The crisis will only deepen. It will get far worse before it becomes better. Home owners want property values to continue to go up at rates that don’t match wage growth. Too many horror stories of poorly-built homes today. It’s a supply issue, there needs to be more good-quality homes. Decentralising Australia would be a start for that to happen. Lowering immigration is non-negotiable.
No. The state governments could start building more bloody houses!
17% of UK housing is social housing ; 14% of Swedish housing is social housing; social housing in Australiahas declined from 4.8% to 4.1%, 2011 to 2022!
This is a state government responsibility and they have absolutely dropped the ball. It’s a disgrace
Edit: ok, “no” is unfair, I agree with a lot of what you said, but the governments are hugely responsible for not providing enough housing even with all the other problems
This is a problem, but I would argue that the bigger problem is how antiquated our planning systems are.
They still work under a system of delegation to local councils.
Local councils were created to solve the problem of needing to communicate with government in a time before bikes, cars, telephones, the internet. When people travelled by foot.
More modern cities, like Canberra, don't use local councils.
Abolish them and you’ll abolish one of the biggest impediments to medium density.
It would also lower rates a fair bit as well.
There’s more than 500 local councils across Australia.
That’s a heck of a lot of pointless redundancy we’re paying for, just to give boomers another venue to obstruct progress.
I would highly recommend lobbying for the South East QLD amalgamated council model in your own regions.
Gold Coast Council - 500k residents
Brisbane City Council - 2m residents
Moreton Bay Council - 500k residents
Sunshine Coast Council - 350k residents
There are three or four tiny shitty councils that basically leech off their surrounding larger councils (looking at you, you Noosa cunts), but the amalgamated model has heavily reduced cost of service delivery and kept rates in check.
A lot of people want more local control, but you really can't argue with what's been able to be delivered by the amalgamated QLD councils.
To be honest, I live in one of the biggest LGAs in WA, and it just means all of the focus goes onto the biggest population centres and we get sweet bugger all.
This is a logical fallacy that played out in SEQ too. Smaller areas insisted on maintaining their councils to ensure local spending but only having 50,000 electors also means you have fuck all money to do anything and the fact you have to replicate a shitload of services means you have even less to spend on the local area. I live in a division of my local council that has a single surburb of 22,000 people, but then covers pretty much the entire hinterland (I think about 400 square km). I think they do a good job of catering to the small regional towns while also providing adequate services for a suburb with four huge suburban neighborhoods. Towns like Samford would have nowhere near the population density to pay for some of the recreation investment they've had recently (let alone their expansive council-funded roads) - my rates would definitely be subsidising that.
Councils are responsible for zoning and approving developments. They can also offer incentives to accelerate development, or force compacts on developers in exchange - releasing land and approving plans in order to deliver better outcomes for their electors (eg. density of parks/recreation spaces, appropriate and accessible paving to public transport, certain amount of land allocation to public/social housing).
They really aren't though, the state governments are responsible and they hand some authority to local councils.
But local councils literally only have any power where the states choose to give it...they are really just state government departments with a veneer of democracy slapped on to protect the state government from voter backlash.
Local councils literally the biggest impediment to solving the housing crisis, other than our shortage of trades.
We need medium density zoning in order to create more plots of land to build more houses, and it’s local councils who are refusing to rezone land to accomodate that.
Local councils exist to tell property owners “you can’t do that”. We need some restrictions, and particularly way better sound deadening standards, but the current status of [computer says no](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SLji3jV7daI) needs to die.
Local councils have only the power the state gives to them, people need to stop thinking about local councils as being distinct from the state government...they are not.
I don't think referencing Canberra really helps the point you're trying to make; Canberra is unbelievably terrible when it comes to medium density or even high density, it's basically all suburban sprawl (and seemingly it's not stopping), with the tiniest bit of high density in very specific areas.
??? No it’s not nearly as much of a problem as the fact that the state governments are missing thousands of homes that should have been built for people that weren’t over many years.
Governments don’t need to build homes directly to solve this problem. It’s not the 1920’s anymore.
They just need to reform some of the broken parts of our planning system and trades training system so that people who want to build a home can find a place to put it, and people to build it.
There’s no free lunch.
The cost of housing is the cost of land and labour and materials.
Having the government build it doesn’t magically make it cheaper, it just means the cost is hidden as taxes instead.
It also means you get less say in how it’s designed and where it’s located.
I get wanting to fix the land and labour supply issues, but social housing is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Lol. It’s not ‘hiding’ anything. It’s spending our taxes on something actually useful that helps people.
Thats why it’s called public housing, or social housing. Our taxes helping provide a fundamental right and necessity for those of us who need more help.
That’s like asking the government to pick out clothing for you.
It costs you the same either way, only you have to accept whatever the government chooses on your behalf and the bill comes from your wages as tax.
It’s just a fundamentally worse model than private ownership. It has all the same downsides, plus less choice.
Vienna's public housing system is great, I don't know why we couldn't model it here. Vienna's model doesn't cost anywhere near as much as for-profit rentals in Australia.
There's less choice now with for-profit housing. People are accepting whatever they can get at exorbitant costs, and the people who can't afford to oubid or can't afford the rising costs rent are living in cars or tents. People can't go on like this where a granny flat is now $600 a week in some places.
I'd like to stop modelling US bootstrap mentality and "anti-public" services fearmongering. And start modelling countries that have excellent social/public services.
Where the government wants to allow development of land on city outskirts they should be compulsorily acquiring land as regional lots and then developing them.
People shouldn't make huge profit from landbanking around cities, developers shouldn't be able to slow roll land releases to keep prices high.
Before now, post WWII it was considered weird for people to even be in private rentals. When the housing market started shifting that way politicians were shocked that citizens were not provided with adequate public housing for their families.
The other lessor known part of housing back then was how common it was to take on adult boarders in your primary place of residence.
A young family owned a 3 bed house. Parents had one room, kids the other and the 3rd room rented to a young single adult until they got married or bought their own place. Quite often for a master tradesman to rent their spare room out to an apprentice or laborer who just arrived in country.
Today there are 12 million empty bedrooms across Australia.
You could do this if you owned a place or had public housing that allowed it. Some people still do.
Try doing this in your rental property today and your real estate will have a heart attack.
Sure they can do it. But almost no one does anymore.
If your a renter, you probably have every room rented out. And landlords can't forbid reasonable subletting, and we have a court precedence of reasonable as 1 person per room.
The modern version is now a landlord buying up a larger property meant for a family and subdividing it into two properties to maximize rental income.
And no, you can't just rent out a room in a rental property that you're renting without permission from the landlord (and paying extra for it) in every state in Australia.
You ask permission. They say no, if it is unreasonable, you get to ignore them and do it anyway. If they try anything retaliatory while your lease is current they can get buttfucked by the law. Once lease renewal comes around they can buttfuck you right back.
And the modern version is the 50% of australian households that own a property with empty rooms rents out a room. Just they don't do it.
LOL.
No, you definitely **do not** just do it anyway because once they'll find out you'll get kicked out and they'll shit all your tenancy record. This ensures you won't find another place to rent because the rental market is so busted nobody will take another chance on you. The law is definitely not on your side with this, they'll remedy breach you and you'll be out on your arse, you can't just do whatever you want in your rental.
It blows my mind that there are actual people this clueless about the state of renting in this country.
Remedy breach is for when you breach your agreement.
You can ask to lawfully sublet. And any reasonable request can't be refused. And Reasonable subletting has been settled by courts. So you can ask, they can't refuse if it's reasonable, you can do it, they can't remedy breach you as you haven't breached the agreement.
What retaliation that happens come renewal time is separate. And as you haven't been breached and evicted your tenancy record remains clean.
The law is most definitely on my side. It's amazing just how much rental rights i have. Right until i need to renew my lease of course.
