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

I am not quite a Gen Y and not sure I "blame" baby boomers either - but much of this article resonates with me. Especially bits I have highlighted in bold. Surely there must be a way to achieve a balance between investments and housing affordability ( a limit on number of investment properties can negatively gear per person perhaps?). Property can still be an investment even if no negative gearing.

:

---

Sick and tired of chasing dreams of finding a home
Date April 5, 2013

Tom Whitty
Frustrated, outraged and saddened: Generation Y is blaming baby boomers for their housing market woes.

'I'm tired of the weekends spent travelling from one underquoted property to the next, only to be left feeling like and idiot when an auction opens above what would have been our final limit.'
Oh man, I'm tired. I'm tired of the endless emails from my ever-optimistic girlfriend. The ones with links to real estate listings of rundown, two-bedroom, inner-city dives that neither of us really want to live in and, together, we can't actually afford.

I'm tired of the weekends spent travelling from one underquoted property to the next, only to be left feeling like an idiot when an auction opens above what would have been our final limit. I'm tired of the car trips back to our rented home, with my hopeful girlfriend talking about how the next property might be the one where we can raise some kids together.

I'm tired of explaining to my peers how negative gearing works, and then explaining why allowing investors to speculate on the housing market is to the detriment of our generation. I'm tired of the politicians who have consistently avoided addressing Australia's housing affordability issue over the past decade.

I'm frustrated by the affordability studies commissioned by the government that recommend an adjustment or cessation of negative gearing, only for the same politicians who commissioned the report to ignore these recommendations.

I'm bemused by the existence of the Foreign Investment Review Board, and the government's argument that ''foreign investment in residential real estate should increase Australia's housing stock''. I understand our politicians' motivation for not wanting to improve affordability, but it doesn't make it any easier to accept.

On the one hand, you have young first home buyers who are somewhat naive, attempting to enter the housing market with huge mortgages without questioning why owning a modest home is near impossible in this city. On the other, you have an ageing population that needs to retire. If the value of their biggest asset goes up when they sell it to downsize, they have more dollars to fund their retirement.

These baby boomers are also likely to be investors, and taking away the tax breaks that come along with speculating on the housing market would inevitably lead to backlash on election day. You have to ask, if those being duped are too naive to complain, and those profiteering are too valuable to upset, is housing affordability a problem for our politicians, or a gift?

I'm tired of the subsequent lack of enforcement of regulation in the real estate industry. I'm tired of the sharks and the spruikers and the snake oil salesmen. I'm tired of the media coverage of this issue that consistently goes to these same people for ''expert comment'', and I'm sick of reading about how the market is about to ''pick up'' and that ''now is the time to buy''.

I'm outraged when I read the occasional report that goes so far as to make the argument that those of us that belong to Generation Y (the renting generation) are too greedy and lazy to know what's good for us. The irony of such a statement is not lost on me.

I'm saddened that both my girlfriend and I will have no choice but to work well into our 30s so we can squirrel together a deposit for that two-bedroom dive she's so sure is just around the corner.

I'm saddened we are being made to delay starting a family, when it's all she wants. And I'm saddened that so many 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.

I'm tired, and I want to rest my head on a pillow on a bed in a home my optimistic girlfriend and I can call our own.

I'm tired. And we haven't even had kids yet.

---

I'm tired of gen y hipsters who think they must live inner city therefore driving demand and therefore prices sky high.

Want a house? Try looking in the outer suburbs.

:

---

I'm saddened we are being made to delay starting a family, when it's all she wants. And I'm saddened that so many 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.

---

I'm not entirely sure how he claims to know how tough those heading for retirement have had it actually. As I look around my district, there are plenty of retirees who face their twilight years in rented accommodation because they never did reach the dream of being able to own a house - because they had huge families and one very low income to raise their families on. Now they struggle to pay rent on a measly pension.

:

---

I'm saddened that both my girlfriend and I will have no choice but to work well into our 30s so we can squirrel together a deposit for that two-bedroom dive she's so sure is just around the corner.

---

?????

I am really tired of this sense of entitlement poor me crap.

I do agree that it'll be tough for our kids to buy houses... That's why DH and I plan to end up with three investment properties, so we can give one to each of our kids.

