Laura Tingle on Paul Keating.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-18/paul-keating-savage-mouth-aukus-questions-china-defence-slipping/102113150

buffy said:

Laura Tingle on Paul Keating.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-18/paul-keating-savage-mouth-aukus-questions-china-defence-slipping/102113150

Ooh, and Insiders tomorrow:

“David Speers and the panel Laura Tingle, Peter Hartcher and Greg Sheridan discuss the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines deal, the response from China and Paul Keating plus productivity, power prices and possible gas shortages.”

This is the second March one you’ve started.

Peak Warming Man said:

This is the second March one you’ve started.

early onset alzheimers?

Peak Warming Man said:

This is the second March one you’ve started.

So it is!

buffy said:

buffy said:

Laura Tingle on Paul Keating.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-18/paul-keating-savage-mouth-aukus-questions-china-defence-slipping/102113150

Ooh, and Insiders tomorrow:

“David Speers and the panel Laura Tingle, Peter Hartcher and Greg Sheridan discuss the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines deal, the response from China and Paul Keating plus productivity, power prices and possible gas shortages.”

the sub deal is a ‘unifying investment’ you might say, so the anglo countries can keep speaking English and have the language flourish around the world, with all the ideas of liberty that help a lot of people speak in US-dollarese, helps steer preferential investment, with preferred partners

the view is that china has done exceedingly well from global capitalism, free trade, but hasn’t diluted or distributed its power through democracy, democracy being as it is a power limiting device, hopefully reduces abuses of power

meanwhile there is some decay in the more liberal countries, wealth disparity and worse

transition said:

buffy said:

buffy said:

Laura Tingle on Paul Keating.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-18/paul-keating-savage-mouth-aukus-questions-china-defence-slipping/102113150

Ooh, and Insiders tomorrow:

“David Speers and the panel Laura Tingle, Peter Hartcher and Greg Sheridan discuss the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines deal, the response from China and Paul Keating plus productivity, power prices and possible gas shortages.”

the sub deal is a ‘unifying investment’ you might say, so the anglo countries can keep speaking English and have the language flourish around the world, with all the ideas of liberty that help a lot of people speak in US-dollarese, helps steer preferential investment, with preferred partners

the view is that china has done exceedingly well from global capitalism, free trade, but hasn’t diluted or distributed its power through democracy, democracy being as it is a power limiting device, hopefully reduces abuses of power

meanwhile there is some decay in the more liberal countries, wealth disparity and worse

There’s something worse than wealth disparity?

Wealth disparity is a major issue in China.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

buffy said:

Ooh, and Insiders tomorrow:

“David Speers and the panel Laura Tingle, Peter Hartcher and Greg Sheridan discuss the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines deal, the response from China and Paul Keating plus productivity, power prices and possible gas shortages.”

the sub deal is a ‘unifying investment’ you might say, so the anglo countries can keep speaking English and have the language flourish around the world, with all the ideas of liberty that help a lot of people speak in US-dollarese, helps steer preferential investment, with preferred partners

the view is that china has done exceedingly well from global capitalism, free trade, but hasn’t diluted or distributed its power through democracy, democracy being as it is a power limiting device, hopefully reduces abuses of power

meanwhile there is some decay in the more liberal countries, wealth disparity and worse

There’s something worse than wealth disparity?

I don’t think wealth disparity per se matters all that much so long as the poorest in society have enough to live a reasonable lifestyle: food security, secure accommodation, access to education and recreational activities for their kids etc. It becomes a problem when large chunks of the population fall into extreme poverty and can’t afford the basics in life.

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

transition said:

the sub deal is a ‘unifying investment’ you might say, so the anglo countries can keep speaking English and have the language flourish around the world, with all the ideas of liberty that help a lot of people speak in US-dollarese, helps steer preferential investment, with preferred partners

the view is that china has done exceedingly well from global capitalism, free trade, but hasn’t diluted or distributed its power through democracy, democracy being as it is a power limiting device, hopefully reduces abuses of power

meanwhile there is some decay in the more liberal countries, wealth disparity and worse

There’s something worse than wealth disparity?

I don’t think wealth disparity per se matters all that much so long as the poorest in society have enough to live a reasonable lifestyle: food security, secure accommodation, access to education and recreational activities for their kids etc. It becomes a problem when large chunks of the population fall into extreme poverty and can’t afford the basics in life.

The rich get richer while the poor get poorer.

dv said:

Wealth disparity is a major issue in China.

Also rabbits, too many rabbits.

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

Wealth disparity is a major issue in China.

Also rabbits, too many rabbits.

They had to build a wall to keep them out.

roughbarked said:

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

Wealth disparity is a major issue in China.

Also rabbits, too many rabbits.

They had to build a wall to keep them out.

Did Mexico pay?

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Also rabbits, too many rabbits.

They had to build a wall to keep them out.

Did Mexico pay?

No. The cheapskates.

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

Wealth disparity is a major issue in China.

Also rabbits, too many rabbits.

and in wales it’s rarebits but they are indigenous so that’s ok.

Peak Warming Man said:

This is the second March one you’ve started.

I thought that, but then when I used DV’s Index, it only brought up the February one as the latest.

buffy said:

Peak Warming Man said:

This is the second March one you’ve started.

I thought that, but then when I used DV’s Index, it only brought up the February one as the latest.

shakes fist at DV

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

There’s something worse than wealth disparity?

I don’t think wealth disparity per se matters all that much so long as the poorest in society have enough to live a reasonable lifestyle: food security, secure accommodation, access to education and recreational activities for their kids etc. It becomes a problem when large chunks of the population fall into extreme poverty and can’t afford the basics in life.

The rich get richer while the poor get poorer.

government needs collect adequate tax to provide services, to equalize the playing field, how does government do that as the debt monsters create debt instability and inflation

you can have wealth disparity, but the trajectory is important, more important

apparently the debt monsters have a global dimension, not a few have enjoyed the force being beyond paupers, in fact the paupers have been seduced, and what a surprise money is making many of them poor, and there are even poorer dogs to kick be sure

buffy said:

Peak Warming Man said:

This is the second March one you’ve started.

I thought that, but then when I used DV’s Index, it only brought up the February one as the latest.

Isn’t DV’s Index a month behind?

The March thread will appear when the Index is updated at the end of March.

Peak Warming Man said:

buffy said:

Peak Warming Man said:

This is the second March one you’ve started.

I thought that, but then when I used DV’s Index, it only brought up the February one as the latest.

shakes fist at DV

He hasn’t done an update for March until March ends.

AussieDJ said:

buffy said:

Peak Warming Man said:

This is the second March one you’ve started.

I thought that, but then when I used DV’s Index, it only brought up the February one as the latest.

Isn’t DV’s Index a month behind?

The March thread will appear when the Index is updated at the end of March.

You beat me by that much.

roughbarked said:

Peak Warming Man said:

This is the second March one you’ve started.

early onset alzheimers?

