Australia's housing problems seem to be exacerbated by too many people living in too few cities along the coasts. It's largely a supply problem and an immigration problem. If there is a housing supply shortage then immigration only makes that problem worse. Supply is a problem in the U.S. in big cities but not so much out away from the big cities. Local investors buying housing and renting them out (after improving them) doesn't reduce the supply, does offer rentals for those that need rentals and that's just the free market at work. Some people will always be renters of apartments and houses. Did New Zealand's property prices appreciably come down after banning foreign investors? The average house appreciation in Australia is 58 percent over the last 10 years and 200 percent over the last 20 years. It's my view that people aren't predominately being priced out of the housing market due to a desire to appease foreign and local investors. It's a supply issue and it's a normal competitive market. I don't have a "role" here. This is a discussion board and this is what a discussion , rather than a rant, looks like. No need to get angry, overly emotional or personal. You've been doing well up until now. It's been interesting to see an actual discussion on this board rather than a thread about "Michael Anteski's Ether Model". You do understand that some of those "investors" are going to lose money due to a speculative bubble but building a massive apartment building that stands empty isn't driving up the price of housing. The investor isn't going to make any money doing that either. They made a financial or demographic mistake. It also isn't creating a shortage of units. There were no units there before the building was constructed. China has whole cities like that (mistakes). My comments aren't "derailing" a thread unless the thread was just to rant. We have Tiassa for that. From my reading, it does appear that the ratio of income to house pricing is higher in Australia than in most developed countries and that is something to be concerned about. Easier lending combined with lower interest rates and a lack of supply is causing problems but foreign and local investing isn't likely to be a primary issue. You can't really (successfully over the long-term) legislate housing prices. Lenders are going to take the hit eventually in Australia IMO when the overleveraged start having to default and then prices will come down. More construction is still the only long-term solution (or population control/shifts).
Which "mistakes" would they be?? If you're referring to the so-called "ghost cities", most are thriving now, as expected. They just take time to go from zero occupancy to functioning city.
To what degree do Australian voters get to blame themselves for a certain degree of whatever? American analogies to the question are, of course, myriad. Consider New York City. At a debate, the candidates were asked what they thought it cost to get a place in Brooklyn, and they were off tenfold. And that was on the Democratic side. In the end, NYC picked the lesser of two evils, but that's the thing. There was a good primary field, yet voters chose the former cop and the crackpot vigilante to square off in the general. And if voters really, really needed a law enforcer on the Democratic ticket, they could have had Maya Wiley. But in the primary, voters set themselves up for a lackluster general election, pitting former cop Eric Adams (D) against red-hatted vigilante Curtis Sliwa (R). But do Australians run that sort of primary election, because from our side of the Pacific it reads like voters know who the PM candidates are when they vote for a local MP. (It is hard to imagine Americans going to the polls with Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell as the presidential candidates. Or, as our government hinges on the Speaker, a California showdown with Nancy Pelosi and Kevin McCarthy. I shouldn't laugh; it's grim. Still, they are Congressional leadership for different priorities than we would consider under other circumstances, such as your PM process.) And toward that, if I say, tell me about a Liberal Party voter, well, right, you've seen a good deal of what American voters can come up with, and it's one thing if Republicans are insane, but Democratic voters seem to prefer their candidates either barely competent or else critically hamstrung. And you might actually remember, in the U.S., when Kentucky elected Bevin, and then his own voters were distressed and surprised when he came after health care. That is, they were surprised and distressed when he did what he told them he would do, and they voted for. And in that sense, if the MPs select the PM candidate, what's going on with the voters who elect the MPs? From afar, it is hard to figure why Morrison without a heavy dose of cynicism, but what priority describes the "best" candidate? That is, there are theories on state and governance, and an abstract "best" candidate according to idyll, but that is not necessarily in effect. And maybe it's not quite the Trump government, but if one's goal is [_____], then who is the person to best get there? Democrats picked Biden as a safe choice compared to a thesis on electability; there is virtually no thesis, though, hewing to functional social contract, explaining why Trump. Why Morrison? Okay, why Shorten? These were the best candidates according to what priorities? Thus, what is the Australian voter's pathway to setting those priorities? In American politics, I can make whatever excuses I want for Democratic inefficacy, but at some point, it is voters asking Democrats to compromise with failure. If Republican Party is unbelievable specifically because they are actually, really, truly going there, at least there are analyses that make sense. Explaining the Democrats is much, much harder. Voters have more say in where the parties go than complaints to the other will acknowledge. Comparatively, though, it feels like a more direct pathway to affecting those priorities than the Australian voter has. And it's also why I'm willing to blame American voters for a whole lot of what they otherwise lament. It seems like a different calculus for Australian voters. Still, with PM Morrison's being the longest administration since Howard, over a decade ago, I do wonder about the Australian voter, even if the question isn't entirely clear.
