LittleRedSpirit Posted October 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 There's way too many points that slapped me in the forehead of personal bias presented as objective fact, so I CBF going through and picking them all out to respond, but two points that struck me- My missus and I are both 24 (well, 6 months between us) I've owned my house for 4 years now (bought at 20, missus was 19) and have gained $60k in those 4 years on my investment through the property values in my neighbourhood rising. I own 4 registered cars, a track car and a couple other ongoing projects. My parents bought their first house around 9 years ago and will be paying it off, more than likely, well past their retirement age ( obviously if they sell up that’s different) Anyone car buy a house. The whole "our generation can’t afford it" thing is bullshit. You may not be able to afford a 500k 4 bedroom, 3 bathroom newly built mansion, but you can definitely afford to buy a 2 bedroom, one bathroom house in an OK area for $250k and work your way from there. Everyone expects to be able to jump into their dream home straight off the bat. THAT is the problem. Your parents didn’t buy a mansion for their first house, they would have started out small and WORKED their way into something bigger. I'm sick and tired of hearing excuse after excuse from people <35 who whinge about "how good older generations had it" Sure there were some things that were better (free uni etc) but they did the best with what was available, just like we should. Shit isn't just going to fall into your lap, make a decision, live the hard life for a few years to benefit yourself in later years. Well I'm 31, and I feel 100% entitled to my opinion on this. Firstly, I'd like to know which decent suburb of Brisbane I can buy a basic house for $250k. Thats not possible. I can dig up financial statistics all day long that back up my comments if need be, there are many studies on this. I live in Brisbane. The cost of living here is growing incredibly in the last 10 years and I feel it was unnecessary for the most part. I 100% reject and resent your implications that I or others my age do not work to secure our futures. My point is that we are working harder than our parents have ever to get far far less. I also disagree with your comments that a dream home only costs $500,000. If it were my dream home Id be living like I'm in a Jay Z video. Clearly you live in a more affordable real estate market than I. On a more personal note LJ, perhaps relax and put yourself in a different state of thinking for this debate if other peoples opinions, as you put it, "slap you in the forehead". There is no tone of violence here, and just because you disagree with a comment, is no reason to read it in in your own angry tone, become offended, and respond as such. If people are going to post in this thread they can express almost any opinion they want, exchange and discuss ideas, but the moment someone comes on and make it personal it will not be tolerated. If you passionately disagree with someone's political ideas, please don't just come and say you can do this or you can do that, or my parents did this or that, justify your point of view, don't just have one. Teach us something, we are all students, politics is a complicated subject. Uppity rhetoric is exactly what makes people with less understanding wish not to interact and learn, lets leave that to the major parties. I know you didn't say too much, I just hope to catch this before it gets ugly. Politics is hard to discuss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altezzaclub Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Politics is easy to discuss... findng solutions to Govt-caused problems is hard! Housing- The problem is that the Govt is involved! If you want cheaper housing get The State out of it. They decide who and who can't split up land, so that's the first bottleneck. Then they charge developers big bucks to divide their own land AND set out many onnerous and expensive conditions on how to do the earthworks, and on how big the sections must be. So you pay $180,000 for a 700sqM bit of ex-farmland way out in the country in Orange before you have even laid a brick. The next bit is no better, you pay thousands more to The State to get 'approval' for your home, and then have to build something that the town planners, code-writers, safety inspectors and a thousand other bureaucrats use to keep their miserable bums in a meaningless job. Once you have them sign the final 'approval' then you will pay taxes for the privilege of living there for the rest of your life. If you want cheap housing wipe out all Council, State Govt and Federal Govt involvement in it!! Build a plywood shanty on your land and live in it as you will. It would have been impossible for this country was civilised by the pioneers if they had this level of State regulation. The country will soon re-organise itself on lines of 'who can afford what' and the efficiency gains will be enormous. The incentive to move out of the slums will be great too, and THAT is what drives people ahead! Other than that, if you're young you're ʞ©$ɟed! You are going to pay for baby-boomers to retire and soak up all your taxes in medical treatments, you will spend you life in debt as your bank pays off Govt borrowing and your student loan will cripple you! Never mind the amount you will pay to subsidise Holden & Ford and a thousand stupid expensive Govt boondoggles like wind power and desalination plants! Your parents gave away your freedoms and your future by voting for Socialism! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orangeLJ Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Well I'm 31, and I feel 100% entitled to my opinion on this. Firstly, I'd like to know which decent suburb of Brisbane I can buy a basic house for $250k. Thats not possible. I can dig up financial statistics all day long that back up my comments if need be, there are many studies on this. I live in Brisbane. The cost of living here is growing incredibly in the last 10 years and I feel it was unnecessary for the most part. I 100% reject and resent your implications that I or others my age do not work to secure our futures. My point is that we are working harder than our parents have ever to get far far less. I also disagree with your comments that a dream home only costs $500,000. If it were my dream home Id be living like I'm in a Jay Z video. Clearly you live in a more affordable real estate market than I. On a more personal note LJ, perhaps relax and put yourself in a different state of thinking for this debate if other peoples opinions, as you put it, "slap you in the forehead". There is no tone of violence here, and just because you disagree with a comment, is no reason to read it in in your own angry tone, become offended, and respond as such. If people are going to post in this thread they can express almost any opinion they want, exchange and discuss ideas, but the moment someone comes on and make it personal it will not be tolerated. If you passionately disagree with someone's political ideas, please don't just come and say you can do this or you can do that, or my parents did this or that, justify your point of view, don't just have one. Teach us something, we are all students, politics is a complicated subject. Uppity rhetoric is exactly what makes people with less understanding wish not to interact and learn, lets leave that to the major parties. I know you didn't say too much, I just hope to catch this before it gets ugly. Politics is hard to discuss. Fair call on most of that, sorry if it came across asshole-ish. Surely there are suburbs outside brisbane that are "cheaper", how many areas do you write off because of a social stigma ("thats a bad area" type of thing) Don't think that I'm doubting that the cost of living is increasing. Yes, houses were once 100k for a 4 bedroom joint on an acre block and milk was 20c a litre. BUT you only earnt 15k in a year back then too, so its kind of proportionate, if we kept up with the CPI wage increase structure, it wouldnt be such a big deal. Personally, I come from what most would call a shithouse childhood, single mum, dropkick abusive biological father etc etc (no need for more info than that really) busted my arse through high school with part time work to build the torana and pay board to my mum and step dad. I jumped straight into full time work out of high school, combined with full time study (all at night) When we bought our house, Karlie and I were on a combined <60odd grand a year (scaled wages as per the award... we were both under the 21 yo ceiling) We just bought in an area we could afford, regardless of the reputation or the stereotypes that went with it. Turns out its a nice area and as I said before, our investment has grown by a substantial amount. Forgive the harshness of what I wrote before, but I have too many people around me, earning more than I do, whinging that they "can't afford to buy a house" yet not actually looking at the alternatives that could get them started in the property market. They all want to buy in the "good suburbs" without really thinking that once upon a time, before they yuppies moved in, that was a cheap suburb too. I think this bit "I'd like to know which decent suburb of Brisbane I can buy a basic house for $250k" kind of illustrates my point. I don't know the market up there, but surely there are areas outside the city that you can consider. To get started, maybe you'll have to look at buying in somewhere a bit less desirable and a bit further away, you wouldnt be the first to do it. We live an hour north of the Sydney CDB (well, more on most days) I commute to work each day (1.5-2hrs each way) so I can earn a little bit more $$ than I would at home on the coast. It's all about making the sacrifices now to benefit ourselves later on. As for the older generations, a large percentage of them don't have a reasonable amount of super to retire (ever)Gen X and gen Y will have worked their entire life with a super contribution scheme, which will essentially allow 90% of us to retire at some stage in our lives (obviously depending on other decisions made along the way) I know a heap of the "baby boomers" that will, essentially, never be able to afford to retire. That's a pretty scary thought. I don't want to make out like everything is peachy now days, but you make the most of what you have, its what they did, its what we all need to do. I think most of the time it's a case of "grass is always greener" syndrome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleRedSpirit Posted October 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) I hear you and there is definitely something to be said for hard work. Yes there are people that are lazy and will complain and not work, I've paid my dues, I did an apprenticeship starting at 21 that paid $6 an hour. Quite frankly I've earned the right to complain. Now I run my own business so I see both sides, the wants of the workers and the needs of the business owner. I'm paying a fortune in tax and getting nothing for it. I think the Australian cultural stigma is that of the stiff upper lip, and it is that which you are perpetuating with your comments. Nobody likes a dobber/whinger/sook etc so nobody will complain when its completely valid for fear of being lumped into the negative category. Once again effectively marginalising the argument to one that a whinger would make, and removing through a social contract of humiliation ones desire to discuss such a thing. Just telling people; work harder, get a better job, make sacrifices or do more just makes us compensate for a lot of the problems in this world through our own hard work, when really we should be looking at why it is a problem in the first place. Offering direct comparisons to your own life of hard work is just putting yourself on a pedestal above the problems and all those who share them, rather than examining the problems themselves. Edited October 2, 2012 by LittleRedSpirit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altezzaclub Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Well, you can buy a house now, the Reserve Bank has just cut the interest rate! This will allow people to go further into debt and give the appearance of getting richer.. bigger loans for bigger houses, bigger TVs, bigger utes, bigger lounge suites... but really they are just lining up to be debt slaves for the rest of their lives. There must be an election on the horizon and the Prme Minister can't afford to have the econmy collapsing, so throwing new-printed money at it is always the answer. Eventually when the Govt debt worldwide is reduced by all this inflation, people will start to accumulate a little wealth and the economy will grow, straight back into the usual bomm & bust cycle caused by the Reseve Bank being the only source of currency. There is no doubt a monopoly is a bad thing, and the Govt having it makes it no better. $4 of deposit in the banks for every $100 of loans out, could you run your business like that? If you do have a job at the moment, don't give it up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orangeLJ Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 (edited) Changed my mind here, I'm going to get too involved in this then not be able to just stop replying. tipping my hat and bowing out. Edited October 3, 2012 by orangeLJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tume Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 Well, you can buy a house now, the Reserve Bank has just cut the interest rate! This will allow people to go further into debt and give the appearance of getting richer.. bigger loans for bigger houses, bigger TVs, bigger utes, bigger lounge suites... but really they are just lining up to be debt slaves for the rest of their lives. If the big 4 ever decide they want to pass on the cut to anyone else. So far they haven't budged a mm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altezzaclub Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 Yeah they know all those overseas investments they hold aren't worth fkall and are trying to build up some cash to cover the inevitable time when they have to declare all the pieces of paper worthless and take it on the chin. They used to pass the rate cuts on religiously, but recently they've been taking them as profit. Its up to your generation to get rid of fractional reserve banking, an experiment that failed! Go back to a gold currency or one where you can only loan out whatever is deposited in your bank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tume Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 I feel even more worried about when my generation is in politics then the current generation. I mean seeing as the current generation level in policitcs are the parents of the future gen :S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philbey Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 I've been trying to avoid getting drawn into this thread.... While I like the idea of a parliament duty system as above, I think you risk getting a bunch of Pauline Hansons in there that would ʞ©$ɟ us over worse than any party would. I think we need to change the system, but I also think the Australian government system is well balanced compared to the US, which I feel is too heavily linked to and manipulated by money. Still we are far from perfect. If you could abolish the party line and have a "conscience vote" on all issues wed be fine I think. Be nice if they debated things in parliament as well, instead of paying each other out and thanking one another for their questions to waste time anyhow. Well said. I'm certainly not an elitist by any measure, but quite frankly, when I think of certain types of people who may well end up on a jury it sends a shudder down my spine. Same goes with parliamentary duty. Quite frankly, I don't think running the country is easy. I wouldn't dream of letting the "average joe" run fiscal policy. Having said that, I wouldn't dream of letting the labor government run it either Chortle chortle. Back to the housing thing though: I appreciate your sentiments Matt, that Houses are more difficult to buy. The stats are solid, the income to house price ratio has grown fairly steadily in five decades. If I wasn't on the iPad right now I would grab the chart off the abs website, but it essentially reflects exactly what you are whinging about to use your word. Orangelj's point is pretty valid though, it does seem that people aren't willing to buy a crap house with a Fahrenheit stove, cactus garden, brown carpets and matching pastel bath and toilet! They want stainless splash backs, mixer taps and split systems straight off the bat. I have mates like this, I've seen it first hand. But I know people that earn a shitload less than I do and still manage to buy houses and smash their mortgage. I've got mates whose monetary discipline is astounding I dunno... Not sure what my point is really. I can say though, if I was still in Melbourne I wouldn't have a 1200m block and a 70 square meter garage, rolling hillside view AND a 13km drive to the CBD. That's the upside to adelaide I suppose.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altezzaclub Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 I wouldn't dream of letting the "average joe" run fiscal policy. Have no fear, it is no different to running any household! You have money coming in and spending demands, you can borrow and go into debt which you will have to pay off and also sustain a borrowing rating. The only extra is that you can print more money and devalue the money already out there, which is what most politicians use to plaster over the gap between income & spending... Without political parties active, one voice would mean nothing amongst 250 or however many people you want in there. You would end up with 'the average Aussie" holding sway, influenced by the most persuasive speakers of the time. So... do the TV ratings give you an idea of what "the average Aussie" would be like in power?? :rolls: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ke70dave Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 Orangelj's point is pretty valid though, it does seem that people aren't willing to buy a crap house with a Fahrenheit stove, cactus garden, brown carpets and matching pastel bath and toilet! They want stainless splash backs, mixer taps and split systems straight off the bat. I have mates like this, I've seen it first hand. this is a HUGE problem.... Sorta ties in to what i was talking about before where borrowing money is just too easy. House is 400k, so they get a 500k loan to buy 100k worth of stuff and renovations to put in the house before they move in. not to mention that their $1200 fridge costs $2500 after 30yrs.... and while they might have been pretty comfortable paying off a 400k loan, 500k is right on the limit. 0.001% change in interest rate, and they can't pay it. Had they had kept the 400k loan leaving a bit of fat in their budget and slowly over time bought new things for the house (put up with old stuff for a while), an interest rate change just means they can't go out for dinner that often, rather than defaulting on loan and losing house. Comes down to too much greed from banks, and i guess also people living outside of their incomes or right on the limits in order to get nice stuff. (Stuff that isnt even theirs as the bank owns it all!) My parents tell stories of their first few months of living in their house involved litterally sitting on milk crates and watching a tiny TV they got for a wedding gift that was sitting on an upside down oempty paint bucket that dad was using to slowly do up the house (house still a work in progress 30yrs on, but damn its looking good). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altezzaclub Posted October 4, 2012 Report Share Posted October 4, 2012 Some people are onto it! ..and here are the American figures for house price comapred to average income. This does point out the corrosive effects of any inflation, even if it is targeted at 3% (and then usually exceeded or the definition changed!!) Letters to Editor The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 2, 2012 Sean Fieler gives Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke the benefit of the doubt in "Easy Money Is Punishing the Middle Class" (op-ed, Sept. 27), presuming that he doesn't fully recognize the pernicious effect that mild inflation has on American workers over the long run. An equally plausible assumption is that Mr. Bernanke completely understands that middle-class lifestyles are on a downward slope because of easy money policies but he, along with most central bankers in Western democracies, views that outcome as the lesser of all politically palatable evils. Squeezing the middle class with barely perceptible erosion in purchasing power generally doesn't risk civil unrest and political upheaval. And as long as the Fed accommodates trillion-dollar deficits to pay for expanded public assistance, the Obama administration has a better chance of remaining in power, as does Mr. Bernanke. The symbiotic relationship isn't quite as crass as the one forged between Democrats and public-sector unions, but the results may be more devastating to middle-class taxpayers. When push comes to shove in democracies (because of insatiable voter appetites for unaffordable entitlements), the preferred and least painful course of action is gradual currency debasement resulting in imperceptible declines in living standards; that choice often is made whether political leaders or central bank heads believe in Keynesian nonsense or not. The Federal Reserve now appears to be as politicized as any other government-related entity, announcing QE3 two months before an election and potentially shifting a few crucial percentage points of consumer sentiment in President Obama's direction. One hopes that Mr. Fieler is right that Ben Bernanke just doesn't comprehend the road that he is paving for the middle class. However, there is at least an even chance that he knows the road leads to a less robust economy, but the degradation can be hidden until well after the election. Glen Reeves Washington Mr. Fieler shows how median household income has only increased 12% since 1971, even with the increased number of two-income families. It is important to point out that the percentage of disposable income has dropped significantly during the same period. According to multiple government statistics, the percentage of disposable income has dropped from 57% in 1971 to 35% in 2011. One of the largest increases in cost of living and the cause of much of the lowering of disposable income has been in housing. In 1971 with a median income of $9,000, the median home price was $27,600 or roughly three times income. In 2011 the median home price was $224,200 with a median income of $50,000, or 4.48 times income. The Fed's easy-money policy will continue to drive home prices up when in reality the median home price needs to fall an additional 33% to get us back to a historic ratio of around 3-1. It is easy to see why the Fed's hands are tied and it continues on this disastrous path of easy money. With the lack of fiscal reform (or even policy) in Washington, the Fed is forced to artificially inflate housing to preserve household wealth. The lowering of the median home price by an additional 33% would be devastating to owners who are already underwater and would be one more shock to the U.S. economy. Take your pick of easy money or lower housing prices, but either cure might well kill the patient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philbey Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 (edited) Actually something I forgot to bring up.... So I mentioned that the average house price to house income had increased over steadily over time. The chart is in the doc below, page 4 and it's pretty startling..... http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=house%20price%20to%20average%20income%20australia&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Feconomics.hia.com.au%2Fmedia%2FHouse%2520price%2520to%2520income%2520ratio%2520-%2520FINAL.pdf&ei=LuhuUPrePI-6iAfwiYGoAQ&usg=AFQjCNF9BKXryCnO4U6EShM4P8-BYemXpA That is until you see the data on the average house size!! This goes back to my exact point: people can't live with a poky house, they all want bigger and better. 40% increase in twenty years! Bigger houses = greater cost people!! http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Previousproducts/1301.0Feature%20Article262005?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=1301.0&issue=2005&num=&view= Not only that, but the number of people occupying houses appears to be getting slimaller: the modern shift is towards 1-2 kid families, so we build bigger houses for less people. Even the number of lone occupant houses is increasing! Forget government, forget fiscal policy, inflation, interest rates and all that for a moment: look at what we are becoming. We have the largest houses, on average, in the bloody world. Are we surprised that we can't afford them! I hate big houses: wow three lounge rooms, how awesome. One gets used always and the other two I visit occasionally to clean them.... Oh look, big open plan living with lots of glass and nice hard furnishings. Sweet, it's so ʞ©$ɟing noisy I can't hear myself think. We're turning into space greedy idiots. Broke ones. Edited October 5, 2012 by philbey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altezzaclub Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 One gets used always and the other two I visit occasionally to clean them.... Lol! I understand that perfectly! I shut the hallway door here and live in the computer/sunroom, dining room & kitchen. The smallest bedroom (which I use) is along the North face too. The lounge is junk storage, the second bedroom a project room and the master bedroom/ensuite is empty for guests... Now, a bigger WORKSHOP under the house I can appreciate, or a 4th car garage... Now according to these figures we are building fewer houses per head of population than we were. This means we're living in older and older homes, as it is so expensive/difficult to build new places. It came from here- http://pc.blogspot.co.nz/2012/10/the-political-destruction-of-nzs.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.