A tale of two cities -Melbourne and Sydney

Then they could be priced out of homes that could previously have been purchased by somebody on that single income, because those homes could be snapped up by a family with dual x $180,000 income.

The house price to single income ratio used to be 2-3x. Now it's 6-7x.

People on single incomes are priced out of homes they could previously afford.

Ok, now I see where you are coming from. Admittedly the house price to income ratio has increased over the past decade. Regardless, it is still possible for people on single incomes to, if they so desire, climb the property ladder one step at a time.

ie. Start off in a cheaper property (maybe a house in an outer suburb, or a one or two bedroom flat etc), pay it down, then sell it to buy something better. They could then continue doing this until they were able to acquire the property they are happy with.


Regards Jason.
 
Pieman, that's a bit harsh. Different Here has only been with us for a few minutes, after all, and is probably not used to the full and frank assaults we engage in with each other.

Different Here, are you a student by any chance? We see a number of kids here come and go; mostly in shock at their own seemingly-distant ownership prospects, and the discussion always takes the same route: disbelief, incomprehension, emerging comprehension, half-baked hope, deepening personal reflection, explicit commitment to study harder and get into a career, too much time wasted on SS talking about piffle instead of studying, bad grades, silence.

I hope you are Different Here.

So you're utterly unable to counter my point that houses are less affordable then they used to be, so instead you launch into an ad hominem attack, in an attempt to belittle me personally, and divert attention away from your lack of understanding of the topic being discussed.

At least that is slightly better than the guy who just posted a picture of a troll badge. I guess he didn't even have the imagination to write some text.

Thank you both for vindicating my point that Australian homes are half as affordable as they used to be.

I own my own home. Fully paid off. It's the younger generation I'm concerned about. That's called compassion. You should learn about it.

As you were. :)
 
So you're utterly unable to counter my point that houses are less affordable then they used to be, so instead you launch into an ad hominem attack, in an attempt to belittle me personally, and divert attention away from your lack of understanding of the topic being discussed.

At least that is slightly better than the guy who just posted a picture of a troll badge. I guess he didn't even have the imagination to write some text.

Thank you both for vindicating my point that Australian homes are half as affordable as they used to be.

I own my own home. Fully paid off. It's the younger generation I'm concerned about. That's called compassion. You should learn about it.

As you were. :)

Hi Different Here

Do a search on this subject, it's been flogged to death here.

You will find all the arguments for/against, charts,graphs,anecdotes and
pretty much anything else you could imagine on this subject.
 
So you're utterly unable to counter my point that houses are less affordable then they used to be, so instead you launch into an ad hominem attack, in an attempt to belittle me personally, and divert attention away from your lack of understanding of the topic being discussed.

At least that is slightly better than the guy who just posted a picture of a troll badge. I guess he didn't even have the imagination to write some text.

Thank you both for vindicating my point that Australian homes are half as affordable as they used to be.

I own my own home. Fully paid off. It's the younger generation I'm concerned about. That's called compassion. You should learn about it.

As you were. :)

So what's your point ? What are you trying to achieve ?
 
So you're utterly unable to counter my point that houses are less affordable then they used to be,

I don't think anyone's trying to argue that point. We know property is more expensive than it used to be.

As someone else pointed out, the argument has been done over and over here, some searching will reveal the gory details.

The real issue, I guess, is what people trying to get into the housing market should actually do now. There are strategies that work, but some self discipline and thinking outside the box are required.
 
I don't think anyone's trying to argue that point. We know property is more expensive than it used to be.


So why did so many people attack me for mentioning it? It seems to be the great unmentionable topic here. Even though you all agree houses are less affordable then they used to be, the automatic reaction is to attack a new member who dares to mention it.
 
So why did so many people attack me for mentioning it? It seems to be the great unmentionable topic here. Even though you all agree houses are less affordable then they used to be, the automatic reaction is to attack a new member who dares to mention it.

Because this kind of comment/allegation is false without qualification. Where do you want to buy? What is unaffordable? Good suburbs 20 years ago were 'unaffordable' for most people, and they remain so today.
 
So why did so many people attack me for mentioning it? It seems to be the great unmentionable topic here. Even though you all agree houses are less affordable then they used to be, the automatic reaction is to attack a new member who dares to mention it.

We get people coming onto the forum making statements like "housing is so unafforable", which immediately brings out the people who have managed to buy anyway, and have advanced their financial position despite significant obstacles. Such people don't usually run with the crowd, and also don't tend to deal in generalities (because it's not that useful). We also need to consider issues within context. Sure, housing was cheaper 20 years ago because people earned less in real terms, credit was harder to get, etc. Trying to boil it all down to a single statement won't fly around here.

When this happens, you get what we saw over the last day or so: responses that challenge such posters and try to force the discussion into specifics. When you're not used to this, it can be quite confronting.

I'd suggest hanging around, asking questions, and putting forward specific arguments.
 
Because this kind of comment/allegation is false without qualification. Where do you want to buy? What is unaffordable? Good suburbs 20 years ago were 'unaffordable' for most people, and they remain so today.

The national average house price to income ratio has roughly doubled.

The average house is less affordable now to the average person than it was before.

It really doesn't need any further qualification than that.
 
The national average house price to income ratio has roughly doubled.

The average house is less affordable now to the average person than it was before.