In the US and Canada, I'd estimate that more than a dozen coastal cities have become virtually uninhabitable by the vast majority of those working in such service industries--the costs for both renting and buying are exorbitant. And over the past decade or so, the US West (non-coastal) has seen a massive influx of coastal residents, mostly Californians, fleeing the coast for a multitude of reasons--costs being one of the primary ones--and thereby drastically driving up the costs of real estate there, as well. This notion that persons working in retail, or in other "low skilled" industries, oughtn't be able to afford home ownership is simply preposterous. Anyone working nearly full-time at any job ought to be able to afford housing reasonably near to their place of work. Period.
This is how they elect the leaders of the parties in Australia and a couple of other countries. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parlia...Quick_Guides/PartyLeadershipChangesChallenges While Australia has a constitution for a constitutional monarchy there is an unwritten rule where the monarch's representative in Australia, the Governor General (who approves all federal laws), operates under the direction of the PM. The (federal) Australia Act 1986 enacts legislation that removes the State Governors powers to veto, withhold or disallow any legislation coming from the states parliament and allows the state Premiers (government leaders) to direct the Governors in the exercise of their duties.
"Period", is that supposed to make your argument stronger? If there are retail jobs in large cities on the American East and West coasts and if they are filled then obviously those people can afford to and do live there. Whether they have a house or not is another matter. No one is guaranteed to have a house. Many people, of all income levels, in large cities live in apartments. This is just a hysterical argument IMO. It's not without any merit but it's largely without merit.
*Sigh* Our issue is that investors are buying up houses and a lot of the time, leaving them empty. Foreign investors have the cash to burn and don't give a sod about the property market and drive the prices up, they buy up houses and literally leave them unoccupied for years. There are houses in some areas of my State where they were built and never been lived in. Not because there's something wrong with it. But because the buyers from Russia and/or China simply buy and leave them there. Local investors buy, pay the exorbitant price and then drive the rental prices up. People from down south, say Sydney and Melbourne where the property market is even more insane, arrive here with lots of cash and are able to pay the exorbitant rent in these areas - thereby creating a housing crisis as locals can't find places to live in. And for your information, it's even worse in the country towns. I believe this was stated already.. No shit! Really? I'm shocked. Everyone knows this Seattle. The issue is that there aren't enough houses for people to rent at affordable prices because rich people have driven the prices up. No, because it's too little too late. The housing crisis there, like here in Australia, is basically in freefall. I have linked you numerous articles that show exactly how much the value has increased over the last 10 years. Make of it what you will. And the competitive market is as it is because of foreign and local investors and a very low interest rate, coupled with negative gearing for local investors.. Not emotional Seattle. Fed up is a better term. This thread is meant to be about discussing Australian politics and issues that currently exist with the current federal government. And instead of doing that, you're focusing on one aspect only. And look I'm happy to talk about the politics of the Australian property crisis that's been ongoing for years now and is getting worse, but there are also other things to discuss. There has been talk of a bursting bubble for over 10 years now. It's still to happen in Australia. Right.. What do Australians know about their own property market ...
