House prices
green room wrote:Yo Aussies, check it out – the new playbook for the lefties: They're gunnin' full throttle into neoliberalism and immigration, cranking up the inequality, making living costs skyrocket, and housing prices go through the roof, leaving the underprivileged and marginalized folks in the dust. They're doubling down on immigration to bulk up their ethnic voter base. Then they're slicing up society into disadvantgaged groups and playing the identity politics card like it's going out of style. Your 'The Voice' was just the warm-up act!
Couple of thoughts.
They're not lefties, not materially at least.
I really don't think increasing the "ethnic voter base" is an aim of increasing immigration. Off the top of my head, there's a fair percentage of recent immigrants who are anti-Big Australia, not to mention anti-same sex marriage and all that stuff. Recent immigrants tend to be conservative, not proponents of what tends to get called progressive policies.
I don't accept that The Voice was playing identity politics - I think it was coming from a sincere grassroots place.
Otherwise, you've got a few fair points, especially the one where the poor will become entrenched in their position.
Bring back discussions on class.
Y'all Aussies ain't dumb, but politics ain't got no working-class vibe left in the English-speaking world. Neoliberalism ain't turning back. It's just the cultural scene, catering to eco warriors, folks of color, and those on the gender spectrum. That's the only game for today's progressives. Shift in culture, ya feel?
Progressive politics at work again for the worse:
The recent major change to the Family Law act stripped out the concept set by the applauded Howard government reforms of both parties starting from the position of having equal access / custody rights for children and negotiating from there. This included grandparents.
It also requires the father to prove they are "safe". Hard to prove, easy to cast doubt on in a bitter divorce. Sort of guilty till proven otherwise.
The likely result? Farhers and their extended families will much more often lose rights to see their children or have to fight for them in court.
Good for lawyers. Good for feminists trying to exclude or disadvantage men. Don't need men and men are dangerous underpins the thinking.
Terrible for families and the surge in fatherless children and grandparents losing contact with their sons children post marriage break-up.
Why mention this here?
Well it is symptomatic of what green room is saying where highly vocal "progressive" voices have come to dominate politics using the virtue signalling justification.
In this case their arguement is keeping kids safe from the (rare) violent father.
Ignoring the fact that 70% of abuse of children by men in a family situation is done by the passing parade of boyfriends of single mums - especially where no father is involved in parenting.
Ignoring overwhelming evidence that overall children with a father in their life do far better.
Ignoring spiking suicide rates among men.
Ignoring that most major family violence incidents is breakup situations occur when the custody battle in court goes nasty.
Somehow progressive concepts seems to have so many bad unintended consequences. But on the surface they have the feel good ideals pushed by energised advocates with catchcries of:
- safety
- saving the planet
- inclusive
- social justice
Etc.
Would Albo be all for the changes to the Family Law Act to push men to the periphery - yep - someone said the word "safe" . Did the ABC see the changes as good - yes, of course as "safe" was mentioned by advocates.
An experienced family lawyer who is very unhappy with the changes was shocked at how little scrutiny the changes received by the media.
He foresees a huge amount of trouble ahead with kids and fathers suffering the most either by bitter expensive court battles or fathers giving up and disappearing from their kids lives - broke and heartbroken.
It seems certain magic progressive sounding words such as "safe",
"diverse" and "social justice" seem able to stop critical thought and any debate in its tracks - leaving poor policy to be given a free pass.
Frog this is off topic for house prices (except in houses being needed for family formation) but the masculine response to these type of laws is already in play:
Quite simply, young men hear the horror stories from their uncles/fathers/grandfathers and vow never to marry. Or date. Some become 'passport bros' move overseas. An increasing number of women reach the end of their fertility window alone.
Further, here's a link to Susan Venker's article "The War On Men," worth a read, US based and they tend to be ahead of us on this sort of thing.
https://www.suzannevenker.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/The-War-on-Men.pdf
And the famous reddit thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMen/comments/sxcvvm/why_are_young_men_giving...
AndyM wrote:green room wrote:Yo Aussies, check it out – the new playbook for the lefties: They're gunnin' full throttle into neoliberalism and immigration, cranking up the inequality, making living costs skyrocket, and housing prices go through the roof, leaving the underprivileged and marginalized folks in the dust. They're doubling down on immigration to bulk up their ethnic voter base. Then they're slicing up society into disadvantgaged groups and playing the identity politics card like it's going out of style. Your 'The Voice' was just the warm-up act!
Couple of thoughts.
They're not lefties, not materially at least.
