Lies, damn lies and statistics. Without denigrating the excellent, proactive work by the Herald Sun in commissioning NATSEM research showing Australian households are $23 better off per day than five years ago, this figure is a load of horse manure.

Home sweet unaffordable home

Every Australian knows it, not least Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott, whose only common ground is the belief that Australians are doing it tougher than ever. Which we mostly are.

There is of course a legitimate line that many Australians delight in casting themselves as perennial battlers, even as they purchase ever bigger, flatter TVs and ever larger homes. Rampant consumerism can never be discounted in any measure of our material wellbeing. But as NATSEM’s figures show, it’s the essentials that are rising in cost, not the expendibles.

First, the good news. Sports equipment, toys, furniture, household goods, appliances, cars and clothes (especially women’s clothes) have all fallen in relative price terms over the last five years. So it’s hardly irresponsible behaviour if most of us have picked up an iContraption or two in recent times.

Wages, apparently, are also up, and taxes are down, which is why the bottom line appears so positive. Though just quietly, hands up who’s had a payrise which exceeded CPI in the last five years?

Now for the bad news. The cost of electricity is up. The cost of water is up. Restaurant and takeaway meals are both up, and who can argue that these have slipped into the realm of non-luxury goods in an age when most households have two breadwinners? Bear in mind that a takeaway BBQ chook is counted as a takeaway meal.

And while the milk price war has attracted headlines, most other food essentials, like bread, fruit and veg have risen in relative terms.

As we all know, the cost of petrol has also skyrocketed, though for some reason this is not mentioned in the report.

Then of course, there’s the biggie: housing. A recent plateauing of the housing market in most major cities is at last reflecting the great policy shame of leaders of both political persuasions - namely their inability to stop average Australians being mortgaged to the eyeballs.

Many people’s mortgage repayments now suck up 80 per cent of their monthly take home pay. That’s why households need two breadwinners. Remember when they used to say housing should cost no more than 33 per cent of your net income? That’s how the Baby Boomers had it.

So really, until someone comes along and shows that Australians with decent jobs can buy a decent house without being a rate rise away from ruin, NATSEM can throw its bloody computer models in the bottom of Lake Burley Griffin for all they’re worth, even if both Treasury and the ABS back them up, as the Herald Sun states.

Oh, and the Feds might do whatever it takes to keep a lid on property prices, like urging the states to release more land, or build more medium density dwellings, or gently nudge their “independent” friends at the RBA to reduce interest rates to the near-zero levels of most other western nations.

Because it’s not a dollar extra here or there on a loaf of bread that makes Australians feel like they’re doing it tough. It’s the price of a roof over their head.

90 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • macca-d says:

      01:14pm | 06/05/11

      It’s like a two speed economy delineated (is that the right word?) between those who own their houses outright, and those who don’t.

      BTW…I got a pay rise > CPI, but I had to move from Adelaide to Sydney to do it.  Aargh!!

    • MarK says:

      01:43pm | 06/05/11

      SO you actually moved geographically as well as forward by the odd decade or two in real time terms.

      Hope the transition has gone well.

    • Ben81 says:

      02:02pm | 06/05/11

      Mark the fact that you can’t ever seem to let anyone mention Adelaide without coming in badmouthing it is getting kind of old to me, is it getting old for you too?

    • john says:

      02:15pm | 06/05/11

      @Ben81…do you ever wonder why Adelaide gets badmouthed?

    • Ben81 says:

      02:27pm | 06/05/11

      I’m pretty sure I do john, it makes people feel nice and smug.

    • john says:

      02:44pm | 06/05/11

      @Ben8, I doubt it.  I haven’t got a bad thing to say about Adelaide, its just most of the people that live in it must of been affected by the 1950-60’s nuke tests in maralinga where the fall-out drifted over the city.

    • macca-d says:

      05:14pm | 06/05/11

      Went back to Adelaide for a couple of weeks in April….the weather was warm, the sky was cloudless, and the beach was around the corner from my modestly priced home.  (Of course modestly priced is all relative these days.  To paraphrase Ant, Australians are living in a time when necessities are expensive and luxuries are cheap.)

      BTW Sydney’s got a lot going for it…..but so does (R)adelaide.

    • Bel says:

      09:43pm | 06/05/11

      Adelaide is definitely underrated - top spot for a holiday especially over the Easter long weekend.  I’ll be back for sure

      I bet that pay rise will be eaten alive by the cost of living in Sydney…  I don’t think the lifestyle change would be worth the money

    • Tubesteak says:

      01:17pm | 06/05/11

      Your final conclusion is very true. Our biggest expense is housing, so why in a country that is sparsely populated do we have some of the most expensive (by proportion of income) homes in the world.

      Don’t answer as that was a rhetorical question.

      Most of the time people complaining about living costs are doing so because they put themselves in that position. Too much conspicuous consumption and thus only hasve themselves to blame.

      Therefore, I have little sympathy for people complaining about living costs when they live in a McMasnion, have 3 cars and 4 TVs.

      Personally, I’m flush with cash these days and have a pretty healthy looking savings account. That’s because I live within my means. This doesn’t mean I go without, I just don’t indulge. I also manage my time and cook for myself most of the time.

      I think NATSEM is mostly correct. However, their figures do ignore the fact that our housing cost is beyond ridiculous and this is a failure of consecutive governments both state and federal since the early 90s.

    • john says:

      01:20pm | 06/05/11

      Who really believes its going to get easier?

    • St. Michael says:

      01:22pm | 06/05/11

      Ah well, at least it’s not John Howard telling us we’ve never had it so good this time.

