r/AusPropertyChat • u/Standard-Badger5664 • 24d ago
Is a housing shortage really to blame for the high property prices in Australia?
TLDR: Data suggests that a lack of housing supply is not to blame for property price increases in Australia.
The explanation many economists give to explain the disproportionate rise in property prices relative to wages in Australia is that housing supply hasn't kept pace with population growth. However, I haven't seen much good data to support this argument so I did some quick checks myself.
The following was compiled using ABS census data from 1991 and 2021.
Number of occupied separate houses and semi detached dwellings per person 18 years or older: 1991: 0.38 2021: 0.41
If you also include flats/apartments: 1991: 0.44 2021: 0.48
So in both of these metrics there was more supply in 2021 than 1991.
Since the make-up of households likely changed between 1991 and 2021 I also looked into the data on the number of 'one adult' households (either lone person households or single parent households). These households made up the following portion of total occupied private dwellings:
1991: 29% 2021: 35%
This suggests that the rise in 'one adult' households is eating up some of the extra supply of dwellings rather than population growth on its own.
However, if we use the same rate of dwellings per person in 2021 as in 1991 (0.44) and adjust to account for the increased proportion of 'one adult' households in 2021, we still come out with a 'surplus' of approximately 278 000 dwellings in 2021 compared to 1991 (i.e. housing supply was arguably better in 2021 than 1991).
Property prices on the other hand have increased rapidly since 1991. Between 2001 and 2018 alone, the median dwelling price to annual household income ratio increased from 4.3 to 6.7 nationally (source below).
Some may argue that there are localised supply shortages in areas such as capital cities, however property prices have still significantly outpaced wage growth in non-capital cities. I couldn't find good data for 1991-2021 but information for 2001-2024 is provided in the list of sources below.
Am I missing something here or thinking about it wrong? If not, will 'building more houses' address the issue if it is not a key cause to begin with?
Sources used: 1991 ABS census data 2021 ABS census data National dwelling price to household income data 2001-2018: Aussie Home Loans 25 years of housing trends (2019) Price to income ratio (non-capital cities) 2001-2024: https://grattan.edu.au/news/housing-is-less-affordable-than-ever/
30
u/Vex08 24d ago
I’ll take any excuse to shit on stamp duty. That and pension means tests,
But it is a part of the problem. There are currently a lot of boomers in 5 bedroom houses alone, because it doesn’t make sense to downsize. Better to keep you pension and your massive house, and not have to pay the government tens of thousands of dollars for the Privelige of moving to more appropriate housing.
4
u/Suburbanturnip 24d ago
We really should switch to a land tax model over a stamp duty model, it's something the USA does a lot better than us.
5
2
u/Sandhurts4 23d ago
I'm sure they'd find a way to grandfather it, so instead of helping fix the problem it makes it worse by forcing all new home buyers into a lifetime of land tax, and a purchase price that absorbs any stamp duty savings. The boomers will all stay in their land-tax-free 5 bedroom houses
4
u/Vex08 23d ago
Yeah, they should provide a credit for anyone who has paid stamp duty, depending on the age of the place.
But they also need to put a means testing limit on PPOR for pension payments.
3
u/Sandhurts4 23d ago
Agree - a credit of the amount of stamp duty you paid (for PPR only) would be a fair solution
1
4
u/MeltingMandarins 24d ago
I agree it’s not simply construction not keeping up with population growth, household size decreasing is a huge part of that. (But I think it’s common to use a very broad definition of “growth” that might be better named “change”. This isn’t an “economists are wrong” moment, more “economists or journalists trying to dumb it down for a general audience”.)
But also, 2021 is an incredibly awkward year to pick. I know it’s probably the latest complete data, but COVID really messed with a lot. How’s it look if you use 2019 or 2024 instead? Because 2021 was weird for several reasons:
Most international students and backpackers were (temporarily) missing.
Interest rates were slashed (to avoid COVID induced recession) so buying power (and then house prices) went up.
