Swedish property bubble vs Australian house prices; Sweden looking at option of forcing households to amortize their mortgages to prevent debt loads rising
Codswallop - 150k is still a decent salary in sydney, way more than the average. It's only deluded fools like Pig Iron and yourself that have absolutely no understanding of the value of labour that would say something as moronic as that.
Many couples on smaller wages can out bid a single $150K salary. I never said it was not a great wage, I said that there are many people in Sydney on more and they are setting house prices whether you or Sweetdish or I like it or lump it. There is absolutely no point in complaining or hoping that by some fluke all the higher income earners will start selling their houses for less than they paid for them.
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.
. There is absolutely no point in complaining or hoping that by some fluke all the higher income earners will start selling their houses for less than they paid for them.
Thats right Skamy because sooner or later that will be their only option including you.
Many couples on smaller wages can out bid a single $150K salary. I never said it was not a great wage, I said that there are many people in Sydney on more and they are setting house prices whether you or Sweetdish or I like it or lump it. There is absolutely no point in complaining or hoping that by some fluke all the higher income earners will start selling their houses for less than they paid for them.
THats correct of course. Most people combine their salaries to buy and when you have two people on a 100K salary they are better off than me on 150K. However, unless they are gay its unlikely they will both be earning two salaries forever as they have children. I know couples that spend up to $8000 per month on just mortgage and other residential costs for a pretty average semi in the east. Thats beyond insane. If I paid that much interest and fees on a mortgage back home I can easily afford Stockholm's second most expensive house thats currently on the market. http://www.hemnet.se/bostad/villa-9rum-djursholm-danderyds-kommun-framnasvagen-5-5072972
Again, this is no longer a personal concern of mine s Im moving back. All Im saying is that this does not look sustainable.
They seem desperate to convince us that Australia is a great place, the scary thing is, with the majority of Australians owning their own homes and expecting to be able to retire on the resale value, they really are desperate to keep things the way they are.
Who is they?
I am just a migrant to this country and I am sure that most migrants like me cannot believe the wonderful lifestyle on offer here. Don't you think the problems that exist here exist elsewhere?
You are right, the model by which house prices grow is based on growing population and growing wealth. There are plenty of places you can go to in Australia, and in the world, that are not growing in population nor wealth. There are plenty of super cheap homes available in those places. But, you know what? most folk don't like places like that as they offer few opportunities for them to grow in wealth themselves, funny that hey?
The rest of your post on the motivation of retirees, who are hardly even represented by the leaders of the country, is just distasteful ageism that you have picked up from some unscrupulous charlatans. Boomers have saved for themselves but they bore the burden of the previous generation, they have gone way beyond the previous generation in providing for their own children way into their 20s (probably the biggest boomer mistake). The boomers brought up a generation that got unprecedented numbers into tertiary education, and they worked and supported this generation for the extra years that required,
Boomers got nothing out of property that had not been had by generations aplenty prior to their own and will now be witnessed by a new generation buying into a market that has been stagnant for many years. The first of the boomers were buying into the crash of the 70s and they were were also hit very hard by the crash in the late 80s and the huge interest rates at that time that saw many boomers lose their homes.
All this blame gaming is just using the same political tools that have been used for years to divide and conquer, agism is no different to racism, it is the promulgating the same fears that someone else is getting something that will disadvantage you. I would distrust the motives of anyone who has to resort to such sell an idea or analysis.
mango66
9 Sep 2013, 10:24 AM
Thats right Skamy because sooner or later that will be their only option including you.
Daydream believer
Sweetdish
9 Sep 2013, 10:33 AM
THats correct of course. Most people combine their salaries to buy and when you have two people on a 100K salary they are better off than me on 150K. However, unless they are gay its unlikely they will both be earning two salaries forever as they have children. I know couples that spend up to $8000 per month on just mortgage and other residential costs for a pretty average semi in the east. Thats beyond insane. If I paid that much interest and fees on a mortgage back home I can easily afford Stockholm's second most expensive house thats currently on the market. http://www.hemnet.se/bostad/villa-9rum-djursholm-danderyds-kommun-framnasvagen-5-5072972
Again, this is no longer a personal concern of mine s Im moving back. All Im saying is that this does not look sustainable.
Sweetdish the house you showed us was AUD $3.77m, hardly the price of a semi in the Eastern suburbs. I wish you well with whatever you decide, personally I loved Sweden and Stockholm is an amazing city IMHO.
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.
Finding it difficult to buy on a $150K salary is only true for Sydney and that is because Sydney has a lot of people on very much higher wages than that.
Codswallop - 150k is still a decent salary in sydney, way more than the average. It's only deluded fools like Pig Iron and yourself that have absolutely no understanding of the value of labour that would say something as moronic as that.
It is decent money - and if earning that, you should have no problems buying a half decent place in a good professional / middle class type area. Save $100k-$200k deposit (easy if single on that much cash, or even easier of a couple with another wage to save as well), borrow $500k, and you have a $600k-$700k budget. For that you can buy a totally decent 2 bed unit in most of the best areas close to the city, or you could buy a house with yard etc - maybe something with some scope for improvement later, in many of the middle priced suburbs like around Hornsby to Berowra, Ryde, Westleigh, Carllingford, Westmead, Parramatta and surrounds etc etc, which are NOT areas that you need to don a kevlar jacket to go outside. They are ordinary middle class suburbs. You could also buy a good house pretty much anywhere in the entire south-west, from Bexley to Cambeltown, or further west from Merrylands to Penrith for that money, but I know folks will claim the kevlar factor for those types of areas.
Naturally, Skamy is utterly undeterred in propagating her unique brand of nonsense in the face of posts from someone who is from Sweden and who, based on the posts, has a far greater understanding of the Swedish property market than she does.
For more of the same, read her posts on Ireland- another triumph of wishful thinking and stupidity over knowledge, facts, and learning.
Another day in the life of the forum's "useful idiot".
Anyway, the Economist chart clearly shows Australia having higher prices than Sweden. FWIW.
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
Anyway, the Economist chart clearly shows Australia having higher prices than Sweden. FWIW.
Incorrect. A common bear mistake. In fact you can't tell which country has higher prices from that chart.
The chart just shows that Australian prices have grown faster than Swedish prices since 1975.
Fair enough.
I had a look through all the metrics and the rate of increase and change from zero was higher in Australia than in Sweden in all cases.
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
"They" are generally older people who bought the "Property is the best investment" line. Though "they" have convinced some younger people too. You might call them Bulls. But many younger people are waking up and are thinking for themselves. This is the biggest threat to the retirement funds that successive governments have decreed to have the most yield. I also recognise, I'm sure many people do, that the various governments win greatly from increasing prices, seeing as taxes are tacked to values. As do banks, who receive ever more money from the interest on ever larger mortgages.
Quote:
it is the promulgating the same fears that someone else is getting something that will disadvantage you. I would distrust the motives of anyone who has to resort to such sell an idea or analysis.
So "Buy now or miss the boat" and other such bull remarks should not be trusted by that same measure?
Agism is very different from racism, agism is blaming people for mistakes or successes they've had, based on their choices. Racism is blaming people for the chance of being born with different coloured skin, through no fault of their own. Racism is deplorable, agism isn't.
The burden we have with the boomer generation is far far more burdensome than the boomers had with their parents. The boomers have voted themselves bigger social securities and lower taxes which they expect their children to pay for.
It used to be that the elders lived with one of their children, boomers shipped their parents off to retirement homes, now they've built entire villages that stipulate only people over 55 live there.
It's boomers who are nimby's, preventing high density living in their precious suburbs. They usually proclaim that high density property will spoil the view (a really shallow short sighted standpoint) but it's really about the lowering of the value of resale on their retirement package.
Nimby's also prevent the construction of many renewable energy technologies for the same reasons.
It is mostly boomers who shipped jobs off to high population low cost countries to increase their profits. We could have had marvellous technological factories producing high quality products for distribution around the world, but the short sighted nature of boomers prevented this.
Of course past retirees were not represented by their governments, boomers saw them as a burden, something to be shoved under carpets. It is the retirement of boomers that have had the most representation.
Obviously, not all boomers share this guilt, some are actually decent people.
I have not bought anything from "unscrupulous charlatans". I have a thoughtful existence that my parents (boomers) instilled in me, this thoughtful existence has led me to these conclusions through experience.
"If man is to survive, he will have learned to take a delight in the essential differences between men and between cultures. He will learn that differences in ideas and attitudes are a delight, part of life's exciting variety, not something to fear." - Gene Roddenberry
"Balloon animals are a great way to teach children that the things they love dearly, may spontaneously explode" -- Lee Camp
"They" are generally older people who bought the "Property is the best investment" line. Though "they" have convinced some younger people too. You might call them Bulls. But many younger people are waking up and are thinking for themselves. This is the biggest threat to the retirement funds that successive governments have decreed to have the most yield. I also recognise, I'm sure many people do, that the various governments win greatly from increasing prices, seeing as taxes are tacked to values. As do banks, who receive ever more money from the interest on ever larger mortgages.
So "Buy now or miss the boat" and other such bull remarks should not be trusted by that same measure?
Agism is very different from racism, agism is blaming people for mistakes or successes they've had, based on their choices. Racism is blaming people for the chance of being born with different coloured skin, through no fault of their own. Racism is deplorable, agism isn't.
The burden we have with the boomer generation is far far more burdensome than the boomers had with their parents. The boomers have voted themselves bigger social securities and lower taxes which they expect their children to pay for.
It used to be that the elders lived with one of their children, boomers shipped their parents off to retirement homes, now they've built entire villages that stipulate only people over 55 live there.
It's boomers who are nimby's, preventing high density living in their precious suburbs. They usually proclaim that high density property will spoil the view (a really shallow short sighted standpoint) but it's really about the lowering of the value of resale on their retirement package.
Nimby's also prevent the construction of many renewable energy technologies for the same reasons.
It is mostly boomers who shipped jobs off to high population low cost countries to increase their profits. We could have had marvellous technological factories producing high quality products for distribution around the world, but the short sighted nature of boomers prevented this.
Of course past retirees were not represented by their governments, boomers saw them as a burden, something to be shoved under carpets. It is the retirement of boomers that have had the most representation.
Obviously, not all boomers share this guilt, some are actually decent people.
I have not bought anything from "unscrupulous charlatans". I have a thoughtful existence that my parents (boomers) instilled in me, this thoughtful existence has led me to these conclusions through experience.
Very good post kulganis!!
You will find that this will go over the one dimensional property bulls head though!
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
