There will be more renters

[steveadl]

Wow, how many times does this topic come up - and I've only been on SS for 3yrs. Ironically enough each time property prices are just that bit higher again.

As Wylie pointed out - there always has and always will be mortgages on property, even in the 'good ol days' people love to refer to when property was 'affordable.' Bottom line is, when you have a mortgage, you still control the asset. A renter has control over nothing.

Yes, all the wonderful statistics of 'back in the day the median was only 2-3 times annual wage vs 9 time now' sound great. But do you honestly think that will ever happen again? The bottom line is people nowadays have more money to spend on housing (by choice, cheaper consumer goods, double incomes etc), so they will, period.

Each generation has also been increasingly brought up in a world where they get what they want - perhaps there wasn't that ingrained desire back in the 1940's to have the nicest/biggest/better located property? Try telling your neighbour who's on $100k and his wife on the same, who don't plan on having kids for another few years that they shouldn't be buying the best house they can for their money (if that's there choice) and see how far you get. People have money, they'll spend it - many on housing. Wish against wish and hope against hope all you like - it's not going to change.

 

[skater]

The only person here that is niave and unrealistic is you, Dean.

When I bought my first home, the average house was quite nice, 3 beds/1bath, but I bought a daggy dump. It was all I could afford. It was weatherboard, coated in chicken wire and cement rendered. It was terrible! There was no paved driveway. There were holes in walls and it was by far the cheapest property around, but it was mine (and the banks).

It was not close to work, as properties anywhere near work were much more expensive, so I bought where I could afford. I did not get the luxury of a 95% lend either, so had to save hard to fund the deposit.

I owned a black & white TV, as a colour one was too expensive too. You can liken this to the [now] old box type TV's and the newer expensive flat screens if you like. All of my furniture was second hand as I thought it was more important to get a house, not to have the expensive furniture.

You think you have it soooo very hard, but reality is it is all the same ol', same ol'.

If you want to get into the market, you might just have to accept the dump that is an hour from work and needs fixing. That is what we did. There were no hand outs from the government either.

 

[DeanoC]

I thought you sounded like you were angry with the world and perhaps were having trouble getting into the property game.

I have to say, regarding your comment above, that a 4x2 with theatre and ducted air being "average", this is where we part ways.

That home is not average (in my opinion).

Here is an example for you.

My sister is a stay at home mum with two kids. The amount of money she would spend on daycare makes working quite expensive for them. So she will stay at home with the kids until they are ready for school, and the probably get a half day job. So they are on one income.

Her husband earns about 85k a year. That is above the aussie average. Their needs are not crazy, nor are their expectations over the top. All they are looking for is a starter home of some sort.

Now the average starter home in Perth, unless you are prepared to live in a slum, is going to set you back about 350k. They are looking at an area called Clarkson, which is a full 35KM from Perth. By Perth standards, its far, but they are willing to accept that.

Now this is not a ridiculous expectation. A home in a fringe suburb that has a less than stellar rep, and a home that provides something close to what they are renting. They need 3 rooms and 1 bathroom. This is below average these days, but they are happy with that too.

So once they have saved up the 70k they need for a deposit at a 20% LVR, that means a mortgage of 280k over 25 years. If they pay P&I, their monthly payments on the place are $500 a week, thats $2000 a month. At current interest rates, even after a decent deposit, they are paying almost 45% of post tax income on accommodation. Thats considered mortgage stress. 30 years ago, they would not have been allowed to loan the money.

1 - He earns above average wage
2 - they are prepared to live in an outlying suburb with an average rep
3 - they are looking at a home that is below the median house price

This is the reality they live with. And its a reality millions of young Australian families face, many on even lower wages. When people who earn above average incomes are battling to buy basic entry level homes WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT AFFORDABILITY?

Now, onto what we classify as an average home. A 4x2 with ducted aircon can be built for less than 170k. That is less than half the price of a decent 500SQM block of land in most major capital cities. The problem is not that houses are expensive, its that land is expensive. These days, a 4x2 is an average home. That is what you build for an average outlay. Anything under that is below average.

 

[DeanoC]

The only person here that is niave and unrealistic is you, Dean.

When I bought my first home, the average house was quite nice, 3 beds/1bath, but I bought a daggy dump. It was all I could afford. It was weatherboard, coated in chicken wire and cement rendered. It was terrible! There was no paved driveway. There were holes in walls and it was by far the cheapest property around, but it was mine (and the banks).