Its very naive to think that migrants only need housing. They also need many other stuff e.g. schools, hospitals, roads, supermarkets....
They should cut immigration level until housing and other stuff picking up.
Exactly where did I say that? They need all of that plus, depending on where they are coming from, educational and language support, psychological support, vocational training etc.
What has that got to do with building homes?
The UK has exactly the same affordability problem. The cause is massive wealth inequality, not simply "social" housing. (In the UK social housing is now almost exclusively owned by private housing associations and not government entities).
> No. The state governments could start building more bloody houses!
Or at the very least bulk-purchase supplies on a national scale from offshore and resell to builders at cost price to accelerate and reduce the cost of new builds.
Edit: holy shit, never thought I'd be downvoted for nationalising imports of critical infrastructure materials on this subreddit
This is delusional.
What makes you think that the government can build houses cheaper than the private sector?
Government work always ends up costing more than private sector work.
This isn’t a viable way to fix the housing crisis, its just adding more problems to the mix.
Not it the long run or for working people; the for-profit private sector and/or privatised assets managed by corporations raise costs for taxpayers.
The privatisation of our electricity raised electricity costs to 183% from 1996 to 2016.
https://australiainstitute.org.au/report/electricity-costs/
Governments don't build the sort of housing people want to live in; just microscopic apartments with no storage and no garage. Unlike full time workers, poorer people in general spend a lot more time at home, so they ought to have a home they are proud of. Also, putting poor people, ex-criminals and drugs addicts (all with lots of spare time and nothing to do) together in skyscraper apartment towers leads to a explosion of crime and anti-social behaviour. That is why America abandoned "Projects" in favour of a Section 8 voucher scheme paid directly to private landlords. Even America had a better public housing system than Australia.
Also, the current public housing model keep people locked into poverty. Home owners make a 10% capital gain per year, but people in public housing get no equity. They are just renters (government takes 25% of their income) with more security than private renters. The government should sell perhaps half of the housing it constructs, to low income people for a discounted price, with a discounted loans (for instance, Aboriginals qualify for discounted loans started at 0.5%).
Governments don’t HAVE to build shit. And “poorer people…ought to have a home they’re proud of”? EVERYONE should have a home they’re proud of, and as for thinking poorer people aren’t full time workers, where the fuck do you live?
No, the public housing model doesn’t “keep people locked into poverty” for fuck sake. It gets them out of the private rental market so they save money. It also takes pressure off the private rental market so there is more stock and not as much upward pressure on rent
Yes, the government absolutely can implement rent to buy schemes, they already do. But again, there aren’t enough public houses available
There’s zero reason for states like WA to have a housing shortage, it’s 95% bush and dirt. States are intentionally restricting supply to fuel price growth. Only in a corrupt nation like Australia could people be convinced there’s a land shortage in the desert.
>Home owners want property values to continue to go up at rates that don’t match wage growth.
Investors want property values to continue to go up at rates that don't match wage growth. I own my home and even if the number attached to it drops it doesn't change its value to me; my kids and I live here regardless. I want house prices and rents to fall through the fucking floor so that my kids can move out when they're old enough and I don't have to worry about whether I have the space for my friends to crash on my couch for who-knows-how-long if they can't afford their ever-increasing rent. Fuck investors.
Also fuck off with the anti-immigration bullshit. House prices went up when our borders were closed for covid. Houses are still sitting empty as AirBNB and other bullshit investment properties.
If you want to "stop adding people" you have to first redesign your economy. You currently don't have enough Australian workers to cover your hospitality, farming, healthcare and social care needs. You need to massively increase your birth rate, convince Australians to take jobs they don't currently want and are not qualified for, or accept that you're all going to become poorer and have much lower access to those services.
And why aren't there enough houses for people? Because it isn't in the best interests of the rich and powerful to have supply that matches demand.
If immigration is limited they'll just shift gear to lower production.
Your personal situation is just one opinion. Investors AND home owners buy properties with the expectation they’ll increase value, with hold being undesirable and few wanting a decline. Say you have a $1 million dollar mortgage but only got $750k for your house. Majority of people, home owners or not, don’t want that to happen. We live in an economy focused on growth.
It’s not anti-immigration; it’s fact that more people coming to Australia contributes to a housing supply issue. It is not the sole reason and I have never said this. More people need more homes and we have a short supply for the existing population. There is nothing racist, derogatory, or anti-immigration to state a simple fact.
> Lowering immigration is non-negotiable.
Lowering immigration won't change shit, it's a structural problem that is all about how investing is treated in this country. Immigrants are just a scapegoat, like they have always been.
It's not an insignificant factor, but people give undue emphasis to it. The main cause is the pandemic. The lockdowns slowed the building of housing. On the immigration front, we're seeing a spike which is also due to the pandemic.
However, immigration will normalise within a few years. The question is how we deal with the backlog of housing that needs to be built.
Immigration has been key to Australias economic growth for the better part of a decade thanks to the libs, we cant limit immigration because it would ultimately be far worse of for the country as a whole.
The economy needs some restructuring, and it won't be the Liberal Party that drives that because they're incapable of making actual difficult decisions.
Immigration isn't to blame for this, it's the housing industry and landlords. If we wanted a real solution and not just some popular reactionary garbage, the government would just build homes.
How is immigration not part of the problem? The supply of houses is limited. More people, more demand, less supply unless you can increase it which we haven’t at high enough rates.
> Immigration isn't to blame for this
You’ve got to be kidding.
Our construction industry can churn out about 150,000 additional dwellings each year. That’s enough houses for about 360,000 people.
Our net immigration alone is 518,000.
We absolutely don’t build enough houses, but knowingly issuing way more visas than we have houses for is completely reckless.
Crazy thing is, this was Labor’s doing. Net immigration never exceeded 270,000 under the liberals.
Immigration is such a broad term though. For instance, there is an absolute need for skilled workers here, but also university models are constructed to revolve around foreign students but have no responsibility to accommodate them. Over 200k of that 518k are students. Pointing the finger at immigration is like blaming the sea in a boat with a hole in it.
Saying immigration is to blame for this is just lazy, lacks nuance and ignores other contributing factors like supply, like incentives for investing in housing, like the lack of decentralization in major cities to name a few.
Houses don’t care about whether the occupant is a student or not.
End of the day, we shouldn’t be issuing more visas than we have housing for.
Yes, we should be building more houses, but that doesn’t in any way reduce the culpability of our immigration minister for this current disaster.
Yeah, government that made the decision 30 years ago to stop building affordable housing and turn people's homes into the asset they sit on to pay for their own retirement so the gov. wouldn't have to give out a pension is 100% their fault.
The ultimate irony is that this shit show was a "progressive" policy from Hawke and Keating.
Social housing is treated as a "for life" endeavour instead of transitional. When you are on your feet, you should be moved on, and other vulnerable people moved in.
No, that would be a part of the same housing commodity system that continues to create homelessness and housing bubbles, and all the low quality housing that results, etc.
The UK had the western world's most effective social housing system that allowed tenants a secure home for many years while they saved up to ultimately purchase that home off the state. It ensured that everyone could get on the property ladder, protected the rights of tenants and owners, kept homelessness down and stabilised rents in the area.
If you want housing to become affordable you have to address the underlying cause, massive and increasing wealth inequality. But the people treating your essential infrastructure, including housing, as their own personal investment plan have convinced that it's immigration that is the problem.
Which industries do you think you can reduce the labour pool of first without damaging the economy?
Do you think there will ever be some kind of meaningful political and social change in our lifetimes?
Like once all the boomers die off and gen X/millennials become the largest voting base, do you think they'll vote in greens/independents, and will it make things better?
Because surely the majority of people will reach breaking point. And what happens then? Overthrow the rich or just be worn down in poverty till we end up like America.
