Stop Immigration - I want to buy a house!

numbercruncher · 1 November 2007

Worst advice ive heard in my life ..... Why on earth would anyone buy in a dodgy crime ridden suburb just to get on the "ladder".

Appalling advice, If you must be in realestate buy something in a decent area and rent it out or get in lodgers.

I dont know the figures on these dodgy western suburbs but im almost sure prices in real terms have been falling.

Kathmandu · 1 November 2007

numbercruncher said:
Worst advice ive heard in my life ..... Why on earth would anyone buy in a dodgy crime ridden suburb just to get on the "ladder".

.

Yeah, thats what people said when I was trying to buy in Newfarm and Bulimba 20 years ago and the same with my recent ugly duckling purchases that have gone up 200% over the last 4 years.

No one wanted to live there either as they were dodgy crime ridden suburbs as well and they are flood prone.

But hey, go and buy something better for $500k and get tenants in for $300/week (mmm, doesnt work does it)

Dave

numbercruncher · 1 November 2007

Thats just plain bad advice Davo ......

your advice is buy a depreciating 300k dump box in a crime ridden western suburb and spend two hours per day extra travelling (add the costs!)

Does not buying the 500k appreciating asset in a desirable suburb close to work and pick up two hours OT a day to bridge the shortfall not make better sense ? hell youd probably get 150pw for each room you rented out as well.

Theres always a reason things are "cheap" , same with houses, shoes, food , whatever .....

Kathmandu · 1 November 2007

I thought the whole point of the discussion was that $500k is "unafordable"

And if buying old places in rundown areas is so bad, how come areas that are can sometimes do so well? (see above)

I used to travel from Redcliffe in Brisbane to Carole park near Ipswich to work before I was old enough to drive. (as a first year apprentice on $98-00/week in 1982)

That was leaving at 5-30am for a 7-00am start

4-00pm finish and home at 7-00pm

Amazing what people will do to get ahead, but maybe something the newer generation knows nothing about eh.

Dave

Kathmandu · 2 November 2007

edit to above: I was'nt necesarilly saying Blacktown was THE area, but I am sure there are pockets of areas that suffer a stigma now, that will see gentrification at some stage and turn to gold.

Dave

moXJO · 2 November 2007

theasxgorilla said:
I love it when people who made money during one phase of a cycle become experts at predicting the end of said cycle. He's not an economist, he's an accountant who read a book or two and was inspired and became a property investor. He has as much of a clue as the rest of us and access to about the same information.

DYOT (do your own thinking).

No I want him to think for me

It’s his opinion which is as valid as your posts. Personally I think he forgot that US exports will jump due to a lower dollar which should be a bigger plus to the economy then the credit crunch is a minus.But hey it’s always interesting seeing what others are doing or thinking.

professor_frink · 2 November 2007

numbercruncher said:
Thats just plain bad advice Davo ......

your advice is buy a depreciating 300k dump box in a crime ridden western suburb and spend two hours per day extra travelling (add the costs!)

Does not buying the 500k appreciating asset in a desirable suburb close to work and pick up two hours OT a day to bridge the shortfall not make better sense ? hell youd probably get 150pw for each room you rented out as well.

Theres always a reason things are "cheap" , same with houses, shoes, food , whatever .....

300K

You can buy a 3 bedroom brick and tile job for 240K in Mt Druitt, which is just next door to Blacktown. And with all the money you save on a house, you can hire and bodyguard, get a couple of rotties, and buy some guns to try and keep yourself safe

Uncle Festivus · 2 November 2007

What a can of worms that opened for sure. I guess I didn't get my point across too well, as not even remotely thinking about any racial issues with the thread topic.

I'll go back a step. Why do we need more people? A company finds a pile of iron ore, gold or whatever and determines, in a financial sense that it is profitable to mine. They then find out that there aren't enough bodies in the country to do it, so what to do? Import people.

So these people come in and need somewhere to live, increasing competition for what is already available so prices go up.

While obviously overly simplistic, this is the crux of the story being played out around Aus. The mining companies are getting their bodies & profits, but at what price for the rest of the community and are Australians sharing in those profits if affordability is negating any supposed benefits?

