So,
Average Australian Wage in 2001 = $31k
Average Australian Wage in 2009 = $63k
Toorak Median 2001 = $1,245,000
Toorak Median 2009 = $2,160,000
I would say that is pretty much in line with my last post. Just as unaffordable now, as it was in 2001.
Going back to what I said about the median Toorak house price being $755,000 in 1999. You can also see the median Brighton house price was $490,000. Using this as a basis, it would be fair to say the average Armadale, Canterbury house was mid $400K’s and following on Kew/Hawthorn/Camberwell be either in the high $300K’s or low $400K’s. The next rung would probably be something like Glen Iris, Surrey Hills and Mont Albert which would be around the mid $300K’s and as we work around these figures, you can see it was quite affordable in 1999. Nowadays, all the above suburbs have median house prices WAY above the $1mil mark. It would be even more affordable had I discussed the unit prices in those above respective suburbs.
What is important to note, and this is more a capitalist argument, is that over time, the rich becomes richer, and as what Deltaberry said, the rich-poor divide gets greater and greater. Hence, the growth of premium assets, whether that be property, or businesses gets exponentially out of reach for the majority of the population. Whilst in some sense, it was true that even a $400K house was a hefty price tag in 1999, it was still purchasable and not beyond the means of a large group of Australians.
I guess the best way to alleviate this is pretty much follow what Deltaberry has been preaching and that is buy within your means, and target those ‘suburbs’ which is anticipated to become even more out of reach to even the middle class (and thus, achieving positive abnormal growth). If that means buying an apartment/flat or unit in a premium suburb (and don’t tell me you guys can’t afford that, considering half the people on SS have multiple houses in Melton, Werribee/Hoppers) then so be it.
