Australian Housing Affordability Discussion

[RooFlyer]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

I'll quote the whole lot below so we can appreciate it again.

I guess that's my "typical BS" being referred to. I don't think the phrase adds to the debate, but each to their own opinion .

Just go out and get a good job that pays good money and then you can get a loan.

I'm wondering why the word 'just' is highlighted when the Treasurer didn't say that word there; no it isn't a 'quote', but why insert that word there and highlight it? His actual words not evil enough?

I'm just going to go out and become treasurer, because that clown has told me it's that simple

Again, more words not used by the Treasurer (simple), not his sentiment. Later on, he agreed - its tough. Again, I wonder why the words invented in the argument?

His advice is go out and get a good job that pays well and then you can get a loan. Nothing about save, save, save.

I posted the video clip above - take a look. He said getting a job etc was the starting point. What comes next, for anyone who has bought a house? SAVING, isn't it?

So I asked the question: "Someone pls tell me what is actually problematical with what the quote says. Just straight up and down - what's incorrect? " and the conclusion of the 'answer' was:

What's wrong with the statement - It's F'ing stupidity of the first order

I rest my case, without even resorting to implied obscenities.

Typical BS defence of our half wit treasurer. Do you even see the difference between your advice and the advice of the imbecile?

Just go out and get a good job that pays good money and then you can get a loan. WTF!!! Just get a high paying job? Oh yeah, like the treasurer's job that pays $360000 a year? Just go out and get one of those jobs? His advice was two parts not just get a job but get one that pays good money. In Sydney that means at least $130000 to even think about servicing a loan for the median house price. Precisely how many jobs are available in Sydney that earn $130000? Since all these first home buyers are just going to go out and get a job that pays that much. Then when all the first home buyers are working in senior positions as merchant bankers, who's going to be doing the teaching, nursing, policing, firefighting? Because while those are good jobs, they sure as hell don't pay good money that allows a fresh brand new first home buyer to just wandering down to the bank to get a loan.

His advice is go out and get a good job that pays well and then you can get a loan. Nothing about save, save, save. It may be true that you need to earn to buy a house, but it is trite and insulting to express it way he did, he's basically saying F' all you losers who aren't earning $130000+ per year. He has wiped out any aspiration to owning a house for whole sections of the community, most especially those who are going into low paying careers to provide vital services to society.

Not only that he is a key part of a government that is working bloody hard to kill the pay and entitlements of the very people that he's just told to go out and get a good job that pays money. The pay deal to our military is below inflation. He and is cronies what to do exactly the same to the rest of those scum workers who don't deserve to be able to buy a house.

Just go out an get a good job that pays good money. Because it is simply that easy. That was the ridicule in my post. I'm just going to go out and become treasurer, because that clown has told me it's that simple. Just go out and get paid good money. Like people don't already have the best paying job in the career of their calling already.

You don't even need to talk about unemployed at all. That statement marginalises people who have good jobs, who have worked hard all their lives and who cannot afford to buy even an average house in Sydney. There are even liberal stooges going on about not everyone can buy a house in point piper. weak thinking to match that of the treasurer.

What's wrong with the statement - It's F'ing stupidity of the first order.

 

[drron]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

Funny that there are people consumed with hatred because our Treasurer told the truth.But where is the outrage when someone from the Left lies-

From the Commission into Unions transcripts June 2nd-

MR STOLJAR (Counsel Assisting):
Q. Have you had any discussions with Mr Blandthorn recently?
MELHEM: I would have had discussions with him recently, yes, but - yes.
Q. When was the last time you spoke to him?
A. It would have been a few weeks ago, very brief discussions.
Q. A few weeks ago?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you give me a date?
A. No, I can’t give you the exact date, because --
Q. What was the purpose of the discussion?
A. Oh, basically I just - just work matters, nothing to do with this. Because Mr Blandthorn worked in the Premier’s Department, and I do visit that office from time to time for meetings and so forth, so - have I had discussions in relation to this? No. We were discussing other matters.
Q. Did you ask him about the evidence he might give in the Commission?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. This was a conversation you had with him in person, was it?
A. No, I think on the phone. I would have rang regarding some other matters, but not this one. I’ve not had any discussion with him in relation to his evidence whatsoever.
​