    • acotrel says:

      07:51am | 07/05/11

      At least when Howard was in power we had the resources boom, which kept our superannuation from losing its value so rapidly!

    • Warren says:

      01:22pm | 06/05/11

      “the cost of petrol has also skyrocketed” not really. It’s gone up a bit. We still pay about 1/2 what they pay in the UK for a litre of petrol. However I wouldn’t be surprised to see it double over the next 12 months, and head seriously North in the years following. If it does, anything and everything that depends on oil to make or transport will do up in price too.

      Given 80% of car journeys are 5km or less it might prove to be an incentive for people to start walking, cycling and car sharing.

    • Ryan says:

      01:59pm | 06/05/11

      @Warren: “Given 80% of car journeys are 5km or less” evidence of this please, I would say that 99.9999999999% of my car journeys exceed 5kms unless I am reversing the car out of the garage.

    • Warren says:

      03:04pm | 06/05/11

      @Ryan. The 80% does not refer to each persons car journeys, but the average of all car journeys. You trips fall into the 20% group. You might drive 1000km each trip but there are a whole bunch of people doing 5km or less.

      http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bydesign/stories/2011/3122148.htm

    • Ryan says:

      03:52pm | 06/05/11

      @Warren: ah so this statistic includes the whole of the western world? I would say considering the vastness of this country that this statistic is not correct here in Australia.

    • Warren says:

      04:59pm | 06/05/11

      @Ryan. Schipper studied eight industrialised nations including Australia. The fact that Australia is big doesn’t mean much when the vast majority of the population live in urban areas. In fact despite our large land mass and small population, we are amongst the most urbanised of countries.

    • Erick says:

      01:24pm | 06/05/11

      Well said, Ant.

      Governments should release more land for housing (preferably in less sensitive areas). Australia has more land per head of population than any country apart from Greenland and Antarctica. How can there possibly be a shortage of land here?

      Also, there needs to be reform of the bureaucracy around housing. It’s good to have standards that ensure the safety and health of occupants, but is there any respect in which we have gone too far? Does a basic house, excluding land, really need to cost $200,000 and up? Could families be allowed to live in temporary accommodation on their own land while gradually building a permanent home? I’m sure houses could be cheaper.

      Such initiatives might lower the relative value of my own property, but it’s a small price to pay for the good of society in general.

    • Matt says:

      01:50pm | 06/05/11

      My Grandad, tells me that when they built their first house, they had to first build a bunglow, to live in while the main house was being built. And it took 2 years to build the house due to lack of resources during WW2.
      I just built my first house last year, and it only took 4 months till finished, less then the time it took to build a temp house in the 40’s.
      It’s really not the building thats the killer, it’s the land. Government released lots in the sh*thole that is Dandenong South are going for nearly $300000 for 412m2. That is absolutely rediculous, for a release that is supposed to increase housing affordability.

    • Budz says:

      02:14pm | 06/05/11

      How can there be a shortage of land? Because everyone bloody wants to live in the big cities! (me included), so it’s more a case of being a shortage of land in the big cities. The only other choice is to stop having massive houses.

    • Kevin says:

      02:17pm | 06/05/11

      As long as most Australians and new immigrants congregate in the few major capital cities, releasing more land only adds to the urban sprawl which in turn creates all sorts of problems with transport (both roads and public transport) and other infrastructure.
      Dropping interest rates will only cause house prices to go up and leaves borrowers vulnerable to inevitable rate rises in the future.
      I don’t see tens of thousands of homeless people, so I don’t buy into the proposition that the high prices are a result of a shortage of housing.
      Really, there needs to be a massive correction to house prices but this won’t occur because it will leave the banks with a whole lot of unsecured borrowings which in turn will affect the viabliity of the banks.

    • Seano says:

      02:28pm | 06/05/11

      I’m not an economist I’ll admit that. But as far as I can see releasing more land for housing in somewhere like Sydney is going to do SFA to address housing affordability without there being some major investment infrastructure to support it.

      No one wants to sit an hour and half each way in traffic to get to work, let alone risks standing for a hour on a dirty, over crowded, late train. And that’s without the freeway accidents or train break downs that lock up the entire system. And that’s the system as it stands without more being added to the load.

      Hopefully Bazz will fix it.

    • Erick says:

      02:53pm | 06/05/11

      I didn’t say that the major cities were the best, or only, places to release land for housing. There are plenty of regional centres like Bathurst and Bendigo which could be useful.

      It is true, though, that people tend to congregate in the main cities. While there have been serious and laudable efforts to promote decentralisation, I think we need more.

      And who knows, price differentials just might do the trick. If a grotty hovel on a postage stamp yard in Sydney costs $500,000, but a five-bedroom mansion on an acre with a view costs $200,000 in Armidale, we might be getting somewhere.

      The missing element, though, is employment. We need a way to decentralise jobs, so that people living in the regional centres can have a decent and reliable income.

    • Budz says:

      03:55pm | 06/05/11

      The NSW Government tried to do that with evo cities:
      http://www.evocities.com.au/

      Employment? Well that’s a bit tougher. I guess the question is of the chicken or the egg. Do you encourage companies to move into the country where there isnt suitable labor or do you ask the labor to move there first and then the companies will follow?

    • Tubesteak says:

      04:33pm | 06/05/11

      Budz @ 2:14
      It’s not just the problem of releasing land but also housing density.

      Until we get rid of the urban sprawl concept the problem will continue. We need high density living near transport hubs. The NIMBYs will hate it but it has to be done.