That's the plan, anyway!

But I don't see why they (the couple in the article) are being prevented from starting a family by housing unaffordability? Plenty of people have kids in rentals.

I am tired of the assumption that everyone who wants to live in inner city is a hipster - I am about as unhip as you can get. Why do I want to live 12km from city - so I can get to work on public transport or a bike and so both DH and I can work. Because I dont believe is good for the country the belief in much of town planning that families shouldnt be catered for near public transport. I believe in higher density housing near public transport but not solely for the benefit of investors which is what the majority of new two and one bed apartments go to.

You misunderstand me WYSIWYG. Not everyone who wants to live in the inner city is a hipster but there is a definite "breed" of the 'young and funky' who would be aghast at the thought of living further than 15km out.

I live 35km out and we have public transport! There are thousands of people who commute into the city for work. Thousands! I did it for years and years. I now work in an inner city suburb and I drive.

I don't really get it. Why can't you have a family and rent? Sometimes you just can't have it all. I grew up in rented homes before my parents were able to buy a house when I was in year 9 (only about 10yrs ago now when they were 40ish). They now have a couple of investment properties inner city and with my brother due to move out soon are looking at downgrading closer. Starting late hasn't seemed to disadvantage them and it never impacted me, getting a new room was fun if anything plus learning how to pack has been a useful life skill lol. We rent, no real choice at the moment but are comfortable enough with it despite moving 3 times in the last 2years being a bit of an inconvenience it hasn't been a big deal, it is what we can afford to do so we do it. After being gifted children unexpectedly I've realised there is no prize for doing things in the "right" order, the best reward possible is being happy which isn't a mythical pot of gold at the end of the school - uni - marry - house - kids rainbow, it can be found in all sorts of packages of life - I definitely have a lion's share in mine however unconventional. I feel people expect their first house to be their perfect forever home and to be secured much earlier in life instead of working their way up the market or just waiting to enter it a bit longer.

The frustrations of the article resonate with me: my parents bought houses worth three times their annual income, ours is closer to six times. Under quoting is a shocking problem in Melbourne, and when we were looking houses sold almost every time for twenty percent above quoted price.

Renting is the only option in most inner city suburbs because there isn't the housing stock for purchasers who have less than a million dollars unless it needs total renovation and these are hotly contested.

I suggest the author looks at units and apartments. The big family home is not available for most people in the inner city.

Real estate sucks!

I agree under quoting is a massive problem. They say you should automatically add 20% to the upper limit asking price as an indication of the true starting price. It is wrong, wrong, wrong.

N2L - you are right there is - but there also are those who are not - and every time anything is mentioned about affordability that is always the focus and nothing goes beyond it- you can move out you can drive, there is PT etc etc. But surely there must be other people who think like me that environmentally this is not the way to go. We couldn't live further out and both work for example, even with PT.

The overall tone of the article has been written to be inflammatory in my opinion but there are some facts in there. Even buying a flat is hard due to investor market and fact many are now built to suit shared occupancy and not families or couples.

Genuine question....why couldn't you both work if you lived further out?

At 12k out we can only just make childcare pick up and drop off a longer travel time we wouldnt make the six oclock pick up.

I don't agree that older generations never had it this tough.

Both sets of grandparents, my parents and my inlaws had it real tough. They saved hard, and my Papa has told stories of only owning one bike, only buying seconds and specials on market days and having a kind aunt who would cook for them once a week. They made sacrifices, and bought what they could afford, where they could afford. My other Nana still lives in the same simple home she first purchased with my Grandad, they didn't feel a need for more bedrooms, more cars, bigger and better stuff. Same happened with my inlaws and parents. Inlaws are now debt free with one home because they worked hard and smart. My parents still have their home and mortgage, they're certainly not investing and driving up prices.

Then there's DH & I. He bought his first home, on his own, aged 21. We're now 28 & 29 and we have a home and an investment property. How can we do it when it's now tougher than ever, but the older generations in our families couldn't when it was easier? Easy. We bought small in the country. There are jobs out here, there is a good lifestyle, and we're still close to the city. We have public transport if you do want to work in the city, but there's really no need. We have everything here without the crowds and higher costs.

