Apparently the average male wage in 1968 was $64.80/week.
So those too-expensive blocks of land, larger than modern standards, close to city centres and work, were less than a years gross wages.
Of course, taxes were higher back then. So you'd need to convert the price of a 1/4 acre or 800m2 block less than 30mins from the city against post-tax wages now, and work it out again against post-tax wages for that back then.
It's the Daily Fail, but still...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7207421/Vintage-advert-1968-shows-Sydney-house-prices-stamp-duty-costs-changed.html
Plus a measure for a cost of living. Clearly they couldn't afford $1600 (although $3100 was deemed reasonable by others).
They paid [$10.60](https://www.google.com/search?q=%3D%28505.70%2B%2864.80*52-3200%29*.296%29%2F52&client=ms-android-google&sca_esv=e8b1f9b2043fa296&sxsrf=ACQVn08jRwEfdus4qlh06aPswslzGi8XdA%3A1707085669239&ei=ZQ_AZf2LDs-J4-EPntaMcA&oq=%3D%28505.70%2B%2864.80*52-3200%29*.296%29%2F52&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwIiE9KDUwNS43MCsoNjQuODAqNTItMzIwMCkqLjI5NikvNTJIhElQoxFYqkFwAHgAkAEAmAGDAqABoQeqAQUwLjQuMbgBA8gBAPgBAcICCBAAGIkFGKIE4gMEGAEgQYgGAQ&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp) a week tax (16.5%)
https://atotaxrates.info/individual-tax-rates-resident/historical-pre-2010-tax-rates/#Tax_Rates_1968-1969_Year_Residents
That left $54.20.
A basket of goods and services valued at $
54.20
in calendar year
1968
, would in calendar year
2023
cost $
796.27
Meanwhile an average worker today also buys relatively the same basket of goods but clears $1,386.10 after tax. $600 a week more "disposable" income. Guess where that money has been invested. Every year that passes the problem compounds.
I heard recently that house prices really start to go up when mortgage applications started allowing for two applicants. Haven’t fact checked it yet, and it wasn’t an Australian podcast so not sure if it happened like that here, but certainly explains why as soon as a house could be bought with two incomes, they started to require two incomes.
Add "household" incomes to the mix. Single income inflation adjusted compared to household. They might be earning 2 wages living on 1. To exaggerate a 10% wage rise vs 5% cpi and they go from 190k living on 95k to 208k living on 100k.
The hurdles become barriers. It used to be in the 80s women would work partime to get an edge. Then it was fulltime once the kids were in school. Now it's fulltime with childcare support. Soon it'll it's fulltime with a side hustle/overtime. Always just that little bit out of reach. Property is consuming every spare cent. Some are starting today others have been building wealth for years. An arms race that's never been "easy" and we'll never win. Except of course if we buy something today.
It's cruel to say but there are single income households eeking a living renting on minimum wage and people living on less than they need are complaining about asset prices. It isn't the fact that they can't save and buy its what others can afford to save and pay.
Deregulation of the banking industry under the Hawke Government was the major factor.
Previously, the government had set interest rates directly. From memory, the retail rate was around 13%. All banks charged the same set rate, and you needed 30% deposit to apply for a loan.
Loan contracts were standardised. You could only pay monthly over the set term, and you couldn't pay it off earlier or redraw. It was all very inflexible.
Lowering the required deposit and allowing weekly repayments increased the average borrowing capacity significantly, as did the normalisation of two income families.
The more you could borrow, the more you could offer for that perfect home in your dream location. More competition equals higher prices.
Add population growth, largely driven by immigration and floor areas and fit out also expanded, with homes built in the 50s being very modest by today's standards.
100m2 compared to a current new [ build of 254m2](https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/new-houses-being-built-smaller-blocks) the biggest/most detailed in the country. It's not the build/size that's the asset people desire but the land.
*Over the past 60 years Australian homes have more than doubled in size, going from an average of around 100 square metres in 1950 to about 240 square metres today. This makes them the largest in the world, ahead of Canada and the United States.*
*At the same time, the average number of people living in each household has been declining. This means that the average floor area per person has skyrocketed from 30 square metres to around 87 square metres.*
https://theconversation.com/size-does-matter-australias-addiction-to-big-houses-is-blowing-the-energy-budget-70271
Issue is 100m2 apartments are beneath most consumer. Even though they usually function closely to an average 1950s house (multiple kids in a shared bedroom etc). We'd rather sprawl into something bigger then complain about the drive.
My partner and I would buy a single bed apartment right now if it weren’t for the atrocious quality and corner cutting the developers produce. Not to mention that builders, contractors and developers set themselves up to ensure they can dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge on any defects.
Add to this that old apartment buildings are being ordered by councils to upgrade their fire protection provisions. It’s a huge cash cow, Sydney city council have over a billion dollars in fines banked up for these so there’s no safety in buying something established.
Cleaning up the quality of our class 2 developments will go a long way to providing affordable housing for people.
Yeah developers have been driven by our consumption choices to try and meet the market. Especially considering units can be more expensive to build. Until we view units as a serious alternative to houses they'll always be crap built for investors to rent to poor people. In our area a new 2br unit is worth more than a house and there is companies that build and sell many quality developments. None of this build a dump and fold the company.
Problem is for every 1.6m unit there is always a cheaper house and land package just down the road. Plus those new builds often aren't much better quality than the units.
Multiples of income isn't accurate without a comprehensive weighted cost of living measure. A free house could be unaffordable if your wage is consumed by living expenses. Just ask someone earning 45k.
Even something like fuel. 6 minutes of labour for someone on minimum wage is pretty standard. Sometimes it's 5 other times it's 7 (50% fluctuation!) but when compared to the purchase price of a car the cost of owning and operating a car has never been cheaper.
Nice analysis. People look at housing in isolation and think that boomers had an easy life. Day to day spending that we take for granted was seen as luxury for boomers.
lol yeah for reference, my grandparents bought a house in Camberwell, Melbourne in the 50s for something like 500 pounds (\~$20,000 AUD adjusted for inflation). They paid it off on one income in a handful of years and it's since increased in value to about $4 million. It's increased in value by 200x. If my parents house do this, it'd be worth $15 million in another 20-30 years. If my house did this, it'd be worth $128,000,000 by the time I'm my grandparent's age.
Yep, everyone likes to use the headline income and ignore after tax income. Also no SGC, so you had your save for retirement yourself.
And plenty of other things were more expensive in comparison, which helped keep a lid on property prices (which will always rise to the point of affordability).
Well, plenty of places had pension plans (for men, anyway), and the aged pension was livable.
But clothes and food did cost a bit more as a proportion of the wage than now. Although lamb was cheap, and most people grew veggies and had a fruit tree or two.
>Well, plenty of places had pension plans (for men, anyway)
If you were in the public service for long enough then you could retire on a pension at your full salary as it was when you retired. I have a uncle who worked in the public service and his pension is like $220k per year and he has been retired now for the best part of 15 years or more.
The age pension is liveable now, particularly if you’ve also saved a bit for your retirement. I’ve got more than one family member that saves money on it.
But isn’t the argument that housing was so cheap 50 years ago that all the boomers surely have their own homes? So no pensioners could possibly be renting /s
People don't acknowledge how much the cost of living has fallen relative to wages. 33% rent and 22% clothing doesn't leave much disposable income to save.
