3 ms·
The problem is that percentages still only go up to 100. If housing now costs a larger percentage of people's income, plus everything else is more expensive too
by CydeWeys 3y ago
The problem is that percentages still only go up to 100. If housing now costs a larger percentage of people's income, plus everything else is more expensive too, that's a huge problem, and a noticeable decrease in standard of living.
- gruez 3y agoMy point isn't that housing costs as % of income can go arbitrarily high without any negative impacts, it's that the study/headline is misleading the reader using a definition of "unaffordable" that is inconsistent with their expectations. "Unaffordable" makes me think that the teachers are struggling to meet rent and have to cut non-discretionary spending to make ends meet, whereas the reality (ie. the 30% mark used by the study) is closer to "have less discretionary spending than wanted".
- BlargMcLarg 3y agoThose marks are still used in many places to deny would-be renters a place as they are deemed 'insecure' by the landlords. At that point, it is effectively "unaffordable" as the supply is artificially staggered and the minimum to enter is higher than the market would dictate otherwise. Most could make it work and still have room to spare. This includes countries with safety nets capable of bailing out individuals who mess up. Might not be the case in Australia, but it certainly exists.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago> plus everything else is more expensive too But everything else is definitely not more expensive. If you compare household spend from now to, say, the early 60s, most consumer goods are much cheaper on a relative basis, e.g most people spend a heck of a lot less as a percentage of income for things like food, clothing, appliances, etc. It's primarily housing and service costs (education and health care) that have skyrocketed.