About to the same degree that American voters get to blame themselves for Trump, as one example. The respective party's select their candidates in each seat. No, the general public don't get to vote in what you might call a "primary". And just as you know who the Presidential candidates are when you vote, we know who the leader of the party is who will become PM if they win the election. They win the election when their party gains the majority in federal parliament. States run with the same system, and vote for a Premier for their respective state in state elections. Morrison became PM out of a party spill, backroom deal and vote, after they ousted their previous PM, who had ousted the PM before him. The party can literally remove the Prime Minister from office if they so choose and elect a new leader who then becomes PM. How this happens is that when there is a period of great uncertainty, and things start going awry and it becomes obvious that no one wants them there, the party leader (eg PM) will call a party room spill or leadership spill and essentially vacates the position of PM and Deputy PM. The party then votes. Sometimes the current PM will have the votes to retain power, other times, they will not. Tony Abbott was initially voted in as PM. There was a leadership spill when his performance tanked so badly and he was challenged by Malcolm Turnbull - who is more centrist of the party and more popular. He won. Then things went sour as the far right of the party rebelled, and there was a spill. Morrison was supposed to be in Turnbull's camp. I say supposed to be with a sense of sarcasm. In the end, Morrison became PM and he is a far right religious section of the party. When that happens, they basically clear the house, ministers who supported the opposition are sent to the backbench and stripped of their roles and the new PM installs ministers who voted for them. Which is why Australian politics has taken such a hard turn to the right since then. Previous Liberal leaders no longer stand with their party, simply because he it has shifted so much to the right. Australia prefers a more middle of the ground position. We don't like far right or far left politics. But if someone swings so far to the right, and they can have as big of a majority as one can imagine, come next election, they can be wiped off the map - as was seen in my home state, where the leftist opposition had basically been wiped off the map and the ultra conservative party who took over from them did so badly, come next election, the conservative Premier lost his seat and they were wiped off the political map and had to form coalitions to form an opposition. So Australian politics is quite fickle. Screw up often enough, voters will punish and vote them out. We don't select the leaders. The party does. And it's a matter of seniority, deals, support from external sources, and the like. Well it actually isn't his administration that has been the longest. The party has been in power for 7 years. They changed leaders 3 times during that timeframe and the party politics and policies have changed with each leader. To give you an example, I honestly cannot see Tony Abbott withholding disaster relief funds for years after a natural disaster and he never did. The same goes for Malcolm Turnbull. Scott Morrison has withheld disaster relief funds since the horrific fires 2 years ago and my home state has just experienced and is currently experiencing catastrophic floods (I am currently flooded in - end of my street is now a river, schools are closed, public transport shut down, etc) and instead of releasing funds to aid with the clean-up of catastrophe that has claimed lives and thousands of homes, one local politician who holds the defence portfolio has started a GoFundMe for $25k. I shit you not. $25,000. It could very well be the final nail in this party's coffin and Queensland is a fairly conservative state when it comes to federal politics. But people here are pissed and in the heartlands where a lot of this disaster began to unfold on Wednesday, people are pissed and rightly so. When Australia had the catastrophic fires, there was $4 billion in the disaster relief chest that was aimed towards helping with rebuilding after the fires. They have not given a cent. Instead they banked it and made $800 million interest. That's now in the party's 'war chest' for up-coming election - which he is still yet to call and we are fast approaching the point where it has to be called. When the disaster started to unfold last week, the federal government did not say a word about it. It was only on the weekend that they even acknowledged that something bad had happened. Instead, Morrison tried to push that he was a PM at war - because wartime PM's tend to win elections - this was after declarations of how we are going to be an astronaut nation - meanwhile in my home state, people were drowning in flood waters and enduring rain like this country has never seen before (1700mm of rain fell in one region in less than 4 days - that's 1.7m of rain).. Then silence. Then came the photo op to support the people of the Ukraine, and look we get that Ukraine is a horror story, but that did not mean he ignores his responsibility in his backyard. It was only yesterday that he showed his face to talk about QLD and the weather we had endured - with one minister releasing $180 payments to those affected by the floods (while claiming $189 in allowances for one night *sigh*).. And a senior minister started a crowd sourcing effort for $25,000 for disaster relief. To say that they mishandled this disaster as badly as they mishandled the fires would be an understatement. And look, we knew this was coming, but I don't think voters thought it would ever be quite this bad. It's why he's so terrified of calling an election, because he knows people are pissed.
