This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.
This is one of the more absurd examples. You've basically just gone - borrow a mill two people can pay it off - with a $9000 a month income. That is not realistic for most people.
 

Yeah, sure, take out a 800k loan then the ALP gets in and slow stuff down. Oopps negative equity. You simply can't buy atm.
 
Here is what is going to happen in the next few years :
1) another financial crisis
2) people will default
3) prices will fall
4) ????
5) Profit.

Who knows, really what will happen but another financial crisis is 100% on the way.
 
This is one of the more absurd examples. You've basically just gone - borrow a mill two people can pay it off - with a $9000 a month income. That is not realistic for most people.
Ok then do the maths and show me why it can’t be paid off? CBA’s mortgage calculator has a very different opinion to you...$800k over 30 years will be paid off. If you’re arguing that $800k mortgage is too high then that is a different issue—but don’t say it is not possible to buy because it is. I went the extra step on that CBA mortgage app to see if I could get preliminary approval and guess what—I could.
 
You raise some good points, and I too do not envy the younger generation today and I acknowledge it isn’t easy. But one thing that makes my bloody boil is the blanket statement that housing is out of reach for all now, because it is not—yes you’ll have a sizeable mortgage and yes things will
Probably be right for some time, but I remain convinced it’s doable. I think what has changed is people’s standards and expectations. Yes for some sections of society housing is genuinely out of reach. When I was typing out my crude example I had in mind a young couple...the guy working in a trade and the girl working as a teacher. You don’t have to look too far to see a tradie such as an electrician can earn $90k plus and a teacher around $70k. So I think my use of a combined income of $140k per year is not unrealistic. Sure there are people that earn less but I’m not suggesting housing is affordable for everyone—it never has been. Anyway, appreciate you detailed analysis and you raised some great points.
 
Children can seriously reduce your income.....got any?
 
Children can seriously reduce your income.....got any?
Two.

The reason I selected Granville in my original post is that I expected someone would raise that as "I still can't afford to buy a house because"--so thank you. The house I picked is located within the catchment area of a public school that appears to get reviews. Have a look. Education fees can be one of the biggest expenses for a young family so should be manageable via a public school. Unless of course you have plans to send your kids to high end private school like Knox, SCEGGS, Shore etc etc
 
Children can seriously reduce your income.....got any?
That is very true and is something that has changed over the years, which has caused a lot of the house price disparity between the boomers and todays young people.
In the 1970's there wasn't a lot of female participation in the workforce, other than in retail, so most married women were home makers.
This in a lot of ways kept a lid on house prices, as the loan affordability was worked out on one wage and a 25% deposit required, so really the pool of potential buyers were limited by wages and how many children in the family. There was no childcare, so mothers had to really stay home, in most instances.
Then with the advent of childcare services and women being able to join the workforce, it wasn't long before the amount of money available to purchase a house increased, which then lead to competition for the properties and so the upward spiral starts.
 

Because you are clutching at straws big time. You're assuming a very high household income and a very expensive loan very far from the city. Are you going to buy back those mortgages off young ppl when it goes south ?
 

Firstly the 70s don't matter they were so long ago its pointless. What matters is the period between then. In the 70s most of the boomers would of been kids so it doesn't matter. Boomers would have been late 30s to early 40s in the 90s. Houses were cheap as and if you were a bit of a person who got left behind you essentially got the easiest loans possible by the early 2000s when the youngest of the boomers were in their 40s. Boomers had one hell of an easy ride as a generation. Then watched their assets go into the millions in their 50s and 60s. I do have sympathy for low income boomers who get lumped in there as they didn't have the same opportunities but gen y low income people have it far worse.
 
Not talking about schooling more about the who raises the kids
 
Children can seriously reduce your income.....got any?

Its not just children, but the assumption that everyone clears a grand a week. Lots of people don't. That means by definition many, many households wouldn't have 9 grand a month income and that is to buy in a basic, simple outer suburb.
 
Because you are clutching at straws big time. You're assuming a very high household income and a very expensive loan very far from the city. Are you going to buy back those mortgages off young ppl when it goes south ?
Explain to me why I'm clutching at straws or why the numbers I put up are ridiculous? Seriously, how is a teacher on $70k and a tradie on $90k a high household income. Sure there are people that earn less and I'm not suggesting everyone can afford a house--but the hypothetical I put forward is not unrealistic. If you don't like a $800k mortgage then move further out as someone else noted--you can't have you cake an eat it. Buying a house has never been easy nor without risk. To me it sounds like you're definition of affordable housing is that every single working person should be able to buy a house regardless of income?

I don't get your point about me buying back mortgages--can you expand on that further?
 
Not only should every working person be able to buy a house, but should be able to buy a house close to the centre of Sydney, if that was the case I would be buying one there as an investment. ?
People in the 1990's bought CBA shares for $5, I was busy paying off a house at the time, but now I am retired and have some spare cash CBA are $100, that just isn't fair. ?
 
Mate the baby boomers were born between 1946 and 1964, I was born in 1955, so right in the middle.
By 1981 (25 years old) I had three kids and a wife who stayed home to raise them, most boomers had their children early and didn't travel the world or buy new cars. Our first overseas trip was 2004, I was 50, most young people today, have taken multiple trips O/S by the time they are 25.
I couldn't afford to buy a house, I actually took the kids and the missus to the NW of W.A to a god forsaken hole, to save enough to buy a 30year old piece of crap that was transported and restumped on a cheap block out of the city.

That option is still available today and guess what those with a bit of drive and gumption are still doing it, there are plenty of young people getting high paying fifo jobs, saving and starting from scratch, rather than just hoping they can find batteries for their magic wand.


Personally I think you should open your horizons, Sydney/Melbourne is obviously out of reach, make a plan B.
People say there is jobs outside Sydney, for my skills, well change your skill set or get a job that doesn't require a lot of skills but pays well e.g haulpac driver.
 
Last edited:

That is not a good comparison, shares are for investing. Houses are for basic shelter, family survival etc

People are not upset they missed on the gains, they are upset they can't have the Aussie dream
 
Been hearing that for 40 years. Keep calling it long enough and it might just come true

View attachment 126052

But it has happened, twice, in 2007 lots of people lost their homes. In 2017 we had a crash which nearly ended up with lots of people under water if it wasn't for covid and the stimulus. In QLD and WA were under water for a long, long time. And at these points in time, debt was a lot less and wages relatively a lot higher.
 
And I was a poor old student back in Sept 1985 and didn't have any cash to buy investments before then. All those lucky people holding investments prior to Sep 1985 don't have to pay CGT. Boo Hoo...it's not fair that when I started to come into some cash in the early 90s I then had to pay sizable chunks of cash in CGT while all those freeloaders buying pre 1985 don't have to pay CGT
 

None of this matters. Housing was very cheap. If you were unable to secure gainful employment I'm sorry to hear that but that is on you. A very basic job would be enough to afford a house in a very decent location back then.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...