there are more (as off 2006) lone old person households in Australia than 20-30 year olds all together
as you said some (25%) of 20-30 yo already moved out, in addition they don’t need one home per person (if in relationship or married they need one home per two persons, if single many of them share a home with others) - this means that “dying lone person households” alone are enough to supply homes for new generations.
In addition we are building almost twice as many new homes than needed by immigrants.
So in 2006, at the height of the US Housing Bubble, Australia’s housing utilisation level, as measured by the number of people per dwelling, was well below that of the United States (and roughly equivalent to Canada). This data suggests that the housing shortage in the United States was actually more acute than in Australia!
End quote
Wow..
I will repeat, we have more than enough homes to house every man, woman and child here... We continue to construct more, and I have serious doubts that we are currently 'suffering' enmass with a severe housing shortage across all of Australia.
Care to provide proof of the contrary ?
Edit: I have been happy to believe the undersupply claim in the past, but am swaying from that POV... Always happy to be swayed back with good hard evidence and not just media spin.
there are more (as off 2006) lone old person households in Australia than 20-30 year olds all together
as you said some (25%) of 20-30 yo already moved out, in addition they don’t need one home per person (if in relationship or married they need one home per two persons, if single many of them share a home with others) - this means that “dying lone person households” alone are enough to supply homes for new generations.
In addition we are building almost twice as many new homes than needed by immigrants.
You've given a 10 year window for young people, but what range are you counting "Lone person households" and how fast are they dying off?
If you start counting at retirement age - say 65 as "old" then you've still got another 30 odd years to count (Even though average lifespan is something like 78, that number includes a large number fatal of workplace and car accidents, which drop substantially after you retire. If you reach retirement, you have a greater than 80% chance of living well beyond the average age. I haven't got a link, but I believe if you make it to retirement, then life expectancy is about 90).
So even though there might be more lone old persons households, being spread over a large age, they might not be dying fast enough to suit your argument.
Property speculation is a type of gambling... But everyone knows that in gambling, the house always wins in the end.
I will repeat, we have more than enough homes to house every man, woman and child here... We continue to construct more, and I have serious doubts that we are currently 'suffering' enmass with a severe housing shortage across all of Australia.
Care to provide proof of the contrary ?
I can repeat anything I want too, and ask you to provide proof to the contrary, but that doesn't mean you're right. It just mean I either couldn't, or couldn't be bothered to find the proof.
I'll suggest it's the second at the moment.
Property speculation is a type of gambling... But everyone knows that in gambling, the house always wins in the end.
I can repeat anything I want too, and ask you to provide proof to the contrary, but that doesn't mean you're right. It just mean I either couldn't, or couldn't be bothered to find the proof.
I'll suggest it's the second at the moment.
did you Even bother to look at the 3 charts before you commented ?
I have not seen them before, and they certainly provide some solid evidence that australia has very low numbers of people per dwelling vs America at the height of it's building boom and Australia has low number of peep per home and certainly high number of rooms per home.
That is all the evidence I need to reconsider my opinion that we may have been duped into believing we have a serious undersupply of housing...
You seem to be blinkered to that possibility.
Just because kids are not moving out of home as soon as they would like is not evidence of a shortage.
Many obese kids are not eating as much junk food as they would like... That is not proof of any undersupply of junk food.
there are more (as off 2006) lone old person households in Australia than 20-30 year olds all together
as you said some (25%) of 20-30 yo already moved out, in addition they don’t need one home per person (if in relationship or married they need one home per two persons, if single many of them share a home with others) - this means that “dying lone person households” alone are enough to supply homes for new generations.
In addition we are building almost twice as many new homes than needed by immigrants.
You've given a 10 year window for young people, but what range are you counting "Lone person households" and how fast are they dying off?
If you start counting at retirement age - say 65 as "old" then you've still got another 30 odd years to count (Even though average lifespan is something like 78, that number includes a large number fatal of workplace and car accidents, which drop substantially after you retire. If you reach retirement, you have a greater than 80% chance of living well beyond the average age. I haven't got a link, but I believe if you make it to retirement, then life expectancy is about 90).
So even though there might be more lone old persons households, being spread over a large age, they might not be dying fast enough to suit your argument.
you are missing few points:
1. 20-30 olds need only around half of homes that current lone old households will provide when they die - that extends dying period to 20 years
2. In this "lone old person households" count only ONE person households are included. There are almost million more TWO old persons households that will add to the supply in the same time frame as single old households
3. over 80% of all deaths in Australia are 65+ persons and large majority of them are under 80, so once someone reaches retirement he/she is not going to live much more than life expectancy (maybe few years)
did you Even bother to look at the 3 charts before you commented ?
I have not seen them before, and they certainly provide some solid evidence that australia has very low numbers of people per dwelling vs America at the height of it's building boom and Australia has low number of peep per home and certainly high number of rooms per home.
That is all the evidence I need to reconsider my opinion that we may have been duped into believing we have a serious undersupply of housing...
You seem to be blinkered to that possibility.
Just because kids are not moving out of home as soon as they would like is not evidence of a shortage.
Many obese kids are not eating as much junk food as they would like... That is not proof of any undersupply of junk food.
Edit: man I hate typing this on the iPad...
There is no way we are going to argue this on facts, because the facts are loose and can be interpreted in many ways to suit the argument.
There are some - both bulls and bears who want to get the spreadsheets out, do the modelling, and grin that they've absolutely nailed it. I'm not one of them. I'm happy to just throw around ideas. That's my general thoughts for the forum anyway.
