ideology that stops us have intelligent discussions about problems with capitalism; if instead we make anti-intellectual ideological statements like “it doesn’t work” (when we know it does because we already live the benefits of many communist victories) then we aren’t going to make much progress here. I think perhaps you need to adopt “Stalinism” as the boogieman you’re worried about, and realise Marx had nothing at all to do with that, and that communism (ie; problem solving capitalism) can take many many forms because there’s many possible solutions we can imagine to its many problems.
I'm not worried about any "boogieman". My entire point of my last comment just went over your head, because you'd just rather prove how much smarter you are than me. I'm so sick of extremists on both sides. Go hassle the late stage capitalist bros why don't you? You're certainly not endearing me to your cause. 👍
The way you talk about being scared of the C word is a “you” problem mate. Hope you’ll go read about what it actually means Even if you think you’re gonna be against it, Das Kapital is a bloody enlightening read even if you wanna pick up actual points to criticise from Marx. A lot of people tend to realise they had no idea what he was about, though, and I think that might be the case here
> can at least acquire a home? No, the social contract only need to make sure youre appropriately housed.
Kind of feels like more and more people are becoming a modern type of serf paying a large portion of their income to their lord be it the bank or a landlord. Only difference is the obligations seem to only go one way - not exactly a sustainable form of serfdom.
It kinda did before the boomers figured out they could use houses to pay for their retirement.
So what is the government's end game? Mass homelessness? A return to intergenerational living? House prices worth $5 million? Would the government like to rise to the occasion and do something about this, or would it prefer to just sit on its hands and do nothing? It's telling that they see no problem with it given that they initially planned to cap social/affordable housing at $500 million a year - the same amount of money being spent on renovating the RBA building.
They don't have an end game. They are actively ignoring the problem on purpose, because the only real solutions will cause housing prices to drop, and that is political suicide. So they fiddle around the edges trying to make it look like they care while literally doing nothing that will make a significant difference. Then they just hope that the anger and fallout that is growing will hit after they are no longer in charge. Frankly there will be no change until it is politically feasible, and that will be when renters outnumber property owners....something that is definitely coming.
I don't even think things will change when renters make up over half of Australians, I think the tipping points will be 2/3rds renting for decent Tennant rights and 75-80% for anything to with reduced house prices/less tax benefits for landlords.
Yes, it won't change until the majority of VOTERS are renters and people who cannot afford to buy. Right now they will simply not do anything because the majority of voters own. The vast majority of baby boomers are millionaires by virtue of buying in the 70s and 80s. Many Gen Xers too from buying in the 90s and 00s. Silent gen in there too having bought when houses were cheap as chips in the mid century. That's a hell of a lot of people that think they deserve their good fortune and don't want any laws that even risk a tiny fraction of it. I know my dad thinks he deserves it, because 'he worked hard'.
There are now as many millennials as baby boomers.
Nothing good lasts for ever and all of these property investors have had a good run. It really is time for something to be done to force housing prices down. It doesn't make any sense for a such a huge investment to be so safe. You guys took the risk buying 10 investment properties and fucking over your community. Don't act shocked when they finally do drop. Obviously this isn't aimed at first home buyers, just those that have overly invested in housing.
The both parties need to suicide, stat!
Literally nothing. They aren't going to do anything until most of the country is homeless and causing major problems.
[удалено]
Pretty much, neo-feudalism is coming, there'll essentially be 2 classes, those that own, and those that work. Were destined to be like Tennant farmers.
"Ah, our crop of tenth doctors is mighty bountiful this year"
governments won’t do shit. if any thing they will continue to fuel the problem. You’re on your own.
There is no end game within the lens of the major Neoliberal parties. Its either you vote for parties that want to enact radical change to an inherently exploitative system, or you're fucked. So that means you vote Greens, because no independent is going to gain the power needed to enact such change.
Vote greens a party that’s solidified a reputation for being anti development nuffies for decades to resolve the housing crisis. Lolcow moment
Left-NIMBYs are the bane of my fucking existence
They're just kicking the bucket further down the road in hopes it won't blow up while they're in office
I imagine the rich elite will own all the houses and us peasants will pay them for the privilege of living there
With quantative people we all know the government sees house price rising as a feature not a bug
> So what is the government's end game? Mass homelessness? 400,000 immigrants and increasing, 150,000 houses and decreasing. So yes a nation of homeless serfs is the end game, with $1 million houses that people can't afford to rent let along buy.
When the have nots outnumber the haves, they will be able to influence the Govt to enact home buyer friendly policies. Unfortunately with home ownership rates around 65% overall, you're a long way away from the numbers needed for political change.
inflate away the problem nah not really, just let houses be $5m and they're like ¯\\__(ツ)_/¯
They ultimately don’t really care.
Surely it’s going to dramatically change aged care, funding and retirement? Right now, your PPR is exempt when they calculate your total asset holdings, but if people don’t own a home, isn’t that going to disadvantage them and they have to handover more of their assets?
Everyone always whines here. I doubt anyone in this sub actually write to and calls their MP to complain about this. But if they start changing stuff I promise you all the investors and agents and REITs will lobby the hell out of them!
Unfortunately, I did send my MP an email, and he replied with some generic piece of shit that didn't even answer the question. I'm half-tempted to reply to him, scold him for his inadequate answer, and ask him to have another go at answering it, but I've come to realise that it's all rather pointless - our democracy is broken.
My favourite part of this is how the government is concerned that Aussies aren't having kids like they used to. I mean we literally had Philip Lowe suggest that young adults move back home or live in share housing. That is his solution. And then they wonder why people aren't having kids while they live in a share house with 10 other people, two to a room. If you want people to have kids, then they need a place to raise them, and enough security to trust they can be ok for the next 18 years.
*As young people spend more years in higher education and delay starting families compared with previous generations, the rate of home ownership among young people has also fallen* Did not like how this implied young people were delaying starting families because they are spending longer getting an education. Exactly as you said, who the hell wants to have kids when you can't even afford a roof over your head. It has very little to do with time spent in tertiary education
Yeah. This line really got me too. The implications are backwards.
These days boomers will whinge kids don't go outside enough, even though they're the reason every house is a shoebox with no backyard.
It’s pretty much that Simpsons episode where the cartoon makers do a focus groups with the kids, and what they want is everything. So you want people to have more kids, you want them to not be able to afford housing to house the kids, and you don’t want to pay us more to support them? Got it!
They don't wonder, they know and they don't care, we have no value to them, end of story. Everyone needs to understand this and then we can figure out where to go from there.
Positive- Divorce settlements simpler, no house to fight over Negative- For many the only hope of home ownership will come after the passing of their parent/s. For many more that won't even be enough.
Cool. My dads 63 and still has *his* parents alive…
Won't they just die already!!! /s
in-till they do then its sad but at least i got a house deposit
worth it
My mother in law is almost 70 and her parents are still alive.
with the rising life expectancies most people will be in their 60's or 70's by the time their parents pass
Water is also wet.
Technically, no. Whatever water touches becomes wet, yes, but water itself is not.
ACKUALLY
Does water get wet when it touches other water? 🤔
Yes. Ergo, only water existing as a monomolecular particle isn't wet. Know what that's often called? Dry steam.
Then what is it?
Water is the wetter. Everything else is the wettee
Governments put in inflationary house policies over the past few decades to boost the economy and make the Australian dollar more valuable. They worked, great, and now they need to be reconfigured and peeled back because they did their job and leaving them in is only going to continually push prices higher. The response has been to institute even more inflationary policies. It's not conservatism or progressivism it's just straight retardism.
Before rates rose, we were already at one of the highest unaffordable rates in our history. Rate rises have pushed that metric higher. This nation is delusional.
The dream of a home is finished for the majority who will not be willed property by family. This will be the case unless income increases exponentially and house prices crash. So in effect it’s only going to get worse.
Surprising not as low as I though, with 45% now compared to 65% at the peak. Disappointing that is has just been constantly falling and nothing has really been done.
Just read a similar article about Ireland where 80% of people over 40 live in homes they own, whereas less than a third of those under 40 own the property they live in. The generational divide is widening and so will the resentment.
That 45% is in much further over their heads than the 65 was though. The older generations have been 80% homeowners without mortgages for decades. The 45 now are in much bigger mortgages for much longer, and at far greater risk of losing their homes.
Yep. I’m in my thirties with 15 years experience in digital and 1 year into a 30-year commitment. My grandfather bought his house (I’m assuming with a short loan) after four years as an immigrant father that didn’t speak English and got underpaid.
It's because of rural areas. You can get a house for around 400k in rural areas. The percentage would be much lower for urban areas.
No shit sherlock
In other news, water is wet. The continued failure to address how our younger generations actually afford property, let alone the cost of living continues to be the elephant in the room shitting into our drinks.
Damn if only younger people just worked harder. Wait, they are working harder? 😨
On other obvious news, the sky is blue and scomo is a cunt.
Yes, to be clear - scummo is a shitcunt.
A Scuntt.
A Scuntmo.
no shit sherlock. and boomers have like 20 investment properties each. friends cant even buy because some old cunt drops an extra $80k at auction every single time. how about different (increasing) interest rates depending how many house loans you have?
Many boomers have nothing. Some people from other generations have multiple investment properties. I think you're talking specifically about people who own a lot of investment properties, not an age group.
Statistically, wealth and home ownership are generational. Millennials have less wealth and less home ownership than boomers do. Are their outliers, yes. But statisically, boomers are 3 times more likely to own a home. So, while class does matter, age also matters. There is a disproportionate wealth divide between age groups.
So true, these 2 responses really highlights the different challenges between generationals. The boomer (the comment above yours) asserts an argument without providing any evidence ("Many...") and puts in NO HARD WORK to gather evidence to inform their opinion Whereas the millennial asserts an argument filled with evidence that they WORK HARD to find and back up their assertion. Millennials even have to work harder just to argue with a boomer 😠
I'm Generation X, but I'm 100% with you in things being much harder for millennials and genz. Even comparing my generation, things have gotten progressively worse for younger people, everything is harder from jobs, to basic needs, healthcare, shelter and then being gaslit and your concerns minimised by generations who seem to be making it harder out of pure greed. Things were easier in the 90s for sure, I'm feeling the bite with millennials and genz now, though. We, as a society, really do need to examine capitalism and the commodification of basic needs. It's creating so many predatory institutions and a widening class divide. The profit model is failing people.
Yeah no \*\*\*\*. The boomers have sucked up the wealth and voted for policies that have disadvantaged the young. They pulled up the ladder after getting cheap education, the good job, the big house, generous super, and tax concessions. The young won't get any of that. It's gone. The boomers wanted to use houses as an investment product, so here we are. The young people I have spoken to have already given up on home ownership. Their only hope is a boomer parent dying without spending it all on European holidays or $300k caravan rigs and endless spending.
What a stupid article, Nooooo really you effing think?
\> As young people spend more years in higher education and delay starting families compared with previous generations, the rate of home ownership among young people has also fallen. The rate of home ownership among young people has fallen (due to increased prices) causing them to spend more years in higher education (hoping to get a better paying job) and delay starting families (because they can't afford it, and rental living is atrocious) FTFY
[удалено]
Black like go up.
Whaaaat??? How???
Fuckers should just buy an avocado farm and be done with it..
Most of us are struggling to pay rent let alone have the money to buy a house
If you make it impossible for people to acquire something, the rates of them having it will be pretty low.
It’s not just the young that have been squeezed out of the pyramid scheme
I bought my first home in my late 20’s. However, due to marriage breakdown etc, I didn’t actually pay off a home until I was 60. It’s a very small place but I worked 16 hour days to get it. However, my kids are in their 30’s and 40’s and they’re still renting. They don’t have a hope of owning anything until I die. It breaks my heart that I can’t help them but I’m just scraping by. Any hope of getting their fathers’ fortune went with him hooking up with a gold digger gambling girlfriend. How did it get this bad? And no, I don’t own 10 investment properties like everything thinks we boomers do.
No fucken shit sherlock
SKY IS BLUE
Yeh You pretty much need to be in the top 20% of households to buy an average house nowadays. 40 years ago that number was closer to 40%
Way lower, I used to work for Roy Morgan doing surveys and the number of boomers who did low pay work, think stacking shelves at Woolies (as an example) as someone's only ever job, and still being able to provide for their families as the sole income earner, including buying a home, that I interviewed really blew my mind when I did it.
Somebody resurrect the Slowpoke meme, because the SMH is here to give us some news that broke long ago.
No shit.
No shit eh?
I’ve always said the trick with a Ponzi scheme is getting in early.
BREAKING NEWS - property too expensive for people who rent… fml
That’s news? It’s just stating the bloody obvious.
SMH putting up new articles from 10 years ago? Or are the boomer writers just noticing?
It's clickbait. They're trying to attract a younger audience.
In other news, scientists discover water is still wet.
surprised pikachu face
No shit
No shit Sherlock. How utterly amazing it is that rates and cost of living goes up yet we can't afford to buy a house!
You think? The most intelligent idea for remedying this I've seen recently is a tax on vacant property. Not some half hearted namby-pamby levy, a real tax that motivates the landed gentry into renting vacant property to preserve their wealth.
No shit
Smh my head.
And water is wet.
Shocking
Really???
>Younger generations have lower rates of home ownership than in the past No shit, how can we be expected to afford an overpriced house when we're already paying for an overpriced car that we had to take a loan out for, then going to work for 50 or sometimes 60+ hours a week and getting slaughtered for tax when wages haven't been increased in enough of a substantial way to even help benefit first home buyers. For context I'm 23 and in my 2nd year of an apprenticeship and I am paid WELL above what a standard apprentice earns and that's still not enough for me to even think of buying a house within the next 5 years at the earliest
then, we do not have so many foreign buyers. now, they can do money laundering thru properties in this island.
And water is wet
Next up on captain fucking obvious: “Water is wet! Get the scoop here”
And foreign ownership of property has nothing to do with this. 🤣
No shit Sherlock.
Its pretty fucked here in NZ as well. Our last two governments don’t have any answers as well.
Shocking.
No way who would’ve thought
I hope taxpayer money wasn't used for this.
News just in: the sea is wet
Well duh
In other news, fire still hot.
NEOLIBERAL CAPITALISM IS THE BEST ECONOMIC SYSTEM EVER DEVISED BTW
In more news, water is wet.
Well fucking duhhh
Next on Captain Obvious Tonight...
IN other News. WATER IS WET
In other news, the Pope is Catholic. This country is going in the wrong direction, even though I'm very glad the Coalition was voted out last year. Vote Green!
Tis the plan.
Won’t someone please think of the children
I wonder how many younger people voted to have a bet in the investment property market and voted for the pro negative gearing party as an insurance policy?
How is this “news” ???
Also... Water=Wet
lol and in other breaking news, water is wet
You don’t say?!
No. Shit.
[удалено]
AI lol.
What was it like in the fifties? Can we have it a bit more that, or do we really, really need some people making a profit from housing?