Originally posted by L Bernham
Reality check:
Aus USA
Population 20m 300m
Area 7m 8m (sq km)
Area/person 350,000 27,000 (sq m)
I found this on some other forum and found it thought provoking.
Hi L Bernham
How about this:
The Netherlands
Population almost 17m
Area 41,526 sq m
THis is where I grew up. THey're adding new land areas now and again, since there's still increase in population (immigrants).
(God created the world, the Dutch created Holland.)
My cousin is buying a 2 bedroom appartment on one of these new land areas that they're building on now in Amsterdam. Costs €2million = about 3,450,000 AUD!
Aren't we lucky here in Australia, so much S P A C E , I couldn't believe my eyes when I arrived in OZ! I wouldn't worry about an increase in population as long as we can cope with electricity&water supplies,and people are always going to (and -almost- always have) find solutions to these problems if they must. Everybody will just have to work on it together and be tolerant.
Regards.
Reality check
- Thread starter L Bernham
- Start date
Hi celivia
I think I may have also mentioned Holland in a previous post.
I've been there a few times and whenever I go I'm amazed at how they manage with such a small supply of land. It would surprise many, but their quality of life is barely affected by this. Its true what you say - People cope and learn to live with what they have. our population would need to be around 1 billion before we have the same kind of density.
When I see people madly bidding up price of properties as though they are just about to run out all I can do is shake my head in amazement. We need to get out more and see some of these places.
Even the land that has been claimed from the sea in Holland could fit the entire population of Australia if it had to. Just look at the number of people that "fit" into New York.
No. Population growth, lack of space, proximity to city etc arent good enough reasons to justify the huge premiums that are already factored into current prices - forget about additional capital growth, Australian properties will be hard pressed to hold their value. Its unfortunate but I have friends that are finding it difficult to rent out their IP for $380 pw. They're being told that most people who can afford that much already own a house.
I understand that the % of homeowners to renters is at its highest level ever in Australia.
the sad thing is Australian property should be the cheapest in the world. It could be divided up equally between everyone and we'd all have an acre within 10 kms of the ocean and from there we could trade it as we like.
Instead we use the unlimited and cheap credit that the banks have provided, to bid against our felllow countryman to create bubblelike values ensuring that the average FHB has to spend up to 40% of their income and spend the next 30 years chained to debt just to have a place to live.
Call that 'lifestyle'? I don't.
Other countries must look at what we are doing in disbelief. Not that they mind as a lot of the money we;ve borrowed has effectively come from overseas. Its crazy isnt it. We are collectively borrowing from overseas to buy the country we collectively own.
I think I may have also mentioned Holland in a previous post.
I've been there a few times and whenever I go I'm amazed at how they manage with such a small supply of land. It would surprise many, but their quality of life is barely affected by this. Its true what you say - People cope and learn to live with what they have. our population would need to be around 1 billion before we have the same kind of density.
When I see people madly bidding up price of properties as though they are just about to run out all I can do is shake my head in amazement. We need to get out more and see some of these places.
Even the land that has been claimed from the sea in Holland could fit the entire population of Australia if it had to. Just look at the number of people that "fit" into New York.
No. Population growth, lack of space, proximity to city etc arent good enough reasons to justify the huge premiums that are already factored into current prices - forget about additional capital growth, Australian properties will be hard pressed to hold their value. Its unfortunate but I have friends that are finding it difficult to rent out their IP for $380 pw. They're being told that most people who can afford that much already own a house.
I understand that the % of homeowners to renters is at its highest level ever in Australia.
the sad thing is Australian property should be the cheapest in the world. It could be divided up equally between everyone and we'd all have an acre within 10 kms of the ocean and from there we could trade it as we like.
Instead we use the unlimited and cheap credit that the banks have provided, to bid against our felllow countryman to create bubblelike values ensuring that the average FHB has to spend up to 40% of their income and spend the next 30 years chained to debt just to have a place to live.
Call that 'lifestyle'? I don't.
Other countries must look at what we are doing in disbelief. Not that they mind as a lot of the money we;ve borrowed has effectively come from overseas. Its crazy isnt it. We are collectively borrowing from overseas to buy the country we collectively own.
Hi L Bernham & plainsong,
You are joking, right? Because if you are serious you need to catch up with reality in a big time ! How on earth did you come up to such ridiculous conclusions?
Thanks God we live in a market economy and prices driven by market forces. I know first hand what happens when ideas like “lets split land/(whatever) equally and enjoy it together” lead to. Are you prepared to have your acre somewhere in Great Australian Bight shores? I want my acre in Brighton please. You don’t want to spend 40% of your income on the mortgage go to country – there is a place in Victoria where council gives land for free! (It was on TV about 2/3 weeks ago) It was less then 300/400km from Melbourne. You will spend 5% of your income on the mortgage if, of course, you can get any income there at all, but hey this country is so "unlucky” now that you can get on the doll and still afford living there.