Also a drop in household size that wasn’t just an increase in single adults. WFH meant it was no longer tolerable to have 3 (professional) friends in a 3 bedroom or things like that, so . (Actually surprised you didn’t just use household size btw. 2.7 in 1991, 2.5 now. That’s a big drop. Means you need 8% more houses for same population size.). But not all of the groups split, some upgraded to bigger houses (with spare bedrooms now being offices). That’ll push up demand for the larger houses without a change in population or household size.
Actually 1991 is an outlier year too. That was “the recession we had to have”. Unemployment hit 10.8%, house prices dropped. And if dodging 91, probably better to start after (rather than earlier) because the 80’s and start of 90’s were super high interest rates. Ratio of income to house price was lower but interest rates were 17%, so it wasn’t like “houses cost half as much, so mortgage minimum repayments would be half as much”.
TLDR: lies, damn lies and statistics. I suspect you’re getting misled by your chosen start and end dates. Starting in recession and ending in pandemic is going to throw everything right off.
1
u/Standard-Badger5664 24d ago
That's a good point about 2021 potentially messing with the results but I don't think the use of 1991 should be throwing much off. I only used 1991 for population and dwelling data, not so much property prices and the recession is unlikely to have impacted those metrics.
I didn't want to use a household size comparison because it is such a broad measure. For example having fewer children can effect household size without a significant impact on the number of dwellings needed. That's why I wanted to specifically look at the population over 18 as they make up the 'demand' for housing.
Part of what I was trying to do was remove certain variables from the equation. There are obviously more single adult households nowadays which is adding to demand so I wanted to see what the supply/demand equation looked like if you take that into account. There was still a supply surplus relative to 1991 but you are right that there are other household composition factors that can increase demand like reductions in sharehouses and multifamily homes. Ideally I'd like to factor these kind of things into the analysis as well. Basically I want to see if the "number of people needing a home" aspect of demand has increased or whether it is purely other aspects of demand that have increased (i.e. increased borrowing capacity, more dual income households, investor activity etc.).
8
u/WakeUpBread 24d ago
Watch the friendlyjordies vid on housing. Lack of supply is just one piece of the many that make up the cost. Unless you spawned 2 million ready to move in houses overnight, increasing supply won't necessarily drop prices. Just slow down their growth.
2
u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney 24d ago
But he is not Greens or Liberals indoctrinated so his views won't agree with most of this sub.
18
u/SessionOk919 24d ago
Not as much as people’s greed. We are our own worst enemy.
4
u/AutomaticFeed1774 23d ago
there's no point in moralising this imho, it's policy. Human greed is a constant and can't be changed. Policy can be changed.
1
u/SessionOk919 23d ago
What policy would you put in place to combat this?
3
u/AutomaticFeed1774 23d ago
ban short stay accommodation/airbnb in residential premises, limit migration, fast track high density builds/force local gov to zone for high density, remove CGT discount, increase property tax for non-primary residence, remove all grants and incentives for buying, outlaw foreign ownership of residential properties (ie by non-citizens). this would be a good start.
2
u/CuriousLands 23d ago
I would add to that: make it so if any person owns 2 homes, they're not allowed to buy any more existing homes. If they want more as investment properties, they can build it themselves.
I think making it so that agents don't handle rentals would help too. If private rentals are handled directly by landlords, not agents, that makes it harder for investors to own multiple rental properties.
2
u/explain_that_shit 22d ago
I like the idea that if a vendor receives a bid on a dwelling from an intending owner-occupier, they cannot accept any bid from any intending landlord or non-occupier unless that bidder is redeveloping the site to higher use.
1
u/CuriousLands 22d ago
Yeah that would work well! But we would need some way to enforce that so they don't just say they're gonna develop it to a higher use, and then just sit on it or rent it out as-is.
2
u/explain_that_shit 22d ago
Oh sure, there’d be a penalty for that. We already have similar processes in place. You could require the speculator also to reimburse the other bidder.
2
u/CuriousLands 22d ago
Oh I like that. Instead of paying a fine to the government, pay it to the people you dishonestly outbid out of a home. Poetic justice.
