House prices
In my experience, and the experience of a local pub manager and the experience of a very well respected local surfer, he's entitled verging on rude (but in that very modern passive-aggressive way of course).
AndyM wrote:In my experience, and the experience of a local pub manager and the experience of a very well respected local surfer, he's entitled verging on rude (but in that very modern passive-aggressive way of course).
Tyler wouldnt stand for that. cant wait to see her next protest. Say no to entitlement....... or maybe not if youre inside that same bubble
I'd say it's a bit more pragmatic than that flollo, and that drilling it down to a question of morals deflects from the very different lived experiences we're talking about. People in Byron are being kicked out of caravans onto the street, homeless after floods with literally nowhere to go, so wealthy folks can have a nice holiday. Owen's throwing fuel onto the fire with some luxury apartments that just further deepen inequality and housing as an investment tool. I'm very comfortable with criticizing a rich bloke's choices in that context.
That said, I wouldn't say wanting to be a multi-millionaire property developer makes Owen a bad person. But I would say he's making choices that are worth criticizing. The fact that he surfs and might be a nice bloke doesn't change that.
Also worth pointing out that while the RE article is branded as 'news', it's nothing more than basic advertorial, tied in with a paid real estate listing.
he just bought a couple of blocks and put houses on them.
he didn't devise a tax and labour policy that gives massive breaks to capital while eroding working and pay conditions. They are the choices worth criticising. And the ballot box awaits you to do so...
chook wrote:he just bought a couple of blocks and put houses on them.
he didn't devise a tax and labour policy that gives massive breaks to capital while eroding working and pay conditions. They are the choices worth criticising. And the ballot box awaits you to do so...
Easy enough to do both I reckon. There's a fair chasm of difference between "putting houses on a couple of blocks" and doing high-end luxury $6m++ apartments.
udo wrote:https://www.realestate.com.au/news/pro-surfer-owen-wright-unveils-high-e...
burleigh wrote:I'm just jealous of him. Pro surfer, property developer, multi millionaire, hot wife.
Yep good on him, nothing wrong with being smart and thinking about your's and your familys future, houses look luxury but not over the top, look quite tasteful.
chook wrote:he just bought a couple of blocks and put houses on them.
he didn't devise a tax and labour policy that gives massive breaks to capital while eroding working and pay conditions. They are the choices worth criticising. And the ballot box awaits you to do so...
Is there a political party that is proposing to abolish the absurd negative gearing on Investment houses?
indo-dreaming wrote:udo wrote:https://www.realestate.com.au/news/pro-surfer-owen-wright-unveils-high-e...
burleigh wrote:I'm just jealous of him. Pro surfer, property developer, multi millionaire, hot wife.
Yep good on him, nothing wrong with being smart and thinking about your's and your familys future, houses look luxury but not over the top, look quite tasteful.
Agreed, good on him. If he's a dick that's his own thing, I don't know the guy so I cannot judge. The development itself doesn't look too luxurious. Just a nice looking place, the most luxurious thing about it is the location itself.
Burleigh wrote: 'I'm just jealous of him. Pro surfer, property developer, multi millionaire, hot wife.' Most of us would agree Burls but we don't feel the need to jump on soap boxes and proclaim our disgust at capitalism (while enjoying all the fruits thereof) like most of the negative nellies here.
chook wrote:he just bought a couple of blocks and put houses on them.
he didn't devise a tax and labour policy that gives massive breaks to capital while eroding working and pay conditions. They are the choices worth criticising. And the ballot box awaits you to do so...
The solution you are suggesting is political. Politics is downstream from culture. Change the culture and the politics will follow suit*. There is a need to call out the immoral developer mentality which is destroying Australian society one individual forced into poverty at a time. Pandering to the needless and profit motivated housing developments needs to be crushed. People need to be made to feel like they are selling out the community around them instead of being treated like financial geniuses because they can afford to exploit the housing Ponzi scheme to expand their wealth.
*All things being even.
DudeSweetDudeSweet wrote:chook wrote:he just bought a couple of blocks and put houses on them.
he didn't devise a tax and labour policy that gives massive breaks to capital while eroding working and pay conditions. They are the choices worth criticising. And the ballot box awaits you to do so...The solution you are suggesting is political. Politics is downstream from culture. Change the culture and the politics will follow suit*. There is a need to call out the immoral developer mentality which is destroying Australian society one individual forced into poverty at a time. Pandering to the needless and profit motivated housing developments needs to be crushed. People need to be made to feel like they are selling out the community around them instead of being treated like financial geniuses because they can afford to exploit the housing Ponzi scheme to expand their wealth.
*All things being even.
Can we elaborate on this immorality of property development? So are we saying that all property development is immoral? Or certain aspects of it? Who gets to decide where the line is?
I don't know whether the concept of property development is immoral, but the end point of people living in cars because they cannot put a roof over their heads certainly is.
I guess the celebration of it- and unless Owen has been living under a rock, he would know there are thousands still homeless in the Northern Rivers, or with their entire lives still piled up in rubble on the street- seems in very poor taste.
I could see how many, many people would be in a white hot rage over it, in fact.
I don't see it is negative to call out capitalism as being the driving force behind basically all the problems afflicting the planet at the moment. I also don't think it's negative to criticize millionaires for turning stolen land into personal profit during the inequality and climate crisis. I see it as a positive thing. It's also kind of fun.
Less than 10% of Australians of a working age are millionaires - about 176 000 people. More than 3.2 million Australians live below the poverty line, or 13.6%. 17.7% of children in Australia live below the poverty line. As of last this year, about15% of all households in Australia are in housing stress. A few years ago more than 50% of low-income households were living in acute housing stress and I'd imagine it's much worse now. After the floods, some 5500 homes with half of them predicted to be unlivable. Tens of thousands of people have been displaced in some form. Meanwhile billionaires in Australia doubled their wealth over the last 3 years and inequality has widened to the point that some can't see Australian society ever being the same again. With all that in mind, it's weird that people would run to defend a millionaire property developer as just an average bloke making "smart decisions for his family".
I suppose I'm one of those people that expects more of surfers than striving for property development and passive income, and at least some sense of critique or rejection of the dominant culture. That surfers could possibly call a $6m+ property as "quite tasteful" or "not too over the top" is hilarious in some ways and sad in others. It'd take a median wage earner in Australia at least 110 years to pay that off if they put their entire pre-tax income into it.
dandandan wrote:I don't see it is negative to call out capitalism as being the driving force behind basically all the problems afflicting the planet at the moment.
Really?
In 1800 80% of the world lived in poverty, even in the 80s it was over 40% now it's less than 10% of the world, this is due mostly to capitalism that fuels innovation, technology and just makes the world more efficient.
Capitalism is basically the freedom to succeed.
The only reason people don't like capitalism is because success is never equal and some will always be more successful than others.
Personally id rather be happy for guys like Owen and say good on him, rather than see him as a bad guy, there is no value in that for anyone.
indo-dreaming wrote:The only reason people don't like capitalism is because success is never equal and some will always be more successful than others.
.
Oh for fucks sake indo, you fucken deadshit. That is not the fucken reason people don't like capitalism, I'd explain it to you, but what would be the point?
Well you have enough time for an insult, so please let us know a far far lefties view on why you dont like capitalism???
burleigh wrote:AndyM wrote:In my experience, and the experience of a local pub manager and the experience of a very well respected local surfer, he's entitled verging on rude (but in that very modern passive-aggressive way of course).
Tyler wouldnt stand for that. cant wait to see her next protest. Say no to entitlement....... or maybe not if youre inside that same bubble
tip-top1 wrote:burleigh wrote:AndyM wrote:In my experience, and the experience of a local pub manager and the experience of a very well respected local surfer, he's entitled verging on rude (but in that very modern passive-aggressive way of course).