I really don't think increasing the "ethnic voter base" is an aim of increasing immigration. Off the top of my head, there's a fair percentage of recent immigrants who are anti-Big Australia, not to mention anti-same sex marriage and all that stuff. Recent immigrants tend to be conservative, not proponents of what tends to get called progressive policies.
I don't accept that The Voice was playing identity politics - I think it was coming from a sincere grassroots place.
Otherwise, you've got a few fair points, especially the one where the poor will become entrenched in their position.
Bring back discussions on class.
there's actually some famous democrat party research where the conclusion was that, with enough migration the democrats would build such a base that they would enjoy a sustained period of permanent governance...
donald trump put a halt to that pipedream
donald... and as you point out, the fact many migrants have conservative values anyway - it was a massive miscalculation of hubris...
oz was obviously playing from the same play book (as we do) ...but the last few elections (and the voice) showed many migrants wouldn't blindly follow their progressive 'allies' and their cultism... much like in the US...
another consideration (and this will open up the 'conspiracy theory' cries... sigh...) is agenda 21 & 2030, where it was a clear goal (and no secret) the real word leaders wanted to share the wealth by enriching poorer countries and their populations by hollowing out industries (and workers) of western countries
whether this was well meaning good intentions... or just made billionaires feel better about their imposition of neoliberalism onto unwilling participants whilst the said billionaires accumulated yet even more wealth...
it doesn't matter... it was / is real... a real goal...
and still is
and I believe, whether consciously and / or willingly or not... influences labor policy and governments globally, especially those of a left persuasion...
none of this is secret or conspiracy, it is a clear agenda... that trump put into the mainstream spotlight...
hence so much hatred for trump from the real rulers of the world and their lobbyists
a lot has been wound back and / or postponed - the 'narrative' clearly changed post trump and brexit, but it is clearly still a goal. and I'm sure various crew of 'the left' still get the warm and fuzzies when they sneak a littke bit more of it through...
whether its just for their own ideals... or just to appease their real rulers and their lobby groups...
it doesn't really matter
it is there... a goal, an agenda... for all to see...
corona certainly threw a spanner in the works, probably exposing more than trump ever could, ...as the billionaires had to finally face the fact that china isn't as safe an investment as they had all once hoped... and that 'the china century' was a little bit way too much of eggs in the one basket...
but 'the resistance' is strong... still...
the hubes don't like being wrong
not least admitting it...
the playbook...
and lessoms
(for OZ as much as US...)
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/02/opinion/democrats-elite-judis-teixeir...
sypkan wrote:the playbook...
and lessoms
(for OZ as much as US...)
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/02/opinion/democrats-elite-judis-teixeir...
This is a good article. There seem to be a huge disconnect between the preachings of these ‘limousine liberals’ and the realities on the ground level.
As this article was behind the paywall I Googled the title to find an another source. It was also published in Seattle times. Ironically, I found an another article in Seattle times which basically describes the reality of life in a city which is a Democratic Party fortress. Comments on the article tell a story. Basically, Democrats are becoming disillusioned. In their search for utopian perfection they forgot about the basic, day to day things that citizens need to live their lives.
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/i-want-a-seattle-where-the-bus-my-d...
Some recent news snippets:
Australia is top choice for Chinese real estate investors in 2023.
Goverment is fire hosing nation with immigrants
All the top lobby groups benefit from high immigration.
Rudd "temporary" overreach in GFC allowing non residents to buy property still in place.
Democracy by the people for the people.
aka: by some people for some people. For coming generations .... not so much.
Major appeal of Australia for foreign investors compared to other jurisdictions as follows:
- low sovereign risk / politically stable
- sound banking system
- no death duties / inheritance tax, results in clean & simple intergenerational transfer of wealth
- sustained long term asset growth
Here are the actual statistics on foreign investment in Australia
1. US A$1092 billion in 2022
...and at number 10. China A$85 billion
https://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/trade-and-investment-data-information-and-...
SG, I don't think that data measures direct property (house) purchases - more about business, stocks etc: Not a measure of Chinese impact on house prices.
Also house prices move on the margin - a small number of recent purchases at a premium shift the whole market price regime upwards. Real estate agents are saying Chinese buyers have come back big time.
DFAT "There are two main ways in which foreign residents or companies can invest funds in the Australian economy:
Portfolio investment refers to the purchase of securities (such as stocks or bonds) or equity and debt transactions that do not offer the investor any control over the operation of the enterprise. Common examples include the purchase of property, shares in Australian companies or government bonds by foreign superannuation or pension funds.
