We only need to house 23mil' US 300Mil but look at them, I don't get it !

Hi people.

There's many aspects of our so called housing shortage propping us up, that I don't get but one of the biggest is our tiny population.
The US, 330mil , yet it doesn't even look any bigger in land mass than us , not sure if it is or not but yet whole suburbs , towns and even cities are literally being bulldozed after abandonment. So where are they all living ?
I saw Detroit I think it was, tearing down houses and turning the land back into farmland to downsize the city , just to cope.
Another spot literally tearing down almost finished new houses - 1000's of them , with dozers .
Yet 330 million people, how does this all work and what we can't put a roof over 23 mil , doesn't ad up.
The UK , what 80ish yet look at the size of it- down the toilet !

It does seem to me that if people here stop buying through suspicions, caution, finance being too hard to get whatever or, investors get sick of forking out for way cash negative, start sitting on their hands, or the lot and plus some, then where's our so called shortage then.

Any views on all this.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
Hi people.
It does seem to me that if people here stop buying through suspicions, caution, finance being too hard to get whatever or, investors get sick of forking out for way cash negative, or start sitting on their hands, or the lot plus some, then where's our so called shortage then.

Havent you just answered your own question there?? If people stop buying then the market will drop, this is what happened in late 2008.
 
In the bigger cities most people rent.

In the country areas, houses are very cheap and many people own a house or if they are poor live in rentals and trailer parks

But the populations are decreasing as they all head to the city for better opportunities.

In places like L.A, and many bigger cities, there are loads of large tracts of land which are being developed into cookie-cutter estates in the outer areas, which people buy and often on dodgy terms to get them sold.

What you are hearing about whole suburbs being bulldozed etc is a typical media microscope view. It's not widespread.

Detroit is a city founded on the automobile industry, and steel. But they've lost these industries and there is little employment, and high crime. Everyone is moving out of there.

The same will happen here; people leaving the country areas to compress into cities where they can get work. Smaller country towns will slowly die, and farms will continue to get more corporate, more technological and less human labour.

When people stop buying here, the prices stagnate and rents go up.

Then investors buy and the rental pool dilutes.

Then rents stagnate, investors sell and o/o's buy.
 
Hi people.

There's many aspects of our so called housing shortage propping us up, that I don't get but one of the biggest is our tiny population.


I really don't understand what population has to do with it.

If there are 8 families on an island, and only 6 houses on that island there is a housing shortage. If there are 300 million somewhere else and there is bulk easy credit for all and no subdivision restrictions and people build way too many houses there will be a surplus no matter how many people there are.


See ya's.
 
The US, 330mil , yet it doesn't even look any bigger in land mass than us

Yes, let's build massive cities right throughout the middle of our desert continent instead of just on the coast where the rainfall is. Then maybe we can overtake 330m one day.
 
I really don't understand what population has to do with it.

and no subdivision restrictions

See ya's.

so does this then become a risk.
If the government forces easier subdivision rules and eliminates the excessive cost of development charges, what will be the effect on new housing?

if new housing becomes 'cheaper' then what happens to the secondary housing market?

i remember people buying telstra shares on its supposed entrenched monopoly, share share price reflected this at the time.
What about now?

Of course this does not provide a blanket answer. Even if the above is imposed there will still be potential winners (people with large blocks of land come mind).
 
Dazz nope , definitely not . But it's just really hard to know how to safely build up right now with our prices , which is what I'm trying to do.
Because from what I can see no matter what they keep telling us about shortages , anything can happen but apparently not in Oz so what do you do.


Thanks for explaining Bayview.
I hope we can keep our regional areas alive and kicking to by the way. See Brumby's talking about some sort of bonus to get people back out there , good idea I reckon. Seems to be plenty of people getting very fed up with the growth, business, pressures and prices of the cities lately, could be a good time to strike really.

Cheers
 
See Brumby's talking about some sort of bonus to get people back out there , good idea I reckon.

Cheers

The Gubbmint tried something along this line when I was a kid.

I think it was called "de-centralisation".

Tis a good idea on paper, but if there is no infrastructure and jobs out in them thar hills then no-one will stay - especially teenagers just finishing VCE.