      Re your 3:55 comment
      The government can put public service jobs there. They’ve tried on a few occasions but abandoned the idea. Now with the Libs in power maybe they’ll do things a bit smarter. Areas like Newcastle wouldn’t be too bad to dump a lot of public servants in. The public service could be the beginning of the flood.

    • Seano says:

      04:57pm | 06/05/11

      “The missing element, though, is employment. We need a way to decentralise jobs, so that people living in the regional centres can have a decent and reliable income. “

      That’s why I only focused on the major centres. I’m one of the many thousands who has moved to the city for work and now I have a family here as well it’s unlikely I’ll move back.

      Hopefully the new government in NSW will be able to get people to move out of Sydney. I don’t remember Labor doing much, certainly all I remembeer Bob Carr doing was whinge about the problem.

    • mahhrat says:

      06:37am | 07/05/11

      @erick, that would be the NBN then?

    • Markus says:

      01:25pm | 06/05/11

      Removing negative gearing will never happen, but I see absolutely no benefit to granting negative gearing on existing houses.

      All it does is take a potential home out of the equation and throw it back into the ponzi scheme that is the Australian investment property market.

    • Bolz says:

      02:31pm | 06/05/11

      Totally agree!

      I think negative gearing should only apply to new dwellings. A great way to create more jobs and housing. Older, and hopefully cheaper, dwellings should be the realm of the FHB not cashed up investors. FHB simply can’t compete!

    • Markus says:

      04:21pm | 06/05/11

      Exactly.
      It’s all well and good hearing people continually banging on about how their first house was a dingy little 1 bedroom blah blah blah, and people these days aren’t wanting to buy these cheaper crappy houses.

      But due to a combination of heavy government regulation and the ridiculous boom in property investment, there aren’t really any such places left available to buy.

    • Tator says:

      12:36am | 07/05/11

      The problem with removing negative gearing is the transition phase.  Maybe a solution would be to only allow negative gearing on new buildings with the grandfathering of properties currently negatively geared so that it encourages new homes being built and not just the building of an investment property portfolio

    • Darragh Scully says:

      01:25pm | 06/05/11

      Well 80% of two incomes is alot of money. How did that statistice pan out. Is that the Two Parents whos kids have moved away to China, Europe or America or even Agghanistan or Iraq, whom are working part time in their own buisnesses. Remember that 95% or more of Australian Buisness is owned by Australians, and they cant cope with demand and complain about imports affecting their pride and immigrants taking their jobs. Established areas are full of value added bonuses like Malls, Trains etc and that network of establishment is spreading. I think its the law of dimminishing returns on resources dont you. The same goes for people selling land on the fringes, it costs more money to transport supplies and pay for a low attrition environment for builders to work in because of how far out it is. Once again the prices are high because the returns are low for what ever reason.

      its pigs arse to it all as well. I want to live in the Kari Valley at Walpole with my own airstrip, heated pool, and my own private road to my own private beach and the rest of you can get stuffed.

    • Harquebus says:

      01:25pm | 06/05/11

      For once Antony, I have to agree with you. Hope the improvement is permanent.

    • Anthony Sharwood says:

      05:07pm | 06/05/11

      This comment I simply can’t understand Harquey, as I am always right about everything - just ask my wife (or is she being sarcastic when she says that?)

    • mike j says:

      06:09pm | 06/05/11

      Sorry, Anthony, I was going to start my post with exactly the same sentence.

      Probably with better punctuation and spelling your name right, though.

    • jf says:

      09:05am | 08/05/11

      mike j says:06:09pm | 06/05/11

      “Probably with better punctuation and spelling your name right, though.”

      If you are looking for opportunities to correct the English of others, perhaps the above sentence requires work. Start with grammar, move on to syntax and then finish with the punctuation.

    • Amanda Coleman says:

      03:43am | 01/07/11

      I hope the improvement is permanent as well! My family and I will be moving to Australia at the end of the year for my husband’s job. I appreciate realistic articles like this that will help prepare us for what we will be spending our money on. I visited Australia a few years ago and it was very interesting to see the costs of living, entertainment, etc. when comparing the Australian dollar to the American dollar. It’s promising for us in certain circumstances, but with the cost of housing and international moving that I’ve been reading about, it still makes me nervous! It’s all speculation until we actually move, but I still feel like I can never prepare enough for it!

    • John (The Real) says:

      01:27pm | 06/05/11

      Anthony I nearly feel off my seat when I read that report. What are figures based on, is it based on buying a place 6 hours from the city and just buying the bare essentials (black and gold brand). Is it based on a person living alone or on a single couple. Truely WTF and I do call BS

    • Knemon says:

      01:30pm | 06/05/11

      Good to see that Anthony Sharwood has a better understanding of our economy than NATSEM does - perhaps you’re in the wrong profession Anthony? Five years ago I couldn’t afford a great big new TV, I can now. I couldn’t afford a new car, I can now - all costs of living, including entertainment and recreation must be taken into account, the grocery or power bill is not the be all and end all to our daily costs of living. All of this doom and gloom and I now have more money in the bank than I did five years ago, go figure. I’m far from smart, perhaps I’m just lucky?

    • michael j says:

      01:37pm | 06/05/11

      Really cheap houses in America,,anybody starve to death there ?

    • Curmudgeon says:

      01:57pm | 06/05/11

      My goodness, how on earth did Australians become so whiney and feel so hard done by. Thank god that none of you had to live through the Depression.

    • ibast says:

      01:59pm | 06/05/11

      “As we all know, the cost of petrol has also skyrocketed”

      Ahhh, no they haven’t.  The reference point here is five years ago.  The graph from the Australian Automobile Association had them in the $1.15-$1.30 range in Mar 06.  That $1.33-$1.50 in today’s money.