Foreign direct investment (FDI) is when an individual or entity from outside Australia establishes a new business or acquires 10 per cent or more of an Australian enterprise, and so has some control over its operations. Common examples include the establishment of Australian branches of multinational companies or joint ventures between Australian and foreign companies."
Frog,
You are correct, but looking at houses prices in isolation is not seeing the bigger picture
Hey, Aussie bros, I'm all up on that property development life! It's my job! So I hit up Google to do some digging.
So, check it, the total worth of yearly home sales Down Under is like $500 billion.
https://www.pexa.com.au/staticly-media/2023/07/PEXA-Property-Insights-Re...
Now, when you throw in the Chinese and Hong Kong buyers, we're talking around $4 billion annually.
https://www.realestate.com.au/news/australias-future-is-asian-chinese-bu...
https://www.afr.com/property/commercial/china-tops-the-list-of-foreign-b...
Let's be cool and round up a bit—call it 1%, give or take.
What's the upper limit that's too steep for you, Aussie mates?
Thanks for the numbers GR. Put it in perspective.
The upper limit when selling is unlimited. The upper limit when buying is zero ;)
Right on frog, I dig your buy-sell ratio!
Slowly, slowly the issue gets into the mainstream:
https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/top-economist...
"A leading economist has weighed into the increasingly heated debate over Australia’s housing crisis, calling for a slowdown in immigration to allow time for supply to catch up with demand.
Chris Richardson, independent economist and former Deloitte Access Economics partner, wrote in an op-ed for The Australian Financial Review on Tuesday that “two wrongs don’t make a right” but with housing and migration colliding, “one will have to give”."
Did you see this? Unfknbelievable
https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/news/palaszczuk-government-a...
donweather wrote:https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/finance/2023/11/20/housing-market-conundr...
Essential article Don, with multiple crucial points.
This one was pretty sobering.
"the cost of housing, the most basic necessity of life, has doubled as a multiple of income in the past 23 years – from three-to-four times to seven-to-eight. This has changed everything about the economy and the way Australian society works.
The only housing policy that would effectively deal with that would explicitly aim to reduce that ratio to what it had been for most of the nation’s history.
And since drastically reducing house prices would be both impossible and disastrous, the only viable way to achieve that reduction in the house price-to-income ratio is to ensure house prices don’t rise for 18 years, through reduced demand (removing tax incentives) and increased supply (fast trains to open up a lot more land further from the cities).
That’s how long it would take for incomes rising at 4 per cent per year to catch up and bring the house price-to-income ratio back to three to four times.
But would any political party that actually promised to try to keep house prices unchanged for 18 years ever win an election?
Definitely not."
bonza wrote:Did you see this? Unfknbelievable
https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/news/palaszczuk-government-a...
Dunno what the problem is.
There's no way that will inflate prices, right?
AndyM wrote:bonza wrote:Did you see this? Unfknbelievable
https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/news/palaszczuk-government-a...
Dunno what the problem is.
There's no way that will inflate prices, right?
Absolute morons.
I've not seen any politicians have a look at changing how Homes are funded. If you cant fix house prices and incomes then maybe we should be looking at 30, 40, 50, 100 year home loans. I hate the idea personally but it's being looked at elsewhere.
monkeyboy wrote:I've not seen any politicians have a look at changing how Homes are funded. If you cant fix house prices and incomes then maybe we should be looking at 30, 40, 50, 100 year home loans. I hate the idea personally but it's being looked at elsewhere.
Reckon that would only further increase prices as people would be able to service larger debt levels spread out across a longer time frame. You also could be passing down mortgage debt as inheritance to your kids with a 50 year loan.
Whilst all the policy support is there to fuel property investment, property will continue to be an investment tool first, and a secure place to live second.
Items such as limiting negative gearing, restricting international buyers/investors, capital gains discount etc, are all policy levers that no government seems willing to entertain again after the 2019 election failure where some of these were on the table.
Dx3 wrote:Items such as limiting negative gearing, restricting international buyers/investors, capital gains discount etc, are all policy levers that no government seems willing to entertain again after the 2019 election failure where some of these were on the table.
This really is the only long term solution to reducing the demand front, alongside of restricting immigration.
donweather wrote:Dx3 wrote:Items such as limiting negative gearing, restricting international buyers/investors, capital gains discount etc, are all policy levers that no government seems willing to entertain again after the 2019 election failure where some of these were on the table.
This really is the only long term solution to reducing the demand front, alongside of restricting immigration.
Canada is trying all of the above and it has had little impact thus far. They have also trialled 50 year amortisations (which is terrible as the debt balloons but it has kept people in their homes apparently).
bonza wrote:Did you see this? Unfknbelievable
https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/news/palaszczuk-government-a...
bonza wrote:Did you see this? Unfknbelievable
https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/news/palaszczuk-government-a...
why?
is there anybody out there that can tell me why?
not get young people into homes why...
but why the government would do such craziness knowing what we now know...
is queensland broke?
and how...
how did the pretty much the whole cohort of australian economists not see this housing crisis coming?
it reminds me of the china boom, the economists prophetically called it, when we were in it...
i know it's an imperfect science and stuff... but economists seem to be the most over paid rear vission prophets out there...
to be fair, maybe airbnb threw a bit of a curve ball... but even accounting for that, surely someone should've have been advising government 10 years ago...
the numbers are next level
decades in the making
and pretty much now, unfixable
Decades in the making, indeed.
And I reckon that any economist who, when the Howard government first introduced negative gearing and CGT, predicted the mess that we’re in now would’ve been comprehensively ignored, and/or shouted down.
Yo downunder bros, open up your minds a bit, huh?
Real estate and renting affordability is a worldwide issue, even in Europe spots that ain't all about that neoliberal vibe and would make our Republicans raise a socialist eyebrow. It's a global problem, so don't you reckon it's got global roots?
And hey, check the facts from your own government-funded ABC news channel right here, AndyM trolling mate:
"In July 1985, the Hawke Labor Government effectively abolished negative gearing for all future rental property investors ... The Hawke Government reinstated full negative gearing in 1987."
Hang on, ain't your Labor government supposed to be all lefty and caring about the regular folks, dudes?
Perhaps it being a global phenomenon points to different causes. The timeframe coincides with the global bond bull market from the early 80s to very recently. If you can pull up a chart of the US 10 year from about '83 onward.
You've got me Green Room, nice pick up.
Bob Hawke abolished it in 1985, though re-introduced it in 1987 for the stated reasons of increasing the supply of housing while keeping rents down.
But rather than this outcome, it turned out negative gearing only encouraged many to undertake a speculative buy-up of the housing market.
Despite Hawke’s claims, all this ended up doing was to reduce housing affordability and increase the wealth of the largest speculators by creating a tax loophole.
However in 1999, the Howard Government exacerbated the situation by removing any limitations on negative gearing and by changing the capital gains regime to offer a 50 per cent discount.
So this is what I was talking about with regards to the Howard government really getting things moving with regards to houses becoming a full-scale investment.
This opened the gate to investors to run investment properties at a loss, claiming that loss off their taxable income, then selling the property for a profit. In 2011, it was estimated that this tax loophole had cost the Government around $5 billion a year in foregone income tax revenue.
But make no mistake, as you've mentioned Green Room, Labor have been at the pointy end of neoliberal policy for decades and anyone claiming they're "all lefty and caring about the regular folks" is really stretching the truth.
Only two years ago, Labor’s reversal of policy regarding negative gearing aligned it with the ranks of the most powerful property rights lobby group in Australia.
Sure, its 2019 election loss showed they any talk of messing with NG and CGT is political poison, but there you go.
Andy
As I have said on this thread , it is unwise to change the Tax rules on Property , Australia's Golden Goose .
And Stamp Duty funds State governments , a big tax on property !
Property has always been expensive and hard to get into .
In most countries .
Howard and Hawke made little difference imho on this Asset Class .
Australians love property !
Investors in ALL assets classes get to claim their losses and pay gains on the gains .
Supply is the problem , not demand .
Let the banks worry about lending .
Their Loan Books are in great shape atm .
If they offer customers long duration fixed loans , the customer will pay for it , someway .
This young mum captures the zeitgeist and goes viral:
https://www.news.com.au/finance/money/costs/mums-rant-perfectly-sums-up-...
Is the 'boomers not looking after grandkids' a thing?
Never thought I'd hear tones like these on the ABC website:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-21/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-imm...
"Mr Tubman notes the 25-29-year-old bracket, where essential services spending is actually going backwards, is the demographic when many move out of home.
Independent economist Nicki Hutley tells ABC News that the drop in spending by this age group "must be the rental effect" because not many Australians this young have yet bought their own homes.
"And if you're younger, you're less likely to have savings," she adds.
"Plus, just the cost-of-living effect, with real wages going backwards."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-21/commbank-iq-young-old-divide-hous...
Ha, was just about to share that Don! FFS. Rort!
Collapsing home ownership rates coupled with an explosion in household debt service ratios. Post year 2000. Australia #1 in the world when it comes to wide spread, multi jurisdictional house prices coupled with astronomical debt service ratios.
