4 ms·

Australian metros suffer from similar issues to the Bay Area: limited space and resistance to dense zoning. Australian land may technically be ample, but Austr

Australian metros suffer from similar issues to the Bay Area: limited space and resistance to dense zoning. Australian land may technically be ample, but Australia has enormous problems incentivizing living in rural areas, to the point of granting work visas to unskilled laborers that can be renewed long enough to achieve permanent residency (Working Holiday Visa). The only requirement is youth. Australia's urban population: 90%; Sydney & Melbourne metros: 40% Much like California, the bulk of Australian economic opportunity centers around the major metros. Your comments about banking and tax law are a non-sequitor. The same banking and tax laws apply in the entire country, but the expensive real estate is largely limited to the major metros. Australians would live in pleasant coastal towns such as Surfer's Paradise if there were enough jobs in those regions to support them. Or they would have stayed on the sheep stations in the interior to remain close to family.

cam_l 7y ago
Take another look at the amount of greenfield and brownfield land inside the metro zones, or the actual occupation rates of housing. Australian cities are not land constrained within their boundaries. (The lack of development of regional areas, access to fresh water or alternate shipping routes is a real but separate issue.) Besides all that, low capital gains taxes and negative gearing created the investment class in housing. Ie. Those who have 3 or more investment properties as it is now so is a net gain to lose money on a poor rental investment. And banks feed off this investment, valuing properties within the metro areas at ever higher amounts, propped up by low capital gains taxes and negative gearing. It is a vicious cycle of capital speculation. Even though for pure rental income from a property, regional areas have historically been better investments. And btw surfers 1. Has the second highest growth in the country 2. Is anything but pleasant.

cam_l 7y ago

Take another look at the amount of greenfield and brownfield land inside the metro zones, or the actual occupation rates of housing. Australian cities are not land constrained within their boundaries. (The lack of development of regional areas, access to fresh water or alternate shipping routes is a real but separate issue.) Besides all that, low capital gains taxes and negative gearing created the investment class in housing. Ie. Those who have 3 or more investment properties as it is now so is a net gain to lose money on a poor rental investment. And banks feed off this investment, valuing properties within the metro areas at ever higher amounts, propped up by low capital gains taxes and negative gearing. It is a vicious cycle of capital speculation. Even though for pure rental income from a property, regional areas have historically been better investments. And btw surfers 1. Has the second highest growth in the country 2. Is anything but pleasant.