It was not close to work, as properties anywhere near work were much more expensive, so I bought where I could afford. I did not get the luxury of a 95% lend either, so had to save hard to fund the deposit.

I owned a black & white TV, as a colour one was too expensive too. You can liken this to the [now] old box type TV's and the newer expensive flat screens if you like. All of my furniture was second hand as I thought it was more important to get a house, not to have the expensive furniture.

You think you have it soooo very hard, but reality is it is all the same ol', same ol'.

If you want to get into the market, you might just have to accept the dump that is an hour from work and needs fixing. That is what we did. There were no hand outs from the government either.

I take it you are 45+???

I am in the market. I love property. I own one and I am paying off a second. Stop making assumptions please

Still, you make the same mistake everyone else does. Black and white TV's cost money 25 years ago. As a percentage of your income, Im willing to bet they did not cost a whole lot less than a fancy new plasma does these days.

 

[Ausprop]

I take it you are 45+???

I am in the market. I love property. I own one and I am paying off a second. Stop making assumptions please

Still, you make the same mistake everyone else does. Black and white TV's cost money 25 years ago. As a percentage of your income, Im willing to bet they did not cost a whole lot less than a fancy new plasma does these days.

you are comparing technology from chine to bricks and mortar in australia. bricks and mortar laid down by very well paid tradespeople pulling more bucks than your average doctor. I contend that one of the reasons Australian hosuing is so expensive is because of the input cost associated with highly regulated and protected trades. hence a new nissan is now much cheaper as a multiple of wages than hosuing

 

[DeanoC]

you are comparing technology from chine to bricks and mortar in australia. bricks and mortar laid down by very well paid tradespeople pulling more bucks than your average doctor. I contend that one of the reasons Australian hosuing is so expensive is because of the input cost associated with highly regulated and protected trades. hence a new nissan is now much cheaper as a multiple of wages than hosuing

Building techniques, better materials and skills have improved. The quality of the homes we get are better.

But relative to what we earn, they dont really cost that much more than they did back in the day. Like I say, 170k is going to buy you a very big home with some nice finishings. SPend 250k, and you are getting something I dont think even the most fussy, spoiled GenY'er is going to complain about.

Try find me a block of land for under 250k though...

 

[Token Funder]

Any reason my no-one is comparing the land content of a "median home" 30 years ago and one today? Might I suggest the issue ain't the thing on the land...it's the cost of the land itself.

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

Like I say, 170k is going to buy you a very big home with some nice finishings. SPend 250k, and you are getting something I dont think even the most fussy, spoiled GenY'er is going to complain about.

Not sure where you live, but in Canberra I'd have to say that you're kidding yourself. We paid 190k to build (not including land cost) an average sized 4x2 9 years ago, using basic to average fittings, inexpensive tiles, etc. A smiliar place these days would be close to double that build cost here.

The reason your relatives would be in 'mortgage stress', is because there's only one income. The easiest way to solve this is to keep renting and saving for the next few years until the kids are in school, then have the wife go to work part time, and buy that 'average' house. They wouldn't be the first to do it this way.

Alternatively, people can do what my wife and I did, which was to work hard and save during our early twenties instead of traveling and partying, buying a house, THEN starting a family. There are different options and choices.

Not trying to be rude, but I'm not quite sure what questions you're asking, or what message you're trying to get across here. Is property expensive? Yes. What can we do to help?

 

[DeanoC]

Interesting, but it's been covered before.

1) The 'average' home 30 years was perhaps 2/3 the size of a new 'average' home.

So? Look at the numbers. As a percentage of income, what real impact has this had on HOUSE CONSTRUCTION prices? Building a home is not much more expensive to justify your view

2) 30 years ago, houses were about 3 times 'average' earnings. Now, most families have both partners working, hence houses (which are also much bigger, remember) cost 6 times 'average' earnings.

Most families have both partners working? You reading way too many property investor magazines. Ill ask you to provide stats to show how widespread this is. While its common in younger couples, women gradually leave the workforce as they approach their 30's and 40's.

Divorces rates are at an all time high. Thats not only a lack of dual income, its two separate dwellings for one "family".

I dont think two people having to work shows that housing is unaffordable. One bread winner should be enough to get by, while two should mean a very high standard of living at the expense of family commitment.