My brother and girlfriend are a little different, they do want the city. They're renting and they've been saving a while, and by the end of this year they'll have enough for a decent 2 bed home near where they are now. They just don't go out every single night, they cook at home and they're smart with their money. Honestly, they haven't found it that hard and they're only 25.

In addition, I think it's smart to fund your retirement yourself. The pension will not be around when I retire, and I need to invest now to make sure I can live comfortably later. Yes, there's super, and there's shares, but why not invest in something I can pass on to my kids? There comes a point when it's really not about negative gearing. Especially for retirees, what income do they have to offset anyway?

:

---

At 12k out we can only just make childcare pick up and drop off a longer travel time we wouldnt make the six oclock pick up.

---

I can't make the 6pm pickup but my DP can at the moment. Although many places out here have 6.30-7pm pickup.

Interesting points - we are lucky to have been able to take advantage of the recent boom by buying in the 90's, renovating and moving on. However we have worked hard and put off alot of things. We had old cars, little or no holidays for a long time. I work parttime and for a while full time to keep things going. We still keep our overheads as low as possible with pretty old mobiles/low cost plans etc and certainly don't have the latest and greatest stuff - no ipad or big screen tvs.
This one hits a nerve with me as I have siblings who will not adjust their expectations in terms of where they want to live and how they live and then lament at how 'lucky' we are to have our own place. Granted we are lucky but we've also made compromises along the way, both in terms of where we wanted to be, the house and all the rest that goes with it.
Also see it alot with workmates trying to buy, if people are paying above what you are unfortunately you will need to compromise, be it area, type of property etc. Sure the underquoting a pain but the prices are dictated by those who buy.

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.

Maybe part of the problem is having so many jobs in the one place. I don't even know how far we live from the city because we go so infrequently, somewhere between 20-30mins without traffic. My partner walks to work (about half hour away) because he is a local butcher apprentice.

We are environmentally conscious and can understand big single person per car commutes are far from ideal but why not invest in more public transport, bikeways and enticing businesses out of the city?

In Sydney lots of businesses (big and small) are moving to the 'burbs so whilst there is still a high level of centralisation that is being eroded.

:

---

I'm not entirely sure how he claims to know how tough those heading for retirement have had it actually. As I look around my district, there are plenty of retirees who face their twilight years in rented accommodation because they never did reach the dream of being able to own a house - because they had huge families and one very low income to raise their families on. Now they struggle to pay rent on a measly pension.

---

That's my parents. They lost everything in 1989 when interest rates spiked and they both lost their jobs (they were employed by the same company that also went belly-up) and weren't able to get back on their feet. They are struggling, but get by. My plan is to buy them a home and to look after them or at the very least have a home big enough so they can move in with us. I hope I raised my son right and he will look after me if I'm ever in the same position.

FWIW my grandparents never owned a home but lived in one of those built for the returned servicemen after WWII. My nan stayed there until my pop died. For 55 years she called that place home. Now she lives in a two-bedder surrounded by people in very similar situations. Luckily she is in in a lovely complex with warm and loving people living around her.

Yes, I would love to own my own home. But that's something that DH and I won't be in a position to do for at least another four years (until DS1 finishes Uni). I'll wait. By then we'll also be in the position to move to where we want to move. Not paying an exhorbitant mortgage in the city - somewhere rural that has a good school (for DS2) and a good community.

Home is where the heart is.

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.

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!

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??

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

:

---

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

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.

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??

:

---

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' :lol:

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 :lol:. 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.

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.

:

---

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.

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.

:

---

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.

---

I understand you were talking about the author but I think the thing is where does anything in his post suggest "top shelf lifestyle" - there isn't anything there that suggests anything but not wanting to live in a two bedroom dive - he didn't even say didn't want to live in a two bedroom just not in a dive. Other posts have mentioned "home theaters", people looking for perfect forever homes, big screen TV's, Ipads, Gen Y hipsters etc - it seems that whenever anyone mentions housing affordability being a problem and wanting to live in an inner suburb it is assumed that they are "wanting to have it all" - which is just simply not true.

Someone said what sort of a nation have we become if property has become the dream - (I don't believe property has become the dream for all - despite all those ridiculous adverts about "not living in someone else's dream") - but also what sort of a nation have we become where we are so ready to believe that our younger generations want to "just have it all" and are not prepared to make any sacrifices. What is it they say about young children "you call them naughty they will be naughty".

:

---

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.

---

I think the thing is that the problem is even that choice is being taken away, the ability to even choose to sacrifice space is disappearing, and lots of people are tied to the city not by choice but by the career they are in.

:

---

I understand you were talking about the author but I think the thing is where does anything in his post suggest "top shelf lifestyle" - there isn't anything there that suggests anything but not wanting to live in a two bedroom dive - he didn't even say didn't want to live in a two bedroom just not in a dive. Other posts have mentioned "home theaters", people looking for perfect forever homes, big screen TV's, Ipads, Gen Y hipsters etc - it seems that whenever anyone mentions housing affordability being a problem and wanting to live in an inner suburb it is assumed that they are "wanting to have it all" - which is just simply not true.

---

I think my use and interpretation of top shelf is probably skewed by my experiences as has everyone who has read it (been skewed by their experiences)....and I can see how the use of that phrase has inadvertently hit a bit of a nerve. By top shelf I meant owning your own home (whatever size or standard or location) having a new car, buying new furniture instead of going without or getting cheaper options) - basically the things that the previous generation would work for most of their lives going through the sharing/renting/second hand etc lower shelves and then eventually progressing to the top shelf of 'owning new'. I wasn't even delving into the territory of luxury items or excess but I can see how it 'read' like that. I was saying the author seemed to be aiming for that which my parents have not yet reached at near retirement age - all before he is willing to have a child!

I think perhaps 'top rung' may have said it better, not necessarily the best of the best in $$$ terms, but the final rung of the ladder that you generally have to progress towards, not start at!

I'm sorry, I don't buy that people are tied to the city due to their careers. That's why people commute.

Eta - the property dream represents security in old age and, in some cases, wanting to leave a financial legacy to children/grandchildren. What scares me is getting to retirement age and not owning a home. What then? Live on the largess of family members who do own a home??

:

---

I think the thing is that the problem is even that choice is being taken away, the ability to even choose to sacrifice space is disappearing, and lots of people are tied to the city not by choice but by the career they are in.

---

I don't know. In my experience most careers/jobs can be done in a more rural area. I started my career in the city, but they need people in my job in the country. It's still corporate, it still pays well. I'm yet to see a job that can only be done in a city, unless it's very specialised and can only be done at one or two companies.

see for me...my dream is to get out of inner city and tree-change it...that would be my top rung :D

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.

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.

:

---

I'm sorry, I don't buy that people are tied to the city due to their careers. That's why people commute

---

And there seems to come with that an assumption that if you don't work in a big city, then you don't have a worthwhile career. Careers are available everywhere - city dwelling lifestyles aren't, there's the difference - have it all and pay for it or have some of it and get more value for your dollar is what it boils down to I suppose.
I know people who drive an hour both ways every day for their career.

:

---

I don't know. In my experience most careers/jobs can be done in a more rural area. I started my career in the city, but they need people in my job in the country. It's still corporate, it still pays well. I'm yet to see a job that can only be done in a city, unless it's very specialized and can only be done at one or two companies.

---

Well all those studies that have been done into affordable housing with a key component being about affordable housing for key workers (teachers, nurses, policemen, firemen etc) must be wrong then. It is very easy to look at individuals and say well they could just move rural - but it just won't work if everyone did.

Apart from key workers until the head offices of big companies move to more rural locations there are many jobs that you can't do in a more rural area - persuade an Optus or a Telstra to move head office to Ballarat or other regional location and some other companies may follow - that sort of strategy is probably part of the solution (and indeed is discussed in many of the affordability studies that federal and state governments waste money on commissioning and then ignore).

Lots of IT work that used to be done in more rural locations has been centralized, and that is usually to head office, which is usually in a capital city.

There are plenty of jobs in areas such as sports events management,entertainment, theater etc that only happen in big cities.

As for just commute - some jobs you have to be able to be called into work and get there within a set time. How long is a reasonable commute? Why should we expect nurses to get spend two hours travelling to work at the RCH for example - or force them to drive.

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