      And as for housing prices, as the owner of a house (and a debt to go with it), I want housing prices to go up.  As a commuter in morning and afternoon traffic, I absolutely do not want more land released on the outskirts of my city.  This daft practice should have stopped 20 years ago.

    • Ryan says:

      02:02pm | 06/05/11

      As you say, so were $25 better off but paying $500+ dollars more in essential services like water and power.
      This government is incompetent and the result is that we pay and pay we do.

    • James1 says:

      04:00pm | 06/05/11

      “As you say, so were $25 better off but paying $500+ dollars more in essential services like water and power.”

      It was $25 a week better off.  What are you doing that you are paying $500 a week in water and power?  Pouring water down the drain while running a hydroponic setup?

      What suggestions do you have for government’s to fix this, while you are at it?  What exactly do you expect Mr O’Farrell to do about the cost of power and water?

    • Rosie says:

      12:21am | 07/05/11

      Ryan

      Yeah Ryan, I see you make these contradicting two liners without adding anything to the debate. How about some suggestions for Govts to make today’s life like that of the Baby Boomers, when if you were prepared to work hard you could afford to live a very comfortable life topped up with a few luxuries because the opportunities were there to be had. Two houses, one to live in and one for investment.

      I gave you the reasons to why we are in the situation we are in today and perhaps if you had read it without trivializing it you may have some answers to how this Govt could fix the problem. Eager to hear it!

    • Wickerman says:

      02:02pm | 06/05/11

      Housing expensive? Yes. Why:
      1. Easy credit: 90 - 100% mortgages , therefore people can borrow more, therefore prices go up. Although these are not a common as they used to be.
      2. Immigration - not boat people, but cashed up immigrants e.g. Hong Kong Chinese, richer UK immigrants. Immigrants with deep pockets can outbid the locals.
      3. Higher population - more competition.

      But here’s a hint, how about buying a house to fit your budget - sheesh. We bought a small 2 bedroom flat in 2000. Paid it off in 2010. People need to lower their expectations & therefore their debt burden. People who goto into unmanageable debt have NO right to whinge IMHO. You want to live close to CBD?, fine pay for it. You want to buy a 4/5 bedroom house to house your kids?, fine pay for it. But don’t expect sympathy from me when you whinge about debt you knowingly went into. Be frugal, save & scrimp. If some households are “a rate rise away from ruin” then that is bad economic management (over extended).

      What makes me wild is breeders complaining about house prices, yet they get tax breaks & benefits from the government to subsidise these pressures. I am 1/2 of a DINK marriage - where is my explicit payments??

    • Tim says:

      02:52pm | 06/05/11

      “But here’s a hint, how about buying a house to fit your budget -”

      They don’t exist, especially not for new housing.
      Developers won’t allow smaller houses to be built because they make less profit on them. Block sizes are getting smaller and house sizes are increasing because that is the way that developers want it.
      It has nothing to do with people demanding mcmansions.

      I agree that people who overstretch themselves have no right to whinge but to deny that things are different from how they were even 10 years ago is silly.

    • Budz says:

      03:57pm | 06/05/11

      Tim: Of course they exist! But probably not in the locations you want to live in. Do you know why? Because everyone else wants to live there too! If you want affordability move to areas where the demand isn’t as great. SIMPLE!

    • Markus says:

      04:25pm | 06/05/11

      “If you want affordability move to areas where the demand isn’t as great. SIMPLE!”

      Except moving to such an area entails changing to a job that pays a fraction as much, and that is if you are lucky enough to find a job at all.
      Which throws you right back to not being able to afford a house again.

      Why did you think nobody wants to live there?

    • braunman says:

      11:52am | 09/05/11

      I don’t know about the eastern states, but housing developments around Perth are beginning to provide lots of small 2x1 cottage blocks (about 200-300m^2 land area, about the size of an average unit) in order to increase population density and reduce urban sprawl. I would have gotten one of these but the problem is that they…are not actually that much cheaper than the large 4x2 McMansions, reducing the incentive for people to buy them. It’s the same problem with apartments, all the new ones being built are ultra fancy and ultra expensive. Both apartments and cottage blocks are sensible options for cheap housing, if they actually were low cost!

    • Steve says:

      02:08pm | 06/05/11

      Anthony

      Only about 1/3rd of the population wants cheaper housing.  The rest would hate it.

      1/3rd of households own their own house and it is their major asset and most of their savings for retirement, so lower prices means an instant loss of wealth (and later retirement). 

      Another third of households have a mortgage and are paying them off.  A drop in prices would not reduce the size of their outstanding debt, just that the house is worth less than what they ‘bought’ if for.  Interest rates may be lower though.  It would not outweight paying off a $600k mortgage for a $500k house. 

      No federal government would survive a substantal (10% or more) price drop - even though there was nothing more they could do to prevent it than what has already been done.  The voters would blame them because someone needs to be at fault.

      State governments would hate it because it would slash stamp duty revenues.  Local govenments would hate it because their income relys on rates - based on property values.

      So only the people yet to buy a house want lower house prices.

    • SD says:

      02:08pm | 06/05/11

      People feel like they are in worse financial trouble because so many things that are actually luxuries are now considered ‘necessities’.  If you think you are a hard done by battler and you have an iPhone then STFU.  If you think the world is quietly doing you a horrible injustice and you buy two coffees and a foccacia every day from the cafe downstairs then stop and think.  If you have a gym membership, foxtel, a flatscreen or eat at restuarants twice a week, add that up.  These are luxuries, not necessities, yet most of the people I know who whinge about how tough times are have many of these things.  Upgrades on phones, laptops and iPods are done without blinking while people whine about the cost of bread.  These are not bare necessities or things that people innately deserve, they are luxuries that you can have if you have the spare cash. 