Alzheimers dementia as a name was originally only used for early onset dementia, generally beginning in your 50s. Because I learnt it that way, I still have trouble calling senile dementia “Alzheimers” dementia. And it’s probable I will have dementia at some point. Mum did. Her brother has it. Nanna (their mother) had it a bit too. I could try and say I have been physically fitter than Mum or Nanna through my life, but that doesn’t work for Uncle George. He was a footy umpire for many years, so very fit.

roughbarked said:

AussieDJ said:

buffy said:

I thought that, but then when I used DV’s Index, it only brought up the February one as the latest.

Isn’t DV’s Index a month behind?

The March thread will appear when the Index is updated at the end of March.

You beat me by that much.

40 seconds!

:)

AussieDJ said:

buffy said:

Peak Warming Man said:

This is the second March one you’ve started.

I thought that, but then when I used DV’s Index, it only brought up the February one as the latest.

Isn’t DV’s Index a month behind?

The March thread will appear when the Index is updated at the end of March.

I hadn’t noticed that. I don’t bookmark my threads. Well, mostly I don’t bother. I have marked a couple of them.

Paul Keating reckons Joe Biden is gaga.

transition said:

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

I don’t think wealth disparity per se matters all that much so long as the poorest in society have enough to live a reasonable lifestyle: food security, secure accommodation, access to education and recreational activities for their kids etc. It becomes a problem when large chunks of the population fall into extreme poverty and can’t afford the basics in life.

The rich get richer while the poor get poorer.

government needs collect adequate tax to provide services, to equalize the playing field, how does government do that as the debt monsters create debt instability and inflation

you can have wealth disparity, but the trajectory is important, more important

apparently the debt monsters have a global dimension, not a few have enjoyed the force being beyond paupers, in fact the paupers have been seduced, and what a surprise money is making many of them poor, and there are even poorer dogs to kick be sure

Yes. There needs to be a minimum floor level of wealth for the poorest in society. As long as that is being reached, then the rich can do as they please. Having rich people is not really the problem, the problem is having people stuck in overty.

Peak Warming Man said:

Paul Keating reckons Joe Biden is gaga.

There’s a fair number that reckon Paul Keating is gaga and that he’s no lady.

party_pants said:

transition said:

roughbarked said:

The rich get richer while the poor get poorer.

government needs collect adequate tax to provide services, to equalize the playing field, how does government do that as the debt monsters create debt instability and inflation

you can have wealth disparity, but the trajectory is important, more important

apparently the debt monsters have a global dimension, not a few have enjoyed the force being beyond paupers, in fact the paupers have been seduced, and what a surprise money is making many of them poor, and there are even poorer dogs to kick be sure

Yes. There needs to be a minimum floor level of wealth for the poorest in society. As long as that is being reached, then the rich can do as they please. Having rich people is not really the problem, the problem is having people stuck in overty.

If only the rich people would pay tax, there’d be no problem. It would also help if they didn’t prefer slaves.

Peak Warming Man said:

Paul Keating reckons Joe Biden is gaga.

Meh, it is no longer necessary for US presidents to be good orators.

roughbarked said:

Peak Warming Man said:

buffy said:

I thought that, but then when I used DV’s Index, it only brought up the February one as the latest.

shakes fist at DV

He hasn’t done an update for March until March ends.

we blame the lockdowns and masks

buffy said:

AussieDJ said:

buffy said:

I thought that, but then when I used DV’s Index, it only brought up the February one as the latest.

Isn’t DV’s Index a month behind?

The March thread will appear when the Index is updated at the end of March.

I hadn’t noticed that. I don’t bookmark my threads. Well, mostly I don’t bother. I have marked a couple of them.

You would have had to scroll back a fair way to find posts in the previous ‘Australian Politics March 2023’ thread today.

AussieDJ said:

buffy said:

AussieDJ said:

Isn’t DV’s Index a month behind?

The March thread will appear when the Index is updated at the end of March.

I hadn’t noticed that. I don’t bookmark my threads. Well, mostly I don’t bother. I have marked a couple of them.

You would have had to scroll back a fair way to find posts in the previous ‘Australian Politics March 2023’ thread today.

or literally 2 pages of topics only

AussieDJ said:

buffy said:

AussieDJ said:

Isn’t DV’s Index a month behind?

The March thread will appear when the Index is updated at the end of March.

I hadn’t noticed that. I don’t bookmark my threads. Well, mostly I don’t bother. I have marked a couple of them.

You would have had to scroll back a fair way to find posts in the previous ‘Australian Politics March 2023’ thread today.

It is on the second page of view by topic…

furious said:

AussieDJ said:

buffy said:

I hadn’t noticed that. I don’t bookmark my threads. Well, mostly I don’t bother. I have marked a couple of them.

You would have had to scroll back a fair way to find posts in the previous ‘Australian Politics March 2023’ thread today.

It is on the second page of view by topic…

Pfft…who uses View by Topic when there is an Index?! But now I know the latest won’t be there, I can do that.

AussieDJ said:

buffy said:

AussieDJ said:

Isn’t DV’s Index a month behind?

The March thread will appear when the Index is updated at the end of March.

I hadn’t noticed that. I don’t bookmark my threads. Well, mostly I don’t bother. I have marked a couple of them.

You would have had to scroll back a fair way to find posts in the previous ‘Australian Politics March 2023’ thread today.

You don’t have to scroll far at all. http://dazvoz.com/Holiday-Forum-List-04R.html

Yes well apart from The Index what has DV ever done four us Reg.

Peak Warming Man said:

Yes well apart from The Index what has DV ever done four us Reg.

Data dumps.

Sunshine Coast pensioner Suellyne Faux-Lott was paying $350 a week for her Maroochydore unit before being forced out after new owners hiked up the rent to $595 a week — an increase of 70 per cent.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-18/rental-crisis-queensland-increase-cap-call/102105410
—-

Something has to be done. Or there’s gonna be a lot more people living in cars and tents.

Peak Warming Man said:

Yes well apart from The Index what has DV ever done four us Reg.

Brought peace?

I’ve seen DV eunt domus in some posts, hope it doesn’t become a movement.

Peak Warming Man said:

Yes well apart from The Index what has DV ever done four us Reg.

Oi! Reg was my grandfather…

buffy said:

Peak Warming Man said:

This is the second March one you’ve started.

I thought that, but then when I used DV’s Index, it only brought up the February one as the latest.

dv’s index is only updated monthly.

furious said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Yes well apart from The Index what has DV ever done four us Reg.

Brought peace?

lol

Michael V said:

buffy said:

Peak Warming Man said:

This is the second March one you’ve started.

I thought that, but then when I used DV’s Index, it only brought up the February one as the latest.

dv’s index is only updated monthly.

I’d dispute that. Buffy’s 1st of March thread is there. http://dazvoz.com/Holiday-Forum-List-04R.html

Peak Warming Man said:

furious said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Yes well apart from The Index what has DV ever done four us Reg.

Brought peace?

lol

He tells us all that he loves us like a brother, before he goes on to tell us that he doesn’t.

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

buffy said:

I thought that, but then when I used DV’s Index, it only brought up the February one as the latest.

dv’s index is only updated monthly.

I’d dispute that. Buffy’s 1st of March thread is there. http://dazvoz.com/Holiday-Forum-List-04R.html

Third from the top.

sarahs mum said:

Sunshine Coast pensioner Suellyne Faux-Lott was paying $350 a week for her Maroochydore unit before being forced out after new owners hiked up the rent to $595 a week — an increase of 70 per cent.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-18/rental-crisis-queensland-increase-cap-call/102105410
—-

Something has to be done. Or there’s gonna be a lot more people living in cars and tents.

What would you do?

Michael V said:

sarahs mum said:

Sunshine Coast pensioner Suellyne Faux-Lott was paying $350 a week for her Maroochydore unit before being forced out after new owners hiked up the rent to $595 a week — an increase of 70 per cent.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-18/rental-crisis-queensland-increase-cap-call/102105410
—-

Something has to be done. Or there’s gonna be a lot more people living in cars and tents.

What would you do?

Buy a kombi.

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

buffy said:

I thought that, but then when I used DV’s Index, it only brought up the February one as the latest.

dv’s index is only updated monthly.

I’d dispute that. Buffy’s 1st of March thread is there. http://dazvoz.com/Holiday-Forum-List-04R.html

Chat thread, not Aussie Politics thread.

Michael V said:

sarahs mum said:

Sunshine Coast pensioner Suellyne Faux-Lott was paying $350 a week for her Maroochydore unit before being forced out after new owners hiked up the rent to $595 a week — an increase of 70 per cent.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-18/rental-crisis-queensland-increase-cap-call/102105410
—-

Something has to be done. Or there’s gonna be a lot more people living in cars and tents.

What would you do?

I might raise rent allowance. Although it’s going to have to be a big hike to make any difference.

It does seem that putting up interest rates to curb inflation is not all desirable outcomes.

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

sarahs mum said:

Sunshine Coast pensioner Suellyne Faux-Lott was paying $350 a week for her Maroochydore unit before being forced out after new owners hiked up the rent to $595 a week — an increase of 70 per cent.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-18/rental-crisis-queensland-increase-cap-call/102105410
—-

Something has to be done. Or there’s gonna be a lot more people living in cars and tents.

What would you do?

Buy a kombi.

Not cheap these days but if you have to live in a car…

Michael V said:

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

dv’s index is only updated monthly.

I’d dispute that. Buffy’s 1st of March thread is there. http://dazvoz.com/Holiday-Forum-List-04R.html

Chat thread, not Aussie Politics thread.

duh. That was silly of me.

sarahs mum said:

Michael V said:

sarahs mum said:

Sunshine Coast pensioner Suellyne Faux-Lott was paying $350 a week for her Maroochydore unit before being forced out after new owners hiked up the rent to $595 a week — an increase of 70 per cent.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-18/rental-crisis-queensland-increase-cap-call/102105410
—-

Something has to be done. Or there’s gonna be a lot more people living in cars and tents.

What would you do?

I might raise rent allowance. Although it’s going to have to be a big hike to make any difference.

It does seem that putting up interest rates to curb inflation is not all desirable outcomes.

I think the idea of taxing the rich eauitably would completely solve the issue.

roughbarked said:

sarahs mum said:

Michael V said:

What would you do?

I might raise rent allowance. Although it’s going to have to be a big hike to make any difference.

It does seem that putting up interest rates to curb inflation is not all desirable outcomes.

I think the idea of taxing the rich eauitably would completely solve the issue.

equitably

Michael V said:

sarahs mum said:

Sunshine Coast pensioner Suellyne Faux-Lott was paying $350 a week for her Maroochydore unit before being forced out after new owners hiked up the rent to $595 a week — an increase of 70 per cent.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-18/rental-crisis-queensland-increase-cap-call/102105410
—-

Something has to be done. Or there’s gonna be a lot more people living in cars and tents.

What would you do?

In the ACT, landlords have to calculate changes in the CPI between rental leases, and can then add up to 10 per cent of that number to come up with a “prescribed amount”.

It adds up to an average rental increase of about 6 per cent at the moment.

sarahs mum said:

Michael V said:

sarahs mum said:

Sunshine Coast pensioner Suellyne Faux-Lott was paying $350 a week for her Maroochydore unit before being forced out after new owners hiked up the rent to $595 a week — an increase of 70 per cent.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-18/rental-crisis-queensland-increase-cap-call/102105410
—-

Something has to be done. Or there’s gonna be a lot more people living in cars and tents.

What would you do?

I might raise rent allowance. Although it’s going to have to be a big hike to make any difference.

It does seem that putting up interest rates to curb inflation is not all desirable outcomes.

If investors renting out properties are faced with higher interest rates it does not necessarily mean they can hike rents. There needs to be a shortage of supply relative to demand in the first place.

buffy said:

Peak Warming Man said:

This is the second March one you’ve started.

I thought that, but then when I used DV’s Index, it only brought up the February one as the latest.

Yeah I typically only update it once a month but I’m happy to take the culps on this one.

dv said:

buffy said:

Peak Warming Man said:

This is the second March one you’ve started.

I thought that, but then when I used DV’s Index, it only brought up the February one as the latest.

Yeah I typically only update it once a month but I’m happy to take the culps on this one.

Hari-kari?

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

sarahs mum said:

I might raise rent allowance. Although it’s going to have to be a big hike to make any difference.

It does seem that putting up interest rates to curb inflation is not all desirable outcomes.

I think the idea of taxing the rich eauitably would completely solve the issue.

equitably

communist

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

I think the idea of taxing the rich eauitably would completely solve the issue.

equitably

communist

Haven’t got enough moolah to be a capitalist.

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

buffy said:

I thought that, but then when I used DV’s Index, it only brought up the February one as the latest.

Yeah I typically only update it once a month but I’m happy to take the culps on this one.

Hari-kari?

切腹these damn外人

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05cEM-sU5qk

sarahs mum said:

Michael V said:

sarahs mum said:

Sunshine Coast pensioner Suellyne Faux-Lott was paying $350 a week for her Maroochydore unit before being forced out after new owners hiked up the rent to $595 a week — an increase of 70 per cent.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-18/rental-crisis-queensland-increase-cap-call/102105410
—-

Something has to be done. Or there’s gonna be a lot more people living in cars and tents.

What would you do?

I might raise rent allowance. Although it’s going to have to be a big hike to make any difference.

It does seem that putting up interest rates to curb inflation is not all desirable outcomes.

I think it’s difficult. I cannot see a sensible solution.

sarahs mum said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05cEM-sU5qk

I hope the shit house is outside the skip house.

sarahs mum said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05cEM-sU5qk

we used to dream of living in a skip.

roughbarked said:

sarahs mum said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05cEM-sU5qk

I hope the shit house is outside the skip house.

portaloo.

The whole thing is more an art project than a real thing.

The Rev Dodgson said:

sarahs mum said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05cEM-sU5qk

we used to dream of living in a skip.

The shoebox in a hole in the road was getting overcrowded?

The Rev Dodgson said:

sarahs mum said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05cEM-sU5qk

we used to dream of living in a skip.

aye.

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

roughbarked said:

I’d dispute that. Buffy’s 1st of March thread is there. http://dazvoz.com/Holiday-Forum-List-04R.html

Chat thread, not Aussie Politics thread.

duh. That was silly of me.