These days, two incomes are needed to make ends meet

3) Because other items are so much cheaper, the 'average' household has MORE money available to spend on housing.

So you agree with me then that the baby boomers bashing the kids for blowing all their money on an Xbox are a pain in the bum and live in a different reality to the rest of us?

 

[weg]

I have to say, regarding your comment above, that a 4x2 with theatre and ducted air being "average", this is where we part ways.

That home is not average (in my opinion).

I agree.

Regardless of whether DeanoC and FHB's define this as the new 'average', it doesn't mean it's become less affordable to enter the housing market.

All it means is Dean and others now aspire to live in what we deamed to be our second or third homes.

I don't know how old you are Dean but there have been flea pits to mansions and everything in between around for some time now.

In my book that makes homes in the old days unaffordable too if you aspire to live beyond your means.

 

[skater]

I take it you are 45+???

I am in the market. I love property. I own one and I am paying off a second. Stop making assumptions please

Still, you make the same mistake everyone else does. Black and white TV's cost money 25 years ago. As a percentage of your income, Im willing to bet they did not cost a whole lot less than a fancy new plasma does these days.

I knew that the B&W TV would get a mention. No, the TV was CHEAP. That was the point. Same as the average box these days (but you need the set top box to play the thing soon). The point I was trying to make is that the fancy new plasma is a luxury.

You know, you can say all you want, but there are a few of the younger generation who don't bother making excuses, they just take a deep breath and get the job done.

Take my youngest, for example. 18 yrs old earning a minimum wage. She knows she can't afford a PPOR at the moment, but also knows that she can make money from property. Instead of whinging that it's all too hard and spending all her salary on 'stuff', she is looking for an IP that she CAN afford now.

Now, you mention your sister is looking at Clarkson as a starter home. I've been to Clarkson. The suburb is made up of quite nice, realatively NEW homes. The point we are all trying to make here is that if Clarkson is too expensive, then maybe she should be looking at something where the houses are a lot older. Something that needs fixing. Something cheaper or further out than Clarkson.

There are plenty of starter homes in outer Sydney suburbs that you can pick up for $100k less than your starter in Clarkson. Old homes. Small homes. Some are average, some are less than average. You would probably call them slums, but they are perfectly good homes. These are first home owner homes. I am sure you have something similar in the outer areas of Perth.

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

So? Look at the numbers. As a percentage of income, what real impact has this had on HOUSE CONSTRUCTION prices? Building a home is not much more expensive to justify your view

Disagree - see mine and other previous responses.

Most families have both partners working? You reading way too many property investor magazines. Ill ask you to provide stats to show how widespread this is. While its common in younger couples, women gradually leave the workforce as they approach their 30's and 40's.

I don't read property investor magazines. Where I live, most families seem to have both parents working.

Divorces rates are at an all time high. Thats not only a lack of dual income, its two separate dwellings for one "family".

Except that it's common for divorced persons to get into other relationships, where dwellings are shared.
I dont think two people having to work shows that housing is unaffordable. One bread winner should be enough to get by, while two should mean a very high standard of living at the expense of family commitment.

Your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I think one bread winner is anough, but life will be quite simple, and probably won't include home ownership.

These days, two incomes are needed to make ends meet

Disagree. Expectations of lifestyle are what need to change.

So you agree with me then that the baby boomers bashing the kids for blowing all their money on an Xbox are a pain in the bum and live in a different reality to the rest of us?

I think anyone who blows all their money on luxury consumer goods and services will get zero sympathy from me.

............

 

[Dazz]

Might I suggest the issue ain't the thing on the land...it's the cost of the land itself.

Indeed sir.


In our suburb, when it was first developed in 1914, blocks of land could be purchased for 28 pounds. Houses (3x1) cost 750 pounds to erect. Cost of construction compared to land was 26:1.


Nowadays, same suburb, same size block, much flasher house though. Blocks of land can be purchased for 2.6m. Houses (5x2) cost 0.7m to erect. Cost of construction compared to land is 0.26:1.


Woops, there's a factor of 100 right there.....and she's a big factor. So big in fact, that all the other factors are irrelevant.


Who was the wally who bought one block and built a house - nearly everyone. Hundreds of folk. They did OK.

Who was the weird bloke who bought 27 blocks of land with the same amount of money - one guy. He did more than OK.