— Kos Samaras (@KosSamaras) November 22, 2023
20 years in the making. Easily… pic.twitter.com/uyK6VLvQ9O
My sources guess the US is 6 months ahead of Oz in their rate cycle .
The US i/r futures market is predicting no FED raise in Dec and then a few cuts in May/June .
The US Bond Market is inverted , so predicts more rises .
Bet on the biggest market imo , Bonds , it's usually right .
sypkan wrote:
This one is also a bit of a nonsense. Especially when you take a price per square meter into an equation which is the norm in real estate pricing elsewhere. For example, the average price per sqm in my 2nd hometown in Croatia is 4,063 EUR. If you want to live in a 200 sqm place it will cost you around 800,000 EUR which is around $1.3m. Most people can't afford that so they live in 40, 50, 60 sqm units. If you want an Aussie-sized house that's decent, clean tidy street, etc it will cost you well into 7 AUD figures. However, the average for the area would be much lower as most people live in small units. My point is, international comparisons are very difficult due to inconsistent comparison standards and different standards of living.
And don't get me wrong, I love our standard of living and we need to fight to preserve it.
In terms of current Labor not being responsible. What else will the Labor guy say? I would agree that they didn't cause it but they surely got elected to fix it. If there are no problems to fix then you would never get elected. We elect and pay you to fix problems. At the end of the day, they will be managing a $2T+ budget (and that's just on the federal level) over the term of a government. Is that not enough to do something?
On an individual level, you don't get a new job and then blame people before you for your own lack of results. Those who do that don't last long. You got the job because there are problems to fix and things to improve. I expect the same standard from our politicians.
The markets dont seem to be listening to the FED, ECB or the RBA amongst others. It's higher (is 5% high ???) for longer chaps and will stay that way while financial conditions are still loose (Michelle Bullock's statement nailed it).
I find pricing very interesting at the moment - fruit and veg at our local coles change prices depending on the day of the week (not every day). I know its the same truck load as deliveries dont come in that often. Petrol is just strange - I was down the Goldy on the weekend and it was 175 (ULP) at some servoes and 225 at others and they were just around the corner in some cases (perhaps ease of access to the M1 ??).
Anyway pricing is pretty sharp and dynamic. Even some sports accessories I can find online from AU retailers at say $85 from one place and the same item is $125 at another. Is that deflation or inflation ???
Yes monkeyboy, I'm finding the same thing. I somehow managed to nail a lot of good deals lately and I really can't complain about the prices. I even got an awesome wooden table and chairs from Salvos for $40 this week. We'll sand it and paint it and it will look awesome. But that being said, I'm shopping agressively from multiple sources before I commit to anything. My behavior changed, I wasn't doing this much shopping around in the past.
Coles and Woolies are awful and really dependent on the discounts on any given day. I would say they even doubled some prices during this inflation period and then they apply a discount so it looks like a deal. I hardly shop there at all these days and when I do, it needs to be on special.
I used to shop entirely at local Farmers Market which was always 15-30% cheaper than Coles/Woolies.
Prices really inflated over Covid and stayed very high.
Now, local Farmers Market is usually 30% more expensive (at least) than local Woolies if you are prepared to shop on price.
eg, Broc has been consistently 6.90/kg at local Market.
Woolies had it consistently 2.50-3.50 kilo over winter.
Capsicum 8.90/kg market.
Woolies special $4.90/kg.
Avos.
Market 8.90-10/kg ($2-2.50/avo)
Woolies $1-1.50 /avo
Result: I stopped buying local, farm produce and now mostly buy Woolies produce.
Hmm, interesting. It's been a while since I saw a $1 avo in my local Coles. Maybe fruit and veg prices are not too bad there but quality is very limiting. But when it comes to meat I definitely buy in my local butcher shop. The choice is much greater (can buy in bulk) and cheaper.
I catch all our families fish and we have eggs from chickens and ducks- so that protein source is sorted.
Woolies here has discounted meat- so if you show up to shop when they discount it, can get very cheap meat.
Nothing wrong with it, can freeze it for later.
I think this price subsitution effect is one way for individuals to combat inflation.
Back to the topic.
Looks like the fundamentals of supply and demand have defeated monetary policy.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-23/property-market-values-reach-new-...
freeride76 wrote:Back to the topic.
Looks like the fundamentals of supply and demand have defeated monetary policy.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-23/property-market-values-reach-new-...
Yep. And why would you sell if you have a 2% mortgage - the supply just isnt there from exisitng properties. Same all over the world.
House prices - going to go up , down or sideways ?
Opinions and anecdotal stories if you could.
Cheers