:)

Michael V said:

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

Chat thread, not Aussie Politics thread.

duh. That was silly of me.

:)

it is National Dementia Day today.

JudgeMental said:

Michael V said:

roughbarked said:

duh. That was silly of me.

:)

it is National Dementia Day today.

Apparently so.

JudgeMental said:

Michael V said:

roughbarked said:

duh. That was silly of me.

:)

it is National Dementia Day today.

Woohoo

sarahs mum said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05cEM-sU5qk

:)

JudgeMental said:

Michael V said:

roughbarked said:

duh. That was silly of me.

:)

it is National Dementia Day today.

Woohoo

In my defence though I made that page so that people could look through the dusty archives… the first Australian Politics March 2023 thread is like two pages down in the VBTopic.

Peak Warming Man said:

Paul Keating reckons Joe Biden is gaga.

Sounds like a bad romance

dv said:

In my defence though I made that page so that people could look through the dusty archives… the first Australian Politics March 2023 thread is like two pages down in the VBTopic.

That my friend, has already been said. ;) Good forum member furious, mentioned it a way back in the Aust.Politics March 2023 thread.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Paul Keating reckons Joe Biden is gaga.

Sounds like a bad romance

Oh dear…

JudgeMental said:

Michael V said:

roughbarked said:

duh. That was silly of me.

:)

it is National Dementia Day today.

Woohoo.

Peak Warming Man said:

JudgeMental said:

Michael V said:

:)

it is National Dementia Day today.

Woohoo.

You don’t recall just saying that?

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Paul Keating reckons Joe Biden is gaga.

Sounds like a bad romance

or a rad bromance.

Peak Warming Man said:

JudgeMental said:

Michael V said:

:)

it is National Dementia Day today.

Woohoo.

:)

Love your work.

:)

roughbarked said:

dv said:

In my defence though I made that page so that people could look through the dusty archives… the first Australian Politics March 2023 thread is like two pages down in the VBTopic.

That my friend, has already been said. ;) Good forum member furious, mentioned it a way back in the Aust.Politics March 2023 thread.

Yeah I’m not a completist.

dv said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

In my defence though I made that page so that people could look through the dusty archives… the first Australian Politics March 2023 thread is like two pages down in the VBTopic.

That my friend, has already been said. ;) Good forum member furious, mentioned it a way back in the Aust.Politics March 2023 thread.

Yeah I’m not a completist.

incompletent

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

roughbarked said:

That my friend, has already been said. ;) Good forum member furious, mentioned it a way back in the Aust.Politics March 2023 thread.

Yeah I’m not a completist.

incompletent

Registers were found to be incomplete (NT: 19% incomplete)

dv said:

In my defence though I made that page so that people could look through the dusty archives… the first Australian Politics March 2023 thread is like two pages down in the VBTopic.

It’s alright…if I can’t be bothered bookmarking threads I start, that’s my problem not yours.

buffy said:

dv said:

In my defence though I made that page so that people could look through the dusty archives… the first Australian Politics March 2023 thread is like two pages down in the VBTopic.

It’s alright…if I can’t be bothered bookmarking threads I start, that’s my problem not yours.

I have the same problem. So you aren’t the lone stranger.
Though the ones I did bookmark, do save me so much time. Apart from the fact that they are dated. Which is probably why Bubblecar often posts from December in some decade past.

Let’s compromise. I’ll continue to update the big threadlist once a month but I’ll update the top links whenever a new thread in those categories is started.

dv said:

Let’s compromise. I’ll continue to update the big threadlist once a month but I’ll update the top links whenever a new thread in those categories is started.

i promise not to start the Late March Australian Politics thread.

dv said:

Let’s compromise. I’ll continue to update the big threadlist once a month but I’ll update the top links whenever a new thread in those categories is started.

Like I know you love us all like a brother(except for those whom may be sisters or something else) but like don’t go out of your way for us man.

dv said:

Let’s compromise. I’ll continue to update the big threadlist once a month but I’ll update the top links whenever a new thread in those categories is started.

we are not worthy.

sarahs mum said:

dv said:

Let’s compromise. I’ll continue to update the big threadlist once a month but I’ll update the top links whenever a new thread in those categories is started.

i promise not to start the Late March Australian Politics thread.

Well at least it is too late for the Ides of March Politics thread.

roughbarked said:

buffy said:

dv said:

In my defence though I made that page so that people could look through the dusty archives… the first Australian Politics March 2023 thread is like two pages down in the VBTopic.

It’s alright…if I can’t be bothered bookmarking threads I start, that’s my problem not yours.

I have the same problem. So you aren’t the lone stranger.
Though the ones I did bookmark, do save me so much time. Apart from the fact that they are dated. Which is probably why Bubblecar often posts from December in some decade past.

I should have bookmarked the Wordle thread so I don’t have to wait until someone else posts their day’s result.

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

buffy said:

It’s alright…if I can’t be bothered bookmarking threads I start, that’s my problem not yours.

I have the same problem. So you aren’t the lone stranger.
Though the ones I did bookmark, do save me so much time. Apart from the fact that they are dated. Which is probably why Bubblecar often posts from December in some decade past.

I should have bookmarked the Wordle thread so I don’t have to wait until someone else posts their day’s result.

it’s in DV’s list.

but i used to wait for Sibeen to post out of sheer laziness. and now he is gone.

roughbarked said:

sarahs mum said:

dv said:

Let’s compromise. I’ll continue to update the big threadlist once a month but I’ll update the top links whenever a new thread in those categories is started.

i promise not to start the Late March Australian Politics thread.

Well at least it is too late for the Ides of March Politics thread.

Long March Politics thread

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

buffy said:

It’s alright…if I can’t be bothered bookmarking threads I start, that’s my problem not yours.

I have the same problem. So you aren’t the lone stranger.
Though the ones I did bookmark, do save me so much time. Apart from the fact that they are dated. Which is probably why Bubblecar often posts from December in some decade past.

I should have bookmarked the Wordle thread so I don’t have to wait until someone else posts their day’s result.

ha!

JudgeMental said:

Michael V said:

roughbarked said:

duh. That was silly of me.

:)

it is National Dementia Day today.

Woohoo

Peak Warming Man said:

JudgeMental said:

Michael V said:

:)

it is National Dementia Day today.

Woohoo

Waves.

All a bit dodgy. NSW Minister for Agriculture.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-18/dubbo-council-nationals-party-take-down-dugald-saunders-sign/102097606

Michael V said:

All a bit dodgy. NSW Minister for Agriculture.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-18/dubbo-council-nationals-party-take-down-dugald-saunders-sign/102097606

and I want to go around and write across them, “STOP NAILING YOUR SHITTY PICTURE TO TREES”. What did the trees ever do to you other than stand in your way?

sarahs mum said:

Sunshine Coast pensioner Suellyne Faux-Lott was paying $350 a week for her Maroochydore unit before being forced out after new owners hiked up the rent to $595 a week — an increase of 70 per cent.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-18/rental-crisis-queensland-increase-cap-call/102105410
—-

Something has to be done. Or there’s gonna be a lot more people living in cars and tents.

It would be a start if they stopped bringing immigrants into the Country as if they were a rare species.

