It's a phenomenon world over, a very direct consequence of wealth inequality which is increasing at similar rates everywhere. Even in the best countries, the top 10% holds 50% of wealth. The remaining 90% is completely priced out as the wealthy compete with each other raising prices up.
It's a marked failure of democracy that the 90% continue to get a raw deal for themselves and cannot manage to rally together and secure their interests. Shelter is probably the highest expense item for anyone. Reducing that would ease financial pressure immensely and uplift quality of life like no other single thing can. You would think it should be obvious that people make this their top priority and use their collective voting power to limit property ownership. But there is not a single example in any democracy where people have managed to do this.
skybrian · 4h ago
Apparently 67% of Australians own their own homes [1], which suggests that it’s not just the top 10% driving prices up?
Most people own a home for living and purchase it maybe once in their life time. It's the wealthy that engage in speculation and use real estate as an investment vehicle. This kind of behaviour creates an artificial demand for the resource raising its value.
The 67% ownership is also the figure that stands today as a result of purchases going back many decades during better times. As the report shows, ownership has been reducing successively with each generation even as the dependency on mortgage has been increasing. The ease, if not ability, of owning a home is definitely going down.
tmnvix · 3h ago
Not quite. 67% of households are owner-occupied.
This means adult children living with parents are counted in the 67%. Also flatmates and boarders, elderly parents, etc. Obviously children are not home owners as well.
A lot less than 67% of Australians own their home.
skybrian · 3h ago
Oops, thanks for clarifying.
GianFabien · 5h ago
Democracy is a mirage. The industry groups and lobbyists own the politicians.
Persons who strive to work their way up within the political parties are driven by hubris and greed. Pure ideology gets you nowhere. Being a good party operative, aka selling your soul to the devils, is the road paved with gold to a seat.
omnee · 4h ago
This is the outcome of neoliberalism taken to its logical extreme, where capitals interests are prioritised over everything else.
Technology was expected by some to empower the citizens, enabling them to counteract negative outcomes - but in fact has allowed the powerful to shape opinions and politics to their perspective even more easily.
ggm · 6h ago
A rare instance of NOT betteridges law: it is.
We need Logan's run to fix this. By the time the great boomer wealth transfer happens, it will be too late. I don't see an Australian political party willing to sacrifice the rich superannuation generation for future good, unfortunately.
I confidently predict Keith Richards will still be alive in 2070 when housing prices stabilise at the proper low point.
(I am a boomer, and I just cleared my mortgage last week)
gsf_emergency_2 · 6h ago
How popular is Niall "Safe-as-Houses" Ferguson's thoughts on "property rights" these days
(He had a very public spat over austerity with Krugman last decade which seems prudent to revisit now)
ggm · 6h ago
The problem with Ferguson's views is how contentious Ferguson is himself. I don't think you can confidently argue for them, without having to deal with the personality espousing them. He is not wildly popular with the left, somewhat oddly given Eric Hobsbawm was at least luke warm to his historicity.
I don't feel confident I could argue one way or the other.
gsf_emergency_2 · 6h ago
From above link:
But now what we see is the rule of lawyers, which is something different. It’s surely no coincidence that more than a third of Senators are lawyers, and a quarter of members of the House of Representatives. But how is the system to be reformed if, as I’ve argued in these lectures, there’s so much that is rotten within it: in the legislature, in the regulatory agencies, in the legal system itself?
The answer, as I shall argue in my final Reith lecture, is that reform – whether in the English speaking world or the Chinese speaking – must come from outside the realm of public institutions. It must come from the associations of civil society. It must come, in short, from us: the citizens.
Sounds leftist enough. Which civil association can do the job in Australia,you think?
It's a marked failure of democracy that the 90% continue to get a raw deal for themselves and cannot manage to rally together and secure their interests. Shelter is probably the highest expense item for anyone. Reducing that would ease financial pressure immensely and uplift quality of life like no other single thing can. You would think it should be obvious that people make this their top priority and use their collective voting power to limit property ownership. But there is not a single example in any democracy where people have managed to do this.
[1] https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/home-owne...
The 67% ownership is also the figure that stands today as a result of purchases going back many decades during better times. As the report shows, ownership has been reducing successively with each generation even as the dependency on mortgage has been increasing. The ease, if not ability, of owning a home is definitely going down.
This means adult children living with parents are counted in the 67%. Also flatmates and boarders, elderly parents, etc. Obviously children are not home owners as well.
A lot less than 67% of Australians own their home.
Persons who strive to work their way up within the political parties are driven by hubris and greed. Pure ideology gets you nowhere. Being a good party operative, aka selling your soul to the devils, is the road paved with gold to a seat.
Technology was expected by some to empower the citizens, enabling them to counteract negative outcomes - but in fact has allowed the powerful to shape opinions and politics to their perspective even more easily.
We need Logan's run to fix this. By the time the great boomer wealth transfer happens, it will be too late. I don't see an Australian political party willing to sacrifice the rich superannuation generation for future good, unfortunately.
I confidently predict Keith Richards will still be alive in 2070 when housing prices stabilise at the proper low point.
(I am a boomer, and I just cleared my mortgage last week)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/2wGL4ypn7C8N54r9fl...
(He had a very public spat over austerity with Krugman last decade which seems prudent to revisit now)
I don't feel confident I could argue one way or the other.
But now what we see is the rule of lawyers, which is something different. It’s surely no coincidence that more than a third of Senators are lawyers, and a quarter of members of the House of Representatives. But how is the system to be reformed if, as I’ve argued in these lectures, there’s so much that is rotten within it: in the legislature, in the regulatory agencies, in the legal system itself?
The answer, as I shall argue in my final Reith lecture, is that reform – whether in the English speaking world or the Chinese speaking – must come from outside the realm of public institutions. It must come from the associations of civil society. It must come, in short, from us: the citizens.
Sounds leftist enough. Which civil association can do the job in Australia,you think?