Australian news and politics.

[zimbos05]

If you look at the above ABS graph (and LFC's numbers), they have always been less under the Coalition going back to 2015. It peaked at 277k, declined to 240k just before COVID hit.

Under Albanese NOM has gone from the record high 528k to 306k but still above the Coalition peak.

So again, the government inherits the policies implemented by the previous government.

Housing affordability is a big issue. Population growth is not the only cause of housing unaffordability but is a big driver of housing demand. It *has* to be, because people have to live somewhere. With rising demand, prices go up.

To say otherwise is like blaming a 4 litre bucket for overflowing with 8 litres of water rather than turning the tap off.

1% of people own 25% of investment properties. When less own more, then supply diminishes for the others who want to buy. Migrants cant just buy from day 1. No one gets off a plane, walks to an agent, and buys a property. People are not competing with migrants for houses.

 

[state of origin]

1% of people own 25% of investment properties. When less own more, then supply diminishes for the others who want to buy. Migrants cant just buy from day 1. No one gets off a plane, walks to an agent, and buys a property. People are not competing with migrants for houses.

That's a simplistic argument as I'm constantly amazed by the numbers of rough sleepers i see daily in my part of suburbia which was never a thing even 15-20 years ago. Not sure how many of these are fobs, but anecdotally it would seem not many. I blame migration pure and simple.

 

[zimbos05]

That's a simplistic argument as I'm constantly amazed by the numbers of rough sleepers i see daily in my part of suburbia which was never a thing even 15-20 years ago. Not sure how many of these are fobs, but anecdotally it would seem not many. I blame migration pure and simple.

How is it simplistic? 1% own a quarter of the houses. That means every time new houses are being built, they are not being bought by the people living rough, but by people who already own houses. People who don't need multiple properties are taking them, hoarding them, and charging stupid rental rates further creating a division in which people are stuck paying rent, or having to live very poorly in order to save a deposit to get out of the rental hell.

Populations are going to grow. Australia's has to grow, and with birth rates lower, you need migration. Again, migration rates are lower. When you price people out of the market and you hoard properties, you push people to the streets.

In Victoria, which has built more houses than other states, areas with higher population growth did not experience higher property price growth at all. You blame migration because it fits a narrative, not because it is the actual reason.

 

[Sharkman84]

A suspected case of the highly pathogenic H5N1 bird flu in Western Australia has been confirmed.

Agriculture Minister Julie Collins flagged the possible case of H5 yesterday, but confirmed it this morning.

H5 bird flu confirmed in Australia for the first time

A suspected case of H5 bird flu in Western Australia has been confirmed.

www.nine.com.au

 

[state of origin]

How is it simplistic?

Because residence ownership is not a closed loop system. Do you really think rough sleepers are likely to be part of a future ownership cohort? Not if it's easier for companies to hire a migrant rather than train a non-migrant.

You blame migration because it fits a narrative, not because it is the actual reason.

What narrative is that, and furthermore, please tell me the actual reason.
Near to zero migration Japan has a surplus of housing. However they have also experienced economic stagnation with it's associated problems, due to their low birth rate. Is it wrong of me to support a midpoint between theirs and our migration rate, simply because it doesn't fit your class warfare narrative?

 

[zimbos05]

Because residence ownership is not a closed loop system. Do you really think rough sleepers are likely to be part of a future ownership cohort? Not if it's easier for companies to hire a migrant rather than train a non-migrant.

So you are complaining about migrants, yet the same people who tell you to complain about them are the ones hiring them??

Many of the rough sleepers have the means to afford rent or deposits, they can't get into the market. I have spent so much time with them, talking to them and hearing their stories. One person was a lawyer, one worked in healthcare. I myself was a 1 week from homelessness. I was very lucky to find an apartment and get accepted for it, or I was 100% on the streets.

What narrative is that, and furthermore, please tell me the actual reason.
Near to zero migration Japan has a surplus of housing. However they have also experienced economic stagnation with it's associated problems, due to their low birth rate. Is it wrong of me to support a midpoint between theirs and our migration rate, simply because it doesn't fit your class warfare narrative?

The narrative of, "let's not fix the actual issues. Don't touch CGT, or Negative Gearing, Investors, Corporate Greed, Inflation caused by companies. We can't tax gas and mining companies".

No no, I have no class warfare. I just want the rich to pay their fair share. If they are going to take our resources, they should pay a fair amount for it so that it goes back to all the people. So we can invest it in housing, healthcare, education, infrastructure etc that benefit every single person. It's not wrong to support something, however when some of the claims get debunked, yet they still keep being peddled, that is when the issue arises.

I too have some concerns about migration, however I don't blame migration for our housing crisis because the data suggests otherwise. Or it suggests that it at least a very minimal impact on the housing market. People like Nathan Birch (300 properties) or the one who admitted to owning 283 on radio are a bigger issues for me than migrants who can -at best- afford one house.