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

Sunshine Coast pensioner Suellyne Faux-Lott was paying $350 a week for her Maroochydore unit before being forced out after new owners hiked up the rent to $595 a week — an increase of 70 per cent.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-18/rental-crisis-queensland-increase-cap-call/102105410
—-

Something has to be done. Or there’s gonna be a lot more people living in cars and tents.

It would be a start if they stopped bringing immigrants into the Country as if they were a rare species.

i’m not sure that is the problem. I think that might be putting the blame in the wrong place. tassie isn’t getting a lot of those migrants but we have the rental problems bad. And like other places we have a lot of empty houses.

sarahs mum said:

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

Sunshine Coast pensioner Suellyne Faux-Lott was paying $350 a week for her Maroochydore unit before being forced out after new owners hiked up the rent to $595 a week — an increase of 70 per cent.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-18/rental-crisis-queensland-increase-cap-call/102105410
—-

Something has to be done. Or there’s gonna be a lot more people living in cars and tents.

It would be a start if they stopped bringing immigrants into the Country as if they were a rare species.

i’m not sure that is the problem. I think that might be putting the blame in the wrong place. tassie isn’t getting a lot of those migrants but we have the rental problems bad. And like other places we have a lot of empty houses.

What if the various States’ Housing Depts were to enquire of the owners of the empty places as to why they’re empty?

And, if they can’t demonstrate a valid reason, or show some reason as to why it shouldn’t happen, the Dept gives them six weeks in which to rent it out, or else the Dept find tenants itself, and charges a rent which the Dept thinks is fair and affordable to the tenants.

A wild idea, i know, and i’m sure that its flaws will be promptly pointed out, but, hey…

captain_spalding said:

sarahs mum said:

PermeateFree said:

It would be a start if they stopped bringing immigrants into the Country as if they were a rare species.

i’m not sure that is the problem. I think that might be putting the blame in the wrong place. tassie isn’t getting a lot of those migrants but we have the rental problems bad. And like other places we have a lot of empty houses.

What if the various States’ Housing Depts were to enquire of the owners of the empty places as to why they’re empty?

And, if they can’t demonstrate a valid reason, or show some reason as to why it shouldn’t happen, the Dept gives them six weeks in which to rent it out, or else the Dept find tenants itself, and charges a rent which the Dept thinks is fair and affordable to the tenants.

A wild idea, i know, and i’m sure that its flaws will be promptly pointed out, but, hey…

there’s lots of options.

Change the tax system so that only people who rent out their properties at an “affordable” level get to claim all the tax benefits of owing a second home. Rents would need to fall into a prescribed price band to qualify.

captain_spalding said:

sarahs mum said:

PermeateFree said:

It would be a start if they stopped bringing immigrants into the Country as if they were a rare species.

i’m not sure that is the problem. I think that might be putting the blame in the wrong place. tassie isn’t getting a lot of those migrants but we have the rental problems bad. And like other places we have a lot of empty houses.

What if the various States’ Housing Depts were to enquire of the owners of the empty places as to why they’re empty?

And, if they can’t demonstrate a valid reason, or show some reason as to why it shouldn’t happen, the Dept gives them six weeks in which to rent it out, or else the Dept find tenants itself, and charges a rent which the Dept thinks is fair and affordable to the tenants.

A wild idea, i know, and i’m sure that its flaws will be promptly pointed out, but, hey…

In Victoria there is increased rates for consistently empty properties.

Witty Rejoinder said:

captain_spalding said:

sarahs mum said:

i’m not sure that is the problem. I think that might be putting the blame in the wrong place. tassie isn’t getting a lot of those migrants but we have the rental problems bad. And like other places we have a lot of empty houses.

What if the various States’ Housing Depts were to enquire of the owners of the empty places as to why they’re empty?

And, if they can’t demonstrate a valid reason, or show some reason as to why it shouldn’t happen, the Dept gives them six weeks in which to rent it out, or else the Dept find tenants itself, and charges a rent which the Dept thinks is fair and affordable to the tenants.

A wild idea, i know, and i’m sure that its flaws will be promptly pointed out, but, hey…

In Victoria there is increased rates for consistently empty properties.

There is lobbying for a tax on empty houses in Tas.

But there is already land tax on any non primary dwelling.

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

transition said:

government needs collect adequate tax to provide services, to equalize the playing field, how does government do that as the debt monsters create debt instability and inflation

you can have wealth disparity, but the trajectory is important, more important

apparently the debt monsters have a global dimension, not a few have enjoyed the force being beyond paupers, in fact the paupers have been seduced, and what a surprise money is making many of them poor, and there are even poorer dogs to kick be sure

Yes. There needs to be a minimum floor level of wealth for the poorest in society. As long as that is being reached, then the rich can do as they please. Having rich people is not really the problem, the problem is having people stuck in overty.

If only the rich people would pay tax, there’d be no problem. It would also help if they didn’t prefer slaves.

We need a universal basic income. Paid for by a land value tax and a GST. Tax only wealth and consumption, instead of earnings.

Witty Rejoinder said:

captain_spalding said:

sarahs mum said:

i’m not sure that is the problem. I think that might be putting the blame in the wrong place. tassie isn’t getting a lot of those migrants but we have the rental problems bad. And like other places we have a lot of empty houses.

What if the various States’ Housing Depts were to enquire of the owners of the empty places as to why they’re empty?

And, if they can’t demonstrate a valid reason, or show some reason as to why it shouldn’t happen, the Dept gives them six weeks in which to rent it out, or else the Dept find tenants itself, and charges a rent which the Dept thinks is fair and affordable to the tenants.

A wild idea, i know, and i’m sure that its flaws will be promptly pointed out, but, hey…

In Victoria there is increased rates for consistently empty properties.

Is there? I didn’t know about that. I had the house in Casterton empty of tenants for several years while I made up my mind if I was going to go there to live in retirement. I did go and stay there a couple of times a month though. That was part of the insurance requirement anyway, that it was checked on regularly.

becklefreckle said:

We need a universal basic income. Paid for by a land value tax and a GST. Tax only wealth and consumption, instead of earnings.

Why?

Higher tax rates on high incomes seems the best way to reduce inequality to me.

captain_spalding said:

sarahs mum said:

PermeateFree said:

It would be a start if they stopped bringing immigrants into the Country as if they were a rare species.

i’m not sure that is the problem. I think that might be putting the blame in the wrong place. tassie isn’t getting a lot of those migrants but we have the rental problems bad. And like other places we have a lot of empty houses.

What if the various States’ Housing Depts were to enquire of the owners of the empty places as to why they’re empty?

And, if they can’t demonstrate a valid reason, or show some reason as to why it shouldn’t happen, the Dept gives them six weeks in which to rent it out, or else the Dept find tenants itself, and charges a rent which the Dept thinks is fair and affordable to the tenants.

A wild idea, i know, and i’m sure that its flaws will be promptly pointed out, but, hey…

It’s a fair notion.

House behind us is empty for 50 weeks a year. It’s a holiday home…

party_pants said:

captain_spalding said:

sarahs mum said:

i’m not sure that is the problem. I think that might be putting the blame in the wrong place. tassie isn’t getting a lot of those migrants but we have the rental problems bad. And like other places we have a lot of empty houses.

