[Article] - Sick and tired of chasing dreams of finding a home

[Phteven]

I believe they have CC in outer suburbs and in the city.

People can get into the property market with investment properties. It's possible to buy a small unit in a cheaper suburb and rent it out to get your foot on the ladder and work it from there. You don't need to live in your first home and it doesn't need to have a home theatre either. Lots of our parents generation started out in the kind of dodgy unit that the writer is so scornful of.
And TBH if he's sick of being underquoted then why doesn't he just do the math and figure out the correct figure?

ETA - I am feeling very bitter about anything to do with housing at the moment because I am moving in a week and moving freaks me out and when I freak out I get irrationally grumpy.

[AnyDream]

I'm tired of the assumptions. Full stop. Like the Gen Y's are the first people ever to face this. Why do they think there are so many small, ****ty properties in the first place? Because that's the housing that previous generations had! Yeah the housing market is tough to get in to, but plenty of young people get around this by being agile in their choices, and thinking outside the box. Can't afford to get into the market here? Well, get into it somewhere else where you can, then negative gear yourself a better deposit. Or get into a property by purchasing a % share. Or lean on your "privileged" boomer parents to give you a leg up, but do it with respect & gratefulness, not entitlement. And make the hell most of whatever situation you're in. And quit whining like no one else has ever faced what you are facing.

[Sagres]

I think there are some good points in there about real estate strategies and political forces that make it hard to get a house, but the whole 'we can't have children because of it' blah blah blah end bit is a bit rich isn't it?

"....people who are approaching retirement will react to this with a ''cry me a river'' statement, when they know full well they never had it this tough.....".
Really?? Is that really a fair comparison? Most of our parents would have had their children (at least their first child) while renting and had second hand/hand me down baby stuff and probably had never owned a car less than 10 years old.
But the author thinks he has it way tougher as he is trying to have stuff they never dreamed of having, all before he steps foot inside a maternity ward.

I think just because he wants to have those kinds of things (ie. home ownership, new car, all new baby stuff etc.) doesn't mean that stuff is mandatory before you have a baby. If you choose to live the top shelf life style I don't think you can complain how tough it is to pay for it. Our parents mostly went without the new and lived within their means because debt was treated much more wearily than it is today. But if you want to live beyond your means and reach beyond what you are capable, don't come complaining to me about how tough it is living with your substantial debts!

[lady_neon]

I'm sick of being thrown into the Gen Y label.

DH & I worked hard for 3 years, renting a cheap cottage and taking local breaks while saving for a deposit. Now we are in our own 4x2 on 600sqm 13km from the CBD.

Meanwhile friends of ours are whinging that they can't afford to buy a home... 2 months after they returned from Europe, and are now planning a 6 week stay in North America. Um??

[nothing2lose]

I'm Gen X. We're the perfect ones

[wysiwyg]

I think there are some good points in there about real estate strategies and political forces that make it hard to get a house, but the whole 'we can't have children because of it' blah blah blah end bit is a bit rich isn't it?

Yes the whole cant have kids is silly and does nothing but obscure the facts. The negative gearing not only inflates prices but also drives demand so property is then built for investors and not families so even if they want to rent the housing stock is not available ( I am living the two bed 5 people strategy and so are others - so the idea that people wont make sacrifices is not true either). How can we move to the higher density housing that is required for population if none of it is being built?

Yes build more public transport but also make use of the areas that already have some. Kids who grow up using public transport and walking to school are more likely to continue those behaviours as adults.

To me it isnt about entitlement but about sustainability and at the moment seems to me are sacrificing sustainbility to protect those who are avoiding tax through property investment on a large scale in some cases with 4 plus investment properties. It seems so odd to me in a forum where there was plenty of support for taxing higher income earners there is no concern about the fact not only does negative gearing lead to them paying less tax but is contributing to housing affordability problem and the type of housing built

[AnyDream]

I suspect the underlying problem here is that Australia has a housing undersupply (for a number of complex reasons) and has had for a long time, and pretty much the only way to remedy that is to continue to attract investment into the sector. Hence negative gearing. Landlords are not the only people who benefit from this type of arrangement - local councils are doing very nicely thankyou out of the housing prices in their area, allowing them to provide more amenities. I have no doubt that negative gearing helps fund a higher standard of housing stock in regional areas where the rent returns by themselves are not an incentive to invest. There is plenty of urban "back-filling" going on here in Adelaide, much of which would not occur without the investment incentives. I think the real problem in Australia is that our main urban areas are coastal, which puts constraints on how many people can live close to the main economic hubs (eg CBD). THAT is what pushes up the housing prices. There are other benefits to negative gearing too - it makes it easier to be a mobile/agile worker. Again, this has benefits in rural areas. If a skilled worker is able to rent out their home for a couple years without it being a financial loss situation, specifically to go an fill a skills gap in a regional area, then that's a win for everyone.