 

[DeanoC]

Not sure where you live, but in Canberra I'd have to say that you're kidding yourself. We paid 190k to build (not including land cost) an average sized 4x2 9 years ago, using basic to average fittings, inexpensive tiles, etc. A smiliar place these days would be close to double that build cost here.

I dont know Canberra, nor do I know what your taste in houses and expected finishes are. In Perth, you can build a respectable 4x2 for under 170k. This in a state with a mining boom where tradies were all off making a killing on the mines.

The reason your relatives would be in 'mortgage stress', is because there's only one income. The easiest way to solve this is to keep renting and saving for the next few years until the kids are in school, then have the wife go to work part time, and buy that 'average' house. They wouldn't be the first to do it this way.

They not trying to buy the average house. They are trying to buy a less than average house, as indicated by their budget which is 100k under Perth median.

How is housing affordable if someone who earns 20K a year higher than the national average cannot afford to buy an under average home?

Higher than average wage, lower than average house, yet he is still priced out the market until his wife goes back to work? Hmmm. No, this is a perfectly normal housing market and young un's have no right to be upset that housing is so expensive.

My grandmothers stayed at home to raise my folks. My mother stayed at home to raise us. Is this a thing of the past just so people can become slaves to debt and property investors can see their awesome capital gains?

Money spent on housing is money not spent on productive areas of the economy. This is not a good thing, especially when above average wages are no longer high enough to support it.

Alternatively, people can do what my wife and I did, which was to work hard and save during our early twenties instead of traveling and partying, buying a house, THEN starting a family. There are different options and choices.

So are you still a two income family or has your wife left work to raise children yet?

So what if they travelled? So what if they buy their first house at 28 instead of 26? So what if they decided they wanted children earlier?

You are planning your entire life around a basic like home ownership now, and you think this is a sign of affordability? How is it desirable, let alone proof that "it can be done"

Not trying to be rude, but I'm not quite sure what questions you're asking, or what message you're trying to get across here. Is property expensive? Yes. What can we do to help?

Read my original response to the OP. He believes that affordability is not an issue. My argument is a simple one

1 - The more you spend on accommodation, the less we spend on productive areas of the economy. Retail employs more people than any other sector. We go on fewer holidays. We buy fewer cars. Tourism and manufacturing takes a hit. Two other sectors that are important for jobs. As an investor, a healthy economy should be what you want. Not healthy POCKETS OF AN ECONOMY.

2 - Peoples expectations are not ridiculous. Some are, but as I have shown, above average incomes cannot purchase below average homes without going right into mortgage stress anymore.

Your answer to this is to not have kids until you are in your 30's, dont travel, work hard, and send the kids to daycare once you have them so you can keep that roof over your head (why have kids then if a nanny is going to raise them?)

Yep, no problems there

 

[keithj]

My sister is a stay at home mum with two kids.

Lifestyle choice ?

Her husband earns about 85k a year. That is above the aussie average. Their needs are not crazy, nor are their expectations over the top. All they are looking for is a starter home of some sort.

Needs ? or wants ?

Now the average starter home in Perth, unless you are prepared to live in a slum, is going to set you back about 350k. They are looking at an area called Clarkson, which is a full 35KM from Perth. By Perth standards, its far, but they are willing to accept that.

So who should live in the slums ? Those with only a 20% deposit ?

Now this is not a ridiculous expectation. A home in a fringe suburb that has a less than stellar rep, and a home that provides something close to what they are renting. They need 3 rooms and 1 bathroom. This is below average these days, but they are happy with that too.

It sounds more & more like a crisis in aspirations (a phrase Ausprop coined).

A FHB may have an average income, but compared to the house buying public they are way behind the eight ball. The buyer of an average house also has an average deposit... that's something they worked hard & invested hard over time to achieve. Why should someone with only half the prerequisites for buying an average house, jump the queue ?

And if all FHBs want to buy an average house.... who gets to live in the below average houses ?

So once they have saved up the 70k they need for a deposit at a 20% LVR, that means a mortgage of 280k over 25 years. If they pay P&I, their monthly payments on the place are $500 a week, thats $2000 a month. At current interest rates, even after a decent deposit, they are paying almost 45% of post tax income on accommodation. Thats considered mortgage stress. 30 years ago, they would not have been allowed to loan the money.

According to some definitions of mortgage stress 30% of the population are suffering mortgage stress . Maybe the definition needs updating to use a less tabloid headline worthy word ?