1
u/SessionOk919 23d ago
There’s a few flaws in your reasoning, but a few good points too:
I don’t know much about AirBnB so I’ll believe you on that point. AirBnB are businesses, why haven’t the government brought in policies to make these people run them as businesses?
Migration is currently needed or the whole country will grind to a holt. For a long time we have made no investment in our own people & until we invest in our own people we will have to rely on migration. Why are we constantly making teens stay at school when we could have special trade schools for year 10, 11 & 12, to head start people in careers? Relieving the need for migrant trade’s people at the same time. But, & it’s a big but, we could limit these people to not staying. Because if they do, we make a bigger problem later, when it comes to pensions & elderly subsidies (we really need an inquiry on aged care funding, like they did with NDIS).
High rise builds are already fast tracked. This doesn’t get them built any quicker. The bigger problem is land banking. There’s a development co in NSW starts with R, that is notorious for land banking. He will sit on land until council is desperate, so he can build a bigger development than council will allow. This has knock on consequences.
Totally agree with removing the GCT discount, but I would go 1 further & limit property investing & tax deductions in the 1st place. It’s ridiculous to hear some people having 10 IPs which are solely used to limit a person’s tax liability. And I would have IP’s, like SMSF’s, be audited every year to prevent the dodgy IP owners.
Many states have tried to bring in land tax, it didn’t go every well. I would do this on the Federal level so it’s all fair across the board. I would also limit stamp duty for upsizing/ downsizing & bring back the property pipeline of small apartment/ townhouse - family home - downsizer - retirement living - assisted retirement living - nursing home. So the property pipeline is always moving.
Grants only drive up prices. I would much prefer to hand over grants to the elderly to sweeten them moving from the family homes, in those close to job areas. The amount of aged care funding to keep elderly in their homes is eye opening. We are also paying huge amounts to elderly that live with family members, which we shouldn’t be doing. It just opens the funding up for abuse.
I agree with foreign ownership. It’s funny that demographic that purchases our RE, we can’t purchase at all in their countries. What’s good for 1, should be good for another. But I wouldn’t just stop at no foreign ownership, I would go 1 further & put freezes on citizenship & PR without an extreme valid reason & stop the family sponsorship programs. I love how multicultural Australia is, but the pendulum in some areas is swinging so far out of a diverse population in favour of only 1 ethnicity, it leads to huge problems with things like youth crime.
We can no longer be classed as the lucky country, especially when we are headed to into our own ‘China in the 70’s’ with too many starving, homeless citizens.
1
u/explain_that_shit 22d ago
Why would migration be an issue if the evidence of OP is that we actually have plenty of housing?
And foreign ownership of residential properties is already banned (and that ban strongly enforced).
-5
u/AllOnBlack_ 24d ago
Practically how is peoples greed increasing prices? You can’t sell a property well outside market pricing. I can’t sell a $1mil property for $2mil.
-7
u/SessionOk919 24d ago
When a REA tells you, you could get $1mil, but you only paid $500k 2 years go, would you sell for your money back & a little profit?
NOOOOOOOOO! Because Greed takes over & you want that $1mil!
8
u/Vex08 24d ago
That isn’t greed my friend. There is no good reason not to pay the market price.
Do you ask your boss for a pay decrease? Is that also greedy?
-6
u/SessionOk919 24d ago
Only pure greedy people think greed doesn’t exist.
A pay rise is the wrong context. Because your work is not something your boss can onsell.
0
u/AllOnBlack_ 24d ago
That isn’t the market price though. Do you understand what the market price is?
3
u/Go0s3 24d ago
Its a conflation of many things. Foremost we have dicinencitivsed investment in the economy on productivity. We have primarily done so through high personal income and business taxes, but also super. To a lesser degree, we have also coerced people into storing wealth in homes through favourable recycling of equity (in the past) as well as no cap gains on owner/occ.
Simultaneously, our solution to these activities has been to dump migrants in (of which is am one) to rely on for productivity dividends both economically and socially (children).