It really doesn't need any further qualification than that.

Your right. It doesn't.
So what's the next anti property investment issue you are going to run with.

Sorry but I call it how I see it.
A dozen posts. None are pro investment. Plus the magic word " spruik" chucked in for good measure.
Familiar template here I think.
 
The national average house price to income ratio has roughly doubled.

The average house is less affordable now to the average person than it was before.

It really doesn't need any further qualification than that.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.......we've heard it all before.

I can show you where to buy affordable housing, but you don't want that. What you want to do is rant and rave about how hard it is nowadays.

Well you know what? Bleating about it here, to a bunch of investors is not going to change anything. Why waste your time? Have you got anything extra to add? How about reading & learning what this site is about? How about contributing to other threads? No! Too much like hard work? Well then, what are you doing here? We've seen dozens of others come & go with the same stuff to say as you. You're not really Different Here at all, are you?
 
The national average house price to income ratio has roughly doubled.

The average house is less affordable now to the average person than it was before.

It really doesn't need any further qualification than that.

OK great, we have some figures. So now what? What do these mean? By themselves they are just numbers. What are you planning to do with the information? What would you like us to discuss?
 
I don't understand the argument here:cool: If some think is unaffordable let them think that and if you guys think is affordable then good on you. Everyone got their differences.
 
The national average house price to income ratio has roughly doubled.

The average house is less affordable now to the average person than it was before.

It really doesn't need any further qualification than that.

Well that's your problem right there! No-one can buy an average house. You can buy a $1.5M average terrace in Paddington or a $500K average house in Blacktown or an average $300K house in Campbelltown. See the problem? :rolleyes:
 
So you're utterly unable to counter my point that houses are less affordable then they used to be, so instead you launch into an ad hominem attack, in an attempt to belittle me personally, and divert attention away from your lack of understanding of the topic being discussed.

At least that is slightly better than the guy who just posted a picture of a troll badge. I guess he didn't even have the imagination to write some text.

Thank you both for vindicating my point that Australian homes are half as affordable as they used to be.

I own my own home. Fully paid off. It's the younger generation I'm concerned about. That's called compassion. You should learn about it.

As you were. :)

Not unable to counter your point: I simply didn't try, you know, because we've recently had plenty of thoroughgoing debate on this issue on this forum (and I mean, quite literally thousands of posts across numerous threads in just the last few months), and the points and counterpoints of that debate are simply too tiring to rehearse ad nauseum for the benefit of each and every newcomer.

My apologies though for assuming that you were a student, but it so frequently is the case here when (a) the person has clearly done no research on the topic on this forum, (b) their posts suggest no property investment knowledge nor the desire to achieve any, and, consequently, (c) a strong suggestion of their merely practicing rhetorical facilities for advancing in student politics debates.

Now, as many respondents in this thread have said and as I think most have at least implied, 'unaffordability' is not historically new; nor is it absolute, insurmountable, or, most importantly, reprehensible.

Only if you take the last of these conclusions as a given, and then assume also that investors are to blame for this reprehensible situation, would you actually come to a forum such as this and seemingly imply it.

But that's not what you are meaning to do, is it?

Well, if not, what exactly - and I think I speak for a lot of people in asking this - what exactly, are you personally trying to achieve?

Have you got a target property investment type in mind, and need some ideas on affording it? Or have you got kids starting out, and want to pick up some canny pointers on suitablely low-cost but upcoming areas to investigate in your own city for them? Is finance a challenge, and you want to know the insiders' tricks-of-the-trade for sourcing the best deals? Or are you trying to make sense of your retirement options, and can't see how to make restrictive super regulations and property investing work together?

You see, if you've come here looking for sophisticated ideas and advice, you've come to the right place: You'll learn more here than you could ever have imagined.

But if you've just come here to bellyache in the faces of people who each treat unaffordability as one of their personal life missions to conquer instead of submit to, you'll be seriously questioned about your motives and searingly challenged over your assumptions.
 
Gee whiz. So much anger in response to my comment on affordability.

Fine. If you don't like it being mentioned then I'll shut up about it.

And Belbo, your post is filled with so many false assumptions, and so many 'jump straight to the wrong conclusion' deductions that I don't know where to begin. So I won't.
 
You're welcome to discuss why you consider it unaffordable

Please read this article published today.

Capitals face at least a decade of unaffordable houses, even in the suburbs

AUSTRALIAN house prices have moved from being affordable to severely unaffordable in the past 10 years - and Sydney is still the least affordable capital city, a new study shows.

The study found median house prices in Australia grew 147 per cent between 2001 and 2011 to $417,000, while median after-tax incomes only increased 50 per cent to $57,000.

This pushed the price-to-income ratio - the number of years' worth of income needed to buy a typical dwelling outright - from an affordable 4.7 to a severely unaffordable 7.3.
 
So what mkes 4.7 'affordable', but 7.3 'unaffordable'? Also, why are you comparing the lowest point of the cycle to the highest point of the cycle?

If houses were genuinely unaffordable, why have prices gotten so high? Why are people still buying?

Because with historical (or is that hysterical :D) rises as justification, people are prepared to risk what they perceive is a short-term unaffordability pain to achieve a long-term affordability gain. It all goes topsy turvy if those expected capital gains don't come through as quickly, and that seems to be unfolding now.
 
Back
Top