What if the various States’ Housing Depts were to enquire of the owners of the empty places as to why they’re empty?

And, if they can’t demonstrate a valid reason, or show some reason as to why it shouldn’t happen, the Dept gives them six weeks in which to rent it out, or else the Dept find tenants itself, and charges a rent which the Dept thinks is fair and affordable to the tenants.

A wild idea, i know, and i’m sure that its flaws will be promptly pointed out, but, hey…

there’s lots of options.

Change the tax system so that only people who rent out their properties at an “affordable” level get to claim all the tax benefits of owing a second home. Rents would need to fall into a prescribed price band to qualify.

Another good idea.

Michael V said:

captain_spalding said:

sarahs mum said:

i’m not sure that is the problem. I think that might be putting the blame in the wrong place. tassie isn’t getting a lot of those migrants but we have the rental problems bad. And like other places we have a lot of empty houses.

What if the various States’ Housing Depts were to enquire of the owners of the empty places as to why they’re empty?

And, if they can’t demonstrate a valid reason, or show some reason as to why it shouldn’t happen, the Dept gives them six weeks in which to rent it out, or else the Dept find tenants itself, and charges a rent which the Dept thinks is fair and affordable to the tenants.

A wild idea, i know, and i’m sure that its flaws will be promptly pointed out, but, hey…

It’s a fair notion.

House behind us is empty for 50 weeks a year. It’s a holiday home…

And some of the tassie empty homes would be the same. some would be generational family holiday homes.

Not so much the empty houses in suburbs.

The Rev Dodgson said:

becklefreckle said:

We need a universal basic income. Paid for by a land value tax and a GST. Tax only wealth and consumption, instead of earnings.

Why?

Higher tax rates on high incomes seems the best way to reduce inequality to me.

People with high incomes will accumulate wealth and want to use it to buy property. Sorry I shouldn’t just say land value tax, tax property and stocks in general. If they spend it on stuff, then you’ve captured GST. If they don’t accumulate wealth on account of giving it to other people, then you’ve achieved your objective.

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

Sunshine Coast pensioner Suellyne Faux-Lott was paying $350 a week for her Maroochydore unit before being forced out after new owners hiked up the rent to $595 a week — an increase of 70 per cent.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-18/rental-crisis-queensland-increase-cap-call/102105410
—-

Something has to be done. Or there’s gonna be a lot more people living in cars and tents.

It would be a start if they stopped bringing immigrants into the Country as if they were a rare species.

wait did someone say national socialism

becklefreckle said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

becklefreckle said:

We need a universal basic income. Paid for by a land value tax and a GST. Tax only wealth and consumption, instead of earnings.

Why?

Higher tax rates on high incomes seems the best way to reduce inequality to me.

People with high incomes will accumulate wealth and want to use it to buy property. Sorry I shouldn’t just say land value tax, tax property and stocks in general. If they spend it on stuff, then you’ve captured GST. If they don’t accumulate wealth on account of giving it to other people, then you’ve achieved your objective.

what if they accumulate it offshore?

sarahs mum said:

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

Sunshine Coast pensioner Suellyne Faux-Lott was paying $350 a week for her Maroochydore unit before being forced out after new owners hiked up the rent to $595 a week — an increase of 70 per cent.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-18/rental-crisis-queensland-increase-cap-call/102105410
—-

Something has to be done. Or there’s gonna be a lot more people living in cars and tents.

It would be a start if they stopped bringing immigrants into the Country as if they were a rare species.

i’m not sure that is the problem. I think that might be putting the blame in the wrong place. tassie isn’t getting a lot of those migrants but we have the rental problems bad. And like other places we have a lot of empty houses.

People move around the country for various reasons. Tasmania’s climate is a big attraction, but people wishing to escape the congestion on the mainland is another. You cannot bring between 200,000 and 250,000 new people into the country and NOT expect the available housing to become exhausted. And if people do not want to rent out their holiday homes that are rarely sited where employment is available, it is rather pointless trying to make them or to think these houses could solve the problem.

party_pants said:

I don’t think wealth disparity per se matters all that much so long as the poorest in society have enough to live a reasonable lifestyle: food security, secure accommodation, access to education and recreational activities for their kids etc. It becomes a problem when large chunks of the population fall into extreme poverty and can’t afford the basics in life.

Relative wealth kinda does matter. For example the poorest in society live better than they did a thousand years ago. Does that mean jobs done, wash our hands, it’s all good?

The definition of what’s acceptable minimum quality of life changes constantly.

Peak Warming Man said:

Paul Keating reckons Joe Biden is gaga.

He’s certainly too old for the job, like most US politicians.

I suspect there’s no political solution that’s going to work in the short to medium term and it’s partly because the major parties know it is not in their current interests to address the issue. For forty years or more there’s been a program of treating housing primarily as a means to generate income without labouring rather than as fulfilling a fundamental human need. No one would tolerate a small number of individuals stockpiling all the food and fuel to keep the prices high but this is considered not just a natural market development with regard to shelter but as a good thing. There’s no housing shortage in Sydney. There is a perfectly appropriate number of residences compared to the number of people, and the rate at which they are being built is appropriate for the rate of increase in population. Rents and home ownership costs are too high for a lot of people because a small portion of the population is served by having prices high, because it generates unearned wealth for them. The solution would be to ban foreign ownership, ban financial institutions from owning residences, ban individuals from owning more than two residences: but there’s no chance that the major parties would do this because a) it would reduce the unearned income of so many upper middle class older voters and b) it would reduce the unearned income of so many individuals in government, elected or nay. I’m a bit jaded by articles and editorials treating this like some unsolvable mystery.

sarahs mum said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05cEM-sU5qk

I want to know how he gets council approval for that.

Michael V said:

sarahs mum said:

Michael V said:

What would you do?

I might raise rent allowance. Although it’s going to have to be a big hike to make any difference.

It does seem that putting up interest rates to curb inflation is not all desirable outcomes.

I think it’s difficult. I cannot see a sensible solution.

Changes the rules like Labor wanted to, so property acquisition is no longer a speculative business.

sarahs mum said:

becklefreckle said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Why?

Higher tax rates on high incomes seems the best way to reduce inequality to me.

People with high incomes will accumulate wealth and want to use it to buy property. Sorry I shouldn’t just say land value tax, tax property and stocks in general. If they spend it on stuff, then you’ve captured GST. If they don’t accumulate wealth on account of giving it to other people, then you’ve achieved your objective.

what if they accumulate it offshore?

You have uncovered the flaw. I don’t know how laws could be made to control this. But surely there’s a way?

becklefreckle said:

sarahs mum said:

becklefreckle said:

People with high incomes will accumulate wealth and want to use it to buy property. Sorry I shouldn’t just say land value tax, tax property and stocks in general. If they spend it on stuff, then you’ve captured GST. If they don’t accumulate wealth on account of giving it to other people, then you’ve achieved your objective.

what if they accumulate it offshore?

You have uncovered the flaw. I don’t know how laws could be made to control this. But surely there’s a way?

Where there’s a window there’s a way.

dv said:

I suspect there’s no political solution that’s going to work in the short to medium term and it’s partly because the major parties know it is not in their current interests to address the issue. For forty years or more there’s been a program of treating housing primarily as a means to generate income without labouring rather than as fulfilling a fundamental human need. No one would tolerate a small number of individuals stockpiling all the food and fuel to keep the prices high but this is considered not just a natural market development with regard to shelter but as a good thing. There’s no housing shortage in Sydney. There is a perfectly appropriate number of residences compared to the number of people, and the rate at which they are being built is appropriate for the rate of increase in population. Rents and home ownership costs are too high for a lot of people because a small portion of the population is served by having prices high, because it generates unearned wealth for them. The solution would be to ban foreign ownership, ban financial institutions from owning residences, ban individuals from owning more than two residences: but there’s no chance that the major parties would do this because a) it would reduce the unearned income of so many upper middle class older voters and b) it would reduce the unearned income of so many individuals in government, elected or nay. I’m a bit jaded by articles and editorials treating this like some unsolvable mystery.

also…the politicians themselves own a lot of housing. Even the green ones.

Kothos said:

sarahs mum said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05cEM-sU5qk

I want to know how he gets council approval for that.

by calling it an art installation.

dv said:

I suspect there’s no political solution that’s going to work in the short to medium term and it’s partly because the major parties know it is not in their current interests to address the issue. For forty years or more there’s been a program of treating housing primarily as a means to generate income without labouring rather than as fulfilling a fundamental human need. No one would tolerate a small number of individuals stockpiling all the food and fuel to keep the prices high but this is considered not just a natural market development with regard to shelter but as a good thing. There’s no housing shortage in Sydney. There is a perfectly appropriate number of residences compared to the number of people, and the rate at which they are being built is appropriate for the rate of increase in population. Rents and home ownership costs are too high for a lot of people because a small portion of the population is served by having prices high, because it generates unearned wealth for them. The solution would be to ban foreign ownership, ban financial institutions from owning residences, ban individuals from owning more than two residences: but there’s no chance that the major parties would do this because a) it would reduce the unearned income of so many upper middle class older voters and b) it would reduce the unearned income of so many individuals in government, elected or nay. I’m a bit jaded by articles and editorials treating this like some unsolvable mystery.

Very well summarised. I’m going to save your phrasing for future arguments.

sarahs mum said:

dv said:

I suspect there’s no political solution that’s going to work in the short to medium term and it’s partly because the major parties know it is not in their current interests to address the issue. For forty years or more there’s been a program of treating housing primarily as a means to generate income without labouring rather than as fulfilling a fundamental human need. No one would tolerate a small number of individuals stockpiling all the food and fuel to keep the prices high but this is considered not just a natural market development with regard to shelter but as a good thing. There’s no housing shortage in Sydney. There is a perfectly appropriate number of residences compared to the number of people, and the rate at which they are being built is appropriate for the rate of increase in population. Rents and home ownership costs are too high for a lot of people because a small portion of the population is served by having prices high, because it generates unearned wealth for them. The solution would be to ban foreign ownership, ban financial institutions from owning residences, ban individuals from owning more than two residences: but there’s no chance that the major parties would do this because a) it would reduce the unearned income of so many upper middle class older voters and b) it would reduce the unearned income of so many individuals in government, elected or nay. I’m a bit jaded by articles and editorials treating this like some unsolvable mystery.

also…the politicians themselves own a lot of housing. Even the green ones.

https://theconversation.com/look-where-australias-1-million-empty-homes-are-and-why-theyre-vacant-theyre-not-a-simple-solution-to-housing-need-189067

The recent release of 2021 Census data revealed a shocking “one million homes were unoccupied”.

So, why were 1,043,776 dwellings empty on census night?
In fact, we’ve got a pretty good idea of what’s going on. First, it’s not a new phenomenon. When we compare 2021 with previous censuses, a slightly smaller percentage of our private dwelling stock was classified as unoccupied – just under 10%, compared with nearly 11% at the previous census in 2016.

Since the release of the data, many journalists have pointed to this startling number of empty homes, portraying them as abandoned or left empty. There is almost certainly a much more ordinary and less startling story to tell. We suspect there are three main explanations.

A big part of the story is how the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) determines whether a dwelling is occupied or not. In short, it does its best by using a variety of methods, but, for the majority of dwellings, occupancy “is determined by the returned census form”. If a form was not returned, and the ABS had no further information, the dwelling was often deemed to be unoccupied.

This is important to our interpretation of the empty homes story. At any one time, lots of things are going on in the housing market, and most of it is a long way from abandoned or empty.

For example, 647,000 dwellings were sold in 2021. This means many thousands of dwellings were unoccupied on census night because they were up for sale or awaiting transfer.

The second and perhaps most important contributor to the empty homes story is holiday homes. Estimates vary, but we know 2 million Australians own one or more properties other than their own home. It’s estimated up to 346,581 of these properties may be listed on just one rental platform, Airbnb.

It’s part of the census design to pick a night of the year when the most Australians are at home. If you think back to Tuesday, August 10 2021, it was a Tuesday night in mid-winter, so many of Australia’s holiday homes would have been empty – and counted as unoccupied.

sarahs mum said:

also…the politicians themselves own a lot of housing. Even the green ones.

I had thought of mentioning this myself, but didn’t want to devalue the point by having it judged to be one of my boring, paranoid conspiracy ideas.

becklefreckle said:

dv said:

I suspect there’s no political solution that’s going to work in the short to medium term and it’s partly because the major parties know it is not in their current interests to address the issue. For forty years or more there’s been a program of treating housing primarily as a means to generate income without labouring rather than as fulfilling a fundamental human need. No one would tolerate a small number of individuals stockpiling all the food and fuel to keep the prices high but this is considered not just a natural market development with regard to shelter but as a good thing. There’s no housing shortage in Sydney. There is a perfectly appropriate number of residences compared to the number of people, and the rate at which they are being built is appropriate for the rate of increase in population. Rents and home ownership costs are too high for a lot of people because a small portion of the population is served by having prices high, because it generates unearned wealth for them. The solution would be to ban foreign ownership, ban financial institutions from owning residences, ban individuals from owning more than two residences: but there’s no chance that the major parties would do this because a) it would reduce the unearned income of so many upper middle class older voters and b) it would reduce the unearned income of so many individuals in government, elected or nay. I’m a bit jaded by articles and editorials treating this like some unsolvable mystery.

Very well summarised. I’m going to save your phrasing for future arguments.

If not the paragraphing.

captain_spalding said:

sarahs mum said:

also…the politicians themselves own a lot of housing. Even the green ones.

I had thought of mentioning this myself, but didn’t want to devalue the point by having it judged to be one of my boring, paranoid conspiracy ideas.

There’s nothing paranoid about that. Politicians are almost all wealthy, and benefit from getting money from wealthy donors. We can’t escape it.

becklefreckle said:

captain_spalding said:

sarahs mum said:

also…the politicians themselves own a lot of housing. Even the green ones.

I had thought of mentioning this myself, but didn’t want to devalue the point by having it judged to be one of my boring, paranoid conspiracy ideas.