Firstly, I presented no "argument." Rather, I simply expressed an opinion. Also, "housing" does not exclusively imply houses, yeah? You know this (I assume) so I'm not entirely clear why you're going on about apartments and such... Anyways, the opinion: working people ought to be able to afford housing within reasonable proximity to their workplaces. What is so "hysterical" about that?
If they are working, they obviously do live somewhere so it's not something that is happening. It's like arguing that no one can afford a house when all houses are full in every neighborhood. That's a lot of people who can obviously afford a house. All the talk about the "working man" who can't afford to live in the big cities anymore is just that...talk. Those jobs still exist, they are filled and those people do live somewhere.
Rents have reached record highs in our biggest cities and many regional areas, leaving lower income earners and essential workers – many of whom are keeping the country going amid surging coronavirus case numbers – struggling to find affordable rental properties. A comparison of Domain rental data and the latest employee earnings data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, released on Wednesday, shows not one suburb in NSW or Victoria would be considered affordable for essential workers such as checkout operators, pharmacy sales assistants or kitchen hands. [...] On top of unaffordable rents, there was the difficulty of even being able to secure a property in the first place, with rental vacancy rates falling last year, and “heartbreaking” numbers of people seen competing for cheaper housing late last year, she said. Farah Farouque, director of community engagement at Tenants Victoria, said there was a real mismatch between where affordable homes were located and where the bulk of jobs were. In addition to concerns about overcrowding, she noted there were reports of priced-out hospitality workers camping along the state’s surf coast, unable to keep up with rapidly climbing demand and rents during the pandemic. This is an example of what's happening here. "Working man" in Australia cannot afford to live within 1.5 hours of his or her workplace. They can barely afford to pay the rent or buy a house 3 hours from their workplace.
While I don't disagree with the general sentiment, the problem I see with that analysis, Bells, is that it assumes there is a ceiling of 30% of earnings as the price people can afford for rent/mortgage. In every London borough, for example, the average rent for a one-bed place is at least 35% of London's median pre-tax income - which is just over double what someone on minimum wage would earn. Across London as a whole, you're looking at 45% of that median wage for a one-bed situation. Yet even people on minimum wage do find ways to live in London. They share houses, rent just a room, go to less salubrious locations, and but ultimately spend far more than 30% of their income. If minimum wage gives you c.£1,700 a month in income, 30% would give them just over £500 to spend on rent. Not really going to happen in London. A 1-bed flat in the cheapest places in London is unlikely to be less than £900-1000 pcm. Yet people on minimum wage will still rent them, and just have less to spend on other things. Sure, if you need a 3-bed house, or want to actually buy a property, you'll need to live well outside London if you're on minimum wage. Or even on the UK average wage. That's been the case for quite a while, and it's not getting any better. The more recent generations are finding it harder and harder to get on the property ladder. They're going to be renting for longer, or living with parents for longer. In 1997 the average age of the 1st-time buyer was 26. In 2007 it was 28. It is now 34. And it's only getting later and later. Not enough new housing stock, and certainly not enough "affordable housing" stock, which is really the only way to reverse the trend in a growin and ageing population.
Building more houses is the only solution in this case. Regarding "minimum wages", I just saw that Target is planning on offering USD 24/hr for entry level employees. At a certain point, there will be no more cashiers and everything will be self-checkout IMO. At my grocery store it looks like about 3/4 of the customers already chose the self-check lines. Computers will be the "essential worker" of the next pandemic.
building homes isn’t the solution. Building the right homes is. If all their building is 5 bedroom 4 bath homes that’s not going to fix shit.