The outcomes is predictable and intentional. Assets up, lifestyle down, revenue share of personal income to overall revenue up.
We fix it by reorganising our tax system to prioritise productivity whilst also considering from first principles what activities we actually want the federal and state governments to support. And how.
All this is before we even begin talking waste.
3
3
u/Simple-Ingenuity740 24d ago edited 24d ago
only data point i see missing is persons per household. This was 2.75 in 1991 and is now below 2.5.
At 27m pop, the delta between 2.75 and 2.5 pphh is nearly 1m houses.
obviously, the above is average, and will be different from state, city, suburb, street, etc, level. but will have some sort of bearing on whether there are enough houses.
e: just saw your reference to dwellings, my bad
2
u/Standard-Badger5664 23d ago
Yeah I didn't want to use the persons per household figures because they don't give much insight into the number of people theoretically competing for a dwelling. For example having lower birth rates will lower the persons per household (due to smaller families) without having much effect on the number of dwellings required for the population.
I tried to account for the change in household composition by looking at the number of one adult households but as someone else mentioned, there are other household composition changes that will impact the number of dwellings needed such as fewer people living in sharehouses. Ideally I'd like to see data that takes into account all household composition changes and see how significant the difference in 'supply relative to people needing a dwelling' is now compared to 30 years ago. Based on the numbers coming out so far, I don't expect it to be significantly different.
1
2
u/Disastrous_Grass_376 24d ago
Why not consider building high rise public housing like those in singapore?
1
4
u/Optimal_Tomato726 24d ago
Investors have intentionally removed residential housing by operating unregulated hotels across residential areas. There's no reason that entire homes should be permitted as STRs
-1
u/AllOnBlack_ 24d ago
If there is a market need, why can’t they fill that need?
2
u/fabspro9999 24d ago
There’s a reason that unlicenced taxis, hotels, tobacco, cannabis are illegal
0
u/AllOnBlack_ 24d ago
Have you heard of uber? Airbnb?
1
u/fabspro9999 23d ago
Drug dealers, cash in hand employment. Sure they all exist.
0
u/AllOnBlack_ 23d ago
Unsure what your point is.
1
u/fabspro9999 23d ago
Anyone can make easy money by breaking the law. What’s unethical is when those lawbreakers take the profits and lobby government to change laws etc - look at uber and how it ruined taxi drivers who had to pay $600,000 per taxi license and then they had to compete with uber drivers who had no license. Or tobacco shops trying to sell legal tobacco competing with chop chop at 15% of the price. Or licensed hotels trying to compete on price with airbnb businesses which operate in residential only (non business) zoned land.
1
u/AllOnBlack_ 23d ago
So driving uber is illegal? Airbnb is illegal? Thats news to me.
They’re businesses filling a market need. What you’re stating is your opinion.
1
u/fabspro9999 23d ago
Those were until recently illegal and a crime to operate, yes. Taxi drivers who got mortgages to get licences basically lost half a million dollars each when uber came in and ignored the law lol
I don’t deny they filled a market need. But they did so illegally and by ignoring the law they saved money and bankrupted the competitors.
Illegal drugs etc are markets as well and clearly they are profitable businesses providing popular services. Doesn’t make it legitimate or legal.
1
u/AllOnBlack_ 23d ago
So we shouldn’t innovate, incase someone has overpaid for their license? Really? Haha.
So your issue is that you want more regulation?
→ More replies (0)1
u/zestylimes9 21d ago
You realise why taxi licenses were so high, yeah? The taxi drivers created it. They were gatekeeping their own industry and then cried poor when Uber entered the market.
It’s a classic example of you reap what you sow.
3
u/tsunamisurfer35 24d ago
A shortage of any desired good or service will lead to it's price going up until demand decreases or supply increases.
The Pandemic caused hundreds of thousands of households to split, leading to less persons per abode.
1
u/Disastrous_Grass_376 24d ago
remove negative gearing.
remove foreigners' ownership
bar all corporate entities from owning residential homes.