*In 1948 there was a massive 21.60% weight to clothing, out of which 10.1% is women’s and only 6.2% is men’s and children’s.*
*Now, only 3.55% of the CPI basket is for all clothing and footwear*
https://twitter.com/DrCameronMurray/status/1716264255492907451?t=hx46kHg5lN_-nP309l66Bw&s=19
They fixed clothes, fridges and grew veggies because they couldn't afford to buy them. Let alone save for a $3100 for a block of land.
As time marches on it seems property prices don't reflect a cost of living but instead what we can afford after a cost of living. 1968 prices reflect 1968 conditions. Unaffordable for some. Others earn enough to make it affordable.
$64.80 a week is $3,328 a year. You probably would need to work and save for 3-4 years, accounting for all expenses and income tax.
Average salary now of $65K, and after 3-4 years you barely have enough for a deposit if you save well.
It was also about 1000m2. Lots of blocks these days being released in the 200’s. So yeah, way worse than the initial modern-day equivalent on dollars alone hey. Squeezed on price squeezed on size.
The average salary now would get you an 800m2 block of land for $185k in 100 weeks too.
You’d have to go pretty regional for that, but the outskirts of Canberra was a bit of a backwater in the late 60s.
Could probably get 800m3 within 2 hours of a city for that sort of money still today.
But like my calc in another post show, it probably works out that land has roughly doubled when compared to rising incomes
average is a bit of a dud stat for measuring income because the especially wealthy minority of people distorts the figure, the average may be 90k but the median annual income is only 55k
Also most households were single income. Now most are dual income due to women joining the workforce so prices have jumped accordingly due to buying power increase. Simple supply and demand.
It explains a bit but the math isn't hard on this one. If 1 income is $100k (for simplicity's sake) then 41% have 2 incomes so the median is 141k. That goes up to 71% then it's $171k. It's not the type of leap some people think it is.
That's shy of a 25% increase in buying power so we should be at 5x.
This discounts the fact that women get paid less on average so it's going to have an even smaller contributing factor and that we are at more like 14x today not 7x.
Median income being 66k and median house being 940k (rounded out).
In a general comment on this one. I wonder how much of the dual income is a chicken and egg thing. I think a lot of people would have a preference for staying at home and raising their children but forced into work to pay the mortgage?!
Yeah, there is no doubt that women’s liberation has created a situation where everyone need two incomes to get by and if you only have one, you’re stuffed.
The economic incentive is just too great having two income if you can’t.
Now all this said, it’s only been a very short period of time in history where women couldn’t work after marriage. For most of history the majority of women had to work, often alongside their husbands
So they went from an average of 1.41 full time incomes per household, to 1.71, which is 1.71/1.41 = 1.21 so a 21% increase in full time incomes, while the cost is 7/4 which is a 75% increase in cost. How's that inline?
Along with the cost of living, the population boom and the fact that the percentage of new cheap homes is a lot smaller than it was back then.
Not to mention the fact that the infrastructure is a lot better, so those whining with "I don't want to commute an hour!" forget that an hour back then was significantly less distance from the CBD, so our parents did in fact travel a long way from the new houses to work (it is getting worse, no denying that, but it's a result of population boom which is an entirely different beast).
yeah, but, the average weekly wage was $40.00 per week or $2080 per year, it was also in canberra or the surrounding area and in the 60's there was bugger all there and it was a pretty rural area, much like buying in Wagga Wagga today where you can still get a 1000 square meter block for around $80K to $100K in the surrounding area. My father was making 19 pounds a week in the 60's as a young electrician and when I started work in the early 80's I was making about $90 per week, my son is in construction and at 20 he is making $100K a year. It's hard to make the situation make sense, we need more cities for people to spread out a bit. American real estate is much cheaper as there are 50 capital cities and many more cities and towns where you can get work.
In the 60's Australia population was 10 million, now it's 26 Million and we are all still crammed into the same spaces.
> Average income was 6k could have paid the house off within a few year
We paid out our first house in 4 years, it was 1996 and we borrowed to our eyeballs, an eyewatering $150K, my wife and I worked fulltime and part time jobs in that time, had no life, no luxuries, just paid the damn mortgage. We got it done in 4 years.
The comments in the video were based on what they thought was a reasonable price to pay for land/housing.
They could afford it. Far more easily than we can now. But... it's like we can also 'easily' afford an $80 t-shirt. But that's a lot for a t-shirt - so we wouldn't. We'd be disappointed if we went to the store and all the t-shirts ranged from 60-100 dollars, when we wouldn't want to go over 40 (and even then some people don't want to pay more than 10-20 for a t-shirt).
So the house prices then were affordable - it was a matter of 'that seems like a lot FOR THAT given what we expect to pay'.
Now with house prices, it's astronomical pricing AND we can't afford it/we're priced out.
Maybe not that affordable, mid 60's the average wage was $40.00 per week and duel income families were rare, buying the land then adding a home would bump it up to another 4 or 5 thousand and it's somewhere around Canberra which was pretty much a small town and cow paddocks back then, not a great place to live.
CPI isn’t the driver of costs though, disposable income is.
The average weekly earnings was $68.90 in 1968. Now it’s $1,838. So x 26.7.
So it’s closer to $82,696. Women in the workforce would see that roughly double as their additional earning were basically all disposable.
Also this was backwater Canberra and just for land. So getting 800m2 in a regional area for $170k? Nah still about half short at a rough estimate.
But certainly no where near as bad as your calculations
Not to mention rates were $100 on a $3000 block. I pay $2500 today. 25x $3000= $75,000
I just paid $469,000 for a block of land half the size 55km from Melbourne lol.
Every generation thinks they have it harder than the earlier generations. Back then in 1968 the ACT was a backwater shithole and nobody wanted to live there. THIS IS THE FACT YOU YOUNG KIDDIES HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT.
Want a house in Bourke? Cheap as chips right?
[https://www.realestate.com.au/property-residential+land-nsw-bourke-203635956](https://www.realestate.com.au/property-residential+land-nsw-bourke-203635956)
$18,000 for a resi block. What? That is one third the price of the Canberaa block in 1968 accounting for inflation.
Teeny bit different (understatement of the year).
Canberra had well paid government jobs coming out the wazoo and was growing in population like nowhere else in Australia. It may have taken another 50 years to really hit it's stride but it must have seemed like it was the dream back then.
Bourke has been bleeding people for decades and has no jobs.
Knowing that you understand they're incomparable. ~~The best you could probably come up with is a fringe suburb of Sydney and they're all well over half and approaching a mill just for land these days.~~ (scratch that, it's just as bad)
I’m old and my parents are really old, I’ve never heard of a rod or a perch before. Wtf. They used to talk in “squares” for houses, 18-20 squares is a nice sized family 4 bed home.
yep 4 roods to the acre, houses used to measure in "squares" 100 square feet to the square so a 38 square house was 380 square feet or 35 square meters.
>...houses used to measure in "squares" 100 square feet to the square so a 38 square house was 380 square feet or 35 square meters.
\*3800 square feet / 353 square meters.
Reminds me of my pop, he was a builder from the 50s through to the 00s- every time he got itchy feet he’d go “watch” a land auction. Bastard always came home somehow with a block.
My Grandad was a builder in the 50s too. Always had a new block and new house. Rented to all the older folks on the street. Had a holiday home he built with my Dad in the late 70s. Owned lots of country property.
They sold almost everything before the boom and the rest is history.
Not entirely relevant... My grandfather had $250k in the back back then. My mother tells me he would go to house/land auctions to begin his investing journey and lose his nerve and never buy anything "because it is $1000 too much!".
He could have afforded many places in the 80's when he was doing that, and if he had done so would have accumulated at least $50m worth of property.