And from June 3rd-

MR STOLJAR:
Q. When did you last speak to Mr Melhem?
BLANDTHORN: I received a phone call from him on about the 22nd of last month.
Q. 22 May?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where were you?
A. I was in Minister Hutchins’ office.
Q. Was this a call on your mobile?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Doing the best you can, what did Mr Melhem say?
A. Mr Melhem asked me - he wanted to speak about the upcoming Royal Commission on three matters. The call lasted less than a minute. I didn’t want to engage, so I sort of said to him, “Mate, I can’t really talk now. I’m in a meeting. I don’t want to be talking on the phone.” He then said, “Look, you know, if the AWU’s struggling to pay your legal bills, there’s a fund with the Attorney General’s office”, or something. I said, “I really can’t be talking about this. I’ve got to go back to my meeting.”
Q. You began that answer by saying he wanted to speak about the upcoming Royal Commission on three matters.
A. Yes.
Q. Without summarising, can you just do your best to say exactly what he said when you answered the phone?
A. He said, “Hey, I hear you are being called before the Royal Commission in relation to Cleanevent, jockeys and netballers.” He then started to talk about - he went on to talk about - at that stage, I said, “Sorry, I’m unable to speak about this. I’m in a meeting. I’ve got to get back”, and that’s what happened.
Q. How long was the conversation?
A. It lasted less than a minute.

And the lies were on oath.

 

[anat0l]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

On the subject of our dear Treasurer *fake salute* making a remark about how to afford a house, it is interesting to live here where most Swiss (even non-expats) hardly think about home ownership. At least half of those domiciled in Switzerland (going by hearsay, I have no stats) will not own a home in their lives. Renting is much more commonplace here.

Naturally, I would not be surprised to believe that owning your own home is not ingrained as one of the "great Swiss dreams", if such a thing even exists to the counterpart of that in Australia (and the USA). Generally, the rule of thumb in Switzerland is not to pay greater than 1/3 of your net monthly income in rent (including utilities). In some cities, this is genuinely getting very difficult as the rate of construction is not quite keeping ahead of the curve (settlement retardation through moderation measures and lack of supply is anticipated to temper this problem until the slower progression of development can catch up) - it's less a case of finding something affordable as it is something at all, which is further compounded by access and proximity to workplace etc.

Note that plenty of apartments are built and owned by cities - this is not housing meant for the poor etc. (unless you deem the lack of capitalistic advantage as being suited for the poor) as in government housing estates in Australia or the UK, these are just normal apartment blocks which so happen to be owned by the city.

Those who own homes generally are:

• The rich (filthy rich)
• Ditto the previous, but expats, who might just decide run out the clock in Switzerland
• Expats owning a holiday chalet or similar, but not necessarily domiciled in Switzerland
• Multi-generation Swiss who have had the same home or farm for many, many years

 

[blackcat20]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

I went to uni, worked hard, got a job. I have a good job. It pays 'good' money. It still isn't enough to get me a loan to buy an average house. That's what's wrong with that statement. You know there's a problem when the average house is out of reach of the average young person. Thanks but I don't want a two hour commute to work....but I can't afford my own suburb. This is the same government that thought it was ok to pay me $7 a fortnight while I was looking for my good job. That's not even enough to pay for then power to run the computer to find that elusive good job.

 

[anat0l]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

I went to uni, worked hard, got a job. I have a good job. It pays 'good' money. It still isn't enough to get me a loan to buy an average house. That's what's wrong with that statement. You know there's a problem when the average house is out of reach of the average young person. Thanks but I don't want a two hour commute to work....but I can't afford my own suburb.

Coming from a naive angle here, what is defined as "not enough to get a loan on a house"?

Obviously, if one has no savings after rent (or say you save even more by staying with the folks, presumably who often have their house), then no chance you can save for a deposit.

Take a property of say $700k and a deposit of 20%, so that means saving $140,000 before you can start to think of a loan.

