No worries.
For the record, I'm not suggesting that anyone should, or shouldn't move to Tas or any other particular state. I am just observing that there is a significant difference in the price of comparable housing between (say) Sydney versus Hobart or Adelaide and that this would logically lead to at least some people considering a move for financial or other reasons.
There are some really cheap houses down in TAS. Have prices moved up much in recent years smurf?
The medication also produced some unexplained rage which i cannot explain as it shouldnt really do that. Having read what was actually written i have to apologise to you and smurf.
Over the last 20 years, the cost of building a new house has increased nearly fourfold. The increase can be partly explained by a 32.7% increase in the average size of new houses.
Quincy Magoo (or simply Mr. Magoo) is a cartoon character created at the UPA animation studio in 1949. Voiced by Jim Backus, Quincy Magoo is a wealthy, short-statured retiree who gets into a series of comical situations as a result of his nearsightedness, compounded by his stubborn refusal to admit the problem. However, through uncanny streaks of luck, the situation always seems to work itself out for him, leaving him no worse than before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Magoo
Glad we have sorted this one out Mrmagoo.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@...2609898B87F95519CA25792D000E2DF5?OpenDocument
Old data I know but it does evidence what I have been banging on about. No one wants a 3 bedroom 1 bathroom starter home anymore. Consumerism has been rampant for a while now and will not show any signs of slowing down IMO
Old data I know but it does evidence what I have been banging on about. No one wants a 3 bedroom 1 bathroom starter home anymore. Consumerism has been rampant for a while now and will not show any signs of slowing down IMO
Your diagnosis would be more convincing if 3 bedroom, 1 bathroom homes hadn't also increased massively in price.
You have trouble understanding the written word do you not? So price increase 4 fold in a 20 year period to construct a home with 1/3 of the cost due to the increase in size of the home means nothing to you? SHEEEEEEEEEESH !!
point taken for the average house but that would not apply to units.There are only so many shiny european appliances you can add in a unit, sizes are even smaller and quality (real aka insulation, etc) is not exactly great
Fair but basically even if you want a fairly basic home /unit as a result as well of the construction cost increases you mention (and that should actually point to the hourly rate in Australia of the sparky/brick layers/carpenters), you end up having no fair priced option.Sorry qldfrog but the point I am trying to make is that the price increase for CONSTRUCTION has been 4 fold in a 20 year period.
Sorry qldfrog but the point I am trying to make is that the price increase for CONSTRUCTION has been 4 fold in a 20 year period. PERIOD. It does not matter if they are units or houses or town houses or complexes or whatever you want to call it. The COST to build has risen 400% in 20 years. Let's do some maths shall we:
$50,000 to build a "whatever" in 1980
$70,750 IN 1985 - Year 5
$100,111 IN 1990 - Year 10
$141,657 IN 1995 - Year 15
$200,445 IN 2000 - Year 20
Or a rate of 41.5% COST increase over a 5 year period to construct thereon. Approx 7.19346% per annum compounding (date range is for comedy purposes only and to evidence a formulae)
NOT forgetting that the SIZE of the home has increased by 33% as well. Ipso facto the cost of building as well as the size increase has contributed to the overall increase of the price of homes. Not saying that this is the be all and end all of WHY houses are so expensive. Just trying to explain as to not all of it is the Guvmints fault but some of the blame has to be borne by the CONSUMERISM of society who demand they want bigger homes with more sophisticated methods of construction as well as higher end internal finishes (read marble tops and glass splash backs cause they saw it on telly)
*RANT OVER*
Living close to the city is not about prestige. You live close to the city so that you don' end up leaving home at 6:30 in the morning and getting home at 9:00 pm. The inner city is mostly dirty and over crowded. You end up having a much happier healthier life in suburbia.
Part of the issue there is that I strongly suspect that both Sydney and Melbourne have exceeded their most efficient scale. What, exactly, does having over 4 million people in a city achieve that can't be achieved with 2 million? Just about every business, public event and other thing that is viable in Sydney or Melbourne is also viable in Brisbane with roughly half the population.
Take a look at a map of Australia. Now realise that we've got 40% of our entire population living in just two cities. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Firstly there's the problem of transport around big cities in terms of both time taken and the cost. Secondly it's a massive strategic risk to have so much in just two places.
Society is increasingly divided. On one side are various professions and some trades as well as a few successful entrepreneurs etc. On the other side is the rest. What was available to just about anyone in the past, provided they were willing to work, is not available to many people today under the same circumstances
Secondly it's a massive strategic risk to have so much in just two places.
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?