[AnyDream]

And, I got sidetracked from my other train of thought.

If your whole definition of "having a dream" is getting a HOUSE, then ....man, you need a better dream!!

Seriously. Where are we headed, as a country, when our aspirations for ourselves revolve around real estate? Life satisfaction has been shown to be about a whole heap of stuff, none of which is measurably attached a wealth (over and above having the bare means to subsist). Obviously the quality and liveability of our urban environment influences this, but it's not the be-all and end-all of happiness. What ever happened to finding our sense of meaning and purpose??

[Cassius2]

IIf you choose to live the top shelf life style I don't think you can complain how tough it is to pay for it. Our parents mostly went without the new and lived within their means because debt was treated much more wearily than it is today. But if you want to live beyond your means and reach beyond what you are capable, don't come complaining to me about how tough it is living with your substantial debts!

Man. if you saw the 2 bedroom dives that sell for 500k+ within 10kms of melbourne CBD you sooo would not be able to even come close to describing it as 'top shelf life'

Also, i am just not that convinced that the outer suburbs that are being heralded as the alternative answer are really the alternative. i mean, when DH and I were looking we looked further out...the prices were marginally cheaper (if at all), what it got you was more square feet. we concluded that rather than live in a big house further out with still a big mortgage we would live closer in, in a smaller, older house with a big mortgage. why? less driving and smaller living costs overall for us.

I dont agree with the authors outlook that previous generations had it easy. he is obviously driven to desperation and needed to vent . there were other factors no doubt influencing economic situations in previous generations but we cannot deny that housing affordability has gotten worse in the last decade and half.

FWIW, i am a GenY, i bought inner city and dont whine. But I suppose my opinion that i think housing costs are insane - i look back 10 years ago and can only dream that DH and I had our savings in place back then...dream a little dream hahahaha - is not allowed because then I am seen as simply a 'GenY Hipster' who 'wants it all'.

For all those that have come on here to trash other people's choices (ie those of us that have bought or want to buy inner city but are horrified at seeing dump after dump going off like a frog in a sock in terms of prices): Do you really want to live in my house with your whole family? Is that the choice you wanted to make? Really? 3 kids to a 2 bedroom house? because hey: newsflash! you can! sell your big ol' suburban house and come on over! My house isnt 1 million dollars: I see the average point cook home sells for what mine would. So come on, move your family in here. live in an old small house like mine, and tell me that I am being greedy and wanting it all.

Is that the 'top shelf' life that you are all aspiring towards? Is that 'having it all'?? I dont have a new car, or all new baby things, my kids share a room, not because it is quaint, but because they have to. I dont COMPLAIN about that. But i will lament the cost of housing and the lack of choices that it gives people.

This idea that people in my position have not made sacrifices is just so blatantly judgemental and of course, with that, incorrect.
We just made a different choice. And I dont think it is fair to come on here and allude that those of that made a different choice are greedy and selfish. glass houses people.

[Sagres]

No I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the author who 'could not have children until they could buy a house', and was already complaining about how tough it was even before the debt has happened!
Quite clearly from your post your situation is very different from his. No where in my post did I make general statements about any generation as a whole, only specific comments about the specific whining of the articles author.

[Sagres]

And, I got sidetracked from my other train of thought.

If your whole definition of "having a dream" is getting a HOUSE, then ....man, you need a better dream!!

Seriously. Where are we headed, as a country, when our aspirations for ourselves revolve around real estate? Life satisfaction has been shown to be about a whole heap of stuff, none of which is measurably attached a wealth (over and above having the bare means to subsist). Obviously the quality and liveability of our urban environment influences this, but it's not the be-all and end-all of happiness. What ever happened to finding our sense of meaning and purpose??

I agree with this but coming from a different perspective. The part of the world I come from was affected by bush fires that took many many homes and some lives. I've seen what people have gone through when the thing they have attached their identity to, saved for, restorated carefully for years, dreamed of, attached their sense of home and security to, literally go up in smoke.......well seeing that has certainly made me look at attributing too much meaning to a possession like a house.

[Teeki]

Cassius, I'd say you've made exactly the sacrifices that previous generations, and most others buying a house, have. Where I've sacrificed a city lifestyle, you've sacrificed space. We've both gone without newer, bigger things.

Where I take issue is with my friends who constantly go overseas, go out and blow their entire pay in a weekend, have a new car, a wardrobe full of just shoes, and then complain that the reason they live with their parents is because a house just costs too much.