      I am currently right on the edge of being nasty, can’t pay my debts, broke.  And I have been astonished by just how much room there was when I tightened my belt.  That we are all doing just fine has been a theory of mine for a while, and I feel a little vindicated by the report.  And come on, we all know it is the last thing that the Herald Sun wanted to hear.

    • Redeker Plan says:

      02:44pm | 06/05/11

      “If you think you are a hard done by battler and you have an iPhone then STFU.”

      +1, you win comment of the thread so far.  The amount of new car-driving, iPhone waving, Pandora braclet-wearing, Versace-bag toting bogans you see whining about the cost of living…  My only addition would be “if you keep having more kids, and think that THEY all need an iPhone as well despite the fact that they’re 12, then STFU”

    • DaveinPerth says:

      09:15pm | 06/05/11

      @SD. Harsh! Sure I’m typing this post on my iPad. (dontya just love the way spellcheck capitalises the P?)
      While checking my email accts on my iPhone.(there it goes again!)
      But don’t be fooled,I’m doing it tough!
      I have rego to pay on 3 cars, 4 motorbikes & a trailer. That’s not cheap.
      Plus insurance on the 3 cars & 1 bike.
      It adds up!

      These ppl that talk about ‘good times’ have NO idea how expensive transport really is!

    • Rosie says:

      12:00am | 07/05/11

      @ DavidinPerth

      “These ppl that talk about ‘good times’ have NO idea how expensive transport really is!”

      Perhaps if these people that talk about the good times but have NO idea how expensive transport really is should look up the Liberal Website since you have made the statement without explaining “WHY.”

      My history teacher told me before making any statement always ask yourself, “WHO WHY & HOW”

    • Marty says:

      08:15am | 07/05/11

      @Rosie, maybe a little more info than randomly slamming the Libs would be good, and I’m pretty positive Dave is taking the piss.  Or is a chronic sook, and to borrow the phrase, needs to STFU.

    • DaveinPerth says:

      03:48pm | 07/05/11

      @Marty. Maybe my post was too subtle for Rosie? Makes you wonder just WHAT I’d have to write to get the point across?

    • Jason says:

      02:12pm | 06/05/11

      I call total BS on Anthony. 

      Despite the disclaimer, you ARE denigrating NATSEM by calling their work horse manure. 

      The point of rigorous statisics are to map actual changes (where they can be measured).  This is particularly useful in areas where people make unsubstantiated claims that ‘everyone knows’ something, for example that people are doing it tougher. 

      NATSEM’s findings show that, factoring in both decreases and increases in prices of various goods, the average household has more disposable income than it did five years ago.  Outright denial of these findings, supported by an appeal to what ‘everyone knows’ and a focus on what has gone up in prices, does absolutely nothing to refute this. 

      If you have key concerns regarding their methodology, I would be interested to hear it.  Otherwise, I find it hard to understand the logic of your argument.  In fact, I’d better stop there as the only possible explanation would probably be construed as insulting.

      Cheers

    • Phil says:

      03:50pm | 06/05/11

      More disposable income? maybe.
      Could be that so many have given up on ever affording a house within an hour or a major city (Sydney \ Melbourne) that we might as well spend the extra money on other things.
      Ive certainly given up on buying a house in Australia, id rather own everything in my rented apartment than have nothing in an apartment that the bank owns and i pay back over the next 30 years.

    • Norm C says:

      02:18pm | 06/05/11

      Australians have been doing it tough for many years, and as each year and generation passes, it gets tougher.  At least that is the perception.

      In reality, we have never had it so good.  What has changes is our perception of what ‘doing it tough’ means.
      My father was 47 years old when he bought his first new car in 1965.  When I left home in 1970, our house had no hot water system, not TV, no carpet, no insulation, no inside toilet (still a back yard dunny) - need I go on.  My father always had a job and once the kids were old enough, my mother worked as well.  Gee, we have it tough today don’t we.  Only got two TVs, two computers, a three year old car and only a four bedroom house with two bathrooms.

      Even considering only the past five years, the cost of most manufactured goods has come down.  Even housing has come down (or at least not gone up) in most areas of Australia in the past couple of years.  Unemployment has also gone down.

      What has changed is our need for instant gratification - I want it and I want it now!  Plus, many of us believe we are entitled all the trapping of a modern affluent society.

      Of course many people are doing it tough and action is required to make housing and other necessities more affordable.  But overall, most of us need to do a bit of self analysis and recognise that improving our lot in life is largely our own responsibility - not the governments.

    • Andrew says:

      02:20pm | 06/05/11

      I completely disagree.  People *are* much better off now, but simply don’t see it.  I compare my life now to the life my parents had 25 years ago, and it’s immeasuarably better in almost every way.  Better and more comfortable furniture, better cars, better appliances, more frequent and better entertainment, the list is endless.  People might have less money in the bank now, but that’s mostly due to bad budgeting skills, not an inherent lack of money.  Tax breaks for families are enormous now compared to 20 years ago - almost HALF of Australian families pay $0 in tax each year after family tax benefits, etc.  My childhood consisted of a very small TV, no computer consoles, take away MAYBE every 3 months if we were lucky.  Family holiday was a camping trip each year at minimal cost.  And yes, both of my parents were working in reasonable jobs, but with 3 kids and no tax relief, it was hard to supply just the basics, so luxuries were out of the question.

