So much for immigration

Keith....be nice to Spinx...he has not passed Economics 101 yet...so I doubt he will get the picture....he..he...:p

As chicken little said....."The Sky is Falling"...."The Sky is Falling"......where will we be without our friends from the ****!;)

keithj said:
Do you have a link to show persons per dwelling is climbing rapidly ?

ANZ/ABS figures imply that it's been growing since 1995 - demand has outstripped supply since then.

attachment.php
Click to expand...
 
vincenzo said:
and everyone is humping like rabbits because of the baby bonus, so Australia's population is still just going to grow and grow.
Click to expand...


We might all be humping, [except for Rob :D] but I'd say it's for fun:), not the baby bonus.

Our fertility rate is only up to about 1.78 children per woman which is the highest in 30 years. Much like any other western nation, we would have a falling population rate without immigration.

We have the choice of how much population growth we want. If the recession gets as bad as I think it will, we can cut it back to any level we want, and any government who didn't do that would be voted out at the next election. Hopefully these cuts are just the start, and they should have happened months ago.

See ya's.
 
evand said:
Looks like immigration will be curtailed in the near future. So much for the 'high immigration driving property prices' argument.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they're stopping brickies, plumbers, carpenters and other building tradies from coming here to compete with our local tradies. That's sure to cut the labour costs for all these new houses going up soon thanks to the $21K grant. :D:D:D
 
sash said:
Keith....be nice to Spinx...he has not passed Economics 101 yet...so I doubt he will get the picture....he..he...:p

As chicken little said....."The Sky is Falling"...."The Sky is Falling"......where will we be without our friends from the ****!;)
Click to expand...

All science so far.
 
BoatBoy said:
This site here http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/indicatr/ei_home.htm Has vacancy rates for California going back to 1998 and shows vacancy rates have been around 11%.
Do you see a difference between there and here?
Dave
Click to expand...

Here is indeed different because:
1. We do not count on-sale house as vacant .. but US do. That usually adds another 4-5%... more in a bad market.

2. REI publishes fake ultra-low vacancy rates. Independent research shows otherwise: http://sqmresearch.com.au/graphs/graph_vacancy.php?region=nsw::Sydney+CBD&t=1
(sydney CBD at 7.5% .. perhaps 12% with all the on sale ones)

For those ANZ figures.. again, madly optimistic assumptions on person/house staying at historical low. 15 years ago, Australians were living comfortably at 3.3 person per house... a few years ago people were comfortably living at 2.5 person per house (2006 census) .. now it is around 2.1.. Oh yes. if it drops to 1.8 or even 1 person per house... we will really have a even bigger PROBLEM on undersupply ... and a booming market. The reality is if this number just goes back to 2006 level.... the fictitious undersupply problem will disappear. (OECD average is at 2.6 before the housing crash world wide. .. it could be much higher now.)

That is precisely why builders have stopped building.. because they have overbuilt too much based on unrealistic person/house assumptions.
 
Thanks Tubs....don't know whether the D&Gers are going to accept the facts...here. The 30k figure is apparently quite conservative....particularly in given the demand is mostly in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane where you have mutiple families in a single dwelling.

I work on the pointy end of the market....that means if I get this wrong it hurts!:eek:

Wonder whether the D&Gers actually have any "skin" in the game...I guess not as they do seem to pontificate a lot...LOL!;)

tubs said:
Actually, the Senate Select Committee on Housing Affordability disagrees with you as well. They put the shortfall at around 30,000 houses a year.

http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/committee/hsaf_ctte/report/b01.htm
Click to expand...
 
sphinx said:
Here is indeed different because:
1. We do not count on-sale house as vacant .. but US do. That usually adds another 4-5%... more in a bad market.
Click to expand...

So California had a bad market since 1998 yet kept building and building and building.
Compaired to here where we have had 1 year of bad numbers and basically stopped building.

Can you see a difference now?

2. REI publishes fake ultra-low vacancy rates. Independent research shows otherwise: http://sqmresearch.com.au/graphs/graph_vacancy.php?region=nsw::Sydney+CBD&t=1
(sydney CBD at 7.5% .. perhaps 12% with all the on sale ones)
Click to expand...

Who cares about Sydney:rolleyes: except for those who invest or are in Sydney.

I have used Louis numbers (thanks) since they first became available and where I have ip's, vacancy rates today are at 1.3% to 1.9%.

Can you see that Sydney does not equate to all of Australia?

Dave
 
sphinx said:
Here is indeed different because:
1. We do not count on-sale house as vacant .. but US do. That usually adds another 4-5%... more in a bad market.
Click to expand...

Can you provide a link or any other evidence that shows that that methodology is used?

Dave
 
sphinx said:
2. REI publishes fake ultra-low vacancy rates. Independent research shows otherwise: http://sqmresearch.com.au/graphs/graph_vacancy.php?region=nsw::Sydney+CBD&t=1
(sydney CBD at 7.5% .. perhaps 12% with all the on sale ones)
Click to expand...

So, when was the last time you tried to rent a property????

I can tell you from personal experience that a 7%-12% vacancy rate is UTTER RUBBISH. Go on.... just try and go rent something, then come back to tell us there is a ~7% vacancy rate in sydney.


Well, you know what they say about D&Gers quoting their stats as truth - 70% of the time, they're right every time.
 
Normally the spinx only visits here to post negative rubbish about property simply to suport his own decision for not buying any - much like a common troll.

However, on this occasion, his post might be of a little more value. Like the spinx, it does make some sense to me that housing demand would “compress” a little during times of high unemployment. Countering this, it may also make sense for housing demand to compress during times of relative unaffordability.

When it comes to the ratio of inhabitants per house, perhaps the net result of job losses and lower interest rates is roughly zero?

Does anyone know of any links or any other sources of information (from California or otherwise) where such a theory can be explored?
 
Something doesn't add up

ffc1883_1996 said:
Normally the spinx only visits here to post negative rubbish about property simply to suport his own decision for not buying any - much like a common troll.
Click to expand...
true..... :rolleyes:

ffc1883_1996 said:
However, on this occasion, his post might be of a little more value. Like the spinx, it does make some sense to me that housing demand would “compress” a little during times of high unemployment. Countering this, it may also make sense for housing demand to compress during times of relative unaffordability.

When it comes to the ratio of inhabitants per house, perhaps the net result of job losses and lower interest rates is roughly zero?
Click to expand...
Agreed... I don't know how ANZ calculates 'Underlying Housing Demand'. However, it's clear that population has been rising by 1.5%+pa for some time.

According to a (not necessarily unbiased) bank it appears that housing supply has been below demand since 1995. The Senate Committee says that we're short of 30,000 houses per annum.

So where are people living - tents, under bridges, caravan parks ?
Or are the stats wrong ?
Or is there a higher ratio of people per household ?


If the former or the latter, then are we due for a housing boom as households reach breaking point ?



Anecdotally, one of my IPs has 3 unrelated people named on the lease.



Witzl said:
I can tell you from personal experience that a 7%-12% vacancy rate is UTTER RUBBISH. Go on.... just try and go rent something, then come back to tell us there is a ~7% vacancy rate in sydney.
Click to expand...
The sqm methodology appears pretty flaky - see their website. The evidence on the ground doesn't appear to support it.
 
keithj said:
The sqm methodology appears pretty flaky - see their website. The evidence on the ground doesn't appear to support it.
Click to expand...

But it does support the hcpg doctrine, so it must be correct.:rolleyes:

I prefer to use a combination of speaking to PM's, tracking listings on RE.com and SQM to get a more balanced view instead of cherrypicking statistics that support my confirmation bias.:p

Dave
 
Not if they cant afford it. I don't pay it any credibility but if it is true, there is probably a good reason households are at breaking point.

Why would houses be at breaking point if property was affordable?




keithj said:
If the former or the latter, then are we due for a housing boom as households reach breaking point ?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

albanga
Tasmania
Replies
19
Views
3K
Of The Vultures
Of The Vultures
J
Auckland higher deposits required
Replies
11
Views
2K
Redom
Redom
C
Chinese Government Wealth Seizes - Impact on Property?
Replies
1
Views
912
Scott No Mates
Scott No Mates
B
So much property bubble talk today
Replies
11
Views
3K
leann
L
W
Crash Imminent?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
7K
truong
T
Back
Top