but the rest of the world is services (UK / EU) or consumer (US/ EU) based - not manufacturing or resource based like China/India/Australia...
Is Australia Really That Different?
- Thread starter Wibbly Pig
- Start date
but the rest of the world is services (UK / EU) or consumer (US/ EU) based - not manufacturing or resource based like China/India/Australia...
you might be right about UK, but EU external trade is quite neutral, If there is a country full of consumers it is Australia, probably just behind US. How else then trade position you can spot a consumer country? Not many country have a worse trade position then Australia
All true. A few are worse though,.....
https://www.cia.gov/library/publica...alia&countryCode=as®ionCode=au&rank=184#as
Apparently Australia has run current account deficites since almost forever and it's nothing to worry about.
Dunno, maybe it's not something to worry about. Looking at the list, some of those countries with massive surpluses are in more strife than us. I really don't understand how a nation can continue to export less than it imports and all is fine and dandy. Just hope the commodity boom continues.
See ya's.
Last edited:
Hence how history shows what a great pioneer Keating was when he floated the dollar.
As soon as I pressed the button I thought 'someone is going to track this back and ask the question about early 2000'.
Here's the answer, the $AUS carry was not in play. Our currency at the time was suspect whilst the yen was robust. The international money flowed to Japan.
I got in at at .73c and I'm doing very well thank you.
In addition as in any market where prices increase the increase may not be blanket. Pockets normally appear that either over or under perform the trend. So comparing a particular cities' performance to an underlying support structure is not an exact science.
'Is OS funding flow state specific', geographically no, but it is risk specific more so than our local funds. Therefore, if a market is considered overvalued (not your valuation) this would have an influence on the movement of funds.
Mike
Thanks for the explanation, it makes more sense now.
As for a leading indicator, I haven't really thought aout it too much as ATM it's easy as the international money needs a home. Some of that is finding a home in Aus and is providing a support for the banks.
I will go away and think about this as one really needs to assess the impetus variables carefully. The variables are quite dynamic in nature so any model would need a level of maintenance to be robust, but yes I think it could be done.
Last edited:
I really couldn't agree more. In hindsight this was one of the smartest economic moves for our nation.Thank god for commodities we are the lucky country!
That is a terrible report. Not so much about the facts and drawing a conclusion, but more about playing on people's fear/greed and trying to invoke an emotive response.
Median income of $60k? I didn't think it was that high. But, if it is you need to consider that back in the 80s, there was typically only 1 breadwinner in a family. These days, it is more and more common for both people to work and so if we have 2 people earning the median income of $60k, that's $120k between them... multiply that by 3 and there are plenty of houses that can be bought for $360k in our capital cities and fit the affordability criteria of 3x median income.
I don't think it's reasonable for the average FHOB to expect to be be able to buy a median priced house in a capital city, these people should be expecting to buy at the lower end of the market, ~$300kish. That way they also save themselves a lot of money in interest in paying the loan off quicker, so that at a later date they can upgrade to a median priced house and have a small loan amount that is easily affordable.
The only valid argument he has is with the FHOG and low honeymoon interest rates enticing people into buying something they can't afford when rates rise.. but, our banks are among some of the best in the world and usually use an extra 2% on the current interest rates to calculate if people can afford the repayments should they jump 2%, which they will do. By the time they've increased 3%+, it should have been a few years since and I expect their wages would have increased at least 10% or so due to inflation so it should be affordable.
With a median household income of $66k, why is the median house $400k not $200k?
But then, you can't even *build* a house for much less than $200k these days, and building new still seems to be cheaper than buying existing in most places. Except places with medians under $100k
But then, you can't even *build* a house for much less than $200k these days, and building new still seems to be cheaper than buying existing in most places. Except places with medians under $100k
Good question RE, why indeed. Obviously a premium would be expected for areas in high demand, but $400k doesn't get you much in Sydney.With a median household income of $66k, why is the median house $400k not $200k?
But then, you can't even *build* a house for much less than $200k these days, and building new still seems to be cheaper than buying existing in most places. Except places with medians under $100k
In Adelaide the median income is $55k, you can get a house in a cheaper suburb within around 10kms for $300k or a bit more (around 5-6 times median household income), IMO this cost seems over the top compared to historical trends. But I guess that's what comes with recent historically low rates, government intervention in the market and easy credit. It will be interesting to see what happens when any of these artificial drivers gets removed from the picture.
The median income here was in the $40ks in 2006 and the median house is $180k so this area is closer to sanity than most. Probably explains the massive influx of people selling out of the city to retire here. They build HUGE houses, on HUGE blocks, which doesn't make sense but hey - need to keep that resale value. Unfortunately I think the huge new $400k houses are rapidly overtaking the 100 year old $180k cottages as the commonest kind of house here so our median is going to make a sharp spike soon, one of the property magazines will notice, and we'll all be doomed.
this same argument has been covered in another thread. You cant just look at the metric of average wage vs average house price as determinig if housing is unaffordable or not..... cos that is ignoring some pretty fundamental factors
In particular this post explains it really well.
http://www.somersoft.com/forums/showpost.php?p=612955&postcount=52
In particular this post explains it really well.
http://www.somersoft.com/forums/showpost.php?p=612955&postcount=52
Not really ... if you earn $50k, and want a $200k house but have to buy it some really obscene distance from your work because all the ones close to where you work are $400k, does that really make it affordable?
I earn so little I can't actually afford *anything* suitable where I live now without being creative (which I am doing because I want to live here). But I can afford it in several neighbouring towns, and 4 years ago on very similar income I could afford houses all over the place. Doesn't the fact that lower earners are forced to either rent or buy right out on the fringes count for anything?
Just a few years ago prices were low enough vs incomes that you didn't need to be so creative or look so far out, you just went out and bought a house.
I earn so little I can't actually afford *anything* suitable where I live now without being creative (which I am doing because I want to live here). But I can afford it in several neighbouring towns, and 4 years ago on very similar income I could afford houses all over the place. Doesn't the fact that lower earners are forced to either rent or buy right out on the fringes count for anything?
Just a few years ago prices were low enough vs incomes that you didn't need to be so creative or look so far out, you just went out and bought a house.
i think people need to step back and look at what they're building.
builders will advertisae a huge house that cost a bomb because there's a bucket of margin in it.
there's minimal margin in smaller homes - because it can't be justified to the average joe that a smaller house still has 2 bathrooms, a kitchen and ldy (where the costs actually lay) and that the slighlty smaller price just comes from less material. so margin has to be cut to appeal to buyers.
smaller house is $800sqm, bigger house is $800sqm, therefore bigger house is better value.
120sqm x $800 = $96,000.
200sqm x $800 = $160,000.
120sqm will get a very small 4x2, one living area - or reasonable 3x2 one living area.
200sqm will get a 4x2 + study, 2 living areas and bigger bathrooms / kitchen.
i know which one will sell first and have more intrinsic value once inflation hits home.
builders will advertisae a huge house that cost a bomb because there's a bucket of margin in it.
there's minimal margin in smaller homes - because it can't be justified to the average joe that a smaller house still has 2 bathrooms, a kitchen and ldy (where the costs actually lay) and that the slighlty smaller price just comes from less material. so margin has to be cut to appeal to buyers.
smaller house is $800sqm, bigger house is $800sqm, therefore bigger house is better value.
120sqm x $800 = $96,000.
200sqm x $800 = $160,000.
120sqm will get a very small 4x2, one living area - or reasonable 3x2 one living area.
200sqm will get a 4x2 + study, 2 living areas and bigger bathrooms / kitchen.
i know which one will sell first and have more intrinsic value once inflation hits home.
Similar threads
