An idea that most here will hate, but I think is neccessary

[wylie]

Not meaning to agitate you more than OA obviously has however an individual's family choices are hardly comparable to "work" in the context of generating income to then live on. If raising a family is not "fun" then don't do it.... Ie. just don't have children.

Providing for yourself and/or your family is necessity however, choosing to have 1,2,3 or more children is a personal choice. If someone has 3 children then realizes it is ohh so hard, then don't go hating on the world and claiming sympathy for how difficult life is. We all must live with the choices we make. I acknowledge that being a parent can be difficult at times, but it is a personal choice. Deal with it.

Thanks for the advice . I wouldn't swap what I chose for anything else, but to be told I sat around like a lazy cow when that is so far from the truth is bl00dy annoying.

I also realise it is a choice. I just don't agree that being at home with three kids allows one to be called "lazy".

I also never asked for sympathy, and I certainly don't hate the world (where on EARTH did you glean that gem from) but a bit of understanding of just what being at home looking after kids and a husband might entail would be good.

So.... you can "get over it" buddy.

 

[Ideo]

Lizzie. I missed the question.

I’m younger than a lot on here. I missed the huge wave, but I also missed the two lots of high interest rates. I have still got ahead. But it is about research and looking at all the options. If we can’t afford increases in costs as a result of development that is nobody’s fault but our own poor planning, and whingeing about the situation does not achieve anything. I have had to offload properties because of bad decisions on my part. I just have to wear that.

You look at the current situation and there is an issue. It’s all very well and good saying there is land available in XYZ. But if there is no work available there it is not going to be feasible.

 

[kathryn d]

Well - tell that to my mum as she put endless washing thru the agitator washing machine then mangle - and then hauled the still dripping washing over the clothes line - all whilst wearing gumboots so's not to electrocute herself. If it rained for days on end you were buggered.

Wow - big day when we got a twin tub where you only had to heave the wet washing from one side to the other!

Or my girlfriends mother who had to defrost the fridge every Wednesday because every fridge in the entire unit block was connected to one refrigerator system in the basement - that was turned off on Wednesdays?

Methinks you might either have it a bit sheltered from reality - or the people you are speaking to only remember the good (that's why they are called "the good old days" even when they weren't)

Fine - get rid of negative gearing as I barely use it anyhow ... but how about middle class welfare going to? To paraphrase Ideo ...

"It's nothing but a handout from the government to people otherwise opposed to handouts."

This is a pointless arguement as one side is trying to compare now with a completely different period - with completely different standards, expectations, assistance and facilities - and the other side is saying "this is what is" so suck it up.

Neither will win - and both are right in their own version of the world.

By the way - neither OA, Ideo or CU have answered any of my questions and OA merely came back claming a KO because I have better things to do than work out a quote system.

Is it because there is no answer? Is it because, to answer would show that their thinking is misguided? Would it show that their nivarna is not possible if we are to sustain the current expectation of what is standard?

I also notice there was no comment on what "was" standard 30 years ago - a "standard" that would be unacceptable and considered 3rd world now by even the poorest in Australia.

As many have shown - with real life - real time examples - it IS possible to own property in Australia on a less than average income. It comes down to choice. Thankfully something we have in spades in this blessed country.

That's the point I was trying to make.

If you are going to state it is harder to buy a house now, especially on one income...you need to compare what the family back then had to pay for, compared to what they "needed" to pay for now.

Get rid of the big girl/boy toys,endless take out, a tv in every room,a bedroom for every child, new clothes every month, vacations other than camping, toys every time your child goes to the store with you etc

Starting out in a "starter home" also helps.
Young people want to start out living in a house, it took their parents 25 years to acquire.

 

[The Fence]

Ho hum....another affordability whinge thread...surely this has been done to death.

I've said it before and will say it again. The market is the market.

There are concessions/assistance in place now that were not in my days of starting out. I got didly squat when buying my first home and subsequent IP's.

Get off your butt and have a go....and stop whingeing. Others are doing it, why can't you?
No....I know...that would mean to sacrifice something...oh sorry....

And well done Ideo for having a go and using your brains. Kudos!

 

[lizzie]

You look at the current situation and there is an issue. It’s all very well and good saying there is land available in XYZ. But if there is no work available there it is not going to be feasible.

