Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
Baby Boomers Are Evil - visit Reform Australian Housing on Facebook; I bought a house a year ago, paid some snivelling undeserving ageing hippy boomer far more than they deserved
Topic Started: 11 Jul 2014, 02:01 PM (10,207 Views)
Curious Non-Economist
Default APF Avatar


Blondie girl
13 Jul 2014, 01:48 PM
Where's some of the best schools located? If one has young ones?
Why do young ones need good schools?

Going by the success stories of fabulously successful property investors who can barely string a sentence together or do simple arithmetic, it would seem that being well educated puts you at a disadvantage in Australia.
Quote:
 
And nothing to offer gen y?

You have got to be joking.

Well, obviously I was excluding the successful property investors of GenX such as yourself. I really just meant the GenX loser renters that skamy was referring to. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.
Quote:
 
So much crap to read.

You too huh? And the TV guide comes out once a week too.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Bardon
Default APF Avatar


Count du Monet
13 Jul 2014, 02:47 AM
When I refer to the coming War, I don't mean the small affairs that inhabit the realm between "Total Wars". The 30 years war was a Total War, the Napoleonic and WW2.

In a Total War, all weapons and all means are used with gay abandon.

When I was 20 I could see WW2 was the result of WW1. But I always wondered what was idiot politics that led to the first "world war". Now I've seen a repeat of the politics.

The West thinking it can push into the Ukraine is a key type of idiocy.
Whilst all the documented price revolutions of the last thousands years have ended with catastrophic events, including major wars and social and cultural upheavals. The relative level of violence and depopulation has lessened each time. eg

The massive depopulation following the collapse of the medieval period in the fourteenth century

The widespread suffering of the seventeenth century was shocking but less severe than the destruction of the medieval period

The social revolutions of the nineteenth century whilst bloodthirsty tended more to class and cultural reform.

See graph below.

No doubt when this current price wave ends there will be catastrophic impacts for all that survive through it but history tells us that it will be more of a social and hierarchical nature than sudden and rampant depopulation.



Posted Image
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
skamy
Member Avatar


Curious Non-Economist
13 Jul 2014, 01:33 PM
So, 1999 - 1964 = 40? And 1999 - 1984 = 20?

At least the teaching of arithmetic improved after the Boomers anyway.



So, GenX simultaneously has 40% home ownership and 60% home ownership? Do you have a link for the ABS's methodology used to calculate that percentage so I can see why there is a 50% standard error?


You only make money when you sell, even the tax office acknowledges this.


I think that is probably a good thing for most of GenX. Instead of 'doing it tough', many GenX have thoroughly enjoyed life in their prime years of 25-35. They married later, had kids later, and many of them are quite burned out. I think a tree change will be good for many of them, downshifting their stress levels. Leave the cities to the Boomers and GenY, who, as far as I can tell, already know everything there is to know about pretty much everything So there is nothing GenX can teach the incoming GenY, and they are obviously just deadweight to the Boomers who have been singlehandedly running everything and doing everything for the last 20 years regardless. Back to the farm GenX!
Again you are making up your own words that have nothing to do with what I have said. It is your maths that is wrong Gen X.

GenX spans the early 1960s to 1980s home ownership rates are quoted by the ABS in age groups and that varied between just under 40 % to 60% for the gen x cohort forming homes at that time. Go look it up.

The truth is that many in your age group bought homes at that time and have made bigger gains than the boomers did for the previous 20 years. That point is factually indisputable. Blondie Girl and Stinkbug are two examples on here, and they are not alone, home ownership rates are high across all age groups in Australia.

Those at the tail end of your generation who bought en mass in 2010 with the big first home grants are doing very well just now aren't they? It is undeniable.


The crash speculators were a minority in your generation, the rest of them just got on with life in the usual Australian way, building up a nest egg by investing in the growth of their cities.

Gen Y will be a bit more hesitant as they have experienced a bit of a downturn, but it appears that confidence is returning to this age group too.

Definition of a doom and gloomer from 1993
The last camp is made up of the doom-and-gloomers. Their slogan is "it's the end of the world as we know it". Right now they are convinced that debt is the evil responsible for all our economic woes and must be eliminated at all cost. Many doom-and-gloomers believe that unprecedented debt levels mean that we are on the precipice of a worse crisis than the Great Depression. The doom-and-gloomers hang on the latest series of negative economic data.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Curious Non-Economist
Default APF Avatar


skamy
13 Jul 2014, 02:11 PM
Again you are making up your own words that have nothing to do with what I have said. It is your maths that is wrong.

