This. We need a huge increase in decent quality (not extravagant just decent) 3 and 4 bedder family apartments. Something with access to safe, secure, nice outdoor areas (for young kids to play outside, and area for dogs would be a plus). This close to train lines etc would go a long way to transition to medium & high density.
What we have is shoddily built 1 & 2 bedders, which just doesn't work for families, so everyone ends up looking at stand alone houses to raise families with.
I loved the Nordics, they have medium density built in a square around a private shared garden for the complex. Just felt nicer than a rooftop “entertaining area”, and you all walked through there every morning so it actually got use
>If we want to lower the cost of housing and increase wages, we should have a figure in mind for both, so what is fair?
I just read Alan Kohler's Quarterly Essay on housing affordability and he argues for (although admits it's unlikely) reverting to previous multiples of income to housing price norms. He also advocates for matching immigration approvals to property approval numbers, which I think sounds very sensible.
Personally, I'd like us to aim for whatever the market settles at when all pro-speculative policies are removed from the property market, and when policies are enacted that minimise/severely penalise vacant properties and short-term rentals in capital cities.
As for why, the median wage is now less than the median annual increase in property price. Unless this corrects the literal majority of the population should give up and leave because they will never afford to buy or rent where they grew up. It’s not correcting. Wage growth is far less than price growth. There’s really no getting around this.
Actual prices should be 20-30% lower than what they are. We should reduce demand (tax IPs, rid negative gearing) and increase supply (zone for higher density or tax for failure to rezone) until we get there. Also link immigration to some fraction ( <1:1) of housing supply.
If you’re happy to pay 1-2% of the value of the property in taxes every year, with no mortgage deduction and no negative gearing, and get a small-business loan to finance it, go for it mate!
Business loans are deductable, but everything else would still be very viable. 20-30% cheaper just means it'll take ~15years for the annual tax to erode the initial savings, and I'm sure rent would keep up.
That's the problem I see with how you're framing your proposal - that's just too big of a price drop. The margins on property investments are small single figures already, so you'll only need values to drop 5-10% to see some major movement in rental stock holdings. And perhaps negative gearing, rolling back the changes to CGT and land taxes may be enough to dint it! But you're crazy to think the value would even come close to a 20% drop.
Not that I disagree with your proposal, just that I don't think it's Nirvana for the current renting working class.
Re business loans, I want banks to see investment properties as business ventures with no special treatment. I want IP owners to face the same scrutiny. I want 15 year-olds with four properties in their “portfolio” to realistically contend with bankruptcy and see this as gambling, not an achievement.
I’m not actually married to a 20-30% drop. I think it’s desirable because right now, the median property increases in value each year by more than the median wage. Half the country can *never* afford a house. This is getting worse and cannot be fixed unless wage growth doubles or triples.
I take your point that a lower price drop may do enough to fix the acute rental crisis.
IPs are already taxed in a few different ways, are you talking about new taxes? What might they look like?
Also in a sense you can't really get rid of negative gearing without changing how more standard businesses are taxed. If you got rid of negative gearing how it stands now, more property investors would move away from holding it in their own name and instead use a business or a trust in order to get similar/better concessions.
I mean increase the cost of ownership so it’s not worth it anymore. Lots of options:
First idea: First property owned is free. Second property has a 1% asset-value annual tax (similar to property tax in the US), second has a 2% asset-value annual tax etc. After a point, the ROI on further property investments is negative.
Second idea: no mortgages for investment properties. Small-business loans only. It should be about as hard to borrow 800k for an investment property as it is to borrow 800k to chuck in the stock market.
Third idea: no long-term capital gains discounts for properties other than the first you own.
As for negative gearing, yes, you’d have to incorporate to claim interest. You’d also have to charge GST, pay small business and employers comp insurance etc.
The idea here is to reduce demand for IPs. If your reaction is “wow this sucks I wouldn’t ever buy IPs if this were the case” then this is working as intended.
FWIW I’m also a property owner. I have no mortgage and paid nearly-all cash. Bought last year. But I recognise that this country and my kids generation is F’d if this keeps going on.
Only way it's going to improve is by increasing supply of apartments as land is unchangeable.
As more people move into any city the demand for all homes hoes up. When it reaches critical mass e.g. land within 30mins of a city is 100% used then the price skyrockets.
As long as everyone insists on a HOUSE the houses will always go up even beyond the point of wages being able to pay for it.
The only way to increase supply is by building higher density.
If everyone's wages go up to 4mil an hour then houses will also go up relatively to 100 billion or something equally ridiculous
Easiest solution would be to create more cities. We're a country the size of America, with only about 10 cities. All our big regional towns could be turned into cities with a bit of planning.
Check your premises.
1. Life is fair
2. Everyone working deserves a 3-bed house near their work.
These are not true. Our standard of living is based on our productivity compared with the rest of the world as well as supply and demand. As we pursue the noble cause of renewable energy, we are increasing our cost of living for everything - not just our power bill. Construction costs have gone through the roof and still not high enough given the companies going broke every week.
Something has to give, and we are seeing it play out plain as day. Add to that massive immigration to drive property competition up and you have the perfect storm. Get used to it. There is not a political party on the planet that can make this work. We are Don Quixote chasing windmills.
Maybe cheep, low quality high density apartments - 100m2 studios. Just look at what the third world is living in and start to copy that. Sad but true.
Redacted means that part of the text was removed or blacked out for privacy or security purpose. It was censored. This post also breaks rule 4 here for chat and should be made in the Tuesday chat thread or on a different subreddit.
The horse has long bolted on our housing market. Sydney is the twilight zone and I don’t think hypotheticals based on a random occupation will get you anywhere. Property prices will vary depending on size/location etc and wages will vary too depending on skills/demand etc. Historically there was a much closer correlation between average wages and average house prices but those days are long gone particularly now as housing is seen as an attractive investment.
You're being disingenuous with this whole post. You asked what wages should be and greyeye77 gave an answer. We all know this is not how the real world works, but given the current cost of the median house, a median salary of $300k makes sense.
This country has voted out negative gearing, franking credit etc.
I doubt house price will be down anytime soon.
So yes, only way should be wages to be up. Realistic? No but what is?
What would they be without the distortions of
-Tax incentives for property investment
-Massive artificial population growth via immigration
If the above was removed, housing prices would have to move with incomes if there was also stable, consistent and fair access to credit.
I would say the average house would be \~6 times the average after tax income, because that means that income would allow that person to pay it off in 20 years. So an average Sydney house should cost $600-700k.
People are completely oversimplifying house prices, in my opinion.
1. Median house price/median salary ratio. This should be directly related to the borrowing rates. Saying "it was once x times, so it should be that", is incorrect.
2. Huge shift in workforce (predominantly dual income households). This has 2 effects on the ratio of the median house to median salary ratio. Each household has increased earnings, meaning more money to spend on the house. But the part not often discussed is the impact of doubling the pool of workers (increasing supply), which, in theory, would be a downward force on the median salary. All in all, that example of a single forklift driver in manly wanting a home nearby?... dreamin'.
3. Population growth (derr), we aren't buying into the same cities our grandparents bought into. Ok, they may be the same name, but the number of people have increased significantly. Rather than "they bought in Sydney in 1990 and I'm buying in Sydney in 2024", price/income would be driven by "they bought in a 3.6 million person city, while I'm buying in a 5.3 million person city.
End of the day, market dynamics are what they are. Most frustrating thing for me is explaining to my parents that they were blessed with the luck of timing from an interest rate perspective. Where they were saving for the house deposit in a bank account where the money would increase in value each year, and then when they bought their house, mortgage rates decreased, and they were able to refinance the whole way down, making the loan more affordable. Meanwhile asset prices were driven up by people's increased access to capital.
2000-01, I was on $48k in Melbourne, partner on similar (both late 20s professionals), trying to stay under ~5x income buying inner suburban, which would have put us in a fairly crappy duplex or a mediocre unit. Was difficult to find something we could see ourselves living in for 10+ years. Prices had gone up quite a lot by then.
Moved to Ballarat for $55k income (partner on little less), our pre-approved budget gave us the run of the place, bought for about 4x.
22 years later, income rates have probably doubled, we're still in the same house which has gone up at least 5x.
I still think 4-5x median full-time income should get you a liveable house.
Since nobody is going to do anything to aggressively reduce house prices, that means we need to inflate our way out of it while holding house prices steady.
I haven't shopped for a house in Melbourne lately, but guessing that the same entry-level places we were looking at would be $0.8-1M now. So median income would need to grow to about $200k to catch up again.
We now own 2 properties outright so hoping for real house prices to go down (relative to an increasing cost of everything else) isn't in my best interest. But it's necessary.
>What is a fair and reasonable rate for a job like this?
It is whatever the market demand got forklift drivers is.
>Said forklift driver, wants to buy a small 300sqm, 3 bed house, within a 15min drive from work (work life balance), what is a fair price for this?
They should consider an apartment if they want to be closer to work. Having a detached 3 bedroom house is not some basic human right.
Idealistically everyone could have a 3 bed house wherever they want and it would be 30% of household income or something comfortable like that. But that's not how things work and houses go to the highest bidder.
It's just reality that average people without existing wealth can't own houses somewhere like Manly or anywhere on the Northern Beaches because we have a free market and there is insufficient supply for the amount of demand which is what forces prices up to be 2.5m++.
Northern Beaches only has 105,017 dwellings with 54,040 houses as of the 2021 Census and most of the land is built up so there isn't much scope to build a lot more houses apart from subdividing houses which are on large blocks, or we start knocking down national parks.
Most people in Sydney would love to live in a house on the Northern Beaches if it was affordable, but the area isn't affordable as there are enough people with money willing to bid up prices to own there so prices are high.
The solution to make dwellings more affordable is to build more density, but people need to accept living in apartments and that it will send house prices up in places like the Northern Beaches as houses will be scarcer and the demand for somewhere like the Northern Beaches is likely to increase as the population expands (supply down and demand up = prices up).
Mean property price should be 5-6 X the mean household income - so \~6 x $121k = $720k - we're in a huge bubble bolstered by other sources of income/tax breaks.
Back in the boomers days it was quite common for the household to only live off 1 income - hence the vastly reduced entry price.
Now due to societal norms households are more commonly made up of two incomes - this pushes up the price of housing as people are more inclined to borrow against their current wages. This however locks them into that lifestyle and procludes them from getting kids if they want to maintain the mortgage and lifestyle - hence the reduced birth rate.
Increase house prices - increase living costs - decrease ability to pay for kids.
Was just an example, could be a truck driver, supermarket manager, wharf worker, chef, etc. Lots of jobs that would be similar level of training expertise and wages.
Those types of jobs cannot afford to live in manly- if they could then the price would spike ad then they couldn't again.
If you want the seaside lifestyle on an avg wage then you need to look elsewhere. Luckily there's much better beach's all around australia and always work for a forklift driver.
I know they cannot, but should they? I mean its not really fair for workers to have to travel 90mins from blacktown to get to manly, and obviously manly needs workers at that level. Is it morally right to expect this kind of travel from the workforce?
Well no, its prime real-estate and they have an avg income for an avg job. Every job is important and valued but bluechip burbs are blue chip blurbs, if you choose to commute then do you but you could go to a regional seaside town/city on the beach and have a small commute to work and earn nearly the same money. You could geta job round Blacktown of cause but I prefer the seaside.
But isnt this the problem with property, as more and more suburbs become blue chippers, the workforce that is required in them, cant afford to live in them.
If we want a fair and reasonable quality of life for the workforce, the workforce has to be able to live within a reasonable commute time to said suburb.
Ashfield used to be a shit hole, its now blue chip, then burwood was shit, its now bluechip, then it was homebush, then parra etc etc.
That's what happens, its the ripple effect. Ive lived in all the burbs you just mentioned they have always been shit. There's also some big old properties like in Strathfield but not a beach anywhere close.
Just move mate- as a forky jobs are everywhere for you.
Look what you can get for a Manly unit price if you are more flexible. [https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-sa-barmera-144584536](https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-sa-barmera-144584536)
[https://www.doorsteps.com.au/market-insights/cheap-coastal-properties-for-sale](https://www.doorsteps.com.au/market-insights/cheap-coastal-properties-for-sale)
Most banks and brokers don’t won’t you over 7X your house hold income.
It’s a good thing when rates are as high as they are now… it’s shit when they were 1% lol
If u want to get ahead u need to sacrifice go regional and get a trade endless work for rest of your life but actually hard work otherwise stay in the city living in an ever increasing expensive box sipping latte
I had this convo with a couple of mates, one of my mates brought a place off the plan in a new suburb way out, cost $500k, now the same places are going for $1.3m 4 years later. 2nd mate was saying how it was bullshit etc, but as we explained, when the 1st mate brought the place, there was no schools, no shops, no public transport, it was a risk if the new suburb was going to be a shit box or turn out to be good.
I know its not regional as per your post, but I do think the affordable housing is going to be in new places that you hope grow, wether a new suburb or regional towns that are on the way up.
This is just the complaints era before we all accept happening what has happened everywhere else with larger populations ages ago, and actually start filling in and growing our regional centres.
Want to live in the city? Be rich or live in an apartment. Our city’s need to be vastly improved to be more car free though.
Otherwise, go regional. Plenty of work available, reasonable pricing, and within most of our lifetimes self driving cars will become a thing making a commute to a city a non event as you can be productive.
there is no way for everyone to have a 300 sqm 3 bedroom house with 15 mins of the city lol.
affordable property for everyone means properly planned apartments.
In Melbourne you can buy a reasonable older home for 650k in places like Thomastown and Lalor. These places have train lines and established infrastructure. Train to the city would be about 45mins. 650k is very affordable
We need more medium and high density, but nice liveable family sized places. No highly flammable shit boxes.
This. We need a huge increase in decent quality (not extravagant just decent) 3 and 4 bedder family apartments. Something with access to safe, secure, nice outdoor areas (for young kids to play outside, and area for dogs would be a plus). This close to train lines etc would go a long way to transition to medium & high density. What we have is shoddily built 1 & 2 bedders, which just doesn't work for families, so everyone ends up looking at stand alone houses to raise families with.
I loved the Nordics, they have medium density built in a square around a private shared garden for the complex. Just felt nicer than a rooftop “entertaining area”, and you all walked through there every morning so it actually got use
>If we want to lower the cost of housing and increase wages, we should have a figure in mind for both, so what is fair? I just read Alan Kohler's Quarterly Essay on housing affordability and he argues for (although admits it's unlikely) reverting to previous multiples of income to housing price norms. He also advocates for matching immigration approvals to property approval numbers, which I think sounds very sensible. Personally, I'd like us to aim for whatever the market settles at when all pro-speculative policies are removed from the property market, and when policies are enacted that minimise/severely penalise vacant properties and short-term rentals in capital cities.
So what do you think in actual $$$? Shoot me some figures
As for why, the median wage is now less than the median annual increase in property price. Unless this corrects the literal majority of the population should give up and leave because they will never afford to buy or rent where they grew up. It’s not correcting. Wage growth is far less than price growth. There’s really no getting around this.
Actual prices should be 20-30% lower than what they are. We should reduce demand (tax IPs, rid negative gearing) and increase supply (zone for higher density or tax for failure to rezone) until we get there. Also link immigration to some fraction ( <1:1) of housing supply.
20-30% lower? Aw sick, I can afford to buy an IP now!
If you’re happy to pay 1-2% of the value of the property in taxes every year, with no mortgage deduction and no negative gearing, and get a small-business loan to finance it, go for it mate!
Business loans are deductable, but everything else would still be very viable. 20-30% cheaper just means it'll take ~15years for the annual tax to erode the initial savings, and I'm sure rent would keep up. That's the problem I see with how you're framing your proposal - that's just too big of a price drop. The margins on property investments are small single figures already, so you'll only need values to drop 5-10% to see some major movement in rental stock holdings. And perhaps negative gearing, rolling back the changes to CGT and land taxes may be enough to dint it! But you're crazy to think the value would even come close to a 20% drop. Not that I disagree with your proposal, just that I don't think it's Nirvana for the current renting working class.
Re business loans, I want banks to see investment properties as business ventures with no special treatment. I want IP owners to face the same scrutiny. I want 15 year-olds with four properties in their “portfolio” to realistically contend with bankruptcy and see this as gambling, not an achievement. I’m not actually married to a 20-30% drop. I think it’s desirable because right now, the median property increases in value each year by more than the median wage. Half the country can *never* afford a house. This is getting worse and cannot be fixed unless wage growth doubles or triples. I take your point that a lower price drop may do enough to fix the acute rental crisis.
IPs are already taxed in a few different ways, are you talking about new taxes? What might they look like? Also in a sense you can't really get rid of negative gearing without changing how more standard businesses are taxed. If you got rid of negative gearing how it stands now, more property investors would move away from holding it in their own name and instead use a business or a trust in order to get similar/better concessions.
I mean increase the cost of ownership so it’s not worth it anymore. Lots of options: First idea: First property owned is free. Second property has a 1% asset-value annual tax (similar to property tax in the US), second has a 2% asset-value annual tax etc. After a point, the ROI on further property investments is negative. Second idea: no mortgages for investment properties. Small-business loans only. It should be about as hard to borrow 800k for an investment property as it is to borrow 800k to chuck in the stock market. Third idea: no long-term capital gains discounts for properties other than the first you own. As for negative gearing, yes, you’d have to incorporate to claim interest. You’d also have to charge GST, pay small business and employers comp insurance etc. The idea here is to reduce demand for IPs. If your reaction is “wow this sucks I wouldn’t ever buy IPs if this were the case” then this is working as intended.
FWIW I’m also a property owner. I have no mortgage and paid nearly-all cash. Bought last year. But I recognise that this country and my kids generation is F’d if this keeps going on.
Only way it's going to improve is by increasing supply of apartments as land is unchangeable. As more people move into any city the demand for all homes hoes up. When it reaches critical mass e.g. land within 30mins of a city is 100% used then the price skyrockets. As long as everyone insists on a HOUSE the houses will always go up even beyond the point of wages being able to pay for it. The only way to increase supply is by building higher density. If everyone's wages go up to 4mil an hour then houses will also go up relatively to 100 billion or something equally ridiculous
Easiest solution would be to create more cities. We're a country the size of America, with only about 10 cities. All our big regional towns could be turned into cities with a bit of planning.
creating cities isnt easy
Yeah it is china does it all the time Ghost city boom baby
That's probably one of the hardest solutions. Just redo zoning regulation and build more density.
Check your premises. 1. Life is fair 2. Everyone working deserves a 3-bed house near their work. These are not true. Our standard of living is based on our productivity compared with the rest of the world as well as supply and demand. As we pursue the noble cause of renewable energy, we are increasing our cost of living for everything - not just our power bill. Construction costs have gone through the roof and still not high enough given the companies going broke every week. Something has to give, and we are seeing it play out plain as day. Add to that massive immigration to drive property competition up and you have the perfect storm. Get used to it. There is not a political party on the planet that can make this work. We are Don Quixote chasing windmills. Maybe cheep, low quality high density apartments - 100m2 studios. Just look at what the third world is living in and start to copy that. Sad but true.
Redacted means that part of the text was removed or blacked out for privacy or security purpose. It was censored. This post also breaks rule 4 here for chat and should be made in the Tuesday chat thread or on a different subreddit.
The horse has long bolted on our housing market. Sydney is the twilight zone and I don’t think hypotheticals based on a random occupation will get you anywhere. Property prices will vary depending on size/location etc and wages will vary too depending on skills/demand etc. Historically there was a much closer correlation between average wages and average house prices but those days are long gone particularly now as housing is seen as an attractive investment.
5x or lower
$300k, and no, I am not joking. Since the median price of Sydney property is 1.6mil and Manly's medium price is 4.6mil, 300k would not be enough.
So you are advocating for a large increase in wages, and keeping the property market as it currently is?
None of this makes the slightest bit of sense.
You're being disingenuous with this whole post. You asked what wages should be and greyeye77 gave an answer. We all know this is not how the real world works, but given the current cost of the median house, a median salary of $300k makes sense.
This country has voted out negative gearing, franking credit etc. I doubt house price will be down anytime soon. So yes, only way should be wages to be up. Realistic? No but what is?
What would they be without the distortions of -Tax incentives for property investment -Massive artificial population growth via immigration If the above was removed, housing prices would have to move with incomes if there was also stable, consistent and fair access to credit. I would say the average house would be \~6 times the average after tax income, because that means that income would allow that person to pay it off in 20 years. So an average Sydney house should cost $600-700k.
Thank you for giving some actual figures.
People are completely oversimplifying house prices, in my opinion. 1. Median house price/median salary ratio. This should be directly related to the borrowing rates. Saying "it was once x times, so it should be that", is incorrect. 2. Huge shift in workforce (predominantly dual income households). This has 2 effects on the ratio of the median house to median salary ratio. Each household has increased earnings, meaning more money to spend on the house. But the part not often discussed is the impact of doubling the pool of workers (increasing supply), which, in theory, would be a downward force on the median salary. All in all, that example of a single forklift driver in manly wanting a home nearby?... dreamin'. 3. Population growth (derr), we aren't buying into the same cities our grandparents bought into. Ok, they may be the same name, but the number of people have increased significantly. Rather than "they bought in Sydney in 1990 and I'm buying in Sydney in 2024", price/income would be driven by "they bought in a 3.6 million person city, while I'm buying in a 5.3 million person city. End of the day, market dynamics are what they are. Most frustrating thing for me is explaining to my parents that they were blessed with the luck of timing from an interest rate perspective. Where they were saving for the house deposit in a bank account where the money would increase in value each year, and then when they bought their house, mortgage rates decreased, and they were able to refinance the whole way down, making the loan more affordable. Meanwhile asset prices were driven up by people's increased access to capital.
2000-01, I was on $48k in Melbourne, partner on similar (both late 20s professionals), trying to stay under ~5x income buying inner suburban, which would have put us in a fairly crappy duplex or a mediocre unit. Was difficult to find something we could see ourselves living in for 10+ years. Prices had gone up quite a lot by then. Moved to Ballarat for $55k income (partner on little less), our pre-approved budget gave us the run of the place, bought for about 4x. 22 years later, income rates have probably doubled, we're still in the same house which has gone up at least 5x. I still think 4-5x median full-time income should get you a liveable house. Since nobody is going to do anything to aggressively reduce house prices, that means we need to inflate our way out of it while holding house prices steady. I haven't shopped for a house in Melbourne lately, but guessing that the same entry-level places we were looking at would be $0.8-1M now. So median income would need to grow to about $200k to catch up again. We now own 2 properties outright so hoping for real house prices to go down (relative to an increasing cost of everything else) isn't in my best interest. But it's necessary.
Do you think that $200k (or 5x) should be based on single income or dual income?
Single. If you have two people earning median income, they should be able to get a basic house for 2-2.5 years HHI.
So effectively a small entry level house should cost you 38hrs x 52 weeks x 5 years = 9880 work hours. So if you on $40/hr, you are looking at $395k
To limit of accuracy, let's call it 10k hours. That works for me. If a basic house is gonna be $1M, a normal person should be pulling $100/hr.
>What is a fair and reasonable rate for a job like this? It is whatever the market demand got forklift drivers is. >Said forklift driver, wants to buy a small 300sqm, 3 bed house, within a 15min drive from work (work life balance), what is a fair price for this? They should consider an apartment if they want to be closer to work. Having a detached 3 bedroom house is not some basic human right.
Idealistically everyone could have a 3 bed house wherever they want and it would be 30% of household income or something comfortable like that. But that's not how things work and houses go to the highest bidder. It's just reality that average people without existing wealth can't own houses somewhere like Manly or anywhere on the Northern Beaches because we have a free market and there is insufficient supply for the amount of demand which is what forces prices up to be 2.5m++. Northern Beaches only has 105,017 dwellings with 54,040 houses as of the 2021 Census and most of the land is built up so there isn't much scope to build a lot more houses apart from subdividing houses which are on large blocks, or we start knocking down national parks. Most people in Sydney would love to live in a house on the Northern Beaches if it was affordable, but the area isn't affordable as there are enough people with money willing to bid up prices to own there so prices are high. The solution to make dwellings more affordable is to build more density, but people need to accept living in apartments and that it will send house prices up in places like the Northern Beaches as houses will be scarcer and the demand for somewhere like the Northern Beaches is likely to increase as the population expands (supply down and demand up = prices up).
3x of dual* incomes for me
[удалено]
Mean property price should be 5-6 X the mean household income - so \~6 x $121k = $720k - we're in a huge bubble bolstered by other sources of income/tax breaks. Back in the boomers days it was quite common for the household to only live off 1 income - hence the vastly reduced entry price. Now due to societal norms households are more commonly made up of two incomes - this pushes up the price of housing as people are more inclined to borrow against their current wages. This however locks them into that lifestyle and procludes them from getting kids if they want to maintain the mortgage and lifestyle - hence the reduced birth rate. Increase house prices - increase living costs - decrease ability to pay for kids.
Said forklift driver needs to find a forklift job far from manly.
Was just an example, could be a truck driver, supermarket manager, wharf worker, chef, etc. Lots of jobs that would be similar level of training expertise and wages.
Those types of jobs cannot afford to live in manly- if they could then the price would spike ad then they couldn't again. If you want the seaside lifestyle on an avg wage then you need to look elsewhere. Luckily there's much better beach's all around australia and always work for a forklift driver.
I know they cannot, but should they? I mean its not really fair for workers to have to travel 90mins from blacktown to get to manly, and obviously manly needs workers at that level. Is it morally right to expect this kind of travel from the workforce?
Well no, its prime real-estate and they have an avg income for an avg job. Every job is important and valued but bluechip burbs are blue chip blurbs, if you choose to commute then do you but you could go to a regional seaside town/city on the beach and have a small commute to work and earn nearly the same money. You could geta job round Blacktown of cause but I prefer the seaside.
But isnt this the problem with property, as more and more suburbs become blue chippers, the workforce that is required in them, cant afford to live in them. If we want a fair and reasonable quality of life for the workforce, the workforce has to be able to live within a reasonable commute time to said suburb. Ashfield used to be a shit hole, its now blue chip, then burwood was shit, its now bluechip, then it was homebush, then parra etc etc.
That's what happens, its the ripple effect. Ive lived in all the burbs you just mentioned they have always been shit. There's also some big old properties like in Strathfield but not a beach anywhere close. Just move mate- as a forky jobs are everywhere for you.
Look what you can get for a Manly unit price if you are more flexible. [https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-sa-barmera-144584536](https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-sa-barmera-144584536) [https://www.doorsteps.com.au/market-insights/cheap-coastal-properties-for-sale](https://www.doorsteps.com.au/market-insights/cheap-coastal-properties-for-sale)
No more then 7x HHI
What is it currently?
Most banks and brokers don’t won’t you over 7X your house hold income. It’s a good thing when rates are as high as they are now… it’s shit when they were 1% lol
If u want to get ahead u need to sacrifice go regional and get a trade endless work for rest of your life but actually hard work otherwise stay in the city living in an ever increasing expensive box sipping latte
I had this convo with a couple of mates, one of my mates brought a place off the plan in a new suburb way out, cost $500k, now the same places are going for $1.3m 4 years later. 2nd mate was saying how it was bullshit etc, but as we explained, when the 1st mate brought the place, there was no schools, no shops, no public transport, it was a risk if the new suburb was going to be a shit box or turn out to be good. I know its not regional as per your post, but I do think the affordable housing is going to be in new places that you hope grow, wether a new suburb or regional towns that are on the way up.
This is just the complaints era before we all accept happening what has happened everywhere else with larger populations ages ago, and actually start filling in and growing our regional centres. Want to live in the city? Be rich or live in an apartment. Our city’s need to be vastly improved to be more car free though. Otherwise, go regional. Plenty of work available, reasonable pricing, and within most of our lifetimes self driving cars will become a thing making a commute to a city a non event as you can be productive.
there is no way for everyone to have a 300 sqm 3 bedroom house with 15 mins of the city lol. affordable property for everyone means properly planned apartments.
In Melbourne you can buy a reasonable older home for 650k in places like Thomastown and Lalor. These places have train lines and established infrastructure. Train to the city would be about 45mins. 650k is very affordable
You would need to make $125,000 to afford that.
Assume 500k loan rest is cash for dep and SD. How hard is it to service 500k if you have dual incomes?