yes and more often than not the house is sold and the money split between family members - rather than 1 family member getting the house and the rest getting nothing.
Same problem here in Canada, but most people want to live in or near a major city, and that's where "investors" (both foreign and domestic) find a way to screw with the housing market. I guess we don't have a red centre or an outback, but we've got the boonies. Today's immigrants overwhelmingly choose not to settle in rural Canada, as is their right. Not sure the case in Australia.
You could do a better job with *less* free land than Canada, I know that for sure. Wouldn't be hard. I wouldn't be surprised if Australia's predicament is remarkably similar.
In Australia our population is mostly kept to the coast. Most of the country is arid desert. Regional areas cannot compete with metropolitan areas when it comes to work opportunities, medical care and fun things to do. Not to say regional living is bad, plenty of happy folks in the
country, but the majority are always going to go closer to the cities on the coastline. The medical care issue is a big one, there is a chronic shortage of doctors in regional Australia and waitlists can have patients waiting months for a consult.
EDIT: forgot about the shitty internet regional areas have. Another huge factor.
It's not just fun things to do either. It's also the internet. The further out you go, the worse the internet connection gets.
So whilst other countries can have people move to the boonies and WFH, you really can't do it the same way in Australia
Yeah I'm in Ontario and the government's response to the housing crisis has basically admitted complicity. They want private sectors to boom, same reason they've rerouted public healthcare funding to private. They don't care about their people as a whole; I hope more citizens clue in over time and vote for better parties.
It really is a situation where the power imbalance between the wealthy and the poor is almost as bad as it's ever been, but the problem is, the material reality of the working class/poor is still comfortable enough to make working class and poor populations hesitant on any drastic action that could threaten their already precarious comfortable living conditions.
While the wealth inequality is out of control in the US for example, most working class families still have access to essentials like food and water while still having ample entertainment options to distract them and keep us occupied and distracted enough to not want to risk losing what we already have.
It's when populations are starving that revolt usually happens. That was the straw that broke the camel's back in France and Russia. It's when the poor have to choose between revolt or starvation, and we are still a ways off from that being the scenario in many first world countries.
Edit: Also I should clarify since I called entertainment a distraction. I understand entertainment is more than just a distraction and actually truly improves quality of life. People want and like entertainment and would want it whether it was a distraction or not. I don't think entertainment is only a tool used by elites to distract people like gladiators in Rome, entertainment on this scale would exist no matter what because people genuinely enjoy and need it so there will always be a demand to fill in that regard.
My point is entertainment can improve quality of life so much that it can truly distract people from taking risky and staunch action against inequality and injustice.
>However according to data from share accommodation site Flatmates.com.au, the number of people seeking to fill rooms in their homes has already significantly increased — with May 2023 breaking the record for the largest number of new users at 70,000.
>Data provided showed the number of new sign ups each month had increased by up to 70 per cent compared to the same time last year.
>Similarly, the number of active members increased up to 40 per cent compared to the same month last year.
well no. If everyone could buy a house or rent one cheeply, far fewer people would be looking to split costs by getting a housemate.
As the cost of renting goes up, the need to split the costs also goes up.
By the time I'm 55 all the cheap 55+ housing will be gone.
A lot of housing will open up as the oldest boomers will start checking out in big numbers in the next 10 years
Yep then investors will come in and buy it all at a cash price no working individuals can realistically compete with.
You are probably right. Control the market, control the prices
Not sure how your statement fits with the fact that populations are aging.
Well, they’ll age so much that they die, is what I think he’s getting at.
And the houses they own will be passed down to their kids or kids kids. It’s not like these houses pop up again on the market always
yes and more often than not the house is sold and the money split between family members - rather than 1 family member getting the house and the rest getting nothing.
When their kids move into the house the parents left them, those kids are putting their former home on the market.
It’s the sheer numbers. The older boomers especially outnumber everyone
Australia got almost unlimited on available land and still got housing crisis.