1 - He earns above average wage
2 - they are prepared to live in an outlying suburb with an average rep
3 - they are looking at a home that is below the median house price

This is the reality they live with. And its a reality millions of young Australian families face, many on even lower wages. When people who earn above average incomes are battling to buy basic entry level homes WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT AFFORDABILITY?

FHBs aren't supposed to be able to afford average houses, because they don't have an average deposit.

I'd suggest buying what they can afford, pay down principle for 10 yrs, then upgrade with a large deposit.

 

[DeanoC]

I don't read property investor magazines. Where I live, most families seem to have both parents working.

Ok, so you dont base your views on statistical information or facts, just basic assumptions based on anecdotal views and personal experiences?

Except that it's common for divorced persons to get into other relationships, where dwellings are shared.

How soon does that happen? The day they move out? Is this another basic assumption or do single people cease to exist after the age of 25?

Your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I think one bread winner is anough, but life will be quite simple, and probably won't include home ownership.

Yep, you are right. And the youngsters have no right to be pissed off either do they? No sir. They spend their money on plasma TV's. Just because they only needed one income 20 years ago does not mean that its the same today. So both of you off to work please, and remember that we started off in a shitbox too. We will forget it was on one wage for most of us, but it was a shitbox.

Disagree. Expectations of lifestyle are what need to change.

Like above average income earners not buying below average homes and renting for the rest of their lives instead? Yep, sounds like a healthy housing market to me!

I think anyone who blows all their money on luxury consumer goods and services will get zero sympathy from me.

An Xbox costs $350. Thats less than one weeks rent, and they actually save money instead of going out when they are bored.

Perspective please.

By the way, how old are you?

 

[Luv2Travel]

For people who live at home until their mid-late 20's here's another point:

Some people are living at home with their parents longer these days also, some even until 30+, often with little/no board. So this is perhaps 5-10 years of extra savings towards a home if they actually saved their money whilst at home. This is a luxury that wasn't the norm 30 years ago. Let's say they earn $40K a year during their 20's, I don't think saving $15K of that a year would be unreasonable. Let's say they live at home from 21-27 working full time, saving $15K per year for 7 years. That's $105K for one person, now that person marries another sensible person who has done the same thing. There's a $200K towards, let's say a $400K house. Mortgage is $200K, no reason for this to be unaffordable or stressful, even on one income when they have a family.

I don't think things are necessarily harder these days, just different.

 

[DeanoC]

Lifestyle choice ?

Needs ? or wants ?

So who should live in the slums ? Those with only a 20% deposit ?

It sounds more & more like a crisis in aspirations (a phrase Ausprop coined).

A FHB may have an average income, but compared to the house buying public they are way behind the eight ball. The buyer of an average house also has an average deposit... that's something they worked hard & invested hard over time to achieve. Why should someone with only half the prerequisites for buying an average house, jump the queue ?

And if all FHBs want to buy an average house.... who gets to live in the below average houses ?

According to some definitions of mortgage stress 30% of the population are suffering mortgage stress . Maybe the definition needs updating to use a less tabloid headline worthy word ?

FHBs aren't supposed to be able to afford average houses, because they don't have an average deposit.

I'd suggest buying what they can afford, pay down principle for 10 yrs, then upgrade with a large deposit.

Keith, way to rip a thread to pieces so someone cant reply to it. You set a fine example as a moderator, not to mention failing to read through everything so you could put it into context.

No, her decision to stay at home is not a lifestyle choice. Day care costs per kid are over $50 a day. Two kids = $100 a day. Thats $2200 a month on daycare. What does her post tax income need to be to cover that?

No, two kids means that a 3 x 1 is a requirement. Unless of course you as a landlord dont actually care about the quality of life your tenants have?

They are FHB's with an above average income looking for a below average home. Ill repeat that because the property wizards seem to be ignoring this

ABOVE AVERAGE INCOME TRYING TO BUY BELOW AVERAGE HOME WITH A LARGE DEPOSIT


Where did I say they wanted an average home? I said it was out of reach, yet even the below average homes are out of reach? Their deposit will be above average mate.

Stop getting your underpants in a twist read what was posted before you pick up the sword and shield

Thanks for your advice though. They are looking for something they can afford. As it is, someone on 20k a year above average aussie salary cannot afford a house that is below average with a sizeable deposit, but your confirmation of what they are trying to do as being correct will help them sleep better I am sure

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

I dont know Canberra, nor do I know what your taste in houses and expected finishes are. In Perth, you can build a respectable 4x2 for under 170k. This in a state with a mining boom where tradies were all off making a killing on the mines.