GenX spans the early 1960s to 1980s
OK, so 1999 - 1980 = 20 and 1999 - 1960 = 40. Got it!
Quote:
 
home ownership rates are quoted by the ABS in age groups and that varied between just under 40 % to 60% for the gen x cohort forming homes at that time. Go look it up.

You can't even give me one link? How rude.
Quote:
 
The truth is that many in your age group bought homes at that time and have made bigger gains than the boomers did for the previous 20 years.

So, in 1999 or thereabouts, all Baby Boomers sold their property to GenX and became renters, thus missing out on all those price gains that GenX enjoyed?
Quote:
 
That point is factually indisputable.

I see. And yet the fact that you still own a property that you didn't sell to Gen X would seem to bring the point into dispute.
Quote:
 
Blondie Girl and Stinkbug are two examples on here, and they are not alone, home ownership rates are high across all age groups in Australia.

So if home ownership rates are high across all age groups in Australia, how did the Baby Boomers miss out on the gains from 1999 to present?
Quote:
 
Those at the tail end of your generation who bought en mass in 2010 with the big first home grants are doing very well just now aren't they? It is undeniable.

As stated previously, it is the seller that makes the profit, not the buyer. I am not sure if you just don't understand that concept, or you do, but it doesn't fit your narrative so you falsely claim otherwise. So let's turn it around. Yes, those who sold to the tail end of Gen X in 2009/10 and collected $14K from the public purse in grants and $56K in the higher sale price that results from levering up $14K, did very well indeed. Are you saying that it is factually undeniable that it was early GenX selling property to tail-end GenX at that time and no Baby Boomer has profited from selling a property since 1999?
Quote:
 
Gen Y will be a bit more hesitant as they have experienced a bit of a downturn, but it appears that confidence is returning to this age group too.

That's nice.


Bardon
13 Jul 2014, 02:04 PM
The massive depopulation following the collapse of the medieval period in the fourteenth century
Wasn't that due to the Bubonic Plague? And didn't the shortage of labour effectively mark the beginning of the end for serfdom?
Edited by Curious Non-Economist, 13 Jul 2014, 02:34 PM.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
skamy
Member Avatar


ThePauk
13 Jul 2014, 01:46 PM
Shammy
Not sure what I attributed to you as a made up claim?

"I see home ownership as the single most effective and easily available means for a poor person to pull themselves out of the poverty trap. "

And that is the problem with our society. What if young people knew they could not make any money or attain wealth through the non-productive housing market? Would they become more entrepreneurial, create more startups, invest into those that are and perhaps create a business or enterprise that actually creates real GDP and employs people? I think they would.

I certainly do not lie to young people that residential housing is a bad investment. It is, and will be for some time to come, even with the present brief rise in house price inflation.

Of course home ownership, note only 31% actually own outright down from 46%, is a good thing and especially when the house they purchased is not in a bubble and is actually affordable. So affordable that they have surplus funds to invest into productive works, perhaps have children at home with a single home income and actually enjoy their lives. Certainly better than taking a mortgage at 7 times household income and hoping houses do not fall in value. That is a lemming.
These points are speculative. All of the economy is buying and selling to each other. It is only natural that our homes is a large part of the economy. What is more productive that providing shelter? Home building is fantastic for GDP.

It is obvious that the economy is set up such that the banks profiteer and the government taxes home ownership and there are dislikeable things about all that for sure. But doomsters do poor people no service by barracking them to join their protests against the banks by failing to buy a home.

People are advising folk to sacrifice their own financial future for some idealistic attempt at reducing bank profiteering.

No bank gives a loan of 7 times of income it would be completely unserviceable. Your mistake is thinking the median home is bought by the median wage earner. There is a large swathe of wage earners who will never buy a home, around 30%.

The buyer of the median home will probably have a loan of about 20% of their income (that is the average new home mortgage repayment reported by the ABS) and they will either be on much larger than median income or they will have some equity that they have built up previously.


Now that you know this, can you stop repeating this ridiculous lie of the doomsters, that people are taking out loans at 7 times their income. These lies have led people into making very poor financial decisions for themselves and it is likely that poorer less educated people are more vulnerable to falling for the doom spruikers fake promises of cheap homes in our major cities.

To me, being a bit of a leftie, things are all about freedom of access and equal opportunity to build wealth combined with safety nets. It is not some idealistic ranting against some perceived elites. We are all the elites in this country (bar our Aboriginal communities shamefully) we are in the top 10% richest in the world, all of us.


Definition of a doom and gloomer from 1993
The last camp is made up of the doom-and-gloomers. Their slogan is "it's the end of the world as we know it". Right now they are convinced that debt is the evil responsible for all our economic woes and must be eliminated at all cost. Many doom-and-gloomers believe that unprecedented debt levels mean that we are on the precipice of a worse crisis than the Great Depression. The doom-and-gloomers hang on the latest series of negative economic data.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Bardon
Default APF Avatar


Curious Non-Economist
13 Jul 2014, 02:32 PM




Wasn't that due to the Bubonic Plague? And didn't the shortage of labour effectively mark the beginning of the end for serfdom?
Yes the plague played a part in the darkest time of European history along with starvation, war persecution and political chaos. There was a massive increase in labour and falling pay in those days, more like demand destruction in the end I think.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Veritas
Default APF Avatar


Quote:
 
No bank gives a loan of 7 times of income it would be completely unserviceable. Your mistake is thinking the median home is bought by the median wage earner. There is a large swathe of wage earners who will never buy a home, around 30%.

The buyer of the median home will probably have a loan of about 20% of their income (that is the average new home mortgage repayment reported by the ABS) and they will either be on much larger than median income or they will have some equity that they have built up previously.


Seven times one income or two?

Median price paid by an FTB in June was 466k

Average full time wage (GRoss) is about 80k.

After tax and taking into account the relative youth of FTBs their after tax income is somewhere around 60k on average (at best)

That means the FTB price is 8 times single income after tax. And one pays their mortgage after they pay the tax man.
Property acquisition as a topic was almost a national obsession. You couldn't even call it speculation as the buyers all presumed the price of property could only go up. That’s why we use the word obsession. Ordinary people were buying properties for their young children who had not even left school assuming they would not be able to afford property of their own when they left college- Klaus Regling on Ireland. Sound familiar?

The evidence of nearly 40 cycles in house prices for 17 OECD economies since 1970 shows that real house prices typically give up about 70 per cent of their rise in the subsequent fall, and that these falls occur slowly.
Morgan Kelly:On the Likely Extent of Falls in Irish House Prices, 2007
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
herbie
Member Avatar


Veritas
13 Jul 2014, 02:58 PM


Seven times one income or two?

Median price paid by an FTB in June was 466k

Average full time wage (GRoss) is about 80k.

After tax and taking into account the relative youth of FTBs their after tax income is somewhere around 60k on average (at best)

That means the FTB price is 8 times single income after tax. And one pays their mortgage after they pay the tax man.
Seems like a fucked way to run an economy to me too. But it's the very, very best our rocket scientist pollies and RBA and bankers and economists can come up with it seems?

Ever lower interest rates; Ever more debt ...
Edited by herbie, 13 Jul 2014, 03:31 PM.
A Professional Demographer to an amateur demographer: "negative natural increase will never outweigh the positive net migration"
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Bardon
Default APF Avatar


herbie
13 Jul 2014, 03:27 PM
Seems like a fucked way to run an economy to me too. But it's the very, very best our rocket scientist pollies and RBA and bankers and economists can come up with it seems?

Ever lower interest rates; Ever more debt ...
I'm not so sure that we should be pointing the figures at bankers, politicians and the like when discussing housing reform. The market is determined by the free choices that buyers and sellers make. You may find these personal choices irrational but they are made by the individual and no one else.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
herbie
Member Avatar


Bardon
13 Jul 2014, 03:36 PM
I'm not so sure that we should be pointing the figures at bankers, politicians and the like when discussing housing reform. The market is determined by the free choices that buyers and sellers make. You may find these personal choices irrational but they are made by the individual and no one else.
Twaddle - The RBA dropped interest rates to quite intentionally push housing prices up.
Edited by herbie, 13 Jul 2014, 03:42 PM.
A Professional Demographer to an amateur demographer: "negative natural increase will never outweigh the positive net migration"
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Australian Property Forum · Next Topic »
Reply



Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.

Forum Rules: The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.

Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.

Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.

This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.

For more information go to Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use

Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ

Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy