Australia doesn't have a housing affordability crisis

People can rent. They do not need to own a house to have a roof over their head. Home ownership rate in Australia is still higher than a lot of developed countries like Germany, Denmark, France, UK where people often compare Sydney/Melbourne property price to.

 

Obviously they can rent but the discussion on affordability is clearly tied to the prices for properties to live in. Not sure why it'd even be a discussion otherwise.

 

I rent out a House in Liverpool 3/1/2 600Sqm block next to schools and shopping for $410
If that is not affordable what is?


Maybe some expect more than they need. Maybe its not needs but wants?

 

Because your post implies that owning a house is neccessary (since people need to have a roof over their head) and hence there is a housing affordability crisis. My point is house ownership is a privilege or a choice not a right.

 

Sydney housing stress highest on record, as rental pressure hits - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

"The figures showed 13 per cent of Sydney households in the lowest 40 per cent of income earners spent more than 30 per cent of their income on housing, between 2013 and 2016.

It was an all-time record for the survey, which has been running since 2001.

The figure sits above Brisbane (10.5 per cent), Melbourne (9.7 per cent), Perth (8.8 per cent) and Adelaide (8.4 per cent)."

 

considering 2016 census data, 30.9% of Australia rents. Therefore 69% of people either own outright, or with a mortgage. Wouldn’t that constitute as most people using property for its functional purpose?

Or should “Everyone” be entitled to own a property?

There’s also the other side of the coin, renting is easier, no rates, no mortgage, no insurance, no maintenance, also much cheaper in these 2 states mentioned. I know a Ton of people that actually can’t be bothered owning.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the people stating it’s too hard, would also find running a property too hard as well. Affordability isn’t the issue, wanting your cake and eating it is.

 

I own my IPs outright but live in a rented property. So if the next census doesn't ask the right questions it will report that I am one of those sad over 65s still living in a rented home.

 

And the problem is?

Where are the stats that remind you what percentage of people spend more than 30% of their incomes on housing period. This matter has been raised many times before, for as long as i can remember. About two thousand years ago a very famous person has been quoted as saying that the poor will always be amongst us. It is hardly a new phenomena, people struggling on low incomes didn't just pop up in Sydney in the last few years.

Sorry, I must be out of touch, because I sure as anything have spent more than 30% of our household income on housing.

 

If I see another “the median wage versus median price” debate! It’s an almost entirely useless statistic as it neglects two major variations:

1 - The median income simply doesn’t cater for the TRUE income of the self employed. Add back ALL income, cashies, clever structuring and disbursement’s, ACTUAL expenses and you will likely find the median income is probably around 20% higher than any statistic would have you believe.

2 - The inflated median house prices in some areas caused by money that didn’t even come from Australia in the first place. I’m from Melbourne so take areas like Box Hill, Glen Waverley, Wantirna.. The entire housing market their is ridiculously inflated by Chinese money. These areas are bumping our median value without a true reflection of the areas that aren’t effected by overseas money.

If you really want to understand housing affordability, look at areas in the North or West, no further than 35 minutes CBD commute. Now take the median house price and compare it to the median income BUT allow a 20% increase.

I am not saying it’s still not expensive in a lot of areas but it’s sefinitely not as bad as that statistic in isolation would have you believe.

 

No, I'm saying that prices of investment properties are irrelevant because anyone who can't afford to invest in a property could invest in an alternative asset class. It only makes sense as a discussion on "affordability" to be based on residential property.

 

The median house price in the whole of Australia is ~700k. That's a massive land area that is not going to be influenced just by prices in Glen Waverley. The median house price in the US (a similar sized country) is 250k. Do we make 3-4 times more than people there? Their population spread and urban planning form is very similar to Australia outside of a couple of cities so you can't make any of the arguments (excuses) people do when comparing to Europe.

It is absurd to suggest our prices are remotely normal comparable to pretty much everywhere. I was watching that House Hunters show the other day and an orthopaedic surgeon (!) in Florida was looking for a house around 400k - the options were pretty much all mansion sized, one of which had an indoor pool. I can't think of even a regional area here that you could get something remotely similar in that kind of price range. You might be able to get an old two bedroom unit in Lakemba though! A bargain really.

 

@Cimbom I am looking at a city in isolation, not the whole country.
So YES inflated prices in suburbs like Glen Waverley most certainly do effect the overall Median house prices of the city.

I’m not arguing housing is affordable, I’m just saying that it’s more affordable than the ridiculous Median Wage/Median Price garbage being fed to the uninformed.

 

No

About 3x% of our population lives in 2 cities and we have endless cheap housing.

But who wants to live in Lakemba or Liverpool or Casula. All on direct train line to city.
All where a 2 bedroom apartment or 3 bedroom house is 400/450 per week.

We have endless affordable housing people want to live in unaffordable arear . So whinge and whine

 

Anywhere from lane cove to mosman is off 8 percent. Factor in stamp duty and your easily looking at loss of 500k on a well renovated family home.

 

If you have the money to buy a well renovated family home in those areas, do you need to worry about the market going down 8%?

 

Stamp duty is not a loss. Its a state tax on purchase you always pay it. and it would be a tiny factor on a few thousand different maybe you are paying $20k extra stamp duty

So you are looking at homes
Based on numbers
$500,000/8% *100%
=
$6,250,000 homes nice.

hahahah


Well I hope you are but you would be one of the richest on this forum and I don't think in this price category and unique nature of homes one is worried about a price fluctuation.

 

So why can't I compare it at the national level? The bigger the sample, the more representative the statistics are.

 

I think your mistaken. In any price category one is always concerned about price fluctuation given the underlying asset is so far away from being fairly valued

An 8 percent loss on anyones portfolio is difficult to recover from. Especially at current price levels. Compounded over 5 years that could be a $700-800k write down.

 

Just look at the number of homes on rent for $2500pw in Mosman and surrounds and what they would cost to purchase. They are a bargain to lease.

I

 

There is no loss if the property is not sold. In the top end of the market (3-4mil+) the strategy and mindset as well as circumstances are very different. I am not one of them (and probably will never be) but I guess they don't look at that like you do. Unless you tell me you are one of them then...