It is looking to be an issue of sustainability. Projects are undertaken to satisfy the hunger of our consumerist global economy, notably China, without taking into account any social negative consequences. Which is fair enough, everybody needs a job. But if we have a closed feed back loop which requires ever more consumption to continually expand, where does it end?

Trade wind · 2 November 2007

Interesting posts. Housing affordability is reaching crisis point but immigration is not the main driver. Blame it on changing demographics in the existing population, cheap money, a strong economy and good old fashioned greed, along with its handmaiden panic.

More and more people are single and living alone in Australia, and a whole generation of 20-somethings has had the chance to move out of mum and dads thanks to strong unemployment, economic confidence and the ease of borrowing money.

So demand on the housing market has grown, but new stock is not keeping up. Why? Lack of land? That's just the feds blaming the states. The fact is property is overpriced and developers are wary, the margins are dropping and the risk is increasing.

Do the sums. Property just doesn't add up. Rents are going to have to spiral a lot more to make buying a rental property viable. The driving force is capital gains, backed by cashed up baby boomers and speculators, especially at the mid to top end, and panic at the bottom end. At least in Melbourne, where I come from. Newspapers are forever running stories on soaring prices and the need to get in now before it's too late. It might sell newspapers, but does it make sense?

Though if buyers are prepared to pay almost anything, house prices will keep heading north. So what do you do about housing affordability? Keep interest rates low? It's politically unnacceptable to even talk about raising interest rates, but I'd suggest political pressure has kept them too low for years, driving the current boom. Do you increase housing incentives for first home buyers? That's crazy. It might help Aussie John's profits, but it will only further inflate the bubble.

My advice for prospective home buyers is sit tight. Put your money elsewhere. The boom may still have some legs - greed and panic know no logic - but there is a lesson to be learnt from the US market, and we are not immune.

TjamesX · 2 November 2007

Kathmandu said:
Negative gearing is in place as an incentive for investors to purchase accomadation for those who choose to rent.

The Govt is not providing enough subsidised Accomadation if you havent noticed, and even if they were, do you really want to live in high rise housing commission ghettos?

I am still not sure if there is an affordability crisis at all.

I feel it is more of an aspirational crisis.

How many FHB's were buying new 4 bedroom brick and tile homes with 2 bathrooms, ducted a/c, granite benchtops and european s/s appliances 15 years ago?

Dave

Aspirational crisis??? been hearing that a lot lately

This to add onto the list of Property Investor slogans;

- Investors don't effect house prices
- getting rid of negative gearing would cause rents to skyrocket and the world to end as we know it
- FHB's can't afford because they have an aspirational crisis

I think the pollies would love this, inflation would cease to exist - every price rise or drop in standard of living could be explained away as people having an aspirational crisis. If steak rises in price you should drop your aspirations and eat chicken, if chicken rises in price you should drop your aspirations and eat vegetables, if vegetables rise in price you should drop your aspirations and eat rice......

Didn't the PM just acknowledge that pensioners cost of living was rising faster than inflation - therefore the need to recieve higher benefits..... why couldn't they drop their aspirations and buy less electricity, food etc???

Policies flying left right and center regarding lowering super taxes, lifting pensions, healthcare subsidies.....

What segment of society doesn't have an aspirational crisis??

The thing is House price rises are not seen as 'inflation' because that is a bad word, and for most of society it isn't inflation - its wealth creation, so it is inflation for a smaller segment of society and wealth creation for a larger segment... so it will never be treated for what it is, INFLATION.

And I still don't know why people don't call negative gearing what it really is and its end effect - simply a government contrived economic preference for one class of owner to own the asset than another class, for which all tax payers subsidise... whether it actually results in increasing rental supply and builds more housing is really up for debate

More than my

Rafa · 2 November 2007

Uncle Festivus said:
But if we have a closed feed back loop which requires ever more consumption to continually expand, where does it end?

It ends, Uncle Festivus, when mother nature decides enough is enough... (thats not to say the human race won't continue... we may just have to on another planet)

the biggest negative of this cheap money and the crazy focus of growth at all costs has ofcourse been the environment... closely followed by those not playing the financial game in the asset market.