Assuming at best naive case that the market remains stable enough so that target remains static... so how long would it take to save that amount of money? I mean, in the meantime:

• One could give up extra social aspects of life: going out less, travelling less / less luxuriously, spending less on luxuries like alcohol, consumer electronics (unless tax deductible), etc... one interesting tidbit is that when there were sometimes articles published during economic downtimes about how people couldn't afford so and so on, a lot of the cases picked by the media mentioned entertainment costs, when the automatic assumption is that entertainment is usually the first thing that should be cut out immediately when cash is a premium.
• One could consider less expensive and/or deferring some life decisions: getting married with large ceremony, having a child, etc.
• One may have to concede it may take many years before such an amount could be saved up. Say, 5-10 years...

I guess if I was mechanically pragmatic as the Treasurer, then clearly I should have worked harder at high school to study to become someone in the medical field. That, or a FIFO worker (banking away as much funds up to 2008). Doctors, dentists and so on always have jobs and they pay really well. You would be hard pressed as someone working as a medico to not be able to put away enough for a deposit on a home in a handful of years, let alone unable to service the loan.

Then again, apparently a family friend's son was forced by his parents to study medicine and become a doctor. He did so, but he didn't like it one bit. He later committed suicide.

 

[OATEK]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

I went to uni, worked hard, got a job. I have a good job. It pays 'good' money. It still isn't enough to get me a loan to buy an average house. That's what's wrong with that statement. You know there's a problem when the average house is out of reach of the average young person. Thanks but I don't want a two hour commute to work....but I can't afford my own suburb. This is the same government that thought it was ok to pay me $7 a fortnight while I was looking for my good job. That's not even enough to pay for then power to run the computer to find that elusive good job.

When I was earning $35p.w. in a permanent job in the pubic service the land prices where I lived were $10K, the houses around $20K. I got there eventually, but it wasn't easy.

Looking at the affordability graphs, it seems that right now is not the "least" affordable time in recent history. Not to say it isn't very difficult, but back in the early 70s a house where I wanted to live (and eventually did live) was over 10x my annual salary. Not sure its too different now. And by the way, the banks would not include my wife's salary in lending calculations back then, it all had to be calculated on one wage (generally women could not expect to get a loan on their own even for car).

Saw Walled Ally saying today how easy it was for older folks - not in my experience.

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

There are people on this thread I definitely don't want to have an argument with ... but I might again point out that the Treasurer began his words with "The starting point ...." . He never said that "Have a good paying job, bingo, you can afford a house".

Re:Anat0l's comment:

Take a property of say $700k and a deposit of 20%, so that means saving $140,000 before you can start to think of a loan.

Remember that's about the median house price in Sydney (I think). Therefore half the houses sold in Sydney cost less than that. Some would cost a lot less; they would be in places where most wouldn't prefer to live (that's why they are cheaper!) but they are there. I have no problem with people wishing to live near work, near their family and friends etc but it shouldn't be put in absolute terms that "houses are not affordable on X income".

And your comments about sacrifice are salient of course. I lived in the backblocks of WA, in a town pop 1,000 for the first 3 years of my working life and chose to live there in order to save.

 

[vetrade]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

So what if many people can never afford to buy a house? The inference seems to be that if you're a life-long renter you must be hard done by. What cough! Even people on modest wages nowadays live in rented premises which are palaces compared to what I grew up in - and I certainly don't consider I was disadvantaged - it was just the way things were. Virtually no-one in those days (50's and 60's), whether Liberal or Labor, ever entertained the idea that they were "entitled" to home ownership.......and everyone I knew who did achieve it went without a lot in the process.

Sure, it's nice to own your own home if you can, but it's not the end of the world if you can't and I think it's disingenuous to characterise that as a "problem", and more so if you try to peddle the inference that it's a problem of Hockey's making.

 

[amaroo]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

30 years ago I use to commute 2hrs each way, per day, via public transport when saving for our first home. It was worth the sacrifice as it allowed us to save and get on the housing treadmill.

It was save, save, save back in those days.

 

[blackcat20]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

Because I'd rather the security of my own home, rather than being at the mercy of a landlord which might result in moving frequently.

If I were to borrow on my income alone, I'd barely be able to afford a house 50km out of the city. So, "not enough to get a loan on a house". Because the commute from that part of Melbourne is a killer, and I don't even work in the CBD.

