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.
The ABS home ownership rate measures the status of the dwelling, not the occupants. It has nothing to do with 'adult population'. It only counts dwellings.
Quote:
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
If that were the case we would see an increase in the number of persons per dwelling.
In fact we have seen the opposite - a decline in the number of persons per dwelling, and an increase in the rate of new households being formed per head of population.
Quote:
So the stat is pretty meaningless unless we actually know the proportions of people
We do know the number of people per dwelling is falling, which is also reflected in the fact that an increasing proportion of the population are going out and creating new households.
Quote:
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.
Well this is a new angle. So now it's about affordability specifically for 'young' people, rather than the population as a whole. How 'young'?
We know the population as a whole is not living together for longer, because we know they are creating new households faster than ever, and smaller households, since they are continuing to reduce the average number of persons per dwelling.
But if you just want to focus on 'young' people now (and I'm not sure what age group specifically you mean), then we need to bear in mind that people are doing lots of things later in life these days... from leaving education, to getting married, starting a family and buying a house. The data shows all these things happening later in life, and also that we're living for longer.
Given that this is over three decades that is almost exactly 7% price inflation (which is the "property doubles every 10 years mantra" which would inflate to $435,168 over that period) - the real increase will be much lower than 7% per annum, and we have seen an introduction of a second wage and a better quality dwelling into the equation. The other factor is the suburban sprawl, which means that the once outer suburbs become inner suburbs and that alters the value considerably.
The price increase is about what I would expect. Converted to USD that is $396,050 which compares to the US national average of around $220,000 after their biggest house price crash in 80 years.
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
The ABS home ownership rate measures the status of the dwelling, not the occupants. It has nothing to do with 'adult population'. It only counts dwellings.
If that were the case we would see an increase in the number of persons per dwelling.
In fact we have seen the opposite - a decline in the number of persons per dwelling, and an increase in the rate of new households being formed per head of population.
We do know the number of people per dwelling is falling, which is also reflected in the fact that an increasing proportion of the population are going out and creating new households.
Well this is a new angle. So now it's about affordability specifically for 'young' people, rather than the population as a whole. How 'young'?
We know the population as a whole is not living together for longer, because we know they are creating new households faster than ever, and smaller households, since they are continuing to reduce the average number of persons per dwelling.
But if you just want to focus on 'young' people now (and I'm not sure what age group specifically you mean), then we need to bear in mind that people are doing lots of things later in life these days... from leaving education, to getting married, starting a family and buying a house. The data shows all these things happening later in life, and also that we're living for longer.
Mathematically it's possible that people per dwelling in rental properties is increasing and people per dwelling in owner occupied dwellings is decreasing but overall there is less people per dwelling (as there starts off with 70/30 split owner v renter). Accordingly, in this (somewhat odd) sceranrio we would have more renters and less owner occupiers over time but it wouldn't show in the official stats.
“You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means” - Inigo Montoya
The ABS home ownership rate measures the status of the dwelling, not the occupants. It has nothing to do with 'adult population'. It only counts dwellings.
If that were the case we would see an increase in the number of persons per dwelling.
In fact we have seen the opposite - a decline in the number of persons per dwelling, and an increase in the rate of new households being formed per head of population.
We do know the number of people per dwelling is falling, which is also reflected in the fact that an increasing proportion of the population are going out and creating new households.
Well this is a new angle. So now it's about affordability specifically for 'young' people, rather than the population as a whole. How 'young'?
We know the population as a whole is not living together for longer, because we know they are creating new households faster than ever, and they are continuing to reduce the average number of persons per dwelling.
But if you just want to focus on 'young' people now (and I'm not sure what age-group specifically you mean), then we need to bear in mind that people are doing lots of things later in life these days... from leaving uni, to getting married, starting a family and buying a house. The data shows all these things happening later in life, and also that we're living for longer.
Then I agree with others that calling it an ownership rate is misleading. You can only talk about an ownership rate in relation to people as the houses do not own themselves. If you don't even count people how can you get an ownership rate?
Anyhow the stat is not showing that 70% of adults own their own home which ever way you spin it.
Many young people are priced out after the last boom so are living in share house longer. Kids are staying at home longer. People are living longer so this might not effect the people per dwelling much but still is potential pent up demand if houses were more affordable.
See beginning of post for proof they are not as affordable as previously. 10 years ago in Perth many were under 200k.
Mathematically it's possible that people per dwelling in rental properties is increasing and people per dwelling in owner occupied dwellings is decreasing but overall there is less people per dwelling (as there starts off with 70/30 split owner v renter). Accordingly, in this (somewhat odd) sceranrio we would have more renters and less owner occupiers over time but it wouldn't show in the official stats.
Yes I was thinking along those lines. Over time as many under 30's cannot afford homes they will live in rentals with each other or with other owner occupiers.
The 70% figure would not change even though the population and effects of expensive houses has changed the living conditions and composition of the population and will not be in the stats because its not counting people.
Mathematically it's possible that people per dwelling in rental properties is increasing and people per dwelling in owner occupied dwellings is decreasing but overall there is less people per dwelling (as there starts off with 70/30 split owner v renter). Accordingly, in this (somewhat odd) sceranrio we would have more renters and less owner occupiers over time but it wouldn't show in the official stats.
It would show on the household survey in the household composition 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.
What fun! I leave you guys alone for a new hours and, in your desperation, you are inventing new ways to discredit me.
Shadow and Skamy ( where is that knt Stirndberg?) still cant accept that their 70% home ownership stat has been shown up for the steaming pile of misleading shite that it is.
Some of the hard of thinking bulls launch the rearguard action with inane one line posts.
Anyone following the argument knows the score.
A wise man told me don't argue with fools Cause people from a distance can't tell who is who
Jay Z
Simon
22 Aug 2013, 10:12 PM
surprise surprise, on cue we have Dr K swing by to cheerlead the hapless losing bears
Why are we losing Siemen?
I don't expect an answer of any merit.
After all, you only do posts of ten words or less.
Have you learned to write recently and don't want to push your luck?
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
The ABS home ownership rate measures the status of the dwelling, not the occupants. It has nothing to do with 'adult population'. It only counts dwellings.
If that were the case we would see an increase in the number of persons per dwelling.
In fact we have seen the opposite - a decline in the number of persons per dwelling, and an increase in the rate of new households being formed per head of population.
We do know the number of people per dwelling is falling, which is also reflected in the fact that an increasing proportion of the population are going out and creating new households.
Well this is a new angle. So now it's about affordability specifically for 'young' people, rather than the population as a whole. How 'young'?
We know the population as a whole is not living together for longer, because we know they are creating new households faster than ever, and smaller households, since they are continuing to reduce the average number of persons per dwelling.
But if you just want to focus on 'young' people now (and I'm not sure what age group specifically you mean), then we need to bear in mind that people are doing lots of things later in life these days... from leaving education, to getting married, starting a family and buying a house. The data shows all these things happening later in life, and also that we're living for longer.
Over the five years 2006–11, Sydney’s stock of private dwellings increased by 97,859. With a population increase of 272,483 over the same period, Sydney had 2.78 additional people for each new dwelling. Sydney’s 2011 household occupancy rate of 2.88 people per dwelling is above the 2011 average major city occupancy rate of 2.73.
Then I agree with others that calling it an ownership rate is misleading. You can only talk about an ownership rate in relation to people as the houses do not own themselves. If you don't even count people how can you get an ownership rate?
It's only misleading to those who don't understand the figures.
The ABS home ownership rate measures the ownership of dwelling or households, not individual occupants.
Quote:
Anyhow the stat is not showing that 70% of adults own their own home which ever way you spin it.
Nor does it attempt to.
Quote:
Many young people are priced out after the last boom so are living in share house longer.
How many young people, and what age group?
The overall stats show less people sharing, and more people moving out to form new households than before.
Quote:
Kids are staying at home longer.
They're also staying unmarried longer, and childless longer. They're staying in education longer, and traveling more before settling down. As a result, we should also expect them to start new households later in life, but since they're living longer, it may be at a similar life stage as before.
When the average lifespan was 60 years, a person starting a household at 20 would be starting one third of their way through life.
If the average lifespan of a young person today is 90 years, then starting a household at 30 would be starting one third of their way through life.
But anyway, my comments on ownership and household formation have been about the population as a whole, not 'kids' specifically.
willy_nilly
22 Aug 2013, 08:08 PM
The agequake started in 2010 as the boomers stared to retire
Yet house prices have increased since 2010, and continue to rise.
Quote:
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
Although some people have always been anti-immigration, Australia as a whole has never been so.
If a falling population in the future is causing problems, then all it takes is for the politicians to properly explain the economic benefits of increased migration.
Immigration has been increasing for the past couple of years by the way.
Quote:
You see over the next 2.5 decades...
A gradual change over 25+ years that can be influenced by government policy isn't going to affect how I invest today.
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