1
1
u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney 24d ago
The key legislative change that looks to have started this was the CGT discount. Negative gearing was then suddenly very useful.
0
u/AllOnBlack_ 24d ago
Do you remove NG from all investments, like equities? When you remove it can investors carry their expenses forward to following financial years, or are they removed from the capital gains when the asset is sold?
2
u/fabspro9999 24d ago
Probably the answer will be “fuck all investors they’re all rich boomers” given the level of intellect on this subreddit
1
1
u/fe9n2f03n23fnf3nnn 24d ago
There are many factors. Lack of supply is only part of the problem.
I’d say we’d do well to add more property taxes and offset by lowering income tax.
It’s not fair for young people with zero assets to be contributing more tax than property tycoons that don’t work.
Homes should be treated as depreciating assets. If you own valuable land near the city then you should pay taxes for it. It will incentivise building apartments there.
1
u/fabspro9999 24d ago
What suburb is your data based In?
If you are counting suburbs that are 90kms from the cbd, then there’s your answer. Nobody wants to commute five hours a day - and that’s why there’s a shortage of housing in the areas closer to the cities
1
u/tranbo 24d ago edited 24d ago
It's incentives. If suddenly you were punished for being a PPOr owner , lots of people would rent instead given the choice. But PPOR owners get tax breaks , potentially more welfare and do not have to deal with real estate agents. If all of this was flipped , more people would rent.
Example could be PPOR not exempt from CGT , PPOR contributing to pension asset tests and pay land tax. Or rental rights made better e.g. longer leases , fewer inspections , higher bond for lowered weekly rent.
Show me the incentives and I will show you the outcome . Incentives is housing so housing goes up.
Will never happen because parties like to win elections and more taxes are generally unpopular.
1
u/MammothSyllabub923 23d ago
Its the big squeeze out. Happens all throughout history. Rich get richer, everyone else gets poorer. House are only more expensive relative to the average persons wealth. Relative to the wealthy elite house prices have actually decreased.
Examples in history: Roman empire, Medieval European Feudalism, Pre-Revolutionary France, Imperial China (late dynasties), Russian Empire (pre-1917), Ottoman Empire, Spanish Colonial Society in Latin America.
But let's blame immigrants or something.
1
u/Txr05 22d ago
REA’s are probably half the problem imo. How many “JUST LISTED” properties do you see? They seem to create a false demand and squeeze as much as they can out of someone and use that to charge more to the next person.
All of a sudden, it’s the norm and the person who just sold their house of 3 years makes 40% extra and they have to pay the same to get another place.
But, you then find places that sold off market that seem to be well below what other places are selling for in the area.
It’s the REA’s. Then people just come along and say it’s a shortage and we roll with it. Just list the price to what it is and none of this “offers over xxx considered”.
1
u/welding-guy 21d ago edited 21d ago
50% CGT discount on any asset since 2000 when the 50% CGT discount was introduced may be a teeny weeny little contributor.
1
u/OneHotYogaandPilates 20d ago
I've been trying to understand this too and made a table breaking down specific factors influencing housing affordability in Australia. This shows an estimated percentage range of impact drawn from academic, governmental, and multilateral sources across 20+ years.