Now, to postponing children. The house prices have very little to do with it if anything. The most burning factor is current tax system and the lack of government understanding/support for working families. It doesn’t encourage having children dual income families, as the financial hit of loosing one income is too heavy. Unfortunately we have a country where average single income is not enough to support a family anymore, and ironically politicians proudly claim it as a great achievement to have that many women back in work forces. Nobody mentions though it is mostly not a choice but brutal necessity.
You are joking, right? Because if you are serious you need to catch up with reality in a big time ! How on earth did you come up to such ridiculous conclusions?
Thanks God we live in a market economy and prices driven by market forces. I know first hand what happens when ideas like “lets split land/(whatever) equally and enjoy it together” lead to. Are you prepared to have your acre somewhere in Great Australian Bight shores? I want my acre in Brighton please. You don’t want to spend 40% of your income on the mortgage go to country – there is a place in Victoria where council gives land for free! (It was on TV about 2/3 weeks ago) It was less then 300/400km from Melbourne. You will spend 5% of your income on the mortgage if, of course, you can get any income there at all, but hey this country is so "unlucky” now that you can get on the doll and still afford living there.
Now, to postponing children. The house prices have very little to do with it if anything. The most burning factor is current tax system and the lack of government understanding/support for working families. It doesn’t encourage having children dual income families, as the financial hit of loosing one income is too heavy. Unfortunately we have a country where average single income is not enough to support a family anymore, and ironically politicians proudly claim it as a great achievement to have that many women back in work forces. Nobody mentions though it is mostly not a choice but brutal necessity.
Hi Mikhaila
You completely missed my point. I wasnt suggesting for a second that we split up the land and divide it equally.
It was merely an example of what greed does.
On a smaller scale example - imagine 100 people sailing around looking for somewhere to live that come across an island that would fit them all nicely on a good few acres each.
They then decide to get greedy and fight over the best ones agreeing that a free market solution is the only fair way to settle it.
A big bank comes along and thinks "yippee - here are some suckers" so it lends them as much as they want. With unlimited credit the islanders bid the prices of each 100 blocks up to a level where its going to take each of them a good 30 years of the islands production/hard labour to pay back the loan.
Who is better off? - the islanders who all previously owned the island outright? or the bank that now owns the rights to a large chunk of the future production of our small economy.
You completely missed my point. I wasnt suggesting for a second that we split up the land and divide it equally.
It was merely an example of what greed does.
On a smaller scale example - imagine 100 people sailing around looking for somewhere to live that come across an island that would fit them all nicely on a good few acres each.
They then decide to get greedy and fight over the best ones agreeing that a free market solution is the only fair way to settle it.
A big bank comes along and thinks "yippee - here are some suckers" so it lends them as much as they want. With unlimited credit the islanders bid the prices of each 100 blocks up to a level where its going to take each of them a good 30 years of the islands production/hard labour to pay back the loan.
Who is better off? - the islanders who all previously owned the island outright? or the bank that now owns the rights to a large chunk of the future production of our small economy.
Glad you liked my eg
Solving the dispute over the best 10 properties. Good question.
This is where their value above the other blocks should come into play.
If each property is 'worth' 100,000 units of currency but there are 10 that have better views of the water, not that you;d care on an island so instead lets say these 10 were closest to the coconut trees making them worth 150,000 units.
Rather than everyone getting in debt between 100,000 and 150,000 they would be better of if they discovered which 10 were willing to pay the additional 50,000 units and just those people get into debt so that when the bank ship drifts away into the sunset they have only scammed 500,000 from the island instead of 10.5 million.
I know this doesnt work in practice because once the remainder realise that they dont have to pay anything for their block they will all want to be the ones who own the better blocks as they see them as only costing 50,000 units.
And once again you get the free market economy where they bid against each other up to the level of credit the banks will allow them.
This example shows that property values are almost entirely decided by the amount of money banks are willing to lend people and it wont stop until they start becoming concerned about the sustainability of it all and tighten their policy. Once that happens watch out below.
The same thing happened in Florida in the 1920's. Financial Institutions were fiercely lending money to Americans to get into the Florida land craze. People borrowed whatever they could. It didnt matter as they figured they could sell half the land in a couple of years if they had to and pay the entire loan back. Banks didnt care as they figured they could always foreclose on the loan and sell to the next person.
And then it crashed, investors just walked away and many of the banks went bust because they'd lent on very low LVRs and small deposits. Florida began its depression early. (it took 35 years for prices to 'catch up')
In Australia we wont see the same scale of effect but if the exuberance continues much longer it could be still be pretty nasty. Costello and Macfarlane realise this but they're in a catch 22 position.
