The politics of housing

[Pies4shaw]

^ Ah, yes, the "good old days", when average working people had it easy. Be wary of falling for that one.

Home-ownership affordability has a little to do with the price of houses and a lot to do with the ability of households to obtain and pay for credit.

There have been some siesmic shifts that have affected that ability since 1980. For example, Keating's financial deregulation massively increased the availability of money for owner-occupied housing finance, the final, general shift from single-income to dual income households meant that households/families typically became able to afford to service way more debt than formerly, we have been living in an extended period of very low inflation and, of course, interest rates are not now inflation plus 6 or 7% - real interest rates are presently half what they were 35 years ago.

The movements in affordability of owner-occupied residential housing over time need to be assessed not by reference to the change in prices but by reference to the changes in the ability of households to obtain the requisite credit and to service the cost of it. The two are, of course, connected - but it's obtaining and paying for the loan, not the "price" of the house, that matters.

My general sense is that no average person in their right mind would have borrowed $100,000 for a house in 1987 but that a person who couldn't then obtain or service a loan of that size in the same personal circumstances can now readily obtain and more-or-less comfortably service a loan of $1,000,000 (by which I mean that the burden of such a loan now is about as crushing as the burden of a $75,000 loan was back then).

The other thing that needs to be borne in mind is that the house of 1980 was quite a different beast from the house of today. People simply would not now live in the house we bought in 1987 - it would be, to most ordinary people's views today, an actual hovel. The house still stands and is, according to the usual real estate website's estimate of value, now worth about 15 times what we paid for it 35 years ago. The increase is partly due to housing price increases but significantly due to substantial expenditure by us a quarter of a century ago on the improvement of the house (the cost of the renovation, which was very modest even by the standards of 1997 and was confined squarely by a budget, was more than we paid for the house a decade earlier). I think it is tolerably clear from looking at houses and visiting other people's houses over the years that that trend is general, at least in cities. You know, houses are bigger, they have (comparatively speaking) giant, well-appointed kitchens, they have heating and cooling, they are insulated, they have proper bathrooms, they have indoor toilets - the change between what was tolerated in a standard dwelling of 1980 and a standard dwelling now is remarkable. The "inflation" in housing cost includes a significant uptick in cost for the greatly improved value of the typical basket of services provided to the purchaser by the typical house purchased.

That isn't to say that things are "fine" and that housing affordability can't be improved in lots of ways - and there are obviously significant numbers of households who are locked out of the owner/occupier market(s). But housing affordability has been an issue of considerable policy concern in Australia since the 1970s, at least. I am not persuaded that it it is much different than it has always been - it's hard for many. many people and always was. It has always been the case that people who aren't in the market feel that it is rushing away from them and they can't catch up. There are times when that has been demonstrabvly true. Eg, after the October 1987 stock market crash, the price of a typical inner-city hovel increased by about 50% in one weekend, courtesy of a massive flow of capital out of stocks and into property. That hasn't happened for a while. Even then, though, people coped with massive price rises, more or less actually overnight, and a subsequent raging interest-rate environment (I recall paying at least 17.5% on my home loan at one stage in that era, after taking it out at around 11%, IIRC). I don't think things are quite as absurd as that, presently.

[What'sinaname]

The smart money does seem to be on a Labor majority now, yes. Which checks out, as I put money on the result being a hung parliament.

I'm not sure if it's a problem, it is what it is.

In 1984 I could have a night out for $20. $5 fuel in the car,(40km round trip) $1.20 for a packet of smokes, $1 a pot, $6 for a decent dinner. Not sure how that plugs into the calculator but the same packet of smokes is now $50.

Hypothetical, if property investors were suddenly banned, would that have a real impact on housing prices or would it just mean that there were suddenly no rental properties and a lot more homeless people?