You know house prices are nuts when the dump around the corner goes for $1.7 million.... and the new homes up the street are over $3 million. And this is a suburb that was considered "out in the country" when I was at school.

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

30 years ago I use to commute 2hrs each way, per day, via public transport when saving for our first home. It was worth the sacrifice as it allowed us to save and get on the housing treadmill.

It was save, save, save back in those days.

I can feel a Python sketch coming on .

 

[medhead]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

Or spending a little less time on AFF... .

Im not sure about that, AFF allowed me to see the viability of my current employment situation. Developing my career a little bit further.

 

[anat0l]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

Because I'd rather the security of my own home, rather than being at the mercy of a landlord which might result in moving frequently.

If I were to borrow on my income alone, I'd barely be able to afford a house 50km out of the city. So, "not enough to get a loan on a house". Because the commute from that part of Melbourne is a killer, and I don't even work in the CBD.

You know house prices are nuts when the dump around the corner goes for $1.7 million.... and the new homes up the street are over $3 million. And this is a suburb that was considered "out in the country" when I was at school.

Playing devil's advocate, one might argue that whilst your rationale for owning your home is reasonable, what you will have to sacrifice to get there may be substantial but all part of it. That may include, if renting whilst saving for a loan, being prepared to play the rent housing game, if that means perhaps moving frequently or having to put up with landlords.

I've heard stories before about landlords from hell, and/or ones who will keep on hiking up the rent prices. Are they all that bad, or is the risk great enough that people will be actively discouraged from renting as such (unless they have no other choice)?

Seems you're living in a sellers market at the moment. We know that can't realistically last forever. Either that or your area is being highly gentrified.

And again, and I say this naively, what is defined as "not enough to get a loan on a house"? I don't think many people can, on their income alone, get a loan. As far as I can feel, banks are still quite credit adverse at the moment. If some people had that much of a salary to begin with that they can take out a loan straight up on proof of their salary alone, then big deal, but for everyone else, time spent saving money against a deposit will be required, unless one only makes barely enough to get by in life.

 

[vetrade]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

30 years ago I use to commute 2hrs each way, per day, via public transport when saving for our first home. It was worth the sacrifice as it allowed us to save and get on the housing treadmill.

It was save, save, save back in those days.

Yes, and if you had a car it wasn't bought new and was probably 5-10 years old, you didn't even know what a boutique was much less shop there and you certainly didn't eat out several times a week or haemorrhage cash buying shots in bars or champagne by the case from Dan Murphy's.................all things that are routinely indulged in by some who then complain they can't afford to buy a house.

 

[medhead]

The totally off-topic thread

Rooflyer. Your defence matches the BS being sprout by liberal shills all over the interwebs. It is their BS that I refer to,

As for why I add "just", very simple really it, it highlights how completely stupid Hockeynomics was in making that statement. The full extent of his advice was get a good job that pays good money. That was it. You and other here have at least added the reality of concentrate on getting and education, save save save, make sacrifices. Etc etc etc. Hockey said none of that, it was just get a good job that pays good money.

I haven't read the rest of your post. No doubt you'll be telling me how nurses haven't got a good education and a good job or how they earn good money. Maybe some senior nurses earn good money. But first home buyer, young nurses don't. Especially when hockey and his mates are hold back their pay rises.

Hell. I'm earning good money after 26 years and I don't even feel able to buy a coughpy $1 million place near my work. By coughpy I mean it'd need massive amounts spend on renovation to become liveable. Of course, I'm not a first home buyer.

In any case people needing money to buy a house is not the same as telling them to all become lawyers, doctors, merchant bankers, politicians, property developers, stock brokers rather than doing those rubbish jobs that society needs to survive. Because those people in those service jobs don't deserve to buy a house. His statement is outright class warfare.

 

[blackcat20]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

Playing devil's advocate, one might argue that whilst your rationale for owning your home is reasonable, what you will have to sacrifice to get there may be substantial but all part of it. That may include, if renting whilst saving for a loan, being prepared to play the rent housing game, if that means perhaps moving frequently or having to put up with landlords.