Never have we seen price increases like we;ve seen plateau. That just isnt possible. The big question is how bad will it be.
Solving the dispute over the best 10 properties. Good question.
This is where their value above the other blocks should come into play.
If each property is 'worth' 100,000 units of currency but there are 10 that have better views of the water, not that you;d care on an island so instead lets say these 10 were closest to the coconut trees making them worth 150,000 units.
Rather than everyone getting in debt between 100,000 and 150,000 they would be better of if they discovered which 10 were willing to pay the additional 50,000 units and just those people get into debt so that when the bank ship drifts away into the sunset they have only scammed 500,000 from the island instead of 10.5 million.
I know this doesnt work in practice because once the remainder realise that they dont have to pay anything for their block they will all want to be the ones who own the better blocks as they see them as only costing 50,000 units.
And once again you get the free market economy where they bid against each other up to the level of credit the banks will allow them.
This example shows that property values are almost entirely decided by the amount of money banks are willing to lend people and it wont stop until they start becoming concerned about the sustainability of it all and tighten their policy. Once that happens watch out below.
The same thing happened in Florida in the 1920's. Financial Institutions were fiercely lending money to Americans to get into the Florida land craze. People borrowed whatever they could. It didnt matter as they figured they could sell half the land in a couple of years if they had to and pay the entire loan back. Banks didnt care as they figured they could always foreclose on the loan and sell to the next person.
And then it crashed, investors just walked away and many of the banks went bust because they'd lent on very low LVRs and small deposits. Florida began its depression early. (it took 35 years for prices to 'catch up')
In Australia we wont see the same scale of effect but if the exuberance continues much longer it could be still be pretty nasty. Costello and Macfarlane realise this but they're in a catch 22 position.
Never have we seen price increases like we;ve seen plateau. That just isnt possible. The big question is how bad will it be.
Well, I guess, you answered my question. There is no other civilized way.
If/When market(part of the market) crashes I don’t know – couldn’t bit high enough for a crystal ball
I don’t know much about Florida crash in the 1920s either. Great depression was from 1929 to 1941 - 12 years! Can’t remember any other 12 years in depression for US. Oh, and by the way stock market crashed in 1929. My point – nobody I know has a crystal ball, so your guess is as good as mine and as good as Mr Costello’s. I am well of the track of original post here – sorry.
Regarding to aging population and what might happen as a result, I'd like to mention RK's Rich Dad's Prophecies.
The vast majority of Australians (both new and old) have not enough money for their retirement to live a reasonable lifestyle
(lets say as a bare minimum $20,000 per annum inflation indexed)
as at (again lets say 5% return for 20 years) would require
a mere $400,000 in super. I have a few long term working friends
in the same jobs and their super might just reach this, lots of other people I know a nowhere near to this figure.
On $20K per annum one can not really go very far, this is why the ones who realised this, started to look at other investments, like property. They might just have a chance for a bit more.
Still I am talking about 5% to 10% of the people (not counting forumites in this group) I know who actually DO something.
The rest just lives and spends happily (or in struggle street)
and planning how to work to 65 or beyond.
The picture is very far from rosy and I can not see at this moment
that it will become much better.
2c (no consideration, no GST)
Tibor
The vast majority of Australians (both new and old) have not enough money for their retirement to live a reasonable lifestyle
(lets say as a bare minimum $20,000 per annum inflation indexed)
as at (again lets say 5% return for 20 years) would require
a mere $400,000 in super. I have a few long term working friends
in the same jobs and their super might just reach this, lots of other people I know a nowhere near to this figure.
On $20K per annum one can not really go very far, this is why the ones who realised this, started to look at other investments, like property. They might just have a chance for a bit more.
Still I am talking about 5% to 10% of the people (not counting forumites in this group) I know who actually DO something.
The rest just lives and spends happily (or in struggle street)
and planning how to work to 65 or beyond.
The picture is very far from rosy and I can not see at this moment
that it will become much better.
2c (no consideration, no GST)
Tibor
Let's anaylse the effect of baby boomer mass retirement a bit closer:
Baby boomers control the most wealth in Australia. This is CONTROL not own. They are the senior management of the biggest companies, the politicians & public servants with big budgets & are the best paid (on average) of any age grouping.
A lot of the wealth of baby boomers is tied up in their income - which stops on retirement.
A lot of their wealth is tied up in property - which only has a high value if someone can afford to buy it.....and who will there be left to buy them at these high prices if we don't have a high level of immigration (let alone all those grass castles for older families when families are getting smaller).
A lot of their wealth is tied up in the control of resources - the control vanishes when they retire.
However the REALLY REALLY BIG effect will be on government policy.