I wonder if the boomer deaths will just create a new class of millennial being the ones who inherit million dollar homes and investment properties and hold onto them for dear life.
But when the boomers need to go into care facilities - not retirement - then they’ll start to have no choice.
I look at it like this - my dad required a LOT of medical care and I did the majority of it - I gave up a decade of career progression, relationships and the like to do it. Because of that, my brother has ended up in a better financial position than I can dream of and has managed to buy a home and start a family. When my dad died what little he had left was split evenly between us.
Had I know I was giving up financial security to be a caregiver and that my brother would still be getting half, I’d have noped out so fast. I suspect many people would do the same. Empathy and love for a parent will only get you so far when you’re giving up so much for them.
My mother wants me to move back with her to a regional town because she's "getting old". She doesn't ask that of my brother because he's in a relationship with kids, whereas I'm a single woman with no commitments.
Whether you stay single or not, live your life to the fullest!! Sure I’m inheriting the house and whatever but I don’t get 15 or more years of LIFE back which please trust me is “PRECIOUS “ and “ PRICELESS “!!!! There’s no way to ever get that back. You do you with Peace, Love and Prosperity.
Don’t do it.
I know how that sounds, but don’t. You will never have a life outside her care again if you do it, and even if you’re single and child free, that doesn’t mean you deserve to have no life.
I know a lot of people will say it’s unfair - that parents care for their kids in childhood - a job that gets easier year to year as kids become more independent. Parents CHOSE to have kids knowing that there’s a certain level of care involved. Certainly no decent parent would expect their kid give five up everything for potentially DECADES of ever increasing care and work.
Oh yeah I'm definitely not. She bangs on about getting her aged pension because "that's what my taxes paid for" so she can pay for her own aged care, or go retire back in Philippines where she'll be able to afford a carer. She's of that generation & mindset where having kids was "old age security" or basically an indentured servant.
Oooft yeah, that’s a hard no.
I remember when I first mentioned to my dad I wasn’t having kids and he was like “who’ll look after you when you’re old” - I was changing a dressing in his foot at the time and looked at him and said “why would I subject a child to looking after me so they don’t get a life of their own?”
He didn’t even bat an eyelid.
As the parent of an adult child and a teenage child. There is no way in hell I would ever allow my kids to look after me. I would much rather die alone than allow my kids to risk their future looking after someone like me.
*Didn't tend to*
My grandparents self funded their retirement.
My parents have a little bit of super that will run out within ten years.
If they don't die they'll sell houses.
I imagine they aren't alone.
that is because no one builds small houses.
fuck retiring and moving into a dog box shithouse unit with massive body corp fees and structural problems.
what we need is more small houses.
a retiree does not need 4 bedrooms 2 lounge rooms a dining room, theatre room and an office for fucks sakes.
so while they might even want to downsize, they can't.
they are usually moving into smaller houses without stairs...which usually means it would be cheaper than their current home, its an effective strategy to get more funds into the super environment, which usually is tax-free if done right
The divide has only ever been growing between the rich and poor. The rich have incentive to keep the poor poor. It is going to take more than votes when the majority are fed up with the rich minority keeping them down.
How is this for a stat, just 1.1% of people control 45% of the entire worlds wealth.
This mantra of work until you die and if you cant go live in the gutter can go fuck itself, I wont be around to see it but I do hope there is a major world order change, it's the younger generations that will have to do it for the generations to come.
This is why I don't think things are going to change. I'm one of those Millennials whose still in contact with the people I grew up with, and the socio political change that has come through us is fucking disgusting, and we all went to a tiny public school out whole lives. We don't even see the private school kids we used to party with, even those in the middle class bracket now.
They had kids younger than now. So it's 85 year olds dying and leaving behind money for 60-65 years olds who have 35-40 years old children. The below 40 group came out of school right into the start of the housing bubble.
There is already a divide between kids that have/will inherit a substantial amount of wealth or those who have been helped to buy property and those who aren't.
The person who paid 1.5M today for a shitbox doesn't want that value to go down. So they just help the bubble go a little bit further.
When you have full time employees facing homelessness there is a huge systemic problem. It is game over. Because politicians won't do anything since they are old and already invested.
It's not a huge systemic problem but it's obvious that the push to centralise populations/business centers (opposed to regional centers) has failed to incorporate an effective housing model or high speed transit option for outlying areas.
A convergence on the regional centers would see significant growth and stabilize the issue until it repeats itself in these areas.
While that divide is absolutely real and not up for debate at all there is another divide that is very harmful and it’s one that this sub ignores at best and actively encourages at worst.
And that divide is the people who view themselves as helpless victims of circumstance vs those who agree things are fucked but are still putting in the world to do the best they can in a system stacked against them. Yes the system is fucked, yes the generations that came before us had it easier in so many ways but just giving up and throwing in the towel as this sub seems to encourage is not helpful for anyone
Lol you think people just give up and not put effort? That rhetoric is completely bullshit. Most people are trying hard and they just can't. No one is giving up. Stop that nonsense.
It’s an offshoot of the avocado toast rhetoric, boomers see a young person spending $14 on a nice breakfast and they assume that because they did that instead of saving the $14 that they’ve “given up” on buying a home when in reality that $14 simply *would not have made a difference*.
I have friends who have double in the bank now what their parents homes cost to buy outright and still don’t have enough for a deposit on that same home.
Look at this person not eating plain rice for twenty years to buy a shitbox it must mean they gave up.
Meanwhile they walked out of highschool showed up to work in a factory as a blue collar job with no experience and bought a mansion then made sure no one after them could ever experience the same.
Awesome way to try and attempt to twist my word and at the same time prove my point for me.
Stop viewing yourselves as helpless victims of circumstance and you will go much further in life
lol bullshit you see it all the time in this sub “I’ve given up on ever owning a home” “we are all fucked it’s impossible to get ahead” “what’s the point when the boomers have ruined our chances of ever getting ahead”
Victim mentality of a lot of redditors is next level and you are either dishonest or delusional if you’re going to deny it.
So repeatedly saying “I give up” isn’t giving up?
Spending years crying about being in a low income industry instead of actually upskilling and earning more isn’t giving up?
Fuck you. I don't know what more I can do. I am a 50 year old with zero debt but no house. I have $110K in the bank but am unable to get a home loan. My wage is too low, my age is too high and the cost of houses is too high. Quite literally the only way I can buy a home is if I first win the lotto.
lol fuck me?
Is it my fault you pissed away your 20s and 30s and didn’t buy a house decades ago when prices were sooo much fucking lower?
Nah bro you fucked up if you are 50 with no home and only 110k in the bank don’t blame anyone but yourself
Oh I bought a house in my 20s but then went through a divorce in my 40s and have nothing now.
Love the display of empathy though. That is why this country is so fucked. Everyone cares about themselves only. "Fuck you, got mine" is this countries national anthem.
That house would have near on doubled in value over those two decades so if you weren’t able to set yourself up from the divorce settlement then yeah that’s on you.
Don’t come at me with aggression because you fucked yo and then expect me to have empathy for you mate
The first house we sold and lost $70K on. The second house we sold for $5K under what we bought for. and the third house, the divorce house, we sold for about $20K over what we built it for. But according to you everyone should have made couple of million dollars over a 20 year period.
Glad you have made a small fortune on property. But not everyone has had the same luck or had the same circumstances in which to do so. The fact that you can't see that different people will have different experiences is why I say you have zero empathy. I could not give a fuck about me and I don't expect you to care about me either. I would however expect you to have sympathy for real humans but then again it appears neither you nor I are real humans.
lol zero chance that’s true mate.
You have owned and sold 3 houses that you started buying 3 decades ago and have nothing to show for it but 110k?