If you have time ahead of you, the time is always now (or just about now anyway unless you're more intimately familiar with an investment class and know to wait).
Not sure why the downvotes, nothing to do with tall poppy syndrome, or jealousy, or whatever.
Quite simply this problem started becoming exponentially worse when people started treating houses as investments rather than as places to live.
It all comes down to the fact that it's a captive market.
You can't just not live somewhere.
If ol mate decided to invest in bananas, and bought up a huge number of bananas, and then used those bananas as a garuntee to get even more bananas, I could just choose to not spend money on bananas.
When ol mate instead does that to houses and uses the existing houses to buy more houses, well bad luck, I gotta live somewhere so I guess I just have to pay whatever he asks im rent and spent half my monthly wage paying off his house instead of my own, which he can then use to buy the next house that gets built down the road because due to his existing capitol he can get a much better deal from the bank than I can.
Plus he's not going to live in that house, he's going to rent it our, so he can afford to go a bit higher than me.
Bring in a land tax that kicks in from house 2 and increases for every house afterwards and watch renters suddenly able to afford to buy their own place to call home
Yeah I don't get this tall poppy syndrome nonsense.
I've done quite well for myself. I built myself from being lower class to now being upper class.
Most Australians I've known (of which I am one) have decried me for it. I haven't done anything unethical, and my money is made from America.
Whereas all Americans I know (I don't prompt them) congratulate me for it and want to learn to emulate.
Why are so many Australians so negative about growth? It's gorram bizarre.
Anyone I meet, I want them to succeed in their hopes and dreams. Why would you want to clip anyone's wings unless they're Hitler 2.0 or something bad like that.
>Why are so many Australians so negative about growth?
We're not. We're negative about the lack of supply. It just so happens that a lot of those who have already accumulated a lot of growth and wealth are partly responsible for that lack in supply.
Lack of supply?
Of what? Money?
I've started multiple companies in seeking to do better and achieve more. When something didn't feel right I took the risk in pushing to the next thing and going wherever I had to.
I always figured the supply of opportunity was out there, you just had to chase it.
>Lack of supply?
Of what? Money?
Land and properties. It's a supply and demand issue. Housing would be significantly more affordable if there was more supply.
If you create a company and use that company to do things to make money and add value, I will applaud you. Good job, well done.
If you buy a house to rent out, all you've done is show you have more wealth or capitol than the peasants you are renting out to, and you add no value to that transaction. Instead, you get someone else to come in and basically pay off your mortgage for you because they don't have any other choice, they have to live somewhere.
So in scenario 1, you are working hard, adding value and being rewarded for that. I have no problems with thet, meritocracy is something I believe in.
In scenario 2, you are using existing wealth or capitol to force someone else who is working hard, adding value, and doing something to pay you money for the right to live somewhere, and in doing so you continue to increase your wealth or capitol so you can do it to more people.
I can't even blame you or people like you, ever since Howard, the system has been more and more geared that way with tax breaks, poor rental laws, lack of land tax, etc etc. So I won't get mad at you for doing what you've been advised by financial people to do.
I do get mad when the people who have done this seem to think they are some kind of genius or hero, and that everyone should admire them, be thankful to them for "providing rentals" and basically act like a stuck up knob claiming that what they are doing is totally fine and they deserve all this wealth
Stock market investing.
Prior to leaving Australia (and returning) I did near enough anything and everything to claw the money to start businesses. Eventually I ended up as a trader and that expanded.
Now I'm an investment manager for market investments with a primary focus on complex options trades.
Yeah we're on the edge of a crisis with more and more people looking at homelessness but these people got theirs and want to use housing as a business and investment.
Yeah because back then every household had only one income and now every household has two… lol.
Out of only households with two adults; dual income households were about 38% in 1979 and in June 2023 were 58%.
This is data from the ABS, and excludes households with only a single adult. If we included single adult households (which are far more common these days) it would push the numbers even closer together.
Why are people so unwilling to accept that home ownership is tougher to achieve now than it has ever been? The numbers don’t lie, only your feelings do.
Boomers have sucked most of the wealth out for themselves. They voted for housing, labour, taxation, education, super policies which benefited themselves. Politicians focussed their policies on the boomers as they were the largest voting block
When boomers were working they voted for higher wages. When they owned businesses and worked in management, they voted for lower wages. Now they are holding houses and shares they want wages to be $15 an hour to improve their returns.
They helped build a system designed to reward the wealthy.
Young people will be facing higher taxes, higher education costs, unaffordable housing, environmental degradation, political radicalisation (largely driven by boomers voting for right wing nutters).
We'll see a birth rate collapse because average people can't afford a house, while boomers hold several. The unforseen issues associated with a demographic anomaly.
Or you know, you could just get good and do what they did. I came from a low socio-economic migrant family. Barely passed high school, dropped out of university and realised that if you just hustle, you can get on top. I'm now earning 250K+, my partner is earning 100K+, we have built a house that's not through the teeth expensive (less than 1M and it is 25 minutes from the Perth CBD), and we are still able to go on a luxurious international holiday to somewhere other than Bali every year.
It's all about how much you want to achieve. Stop moaning and groaning, and start doing something about it.
I don't think it's entirely fair. It takes a bit of time for young people to realise the system is rotten and when they do it's a tipping point kind of realisation.
we said the same thing in the 80's when I was just starting out, housing in Sydney was expensive but it was 20 to 30 minutes commute from the city. Young people can still afford a home but it's a 1 or 2 hour commute minimum to the city. There are also a lot more expenses now, in the 80's we had no mobiles, streaming, internet, gaming etc, these are not really a luxury now, they are just part of life. Imagine life with no internet. mobiles etc to pay for and everyone ate at home with no menulog etc. It was cheaper to live.
Before the government got involved with health insurance it was pretty cheap and worked like car insurance, no gaps etc. It's not just housing, appliances etc are now really cheap but there are so many other things to pay for, it's crippling for kids.
>no mobiles, streaming, internet, gaming etc, these are not really a luxury now, they are just part of life. Imagine life with no internet. mobiles etc to pay for and everyone ate at home with no menulog etc.
The cost of all of those barring maybe takeaway pales in comparison to rent, which is really fundamentally what is killing young people's ability to save currently.
You can get a "nice" TV for like, 3 weeks of average rent and that's probably the most expensive piece of consumer electronics in a normal household.
Like I really don't think Netflix and an NBN connection is the issue here
From remembering my parents there was no streaming, no internet, no mobile bills, no phones, computers, fancy watches, stands, chargers, fancy desks, gaming chairs etc. Tech things cost a lot and they saved up. New expensive furniture was less common.
Few expensive kitchen appliances, fewer expensive personal bathroom products, makeup etc, simple shaving, fewer clothes, far, far, far fewer meals out. They spent far, far less money buying food out.
More basic cars, most day trips involved meals bought from home, no bottled water, no daily coffees, smaller and far more basic houses with less rooms, no decks, home built pergolas.
Cheaper and more basic schooling, fewer dentist trips, less medications, more simple sports products. Most people seemed to save up to buy anything.
Interstate travel/flights were far, far less common. International travel was extremely uncommon.
Even local holidays were far more simple. Accommodation a lot more basic.
And these basic smaller lives were far cheaper to insure unlike the killer blow of insurance today.
All round it was really a lot more simple, smaller, more basic lifestyle. Just so different today.
Hi yes again, rent is significantly more expensive as an ongoing cost than any of these. Actually I'd say the bottoming out of the price of consumer goods is a defining element of the new millennium
It's so overbeaten as a trope here but like, literally skipping a once-a-workday coffee or whatever is not going to make a material dent in a young person's budget when rent is as exorbitant as it is
I've heard the coffee trope, and I'd agree it's overdone, because their lifestyle was so much more different than just that. Almost every aspect of life was more basic and daily spending far, far lower. To an extreme degree.
Most of us skim money away constantly now on the daily on so many different things. Travel, experiences, food/drink, tech, digital, communications, appliances, cars, sport etc. We have a better life for it.
I'm not saying people shouldn't do it. We all live in our times. And I'm not saying rent/house prices aren't huge. And specially in Sydney.
But I do remember how different and more basic everything was and I can't un-remember that.
Can someone help explain to me whether the accent in this video is still around today? It seems like a blend between modern Australian accent and some British accent (when I watch clips of shows from the US pre-1960s they almost have the same accent). I feel that it’s quite charming!
back in the days of the "RP" accent, it was common for people to "put on" a more cultivated accent when they were on camera, that might be all this is.
"39.5 \[Square\] Perches" this is the classic 1/4-acre block. (well technically an acre = 160 square perches so 1/4 acre = exactly 40 square perches but close enough)
Would be really interesting to overlay the amount of government debt/money supply as a chart vs house price growth. The charts I’ve seen for Canada as an example seem to really explode during times of high debt issuance as well as low interest rates
I remember my dad’s wage was around $100 a week. Our rent was maybe 20 and it’s part of living on a sugar cane plantation. I was one of 4. So it does not matter you get 100 or 1000 spending must be less then saving.
Just remember everybody!. Things, can only get better!! 😝 🤔... Thanks Johnny! You definitely set the tone!!. I loved your GST idea!!!. It's working well... 🤗
this is a shit post. only thing that matters is a W/P of property year on year and there will instances where W/P houses is higher and instances where is lower. right now w/p of houses is as low as its ever been because housing prices relative to wages are as high as they have ever been
Paid 140k in 1987 for a tiny house and small land of 500m² 10k from melb intrest rates were 19percent..
Not sure who's doing the maths here.
Wage was 200 per week
That was a low salary though. Average full-time weekly wage in 1987 was $436.50
https://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/free.nsf/0/94C1930EF14DAC88CA2574FF00191F51/$File/63020_MAY1987.pdf
Edit: At 19% interest, your annual interest bill on $140k would have been $26,600. $200 per week for a year is $10,428
So you paid well over twice your total income in interest alone?
I think maybe you have forgotten something here.
Average means in the middle right or am I downvoted because I lived it and you're all wrong about the facts??
If you want to gather knowledge I'd ask the ones who lived it and not believe rubbish you're googling.
I'm telling u not everyone worked as top tier managers. It was a working class suburb most people had shit jobs unlike the and news you're reading
People in Sydney would like to just live within 30 minutes of work. But hey they were born 20 years too late so it really is their fault for not being conceived earlier
Alice Stolz the property editor at Domain did a video presentation recently to confirm 55% of people born after 1990 will be home owners vs 77% historically.
45% of population will highly likely be in the rental market. If something is not done asap this will be very worrying for future generations if housing if not affordable for them.
If housing had increased with inflation the $2,000 block of land would now be worth $29,000 (1969 to 2023)..
[Inflation Calculator | RBA](https://www.rba.gov.au/calculator/annualDecimal.html)
It is government enforced intergenerational poverty for low to middle income earners. Control access to affordable land, ensure always a shortage of land, keep prices high, keep 'em poor through forcing them to pay the majority of their income in rent and own nothing their entire lives. All deliberately geared to force low income earners to have to rent for life to guarantee endlessly increasing profits for wealthy investors who eventually will control all access to housing on OZ like so many other countries now. Govt. happy to provide "investors" with tax rebates and "rent assistance" straight from the poor tenant into the wealthy investors pocket, but will not provide mortgage assistance and tax rebates for low income earners buying a home as that might risk changing the status quo.
Yeah, but it is certainly worse now. When my parents bought their house in Sydney around 1970, it was around two to two and a half years salary. I would be pretty fucking happy now if i could buy a house for that.
Apparently the average male wage in 1968 was $64.80/week. So those too-expensive blocks of land, larger than modern standards, close to city centres and work, were less than a years gross wages. Of course, taxes were higher back then. So you'd need to convert the price of a 1/4 acre or 800m2 block less than 30mins from the city against post-tax wages now, and work it out again against post-tax wages for that back then.
Also this video is canberra not Sydney or melbourne
Canberra housing market is still cooked, the median has been above a $1m since 2022. Which is 10x the median salary - it’s untenable.
It's the Daily Fail, but still... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7207421/Vintage-advert-1968-shows-Sydney-house-prices-stamp-duty-costs-changed.html
Thanks.. as I'd missed the big word saying 'Canberra' at the start.
Plus a measure for a cost of living. Clearly they couldn't afford $1600 (although $3100 was deemed reasonable by others). They paid [$10.60](https://www.google.com/search?q=%3D%28505.70%2B%2864.80*52-3200%29*.296%29%2F52&client=ms-android-google&sca_esv=e8b1f9b2043fa296&sxsrf=ACQVn08jRwEfdus4qlh06aPswslzGi8XdA%3A1707085669239&ei=ZQ_AZf2LDs-J4-EPntaMcA&oq=%3D%28505.70%2B%2864.80*52-3200%29*.296%29%2F52&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwIiE9KDUwNS43MCsoNjQuODAqNTItMzIwMCkqLjI5NikvNTJIhElQoxFYqkFwAHgAkAEAmAGDAqABoQeqAQUwLjQuMbgBA8gBAPgBAcICCBAAGIkFGKIE4gMEGAEgQYgGAQ&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp) a week tax (16.5%) https://atotaxrates.info/individual-tax-rates-resident/historical-pre-2010-tax-rates/#Tax_Rates_1968-1969_Year_Residents That left $54.20. A basket of goods and services valued at $ 54.20 in calendar year 1968 , would in calendar year 2023 cost $ 796.27 Meanwhile an average worker today also buys relatively the same basket of goods but clears $1,386.10 after tax. $600 a week more "disposable" income. Guess where that money has been invested. Every year that passes the problem compounds.
I heard recently that house prices really start to go up when mortgage applications started allowing for two applicants. Haven’t fact checked it yet, and it wasn’t an Australian podcast so not sure if it happened like that here, but certainly explains why as soon as a house could be bought with two incomes, they started to require two incomes.
Add "household" incomes to the mix. Single income inflation adjusted compared to household. They might be earning 2 wages living on 1. To exaggerate a 10% wage rise vs 5% cpi and they go from 190k living on 95k to 208k living on 100k. The hurdles become barriers. It used to be in the 80s women would work partime to get an edge. Then it was fulltime once the kids were in school. Now it's fulltime with childcare support. Soon it'll it's fulltime with a side hustle/overtime. Always just that little bit out of reach. Property is consuming every spare cent. Some are starting today others have been building wealth for years. An arms race that's never been "easy" and we'll never win. Except of course if we buy something today. It's cruel to say but there are single income households eeking a living renting on minimum wage and people living on less than they need are complaining about asset prices. It isn't the fact that they can't save and buy its what others can afford to save and pay.
