The fact remains that the obvious shortcoming of the ABS methodology is that we don't have a clue how many adults own the dwellings they live versus those they don't.
And in my book, that means that we don't really know that "the home ownership rate" actually is.
Or perhaps you do?
Veritas - I didn't get into this yesterday but I just can't help myself now:
Have you considered single people vs couples that buy houses. If it's a couple, is there 1 home owner or 2? If 1, what is the other person's status? Do you need a 3rd category of adult other than owner or renter? Is the divorce rate relevant?
What about a single guy that owns a house but takes in 3 boarders? Is that 1 owner and 3 renters? We can count each house 4 times in the statistics. What if he then shacks up with one of the borders; is that then 2 owners and 2 renters? What is that going to tell us?
I'd say that it's pretty common for a husband and wife (registered or unregistered marriage) to be on a title so assuming they are both owners under the new system (because any other status for the 2nd owner would be weird) it's going to nearly double the number of home owners. Renter numbers may nearly double as well (or more, particularly if you consider 18+ children as 'non-owners' and therefore renters (even they they are not renting)) - although more single people rent but also there is more share housing so the results would be hard to predict. Again, in the end what is it going to tell you? Of the, lets say, 16 million adults in Australia 65% are owners and 35% renters? I guess if you could get this series over 40-50 years it could show some trend data but is it really any better than knowing the information from a dwelling perspective?
As I said yesterday, the problem with the "home ownership data" is that it, effectively, describes people who live in houses that they don't own as home owners.
Its that simple.
The census is only a snapshot in time. Simply asking respondents to indicate whether they own the dwelling they live in either on their own or jointly with another person would be a far better way of ascertaining home ownership rates in this country.
To use a simple example;
Lets say there are 100 people and 100 houses.
70 people own the houses they live in and 30 rent. So we have a home ownership rate of 70%
Lets say that 5 years later the population of our village has increased by 100 people and that those 100 people all rent a room from the initial 100 who own a property.
According to the current ABS methodology that would mean that the home ownership rate has not changed at all. Its still 70%.
The fact that there are 100 extra people that are merely renting room off the people who actually own the property is not captured.
See what I mean?
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
As I said yesterday, the problem with the "home ownership data" is that it, effectively, describes people who live in houses that they don't own as home owners.
Its that simple.
The census is only a snapshot in time. Simply asking respondents to indicate whether they own the dwelling they live in either on their own or jointly with another person would be a far better way of ascertaining home ownership rates in this country.
To use a simple example;
Lets say there are 100 people and 100 houses.
70 people own the houses they live in and 30 rent. So we have a home ownership rate of 70%
Lets say that 5 years later the population of our village has increased by 100 people and that those 100 people all rent a room from the initial 100 who own a property.
According to the current ABS methodology that would mean that the home ownership rate has not changed at all. Its still 70%.
The fact that there are 100 extra people that are merely renting room off the people who actually own the property is not captured.
See what I mean?
In your example the people per house would have gone from 1.00 to 2.00 so there would be questions.
Also, what about adult children who live in an owned house? How would they answer?
How about 4 flatmates? That is 4 renters to the stats but might not really be 4 instances of pent up demand for a dwelling as they might like share housing (like I did from 17 until 28) so more than happy to share (for 10 years).
I'm not sure that the information would be very useful. I think knowing the status of each dwelling is more useful.
“You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means” - Inigo Montoya
As I said yesterday, the problem with the "home ownership data" is that it, effectively, describes people who live in houses that they don't own as home owners.
Its that simple.
The census is only a snapshot in time. Simply asking respondents to indicate whether they own the dwelling they live in either on their own or jointly with another person would be a far better way of ascertaining home ownership rates in this country.
To use a simple example;
Lets say there are 100 people and 100 houses.
70 people own the houses they live in and 30 rent. So we have a home ownership rate of 70%
Lets say that 5 years later the population of our village has increased by 100 people and that those 100 people all rent a room from the initial 100 who own a property.
According to the current ABS methodology that would mean that the home ownership rate has not changed at all. Its still 70%.
The fact that there are 100 extra people that are merely renting room off the people who actually own the property is not captured.
See what I mean?
In your example the people per house would have gone from 1.00 to 2.00 so there would be questions.
Also, what about adult children who live in an owned house? How would they answer?
How about 4 flatmates? That is 4 renters to the stats but might not really be 4 instances of pent up demand for a dwelling as they might like share housing (like I did from 17 until 28) so more than happy to share (for 10 years).
I'm not sure that the information would be very useful. I think knowing the status of each dwelling is more useful.
Nope.
1. Children aren't counted in my methodology. 2. Your four flatmates are counted as home owners in the current methodology providing at least one persons living there owns the place. You get that bit right? There could be 15 people in the house all classified as being in a "home ownership" tenure providing the 16th did actually own the joint. 3. Adult children would answer that they don't own a house. Because they don't. they live in the house their parents own. Simples.
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
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
No they are not. They are not counted at all. The current methodology counts dwellings, not people. No it doesn't. The current data doesn't describe people as anything. It describes the status of dwellings.
Why cant you for once just admit that I have a pretty good point here?
It would go some way to dismissing in deed rather than word the accusation that you are actually paid to spin on this site.
One more time:
Do you agree that the current methodology for ascertaining "homeownership rates" is deeply flawed if your research question is: how many adults own their own home either individually or jointly?
Because, the fact of the matter is, and feel free to disagree most people would take "home ownership rates" to mean (rightly or wrongly) the rate of home ownership among the general adult population, not the percentage of dwellings that are owned by one persons irrespective of how many other adults were living there.
Go on, for once, deviate from your core message.
It would be refreshing.
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
Do you agree that the current methodology for ascertaining "homeownership rates" is deeply flawed if your research question is: how many adults own their own home either individually or jointly?
That's like saying 'do you agree measuring the price of bananas is deeply flawed if your research question is: how much do apples cost?'
Veritas
21 Aug 2013, 02:29 PM
It would go some way to dismissing in deed rather than word the accusation that you are actually paid to spin on this site
I don't really care if I'm accused of that. Facts are facts, regardless of who presents them, or their motives.
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