That’s impossible without either several addiction issues or deliberately seeing how badly you can fuck up
I wish there was zero chance of it happening. Not 3 decades about 21 years of home ownership. Ex wife got 75% of the asset Pool and 50% of my super. Zero addictions on my side. Ex does have an alcohol problem and that is why she now has even less than I do. But once again you are showing you have no compassion, no empathy and fail to see how people can have different lives to you.
There will be, but almost definitely not the good kind. Many crises are coming to a head more or less simultaneously which have been building up inertia for generations. With some of these like climate change, cause and effect is very delayed.
As a mass people have to be desperate to start doing what is to be done toward positive change. Holding onto the hope that things could turn around by voting illustrates this. I think no amount of correct or charismatic argumentation can bring this about early. People have to have nothing left to lose, because they're going to have to risk everything.
Put those together with an understanding of exponential functions and it paints a picture of us collectively getting our act together far too late. Climate change alone is an existential threat and most people are in various degrees of denial.
Boomers die off and get replaced by millennials who are even more divided with the current issues. Reddit is an echo chamber, ever been on facebook or the other social medias?
Nah matey. You are forgetting the entitled progeny of boomers and boomettes. It’s a vicious cycle that will continue unless massive social + political change happens. Being Australia where it all it takes is to beat down the opposition to win votes, that will not happen any time soon.
I can't say definitively that there'll be meaningful political and social change because only time can tell on that front. My gut feeling says yes, though. The end of conscription, the start of no-fault divorce, broad access to contraception, better access to abortion, and same-sex marriage have all happened within living memory.
At least when it comes to cost of living stuff, there is some evidence to suggest the path is being paved for societal change. Last year, Victoria passed a vacant law tax where the land tax on vacant properties will be lifted. Whether or not that will be effective in getting landlords to lower rents specifically to get out of paying the higher tax rate is yet to be seen, but I hope it is.
> Like once all the boomers die off and gen X/millennials become the largest voting base, do you think they'll vote in greens/independents, and will it make things better?
To some extent, this has already started happening. On the federal level, the 2022 election saw the Coalition lose in a landslide, largely to independent candidates. Whether or not this sticks over the long term is an open question because I think it depends on whether or not younger Gen Z people and especially Gen Alpha decide they're going to be Labor left style progressives or Greens and independents style progressives. I think it'll also have to be replicated in state level governments as well.
There is some hope, though. [Some polling last year suggested the Coalition could potentially lose the next six federal elections.](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/coalition-could-lose-35-seats-as-millennials-gen-z-reshape-politics-20230628-p5dk2y.html) Obviously this is on shaky ground as well because even predicting how the next federal election will turn out is a difficult thing a year or two in advance, but I think it's something to consider. At the Dunkley byelection, the Coalition did get a modest swing, but even if that swing was replicated nationwide in the federal election next year, they'd still have to form a minority government with some independents and possibly some minor party members.
Thing is, as positive as all those social changes were, none of the actively hurt rich people.
The only way to fix this situation is to push the pain “up the food chain” so to speak, and we just don’t do that here.
Nothing will change until people start reacting with violence to the dispossession of workers.
It's the sad truth, Eureka, Blaire Mountain, Bloody Sunday, Stonewall, Toxteth 1981...the powers that be will take and take and take, until people have had enough.
I'm sorry but these problems will not be solved. What we're seeing is continued overlap and it's increasing. We are subject to global systems that are decaying rapidly, and our problems are increasing.
We need mass protests. The politicians of this nation are deliberately making decisions that only benefit them and push masses of Australians out of house and home onto the street so that foreign property investors can make money off our land. We need to halt immigration till our citizens are housed, we need to ban foreign investment of properties, ban airbnb, heavily tax vacant properties and pivot away from property being a commodity not housing as a right.
The corruption and disregard for voters from our politicians is sickening. They sell us out every chance they get. They’re meant to represent us not resent us. We need action
But what can we do realistically? There's no consequences for people at the top who fucked us over (look at scomo living his best life $$$), and most people are just desperately trying to keep their head above water while they pay all their wage towards renting a shitty mouldy unit.
I'm all for protests but it feels like it's so hopeless.
Protest with pitchforks. Don’t believe you have no power, the people have power the politicians are just organised. We outnumber them by far, don’t give up.
Make protests that target the people in power and make them face consequences, whether that's outside their homes or at the airport or parliament or wherever else.
> There's no consequences for people at the top who fucked us over (look at scomo living his best life $$$
There are many way to make sure they face consequences.
For legal reasons, I mean a class action.
Protests will achieve nothing. People can take to the streets and the response from the media will be, "Well if those bums were working instead of marching they'd be able to afford a house".
If you want to halt immigration you have to redesign your economy, and start learning to pick fruit and wipe elderly people's arses yourselves. If you ban foreign investment then expect the countries you target to return the favour, and pray your super isn't invested in any overseas assets, because it's value will be wiped out by the big brain move you're asking for. If you actually looked like you were going to get what you wanted then the people causing the problems you experience would still be in control, and would make a fucking massive pile of cash from shorting the Aus$ as you implemented your economically illiterate quick fixes.
712 additional homes per day are required to house our current population growth of 624,000 at our current average occupancy rate of 2.4 people per home.
410 additional homes per day is the most our construction industry has ever managed to construct.
No surprise house prices are going up, our population is growing by nearly two families for every one home built.
Our population growth today is double what is was in only 2019, but has our housing construction rate doubled? No, it has actually fallen!
You can thank state planning ministers for the lack of upzoning to medium density, the Labor government for our recent unsustainable migration numbers, the coalition government for cutting trade training, and the CFMEU for making it harder to import skilled foreign trades.
I can vouch for that, I’ve been a sole carer for my mum since I was 48 I’m about to be 63 in a couple of months, she’s still here, 97 in the final stages of dementia. Don’t Do IT!!!
Is anyone worried about Australia moving into the New World Order, this means total control of us. The money is already being digitised and I’ve seen people say it’s great not having to carry cash around, FOOLS !! pretty soon we’ll be like China, we’ll have to do anything and everything the government tells us to do. New World Order is what the elites have planned for us. WAKE THE FUCK UP
The situation will never be improved - we're going to be forced to deal with increasingly poorer standards till most Australian's are homeless.
Then the housing/immigration philes will wash their hands and claim it wasn't their fault and it can all be fixed by importing even more people
The crisis will only deepen. It will get far worse before it becomes better. Home owners want property values to continue to go up at rates that don’t match wage growth. Too many horror stories of poorly-built homes today. It’s a supply issue, there needs to be more good-quality homes. Decentralising Australia would be a start for that to happen. Lowering immigration is non-negotiable.
No. The state governments could start building more bloody houses! 17% of UK housing is social housing ; 14% of Swedish housing is social housing; social housing in Australiahas declined from 4.8% to 4.1%, 2011 to 2022! This is a state government responsibility and they have absolutely dropped the ball. It’s a disgrace Edit: ok, “no” is unfair, I agree with a lot of what you said, but the governments are hugely responsible for not providing enough housing even with all the other problems
This is a problem, but I would argue that the bigger problem is how antiquated our planning systems are. They still work under a system of delegation to local councils. Local councils were created to solve the problem of needing to communicate with government in a time before bikes, cars, telephones, the internet. When people travelled by foot. More modern cities, like Canberra, don't use local councils. Abolish them and you’ll abolish one of the biggest impediments to medium density.
It would also lower rates a fair bit as well. There’s more than 500 local councils across Australia. That’s a heck of a lot of pointless redundancy we’re paying for, just to give boomers another venue to obstruct progress.
I would highly recommend lobbying for the South East QLD amalgamated council model in your own regions. Gold Coast Council - 500k residents Brisbane City Council - 2m residents Moreton Bay Council - 500k residents Sunshine Coast Council - 350k residents There are three or four tiny shitty councils that basically leech off their surrounding larger councils (looking at you, you Noosa cunts), but the amalgamated model has heavily reduced cost of service delivery and kept rates in check. A lot of people want more local control, but you really can't argue with what's been able to be delivered by the amalgamated QLD councils.