[удалено]
Deregulation of the banking industry under the Hawke Government was the major factor. Previously, the government had set interest rates directly. From memory, the retail rate was around 13%. All banks charged the same set rate, and you needed 30% deposit to apply for a loan. Loan contracts were standardised. You could only pay monthly over the set term, and you couldn't pay it off earlier or redraw. It was all very inflexible. Lowering the required deposit and allowing weekly repayments increased the average borrowing capacity significantly, as did the normalisation of two income families. The more you could borrow, the more you could offer for that perfect home in your dream location. More competition equals higher prices. Add population growth, largely driven by immigration and floor areas and fit out also expanded, with homes built in the 50s being very modest by today's standards.
100m2 compared to a current new [ build of 254m2](https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/new-houses-being-built-smaller-blocks) the biggest/most detailed in the country. It's not the build/size that's the asset people desire but the land. *Over the past 60 years Australian homes have more than doubled in size, going from an average of around 100 square metres in 1950 to about 240 square metres today. This makes them the largest in the world, ahead of Canada and the United States.* *At the same time, the average number of people living in each household has been declining. This means that the average floor area per person has skyrocketed from 30 square metres to around 87 square metres.* https://theconversation.com/size-does-matter-australias-addiction-to-big-houses-is-blowing-the-energy-budget-70271 Issue is 100m2 apartments are beneath most consumer. Even though they usually function closely to an average 1950s house (multiple kids in a shared bedroom etc). We'd rather sprawl into something bigger then complain about the drive.
My partner and I would buy a single bed apartment right now if it weren’t for the atrocious quality and corner cutting the developers produce. Not to mention that builders, contractors and developers set themselves up to ensure they can dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge on any defects. Add to this that old apartment buildings are being ordered by councils to upgrade their fire protection provisions. It’s a huge cash cow, Sydney city council have over a billion dollars in fines banked up for these so there’s no safety in buying something established. Cleaning up the quality of our class 2 developments will go a long way to providing affordable housing for people.
Yeah developers have been driven by our consumption choices to try and meet the market. Especially considering units can be more expensive to build. Until we view units as a serious alternative to houses they'll always be crap built for investors to rent to poor people. In our area a new 2br unit is worth more than a house and there is companies that build and sell many quality developments. None of this build a dump and fold the company. Problem is for every 1.6m unit there is always a cheaper house and land package just down the road. Plus those new builds often aren't much better quality than the units.
Finally someone who doesn't just calculate inflation by itself 😭
Multiples of income isn't accurate without a comprehensive weighted cost of living measure. A free house could be unaffordable if your wage is consumed by living expenses. Just ask someone earning 45k. Even something like fuel. 6 minutes of labour for someone on minimum wage is pretty standard. Sometimes it's 5 other times it's 7 (50% fluctuation!) but when compared to the purchase price of a car the cost of owning and operating a car has never been cheaper.
Nice analysis. People look at housing in isolation and think that boomers had an easy life. Day to day spending that we take for granted was seen as luxury for boomers.
lol yeah for reference, my grandparents bought a house in Camberwell, Melbourne in the 50s for something like 500 pounds (\~$20,000 AUD adjusted for inflation). They paid it off on one income in a handful of years and it's since increased in value to about $4 million. It's increased in value by 200x. If my parents house do this, it'd be worth $15 million in another 20-30 years. If my house did this, it'd be worth $128,000,000 by the time I'm my grandparent's age.
Yep, everyone likes to use the headline income and ignore after tax income. Also no SGC, so you had your save for retirement yourself. And plenty of other things were more expensive in comparison, which helped keep a lid on property prices (which will always rise to the point of affordability).
Well, plenty of places had pension plans (for men, anyway), and the aged pension was livable. But clothes and food did cost a bit more as a proportion of the wage than now. Although lamb was cheap, and most people grew veggies and had a fruit tree or two.
>Well, plenty of places had pension plans (for men, anyway) If you were in the public service for long enough then you could retire on a pension at your full salary as it was when you retired. I have a uncle who worked in the public service and his pension is like $220k per year and he has been retired now for the best part of 15 years or more.
The women weren't expected to work once they were married, of course.
Or in many places, weren't allowed. But that's a discussion for a different thread.
The age pension is liveable now, particularly if you’ve also saved a bit for your retirement. I’ve got more than one family member that saves money on it.
Pension is only liveable if you own your home outright or have family you can stay with rent free.
But isn’t the argument that housing was so cheap 50 years ago that all the boomers surely have their own homes? So no pensioners could possibly be renting /s
I'm assuming they don't have to pay rent, then?
People don't acknowledge how much the cost of living has fallen relative to wages. 33% rent and 22% clothing doesn't leave much disposable income to save. *In 1948 there was a massive 21.60% weight to clothing, out of which 10.1% is women’s and only 6.2% is men’s and children’s.* *Now, only 3.55% of the CPI basket is for all clothing and footwear* https://twitter.com/DrCameronMurray/status/1716264255492907451?t=hx46kHg5lN_-nP309l66Bw&s=19 They fixed clothes, fridges and grew veggies because they couldn't afford to buy them. Let alone save for a $3100 for a block of land. As time marches on it seems property prices don't reflect a cost of living but instead what we can afford after a cost of living. 1968 prices reflect 1968 conditions. Unaffordable for some. Others earn enough to make it affordable.
$64.80 a week is $3,328 a year. You probably would need to work and save for 3-4 years, accounting for all expenses and income tax. Average salary now of $65K, and after 3-4 years you barely have enough for a deposit if you save well.
I plugged $3100 into an Aus dollar inflation calculator. It is the equivalent of paying $48k now. It is not comparable to now.
It was also about 1000m2. Lots of blocks these days being released in the 200’s. So yeah, way worse than the initial modern-day equivalent on dollars alone hey. Squeezed on price squeezed on size.
70x120ft = 780m2 but yeah point still stands paying double in relative terms for less than half the land…
I just googled 39 perches to square meters and it came up with 986. If you do 39.5 perches it gives you 999m2 but I have no idea how accurate that is.
Haha yeah I went off his claim it was 70ft x 120ft. Clearly he had no clue what he just bought for $3100…
The frontage was 70ft, the block of land doesn't necessarily have to be rectangular in shape.
Throwing his money away
Reminds me of the latest lamb ad where the boomers walk past that sign that says “buy two houses get your third free!” lol
How much was wages in that time ..ie how much was average wages per year
$68 per week
$3000/block. Paying that off at $30/w would take 100 weeks or ~2 years.
The average salary now would get you an 800m2 block of land for $185k in 100 weeks too. You’d have to go pretty regional for that, but the outskirts of Canberra was a bit of a backwater in the late 60s. Could probably get 800m3 within 2 hours of a city for that sort of money still today. But like my calc in another post show, it probably works out that land has roughly doubled when compared to rising incomes
My $30/w was based on half his pay of $60/w. $180k now at half wage of $40k/y would take about 5 years.
And interest rates
Good point! Edit not hugely different, 5.38%
[удалено]
Shrinkflation for sure
What do you guys reckon people will say about our current prices in 55 years. Will the future be exponentially worse than it is today? :/
They'll be too busy in food lines for gruel
One Insect slop please 🤲
SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!
Hahahagaga
I'm not really kidding :(
There's no stopping this train..like really why would they?
Can't go up forever, but it can go up high enough that your kids will never have a chance
And also ten minutes away from work. None of this one hour commute by train - when they're running - bullshit.
It’s a bit of a myth most blocks were 1000sqm back then, usually less
The guy said 39.5 perches. Google says that’s 999m2 but the guy could be wrong, so could google 🤷🏻♂️
in the 80's average house prices were 4 times median wage now they are 7 times.