[Amity]

I cannot work in rural areas permanently. There is simply not the required availability of work in my career. I have to work in the city which means if I don't want a long commute, I have to live in the city.

I do, however, completely understand where he is coming from in the article. There is no way a couple on a combined income of 100K could afford a mortgage of anything near what is required to buy a house (or apartment) within 10kms of Melbourne CBD. At least not the eastern side.

[Teeki]

That's a good point Divvy. With my career, if I want to advance much further I have to move to Adelaide, after that Melbourne. I really don't want to, so I guess I sacrifice job prospects. Not that it's a sacrifice for me anyway, it's just not what I want.

[Ginger]

we are total tree dwellers who live on an acre in the bush in a 1950s cottage, but the downside is the commute that my dh has to make when he has to work on jobs in the cbd or northern/western suburbs. the bottom line is that you can't have it all( unless you are a multi-millionaire), so you have to decide what is most important to you and where you are going to sit.

[AnyDream]

I just don't get it - why don't people want housing to be affordable in the inner suburbs?

Who's saying they don't want affordable inner suburb housing?! I haven't heard anyone express that thought here at all.

I personally would LOVE to skip the 1 hour each way commute by living closer to town. But the reality is we have urban layouts that were largely designed a century or more ago. The solution isn't to slash negative gearing & deflate the whole housing market. The solution is to integrate what we know about liveability into all aspects of development & design, so that all of our suburban areas enjoy a greater number of amenities, regardless of where they are.

And teleworking. If they could just built that bloody NBN already, more of us could integrate aspects of teleworking into our lives. That would even out the playing field a lot.

[wysiwyg]

Who's saying they don't want affordable inner suburb housing?! I haven't heard anyone express that thought here at all.

Not in so many words but we have heard - "just commute further" "change your career" "can't believe there are careers that are tied to the city" "it is the reality of life and can't be changed just live with it" in addition to the mentality that those in the city just want to "have it all" The overall sentiment of this thread is definitely - a) either it isn't an issue or b) it is an issue which can be ignored - which is what the author is saying politicians do. I can now see why they can get away with ignoring it.

I personally would LOVE to skip the 1 hour each way commute by living closer to town. But the reality is we have urban layouts that were largely designed a century or more ago. The solution isn't to slash negative gearing & deflate the whole housing market. The solution is to integrate what we know about liveability into all aspects of development & design, so that all of our suburban areas enjoy a greater number of amenities, regardless of where they are.

At 12KM out it and in what is considered inner suburb - it takes me an hour each way to work too.

I read the recommendations about affordability housing that the author talks about - none of them talk about slashing negative gearing and deflating the whole housing market - there was a series of measures to be implemented over time to mitigate against deflating the whole housing market. The impact would not be immediate. Of course it has to be a many pronged approach, and all of our suburban areas should have the amenities required (and the amenities there from the beginning in the case of new suburbs, not the schools train stations etc being created years and years after most of the households have moved in) - but why continue to expand out placing the stress on the public transport and infrastructures when we are not making the most of the inner suburban areas we have.

If you read any of the planning literature certainly in our area there is plenty of talk of high density zones near public transport - but what this actually means is one or two bed apartments - why no provisions for family housing (three bed 1 bath townhouse) near public transport routes (as in can get on public transport within a 10 min walk of your house) - or is that having a sense of entitlement families thinking they should be able to live that close to public transport? Many of the planning laws make putting 3 bed apartments in difficult because they want two car parking spaces for a 3 bed - so then an exemption has to be applied for - two car parking spaces for a 3 bed is not a necessity.

There are so many things that could be done to improve affordability in inner suburbs, which would reduce the dependency on cars (I was horrified to read that in my suburb which has fantastic public transport a train plus 3 tram lines that only 20% of people travel to work on public transport with over 50% driving - but if you look at one of the suburbs that is always advertised on TV as "living the dream" that declines to 6.8% with over 70% driving) and increase the level of environmental solutions put into new properties (few new one, two bed properties include water tanks, solar panels, decent insulation, double glazing etc - because developers know that the majority of these will go to investors who have little interest in such things compared to home owners) - but if housing affordability is not even recognized as an issue then nothing happens.

And teleworking. If they could just built that bloody NBN already, more of us could integrate aspects of teleworking into our lives. That would even out the playing field a lot.

I am sure teleworking would work for many people, although I am not quite sure how it would bring about changes in housing affordability - people moving out of the city, because no longer have to be close to work? Allowing key workers for whom teleworking is not likely to be an option to move in?

[Ginger]

But if housing in the inner suburbs was cheaper, wouldn't that have a flow on effect to the outer suburbs- causing the outer suburbs to experience price drops?