Search results

Don't pull a muscle reaching so far mate!:D I wouldn't see why you'd actually think Jessica Irvine was desperate, especially when she lead the campaign for "rents thru the roof" early last year. Don't throw her under the bus because her new tune (for that day) doesn't meet your approval. ;)

That's quite a big post to still not answer my question "How did the number of would be tenants (especially the non-bogan ones) decrease in the example market where tenants who used to pay $800-1k/week rent now want to pay $500/week?". The only way I can see that would happen is if the number...

Hi Michael, I thought you ended this on a whatever? Not that it matters, but since's its important to you... Look, we're actually in agreement for the most part. Where we disagree is that the abundant supply of would be tenants is a given. That's all. You'd have to think it's the most...

That is laugh out loud funny! :D It was me arguing that the number of tenants was the same! Michael Whyte finally realised he'd misunderstood me, and now you're pretending that was your position all along. How cute! You're not fooling anyone, but let's pretend you are. So how did you go...

"No, it would increase the number of tenants looking to move into the $500/week properties which would cause prices to move UP not down." and "Obviously someone forgot to tell that to the fake landlords in Botany Bay. http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/NR/rdo...RSReport85.pdf Within the...

It wouldn't result in a net reduction in would be tenants. I never said it would. In fact I've been pointing out to yorke that the number of tenants remains the same. It's not even ambiguous - why would you think I wrote that?:confused: Frankly I can't believe you actually misread my posts...

Let's see, so some landlords aren't dropping their rents because some landlords in another suburb are raising their rents. I've got to hand it to you, that kind of "logic" is hard to argue against. :confused: And an increase in renters preferring/able to pay $500/week rather than...

Umm mate, there's still the same number of the different types of potential tenants. How does the total number of would be tenants get reduced? The, um "better quality" tenants are still there, they're just not renting the $800-$1k/week places - so the $500/week landlords get better...

Assuming there's an abundant supply of would be tenants. Like I said if there isn't strong renter demand and rental places are on the market for a few weeks because there's more supply than demand, then the better quality places at $500/week go first, leaving the "old" $500/week places empty...

Are you serious? Do you think all the landlords of the expensive empty rentals will be happy to keep their properties empty? No, they'll drop their rents (as they are doing) to get tenants, increasing competition at the midrange level. Now landlords of the "$500" places are competiting for...