Actually, I don't think Veritas has figured this out yet... he was still asking Skamy this morning to tell him what adult children are counted as in the home ownership rates.
In fact they're not counted at all... the home ownership rates count dwellings, not people.
Sydneyite has already addressed your other point of confusion.
Why are you using it as a person % when it only counts dwellings then Shadow? I.e all the house sharers are just ignored?
What you are describing is relatively distant, gradual, and can be influenced by immigration policy.
I know Macrobusiness like to focus on 'risks' and 'headwinds' like this, but they over-estimate the impact and immediacy.
Why don't you register anyway instead of all this guest posting?
Since you and Zaph asked so nicely and since I am happy to shout everyone Cherry Ripes, oh and since Alex seems to be ok with me here, thanks Alex, then here I am.
It is not distant at all. The agequake started in 2010 as the boomers stared to retire and immigration will not happen as you expect. You see over the next 2.5 decades our actual deaths double to approx 300+k per year and our natural growth may drop to zero or even negative. There is no way in hell that an anti-immigration nation like we are seeing evolve now, accept a double or more of our NOM. 47% of voters are above the age of 50 and the 'close the door behind you' is already taking hold. 3 parties with anti-immigration stances now and more to come.
80% of the 5.3 million boomers will require full or part pensions, so no, it is not in the distant future at all.
Did you notice that retail sales stated its downward trend in 2003 or that our savings stated to increase since 2005?
Oh and the chart I posted yesterday, clearly shows that equity loans were growing up until the GFC, so your I have $500k in an offset does not match the actual data.
All dwellings (including shared houses) are counted.
Sharers (i.e. people who share) are not.
The home ownership rate measures the status of the dwelling, not the occupants.
Sorry, I don't understand your question... why am I using what as a person % (and where did I use it?).
Might not this just be like 40% of the owners owning 70% of the stock I.e investors with multiple properties if its based on dwellings owned? It gives no indication of the composition of the 70% of houses owned or is it owner occupier only?
If more people are sharing when young and not buying and they are not counted even if the 70% figure has not changed over time there could be a lot more people now then in the past that want bomes but have been priced out.
There are thousands that are sharing houses priced out where as this was not the same in the past.
More of the owner occupied houses also may now need house mates to pay the mortgage but we don't know that either.
Might not this just be like 40% of the owners owning 70% of the stock I.e investors with multiple properties if its based on dwellings owned? It gives no indication of the composition of the 70% of houses owned or is it owner occupier only?
100% of homes are owned by somebody, so yes, obviously the 30% that are rented are IPs owned by (mostly*) members of the 70% of households who owner-occupy - i.e. some members of the owner-occupying households also have one or more extra properties that they make available to the renting households.
(* some people own an IP while renting themselves)
Quote:
If more people are sharing when young and not buying and they are not counted even if the 70% figure has not changed over time there could be a lot more people now then in the past that want bomes but have been priced out.
There are thousands that are sharing houses priced out where as this was not the same in the past.
More of the owner occupied houses also may now need house mates to pay the mortgage but we don't know that either.
At all times in the past, some people were priced out. This has always been the case. But the fact that home ownership rates have risen from 50% in the 1950s to 70% today, and at the same time household formation has increased faster than the population growth rate, means there are less people priced out per head of population today than was the case in the past. A greater proportion of the population are homeowners now than in the past.
I know this all sounds counter-intuitive to young people who feel hard done by and think they deserve a cheap house and get sucked in by the doom and gloom stories about 'unaffordability' and 'ponzi schemes' and 'bubbles' and 'lost generations' and the 'end of the Australian dream' etc. But it's all nonsense. These are just gloomster tales peddled by blogs and people who know they can make money from selling doom (via paid newsletters/books/ads/subscriptions/donations etc).
The actual data shows a greater proportion of owner-occupied households are forming per head of population these days than was the case in the past.
Why are you using it as a person % when it only counts dwellings then Shadow? I.e all the house sharers are just ignored?
They are not ignored silly. They just dont use them when they do the house ownership statistic, they use houses for that. Have a look at the household survey all the information Veritas wants is there, he is just being silly trying to get a house statistic to tell him occupation statistics.
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.
Well this is amusing. On cue we have Skamy (5:49PM) and Mike (5:50PM) swing onto the thread within 1 minute of one another, full of presumptions and accusations with little basis, to try to discredit Veritas.
For the record, I can see valid points on both sides, but there is no definitive answer on the subject so the gong must go to Veritas & Property Mogul.
100% of homes are owned by somebody, so yes, obviously the 30% that are rented are IPs owned by (mostly*) members of the 70% of households who owner-occupy - i.e. some members of the owner-occupying households also have one or more extra properties that they make available to the renting households.
(* some people own an IP while renting themselves)
At all times in the past, some people were priced out. This has always been the case. But the fact that home ownership rates have risen from 50% in the 1950s to 70% today, and at the same time household formation has increased faster than the population growth rate, means there are less people priced out per head of population today than was the case in the past. A greater proportion of the population are homeowners now than in the past.
I know this all sounds counter-intuitive to young people who feel hard done by and think they deserve a cheap house and get sucked in by the doom and gloom stories about 'unaffordability' and 'ponzi schemes' and 'bubbles' and 'lost generations' and the 'end of the Australian dream' etc. But it's all nonsense. These are just gloomster tales peddled by blogs and people who know they can make money from selling doom (via paid newsletters/books/ads/subscriptions/donations etc).
The actual data shows a greater proportion of owner-occupied households are forming per head of population these days than was the case in the past.
70% of houses occupied by owner occupiers is not the same as a 70% ownership rate in the adult population which is what you are implying.
You can have a 70% owner occupied rate but another 5 million people living in those houses now then 10 years ago so the home ownership rate of the population is going down. So the stat is pretty meaningless unless we actually know the proportions of people.
Yes I know about people per dwelling but unless we know if more young people are living together longer we can not tell about housing affordability from this stat.
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