Perth's rental market post-COVID eviction ban

End to WA eviction ban will leave tenants homeless unless government acts, Greens and advocates say

 

"I've paid my rent on time every time, so I don't see a need for the increase."

 

Don't agree with that at all. Perth renters have had it good for some time now. It is back in the cycle where rents are going up and rightly so. I have good tenants who have always paid on time but paying on time does not pay the owners bills which are forever increasing.

 

The nub of this issue is that housing is an essential good not a discretionary one. Government has a pretty strong role in the provision of most essential services but not housing. This was not always the case. Until the neoliberals, most western Governments accepted that they had to provide state owned and managed housing so that, at the very least, those with the lowest incomes had affordable housing options.

Since the Neoliberals showed up preaching that the market will provide (music to the ears of the instinctively right winger and cash strapped Treasurers) the job of providing housing to the poor and, increasingly, the not so poor, has fallen to an army of mum and dad housing investors.

The flaws in the system become clear at times like this when after years of those same investors refusing to buy we have a rental shortage and when the basic problem of the inability of poorer households to buy leaves many with no choice but to rent (a far bigger problem on the east coast than in WA).

So the Neoliberals were wrong: the market will not provide. The problem is systemic and requires fixing. Problem is the political will is not there.

Even a Labor government which had a great opportunity since the housing bust in 2014 to grow the social housing system looked the other way.

So the landlords are entitled to put up the rent but thousands of tenants are right to be angry about a system that is not working for them.

 

Off track on the original thread but how much money do we keep throwing at those that wont work, dont work, cant buy a house, wont buy a house? It has to stop at some point.

 

We can turn it into a morality play if you want and ask the question why various government policies favour the already well off. Franking credits anyone? Or I could point out that the difference between having money and not having money in this world is largely down to luck.

Consider the myth of the self-made man: you didn’t choose your parents, you didn’t choose your genetic endowment, you didn’t choose how that genetic endowment would effect your life outcomes etc. You might argue that you are a really hard worker so you deserve everything you get. Perhaps, but even your capacity for hard work is a heritable trait and you would have needed luck in other areas to amass your fortune.

The implication of that realisation is spelled out nicely by Ben Bernanke (hardly a rabid Commie) at a lecture in Princeton some years ago.

“The concept of success leads me to consider so-called meritocracies and their implications. We have been taught that meritocratic institutions and societies are fair. Putting aside the reality that no system, including our own, is really entirely meritocratic, meritocracies may be fairer and more efficient than some alternatives. But fair in an absolute sense? Think about it. A meritocracy is a system in which the people who are the luckiest in their health and genetic endowment; luckiest in terms of family support, encouragement, and, probably, income; luckiest in their educational and career opportunities; and luckiest in so many other ways difficult to enumerate—these are the folks who reap the largest rewards. The only way for even a putative meritocracy to hope to pass ethical muster, to be considered fair, is if those who are the luckiest in all of those respects also have the greatest responsibility to work hard, to contribute to the betterment of the world, and to share their luck with others. As the Gospel of Luke says (and I am sure my rabbi will forgive me for quoting the New Testament in a good cause): “From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded” (Luke 12:48, New Revised Standard Version Bible). Kind of grading on the curve, you might say.”

I’m game. Meanwhile, society still has poor people. And those poor people need somewhere to live. And the current system is not as good as it might be at providing for them.

Would you prefer to try and fix that or let them suffer?

 

Well said.

 

That doesn't sound like a meritocracy to me.
It does sound like Benny and his cronies corrupt system that is wide spread in the US.
And in a real meritocracy he would never have had such financial responsibilities that cause so much financial damage.
Alas he does have the gift of the gab and talks a rather good game whilst doing bugger to help thoe "poor people" he speakes of when he was in control of the central bank.

That's in the third world countries. In the "western" world gov spend and provides quite a large amount of resources for housing.

That's what they're paying 46% tax for. Instead the gov squanders it on so called social programs, painting crossings, changing traffic lights and so on.
[/QUOTE]
The flaws in the system become clear at times like this when after years of those same investors refusing to buy[/QUOTE]
Of course, people must do what you say with the money they worked for. Joe and Benito would be proud.

Sure thing. We need efficient gov that takes care of the basics and not interfere and regulate down to what words people say and who gets offended by what.

Well the same people that were happily posting and making fun of property owners all over my FB feed are now angry that prices went up and they can't afford anything.
It the politics of crabs in a bucket. It's great for votes.