Tyler wouldnt stand for that. cant wait to see her next protest. Say no to entitlement....... or maybe not if youre inside that same bubble
ha ha ha , gold burliegh
If houses were 1.5 to 3 times average wage (hi: boomers), this incredible situation would not have occurred. If interest rates were not at 5000 year lows, and policy since 1983ish not directed to benefit tax loss offset via property, houses would be closer to 1.5 to 3 times average wage. The point is, these are interventions in a market by outside forces.
We live in a time of bubble. It's as mad as tulips. It is important that these excesses revert to their historical means. This will also mean much greater opportunity for an increasing amount of people. To go there, we will blow up our banking system. Feel lucky?
Maybe the Fed can head it off by going hard now, up to 3.25% or so, and keep the system alive as it does so. But as final arbiter they are not exactly what you would expect in a free market, are they? They are chapter 5 in Mr Marx's book, and we're living in it.
Alternative: after the revolution, if you are a good member of the party, you might be able to book time-share in what once was Owen's development.
velocityjohnno wrote:If houses were 1.5 to 3 times average wage (hi: boomers), this incredible situation would not have occurred. If interest rates were not at 5000 year lows, and policy since 1983ish not directed to benefit tax loss offset via property, houses would be closer to 1.5 to 3 times average wage. The point is, these are interventions in a market by outside forces.
We live in a time of bubble. It's as mad as tulips. It is important that these excesses revert to their historical means. This will also mean much greater opportunity for an increasing amount of people. To go there, we will blow up our banking system. Feel lucky?
Maybe the Fed can head it off by going hard now, up to 3.25% or so, and keep the system alive as it does so. But as final arbiter they are not exactly what you would expect in a free market, are they? They are chapter 5 in Mr Marx's book, and we're living in it.
Alternative: after the revolution, if you are a good member of the party, you might be able to book time-share in what once was Owen's development.
Lots of other countries, most of the developed world have similar issues.
2021 stats but it gives the basic idea.
IMHO it will only get worst it's all about supply and demand.
"House-price-to-income ratio in selected countries worldwide as of 3rd quarter 2021, by country"
https://www.statista.com/statistics/237529/price-to-income-ratio-of-hous...
How many threads need to be ruined by Constance and Hiccup’s insults and antagonism of other posters?
Indo may not be aligned with everyone else’s opinions but to continue letting these bits of filth spout their insults without consequence is shameful. They wouldn’t last two seconds in real life behaving like they do.
Time out for the vulgar antagonistic clowns ASAP.
I fear you are right Indo. Worse before better.
Did a search on Real Estate last night, blocks of land <100K, then <150K, then <200k. There were these big gaps where no properties were listed in East Oz - where all the good surf is! The blankness was stark.
(Used 3.25% before as that is where the forward bond yields have it presently)
Another thing to look at is a price per sqm. This is one of the rankings I found:
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_price_rankings?itemId=100
Culture in Australia is that we need a big square meter property to feel like we’re achieving something. I grew up in Europe in a 50 sqm unit. My parents were generous enough to let me and my 2 sisters have our own rooms while they slept on the couch in the living room. Nobody felt poor, this is the way most people live. Garage was a luxury, street parking only.
And price wise, European market is quoted in price per sqm, something that Australian market never embraced. Price seems to be very subjective and unpredictable which also adds to the overall anxiety.
I wonder if people in Australia will ever accept any form of space consolidation to improve house ownership?
Flollo- You are trying to convince people that when they’ve had it good and the good has been stolen from them that they should be grateful for what they’ve got left and appreciative that it’s not as bad as others who were robbed in other places.
I don’t get your point.
The housing Ponzi is the hallmark of growing wealth inequality in our country. Wealth inequality will destroy our society or at least render it unrecognisable.
You are willing to accept this communal ruin so a few can get rich at the expense of many?
As stated by Freeride, there is real world damage being felt by real people. This is not just abstract debate on morality.
Maybe.
There's a big difference geographically between Aus and Europe, Asia, the Americas.
We've always been a low population density country with little arable and fertile land.
That hasn't changed.
I think the supply/demand curve is also realising that with so little fertile, inhabitable land (basically a thin strip around the edge, with large parts of that being floodplain) and us as a stable Western democracy with basically open immigration flows to Europe/Asia etc etc we are seeing long term readjustments in pricing which reflect those fundamental realities.
Interest rates and other govt policies are just "seasoning" on the main meal.
But will Australians accept higher density ?
I think we will have no choice in the end, but it will be rammed down peoples throat, they won't go their willingly.
Especially in a post-Covid world.
No, I’m not trying to convince anyone of these things. On morality - I’m wondering if people think that property development is immoral? I’ll accept you and others regardless of the answer. On sqm I am genuinely curious what people think about the future of housing. Our population will grow over the next decades and future generations will require housing. What will that housing look like? My main focus here is on future generations who might not hold historical expectations.
Ladyboy CBG would love to have been in that photo...or was she/it? Just sayin.
flollo, too often conversations about the future of housing are more concerned with the future of the housing market. I don't believe there should be a housing market. Landlordism should be regulated to the point that it's not financially worthwhile doing it. Landbanking should be regulated out of existence entirely. Housing should be de-commodified to the point that nobody looks at homes or land as a way to make money or invest surplus income.
The future of housing in Australia involves a shit load of public housing, more rights to renters, and actively driving the price of houses down. There's no such thing as affordable housing unless the prices go down by more than half in most areas. The government should build and own in perpetuity public housing as a form of public infrastructure, where people can live out their entire lives without worry. Renters ought to be able to treat the houses they pay for as their own, as they do in many European countries. 30 year leases, capped rents, the ability to make modifications where they see fit, the right to do simple things like have a dog, with the expectation to return it to a blank slate when they leave. None of it is that radical, it just goes against Australia's obsession with real estate investment.
dandandan wrote:flollo, too often conversations about the future of housing are more concerned with the future of the housing market. I don't believe there should be a housing market. Landlordism should be regulated to the point that it's not financially worthwhile doing it. Landbanking should be regulated out of existence entirely. Housing should be de-commodified to the point that nobody looks at homes or land as a way to make money or invest surplus income.
The future of housing in Australia involves a shit load of public housing, more rights to renters, and actively driving the price of houses down. There's no such thing as affordable housing unless the prices go down by more than half in most areas. The government should build and own in perpetuity public housing as a form of public infrastructure, where people can live out their entire lives without worry. Renters ought to be able to treat the houses they pay for as their own, as they do in many European countries. 30 year leases, capped rents, the ability to make modifications where they see fit, the right to do simple things like have a dog, with the expectation to return it to a blank slate when they leave. None of it is that radical, it just goes against Australia's obsession with real estate investment.
Better go do some work, so just quickly.
"I don't believe there should be a housing market. Landlordism should be regulated to the point that it's not financially worthwhile doing it"
So basically who is going to provide housing for renters?
Im assuming you think the government should?
God imagine the cost to buy, build and maintain its just a money black hole unless you charge market rate rents which public housing generally doesn't, and then you basically create social economic slums.
Property will always be looked at as a way to invest for one simple reason.
Limited supply and increased demand= price rises.
Its not different to gold.
You can try to fight it, but it will never change, if you dont own a property, save your arse off now, wait for interest rates to rise and go buy some land somewhere like remote areas of SA or WA near waves still cheap land in these areas.
Agree on that one - got to survey the '40 years later' of what public housing flats turned into, they had turned into slums. My dad's generation of town planners were all very into that in the 1960s, they built them shiny and new, but decay was huge. In defence, dad said the flats were a great improvement on the shanties that they replaced.
indo-dreaming wrote:dandandan wrote:flollo, too often conversations about the future of housing are more concerned with the future of the housing market. I don't believe there should be a housing market. Landlordism should be regulated to the point that it's not financially worthwhile doing it. Landbanking should be regulated out of existence entirely. Housing should be de-commodified to the point that nobody looks at homes or land as a way to make money or invest surplus income.
The future of housing in Australia involves a shit load of public housing, more rights to renters, and actively driving the price of houses down. There's no such thing as affordable housing unless the prices go down by more than half in most areas. The government should build and own in perpetuity public housing as a form of public infrastructure, where people can live out their entire lives without worry. Renters ought to be able to treat the houses they pay for as their own, as they do in many European countries. 30 year leases, capped rents, the ability to make modifications where they see fit, the right to do simple things like have a dog, with the expectation to return it to a blank slate when they leave. None of it is that radical, it just goes against Australia's obsession with real estate investment.
Better go do some work, so just quickly.
"I don't believe there should be a housing market. Landlordism should be regulated to the point that it's not financially worthwhile doing it"
So basically who is going to provide housing for renters?
Im assuming you think the government should?
God imagine the cost to buy, build and maintain its just a money black hole unless you charge market rate rents which public housing generally doesn't, and then you basically create social economic slums.
Property will always be looked at as a way to invest for one simple reason.
Limited supply and increased demand= price rises.
Its not different to gold.
You can try to fight it, but it will never change, if you dont own a property, save your arse off now, wait for interest rates to rise and go buy some land somewhere like remote areas of SA or WA near waves still cheap land in these areas.
The Irony of the above advice/real estate review is it’s from someone who receives government welfare.
freeride76 wrote:Maybe.
There's a big difference geographically between Aus and Europe, Asia, the Americas.
We've always been a low population density country with little arable and fertile land.
That hasn't changed.
I think the supply/demand curve is also realising that with so little fertile, inhabitable land (basically a thin strip around the edge, with large parts of that being floodplain) and us as a stable Western democracy with basically open immigration flows to Europe/Asia etc etc we are seeing long term readjustments in pricing which reflect those fundamental realities.
Interest rates and other govt policies are just "seasoning" on the main meal.
But will Australians accept higher density ?
I think we will have no choice in the end, but it will be rammed down peoples throat, they won't go their willingly.
Especially in a post-Covid world.
Very interesting FR, I suppose you are seeing that international pricing adjustment first hand. I still don't know - perhaps we will revert to the backwater at the end of the world when this cycle peaks. Regional areas I watch doubled within 1 and 1/2 months back in the early 2000s at the peak of the East coast cycle - then sat for a decade+ at this level - I see them doing this great rise currently. That cycle peaked for Sydney/East overflow about 2002-4 (rising rates environment - then the West went nuts into 2007-8 with mining boom as fundamental driver). So I guess I'm anticipating rising rates bring current cycle to a stasis in the east. But if what you have suggested is true, we really have become one of the last good places in the world, and this time it's different. Hmmm.
ID, I don't believe that landlords provide housing. For the most part, they take existing housing stock and use their financial leverage to purchase it in an inflated housing market, and then withhold it from people unless they pay them an ever-increasing portion of their income each week. Many of these people who "provide" housing are so financially leveraged that they couldn't survive a fortnight without extorting wages out of a tenant who has nowhere else to go. Renters are paying the mortgages, not landlords. I understand that this a reach for people not interested in class politics.
I've mentioned it before, but the way Australians understand land and its value is premised entirely on colonization. Which in this continent is only 200 years old. It's very new, and to imagine that this is all there ever was and will be is silly. Of course things can change. They always do. Rates of landlordism used to be incredibly low. Investors in many countries don't flip houses - they keep them for generations, and feel no sense of ownership over them. They give 5, 10, or 30 year leases with capped rents. It's a completely normal thing in other countries but unfathomable to some people here.
Public housing can be and has been good. The way we see it now has less to do it with the fact that the government could build houses for citizens to live in and more to do with the way governments give below-poverty level of income support to people in need, lack of mental health services, and a million other things. My grandfather lived in a small weatherboard public housing home after the war. It had a veggie garden, a workshed, and was close to services. The government sold it into the private market and it's changed hands dozens of time since for big profits each time. Houses like that should have stayed in public hands, and we should build more of them.
The near-term future is a society composed of a class of asset (that is, property) owners who don't work and a class of workers (with crap jobs) who pay (very high) rent and bear all the tax burden.
that's why everyone who can is throwing money into property and why prices are so high. they know that if they don't become a member of the asset-owning class now, they will be permanently locked out and be serfs, trapped in a downward spiral.
Nailed it Chook.
Going to be very interesting when interests rate start the upward trend.
Not exactly Chook.
The future will be a mostly automated workforce with the vast majority of humanity being unemployed and existing on a trickle down Universal Basic Income*. Realestate and the automated workforce will be owned by gargantuan hedge fund “stakeholders”.
You will own nothing and you will be happy ( cough cough ).
* Used as leverage over a social credit system.
I die a little every time I hear that. They can go and 'great reset' their own sad arses and leave us to live real lives.
Certain members of society will be reduced to nothing and will become new age slaves to a conceptual idea of the future that is already showing cracks. If educated minds are leaving Australia as they have been for some time, then catching up to organised countries or possible progressive thinking will be harder. We are fucking up as a country on so many levels. How do you inspire for the long term a segment of Australian society that can barely afford the overheads before even looking at their dreams?
I really can't buy into this much pessimism. There are issues but there are also opportunities. I see a lot of good on the horizon.
There’s always room for hope and there’s always opportunities. Good sentiment Flollo. Got to keep the chin up!
I understand flollo there are opportunities but at the current rate it is unrealistic for many disadvantaged or lower paid. I think historical expectations are out the window unless you have a great cash flow. I also think in regards to your question about morality in regards to development. That a developer is always going to develop areas of profitability where it is available.That is their job and right.
It's what and how those areas of development effect local communities that need re evaluating so developments can work with the communities expectations of appropriate development. Both private and government. Think current Margaret rivers development etc. Developers should be encouraged to move people away from larger cities through financial incentive and government policy. In house business could also be encouraged to relocate to relieve stress from occupying major cities and enhance the populations and workforces of current existing locations outside heavily populated areas that would benefit some areas that have seen decline (rural) in land Australia.
Currently we are saturating existing cities without prompting enough positive performing development. If population increases occur rapidly as they have, our present planning will not be enough to make them highly function-able or liveable. There are about a 100000 homeless Australians at the moment we can't currently house. Add the extra immigration and expected birth rates and congestion will become more of an issue not just with house prices.
If a development doesn't respect or enhance a current environment or neighbours you could argue it's a moral question. But developers know as do government that policy and law is on their side currently. So morality from a point of concern has very little weight.
soggydog wrote:The Irony of the above advice/real estate review is it’s from someone who receives government welfare.
Ha ha, you are on smack dude, i own a business, i pay taxes (but try not too), my wife works and pay taxes, we aren't on any regular social welfare, we get some subsides like on Childcare, my wife is smart and occasionally finds one off payments and schemes etc generally related to familys or kids etc
flollo wrote:Another thing to look at is a price per sqm. This is one of the rankings I found:
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_price_rankings?itemId=100
Culture in Australia is that we need a big square meter property to feel like we’re achieving something. I grew up in Europe in a 50 sqm unit. My parents were generous enough to let me and my 2 sisters have our own rooms while they slept on the couch in the living room. Nobody felt poor, this is the way most people live. Garage was a luxury, street parking only.
And price wise, European market is quoted in price per sqm, something that Australian market never embraced. Price seems to be very subjective and unpredictable which also adds to the overall anxiety.
I wonder if people in Australia will ever accept any form of space consolidation to improve house ownership?
Interesting post, do you think you were poor?
Thats kid of how lots of people live in Indo, my wife family house tiny two bedrooms part had one, wife and sister shared a bed, brother slept in the lounge room
flollo wrote:I really can't buy into this much pessimism. There are issues but there are also opportunities. I see a lot of good on the horizon.
not so much pessimism as an observation
Flollo- Are you vested in property investment or development of any type?
dandandan wrote:ID, I don't believe that landlords provide housing. For the most part, they take existing housing stock and use their financial leverage to purchase it in an inflated housing market, and then withhold it from people unless they pay them an ever-increasing portion of their income each week. Many of these people who "provide" housing are so financially leveraged that they couldn't survive a fortnight without extorting wages out of a tenant who has nowhere else to go. Renters are paying the mortgages, not landlords. I understand that this a reach for people not interested in class politics.
I've mentioned it before, but the way Australians understand land and its value is premised entirely on colonization. Which in this continent is only 200 years old. It's very new, and to imagine that this is all there ever was and will be is silly. Of course things can change. They always do. Rates of landlordism used to be incredibly low. Investors in many countries don't flip houses - they keep them for generations, and feel no sense of ownership over them. They give 5, 10, or 30 year leases with capped rents. It's a completely normal thing in other countries but unfathomable to some people here.
Public housing can be and has been good. The way we see it now has less to do it with the fact that the government could build houses for citizens to live in and more to do with the way governments give below-poverty level of income support to people in need, lack of mental health services, and a million other things. My grandfather lived in a small weatherboard public housing home after the war. It had a veggie garden, a workshed, and was close to services. The government sold it into the private market and it's changed hands dozens of time since for big profits each time. Houses like that should have stayed in public hands, and we should build more of them.
Off course land lords provide housing, that's why they are landlords.
Anyway i don't agree, i don't have all the answers but personally i think the government should sell off all public housing, its a complete waste of money just the maintenance cost is crazy.
And when public housing is side by side either units or estates it just creates slums with all kinds of issues, private rentals mixed through communities are much better.
Id much rather see schemes that discourage AirBnB or houses siting empty and encourage people to rent their houses out permanently.
Then government subsidise those renters that can't afford it like already happens with rent assistance etc
For the government to own and maintain housing where income generated barely covers repairs is crazy.
indo-dreaming wrote:flollo wrote:Another thing to look at is a price per sqm. This is one of the rankings I found:
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_price_rankings?itemId=100
Culture in Australia is that we need a big square meter property to feel like we’re achieving something. I grew up in Europe in a 50 sqm unit. My parents were generous enough to let me and my 2 sisters have our own rooms while they slept on the couch in the living room. Nobody felt poor, this is the way most people live. Garage was a luxury, street parking only.
And price wise, European market is quoted in price per sqm, something that Australian market never embraced. Price seems to be very subjective and unpredictable which also adds to the overall anxiety.
I wonder if people in Australia will ever accept any form of space consolidation to improve house ownership?
Interesting post, do you think you were poor?
Thats kid of how lots of people live in Indo, my wife family house tiny two bedrooms part had one, wife and sister shared a bed, brother slept in the lounge room
No, never. This is how most people lived. However, by modern Australian standards possibly yes. For example, we never went out for dinner, only on rarest, special occasions which were 1-2 times a year. My mum was regularly cooking stew type of food - a massive pot that would feed the family for 3-4 days and we were not allowed to eat anything else until we finished the whole lot. You would put the cheapest ingredients in there - potatoes, beans, and a piece of meat with the bone, usually a pig leg or something like that. There was no food wastage allowed.
Few other examples - avoiding road tolls on the freeway to save money, especially several hundred km trips to another city. Doesn't matter if it's 2-3 hours longer, it saves money. Never paying for public transport while using it daily. They had inspectors but we were all taking a risk. You could get a cheap annual pass through school or my mum through work but we would regularly sell them for cash in the black market. Buying second-hand books for school. If you had the money you could order them through school so they are waiting for you when the term starts. But if not, you had to go into the city with cash and haggle with people selling them in public spaces. And this doesn't mean my mum driving me and doing it for me like I drive my kids in Australia, it meant me catching public transport and going in with cash, hoping it will be enough to get all I needed.
But none of this felt strange or poor. These things were widely spread. What we saw as poor is a little 4yo gypsy kid playing harmonica on the tram and begging for money. Homeless people who slept on public transport overnight, driving in circles because it's too cold outside. People digging through the rubbish on every corner (bins there were open, skip type placed next to the road in front of large, socialist buildings). I never had to do any of this, I was fell fed with a place to stay. And that's not what we called poor over there.
House prices - going to go up , down or sideways ?
Opinions and anecdotal stories if you could.
Cheers