Agree - hence OA suggestion of vast tracts of land is not fesible because there are no jobs there. However, there is currently affordable housing in areas that do have jobs - it's just not a 4/3/2 on a suburban block or the middle of the cbd.

As for lazy ... let me think what I did yesterday ...

Got up
Made beds
Made breakfast for myself and kids
Made school lunches
Put on a load of washing
Took kids to school
Hung up washing
Tidied house
Loaded up car for trip to Salvos
Unloaded car at Salvos
Sat with architect re new house plans
Did grocery shop
Put shopping away
Cryovac'd and marinated meat
Got washing in
Packed away 3 separate cubby houses and tent from loungeroom
Went to Bunnings to buy pool chlorine and sand
Popped in to see friend who needed a hug and a quick cuppa
Picked up kids from school
Folded washing and put away
Sorted out pool chemical balance
Carefully scooped sand into 24 cans of paint
Unpacked dishwasher
Supervised homework while preparing dinner
Took child to BigW to spend birthday money
Cooked dinner
Cleaned up
Collapsed with a glass of wine
Got kids washed and in bed
Had shower and went to bed

I'm sure there were another dozen or so small tasks in that - but can't remember everything.

I sometimes don't know how people have time to go to work ... but then again I guess they pay for child care and cleaners and lawn mowers.

 

[Piston Broke]

hahaha, I'd love you to stand up in front of a group of ladies who were raising families and doing everything they could in the 70's to get ahead. They'd skin you alive with a BS comment like that.

Don't forget to take out the garbage and do the ironing and the dishes.
And you seem to forget that your high wages are also a product of government subsidies.


Kudos for the OP, it's amazing what you find if you search.

With that in mind, can someone explain to me why a 500m block in Muir Head is selling for 290k starting price, if not for price gouging?

It's the buyer side as well.
People read this forum, buy books, go to seminars and think they will be rich in a few years with neg geared CF- properties.
Banks will give them cheap money, and they take all they can get or will lie on the forms to get it.
If someone is dumb enough to borrow and pay way overinflated prices, then I am happy to sell to them. I don't think it's price gouging at all.

 

[Fifth]

OK... now you are picking a fight. Women DO NOT sit at home ALL DAY while their husbands work. While I had three kids at home, I didn't get any "me" time at all. I couldn't even go to the loo without having to mind a kid whilst I tried to use the toilet.

Of course, cooking for five, cleaning for five, shopping for five with a baby in a sling, a toddler in a stroller and pushing a trolley at the same time is such fun.

And those women who work full time or even part time still do most of all that, in their "spare" time. Give me a break!

Now I know you have no idea about a lot of what you think you know.

This is what gets me. Previously, stay-at-home mothers had the whole week to devote to all that mum stuff. With our new-found reliance on double incomes, fewer women have that option. Mothers are expected to put their children first in childcare then in after-school care and squeeze shopping, cooking, cleaning, washing, helping with homework, chauffeuring to extra-curriculum activities and maintaining a healthy relationship with their spouse into what ever little time is left after earning a paycheque. The pressure isn't just on mums. Dads, too, are expected to pull their domestic weight.

Women and men are both doing more just so we can drive the price of everything up under the guise of productivity and women's liberation. Oh joy.

 

[kathryn d]

This is what gets me. Previously, stay-at-home mothers had the whole week to devote to all that mum stuff. With our new-found reliance on double incomes, fewer women have that option. Mothers are expected to put their children first in childcare then in after-school care and squeeze shopping, cooking, cleaning, washing, helping with homework, chauffeuring to extra-curriculum activities and maintaining a healthy relationship with their spouse into what ever little time is left after earning a paycheque. The pressure isn't just on mums. Dads, too, are expected to pull their domestic weight.

Women and men are both doing more just so we can drive the price of everything up under the guise of productivity and women's liberation. Oh joy.

I do agree with this post.
Unless a sole parent or one that is interested in "personal fulfillment" I don't see the attraction either.

By the time they deduct the expense of the second vehicle,and childcare costs, the extra "take away food expenses", requirement for possibly dressier clothes, how money are they actually bringing home.,,plus they still need to do the domestic chores.