      Yes, we’re better off today, just like people 20 years ago were better off than they were 40 years ago.  The standard of living is always increasing, but we don’t realise it because we always compare ourselves to those who are doing just a little better, and see only what we DON’T have, not what we do.  Working hours are shorter, pay is higher, and many ‘luxuries’ are now in every single home.  Life is good..

    • seriouslypeople says:

      02:23pm | 06/05/11

      This is why sometimes Australians annoy me… We are in a good economic situation. We are not doing it tough. We have the second highest living standards in the world. For gods sake, just accept we are in a good situation, the aussie battler thing is a myth for the most part, sure there are those out there in serious poverty, but not many, and generally those aren’t the ones claiming to be battlers. Its the people who have a mortgage for a house beyond their means and buy things they don’t need then complain that necessities cost too much. Go live in Ethiopia and get some perspective.

    • Rosie says:

      02:51pm | 06/05/11

      Hard working Australians will have to take the bitter medicine for the sweet hand outs by the spendaholic Rudd/Gillard Govt.

      Compensation if there is a carbon tax will not buy any more than what hard working Australians are earning.

      Govt spending without raising income taxes has put the nation into a deficit.

      Like it or not we have to tighten our belts further to pay off all the spending. More taxes and high prices is the price we have to pay to pay for all Labor’s spending. We can have a Paul Keating recession but that will be the end of this Govt. Cutting back on Govt spending and holding up the tax rate will make it difficult for harding working Australians to get credit. It is also not the kind of policy that will give the Labor Govt any votes.

      It has been said constantly that this Govt is governing for their survial and things will remain the same for the people.

      “Too much money borrowed from the banks will make it easier to bid prices up higher making it harder for the average Australian to be able to afford a roof over their heads.”

      Oh dear what a mess!

    • Ryan says:

      06:31pm | 06/05/11

      @ Rosie There’s an interesting article on the Punch website today by Anthony Sharwood that you really should read sometime.

      You can find it here.

    • DaveinPerth says:

      08:50pm | 06/05/11

      @Rosie. I can’t help but wonder if this contribution is supposed to represent sentient thought, or if it’s just a troll. Your drivel is just a copypasta of the libs website talking points.

      Do you have ANYTHING of your own to say?

    • Rosie says:

      09:29pm | 06/05/11

      Ryan

      Perhaps after reading your prescribed link you may read my comments again.

      The average Australian wants the certainity from the Govt that it is possible to afford a house if you are prepared to work hard. That is what we want to hear, not that we are better off today than before. blah blah blah.

      The Baby Boomers worked their butts off, made sacrifices so that they could afford to have a roof over their heads. Even went further and bought another house as an investment. The opportunities were there and they took it. Today, this Govt because of their spending and how it is set up (minority Govt) they can’t afford to give us the same opportunity and have robbed us of our savings, cheated us of a holiday and the extras we deserved for working hard. My comments (tongue in cheek maybe) were just that if you bothered to read it rather than trivalise it.

      Yes Mr Ryan the Baby Boomers bought their homes when real estate was affordable, sold it when it was a good time to sell and bought expensive homes in leafy surburbs.

      Unfortunately it will never happen while this “do nothing for the people Govt” is in power. Take the bitter medicine because for this Govt to survive their need to hand out sweeteners!

      Simple thinking rather than over thinking is a much better way of coping with this incompetent govt which gets worse and more confusing each day.

      DaveinPerth

      Oh yes it was sentient thought! Give me the liberal website and I will check to see what they have to say. We are going around in a vicious circle and will continue to do so until Elections so I think I am trying to figure out why so. I think it is only common sense to figure out why the high prices for our basic needs and housing.

      If Punch disagrees with my comments, they can feel free not to publish.

    • Tam says:

      09:51pm | 06/05/11

      DaveinPerth

      Perhaps Rosie is not listening to Julia and listening to Tony Abbott and the Coalition. I don’t think any of us need to look up the Lib’s website to know what is going on and voice our opinions.

      Does the truth make you feel uncomfortable?

    • Ryan says:

      11:46pm | 06/05/11

      @ Rosie There’s an interesting article on the Punch website today by Anthony Sharwood that you really should read sometime.

      You can still find it here.

    • DaveinPerth says:

      02:14am | 07/05/11

      @Tam
      Everyone has the right to be heard.
      That doesn’t extend to the right to be taken seriously.

      No sensible person is going to take someone seriously when they just parrot Joe Hockeys talking points.
      That would be as silly as taking Joe Hockey seriously.
      Joe Hockey doesn’t even take Joe Hockey seriously!
      He’s got more positions than the karma-sutra.

      One minute, he’s the champion of the markets. Next, he’s re-regulating the banks. Then he nationalizing the banks. Then he’s not sure, so he’s off to ask some adults what his position is.

      One minute, he’s decrying the stimulus package as a total waste of money. And then, in the SAME radio interview, he says the libs would have done 90% of the stimulus. (but that would be OK, cause then it’d be the libs doing it?)

      Are we really supposed to take these children seriously? Or their parrots?

    • Eddie says:

      10:06am | 07/05/11

      Ryan

      Read it yourself and tell us what you think. Rosie has and has given us her thoughts on the debate. Don’t you think it is up to the readers to decide. I had no problems understanding Rosie’s post as trying to explain why there is a problem that worries most Australian which is “no end to higher prices.” She is right it cannot be fixed until we get rid of this incompetent government! Have been reading your comments and you don’t contribute anything substantial but contradictions. Contradiction with a narrative we wouldn’t mind, it may also help this government govern competently.

      Rosie is doing her bit, how about you?

    • Yuri says:

      02:55pm | 06/05/11

      Perhaps Anthony should start writing the ICB articles, this sounds very much like one.