My more specific thoughts on this thread is that it suffers an even worse problem of very subjective interpretations. Is a person who stays at home because he can't afford a house demand? What about a person who shares a house to save money? What if that person must share a house? What if that person doesn't need to, but chooses to, in order to save $250/week? Or just $10 a week?
Also what is a shortage? Most people would want a holiday home on the beach if it was only $10k. Does that mean we have pent up demand? We have holiday homes that might not be rented out 52 weeks a year. Does that mean there's an oversupply of holiday homes? I would argue no in both cases.
I can't prove that there's a shortage. I'm not convinced and doubt I can be convinced that there's an oversupply. However, if someone is absolutely 100% convinced that they can prove it, and think they can prove it to me, I'm willing to at least read it, but I'm not willing to spend hours poring over numbers charts and figures. (Unless there's something that is REALLY convincing in their argument - so far there hasn't been).
Really, that's all I have to say on the subject.
Property speculation is a type of gambling... But everyone knows that in gambling, the house always wins in the end.
1. 20-30 olds need only around half of homes that current lone old households will provide when they die - that extends dying period to 20 years
2. In this "lone old person households" count only ONE person households are included. There are almost million more TWO old persons households that will add to the supply in the same time frame as single old households
3. over 80% of all deaths in Australia are 65+ persons and large majority of them are under 80, so once someone reaches retirement he/she is not going to live much more than life expectancy (maybe few years)
Didn't miss those points, just didn't put them down.
On the day that you're born, your life expectancy is 75 years.
If you make it to 65 your life expectancy is 82 years.
If you make it to 75, your life expectancy is 86 years.
That's for men. It's a little longer for women at 88 years.(All US statistics)
One stat we might have forgotten on the flip side though, is that not everyone gets married or live in a defacto relationship, and choose to live alone.
Property speculation is a type of gambling... But everyone knows that in gambling, the house always wins in the end.
There is no way we are going to argue this on facts, because the facts are loose and can be interpreted in many ways to suit the argument.
There are some - both bulls and bears who want to get the spreadsheets out, do the modelling, and grin that they've absolutely nailed it. I'm not one of them. I'm happy to just throw around ideas. That's my general thoughts for the forum anyway.
My more specific thoughts on this thread is that it suffers an even worse problem of very subjective interpretations. Is a person who stays at home because he can't afford a house demand? What about a person who shares a house to save money? What if that person must share a house? What if that person doesn't need to, but chooses to, in order to save $250/week? Or just $10 a week?
Also what is a shortage? Most people would want a holiday home on the beach if it was only $10k. Does that mean we have pent up demand? We have holiday homes that might not be rented out 52 weeks a year. Does that mean there's an oversupply of holiday homes? I would argue no in both cases.
I can't prove that there's a shortage. I'm not convinced and doubt I can be convinced that there's an oversupply. However, if someone is absolutely 100% convinced that they can prove it, and think they can prove it to me, I'm willing to at least read it, but I'm not willing to spend hours poring over numbers charts and figures. (Unless there's something that is REALLY convincing in their argument - so far there hasn't been).
Really, that's all I have to say on the subject.
To be honest, you sum up my position well... On the fence and willing to be swayed.
I would not, however, cite what you did, that every man, woman and child is suffering... That sounds like a fixed position to me.
perhaps shadow or another bull has good charts to post...
BTW, please do look at the 3. Charts on that blog I posted.. If you are on the fence it certainly makes you doubt any of the undersupply claims ...
Honestly, how can we have fewer people per home than USA in it's construction boom and still consider ourselves underemployed ?
To be honest, you sum up my position well... On the fence and willing to be swayed.
I would not, however, cite what you did, that every man, woman and child is suffering... That sounds like a fixed position to me.
perhaps shadow or another bull has good charts to post...
BTW, please do look at the 3. Charts on that blog I posted.. If you are on the fence it certainly makes you doubt any of the undersupply claims ...
Honestly, how can we have fewer people per home than USA in it's construction boom and still consider ourselves underemployed ?
On, I'm not on the fence. I'm definitely on one side but I'm looking over it to see what's on the other side.
My basic position for Sydney at least is this:
1) Sydney's population is growing 2) Sydney's borders is not, with continuous housing up to Hornsby, Penrith, Campbelltown and Engadine having existed for decades. 3) We're not building new regional cities 4) Campaigns to move people out to existing regional cities have failed (Millions spent to move 70 families! Who probably would have moved anyway!) 5) Infill is the only way we are fitting people in. Quarter acre blocks have become one eighth acre blocks and even down to one sixteenth blocks (Approx 250sqm). I say only infill, because overbuilding houses on the Central Coast or Wollongong is not going to solve shortage problems in Sydney.
So it really comes down to 5. Is our infill building enough to supply growth from:
A) Organic population growth B) Immigration C) Changing demographics, including the shift to more single person households (from divorce and never marrying)
My feeling is no. New developments are often fully subscribed before the closing date. Vacancy rates are low. I simply don't SEE lots of empty houses.
Ask me to prove it? I couldn't be bothered.
On to a semi related topic. Reason 5 is also why I think long term, as long as population keeps going, and wages don't fall, buying real land is going to be a good bet. A quarter acre block was normal 30 years ago. Now it's luxury. In 30 years, when I'm nearing retirement, I'm willing to bet that the ANY freestanding house is going to be a luxury, afforded only by the upper middle to upper class. Most people will be in semi-detached and apartments. Worth thinking about, no?
Property speculation is a type of gambling... But everyone knows that in gambling, the house always wins in the end.
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