I think this is probably just a variation in prices due to location. Where I live we struggle to get builders and trades too.

They not trying to buy the average house. They are trying to buy a less than average house, as indicated by their budget which is 100k under Perth median.

How is housing affordable if someone who earns 20K a year higher than the national average cannot afford to buy an under average home?

Higher than average wage, lower than average house, yet he is still priced out the market until his wife goes back to work? Hmmm. No, this is a perfectly normal housing market and young un's have no right to be upset that housing is so expensive.

When I was young (bear in mind I am 34 now), I thought houses were really, really expensive!

My grandmothers stayed at home to raise my folks. My mother stayed at home to raise us. Is this a thing of the past just so people can become slaves to debt and property investors can see their awesome capital gains?

Quite possibly. Welcome to our changing world. Is it good or bad? A topic for another discussion, I suspect.

Money spent on housing is money not spent on productive areas of the economy. This is not a good thing, especially when above average wages are no longer high enough to support it.

Yep, you said so earlier.

So are you still a two income family or has your wife left work to raise children yet?

We are a two income family, and have one child. My wife left work for a time, then returned.

So what if they travelled? So what if they buy their first house at 28 instead of 26? So what if they decided they wanted children earlier?

These are all choices that impact the ability of people to purchase property. Having our own home was important to us, so we prioritised it. Others have other priorities.

You are planning your entire life around a basic like home ownership now, and you think this is a sign of affordability? How is it desirable, let alone proof that "it can be done"

That's clearly an overreaction. We planned because we thought our future would be better if we made an effort to buy a house as early as possible. We've now achieved that, and are enjoying the fruits of that labour. We've also had two overseas holidays in the last 6 months.

Read my original response to the OP. He believes that affordability is not an issue. My argument is a simple one

1 - The more you spend on accommodation, the less we spend on productive areas of the economy. Retail employs more people than any other sector. We go on fewer holidays. We buy fewer cars. Tourism and manufacturing takes a hit. Two other sectors that are important for jobs. As an investor, a healthy economy should be what you want. Not healthy POCKETS OF AN ECONOMY.

I'm not a fan of telling others what they want.

2 - Peoples expectations are not ridiculous. Some are, but as I have shown, above average incomes cannot purchase below average homes without going right into mortgage stress anymore.

Some people's expectations are laughably ridiculous. Frankly, I think wanting to travel overseas multiple times during your twenties, starting a family young and then expecting to buy a 'house that isn't a slum' as soon as it suits your lifestyle is pretty ridiculous.

Your answer to this is to not have kids until you are in your 30's, dont travel, work hard, and send the kids to daycare once you have them so you can keep that roof over your head (why have kids then if a nanny is going to raise them?)

Putting words into other people's mouths will rarely change their opinion, nor does it give credibility to yours. I started a family before 30, travel now (with my family), use pre-school, and am less than two years away from owning that 4x2 I built 9 years ago. I've also got less than 15 years of working between now and retirement. I got there by working my can off, and making choices to improve my future. I have never sold a property.

Yep, no problems there

There's definitely a problem there.

...........

UPDATE: I hadn't read your response DeanoC when I wrote this (as I was writing myself). Perhaps it's easier just to respond to this then I'll come back and read your last two response together.

 

[DeanoC]

I agree.

Regardless of whether DeanoC and FHB's define this as the new 'average', it doesn't mean it's become less affordable to enter the housing market.

All it means is Dean and others now aspire to live in what we deamed to be our second or third homes.

I don't know how old you are Dean but there have been flea pits to mansions and everything in between around for some time now.

In my book that makes homes in the old days unaffordable too if you aspire to live beyond your means.

Thanks for your insightful feedback weg. I see you took the time to read through this entire thread and ensured to the best of your ability that you had a handle on what had been discussed up until now.

Im 32

Im no FHB mate. I live in a big home in a decent area. I own it outright. I own another property, with a very small mortgage, that I rent to family so they can save to buy a house of their own.

Do people actually read anything here, or is it straight into attack mode the minute someone dare question the status quo here? I wonder if this place is full of investors or if its just one big circle jerk where people are trying to convince themselves more than anything else