    • Burko says:

      02:56pm | 06/05/11

      I know naff all about the whys and wherefores behind the real reasoning for high house prices, so I probably shouldnt say anything as I will more than likely wake the sleeping giant, but here goes….I reckon its laziness of the average home buyer. In my experience, the average home buyer wants all the amenities to make their life easy at their front door, close to work, schools, shops, public transport etc. To have this there has to be a premium and that is high price. No one forces any one to pay $800k+ for a 2 bedroom house on 250sqm in Sydney’s inner west, its a choice made by the purchaser. They feel its worth that much to have those convieniances close to their door.
      There is still great value to be had when buying a home, as I have just discovered. My wife and I just bought a three bedroom home with two sunrooms, garage and carport on 800sqm for 300k. I travel an extra half an hour to work, whoopydoo!!!! and her travel has gone from a 45min drive to a five minute walk and were close to transport, shops ,schools and the repayments are less than half of our monthly combined pays.
        I find it very hard to have sympathy for someone who chooses to pay an outrageous price for a house when its the buyer who want the cake and to eat it too.

    • Mark says:

      03:36pm | 06/05/11

      People invest lots of money in housing becouse it is not taxed. Do you want the price of housing to go down. OK allow the taxation of the family home. No not interested. Then stop whining about the price of housing. .

    • Tator says:

      12:45am | 07/05/11

      But would that be a bad thing.  Maybe taxing the capital gains on the family home is the way to go, as long as people were able to claim tax deductions on the expenses going into the family home, as it is one of the few exemptions in the capital gains tax regime and bringing it in with the rest of the investments and treating it the same way would probably not be detrimental to the persons bottom line.  The only people who would complain would be the ones who own their houses outright as they have little to deduct and would have to pay CGT when they sold the house.

    • Zaf says:

      04:00pm | 06/05/11

      Jobs and amenities are too centralised, without efficient and cheap public transport to spatially increase the travel isochrone.

      Both in the country (so concentrated in capital cities) and within cities (so CBDs and inner suburbs, for eg).

      It’s a planning problem rather than a fiscal one.

      A sensible approach would be to encourage economic activity (jobs) near one of the things people like living near, the coast (so amenities) rather than throwing good money after bad by trying to persuade people to move inland.  Australia has a lot of coast.

    • Dave says:

      04:03pm | 06/05/11

      Hey Ant, good to see an intelligently written and considered piece that’s not beating up some sporting figure. Yes, house pricing is ridiculous. The “Australian Dream” is now just that, a dream, not achieveable for many or most.

      I personally think one possible answer to this is the mining tax. The two speed economy is going to ruin anyone not in the mining sector. By taxing the hell out of the fast lane, the rest of us get a better go & discourages so much investment in non-renewable resources, which lowers interest rates and the cost of pretty much everything.

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      04:27pm | 06/05/11

      Gawd, here we go again…the Baby Boomers had it easy…...yawn.

      I’ve said it before but I guess I have to say it again - B*llocks!

      If we had it so easy, how come we only owned one (second-hand) car and I had to ride to work through rain and hail on an ancient moped? How come we NEVER ate in a restaurant? How come we only owned one TV? How come the only house we could afford had just two and a bit bedrooms and one bathroom (not the four-bed, two-bath, double garage minimum that today’s young buyers demand)? How come we had to diligently track every penny we spent? How come we couldn’t afford a new cooker when the old one died? How come I used to work up to 80hrs a week? How come my wiofe had to return to work when our first-born was just twelve weeks old?

      I know the answer. Back then, it’s true that houses, as a multiple of average wages, were cheaper. But EVERYTHING ELSE was much more expensive. solating the cost of houses is misleading. What matters is the TOTAL cost of living, including buying your first (modest) home. It’s a hard thing to compare accurately, that’s why I prefer to use a ‘quality of life’ measure, i.e. how does our way of life when I was 24 and married compare with a typical 24yo married man’s today - and today’s 24yo’s are WAY AHEAD.

      They just need to forego the new cars, plasma TVs, holidays, eating out, iPhones, fancy surround-sound systems, etc, etc AND make their first home a small (i.e. affordable) one.

    • brad says:

      05:21pm | 06/05/11

      you seem to forget things like dodging tax via income splitting and beneficial trust rules and free uni education. baby boomers gave us the user pay system after they milked it to the bone!

    • David K says:

      06:22pm | 06/05/11

      Steve it was because the baby boomers worked hard saved and later was able to buy 2 houses, one to live in and one for investment. They were then able to sell their houses, make 400% in some cases which enabled them to afford the expensive houses in the leafy surburbs!

      Start from the bottom and work your way up, once you are up there make sure you stay there!

      These days they want to start from the top, it is a wonder they come crashing down when we end up with an incompetent government. It seems we get ourselves in a pickle when Labor is in power.

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      07:19pm | 06/05/11

      @Brad: my ‘education’ was an apprenticeship, which paid just enough to pay my Mum & Dad my ‘keep’. University was for me, like 99% of my generation, something for ‘rich people’ - free tuition does not put food on the table and again, like most of my generation, our parents barely had enough for themselves, let alone a live at home ‘student’. As for tax, I have never dodged it - wouldn’t know how - and trusts are for people with real money, again not something most of my peers are familiar with.

      Contrary to your skewed view, the average Baby Boomer achieved what they did through hard work, thrift, common sense and more hard work.

      Again, I challenge you to explain why it was that I had to do the things I did when we Baby Boomers had it so ‘easy’.

    • Grumbleduke says:

      08:09pm | 06/05/11

      You all seem to be forgetting, THERE IS NO BOTTOM ANYMORE! I would love to start out in a one bedroom house, but due to the “knock it down, stick 3 townhouses on it and I can make 3x the profit” attitude the Boomers all seem to have, there is very little on the market with these specifications. I went to look at a two bedroom farmers cottage which was missing part of the roof, the floor and most of one wall and it was still 6 times the average wage. How do I “start at the bottom”?

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      08:47pm | 06/05/11

      @Bumbleduke: what nonsense. How about $200K for a two bed duplex? There are several just like it, fifteen mins from where I live. Just lower your sights a bit, like I did. My first home was a tiny duplex in a cheap neighbourhood, right next to railway line and overlooking an industrial estate. Not good enough for most young ‘uns these days, but it got me and Mrs Wife into our own home.

      Yeah, we had it real easy.

    • Dash says:

      04:42pm | 06/05/11

      But we are going to get more affordable housing and cheaper better childcare and 260 childcare centres and cheaper groceries and cheaper fuel and a coast guard and root and branch tax reform and no child shall live without a laptop. And the citezens assembly and no carbon tax and cash for our clunkers. It will all happen at the time we get the East Timor Solution and the Parrammatta to Epping railway right? The ALP promised us so it must be true. Read my lips L.A.W!

    • Huey says:

      09:10pm | 06/05/11

      Ants, good article and last three paragraphs are GOLD!..

    • Malleeringneck says:

      09:30pm | 06/05/11

      Every organisation that gives out statistics slants them in the way they want by additions and subtractions.
      Leave out some items and it will slant one way add some others and it slants the other.
      All done for whover commisions the stats.

    • Small Starter says:

      09:39am | 07/05/11

      Steve has the right idea - start small and most thinking people can own a roof over their head and make it a home.

    • DaveinPerth says:

      04:15pm | 07/05/11

      Not really sure what the mystery is here?
      Established housing in the outer suburbs of Perth is trading at replacement cost at the moment.
      The only way to lower replacement cost is to reduce the cost of wages or land.
      Established housing gets more expensive as you get closer to Perth.
      This is because ppl are willing to pay a premium to be closer to the city.

      You COULD drag this difference down by one or both of the following measures.
      1. Remove negative gearing on investment property. (or reduce %)
      Make it a less attractive investment class, and the less ppl want to become landlords.
      2. Remove cap gains exemption on family home.
      Remove the ‘investment’ component from the family home, and ppl will be willing to overspend on their residence.

      Established house values would decrease, and your PAYG taxes would go down. Ergo, housing would become more affordable.

      If you were worried about the inevitable construction collapse, you could keep ‘new build’ investments negatively geared, which would improve the housing shortages.

      This is all simple stuff.
      And electoral suicide, so it will never happen.

    • St. Michael says:

      04:20pm | 07/05/11

      The hilarious part about Ant’s pathetically populist call is that it screws the Baby Boomers by definition—and they’re the ones responding in smug droves about how smart they were in purchasing their first home.

      I mean, think it through: the only way you can actually make houses more “affordable” is to lower the price.  Whether it’s killing negative gearing, releasing more land, or just giving every first home buyer $200K to buy their first home, you are basically trying to affect the law of supply and demand.  In particular: when you increase supply, prices drop.  There is no other way it happens.

      And given most Baby Boomers have pretty pathetic super nest eggs (more fool you for believing a government would pay for you into your twilight years - fail on economics, there) that means any great housing revolution which makes houses affordable for the majority of first home buyers is also going to screw the Baby Boomers’ most significant retirement asset: their home.  We do have a housing bubble in Australia, and it’s predominantly the Baby Boomers who are riding it.

      So, were I a Baby Boomer, I wouldn’t quite so smugly point out how awesome a group of economists you were, and I wouldn’t so roundly criticise Gen X and Gen Y’s spending habits.  They are the only things keeping you, as a group, from trying to survive on the pension, because when and if the housing bubble blows, you won’t be able to shift that house you so assiduously paid off for anywhere near as much that you think.  (And we know, from years of whinging about it, that Baby Boomers can’t survive on the pension alone.)

      People living in glass houses is the operative slogan here.  With rather more applicability than it otherwise would have.

    • Rhino says:

      02:20pm | 09/05/11

      The only equitable solution to the conudrum as you have identified here is to up our super to 12% and allow our superannuation to purchase our family home (which is how it is done in Singapore, i believe). This maintains the property values and funds the future, downside is that your super is tied to the property market.

    • Richard Perin says:

      08:29pm | 08/05/11

      Mount Annan. Good value if you believe the Saturday paper. Shame about the some of the people who live there. XO@

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Lucy Kippist

Complimentary packing, free childcare & convenience aplenty. Thats what i want from the supermarket. How about you? http://t.co/FV4tgjji

Daniel Piotrowski

#Thomson will never get brothel tapes, CCTV-in-brothels experts tell the ABC. http://t.co/7YFORBBJ

Daniel Piotrowski

@ToryShepherd there's always time for Din Tai Fung.

ToryShepherd

@drpiotrowski will be there just in time for Din Tai Fung

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Deep down we’re all unionists, even the haters

Deep down we’re all unionists, even the haters

Bill Kelty made a memorable speech last week. Addressing the ACTU Congress Dinner in Sydney, the legendary…

Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia…

Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia…

Speaking of yourself in the third person is usually a sign that you’re suffering from delusions…

South Australia. It’s the middle bottom bit.

South Australia. It’s the middle bottom bit.

If South Australia had just arrived in the world, red and wrinkled and mewling, what would we call it?…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

241 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter