Housing is currently clearly more affordable now (well, in 2013-14, the latest data) to Australian households with a mortgage than at any time since before 1994.
This is especially striking as we know that real income has increased greatly since 1994. So households now spend a smaller proportion of an even larger income on housing.
Not "clearly more affordable" at all. With the massive level of interest only mortgages, this shows housing has never been more expensive.
Nice try though lol.
BTW the correct terminology for people with mortgages is "home owers" not "home owners".
WHAT WOULD EDDIE DO? MAAAATE! Share a cot with Milton?
I think that women are still underpaid at the lower end, but not so at higher end. I have quite a few female clients who earn $150K and above, and they earn more than their husbands, even though their husbands are also high income earners.
I'm amazed at some of the salary packages out there. Households with a combined income in excess of $250K are not as rare as one would think.
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
We're ranked first in the world on the OECD Quality of Life Index, and second on the UN Human Development Index.
Also, we have the highest median wealth per adult in the world.
That index (OECD Quality of Life Index) was launched in 2011. Where is the benchmark for prior to when the 2nd family member started working ?
I have never said that Australia was alone in diverting much of the additional income generated from the 2nd person working in the household towards higher house prices.
I have said that much of the financial benefits of having a 2nd person in the household now in the workforce has been diverted to mortgages which skews any claim of houses being more affordable.
The ABS data is not particularly helpful to extract what strindberg is claiming...
When (gross) household income is used as a measurement of affordability, the unaccounted for variable is the human hours of work required to achieve that income. i.e.. are there 1, 2 or 3 people in that household required to work (full/part time) in order to keep that proportion at the level it sat in 1994 ?i.e. Will houses still be as affordable if, to keep that quoted proportion of gross household income, children at the age of 10 must also start working ?
A better measure would be, perhaps, average (median ?) weekly household Per Person (PP) income... so if Mom works full time and Dad works full time, the household PP income reflects a full time worker, and if Mom works part time, and Dad works full time, the household PP income reflects that altered situation.
That would actually reflect better the additional hours invested in the workforce for the household and how that reflects in
It may show that little has changed (indeed, looking @ the single income cohort of the abs spreadsheet strindberg supplied, it implies for that particular group, the proportion has only risen very slightly)... however, it might also show things are not quite as
I think that women are still underpaid at the lower end, but not so at higher end. I have quite a few female clients who earn $150K and above, and they earn more than their husbands, even though their husbands are also high income earners.
I'm amazed at some of the salary packages out there. Households with a combined income in excess of $250K are not as rare as one would think.
As my wife's package is above your highest figure, and she earns more than me, I know that Peter.
But that doesn't take away from the reality that the majority of women have been rorted and abused by our economy for, as usual, the benefit of old grey men in suits.
You know......your response made you sound like a grey man in a suit.
WHAT WOULD EDDIE DO? MAAAATE! Share a cot with Milton?
As my wife's package is above your highest figure, and she earns more than me, I know that Peter.
But that doesn't take away from the reality that the majority of women have been rorted and abused by our economy for, as usual, the benefit of old grey men in suits.
You know......your response made you sound like a grey man in a suit.
sounds like you married well, and yes I do own a suit - somewhere.
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
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.
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