 

[Ideo]

It's the buyer side as well.
People read this forum, buy books, go to seminars and think they will be rich in a few years with neg geared CF- properties.
Banks will give them cheap money, and they take all they can get or will lie on the forms to get it.
If someone is dumb enough to borrow and pay way overinflated prices, then I am happy to sell to them. I don't think it's price gouging at all.

Yep. Agree with that. It's a joke. People go into the game assuming anyone can do it and property is a sure fire winner.

Plenty of people bought on 07/08 and didn't even comprehend that interest rates would rise. But, they are going to make a mint because you always come out ahead in property...

I know of at least 4 couples that have had to sell an IP or PPOR for substantially less than they bought it for, because they bought into the lie that all property is amazing.

 

[coastymike]

Exactly Lizzie. A few hundred a month to have all those chores done allowing me time to do what I like. But then we have 90m people here

 

[natmarie73]

because it would mean that the productive citizens of Australia wouldn't be shackled to a home loan for 40 years, and would be free to pursue other, productive endeavors. Like actually refining and manufacturing things out of our mineral wealth, for example.

So without actually reading your whole post in detail are you saying that if Mr and Mrs Bloggs didn't have a home loan to worry about they would build a mine or start up a factory somewhere?

I highly doubt it - the sort of entrepeneurial people that build mining companies manufacturing companies dont let their mortgages stop them.

People who want to get ahead and build wealth will do so either way.

But if the govt just happened to start giving out free land I would put my hand up sure.

 

[Player]

Maybe they're listening

On the theme of land prices:

http://www.propertyobserver.com.au/...3cb205-March_28_20127_4_2011&utm_medium=email

 

[Ocean Architect]

.....is that it ?? Is that all this entire charade of a thread was about ??

Assumptions, assumptions, Dazz To answer your (stupid) assertation, no, that is not what this thread was about. You want to know what this thread was about? Really? You really, really want to know what it was about? Well then how about you....read it.

Word smiths getting their rocks off.....we've had at least 100 threads like this on the forum in the past. Most get deleted, some don't. All don't amount to a hill of beans.

Your whinging and moaning about life not being fair doesn't count in the real world. Wordsmiths in cyberspace can argue 'til the cows come home, it doesn't matter a jot in the real world.

Some post doctoral fellows I've met would have to be some of the poorest people I know. Their passion for being 'right in theory' is right up there with yours. It's sad to look back 10 years later and they are still arguing (and winning) and still can't scrape two bob together.

Cool. Except I'm not a PhD, I certainly have more than 2 bob together, and I don't much care for winning arguments on the internet.

Once again, your theories are fantastic for the soapbox in University grounds. However, absolutely useless out in the real world.

I disagree. Seems to me my ideas get quite a bit of traction. Seems to me also, that I tend to do pretty well out here in the real world. A coincidence? I think not

 

[Ocean Architect]

I suspect Lizzie was being rather provocative... but you know that, don't you .

Not really. I just think it a little rude to post giant slabs of text when you're arguing specific points. If people would like to converse, then learn how to use the quoting function. Until then, I may lose interest in chatting to them.

When you are replying, there is a little box that looks like a speech bubble. All you do is highlight the text you want quoted, and press the speech bubble. That's it. Same effort as italicizing, or underlining, or changing color, or making something bold.

It is not. A lot. Of effort. To figure out.

 

[Ocean Architect]

So without actually reading your whole post in detail are you saying that if Mr and Mrs Bloggs didn't have a home loan to worry about they would build a mine or start up a factory somewhere?

I highly doubt it - the sort of entrepeneurial people that build mining companies manufacturing companies dont let their mortgages stop them.

People who want to get ahead and build wealth will do so either way.

But if the govt just happened to start giving out free land I would put my hand up sure.

Newsflash: People Who Do Not Read Entire Posts Do Not Get Entire Replies.

 

[lizzie]

It is not.

okay

A lot.

got it

Of effort.

not that simple

To figure out

unless explained clearly

Still took me several goes to get it right - opps looks like I still got it wrong.

 

[lizzie]

Well ... I'm still waiting on the answers to the below questions (plus others in that particular post) ... and I've read everyone's posts ... life is so unfair!

how exactly do you plan to make property fairer and more equitable? Reducing taxes is fine, as long as the purchasers don't want the facilities that those taxes pay for - like the firestation down the road, and the cops, and the new school, and the stormwater drains, and - need I go on?

Opening up more property is fine - but no developer is going to develop if the price is so low that their is no potential profit to cover their risk. Is the government going to develop these properties? If so, how are they going to fund it? What other sector of the community is going to have it's funding slashed even further to pay for it? Mental health? Health research? Universities? Infrastructure? National Parks? Boarder security? Local libraries and swimming pools?

And, yes, is plenty of land between Katherine and Darwin. But please explain exactly who is going to live there?

 

[slammindan]

This is what gets me. Previously, stay-at-home mothers had the whole week to devote to all that mum stuff. With our new-found reliance on double incomes, fewer women have that option. Mothers are expected to put their children first in childcare then in after-school care and squeeze shopping, cooking, cleaning, washing, helping with homework, chauffeuring to extra-curriculum activities and maintaining a healthy relationship with their spouse into what ever little time is left after earning a paycheque. The pressure isn't just on mums. Dads, too, are expected to pull their domestic weight.

Women and men are both doing more just so we can drive the price of everything up under the guise of productivity and women's liberation. Oh joy.

Yep and at the detriment of many children IMO.

 

[Ocean Architect]

Well - tell that to my mum as she put endless washing thru the agitator washing machine then mangle - and then hauled the still dripping washing over the clothes line - all whilst wearing gumboots so's not to electrocute herself. If it rained for days on end you were buggered.

Wow - big day when we got a twin tub where you only had to heave the wet washing from one side to the other!

Or my girlfriends mother who had to defrost the fridge every Wednesday because every fridge in the entire unit block was connected to one refrigerator system in the basement - that was turned off on Wednesdays?

Methinks you might either have it a bit sheltered from reality - or the people you are speaking to only remember the good (that's why they are called "the good old days" even when they weren't)

Before I get started, would you do me the kindness of telling me what year all of this occurred in?

I mean, the way you're talking, it sounds like your parents were good mates with Wyatt Earp.

Fine - get rid of negative gearing as I barely use it anyhow ... but how about middle class welfare going to? To paraphrase Ideo ...

"It's nothing but a handout from the government to people otherwise opposed to handouts."

I have no opposition to that. Imo there should be no first home buyers scheme. No build bonus. None of that. Government spending money subsidizing building only serves to pump prices up. The correct way to go about it is for the government to say to the banks "we aren't backing you any more. If you go broke with dumb lending practices, you and your families will be out on the street, with all of your property confiscated, facing criminal charges for negligence".

This is a pointless arguement as one side is trying to compare now with a completely different period - with completely different standards, expectations, assistance and facilities - and the other side is saying "this is what is" so suck it up.

Neither will win - and both are right in their own version of the world.

No, it is a very important argument for those who study economics and history, who can see the writing on the wall. This compartmentalized view of the economy where you see nothing past the point of your nose is why things like depressions occur.

By the way - neither OA, Ideo or CU have answered any of my questions and OA merely came back claming a KO because I have better things to do than work out a quote system.

You don't have time to spend literally 120 seconds figuring it out, but you have time to post 1000 word replies? Reeaaaallllyyyyy.

Is it because there is no answer? Is it because, to answer would show that their thinking is misguided? Would it show that their nivarna is not possible if we are to sustain the current expectation of what is standard?

It's probably because most of the time, it is as if you did not read the reply written for you, to be honest.

I also notice there was no comment on what "was" standard 30 years ago - a "standard" that would be unacceptable and considered 3rd world now by even the poorest in Australia.

1982 would be considered third world?

As many have shown - with real life - real time examples - it IS possible to own property in Australia on a less than average income. It comes down to choice. Thankfully something we have in spades in this blessed country.

You still havn't figured out the difference between "possible" and "equitable".

 

[Ocean Architect]

Yep and at the detriment of many children IMO.

Just the children? You wait a couple of decades. Parents who lobbed their kids into daycare will be lobbed into old age homes quicksmart. It's only logical - if you don't bond with your kids by bringing them up, why should they put up with you in your geriatric years?