I've heard stories before about landlords from hell, and/or ones who will keep on hiking up the rent prices. Are they all that bad, or is the risk great enough that people will be actively discouraged from renting as such (unless they have no other choice)?

Seems you're living in a sellers market at the moment. We know that can't realistically last forever. Either that or your area is being highly gentrified.

And again, and I say this naively, what is defined as "not enough to get a loan on a house"? I don't think many people can, on their income alone, get a loan. As far as I can feel, banks are still quite credit adverse at the moment. If some people had that much of a salary to begin with that they can take out a loan straight up on proof of their salary alone, then big deal, but for everyone else, time spent saving money against a deposit will be required, unless one only makes barely enough to get by in life.

Of course you need a deposit, but a good wage is still not enough to borrow the amount required to live within 40km or so of the city.

Unfortunately my suburb has a highly sought after school in it which means lots of cashed up parents who will pay whatever it takes to get their kids in "the zone". Even though the school is at capacity. I've worked at that school and it has the most amazing number of students, a few years ago it had 13 year 7 classes. 13! My school had four.

Admittedly we live a good lifestyle right now. We like to travel (and yes, drink champagne and nice wines). Once we've done our upcomming trip we will be tightening belts and putting away money. Luky we have enough wine to keep us going for quite some time...

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

Rooflyer. Your defence matches the BS being sprout by liberal shills all over the interwebs. It is their BS that I refer to,

As for why I add "just", very simple really it, it highlights how completely stupid Hockeynomics was in making that statement. The full extent of his advice was get a good job that pays good money. That was it. You and other here have at least added the reality of concentrate on getting and education, save save save, make sacrifices. Etc etc etc. Hockey said none of that, it was just get a good job that pays good money.

I haven't read the rest of your post. No doubt you'll be telling me how nurses haven't got a good education and a good job or how they earn good money. Maybe some senior nurses earn good money. But first home buyer, young nurses don't. Especially when hockey and his mates are hold back their pay rises.

Hell. I'm earning good money after 26 years and I don't even feel able to buy a coughpy $1 million place near my work. By coughpy I mean it'd need massive amounts spend on renovation to become liveable. Of course, I'm not a first home buyer.

In any case people needing money to buy a house is not the same as telling them to all become lawyers, doctors, merchant bankers, politicians, property developers, stock brokers rather than doing those rubbish jobs that society needs to survive. Because those people in those service jobs don't deserve to buy a house. His statement is outright class warfare.

Its a shame you "haven't read the rest of my post" (of course ); then you wouldn't have to make up words for me (as in "no doubt you'll be telling me ..." ). (You realise you are then having a conversation with yourself?) Part of what i actually posted concerned the use of implied obscenities in posting here. When my opposite corner resorts to that, I know I've won the argument.

 

[TomVexille]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

Seems you're living in a sellers market at the moment. We know that can't realistically last forever. Either that or your area is being highly gentrified.

And again, and I say this naively, what is defined as "not enough to get a loan on a house"? I don't think many people can, on their income alone, get a loan. As far as I can feel, banks are still quite credit adverse at the moment. If some people had that much of a salary to begin with that they can take out a loan straight up on proof of their salary alone, then big deal, but for everyone else, time spent saving money against a deposit will be required, unless one only makes barely enough to get by in life.

Absolutely. Sellers market at the moment. I'm hoping that it comes tumbling down in the next year.

I have done the math and according to the bank if I'm making double what I make now and blackcat20 is making the money she's making atm, we could at the top end get around $750k. Which really doesn't get you anything in Melbourne.

Maybe we just need to move to the Barossa

 

[Princess Fiona]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

Absolutely. Sellers market at the moment. I'm hoping that it comes tumbling down in the next year.

I have done the math and according to the bank if I'm making double what I make now and blackcat20 is making the money she's making atm, we could at the top end get around $750k. Which really doesn't get you anything in Melbourne.

Maybe we just need to move to the Barossa

You could get something pretty nice in Newcastle for that you know

 

[TomVexille]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

You could get something pretty nice in Newcastle for that you know

But does that mean I no longer make enough to afford that loan?