Even somewhere as heavily populated as Rosebud, which is another 10 minutes further away from the city down the Peninsula from us has a hospital which is extremely under-equipped to handle the requirements of it's ever-increasing population and the surrounding suburbs such as McCrae, or even as far as Sorrento and Portsea.

Most serious cases get hand-balled to Frankston some 35 minutes away, or even further to places like Monash etc.

Imagine somewhere like Tooborac, or Donald - in central Victoria, where the populations are disappearing. Who would move out to these places in a hurry?
 
......but look at them indeed !!!!


Do you really want to emulate the US ??

Yo, what-up?

Sadly, like, we already do in a lot of ways, and most of the damage is being done to the Gen y's and the next gen of kids coming up. Us oldies can see the cr@p happening, but for some reason the young-uns think it's all too cool.

Just look at the devolution of the kids fashions - everyone wants to look like a bro from da hood. What's with all that stupid finger positioning they all do like ET?

Unfortunately, the biggest scam is on the kids through the media by way of, like, ads.

Have a look at just one hour of morning tv for example. Channel 10 is the worst - the kids ads are all about toys (nothing really wrong with this) but they are mostly USA, cheesy as hell, and the kids hear their lingo from an early age, and in US accent.

Next; watch video hits in the morning of a weekend; "yo, yo; where's ma ho?" is about all you'll get there, with another great smattering of US everything.

Finally; watch early evening tv - any channel (but again; 10 is the worst) - and see how many fastfood, shampoo, I-phone ads are on, the talent are all the demographic of teens and Gen Y and the lingo is USified.

At least (for now) the accents are like mostly Aussie in this timeslot.

:eek::eek:
 
so does this then become a risk.
If the government forces easier subdivision rules and eliminates the excessive cost of development charges, what will be the effect on new housing?

.


I'd reckon it's a very small risk. House prices would fall a bit if more land were released for housing. But looking at what happened in the US it might be good to leave things as they are here.

But I don't think lack of land is a major reason for house prices anyway. There is no lack of land in my parts, so house prices are based on what it costs to build new, plus add a bit for the land. So a new 4 bed 2 bath brick home costs about 300k. Go to the outer extremities of every capital city and it's much the same. Massive mcmansions being built. They end up being worth what the house is worth plus a bit for the land. People can choose cheap housing by buying in regional areas or outer suburbs. If they want to live close to the city you pay more. Basically what everyones been saying on here since forever.

Even mining towns are no different in my area. I can't see that Muswellbrook or Singleton with coal has more expensive houses than Tamworth. It's probably the other way around. Mining towns are terrible and unhealthy places to live, with the once rolling green hills piles of bare rubble. I'd think Tamworth or other non mining towns may have higher property values than the mining. I have lots of coal miner mates that live near me that don't want to live anywhere near where the coal is.

I'd reckon the main reason houses are expensive in this country is because we all want a big flash expensive house and we are able to pay for it firstly, and secondly wealthier people can also pay to have this big flash house in a very desirable area. Once we can no longer afford big nice houses, then prices will drop. I thought that might have happened with the GFC, but no. Everyone still wants our commodities. We all are still booming along.


See ya's.
 
Have a look at just one hour of morning tv for example.

.......

Next; watch video hits in the morning of a weekend; "

.......

Finally; watch early evening tv - any channel

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

Hi Bayview

Thanks for reminding me why we don't own a TV.

random - if you're concerned a house is too expensive then don't buy it. There are plenty of cheap houses around - buy one of those instead. If you're concerned about safety perhaps you should consider term deposits? Some good rates there at the moment...
 
Hi people.

The US, 330mil , yet it doesn't even look any bigger in land mass than us , not sure if it is or not but yet whole suburbs , towns and even cities are literally being bulldozed after abandonment.

Now and again my work flies me from my comfy office in Brisbane to somewhere like Perth, Darwin or Mt Isa. Every time I look out the plane window I'm reminded that Australia really is a desert continent with vast vacant spaces (even the mines are small dots). Most of us cling to the coastline, and a few venture further inland. Humans have barely made a mark on the majority of this land.

Flying from LA to NY, for example, is a very different experience. At night the cities light up the country from one end to another.

I think the UK or any European country is a better comparison. I'm guessing the area of land in Australia where the majority would be content to live is probably not much larger than that of France.

My 2.06 cents.
 
Top