Cigarettes have been taxed like crazy since the 1980s, so not sure if that's the best comparison! Some of the other items do seem to have gone up in price more than the inflation calculator would suggest (what's a pot now, $5+?), but I guess it should still be a relatively accurate estimate of such things.

What I'd be interested to see is how wages have changed (for a standard job like, say, working in a supermarket). My guess is that they might have actually gone down when adjusted for inflation.

The increase in house price relative to income is a furphy as once you get into the market, your income will grow considerably faster than the repayments will and you will sit back and enjoy any capital appreciation. So while repayments are daunting in the first few years, once your salary goes up, you are spending less on servicing the loan.

Living in the inner city should be considered a staged affair. Buy a place in the outer suburbs and then use that equity in 10 years time to move into the inner city. Consider the loan a type of forced savings.

The problem with the I demand it now generation.

[David]

^ Ah, yes, the "good old days", when average working people had it easy. Be wary of falling for that one.

Home-ownership affordability has a little to do with the price of houses and a lot to do with the ability of households to obtain and pay for credit.

There have been some siesmic shifts that have affected that ability since 1980. For example, Keating's financial deregulation massively increased the availability of money for owner-occupied housing finance, the final, general shift from single-income to dual income households meant that households/families typically became able to afford to service way more debt than formerly, we have been living in an extended period of very low inflation and, of course, interest rates are not now inflation plus 6 or 7% - real interest rates are presently half what they were 35 years ago.

The movements in affordability of owner-occupied residential housing over time need to be assessed not by reference to the change in prices but by reference to the changes in the ability of households to obtain the requisite credit and to service the cost of it. The two are, of course, connected - but it's obtaining and paying for the loan, not the "price" of the house, that matters.

My general sense is that no average person in their right mind would have borrowed $100,000 for a house in 1987 but that a person who couldn't then obtain or service a loan of that size in the same personal circumstances can now readily obtain and more-or-less comfortably service a loan of $1,000,000 (by which I mean that the burden of such a loan now is about as crushing as the burden of a $75,000 loan was back then).

The other thing that needs to be borne in mind is that the house of 1980 was quite a different beast from the house of today. People simply would not now live in the house we bought in 1987 - it would be, to most ordinary people's views today, an actual hovel. The house still stands and is, according to the usual real estate website's estimate of value, now worth about 15 times what we paid for it 35 years ago. The increase is partly due to housing price increases but significantly due to substantial expenditure by us a quarter of a century ago on the improvement of the house (the cost of the renovation, which was very modest even by the standards of 1997 and was confined squarely by a budget, was more than we paid for the house a decade earlier). I think it is tolerably clear from looking at houses and visiting other people's houses over the years that that trend is general, at least in cities. You know, houses are bigger, they have (comparatively speaking) giant, well-appointed kitchens, they have heating and cooling, they are insulated, they have proper bathrooms, they have indoor toilets - the change between what was tolerated in a standard dwelling of 1980 and a standard dwelling now is remarkable. The "inflation" in housing cost includes a significant uptick in cost for the greatly improved value of the typical basket of services provided to the purchaser by the typical house purchased.

That isn't to say that things are "fine" and that housing affordability can't be improved in lots of ways - and there are obviously significant numbers of households who are locked out of the owner/occupier market(s). But housing affordability has been an issue of considerable policy concern in Australia since the 1970s, at least. I am not persuaded that it it is much different than it has always been - it's hard for many. many people and always was. It has always been the case that people who aren't in the market feel that it is rushing away from them and they can't catch up. There are times when that has been demonstrabvly true. Eg, after the October 1987 stock market crash, the price of a typical inner-city hovel increased by about 50% in one weekend, courtesy of a massive flow of capital out of stocks and into property. That hasn't happened for a while. Even then, though, people coped with massive price rises, more or less actually overnight, and a subsequent raging interest-rate environment (I recall paying at least 17.5% on my home loan at one stage in that era, after taking it out at around 11%, IIRC). I don't think things are quite as absurd as that, presently.

Thanks P4S, that is quite illuminating. I’m a little surprised though that you say architectural standards have greatly improved (my anecdotal understanding was that they have dropped, at least when comparing the new vs old low-cost rentals we’ve lived in). The friends I know who’ve been able to buy somewhere to live have tended to end up in fairly depressing cheaply made newish units or apartments; by comparison, the pair of (undeniably run-down) 1930s/1940s brick houses with sizeable backyards that we’ve rented over the past seven years in Hampton have seemed pretty sturdy in comparison.

You’re right of course that mortgages and interest rates are a huge factor in this, and I know that my parents were still paying off the outer-suburban Canberra house they bought for $60,000 or so in 1985 two decades later. But I must confess I don’t understand how a loan for $1 million can be anything other than a multiple-decade-long (if not lifelong) albatross for someone on a median income today, even with low interest rates. And of course loans only become a factor if you can afford the deposit, and a great many people don’t even have the means for that today.

[stui magpie]

The smart money does seem to be on a Labor majority now, yes. Which checks out, as I put money on the result being a hung parliament.

I'm not sure if it's a problem, it is what it is.

In 1984 I could have a night out for $20. $5 fuel in the car,(40km round trip) $1.20 for a packet of smokes, $1 a pot, $6 for a decent dinner. Not sure how that plugs into the calculator but the same packet of smokes is now $50.

Hypothetical, if property investors were suddenly banned, would that have a real impact on housing prices or would it just mean that there were suddenly no rental properties and a lot more homeless people?

Cigarettes have been taxed like crazy since the 1980s, so not sure if that's the best comparison! Some of the other items do seem to have gone up in price more than the inflation calculator would suggest (what's a pot now, $5+?), but I guess it should still be a relatively accurate estimate of such things.

What I'd be interested to see is how wages have changed (for a standard job like, say, working in a supermarket). My guess is that they might have actually gone down when adjusted for inflation.

A few points.

Firstly, to clarify, I moved into my house in the late 80's and bought it in 93, not 87, so I'm clearly not insane. yes I went from paying $100 p/w rent to $220 p/w mortgage, but 20 years later the mortgage was still basically the same rate whereas rent had gone up considerably.

The "value" of my house hasn't gone up so much because I've spent a fortune renovating it, it's still a hovel (albeit I did do an extension so it's a larger hovel) it's gone up because of the land. I could sell this tomorrow to a developer for $1M who would bulldoze it and build townhouses. A fully renovated tarted up house would go for $1.5M in the same area.

On the "value of houses, apart from the price of land, the cost of building a new house has gone up appreciably, mostly because they are double the size and more intricate and detailed. The average cost to build a new home in Australia in 1987 was $65k, now it's over $300k

When looking at wages, you also have to factor in other things.

In 1987 the average wage was $20,000, today it's $62,000
In 87, on the average wage you were paying 40% in tax on every extra dollar you earned, today it's 32.5% (The top marginal rate of 49% kicked in at $35kpa back then )

Granted in 87 we didn't have a 10% GST, but we also didn't have 10% super.

So essentially it's a lot more complicated than it looks.

Back to the election, it's also more complicated than it looks.

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/fede ... 5am44.html

the ALP's primary vote is slipping back but there's a high % of people who don't want either SloMo or Albo. This will all come down to preferences in key seats.

[nomadjack]

Cigarettes have been taxed like crazy since the 1980s, so not sure if that's the best comparison! Some of the other items do seem to have gone up in price more than the inflation calculator would suggest (what's a pot now, $5+?), but I guess it should still be a relatively accurate estimate of such things.

What I'd be interested to see is how wages have changed (for a standard job like, say, working in a supermarket). My guess is that they might have actually gone down when adjusted for inflation.

Depends on your measure but generally wage growth has barely kept pace with inflation since the early 2000s and has been well below productivity growth. Share of GDP going to labour has also declined over that period. In talking about housing and changing living costs, it's worth noting that the prices for existing houses (as opposed to new dwellings) are excluded from the basket of goods used to calculate the CPI.

[Skids]

One thing for sure is the construction standards of housing has declined out of sight.
The materials used are cheaper and inferior & the workmanship is poor.

I wouldn't get a new house built today, unless I was an owner/builder and engaged quality tradesman that I know for every step of the build.

I've been in the same house for almost 30 years. Paid $135k for it. I was on about $50k/yr as a plumbing supervisor. Kelly was a stay at home mum until the kids went to school. I used to do 'Cashies' after work and most weekends to pay the mortgage and other bills.

Our first lounge was a hand me down and our first 'dining suite' was one I found on a verge throw out in North Beach. It was a struggle for the first 10 years, that's for sure. But tough times build character... something the moaners today don't seem to be able to grasp.

[Pies4shaw]

^ Ah, yes, the "good old days", when average working people had it easy. Be wary of falling for that one.

Home-ownership affordability has a little to do with the price of houses and a lot to do with the ability of households to obtain and pay for credit.

There have been some siesmic shifts that have affected that ability since 1980. For example, Keating's financial deregulation massively increased the availability of money for owner-occupied housing finance, the final, general shift from single-income to dual income households meant that households/families typically became able to afford to service way more debt than formerly, we have been living in an extended period of very low inflation and, of course, interest rates are not now inflation plus 6 or 7% - real interest rates are presently half what they were 35 years ago.

The movements in affordability of owner-occupied residential housing over time need to be assessed not by reference to the change in prices but by reference to the changes in the ability of households to obtain the requisite credit and to service the cost of it. The two are, of course, connected - but it's obtaining and paying for the loan, not the "price" of the house, that matters.

My general sense is that no average person in their right mind would have borrowed $100,000 for a house in 1987 but that a person who couldn't then obtain or service a loan of that size in the same personal circumstances can now readily obtain and more-or-less comfortably service a loan of $1,000,000 (by which I mean that the burden of such a loan now is about as crushing as the burden of a $75,000 loan was back then).

The other thing that needs to be borne in mind is that the house of 1980 was quite a different beast from the house of today. People simply would not now live in the house we bought in 1987 - it would be, to most ordinary people's views today, an actual hovel. The house still stands and is, according to the usual real estate website's estimate of value, now worth about 15 times what we paid for it 35 years ago. The increase is partly due to housing price increases but significantly due to substantial expenditure by us a quarter of a century ago on the improvement of the house (the cost of the renovation, which was very modest even by the standards of 1997 and was confined squarely by a budget, was more than we paid for the house a decade earlier). I think it is tolerably clear from looking at houses and visiting other people's houses over the years that that trend is general, at least in cities. You know, houses are bigger, they have (comparatively speaking) giant, well-appointed kitchens, they have heating and cooling, they are insulated, they have proper bathrooms, they have indoor toilets - the change between what was tolerated in a standard dwelling of 1980 and a standard dwelling now is remarkable. The "inflation" in housing cost includes a significant uptick in cost for the greatly improved value of the typical basket of services provided to the purchaser by the typical house purchased.

That isn't to say that things are "fine" and that housing affordability can't be improved in lots of ways - and there are obviously significant numbers of households who are locked out of the owner/occupier market(s). But housing affordability has been an issue of considerable policy concern in Australia since the 1970s, at least. I am not persuaded that it it is much different than it has always been - it's hard for many. many people and always was. It has always been the case that people who aren't in the market feel that it is rushing away from them and they can't catch up. There are times when that has been demonstrabvly true. Eg, after the October 1987 stock market crash, the price of a typical inner-city hovel increased by about 50% in one weekend, courtesy of a massive flow of capital out of stocks and into property. That hasn't happened for a while. Even then, though, people coped with massive price rises, more or less actually overnight, and a subsequent raging interest-rate environment (I recall paying at least 17.5% on my home loan at one stage in that era, after taking it out at around 11%, IIRC). I don't think things are quite as absurd as that, presently.

Thanks P4S, that is quite illuminating. I’m a little surprised though that you say architectural standards have greatly improved (my anecdotal understanding was that they have dropped, at least when comparing the new vs old low-cost rentals we’ve lived in). The friends I know who’ve been able to buy somewhere to live have tended to end up in fairly depressing cheaply made newish units or apartments; by comparison, the pair of (undeniably run-down) 1930s/1940s brick houses with sizeable backyards that we’ve rented over the past seven years in Hampton have seemed pretty sturdy in comparison.

You’re right of course that mortgages and interest rates are a huge factor in this, and I know that my parents were still paying off the outer-suburban Canberra house they bought for $60,000 or so in 1985 two decades later. But I must confess I don’t understand how a loan for $1 million can be anything other than a multiple-decade-long (if not lifelong) albatross for someone on a median income today, even with low interest rates. And of course loans only become a factor if you can afford the deposit, and a great many people don’t even have the means for that today.

^ One "hops", if one can, from house to house over the course of an income lifetime. The entry point is typically the difficult thing, provided the borrower household is able to maintain employment. In the late 1980s, when inflation was relatively high, the view we took (and by we, I specifically mean me and a couple of colleagues: my job was to run housing policy and research in Victoria at that time) was that we needed to develop alternative funding models for housing entry. Many of the products you now see came out of that work. We developed the first functional home-equity conversion scheme (targeted, at that time, to asset-rich, income-poor older people who lived in valuable real estate but couldn't generate income for a decent basic standard of living - the scheme we developed had an income-stream guarantee, funded by an insurance strategy, so that no-one could, as it were, "outlive" the equity in their property) - all the home equity conversion products (and the associated products, such as "mortgage offset" loans) were developed off the back of that work, at that time. We developed and implemented a shared equity housing program (and not that I care about what the ALP is proposing but it does look like they want to re-launch it or something very like it) - the plan was to get people into the market and then let capital gain over time provide them with a substantial deposit on the second house etc. We developed inflation-adjusted lending (an unnecessary product, in recent times), which was designed to structure - and fluctuate - repayments over time so that real repayments started lower but stayed steady in real terms for a longer period. All of those products were designed and implemented on the back of Keating's deregulation of the housing market (as part of his wider deregulation of financial markets).

Some of those things worked and some didn't - there were mortgage defaults on some inflation-indexed loans when the 1990s recession hit: that seems to have been because people's equity became negative (ie, they owed more than their houses were worth because of the lending structure and because prices crashed, albeit briefly - always a possible consequence in certain economic circumstances and a merely temporary feature but many people panicked and bailed out). In summary, the closer one moves towards a form of housing lending that properly reflects the movement of financial markets, the more likely it is that prices will tend towards volatility of the kind more typically seen in the share market.

If I modeled the operation of a standard, variable rate loan for the purchase of a house worth $60,000 in 1985 (ie, a loan of likely $48,000 or less), what you would find is that your parents could well have been (but unless they had re-borrowed against the increased value of the house almost certainly were not) paying "more" in the early 2000s but the real value of the higher repayments will have been much lower - and their ability to repay the loan should, relatively-speaking, have improved (because wages increase, though not at the same rate as inflation). [So, eg, my income was still terrible in 1997 - it had in fact dropped substantially in real terms because I had changed occupation and started again at the bottom in a new field - but the changes in nominal (if not real) wages meant that I could re-borrow against the increased value of my hovel to pay for the refurbishment/rebuilding]. And, of course, the capital gain should have been significant. The value of residential housing over the long haul in Australia has typically doubled every ten years. There are peaks and troughs in particular places and sub-markets - and you can, of course, always buy high and sell low because you miss the market both ways - but that's not a bad rule of thumb. It is not usual for inflation to double (or anything like) the price of the standard basket of goods and services in a decade.

The problem presented for marginal prospective borrowers by standard mortgage instruments is that repayments typically start high in real terms, then remain more or less static in nominal terms, so that the initial high repayment becomes easier to manage over time. There's been a fair bit of misinformation bandied around about the impact of the increase in interest rates. In fact, for most people repayments won't increase - and if they do, it won't likely be by much. The notion that everyone's repayments will go up on average by $500 a month or whatever is said is just silly - banks only alter and increase instalments where repayment rates will not pay off the loan after taking account of interest-rate movement. Save for a few people who bought at the limits of their affordability and at the top of the market before it began to drop, it will not be likely to be a significant prospect.

There needs, of course, to be much better education around how the housing market works. For most Australians - whether they rent or purchase - its their largest outlay and for those that purchase its generally their single largest discretionary investment. Yet it is fair to say that people generally understand very little of the detail about how it works or what they should do about it. Some on here have a rough understanding of how to operate in the present environment - but little, if any, understanding of the available strategies and alternatives. That's reasonably typical, I think.

Skids has separately provided a comment about construction standards, with which I agree. Materials and workmanship have generally declined (and increased in cost at well above the inflation rate, mainly for product supply and construction demand reasons that are way beyond the scope of this conversation). My point wasn't about standards of materials and work - it was about the average buyer's expectations in terms of space, facilities, service etc. In short, people have a much more expensive "ask" for what will be in their house and how big it will be than the same people had in 1980.

[think positive]

i agree with skids re spec homes, my sister in law built with a spec home builder, a supposedly better class one, at the same time we owner built the beach house. we were both horrified when we checked hers out mid build, we hired a special enginner to come and do a report, (her hubby, my BIL was killed on his bike a couple of years before, so shes on her own and vulnerable). the report was a mile long. they fixed some of it but some were not fixable. bricks that were not fully on the slab (yep i cant see how that passed any test) windows not centred, and the 2 front windows were crooked, i walked in and spotted it straight away. she got the same floating floor as ours, but the laying job is disgraceful. we just about divorced doing it ourselves, but it looks so much better than hers. and thats just the start of it, so many people trying to take advantage of her, even the so called landscapers who build a very dangerous wood path for her. they refused to come and finish it properly, so they didnt get fully paid and hubby did it. same as truck drivers, cheap arse lowly educated so called tradies from overseas, who are just not up to standard.


i actually think the super thing is a good idea. for starters you have to have a minimum amount in super before you do it, and it can only be $50k. damn sight more useful when you have a young family, than when your 65 or whatever. but im not a fan of super! well not if you handle your money right!! ours is self managed, has been for about 6 years, and with the help of our amazing tax accountants, we have really maxed it out compared to what it was.

we are looking for a sea change property, and the amount of people attending the openings has really dropped off, 2 properties we have looked at have dropped $200k, thats a lot of cash!!i dont know if its the interest rate, overheated market in the area, or the end of covid means people are happy to stay put in the suburbs.

my eldest was meant to come back home and rent her place out, but i dont think its happening! Her BF has finally got a well paid job and is saving like mad, i think they will get a place together. she bought at just the right time last year, before the boom, its gone up at least $50K. plus hubby has done a fair bit of work to it.

id never have a domestic rental property again. with the new laws tenants have you over a barrel. put up pictures, get a farmyard of animals, plus all of the mandatory checks that have to be done yearly or every second year. i get why the checks are necessary, but i dont agree a tenant can have a fricken bull mastiff in a small house with not much yard. and ive had to repair damage from dogs 3 times in the past, its amazing how much damage they can do in a small amount of time!

something needs to be done about permenantly housing the homeless. however, when familes go into public supported housing and do deliberate damage, or dont care for the place, they should be kicked out. i dont care where too. the family who destroed their place, and intimidated their neighbours so they were moved to a farm, which they proceeded to wreck. that is just not on.

[stui magpie]

Yeah, the build quality on these stamped out McMansions is often crap.

They just throw them up. I've been in places where in the right light you can see the plaster joins. That comes from using cheap labour on piece rates, paid per room or house rather than per hour. No worksmanship.

But people now don't look for that. What they want is a kitchen the size of a netball court packed with appliances, cupboards and Island benches when the new owners are usually barely capable of making toast or boiling water. It's all for show. Same as huge bathrooms full of tiles. How much room do you need to have a shower or take a shit?

Also huge living areas cos kids these days are allergic to grass and sunshine, but the houses are so big and the blocks so small that there's no yard to speak of anyway.

I like the older houses, they have character even if they do have small kitchens and bathrooms and no built in robes.

[eddiesmith]

I agree with TP on renters, watched a puff piece on the news the other day about some poor person who can't get a rental because of her dog...

A lot of dog owners are self entitled wankers, as a renter atm I'm much happier if the place I'm in hasn't had pets in it at all.

As for builds, Mums house is great, built in the 80's by a builder for himself but couldn't sell their home so had to sell the new place instead, still holds up well and has fitted so many people in it comfortably for nearly 40 years it's amazing.

Most modern homes are terrible, because they throw up heaps at once and try and get it done quickly. Plus who really wants no backyard? I'm always amazed there are people who think houses should all be pulled down and replaced by high rise apartments...

[think positive]

Yeah, the build quality on these stamped out McMansions is often crap.

They just throw them up. I've been in places where in the right light you can see the plaster joins. That comes from using cheap labour on piece rates, paid per room or house rather than per hour. No worksmanship.

But people now don't look for that. What they want is a kitchen the size of a netball court packed with appliances, cupboards and Island benches when the new owners are usually barely capable of making toast or boiling water. It's all for show. Same as huge bathrooms full of tiles. How much room do you need to have a shower or take a shit?

Also huge living areas cos kids these days are allergic to grass and sunshine, but the houses are so big and the blocks so small that there's no yard to speak of anyway.

I like the older houses, they have character even if they do have small kitchens and bathrooms and no built in robes.

I designed both houses, the main one, guilty, my kitchen and ensuite are massive, I even have a tv above my bath with a DVD player!

We owner built both and the only shit job we got was the exposed agg around the pool, it’s shitful,but we only paid half the bill. I paid for an engineers report who said the only way to fix it was redo it, and that would **** the pool. So when they send a reminder I sent the report, and that was that. We are lucky, we know quite a few tradies. watching the houses go up near the beach house, mate they are chucking them together, they don’t even let the slab cure!andthe are all nearly identical! Boring

[pietillidie]

It's honestly ridiculous that this problem that negatively affects everybody under the age of, say, 50 (with the exception of the landlord class) and is a clear economic problem can't be at least partially politically addressed in some substantial way. I understand that the Libs' core constituency is people who benefit from rising house prices and that they therefore have little motivation to do anything about it, but Labor really have put up the white flag on the issue.

How exactly?

Do you want the Government to interfere to cause housing prices to plummet to make them more affordable? How do you compensate those affected, and those who default as the asset value falls below the loan?

Does the Government increase stock - allow high density development across inner Melbourne, sell off parks and gardens to developers? Do you really want to change the streetscape of inner Melbourne?

.
It's been changing since its creation to accommodate generation after generation, shaped by government planning. Nothing new or controversial about it.

[roar]

A lot of dog owners are self entitled wankers

Indeed.

[think positive]

A lot of dog owners are self entitled wankers

Indeed.

disagree, a lot of people are entitled wankers, dog owner or not.

[Skids]

A lot of dog owners are self entitled wankers

Indeed.

disagree, a lot of people are entitled wankers, dog owner or not.

Exactly! Dogs are awesome! In fact, most dogs are better than your average human.