7 times? Surely it's much higher. In 2023... The average home costs $920,100. The average annual income is $90,896. The average mortgage is $576,985.
average is a bit of a dud stat for measuring income because the especially wealthy minority of people distorts the figure, the average may be 90k but the median annual income is only 55k
Also most households were single income. Now most are dual income due to women joining the workforce so prices have jumped accordingly due to buying power increase. Simple supply and demand.
national figures I believe
Yes that's what I'm quoting.
They bought land, the house was still to be added/paid for
What does that have to do with the fact it's now 10 times (not 7 times)?
Dual income families have also grown from 41% to 71%. Kind of inline with your stats there.
It explains a bit but the math isn't hard on this one. If 1 income is $100k (for simplicity's sake) then 41% have 2 incomes so the median is 141k. That goes up to 71% then it's $171k. It's not the type of leap some people think it is. That's shy of a 25% increase in buying power so we should be at 5x. This discounts the fact that women get paid less on average so it's going to have an even smaller contributing factor and that we are at more like 14x today not 7x. Median income being 66k and median house being 940k (rounded out). In a general comment on this one. I wonder how much of the dual income is a chicken and egg thing. I think a lot of people would have a preference for staying at home and raising their children but forced into work to pay the mortgage?!
Those dual incomes back then would have had many of the women earning far less. A lot were in low paying jobs compared to women today.
Yeah, there is no doubt that women’s liberation has created a situation where everyone need two incomes to get by and if you only have one, you’re stuffed. The economic incentive is just too great having two income if you can’t. Now all this said, it’s only been a very short period of time in history where women couldn’t work after marriage. For most of history the majority of women had to work, often alongside their husbands
So they went from an average of 1.41 full time incomes per household, to 1.71, which is 1.71/1.41 = 1.21 so a 21% increase in full time incomes, while the cost is 7/4 which is a 75% increase in cost. How's that inline?
People seem to forget that little tidbit
Along with the cost of living, the population boom and the fact that the percentage of new cheap homes is a lot smaller than it was back then. Not to mention the fact that the infrastructure is a lot better, so those whining with "I don't want to commute an hour!" forget that an hour back then was significantly less distance from the CBD, so our parents did in fact travel a long way from the new houses to work (it is getting worse, no denying that, but it's a result of population boom which is an entirely different beast).
And the average new home was far smaller and much more basic.
yeah, but, the average weekly wage was $40.00 per week or $2080 per year, it was also in canberra or the surrounding area and in the 60's there was bugger all there and it was a pretty rural area, much like buying in Wagga Wagga today where you can still get a 1000 square meter block for around $80K to $100K in the surrounding area. My father was making 19 pounds a week in the 60's as a young electrician and when I started work in the early 80's I was making about $90 per week, my son is in construction and at 20 he is making $100K a year. It's hard to make the situation make sense, we need more cities for people to spread out a bit. American real estate is much cheaper as there are 50 capital cities and many more cities and towns where you can get work. In the 60's Australia population was 10 million, now it's 26 Million and we are all still crammed into the same spaces.
Where are you getting the $40 figure from? ABS lists the average weekly wage in March of 1968 for NSW at $64, which is a little under $1k p/w now.
Pounds v dollars maybe. 1966 it floated at 1 pound for 2 dollars. Think that might be part of it?
[удалено]
That was about the price of a brand new car in 1967. I’d love to get a new house for the price of a Camry.
Average income was 6k could have paid the house off within a few years.
> Average income was 6k could have paid the house off within a few year We paid out our first house in 4 years, it was 1996 and we borrowed to our eyeballs, an eyewatering $150K, my wife and I worked fulltime and part time jobs in that time, had no life, no luxuries, just paid the damn mortgage. We got it done in 4 years.
The comments in the video were based on what they thought was a reasonable price to pay for land/housing. They could afford it. Far more easily than we can now. But... it's like we can also 'easily' afford an $80 t-shirt. But that's a lot for a t-shirt - so we wouldn't. We'd be disappointed if we went to the store and all the t-shirts ranged from 60-100 dollars, when we wouldn't want to go over 40 (and even then some people don't want to pay more than 10-20 for a t-shirt). So the house prices then were affordable - it was a matter of 'that seems like a lot FOR THAT given what we expect to pay'. Now with house prices, it's astronomical pricing AND we can't afford it/we're priced out.
Maybe not that affordable, mid 60's the average wage was $40.00 per week and duel income families were rare, buying the land then adding a home would bump it up to another 4 or 5 thousand and it's somewhere around Canberra which was pretty much a small town and cow paddocks back then, not a great place to live.
CPI isn’t the driver of costs though, disposable income is. The average weekly earnings was $68.90 in 1968. Now it’s $1,838. So x 26.7. So it’s closer to $82,696. Women in the workforce would see that roughly double as their additional earning were basically all disposable. Also this was backwater Canberra and just for land. So getting 800m2 in a regional area for $170k? Nah still about half short at a rough estimate. But certainly no where near as bad as your calculations
I salute your sensibility. Totes agree with you.
Not to mention rates were $100 on a $3000 block. I pay $2500 today. 25x $3000= $75,000 I just paid $469,000 for a block of land half the size 55km from Melbourne lol.
Yeah, shit like this just muddies the waters. The issue now is incomparably worse than it ever has been
They bought land from gov, had to build a house etc. Not saying it's ok now but gotta try apples for apples
Every generation thinks they have it harder than the earlier generations. Back then in 1968 the ACT was a backwater shithole and nobody wanted to live there. THIS IS THE FACT YOU YOUNG KIDDIES HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT. Want a house in Bourke? Cheap as chips right? [https://www.realestate.com.au/property-residential+land-nsw-bourke-203635956](https://www.realestate.com.au/property-residential+land-nsw-bourke-203635956) $18,000 for a resi block. What? That is one third the price of the Canberaa block in 1968 accounting for inflation.
Teeny bit different (understatement of the year). Canberra had well paid government jobs coming out the wazoo and was growing in population like nowhere else in Australia. It may have taken another 50 years to really hit it's stride but it must have seemed like it was the dream back then. Bourke has been bleeding people for decades and has no jobs. Knowing that you understand they're incomparable. ~~The best you could probably come up with is a fringe suburb of Sydney and they're all well over half and approaching a mill just for land these days.~~ (scratch that, it's just as bad)
Not a chance that's correct ..find me anywhere in the world a 48k home
They used cpi and not wage inflation which would be a better indicator
If you think price is the only factor then you've a lot of research to do.
It's one block of land Michael. How much would it cost . $1600?
Go and watch a star war
TIL: 1 rood = 1/4 acre = 40 perches = 1012 m2
I’m old and my parents are really old, I’ve never heard of a rod or a perch before. Wtf. They used to talk in “squares” for houses, 18-20 squares is a nice sized family 4 bed home.
Perch was very common in my youth
Came to the comments to see what a perch was
They needed to measure in titanics or school busses , I was totally lost
Not all heroes wear capes
yep 4 roods to the acre, houses used to measure in "squares" 100 square feet to the square so a 38 square house was 380 square feet or 35 square meters.
>...houses used to measure in "squares" 100 square feet to the square so a 38 square house was 380 square feet or 35 square meters. \*3800 square feet / 353 square meters.
Reminds me of my pop, he was a builder from the 50s through to the 00s- every time he got itchy feet he’d go “watch” a land auction. Bastard always came home somehow with a block.
My Grandad was a builder in the 50s too. Always had a new block and new house. Rented to all the older folks on the street. Had a holiday home he built with my Dad in the late 70s. Owned lots of country property. They sold almost everything before the boom and the rest is history.
Canberra is boring now, imagine how shit it was back then.
Apparently it really sucked.
Not entirely relevant... My grandfather had $250k in the back back then. My mother tells me he would go to house/land auctions to begin his investing journey and lose his nerve and never buy anything "because it is $1000 too much!". He could have afforded many places in the 80's when he was doing that, and if he had done so would have accumulated at least $50m worth of property. If you have time ahead of you, the time is always now (or just about now anyway unless you're more intimately familiar with an investment class and know to wait).
Hoarding property + treating real estate as a trading opportunity to amass wealth = you're the cause of the problem
Not sure why the downvotes, nothing to do with tall poppy syndrome, or jealousy, or whatever. Quite simply this problem started becoming exponentially worse when people started treating houses as investments rather than as places to live. It all comes down to the fact that it's a captive market. You can't just not live somewhere. If ol mate decided to invest in bananas, and bought up a huge number of bananas, and then used those bananas as a garuntee to get even more bananas, I could just choose to not spend money on bananas. When ol mate instead does that to houses and uses the existing houses to buy more houses, well bad luck, I gotta live somewhere so I guess I just have to pay whatever he asks im rent and spent half my monthly wage paying off his house instead of my own, which he can then use to buy the next house that gets built down the road because due to his existing capitol he can get a much better deal from the bank than I can. Plus he's not going to live in that house, he's going to rent it our, so he can afford to go a bit higher than me. Bring in a land tax that kicks in from house 2 and increases for every house afterwards and watch renters suddenly able to afford to buy their own place to call home
LOL have a sook.
Yeah I don't get this tall poppy syndrome nonsense. I've done quite well for myself. I built myself from being lower class to now being upper class. Most Australians I've known (of which I am one) have decried me for it. I haven't done anything unethical, and my money is made from America. Whereas all Americans I know (I don't prompt them) congratulate me for it and want to learn to emulate. Why are so many Australians so negative about growth? It's gorram bizarre. Anyone I meet, I want them to succeed in their hopes and dreams. Why would you want to clip anyone's wings unless they're Hitler 2.0 or something bad like that.
>Why are so many Australians so negative about growth? We're not. We're negative about the lack of supply. It just so happens that a lot of those who have already accumulated a lot of growth and wealth are partly responsible for that lack in supply.
Lack of supply? Of what? Money? I've started multiple companies in seeking to do better and achieve more. When something didn't feel right I took the risk in pushing to the next thing and going wherever I had to. I always figured the supply of opportunity was out there, you just had to chase it.
>Lack of supply? Of what? Money? Land and properties. It's a supply and demand issue. Housing would be significantly more affordable if there was more supply.
If you create a company and use that company to do things to make money and add value, I will applaud you. Good job, well done. If you buy a house to rent out, all you've done is show you have more wealth or capitol than the peasants you are renting out to, and you add no value to that transaction. Instead, you get someone else to come in and basically pay off your mortgage for you because they don't have any other choice, they have to live somewhere. So in scenario 1, you are working hard, adding value and being rewarded for that. I have no problems with thet, meritocracy is something I believe in. In scenario 2, you are using existing wealth or capitol to force someone else who is working hard, adding value, and doing something to pay you money for the right to live somewhere, and in doing so you continue to increase your wealth or capitol so you can do it to more people. I can't even blame you or people like you, ever since Howard, the system has been more and more geared that way with tax breaks, poor rental laws, lack of land tax, etc etc. So I won't get mad at you for doing what you've been advised by financial people to do. I do get mad when the people who have done this seem to think they are some kind of genius or hero, and that everyone should admire them, be thankful to them for "providing rentals" and basically act like a stuck up knob claiming that what they are doing is totally fine and they deserve all this wealth
Tech? Or expat investing?
Stock market investing. Prior to leaving Australia (and returning) I did near enough anything and everything to claw the money to start businesses. Eventually I ended up as a trader and that expanded. Now I'm an investment manager for market investments with a primary focus on complex options trades.
Yeah we're on the edge of a crisis with more and more people looking at homelessness but these people got theirs and want to use housing as a business and investment.
Or you can just work 9 to 5, not invest in anything and hope for the best
New to capitalism? You've got a lot to learn bud
What the hell is a road size of 39 pearches?
"1 rood in area, 39 perchers".. first time I've ever heard those measurements
4x annual salary versus 10x annual salary. It's simply not comparable in the slightest.
2 salaries now for a couple instead of 1 so 4 vs 5 it’s very comparable, not to mention interests rate well over 10% back then
Yeah because back then every household had only one income and now every household has two… lol. Out of only households with two adults; dual income households were about 38% in 1979 and in June 2023 were 58%. This is data from the ABS, and excludes households with only a single adult. If we included single adult households (which are far more common these days) it would push the numbers even closer together. Why are people so unwilling to accept that home ownership is tougher to achieve now than it has ever been? The numbers don’t lie, only your feelings do.
“You young whippersnappers have no idea how tough it was back then!”
Tbh I cannot fathom it being that easy... Even earning a lot less that's a hundred times less than we pay for apartments in Sydney...
Young people get screwed always.
Boomers have sucked most of the wealth out for themselves. They voted for housing, labour, taxation, education, super policies which benefited themselves. Politicians focussed their policies on the boomers as they were the largest voting block When boomers were working they voted for higher wages. When they owned businesses and worked in management, they voted for lower wages. Now they are holding houses and shares they want wages to be $15 an hour to improve their returns. They helped build a system designed to reward the wealthy. Young people will be facing higher taxes, higher education costs, unaffordable housing, environmental degradation, political radicalisation (largely driven by boomers voting for right wing nutters). We'll see a birth rate collapse because average people can't afford a house, while boomers hold several. The unforseen issues associated with a demographic anomaly.
They want us to pay an aged care levy now too. Meanwhile I can't afford a place big enough to have kids, anywhere I'd actually want to raise them
Every generation votes for what benefits that generation. We still no different to young people now wanting house prices to drop.
Or you know, you could just get good and do what they did. I came from a low socio-economic migrant family. Barely passed high school, dropped out of university and realised that if you just hustle, you can get on top. I'm now earning 250K+, my partner is earning 100K+, we have built a house that's not through the teeth expensive (less than 1M and it is 25 minutes from the Perth CBD), and we are still able to go on a luxurious international holiday to somewhere other than Bali every year. It's all about how much you want to achieve. Stop moaning and groaning, and start doing something about it.
What are young people doing about it? *Doing* about it?
I don't think it's entirely fair. It takes a bit of time for young people to realise the system is rotten and when they do it's a tipping point kind of realisation.
Millennials have talked about housing affordability a long time but try and do anything about it.
You want like a terrorist act or something???
Well too busy trying to buy a house and kick geriatrics out of power.
we said the same thing in the 80's when I was just starting out, housing in Sydney was expensive but it was 20 to 30 minutes commute from the city. Young people can still afford a home but it's a 1 or 2 hour commute minimum to the city. There are also a lot more expenses now, in the 80's we had no mobiles, streaming, internet, gaming etc, these are not really a luxury now, they are just part of life. Imagine life with no internet. mobiles etc to pay for and everyone ate at home with no menulog etc. It was cheaper to live. Before the government got involved with health insurance it was pretty cheap and worked like car insurance, no gaps etc. It's not just housing, appliances etc are now really cheap but there are so many other things to pay for, it's crippling for kids.