In the UK, every housing development project over a certain size (10 houses or 0.5 hectares in site size, I think) has to include a certain proportion of "affordable housing", that proportion determined by the local authority. But otherwise the developer, assuming they get approval from the local authority planning dept., can build whatever size houses they think will sell. Assuming that most people trade up when they buy a new house - i.e. move from 2 to 3 bed, 3 to 4 etc, as they get older and have more money / larger family etc, then building the larger house will still ultimately free up housing stock at the lower/cheaper end. But it's certainly not as reliable as building those cheaper properties, and almost certainly there is a bigger need (in the UK) for the cheaper property than larger.
There are more renters than there are houses or flats or units, studios, bedsits or even rooms. Here's an example of a 1 bedroom unit in a suburb that's about a 10-15 minute train ride to the city in my home state: https://www.realestate.com.au/property-unit-qld-newmarket-432576986 It's described as being prime spot, etc. It's not. It's a pretty shitty spot, truth be told. I used to live in the area. Anywho, 1 bedroom, the rent will go up to $385 per week. And you go okay, the minimum wage for a full time retail staff is around $770 per week. I mean, that's some money to play around with and pay bills, buy food, pay for public transport if they don't have a car or pay for registration and fuel if they do have a car. Public transport in Brisbane is expensive, as is food and electricity - hyper expensive in this state. So there is no real wiggle room there for anything but rent, food and amenities if they keep it super simple. They won't be able to afford to run the airconditioner - and it's a hot and humid environment here. But here's the kicker. A person who is earning say $800 per week (essential service wage basically) will not be able to afford that unit. The reason being that the price advertised is not going to be what the unit is rented for. People who come here from elsewhere, who have cash or higher paying job, can simply offer more. I've heard of rentals going for 3 times the price advertised. And that's standard. What normally happens is that people are offering 6 months rent in advance or even a year's rent and they also increase how much they are willing to pay. The owner of the property is going to go for what provides the maximum return. The $385? People used to pay that for a 3-4 bedroom house a few years ago. So when you say that people do manage and/or they simply share houses. That's great. Here, there aren't enough places offering to rent to people. Investors from overseas buy property and leave them empty. There are suburbs on the Gold Coast in Queensland, which is in the state's south east, where one out of every 3 house is empty. Not because there's no one to live in them. But because they are investment properties and the owners overseas find it easier to just let it sit empty and gain value for later resale. There are brand new apartment blocks, basically empty, for the same reason. And they won't even sell to local investors. I own several properties. 3 I provide over for emergency housing and the rest I rent to families, mostly refugee families who have been there for 10 years and I haven't increased the rent in that time, because I understand how tough it is for them. So they don't see the need to move, and I don't see the point of jacking up the prices and forcing them out to make money, and go with unknowns who could trash the property. I gain by having these families there and they are amazing people. I tried to buy an apartment on the Gold Coast, in a newish building, because of the lack of emergency housing in the area. The agent selling the apartment wouldn't even allow me to see it, telling me 'you don't want that property'. The reason being that they cater to Chinese investors. There's like maybe 10 units that are lived in - by students - children of the investors from China. So you see the issue. Meanwhile families are living in tents in carparks and in caravan parks or sleeping in their cars, because they cannot find places to rent. They are either priced out by people offering ridiculous sums to rent the place, or there's like 200 people turning up and putting in their application and they simply miss out. People are putting in like 300 applications to anything and everything and are unable to find a room, unit, flat, etc to rent. The 30% is to ensure they have enough money to pay for food, clothing, and amenities. And sure, some are able to scrape by and live well below the poverty line to do so. But they are hardly examples of success but are instead examples of desperation.
Contractors will build whatever you want. If a new planned development is only 4 bedroom/2 bath then you can't expect to see a smaller house in that development necessarily but if it is a development of just lots and you pick what you want built, it will be built. You can also just buy a piece of land apart from a development and build whatever you want on it. I suspect that construction costs are just too high for many people to build or land may be limited due to zoning laws. Australia obviously has plenty of land for its population size but most people want to live on the coast.