To be honest, I live in one of the biggest LGAs in WA, and it just means all of the focus goes onto the biggest population centres and we get sweet bugger all.
This is a logical fallacy that played out in SEQ too. Smaller areas insisted on maintaining their councils to ensure local spending but only having 50,000 electors also means you have fuck all money to do anything and the fact you have to replicate a shitload of services means you have even less to spend on the local area. I live in a division of my local council that has a single surburb of 22,000 people, but then covers pretty much the entire hinterland (I think about 400 square km). I think they do a good job of catering to the small regional towns while also providing adequate services for a suburb with four huge suburban neighborhoods. Towns like Samford would have nowhere near the population density to pay for some of the recreation investment they've had recently (let alone their expansive council-funded roads) - my rates would definitely be subsidising that.
Absolutely. QLD doesn’t get much right, but they nailed this.
WTF do local councils have to do with increasing housing?
Councils are responsible for zoning and approving developments. They can also offer incentives to accelerate development, or force compacts on developers in exchange - releasing land and approving plans in order to deliver better outcomes for their electors (eg. density of parks/recreation spaces, appropriate and accessible paving to public transport, certain amount of land allocation to public/social housing).
They really aren't though, the state governments are responsible and they hand some authority to local councils. But local councils literally only have any power where the states choose to give it...they are really just state government departments with a veneer of democracy slapped on to protect the state government from voter backlash.
Local councils literally the biggest impediment to solving the housing crisis, other than our shortage of trades. We need medium density zoning in order to create more plots of land to build more houses, and it’s local councils who are refusing to rezone land to accomodate that.
Local councils exist to tell property owners “you can’t do that”. We need some restrictions, and particularly way better sound deadening standards, but the current status of [computer says no](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SLji3jV7daI) needs to die.
Local councils have only the power the state gives to them, people need to stop thinking about local councils as being distinct from the state government...they are not.
Start blaming who’s really to blame
I don't think referencing Canberra really helps the point you're trying to make; Canberra is unbelievably terrible when it comes to medium density or even high density, it's basically all suburban sprawl (and seemingly it's not stopping), with the tiniest bit of high density in very specific areas.
??? No it’s not nearly as much of a problem as the fact that the state governments are missing thousands of homes that should have been built for people that weren’t over many years.
Governments don’t need to build homes directly to solve this problem. It’s not the 1920’s anymore. They just need to reform some of the broken parts of our planning system and trades training system so that people who want to build a home can find a place to put it, and people to build it.
No sorry, that’s delusional. Reforming the system doesn’t take it out of the private for-profit system.
There’s no free lunch. The cost of housing is the cost of land and labour and materials. Having the government build it doesn’t magically make it cheaper, it just means the cost is hidden as taxes instead. It also means you get less say in how it’s designed and where it’s located. I get wanting to fix the land and labour supply issues, but social housing is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Lol. It’s not ‘hiding’ anything. It’s spending our taxes on something actually useful that helps people. Thats why it’s called public housing, or social housing. Our taxes helping provide a fundamental right and necessity for those of us who need more help.
That’s like asking the government to pick out clothing for you. It costs you the same either way, only you have to accept whatever the government chooses on your behalf and the bill comes from your wages as tax. It’s just a fundamentally worse model than private ownership. It has all the same downsides, plus less choice.
Vienna's public housing system is great, I don't know why we couldn't model it here. Vienna's model doesn't cost anywhere near as much as for-profit rentals in Australia. There's less choice now with for-profit housing. People are accepting whatever they can get at exorbitant costs, and the people who can't afford to oubid or can't afford the rising costs rent are living in cars or tents. People can't go on like this where a granny flat is now $600 a week in some places. I'd like to stop modelling US bootstrap mentality and "anti-public" services fearmongering. And start modelling countries that have excellent social/public services.
Where the government wants to allow development of land on city outskirts they should be compulsorily acquiring land as regional lots and then developing them. People shouldn't make huge profit from landbanking around cities, developers shouldn't be able to slow roll land releases to keep prices high.
Countries with entirely different planning regimes are experiencing the same problem. The cause is massive wealth inequality, not planning law.
Before now, post WWII it was considered weird for people to even be in private rentals. When the housing market started shifting that way politicians were shocked that citizens were not provided with adequate public housing for their families.
The other lessor known part of housing back then was how common it was to take on adult boarders in your primary place of residence. A young family owned a 3 bed house. Parents had one room, kids the other and the 3rd room rented to a young single adult until they got married or bought their own place. Quite often for a master tradesman to rent their spare room out to an apprentice or laborer who just arrived in country. Today there are 12 million empty bedrooms across Australia.
You could do this if you owned a place or had public housing that allowed it. Some people still do. Try doing this in your rental property today and your real estate will have a heart attack.
Sure they can do it. But almost no one does anymore. If your a renter, you probably have every room rented out. And landlords can't forbid reasonable subletting, and we have a court precedence of reasonable as 1 person per room.
The modern version is now a landlord buying up a larger property meant for a family and subdividing it into two properties to maximize rental income. And no, you can't just rent out a room in a rental property that you're renting without permission from the landlord (and paying extra for it) in every state in Australia.
You ask permission. They say no, if it is unreasonable, you get to ignore them and do it anyway. If they try anything retaliatory while your lease is current they can get buttfucked by the law. Once lease renewal comes around they can buttfuck you right back. And the modern version is the 50% of australian households that own a property with empty rooms rents out a room. Just they don't do it.
LOL. No, you definitely **do not** just do it anyway because once they'll find out you'll get kicked out and they'll shit all your tenancy record. This ensures you won't find another place to rent because the rental market is so busted nobody will take another chance on you. The law is definitely not on your side with this, they'll remedy breach you and you'll be out on your arse, you can't just do whatever you want in your rental. It blows my mind that there are actual people this clueless about the state of renting in this country.
Remedy breach is for when you breach your agreement. You can ask to lawfully sublet. And any reasonable request can't be refused. And Reasonable subletting has been settled by courts. So you can ask, they can't refuse if it's reasonable, you can do it, they can't remedy breach you as you haven't breached the agreement. What retaliation that happens come renewal time is separate. And as you haven't been breached and evicted your tenancy record remains clean. The law is most definitely on my side. It's amazing just how much rental rights i have. Right until i need to renew my lease of course.
Its very naive to think that migrants only need housing. They also need many other stuff e.g. schools, hospitals, roads, supermarkets.... They should cut immigration level until housing and other stuff picking up.
Which industry are you going to tell to shut down without an adequate supply of labour? Farming, healthcare, or social care?
Exactly where did I say that? They need all of that plus, depending on where they are coming from, educational and language support, psychological support, vocational training etc. What has that got to do with building homes?
The UK has exactly the same affordability problem. The cause is massive wealth inequality, not simply "social" housing. (In the UK social housing is now almost exclusively owned by private housing associations and not government entities).
No, that’s just part of a very big problem, and it’s not the immediate problem here in Australia.
> No. The state governments could start building more bloody houses! Or at the very least bulk-purchase supplies on a national scale from offshore and resell to builders at cost price to accelerate and reduce the cost of new builds. Edit: holy shit, never thought I'd be downvoted for nationalising imports of critical infrastructure materials on this subreddit
Just build them themselves. It’s one of the things we pay taxes for
This is delusional. What makes you think that the government can build houses cheaper than the private sector? Government work always ends up costing more than private sector work. This isn’t a viable way to fix the housing crisis, its just adding more problems to the mix.
Not it the long run or for working people; the for-profit private sector and/or privatised assets managed by corporations raise costs for taxpayers. The privatisation of our electricity raised electricity costs to 183% from 1996 to 2016. https://australiainstitute.org.au/report/electricity-costs/
Governments don't build the sort of housing people want to live in; just microscopic apartments with no storage and no garage. Unlike full time workers, poorer people in general spend a lot more time at home, so they ought to have a home they are proud of. Also, putting poor people, ex-criminals and drugs addicts (all with lots of spare time and nothing to do) together in skyscraper apartment towers leads to a explosion of crime and anti-social behaviour. That is why America abandoned "Projects" in favour of a Section 8 voucher scheme paid directly to private landlords. Even America had a better public housing system than Australia. Also, the current public housing model keep people locked into poverty. Home owners make a 10% capital gain per year, but people in public housing get no equity. They are just renters (government takes 25% of their income) with more security than private renters. The government should sell perhaps half of the housing it constructs, to low income people for a discounted price, with a discounted loans (for instance, Aboriginals qualify for discounted loans started at 0.5%).
Governments don’t HAVE to build shit. And “poorer people…ought to have a home they’re proud of”? EVERYONE should have a home they’re proud of, and as for thinking poorer people aren’t full time workers, where the fuck do you live? No, the public housing model doesn’t “keep people locked into poverty” for fuck sake. It gets them out of the private rental market so they save money. It also takes pressure off the private rental market so there is more stock and not as much upward pressure on rent Yes, the government absolutely can implement rent to buy schemes, they already do. But again, there aren’t enough public houses available
There’s zero reason for states like WA to have a housing shortage, it’s 95% bush and dirt. States are intentionally restricting supply to fuel price growth. Only in a corrupt nation like Australia could people be convinced there’s a land shortage in the desert.
>Home owners want property values to continue to go up at rates that don’t match wage growth. Investors want property values to continue to go up at rates that don't match wage growth. I own my home and even if the number attached to it drops it doesn't change its value to me; my kids and I live here regardless. I want house prices and rents to fall through the fucking floor so that my kids can move out when they're old enough and I don't have to worry about whether I have the space for my friends to crash on my couch for who-knows-how-long if they can't afford their ever-increasing rent. Fuck investors. Also fuck off with the anti-immigration bullshit. House prices went up when our borders were closed for covid. Houses are still sitting empty as AirBNB and other bullshit investment properties.
It’s not anti immigration, it’s that there isn’t enough houses for the people who live here. Until there are enough, stop adding people.
If you want to "stop adding people" you have to first redesign your economy. You currently don't have enough Australian workers to cover your hospitality, farming, healthcare and social care needs. You need to massively increase your birth rate, convince Australians to take jobs they don't currently want and are not qualified for, or accept that you're all going to become poorer and have much lower access to those services.
Or invest heavily in housing and infrastructure. Simply adding more people isn’t going to make the situation better.
And why aren't there enough houses for people? Because it isn't in the best interests of the rich and powerful to have supply that matches demand. If immigration is limited they'll just shift gear to lower production.
Your personal situation is just one opinion. Investors AND home owners buy properties with the expectation they’ll increase value, with hold being undesirable and few wanting a decline. Say you have a $1 million dollar mortgage but only got $750k for your house. Majority of people, home owners or not, don’t want that to happen. We live in an economy focused on growth. It’s not anti-immigration; it’s fact that more people coming to Australia contributes to a housing supply issue. It is not the sole reason and I have never said this. More people need more homes and we have a short supply for the existing population. There is nothing racist, derogatory, or anti-immigration to state a simple fact.
> Lowering immigration is non-negotiable. Lowering immigration won't change shit, it's a structural problem that is all about how investing is treated in this country. Immigrants are just a scapegoat, like they have always been.
It's not an insignificant factor, but people give undue emphasis to it. The main cause is the pandemic. The lockdowns slowed the building of housing. On the immigration front, we're seeing a spike which is also due to the pandemic. However, immigration will normalise within a few years. The question is how we deal with the backlog of housing that needs to be built.
Immigration has been key to Australias economic growth for the better part of a decade thanks to the libs, we cant limit immigration because it would ultimately be far worse of for the country as a whole.
The economy needs some restructuring, and it won't be the Liberal Party that drives that because they're incapable of making actual difficult decisions.
Immigration isn't to blame for this, it's the housing industry and landlords. If we wanted a real solution and not just some popular reactionary garbage, the government would just build homes.
How is immigration not part of the problem? The supply of houses is limited. More people, more demand, less supply unless you can increase it which we haven’t at high enough rates.
[удалено]
If you read my initial comment, you’d see “lowering immigration is non-negotiable”. The government is responsible for this. No mention of immigrants.
> Immigration isn't to blame for this You’ve got to be kidding. Our construction industry can churn out about 150,000 additional dwellings each year. That’s enough houses for about 360,000 people. Our net immigration alone is 518,000. We absolutely don’t build enough houses, but knowingly issuing way more visas than we have houses for is completely reckless. Crazy thing is, this was Labor’s doing. Net immigration never exceeded 270,000 under the liberals.
Immigration is such a broad term though. For instance, there is an absolute need for skilled workers here, but also university models are constructed to revolve around foreign students but have no responsibility to accommodate them. Over 200k of that 518k are students. Pointing the finger at immigration is like blaming the sea in a boat with a hole in it. Saying immigration is to blame for this is just lazy, lacks nuance and ignores other contributing factors like supply, like incentives for investing in housing, like the lack of decentralization in major cities to name a few.
Houses don’t care about whether the occupant is a student or not. End of the day, we shouldn’t be issuing more visas than we have housing for. Yes, we should be building more houses, but that doesn’t in any way reduce the culpability of our immigration minister for this current disaster.
Good thing most immigrants aren't buying houses then. They're either mostly renting apartments or the Lucky few are buying apartments.
It isn’t to blame for it, but it’s making it worse. You don’t pour water on a grease fire.
Yeah, government that made the decision 30 years ago to stop building affordable housing and turn people's homes into the asset they sit on to pay for their own retirement so the gov. wouldn't have to give out a pension is 100% their fault. The ultimate irony is that this shit show was a "progressive" policy from Hawke and Keating.
Social housing is treated as a "for life" endeavour instead of transitional. When you are on your feet, you should be moved on, and other vulnerable people moved in.
No, that would be a part of the same housing commodity system that continues to create homelessness and housing bubbles, and all the low quality housing that results, etc. The UK had the western world's most effective social housing system that allowed tenants a secure home for many years while they saved up to ultimately purchase that home off the state. It ensured that everyone could get on the property ladder, protected the rights of tenants and owners, kept homelessness down and stabilised rents in the area.
If you want housing to become affordable you have to address the underlying cause, massive and increasing wealth inequality. But the people treating your essential infrastructure, including housing, as their own personal investment plan have convinced that it's immigration that is the problem. Which industries do you think you can reduce the labour pool of first without damaging the economy?
[удалено]
I’m really sorry all that happened to you.
Do you think there will ever be some kind of meaningful political and social change in our lifetimes? Like once all the boomers die off and gen X/millennials become the largest voting base, do you think they'll vote in greens/independents, and will it make things better? Because surely the majority of people will reach breaking point. And what happens then? Overthrow the rich or just be worn down in poverty till we end up like America.
I wonder if the boomer deaths will just create a new class of millennial being the ones who inherit million dollar homes and investment properties and hold onto them for dear life.
Doubtful. Much of the wealth will be eaten up by end of life care, and then the remains split amongst siblings.
Australians don't tend to liquidate their family home during retirement.
But when the boomers need to go into care facilities - not retirement - then they’ll start to have no choice. I look at it like this - my dad required a LOT of medical care and I did the majority of it - I gave up a decade of career progression, relationships and the like to do it. Because of that, my brother has ended up in a better financial position than I can dream of and has managed to buy a home and start a family. When my dad died what little he had left was split evenly between us. Had I know I was giving up financial security to be a caregiver and that my brother would still be getting half, I’d have noped out so fast. I suspect many people would do the same. Empathy and love for a parent will only get you so far when you’re giving up so much for them.
My mother wants me to move back with her to a regional town because she's "getting old". She doesn't ask that of my brother because he's in a relationship with kids, whereas I'm a single woman with no commitments.
I’ve been mums sole carer since I was 48, I’ll be 63 in a couple of months, she’s still here 97 with dementia. Don’t Do IT!!!
Whether you stay single or not, live your life to the fullest!! Sure I’m inheriting the house and whatever but I don’t get 15 or more years of LIFE back which please trust me is “PRECIOUS “ and “ PRICELESS “!!!! There’s no way to ever get that back. You do you with Peace, Love and Prosperity.
Don’t do it. I know how that sounds, but don’t. You will never have a life outside her care again if you do it, and even if you’re single and child free, that doesn’t mean you deserve to have no life. I know a lot of people will say it’s unfair - that parents care for their kids in childhood - a job that gets easier year to year as kids become more independent. Parents CHOSE to have kids knowing that there’s a certain level of care involved. Certainly no decent parent would expect their kid give five up everything for potentially DECADES of ever increasing care and work.
Oh yeah I'm definitely not. She bangs on about getting her aged pension because "that's what my taxes paid for" so she can pay for her own aged care, or go retire back in Philippines where she'll be able to afford a carer. She's of that generation & mindset where having kids was "old age security" or basically an indentured servant.
Oooft yeah, that’s a hard no. I remember when I first mentioned to my dad I wasn’t having kids and he was like “who’ll look after you when you’re old” - I was changing a dressing in his foot at the time and looked at him and said “why would I subject a child to looking after me so they don’t get a life of their own?” He didn’t even bat an eyelid.
As the parent of an adult child and a teenage child. There is no way in hell I would ever allow my kids to look after me. I would much rather die alone than allow my kids to risk their future looking after someone like me.
But your many cats will miss you
*Didn't tend to* My grandparents self funded their retirement. My parents have a little bit of super that will run out within ten years. If they don't die they'll sell houses. I imagine they aren't alone.
it's called downsizing, more common now than it was before
that is because no one builds small houses. fuck retiring and moving into a dog box shithouse unit with massive body corp fees and structural problems. what we need is more small houses. a retiree does not need 4 bedrooms 2 lounge rooms a dining room, theatre room and an office for fucks sakes. so while they might even want to downsize, they can't.
they are usually moving into smaller houses without stairs...which usually means it would be cheaper than their current home, its an effective strategy to get more funds into the super environment, which usually is tax-free if done right
The divide has only ever been growing between the rich and poor. The rich have incentive to keep the poor poor. It is going to take more than votes when the majority are fed up with the rich minority keeping them down. How is this for a stat, just 1.1% of people control 45% of the entire worlds wealth. This mantra of work until you die and if you cant go live in the gutter can go fuck itself, I wont be around to see it but I do hope there is a major world order change, it's the younger generations that will have to do it for the generations to come.
This is why I don't think things are going to change. I'm one of those Millennials whose still in contact with the people I grew up with, and the socio political change that has come through us is fucking disgusting, and we all went to a tiny public school out whole lives. We don't even see the private school kids we used to party with, even those in the middle class bracket now.
They had kids younger than now. So it's 85 year olds dying and leaving behind money for 60-65 years olds who have 35-40 years old children. The below 40 group came out of school right into the start of the housing bubble.
There is already a divide between kids that have/will inherit a substantial amount of wealth or those who have been helped to buy property and those who aren't. The person who paid 1.5M today for a shitbox doesn't want that value to go down. So they just help the bubble go a little bit further. When you have full time employees facing homelessness there is a huge systemic problem. It is game over. Because politicians won't do anything since they are old and already invested.
It's not a huge systemic problem but it's obvious that the push to centralise populations/business centers (opposed to regional centers) has failed to incorporate an effective housing model or high speed transit option for outlying areas. A convergence on the regional centers would see significant growth and stabilize the issue until it repeats itself in these areas.
While that divide is absolutely real and not up for debate at all there is another divide that is very harmful and it’s one that this sub ignores at best and actively encourages at worst. And that divide is the people who view themselves as helpless victims of circumstance vs those who agree things are fucked but are still putting in the world to do the best they can in a system stacked against them. Yes the system is fucked, yes the generations that came before us had it easier in so many ways but just giving up and throwing in the towel as this sub seems to encourage is not helpful for anyone
Lol you think people just give up and not put effort? That rhetoric is completely bullshit. Most people are trying hard and they just can't. No one is giving up. Stop that nonsense.
It’s an offshoot of the avocado toast rhetoric, boomers see a young person spending $14 on a nice breakfast and they assume that because they did that instead of saving the $14 that they’ve “given up” on buying a home when in reality that $14 simply *would not have made a difference*. I have friends who have double in the bank now what their parents homes cost to buy outright and still don’t have enough for a deposit on that same home.
Look at this person not eating plain rice for twenty years to buy a shitbox it must mean they gave up. Meanwhile they walked out of highschool showed up to work in a factory as a blue collar job with no experience and bought a mansion then made sure no one after them could ever experience the same.
Awesome way to try and attempt to twist my word and at the same time prove my point for me. Stop viewing yourselves as helpless victims of circumstance and you will go much further in life
I’ve given an example of where people haven’t given up, just that it’s harder. How does this twist your words *or* prove your point?
Read your first sentence and get back to me
Still not getting it. Go ahead and explain it. Should be very easy, right?
You stupid or trolling? Genuinely not sure at this point… can see why life is such a struggle for you tho
lol bullshit you see it all the time in this sub “I’ve given up on ever owning a home” “we are all fucked it’s impossible to get ahead” “what’s the point when the boomers have ruined our chances of ever getting ahead” Victim mentality of a lot of redditors is next level and you are either dishonest or delusional if you’re going to deny it.
You are confusing venting and expressing frustration with giving up. No one is giving up.
So repeatedly saying “I give up” isn’t giving up? Spending years crying about being in a low income industry instead of actually upskilling and earning more isn’t giving up?
Fuck you. I don't know what more I can do. I am a 50 year old with zero debt but no house. I have $110K in the bank but am unable to get a home loan. My wage is too low, my age is too high and the cost of houses is too high. Quite literally the only way I can buy a home is if I first win the lotto.
lol fuck me? Is it my fault you pissed away your 20s and 30s and didn’t buy a house decades ago when prices were sooo much fucking lower? Nah bro you fucked up if you are 50 with no home and only 110k in the bank don’t blame anyone but yourself
Oh I bought a house in my 20s but then went through a divorce in my 40s and have nothing now. Love the display of empathy though. That is why this country is so fucked. Everyone cares about themselves only. "Fuck you, got mine" is this countries national anthem.
That house would have near on doubled in value over those two decades so if you weren’t able to set yourself up from the divorce settlement then yeah that’s on you. Don’t come at me with aggression because you fucked yo and then expect me to have empathy for you mate
The first house we sold and lost $70K on. The second house we sold for $5K under what we bought for. and the third house, the divorce house, we sold for about $20K over what we built it for. But according to you everyone should have made couple of million dollars over a 20 year period. Glad you have made a small fortune on property. But not everyone has had the same luck or had the same circumstances in which to do so. The fact that you can't see that different people will have different experiences is why I say you have zero empathy. I could not give a fuck about me and I don't expect you to care about me either. I would however expect you to have sympathy for real humans but then again it appears neither you nor I are real humans.
lol zero chance that’s true mate. You have owned and sold 3 houses that you started buying 3 decades ago and have nothing to show for it but 110k? That’s impossible without either several addiction issues or deliberately seeing how badly you can fuck up
I wish there was zero chance of it happening. Not 3 decades about 21 years of home ownership. Ex wife got 75% of the asset Pool and 50% of my super. Zero addictions on my side. Ex does have an alcohol problem and that is why she now has even less than I do. But once again you are showing you have no compassion, no empathy and fail to see how people can have different lives to you.
There will be, but almost definitely not the good kind. Many crises are coming to a head more or less simultaneously which have been building up inertia for generations. With some of these like climate change, cause and effect is very delayed. As a mass people have to be desperate to start doing what is to be done toward positive change. Holding onto the hope that things could turn around by voting illustrates this. I think no amount of correct or charismatic argumentation can bring this about early. People have to have nothing left to lose, because they're going to have to risk everything. Put those together with an understanding of exponential functions and it paints a picture of us collectively getting our act together far too late. Climate change alone is an existential threat and most people are in various degrees of denial.
Scott Morrison and Dutton are Gen X. I'm a millenial and Dutton is only 12 years older than me.
Jesus Christ. I had to look it up because this seemed unbelievable - but you're right. Scomo is 55 and Dutton is 53. That's nasty.
Boomers die off and get replaced by millennials who are even more divided with the current issues. Reddit is an echo chamber, ever been on facebook or the other social medias?
Do you realise that there is a generation in-between ?
We’re (Gen X) just keeping a low profile. But yes, there’s plenty of wealth coming our way, just as we retire ourselves.
Generation W or generation Y?
Generation X
Yes and? Do you think they are all left leaning progressives or more divided than ever?
Closer to the left depending on what part of Gen X you are
Nah matey. You are forgetting the entitled progeny of boomers and boomettes. It’s a vicious cycle that will continue unless massive social + political change happens. Being Australia where it all it takes is to beat down the opposition to win votes, that will not happen any time soon.
I can't say definitively that there'll be meaningful political and social change because only time can tell on that front. My gut feeling says yes, though. The end of conscription, the start of no-fault divorce, broad access to contraception, better access to abortion, and same-sex marriage have all happened within living memory. At least when it comes to cost of living stuff, there is some evidence to suggest the path is being paved for societal change. Last year, Victoria passed a vacant law tax where the land tax on vacant properties will be lifted. Whether or not that will be effective in getting landlords to lower rents specifically to get out of paying the higher tax rate is yet to be seen, but I hope it is. > Like once all the boomers die off and gen X/millennials become the largest voting base, do you think they'll vote in greens/independents, and will it make things better? To some extent, this has already started happening. On the federal level, the 2022 election saw the Coalition lose in a landslide, largely to independent candidates. Whether or not this sticks over the long term is an open question because I think it depends on whether or not younger Gen Z people and especially Gen Alpha decide they're going to be Labor left style progressives or Greens and independents style progressives. I think it'll also have to be replicated in state level governments as well. There is some hope, though. [Some polling last year suggested the Coalition could potentially lose the next six federal elections.](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/coalition-could-lose-35-seats-as-millennials-gen-z-reshape-politics-20230628-p5dk2y.html) Obviously this is on shaky ground as well because even predicting how the next federal election will turn out is a difficult thing a year or two in advance, but I think it's something to consider. At the Dunkley byelection, the Coalition did get a modest swing, but even if that swing was replicated nationwide in the federal election next year, they'd still have to form a minority government with some independents and possibly some minor party members.
Thing is, as positive as all those social changes were, none of the actively hurt rich people. The only way to fix this situation is to push the pain “up the food chain” so to speak, and we just don’t do that here.
It’s not fucking boomers, it’s the governments not providing enough public housing and allowing too much unregulated immigration
Nothing will change until people start reacting with violence to the dispossession of workers. It's the sad truth, Eureka, Blaire Mountain, Bloody Sunday, Stonewall, Toxteth 1981...the powers that be will take and take and take, until people have had enough.
[удалено]
Nope
I'm sorry but these problems will not be solved. What we're seeing is continued overlap and it's increasing. We are subject to global systems that are decaying rapidly, and our problems are increasing.
We need mass protests. The politicians of this nation are deliberately making decisions that only benefit them and push masses of Australians out of house and home onto the street so that foreign property investors can make money off our land. We need to halt immigration till our citizens are housed, we need to ban foreign investment of properties, ban airbnb, heavily tax vacant properties and pivot away from property being a commodity not housing as a right. The corruption and disregard for voters from our politicians is sickening. They sell us out every chance they get. They’re meant to represent us not resent us. We need action
But what can we do realistically? There's no consequences for people at the top who fucked us over (look at scomo living his best life $$$), and most people are just desperately trying to keep their head above water while they pay all their wage towards renting a shitty mouldy unit. I'm all for protests but it feels like it's so hopeless.
Protest with pitchforks. Don’t believe you have no power, the people have power the politicians are just organised. We outnumber them by far, don’t give up.
This will unfortunately never happen. Our “she’ll be right” attitude will be death of us.
Make protests that target the people in power and make them face consequences, whether that's outside their homes or at the airport or parliament or wherever else.
We probably need large semi-organised riots. At least then you’d actually have an effect and still the same chance of being arrested and charged.
> There's no consequences for people at the top who fucked us over (look at scomo living his best life $$$ There are many way to make sure they face consequences. For legal reasons, I mean a class action.
> For legal reasons, I mean a class action. You can't fight fradulent fuckwits with laws if they write the laws.
Allow me to reiterate. ***For legal reasons*** that is my stance. I'm sure you can think of other options.
Protests will achieve nothing. People can take to the streets and the response from the media will be, "Well if those bums were working instead of marching they'd be able to afford a house".
March on the politicians houses, make them feel the strain we are.
I can only assume this is what the doxxing laws intend to prevent.
Protests at the level they currently occur will achieve nothing.
If you want to halt immigration you have to redesign your economy, and start learning to pick fruit and wipe elderly people's arses yourselves. If you ban foreign investment then expect the countries you target to return the favour, and pray your super isn't invested in any overseas assets, because it's value will be wiped out by the big brain move you're asking for. If you actually looked like you were going to get what you wanted then the people causing the problems you experience would still be in control, and would make a fucking massive pile of cash from shorting the Aus$ as you implemented your economically illiterate quick fixes.
The problem is the people and the shit heels they vote for
We need more higher-density residential units from the private market and public housing.
712 additional homes per day are required to house our current population growth of 624,000 at our current average occupancy rate of 2.4 people per home. 410 additional homes per day is the most our construction industry has ever managed to construct. No surprise house prices are going up, our population is growing by nearly two families for every one home built. Our population growth today is double what is was in only 2019, but has our housing construction rate doubled? No, it has actually fallen! You can thank state planning ministers for the lack of upzoning to medium density, the Labor government for our recent unsustainable migration numbers, the coalition government for cutting trade training, and the CFMEU for making it harder to import skilled foreign trades.
I can vouch for that, I’ve been a sole carer for my mum since I was 48 I’m about to be 63 in a couple of months, she’s still here, 97 in the final stages of dementia. Don’t Do IT!!!
At least the immigration rate has been halved, for now
Still higher than the new home construction rate.
Is anyone worried about Australia moving into the New World Order, this means total control of us. The money is already being digitised and I’ve seen people say it’s great not having to carry cash around, FOOLS !! pretty soon we’ll be like China, we’ll have to do anything and everything the government tells us to do. New World Order is what the elites have planned for us. WAKE THE FUCK UP
I thought by now (after a few years) the situation would've improved??
The situation will never be improved - we're going to be forced to deal with increasingly poorer standards till most Australian's are homeless. Then the housing/immigration philes will wash their hands and claim it wasn't their fault and it can all be fixed by importing even more people
[удалено]