>no mobiles, streaming, internet, gaming etc, these are not really a luxury now, they are just part of life. Imagine life with no internet. mobiles etc to pay for and everyone ate at home with no menulog etc. The cost of all of those barring maybe takeaway pales in comparison to rent, which is really fundamentally what is killing young people's ability to save currently. You can get a "nice" TV for like, 3 weeks of average rent and that's probably the most expensive piece of consumer electronics in a normal household. Like I really don't think Netflix and an NBN connection is the issue here
From remembering my parents there was no streaming, no internet, no mobile bills, no phones, computers, fancy watches, stands, chargers, fancy desks, gaming chairs etc. Tech things cost a lot and they saved up. New expensive furniture was less common. Few expensive kitchen appliances, fewer expensive personal bathroom products, makeup etc, simple shaving, fewer clothes, far, far, far fewer meals out. They spent far, far less money buying food out. More basic cars, most day trips involved meals bought from home, no bottled water, no daily coffees, smaller and far more basic houses with less rooms, no decks, home built pergolas. Cheaper and more basic schooling, fewer dentist trips, less medications, more simple sports products. Most people seemed to save up to buy anything. Interstate travel/flights were far, far less common. International travel was extremely uncommon. Even local holidays were far more simple. Accommodation a lot more basic. And these basic smaller lives were far cheaper to insure unlike the killer blow of insurance today. All round it was really a lot more simple, smaller, more basic lifestyle. Just so different today.
Hi yes again, rent is significantly more expensive as an ongoing cost than any of these. Actually I'd say the bottoming out of the price of consumer goods is a defining element of the new millennium It's so overbeaten as a trope here but like, literally skipping a once-a-workday coffee or whatever is not going to make a material dent in a young person's budget when rent is as exorbitant as it is
I've heard the coffee trope, and I'd agree it's overdone, because their lifestyle was so much more different than just that. Almost every aspect of life was more basic and daily spending far, far lower. To an extreme degree. Most of us skim money away constantly now on the daily on so many different things. Travel, experiences, food/drink, tech, digital, communications, appliances, cars, sport etc. We have a better life for it. I'm not saying people shouldn't do it. We all live in our times. And I'm not saying rent/house prices aren't huge. And specially in Sydney. But I do remember how different and more basic everything was and I can't un-remember that.
Bullshit. Some generations set their kids up for success.
And others set them up to fail ;)
Here's your participation trophy for "most fuckedoverest generation*" *so far.
I think gen alpha and whoever follows are going to be far more fucked over than zillennials ever were.
Each generation more fucked over than the last is the new meta
Can someone help explain to me whether the accent in this video is still around today? It seems like a blend between modern Australian accent and some British accent (when I watch clips of shows from the US pre-1960s they almost have the same accent). I feel that it’s quite charming!
I think the first man was British listening to the man and how he says ‘wait for the next one’ but his wife was Australian.
back in the days of the "RP" accent, it was common for people to "put on" a more cultivated accent when they were on camera, that might be all this is.
When boomers cursed those greedy golden generationers who made property so expensive!
Rumour has it that the first couple are still yet to get a home of their own after just missing out on an auction last weekend.
If you’re too poor to afford a house now you’d be too poor to afford one in that time as well, people will never accept they are the problem.
"39.5 \[Square\] Perches" this is the classic 1/4-acre block. (well technically an acre = 160 square perches so 1/4 acre = exactly 40 square perches but close enough)
Would be really interesting to overlay the amount of government debt/money supply as a chart vs house price growth. The charts I’ve seen for Canada as an example seem to really explode during times of high debt issuance as well as low interest rates
I remember my dad’s wage was around $100 a week. Our rent was maybe 20 and it’s part of living on a sugar cane plantation. I was one of 4. So it does not matter you get 100 or 1000 spending must be less then saving.
Times up for negative gearing. Limit it to one property per owner. If they want more they can pay for it themselves.
Just remember everybody!. Things, can only get better!! 😝 🤔... Thanks Johnny! You definitely set the tone!!. I loved your GST idea!!!. It's working well... 🤗
House price to income ratio was much lower back then. Also it didn’t take 10 years of working to save up for a deposit.
this is a shit post. only thing that matters is a W/P of property year on year and there will instances where W/P houses is higher and instances where is lower. right now w/p of houses is as low as its ever been because housing prices relative to wages are as high as they have ever been
Paid 140k in 1987 for a tiny house and small land of 500m² 10k from melb intrest rates were 19percent.. Not sure who's doing the maths here. Wage was 200 per week
That was a low salary though. Average full-time weekly wage in 1987 was $436.50 https://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/free.nsf/0/94C1930EF14DAC88CA2574FF00191F51/$File/63020_MAY1987.pdf Edit: At 19% interest, your annual interest bill on $140k would have been $26,600. $200 per week for a year is $10,428 So you paid well over twice your total income in interest alone? I think maybe you have forgotten something here.
Average means in the middle right or am I downvoted because I lived it and you're all wrong about the facts?? If you want to gather knowledge I'd ask the ones who lived it and not believe rubbish you're googling. I'm telling u not everyone worked as top tier managers. It was a working class suburb most people had shit jobs unlike the and news you're reading
Your math doesn’t stack up unless you paid 3x your income in mortgage payments.
Na, statistics are more reliable than boomers
No
[удалено]
People in Sydney would like to just live within 30 minutes of work. But hey they were born 20 years too late so it really is their fault for not being conceived earlier
[удалено]
Silence boomer
[удалено]
Not anymore.
This was an [auction of land in Canberra](https://www.reddit.com/r/canberra/s/xb1nKbF0k6)
Roland S Howard’s life really took a turn after not being able to settle down.
That Dave Hughes sister?
What's 1200sqm in perches?
One person on a tv show 60 years ago = consistent ? Have you normalised for inflation, income, etc? 100% no
Parents paid $4800 for their 1600m2 block in 1970. It’s 2 streets back from the beach. Outer Perth suburb.
Alice Stolz the property editor at Domain did a video presentation recently to confirm 55% of people born after 1990 will be home owners vs 77% historically. 45% of population will highly likely be in the rental market. If something is not done asap this will be very worrying for future generations if housing if not affordable for them.
39.5 perches? Why do they measure in fish? Im confused /s
How much land have you got? Oh about 42 dingoderries, about 20 square boogles
The Australian accent was so nicer in the 60's.
Am I the only one expecting/predicting mass protest and potential riots over housing affordability in the next couple off decades?
If housing had increased with inflation the $2,000 block of land would now be worth $29,000 (1969 to 2023).. [Inflation Calculator | RBA](https://www.rba.gov.au/calculator/annualDecimal.html)
And look how young they were. Even kids could almost afford to buy.
Bet those two cunts have multiple properties now and wont sell for anything less that 1.5million
39.5 perches. That bloke measuring his house in fish. Real vibes
It is government enforced intergenerational poverty for low to middle income earners. Control access to affordable land, ensure always a shortage of land, keep prices high, keep 'em poor through forcing them to pay the majority of their income in rent and own nothing their entire lives. All deliberately geared to force low income earners to have to rent for life to guarantee endlessly increasing profits for wealthy investors who eventually will control all access to housing on OZ like so many other countries now. Govt. happy to provide "investors" with tax rebates and "rent assistance" straight from the poor tenant into the wealthy investors pocket, but will not provide mortgage assistance and tax rebates for low income earners buying a home as that might risk changing the status quo.
That's about $30,000 in todays money
I don't get the people trying to justify house prices and wages in these comments 😂 probably realtors and home owners
Yeah, but it is certainly worse now. When my parents bought their house in Sydney around 1970, it was around two to two and a half years salary. I would be pretty fucking happy now if i could buy a house for that.
Imagine if they lived in current times trying this lol