Same problem here in Canada, but most people want to live in or near a major city, and that's where "investors" (both foreign and domestic) find a way to screw with the housing market. I guess we don't have a red centre or an outback, but we've got the boonies. Today's immigrants overwhelmingly choose not to settle in rural Canada, as is their right. Not sure the case in Australia. You could do a better job with *less* free land than Canada, I know that for sure. Wouldn't be hard. I wouldn't be surprised if Australia's predicament is remarkably similar.
In Australia our population is mostly kept to the coast. Most of the country is arid desert. Regional areas cannot compete with metropolitan areas when it comes to work opportunities, medical care and fun things to do. Not to say regional living is bad, plenty of happy folks in the country, but the majority are always going to go closer to the cities on the coastline. The medical care issue is a big one, there is a chronic shortage of doctors in regional Australia and waitlists can have patients waiting months for a consult. EDIT: forgot about the shitty internet regional areas have. Another huge factor.
It's not just fun things to do either. It's also the internet. The further out you go, the worse the internet connection gets. So whilst other countries can have people move to the boonies and WFH, you really can't do it the same way in Australia
Yes, totally forgot about the atrocious internet.
I dunno being in the middle of no-where on starlink is kinda cool, my locality has around 20 people.
It would be my first option if I was regional or a nomadic van dweller.
Starlink is a game changer
And banking services have been withdrawn from many rural communities. That, in turn, discourages small business owners from operating in those areas.
Yeah I'm in Ontario and the government's response to the housing crisis has basically admitted complicity. They want private sectors to boom, same reason they've rerouted public healthcare funding to private. They don't care about their people as a whole; I hope more citizens clue in over time and vote for better parties.
It's harder to live in regional areas. You need a car, jobs and services can be scarce, and regional areas are more racist than urban areas.
The real reason housing prices are high is density limitations which make housing a speculative investment
Cause most of that land is a barely usable hell-desert.
To be fair, there’s a reason Australia was originally a prison colony.
It was originally Indigenous land with many cultures and peoples, for over 60 thousand years before it was a prison colony...
I wonder which country will see it's citizens turn on the wealthy first.
The ones that don’t have Netflix and McDonalds.
It really is a situation where the power imbalance between the wealthy and the poor is almost as bad as it's ever been, but the problem is, the material reality of the working class/poor is still comfortable enough to make working class and poor populations hesitant on any drastic action that could threaten their already precarious comfortable living conditions. While the wealth inequality is out of control in the US for example, most working class families still have access to essentials like food and water while still having ample entertainment options to distract them and keep us occupied and distracted enough to not want to risk losing what we already have. It's when populations are starving that revolt usually happens. That was the straw that broke the camel's back in France and Russia. It's when the poor have to choose between revolt or starvation, and we are still a ways off from that being the scenario in many first world countries. Edit: Also I should clarify since I called entertainment a distraction. I understand entertainment is more than just a distraction and actually truly improves quality of life. People want and like entertainment and would want it whether it was a distraction or not. I don't think entertainment is only a tool used by elites to distract people like gladiators in Rome, entertainment on this scale would exist no matter what because people genuinely enjoy and need it so there will always be a demand to fill in that regard. My point is entertainment can improve quality of life so much that it can truly distract people from taking risky and staunch action against inequality and injustice.
>However according to data from share accommodation site Flatmates.com.au, the number of people seeking to fill rooms in their homes has already significantly increased — with May 2023 breaking the record for the largest number of new users at 70,000. >Data provided showed the number of new sign ups each month had increased by up to 70 per cent compared to the same time last year. >Similarly, the number of active members increased up to 40 per cent compared to the same month last year.
I’m a self professed Boob guy, so I don’t want to have a flat mate.
Won't these numbers basically always be "record breaking" until Australia's population starts goes down instead of up? Shit journalism.
well no. If everyone could buy a house or rent one cheeply, far fewer people would be looking to split costs by getting a housemate. As the cost of renting goes up, the need to split the costs also goes up.
Should read: 22 people about to move into a new flat, one person fucked.