“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Firstly your taking an extreme case.
Driving a Truck in a mine underground.
Wages for high risk occupations have always been much higher than low risk.
So YES examples of 3 x average wages can and will always be found.
Sound familiar.
I would argue teaching is more dangerous.Firstly your taking an extreme case.
Driving a Truck in a mine underground.
Wages for high risk occupations have always been much higher than low risk.
So YES examples of 3 x average wages can and will always be found.
Sound familiar.
It needs to be fixed asap imho. To me the maths seems simple, on average across society house prices cant Increase as they are near price saturation unless substantial wage increases start flowing.
Im amazed the government has let it get out of control like this.
What a great idea
We'll give people more money, so that they can borrow even more and that will make housing more affordable
I don't think you've thought this through.
What a great idea
We'll give people more money, so that they can borrow even more and that will make housing more affordable
I don't think you've thought this through.
I think we need more multi storey development inner city and more land released on the outer.
Also I disagree that housing is unaffordable (only familiar with the melb market)
Its more that the houses that people can buy differ to what they feel they are "entitled" to.
They've grown up with their parents in nice inner to middle city houses and are now upset they can't afford what they are accustomed to or feel they are "entitled" to.
Cheers
The late 1980's. Just before the last recession after which houses were back to selling at low multiples of income.And so the cycle goes on.
The same rhetoric was heard in the late 80s and will be heard again throughout time from generation to generation.
Easy way to prove this one.Also I disagree that housing is unaffordable (only familiar with the melb market)
Its more that the houses that people can buy differ to what they feel they are "entitled" to.
They've grown up with their parents in nice inner to middle city houses and are now upset they can't afford what they are accustomed to or feel they are "entitled" to.
Exactly, that one leaped out at me to. I was wondering who would pick up on it.The late 1980's. Just before the last recession after which houses were back to selling at low multiples of income.
Just because they are both described as "median" does not necessary mean people on median wage should be owning a median price house for at least 3 obvious reasons that I can think of :Easy way to prove this one.
Can someone earning the median wage realistically afford to buy the median priced house with a mortgage which will remaing serviceable at all points in the interest rate cycle?
Some fair points there although I must point out that if (2) is required now then that in itself is outright proof that housing is less affordable. If one wage bought a house and raised a family 25 years ago then at the very least the wage paid for that job today ought to buy a comparable house and standard of living. If that were the case then we would have had effectively zero economic progress for the working individual over the past quarter century, at least in terms of housing affordability. That a single wage for the same job now buys a lesser house, or more likely no house at all, means we've gone backwards.Just because they are both described as "median" does not necessary mean people on median wage should be owning a median price house for at least 3 obvious reasons that I can think of :
1) there is a phase shift between the time frames of the 2 median points. By that I mean people start off at low wages and they rent or better still, stay @ parents'; then if everything goes on track or better, they save a deposit AND earn median wages before they buy their first home at lower end of the market. Then they upgrade to a median price house when they earn ABOVE median wages, etc, etc.
2) it is very common to have a partner (trendy word) who earns wages to buy together.
No, because by the time you account for inflation and taxation, the return is negative."Bond holders and those with cash are about to get seriously shafted IMO in order to bail out the debtors. Exactly what's happened plenty of times before"
HI don't understand what you mean by cash holders. If rates go to 15%, then cash in the bank is ideal is it not?
No, because by the time you account for inflation and taxation, the return is negative.
At the moment, because of true inflation (not the fraudulent CPI), real interest rates are actually negative and you can be sure this will continue even as interest rates increase.
Cash is only a good thing in a deflationary environment.
Exactly, that one leaped out at me to. I was wondering who would pick up on it.
HI don't understand what you mean by cash holders. If rates go to 15%, then cash in the bank is ideal is it not?
Yes, in the sense of affordability, we have definitely gone backward. Hence there is a phase shift in the time frames of the median prices. This shift may get worse unless we have real wage increases. And that's not impossible.Some fair points there although I must point out that if (2) is required now then that in itself is outright proof that housing is less affordable. If one wage bought a house and raised a family 25 years ago then at the very least the wage paid for that job today ought to buy a comparable house and standard of living. If that were the case then we would have had effectively zero economic progress for the working individual over the past quarter century, at least in terms of housing affordability. That a single wage for the same job now buys a lesser house, or more likely no house at all, means we've gone backwards.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?