Older people will make up a significant voting block. And what will woo their vote (given the selfishness atributed to baby boomers)?
Greater health care benefits.
Better services & facilities for aged people.
Higher pensions & benefits.
Who pays for this?
Their poor (literally) kids & grandkids.
Net effect of an aging population - a decrease in national wealth.
Brains, if you doubt the figures you need to do your research.....twenty years ago a number of workers supported each retired person. The ratio has dropped dramatically....soon each working person will be supporting more than one retiree.
There will be tangible effects on national wealth & character - not to mention property prices.
Viva la immigration!!!!
BTW: fresh water is probably the most critical pressure limiting population intake - this is rapidly being solved through desalinisation & other techniques. Expense is a factor of the level of usage - more usage, less expense. Australia does have plenty of salt water!
Cheers,
Aceyducey
Baby boomers control the most wealth in Australia. This is CONTROL not own. They are the senior management of the biggest companies, the politicians & public servants with big budgets & are the best paid (on average) of any age grouping.
A lot of the wealth of baby boomers is tied up in their income - which stops on retirement.
A lot of their wealth is tied up in property - which only has a high value if someone can afford to buy it.....and who will there be left to buy them at these high prices if we don't have a high level of immigration (let alone all those grass castles for older families when families are getting smaller).
A lot of their wealth is tied up in the control of resources - the control vanishes when they retire.
However the REALLY REALLY BIG effect will be on government policy.
Older people will make up a significant voting block. And what will woo their vote (given the selfishness atributed to baby boomers)?
Greater health care benefits.
Better services & facilities for aged people.
Higher pensions & benefits.
Who pays for this?
Their poor (literally) kids & grandkids.
Net effect of an aging population - a decrease in national wealth.
Brains, if you doubt the figures you need to do your research.....twenty years ago a number of workers supported each retired person. The ratio has dropped dramatically....soon each working person will be supporting more than one retiree.
There will be tangible effects on national wealth & character - not to mention property prices.
Viva la immigration!!!!
BTW: fresh water is probably the most critical pressure limiting population intake - this is rapidly being solved through desalinisation & other techniques. Expense is a factor of the level of usage - more usage, less expense. Australia does have plenty of salt water!
Cheers,
Aceyducey
Sim
Administrator
Ironically, the vast majority of Australia's space is not on the coast, and there are no significant and limitless water resources inland to tap, salt or fresh.
So if we can master the art of desalination, we can build the population of Australia up around the coastline. Alternatively we spend another fortune building and maintaining water pipes from the coastal desal plants inland to the "great inland seas" (reserviors) which supply our great inland cities.
It's all technically possible, but economics will be the deciding factor here.
Heck, if we think we can colonise the moon, I'm sure we can colonise inland Australia.
Maybe it's time to start buying up land around Alice Springs ?
Sim,
It's all about the numbers.
With enough people it becomes possible to provide much more infrastructure.
People always look at providing the infrastructure first and say it's too expensive to do - that's the wrong order.
First get the people, then it's always possible to find a way to fund the infrastructure.
And people are easy to import right now. Lots of refugees out there used to lower living standards who'd love to live in a free society & contribute their skills & drive to achieve.
Cheers,
Aceyducey
It's all about the numbers.
With enough people it becomes possible to provide much more infrastructure.
People always look at providing the infrastructure first and say it's too expensive to do - that's the wrong order.
First get the people, then it's always possible to find a way to fund the infrastructure.
And people are easy to import right now. Lots of refugees out there used to lower living standards who'd love to live in a free society & contribute their skills & drive to achieve.
Cheers,
Aceyducey
Sim,
I recon if you were to pump desalinised water from the coast into the centre you might stuff up nature, but if you pumped this water to our existing reservours so that they were always full when it rained the overflow would flush the river- the closest thing to how it was a few hundred years ago
I recon if you were to pump desalinised water from the coast into the centre you might stuff up nature, but if you pumped this water to our existing reservours so that they were always full when it rained the overflow would flush the river- the closest thing to how it was a few hundred years ago
Some interesting reading here
http://viacorp.com/perth_water.html/
http://www.wrc.wa.gov.au/alert/
http://www.wrc.wa.gov.au/under/statewqassess/Ord_home.htm
I read recently that the Federal government wants to find a dumping ground for nuclear waste, as WA has vast areas of uninhabitable land we are a prime target.
Shame about all that underground water.
Cad
http://viacorp.com/perth_water.html/
http://www.wrc.wa.gov.au/alert/
http://www.wrc.wa.gov.au/under/statewqassess/Ord_home.htm
I read recently that the Federal government wants to find a dumping ground for nuclear waste, as WA has vast areas of uninhabitable land we are a prime target.
Shame about all that underground water.
Cad
B
brains
Guest
Acey you genius............
Similar threads