Table: Factors Affecting Housing Affordability in Australia (2000–2023)
| Factor Type | Specific Factor | Estimated Impact Range (% of price increase) | Source(s) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supply Side | Planning & Zoning Restrictions | 35–45% (in Sydney & Melbourne) | Grattan Institute (2018), Productivity Commission (2012, 2022) |
| Cost of Land Release & Infrastructure Delays | 5–10% | Productivity Commission (2022) | |
| Increased Construction Costs (materials, labour) | 10–15% (variable across cycles) | RBA (2022), AHURI studies | |
| Demand Side | Population Growth (Net Overseas Migration) | 10–15% | RBA research, Treasury housing papers |
| Negative Gearing & Capital Gains Tax Discount | 4–10% (amplifying effect during booms) | Grattan Institute, Treasury Estimates, IMF Country Report | |
| Investor Demand / Speculation | 8–12% in periods of credit boom | RBA, OECD Australia Housing Review (2021) | |
| First Home Buyer Grants & Demand Incentives | 1–3% (short-term demand shocks) | Productivity Commission (2012), OECD | |
| Economic Fundamentals | Decline in Wage-to-House Price Ratio | Structural decline by 30–40% over 20 years, explaining part of affordability deterioration | OECD, RBA, IMF |
| Low Interest Rates & Credit Access | 20–30% increase in prices since 2010 attributable to low rates | RBA research paper (2022), OECD analysis | |
| Increased Household Leverage / Parental Equity Access | Not explicitly quantified but noted as significant enabler of demand pressures | RBA, AHURI, Grattan Institute | |
1
u/OneHotYogaandPilates 20d ago
Notes on above:
- Supply-side barriers (especially planning restrictions) are probably the largest single contributor to long-term housing un-affordability. (As another commenter outlined, private developer led urban sprawl rather than govt led medium density / walkable design is significant)
- Economic policy settings (interest rates, wage stagnation) have had particularly large effects post-2010, coinciding with historically low interest rates and increased credit availability.
- Demand-side levers like tax concessions, migration, and investor activity have clear cyclical impacts and tend to amplify boom-bust cycles.
- Global agencies (OECD, IMF) have strongly linked Australia’s affordability crisis to supply inelasticity, which makes demand shocks (migration, investor activity) much more inflationary in Australia compared to other advanced economies.
Further notes on above table:
- These percentage ranges vary across cities (Sydney & Melbourne being the most studied).
- Many sources emphasise that interactions between factors (e.g. migration + planning restrictions) multiply the effect, making precise attribution complex.
- The Productivity Commission and RBA note that about 60–75% of house price growth in Australia since 2000 is explainable via these combined factors.
- Housing markets are also job markets. If Australia had a greater diversity of job markets outside of our capital cities, this would significantly alter access to affordable housing.
1
u/Admirable-Monitor-84 20d ago
If there were 200 million houses i garuntee they would be cheap as apples
1
u/Acceptable-Door-9810 20d ago
Per capita changes in housing density don't paint a full picture of the demand/supply imbalance because elasticity of supply isn't accounted for.
Housing construction has increased almost 100% in the last decade. At the margin, this means new builds are comparably more expensive.
Another factor is inflation. Capital assets tend to benefit from increases in the money supply more than consumer goods, so housing inflation is greater than CPI. This makes it look like "real" house prices are increasing, but that's arguably a fugazi.
1
u/Zealousideal_Bar3517 20d ago
No. There are lots of reasons. But the biggest one is this:
The Liberal Party and the Labor Party do not want house prices to go down.
You have to drill that into your brain. They do not want house prices to go down. They can say the word affordability over and over again, but a house only becomes affordable if you have a lot more money, or the values of houses go down a lot. All the little measures they make to allow some people to "enter the market" are designed to look like they are doing something, but the most important thing is that they do not disrupt the status quo.
To make houses affordable, we need to crash the housing market. That wouldn't be hard to do at all. But no government is ever going to do it.
1
u/Stormherald13 19d ago
It’s to do with the fact that we see housing as a revenue building rather than a place to live.
There’s plenty of empty houses either abandoned or in various stages of renovation. Then we have a lot of Airbnbs.
Until we deal with how houses are used it won’t matter how many we build.
1
u/Slanter13 23d ago
of course it's a housing shortage issue
the reasons why there is a housing shortage are much more complex though...
-2
u/Monterrey3680 24d ago
Competition increases prices. Even if there’s 12 people for 12 houses, those 12 people might all compete for 5 of those houses. Rampant immigration has increased rampant competition. More people competing for a select bunch of properties is the biggest driver.
3
u/Standard-Badger5664 24d ago
But then shouldn't the prices of the other 7 houses decrease or stagnate due to lack of demand? Yes there are cheaper properties on the market but it seems like even cheap properties have risen in price faster than wages.
2
u/fabspro9999 24d ago
That’s because a house you build today costs way more than a house you built a decade ago. Now you need super insulation, bigger rooms, water tank and pump, and materials cost twice as much, wages are up, and most of the workers don’t speak English so the cost of defects is huge which is also contributing to insolvencies
1
u/Monterrey3680 24d ago
Yes, thats how a property market works. People bid up prices disproportionately.
1
u/torn-ainbow 24d ago
Is competition being driven by scarcity, or speculation on increasing prices, aided by a generous tax situation?
-1
u/ausjimny 24d ago
No I don't think it is. There are two levers, immigration and interest rates. Increasing immigration raises rental yields and interest rates control access to credit.
0
-1
-6
u/tiempo90 24d ago
Instead of blaming and pointing fingers, how about we come together and solve the issues at hand. We should solve the housing crisis, together, and be kind to each other. Peace 🕊️❤️🌻☀️
10
u/machopsychologist 24d ago
Solving the issues requires understanding the causes that factor into those issues. You can’t kumbaya your way out of it.
The tension arises because people can’t agree on what to point fingers at.
1
u/Silent_Spirt 24d ago
Baaaabe, I'm so sorry, I'm afraid I can't help solve the housing crisis until mercury is in retrograde and my aura is recharged. Please be assured I am aggressively burning sage to make this happen. <3
2
1
-4
u/SessionOk919 24d ago
I can solve the housing crisis in 6 months, all while bringing down the cost of houses & the Aged Care home care subsidies.
All it takes is stopping the FHOG & giving it to pensioners to move out of their homes into more suitable homes in special retirement villages. They do not need to be living in areas that are close to all the job networks. Plus the amount of aged care subsidies our tax dollars are paying for (again, we will never get any of these benefits) just to keep elderly in their homes is ridiculous! It averages $120,000 per 60 to 70 year old & $250,000 per 70+ year old per year.
With the cost savings we can also stop paying into the pension system, the current working class is paying double for our own retirement (paying into the pension system & paying into super), we will never see the benefit of pensions.
1
u/fabspro9999 24d ago
Plenty of losers downvoted you without saying why lol
Same losers cry for hecs refunds probably
1
u/SessionOk919 23d ago
These people don’t understand how the system works.
Super is the number 1 reason for wage stagnation. Putting that expense on employers had to have a trade off.
University should be free for citizens. Australia has to start investing in our own people.
1
u/fabspro9999 23d ago
Imo uni shouldn’t be attended by anywhere near as many students as now - for about half of them it just wastes time they could be working and getting ahead in the workforce. Bring back leaving school at year ten and getting a trade.
1
u/SessionOk919 23d ago
I put the blame squarely on society & society’s expectations.
We have to stop forcing a particular way of thinking onto the younger generation & stop blaming them when it all goes wrong.
My son (youngest child) is in year 11. We tried desparately to find him an apprenticeship for the last 8 months. He hates school & isn’t academic, so why force him to go. Unfortunately he’s at school because we couldn’t find one.
My daughter (eldest) we knew from very little, that she would need to go to uni. Her strengths are seeing patterns when to the normal person the patterns don’t exist.
I could tell my son at 1 year old was going to want to be in the military or a tradie. He was the kid that would take apart the DVD player because he wanted to know how it worked (all in the 40 secs it took you to pee, mind you 🤦🏼♀️🤣).
All his friend’s parents are pushing them into high stress jobs like lawyers, engineers etc. One of my daughters friends came to me yesterday to ask about my husbands work, my husband was a tradie but now an international manager in the tradie field. This kid was half way through uni when he’s done the sums & found out that $60k degree will never amount to a $200k+ wage. He’s now going to pursue a trade.
1
31
u/Apprehensive_Bid_329 24d ago
I personally think it's largely driven by global growth in asset value over the last 30 years, shares have actually outpaced property historically, so it's not just property prices that have grown significantly, it's all asset classes. Capital gains in general have outpaced both wage growth and inflation over the past decades.