And I think the situation is the opposite as you suggest.
It's the reducing amount of productive people willing to work and create paying for an increasing number of those who are capable but refuse to do anything productive. Always complaining that someone else isn't doing enough for them.

 

[/QUOTE]That doesn't sound like a meritocracy to me.[/QUOTE]

Care to provide an alternative explanation of what a Meritocracy is?

[/QUOTE]That's in the third world countries. In the "western" world gov spend and provides quite a large amount of resources for housing.[/QUOTE]

 

I have no idea what some of the above posts means (some of the terms feel like a different language to me)

Few key points
1) Australia is moving away from public housing - While we don't really have slums like USA/UK (from a western country perspective). Having concentrate of public housings from the past 50 years shows that it actually makes things worse

2) No idea what neoliberal etc means but if your talking about political parties its the Labour stronghold WA that failed in providing affordable housing through the labour NRAS scheme. In June 2020 (4 years after the scheme ended releases) WA had nearly half the allocations rotting away.

If you think Australia's social system is poor then its prob best you leave and have a look at the rest of the world (don't tell me about European countries with a 1 million population)

 

I think they were being facetious

- Andrew

 

Facebook Groups

The comments on here and the ones on the original ABC page give a good insight into the mindset and struggles of many renters.
Some are being made homeless so owner can rent property out for full market value or increases of over $100 a week.

PM recommending offers $100/150 over asking at home opens

 

I have no idea what some of the above posts means (some of the terms feel like a different language to me)


Few key points
Australia is moving away from public housing - While we don't really have slums like USA/UK (from a western country perspective). Having concentrate of public housings from the past 50 years shows that it actually makes things worse.

Public housing or social housing is simply housing run by the state or NFPs that is designed to cater for people who cannot access affordable, secure housing in the private market. There are thousands of households in this category. Australia has one of the lowest percentages of social housing in the OECD, well below the European average.


It doesn’t have to be concentrated in tower blocks. But it does need to be built as the model is preferable to forcing people into a private rental market that does not cater for them effectively.

No idea what neoliberal etc means but if your talking about political parties its the Labour stronghold WA that failed in providing affordable housing through the labour NRAS scheme. In June 2020 (4 years after the scheme ended releases) WA had nearly half the allocations rotting away.

Neoliberalism is the most successful political ideology of the last 40 years. If you want to understand the world, I suggest you read about it. I wasn’t talking about NRAS BTW.


If you think Australia's social system is poor then its prob best you leave and have a look at the rest of the world (don't tell me about European countries with a 1 million population.

Australia’s social system is not poor per se. Its social housing system is poor. Demonstrably so. And that’s worth discussing.

 

I think its the best

Choose not too work - 3-1000pw (depending on how many kids you popped out)

Rent - $200 a week in many towns (privately) and $100 a week could feed upto 10 people and rest on booze and cigarettes

Maybe someones reading too many books (their are forums for bookreaders - facebook)

 

On a more serious note - what exactly is happening next month? I know there are price hikes but were these hikes able to be done on new leases in the past 12 months

Eg a lease that was signed in December (new lease - new to the property). Would this be the market price or was there restrictions on rental prices even for new lease/ads

 

Western countries arent a pure meritocracy, but far better than any alternative. having and earning money is not luck, but luck can help.
Hard work is correlated to success. But hard work does not guarantee success. But not working hard guarantees failure

Bernanke, Yellen, Powell are clueless and by their own mandates, aim to steal 2 - 3% of purchasing power (inflation) from the average citizen, to enrich asset owners. A reverse robin hood. Central planning (i.e. centralised power) is a feature of communism. Central banking is closer to communism than capitalism

 

I would strongly disagree with sentences 1 and 3.

Anyway back on topic. I wouldn't be too surprised if the government announces some legislation to deal with what happens after 28 March.

I reckon 40/60 chance at this stage.

 

how many people on the AFR rich list produced something of zero economic value, i.e., sat around all day and did nothing? A quick scan suggests almost all of them started their own company

If any of them sat at home and created nothing, they would not be rich

 

I get where your coming from and while there are nuances to what you stated, I generally agree with those sentiments.

 

The social housing system that was recommended by "experts" in the 80's & 90s was an abject failure which is why those ghettos are being bulldozed.

Uhmm... James Packer pretty much destroyed everything he touched.
Though if yu ask him he did have a tough life and worked really hard.