Oh yes... and ofcoures asset market booms so far don't count in the inflation figures... well, until the asset is oil.... or wheat... or water!

Kathmandu · 2 November 2007

TjamesX said:
Didn't the PM just acknowledge that pensioners cost of living was rising faster than inflation - therefore the need to recieve higher benefits..... why couldn't they drop their aspirations and buy less electricity, food etc???

People really need these things to live.

I don't think new 4 bedroom brick and tile homes with 2 bathrooms, ducted a/c, granite benchtops and european s/s appliances are required to live.

Add to that new cars, plasma's, mobile phones, designer label clothes, iPods etc etc. (none of which I have)

I'm sure most here over 35 probably did'nt get a new Jap import or Commodore ute as a first car (or even 5th car) or a flash new house /appartment as their first home, or have to have it iner city suburbs, yet it seems almost the norm today.

Aspirational Crisis I tells ya.

Dave

nioka · 2 November 2007

TjamesX said:
Aspirational crisis???
What segment of society doesn't have an aspirational crisis??

Heaven forbid that we do not have aspirations. It is the degree that creates the crisis. Those that want to have all the things that oldies have, including a pension, without doing the hard yards that the oldies have done, create the crisis.
Get me going on this and I'll end up with RSI from typing all day.

ROE · 2 November 2007

Uncle Festivus said:
What a can of worms that opened for sure. I guess I didn't get my point across too well, as not even remotely thinking about any racial issues with the thread topic.

I'll go back a step. Why do we need more people? A company finds a pile of iron ore, gold or whatever and determines, in a financial sense that it is profitable to mine. They then find out that there aren't enough bodies in the country to do it, so what to do? Import people.

So these people come in and need somewhere to live, increasing competition for what is already available so prices go up.

While obviously overly simplistic, this is the crux of the story being played out around Aus. The mining companies are getting their bodies & profits, but at what price for the rest of the community and are Australians sharing in those profits if affordability is negating any supposed benefits?

It is looking to be an issue of sustainability. Projects are undertaken to satisfy the hunger of our consumerist global economy, notably China, without taking into account any social negative consequences. Which is fair enough, everybody needs a job. But if we have a closed feed back loop which requires ever more consumption to continually expand, where does it end?

I think it's called the Capitalist model and that is the mostly used Model around the planet Even China for all their socialist party cant help but use the capitalist model. Cant beat them, join them that the only way to get ahead

Uncle Festivus · 2 November 2007

ROE said:
I think it's called the Capitalist model and that is the mostly used Model around the planet Even China for all their socialist party cant help but use the capitalist model. Cant beat them, join them that the only way to get ahead

So would I be close to the mark to assume that this version of the capitalist model is being severely tested as to it's limits due to the current crisis unfolding which is rapidly spiralling out of control? At least it should give the environment a much needed break if it stalls a bit ie global recession?

Which then questions the sustainability of the China capitalist/communist hybrid, both from a financial & environmental perspective. They measure the number of birth defect's in the 10's of millions, and rising exponentially. Capitalism & consumerism gone mad.

Happy · 2 November 2007

From Yahoo News, Mon Oct 29, 10:59 PM ET

BIRTH DEFECTS SOAR IN POLLUTED CHINA

BEIJING (AFP) - Birth defects in heavily polluted China have increased by nearly 40 percent since 2001, with a deformed baby born every 30 seconds, state media reported on Tuesday.
The rate of defects appeared to increase near the country's countless coal mines, which produce the bulk of China's energy but are also responsible for serious air and water pollution, the China Daily newspaper said, quoting government officials.

Birth defects nationwide have increased from 104.9 per 10,000 births in 2001 to 145.5 last year, it said, citing a report by the National Population and Family Planning Commission.
They affect about one million of the 20 million babies born every year, with about 300,000 babies suffering from "visible deformities."

"A baby with birth defects is born every 30 seconds in China and the situation has worsened year by year," said Jiang Fan, deputy head of the commission and author of the report.
About 30-40 percent of the deformed children born each year die shortly after birth.
There is a correlation between birth defects and proximity to environmentally degraded areas, said An Huanxiao, head of family planning in the heavily polluted northern province of Shanxi, source of much of the nation's coal.

Shanxi tops the nation in birth defects, Xinhua said.
A correlation can also be drawn with parents' poverty and low education, An was quoted as saying.

China suffers from serious pollution, the price of its stunning economic rise, with air quality in major cities regularly exceeding danger levels and millions of people lacking access to clean water.

Tragic, but what positive can come out of such a tragedy?

Incentive to reduce pollution, maybe sign Kyoto, also some organs for research.

ROE · 2 November 2007

Uncle Festivus said:
So would I be close to the mark to assume that this version of the capitalist model is being severely tested as to it's limits due to the current crisis unfolding which is rapidly spiralling out of control? At least it should give the environment a much needed break if it stalls a bit ie global recession?

Which then questions the sustainability of the China capitalist/communist hybrid, both from a financial & environmental perspective. They measure the number of birth defect's in the 10's of millions, and rising exponentially. Capitalism & consumerism gone mad.

Maybe you on the wrong forum? This is a capitalist stock market forum and everything goes on the stock that make people money.

some are ethical investors, other are not ... it's not a perfect world. People make money for all sort of reasons and you can chose to be one of the two and if you truly want to make a difference. Become an investor and become rich, then you can influence people who make policy that affect this Planet.
Without money and stop the migration antic you are nothing but a lost voice in this crowded planet.

Kathmandu · 2 November 2007

Happy said:
Tragic, but what positive can come out of such a tragedy?

Incentive to reduce pollution, maybe sign Kyoto, also some organs for research.

From the deformed babies?

Dave

kgee · 3 November 2007

ROE said:
Maybe you on the wrong forum? This is a capitalist stock market forum and everything goes on the stock that make people money.

some are ethical investors, other are not ... it's not a perfect world. People make money for all sort of reasons and you can chose to be one of the two and if you truly want to make a difference. Become an investor and become rich, then you can influence people who make policy that affect this Planet.
Without money and stop the migration antic you are nothing but a lost voice in this crowded planet.

so if you don't have money you should just "shut up and put up"?

Uncle Festivus · 3 June 2008

Is that why it's called the rat race? Sydney is already choking in gridlock, with inadequate transport alternatives?

SYDNEY'S population will grow by nearly 1 million people by 2021 due to the Rudd Government's expansion of the immigration program - putting huge strain on the city's public transport, health, education and housing.
A leading demographer, Bob Birrell, said the immigration intake would pump up the city's population to more than 5.1 million, up from about 4.3 million now and 350,000 more than planners had expected.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/city-to-grow-by-a-million-people/2008/06/01/1212258647599.html

So when all these immigrants arrive, they won't be able to afford to live here?

NURSES, teachers and paramedics cannot afford to buy houses in the areas they serve in because they are so underpaid, a national report has found.

The BankWest Key Worker Housing Affordability report, to be released today, shows Australia's 480,000 key workers are being forced to buy homes further and further away from the heart of capital cities, where house and unit prices have soared 66 per cent in five years.

Over that same period, average key worker earnings have risen just 31 per cent.

Nurses earning an average $48,661 were hardest hit. A typical nurse could afford to buy a home in only 4 per cent of capital city LGAs in 2007, compared with 26 per cent in 2002.

A local government area is classified unaffordable if median house prices are more than five times a key worker's annual earnings.

Sydney

Of the country's top 10 most unaffordable areas, Sydney has six.

According to the report, 93 per cent of Sydney LGAs were well beyond the reach of key workers in 2007.

With a $2 million-plus median house price, Mosman is Australia's least affordable place. The median house price there is 32 times a police officer's annual earnings - and 40 times for a nurse.

http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,23795301-14327,00.html

Stop Immigration - I want to buy a house!

numbercruncher

Beware of Dropbears

Kathmandu

numbercruncher

Beware of Dropbears

Kathmandu

Kathmandu

moXJO

menace to society

professor_frink

Moderator

Uncle Festivus

Trade wind

TjamesX

Rafa

Kathmandu

nioka

ROE

Uncle Festivus

Happy

ROE

Kathmandu

kgee

Uncle Festivus

Similar threads

Stop Immigration - I want to buy a house!

Beware of Dropbears

Beware of Dropbears

menace to society

Moderator

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency