6 ms·

>> Home ownership is the American dream: In Australia, for many people the (new) Australian dream is: "One day I hope to have the income to be able to afford

>> Home ownership is the American dream: In Australia, for many people the (new) Australian dream is: "One day I hope to have the income to be able to afford to pass the grueling real estate agent's suitability test to rent a house and move out of the tent/car."

labster 4y ago
[flagged]
- andrewstuart 4y ago
  Mass homelessness is new to Australia. It's used to be a small number of people here and there. The obsession with owning real estate has turned our society into landlords and renters, with renters paying the mortgages on their landlords investments - mortgages which are spiraling up due to interest rate rises. Nearly all the members of parliament have extensive housing portfolios so they have disincentive to fix it. In fact recently house prices were going down, so the ALP government just fast tracked in 715,000 migrants, which has fixed that problem nicely. Australia was already in the worst housing crisis ever in its history. When asked how the 715,000 migrants will impact the housing crisis, the ALP government simply says that migration does not impact housing, and that the housing crisis is not the fault of migrants. Previously even the slightest questioning of migration risked you being labelled a racist, but with the new government fast tracking 715,000 and planning for 1.5 million migrants in the next five years, it's has become a huge community issue and many are standing up and asking why we are importing vast numbers of people when the country does not have the housing or resources to support them. The people at the bottom of society - who don't look great on a rental application form - what are they doing? I don't know what happens to them. It's awful and the ALP government really don't care. I've come to deeply hate government in general. The ALP is meant to be the left wing party that looks after ordinary people. Instead it has turned out to be just another bunch of rich politicians feathering their own nests.
  - stephen_g 4y ago
    Yes, which is why more people need to vote minor parties and independents if there are good ones in their electorates. Basically our major parties are a bit like the US - the Liberal/National coalition, like the Republicans, govern for the rich at the expense of the poor, and the Labor party (like the Democrats) just maintain the status quo but put a progressive PR spin on it... The political ratchet, where one party moves things, and the other just stops things moving back... At least our voting system actually lets minor parties win seats, which is why I think our Government is at least a bit less crazy than the States.
  - mercurialuser 4y ago
    I spent 1 month in Australia and my daughter 6. Hiring ads are on almost every shops or business activities, so - probably - those 715.000 workers are necessary. Giving them a decent house for living is another problem
  - 908B64B197 3y ago
    > so the ALP government just fast tracked in 715,000 migrants, which has fixed that problem nicely. And now the ALP secured 715,000 additional ballots. Genius. Why try to improve the situation for the Australian people when you can literally "import" ballots?
- houseinthesky 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - carryongabby 4y ago
    GP stated what is, broadly-speaking, a fact - an artifact of policies that were integral to the development of the modern American housing stock (and how families are able to access it) as we know it. It succinctly conveys the American side in a discussion comparing the relative state of housing in America and Australia. It's on-topic and, while blunt, only "political or ideological" in the sense that some people will always see the statement of uncomfortable truths as "political or ideological." Please don't wield the guidelines like a club, it's done so in bad faith.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
Andaith 4y ago
I don't even know how we got here. Population growth has been below average for the last 3 years(no immigration). Housing/Apartment construction didn't slow down. I just don't understand it. Mortgages are insane. If you're buying a rental property with a mortgage, you can't afford to not rent it out. But home costs are up, rental costs are up, and properties are vacant. Do we really have so many people able to afford to sit on empty properties rather than lower rental price? It's also insane. Most rents are north of $600 around here, and a $10-a-week difference is $520 a year in rent. So if you raise rent by $50, that's $2600 a year extra(excluding taxes). but if the apartment stays empty for 6 weeks while you wait for someone willing to pay, that's likely to cost you > $3000. So that $50 increase has a 1 year payoff, assuming a long-term tenant. The whole market is irrational. The greed of landlords these days is palpable. I think we need a wealth tax on people who own more than 2 properties. Start making landlording infeasible and get people to instead invest their capital in productive assets.
- akira2501 4y ago
  > I don't even know how we got here. From my perspective 2007 just destroyed the market. So many troubled assets and loose government money and no one putting any effort into helping the average citizen. A giant wealth and land transfer occurred. The second largest in recent memory. > I think we need a wealth tax on people who own more than 2 properties. All you will do is create a "straw purchase" market for homes. > Start making landlording infeasible and get people to instead invest their capital in productive assets. Temporary housing is a useful thing, though.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    > From my perspective 2007 just destroyed the market. 2007 was the end of the destruction of the market (that time when housing prices doubled for no other reason than the money that left dotcom poured into housing.) Fact is, after people are used to paying more, there's a new baseline and a new level of profit expected. Not even by the landlord, who overpaid for the property and needs you to pay an absurdly high rent or they'll get behind. It was just a phase change in how much people were expected to pay for housing, and that money ultimately went to the people who owned that real estate back in the 90s. I met a guy who in 2005 sold a house in Los Vegas for $750K that he bought for $175K 5 years before. We're still paying him. Multiply that by orders of magnitude for real, wealthy property owners. Then to add insult to injury, when a bunch of leveraged people lost their shirts on property derivatives, we bailed them out, paying twice.

labster 4y ago

[flagged]

andrewstuart 4y ago
Mass homelessness is new to Australia. It's used to be a small number of people here and there. The obsession with owning real estate has turned our society into landlords and renters, with renters paying the mortgages on their landlords investments - mortgages which are spiraling up due to interest rate rises. Nearly all the members of parliament have extensive housing portfolios so they have disincentive to fix it. In fact recently house prices were going down, so the ALP government just fast tracked in 715,000 migrants, which has fixed that problem nicely. Australia was already in the worst housing crisis ever in its history. When asked how the 715,000 migrants will impact the housing crisis, the ALP government simply says that migration does not impact housing, and that the housing crisis is not the fault of migrants. Previously even the slightest questioning of migration risked you being labelled a racist, but with the new government fast tracking 715,000 and planning for 1.5 million migrants in the next five years, it's has become a huge community issue and many are standing up and asking why we are importing vast numbers of people when the country does not have the housing or resources to support them. The people at the bottom of society - who don't look great on a rental application form - what are they doing? I don't know what happens to them. It's awful and the ALP government really don't care. I've come to deeply hate government in general. The ALP is meant to be the left wing party that looks after ordinary people. Instead it has turned out to be just another bunch of rich politicians feathering their own nests.
- stephen_g 4y ago
  Yes, which is why more people need to vote minor parties and independents if there are good ones in their electorates. Basically our major parties are a bit like the US - the Liberal/National coalition, like the Republicans, govern for the rich at the expense of the poor, and the Labor party (like the Democrats) just maintain the status quo but put a progressive PR spin on it... The political ratchet, where one party moves things, and the other just stops things moving back... At least our voting system actually lets minor parties win seats, which is why I think our Government is at least a bit less crazy than the States.
- mercurialuser 4y ago
  I spent 1 month in Australia and my daughter 6. Hiring ads are on almost every shops or business activities, so - probably - those 715.000 workers are necessary. Giving them a decent house for living is another problem
- 908B64B197 3y ago
  > so the ALP government just fast tracked in 715,000 migrants, which has fixed that problem nicely. And now the ALP secured 715,000 additional ballots. Genius. Why try to improve the situation for the Australian people when you can literally "import" ballots?
houseinthesky 4y ago
[flagged]
- carryongabby 4y ago
  GP stated what is, broadly-speaking, a fact - an artifact of policies that were integral to the development of the modern American housing stock (and how families are able to access it) as we know it. It succinctly conveys the American side in a discussion comparing the relative state of housing in America and Australia. It's on-topic and, while blunt, only "political or ideological" in the sense that some people will always see the statement of uncomfortable truths as "political or ideological." Please don't wield the guidelines like a club, it's done so in bad faith.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

Andaith 4y ago

I don't even know how we got here. Population growth has been below average for the last 3 years(no immigration). Housing/Apartment construction didn't slow down. I just don't understand it. Mortgages are insane. If you're buying a rental property with a mortgage, you can't afford to not rent it out. But home costs are up, rental costs are up, and properties are vacant. Do we really have so many people able to afford to sit on empty properties rather than lower rental price? It's also insane. Most rents are north of $600 around here, and a $10-a-week difference is $520 a year in rent. So if you raise rent by $50, that's $2600 a year extra(excluding taxes). but if the apartment stays empty for 6 weeks while you wait for someone willing to pay, that's likely to cost you > $3000. So that $50 increase has a 1 year payoff, assuming a long-term tenant. The whole market is irrational. The greed of landlords these days is palpable. I think we need a wealth tax on people who own more than 2 properties. Start making landlording infeasible and get people to instead invest their capital in productive assets.

akira2501 4y ago
> I don't even know how we got here. From my perspective 2007 just destroyed the market. So many troubled assets and loose government money and no one putting any effort into helping the average citizen. A giant wealth and land transfer occurred. The second largest in recent memory. > I think we need a wealth tax on people who own more than 2 properties. All you will do is create a "straw purchase" market for homes. > Start making landlording infeasible and get people to instead invest their capital in productive assets. Temporary housing is a useful thing, though.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > From my perspective 2007 just destroyed the market. 2007 was the end of the destruction of the market (that time when housing prices doubled for no other reason than the money that left dotcom poured into housing.) Fact is, after people are used to paying more, there's a new baseline and a new level of profit expected. Not even by the landlord, who overpaid for the property and needs you to pay an absurdly high rent or they'll get behind. It was just a phase change in how much people were expected to pay for housing, and that money ultimately went to the people who owned that real estate back in the 90s. I met a guy who in 2005 sold a house in Los Vegas for $750K that he bought for $175K 5 years before. We're still paying him. Multiply that by orders of magnitude for real, wealthy property owners. Then to add insult to injury, when a bunch of leveraged people lost their shirts on property derivatives, we bailed them out, paying twice.