There’s nothing paranoid about that. Politicians are almost all wealthy, and benefit from getting money from wealthy donors. We can’t escape it.

You could well be on the event horizon of a rabbit hole.

Peak Warming Man said:

becklefreckle said:

sarahs mum said:

what if they accumulate it offshore?

You have uncovered the flaw. I don’t know how laws could be made to control this. But surely there’s a way?

Where there’s a window there’s a way.

Are you suggesting a return of the window tax?

captain_spalding said:

sarahs mum said:

also…the politicians themselves own a lot of housing. Even the green ones.

I had thought of mentioning this myself, but didn’t want to devalue the point by having it judged to be one of my boring, paranoid conspiracy ideas.

DV mentioned it in the first place though.

Kothos said:

captain_spalding said:

sarahs mum said:

also…the politicians themselves own a lot of housing. Even the green ones.

I had thought of mentioning this myself, but didn’t want to devalue the point by having it judged to be one of my boring, paranoid conspiracy ideas.

DV mentioned it in the first place though.

Well, i didn’t want to taint the notion, so i left it alone.

captain_spalding said:

sarahs mum said:

also…the politicians themselves own a lot of housing. Even the green ones.

I had thought of mentioning this myself, but didn’t want to devalue the point by having it judged to be one of my boring, paranoid conspiracy ideas.

I mean I did allude to this at b).

dv said:

captain_spalding said:

sarahs mum said:

also…the politicians themselves own a lot of housing. Even the green ones.

I had thought of mentioning this myself, but didn’t want to devalue the point by having it judged to be one of my boring, paranoid conspiracy ideas.

I mean I did allude to this at b).

I haven’t read back that far.

This place becomes more like facebook and other tacky social media everyday.

PermeateFree said:

This place becomes more like facebook and other tacky social media everyday.

What part of the thread inspires your critique?

becklefreckle said:

PermeateFree said:

This place becomes more like facebook and other tacky social media everyday.

What part of the thread inspires your critique?

Ignore the facts or bend them to suit your ideology.

becklefreckle said:

PermeateFree said:

This place becomes more like facebook and other tacky social media everyday.

What part of the thread inspires your critique?

lack of talk about population control.

PermeateFree said:

Ignore the facts or bend them to suit your ideology.

An appropriate phrase for the Australian Politics thread, given that it’s a fundamental practice in Australian politics.

JudgeMental said:

becklefreckle said:

PermeateFree said:

This place becomes more like facebook and other tacky social media everyday.

What part of the thread inspires your critique?

lack of talk about population control.

No, the lack of talk about contrary facts presented.

captain_spalding said:

PermeateFree said:

Ignore the facts or bend them to suit your ideology.

An appropriate phrase for the Australian Politics thread, given that it’s a fundamental practice in Australian politics.

This forum has a great deal in common with a political party.

PermeateFree said:

captain_spalding said:

PermeateFree said:

Ignore the facts or bend them to suit your ideology.

An appropriate phrase for the Australian Politics thread, given that it’s a fundamental practice in Australian politics.

This forum has a great deal in common with a political party.

The Raving Monster Looney Party?

captain_spalding said:

PermeateFree said:

captain_spalding said:

An appropriate phrase for the Australian Politics thread, given that it’s a fundamental practice in Australian politics.

This forum has a great deal in common with a political party.

The Raving Monster Looney Party?

No, the importance of the ideology over everything else.

PermeateFree said:

This place becomes more like facebook and other tacky social media everyday.

Damn

The Boris Johnson Let’s Get Wasted During Lockdown Party

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

This place becomes more like facebook and other tacky social media everyday.

Damn

Thought you would be pleased with all the extra trivia.

PermeateFree said:

becklefreckle said:

PermeateFree said:

This place becomes more like facebook and other tacky social media everyday.

What part of the thread inspires your critique?

Ignore the facts or bend them to suit your ideology.

A suitably vague comment so that you may feel smug with your commentary without making any material contribution.

becklefreckle said:

PermeateFree said:

becklefreckle said:

What part of the thread inspires your critique?

Ignore the facts or bend them to suit your ideology.

A suitably vague comment so that you may feel smug with your commentary without making any material contribution.

AND just what material contribution do you EVER make?

PermeateFree said:

becklefreckle said:

PermeateFree said:

Ignore the facts or bend them to suit your ideology.

A suitably vague comment so that you may feel smug with your commentary without making any material contribution.

AND just what material contribution do you EVER make?

look, our line is shorter

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

This place becomes more like facebook and other tacky social media everyday.

Damn

Thought you would be pleased with all the extra trivia.

Well I like to think the average quality here is better.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Damn

Thought you would be pleased with all the extra trivia.

Well I like to think the average quality here is better.

Trivia you must think about! I like it, it suits you.

PermeateFree said:

captain_spalding said:

PermeateFree said:

Ignore the facts or bend them to suit your ideology.

An appropriate phrase for the Australian Politics thread, given that it’s a fundamental practice in Australian politics.

This forum has a great deal in common with a political party.

in the sense that we’re all bitterly divided and can’t agree on anything?

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Damn

Thought you would be pleased with all the extra trivia.

Well I like to think the average quality here is better.

No worries.

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

captain_spalding said:

An appropriate phrase for the Australian Politics thread, given that it’s a fundamental practice in Australian politics.

This forum has a great deal in common with a political party.

in the sense that we’re all bitterly divided and can’t agree on anything?

More the reverse.

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

captain_spalding said:

An appropriate phrase for the Australian Politics thread, given that it’s a fundamental practice in Australian politics.

This forum has a great deal in common with a political party.

in the sense that we’re all bitterly divided and can’t agree on anything?

That’s not true.

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

captain_spalding said:

An appropriate phrase for the Australian Politics thread, given that it’s a fundamental practice in Australian politics.

This forum has a great deal in common with a political party.

in the sense that we’re all bitterly divided and can’t agree on anything?

No we aren’t!

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

This forum has a great deal in common with a political party.

in the sense that we’re all bitterly divided and can’t agree on anything?

No we aren’t!

This is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says!

becklefreckle said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

in the sense that we’re all bitterly divided and can’t agree on anything?

No we aren’t!

This is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says!

no it isn’t!

becklefreckle said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

in the sense that we’re all bitterly divided and can’t agree on anything?

No we aren’t!

This is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says!

No it isn’t.

JudgeMental said:

becklefreckle said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

No we aren’t!

This is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says!

no it isn’t!

I hope this is only the five minute argument.

The Rev Dodgson said:

becklefreckle said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

No we aren’t!

This is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says!

No it isn’t.

yes it is.

The Rev Dodgson said:

becklefreckle said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

No we aren’t!

This is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says!

No it isn’t.

Oh dear.

Looks like I just agreed with someone.

I’d better retire for the evening.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

Thought you would be pleased with all the extra trivia.

Well I like to think the average quality here is better.

Trivia you must think about! I like it, it suits you.

Well I’m sure you mean that kindly

(Reading in/catching up, so apologies if this has been covered later in the day. The index doesn’t seem to have been updated)

buffy said:

dv said:

In my defence though I made that page so that people could look through the dusty archives… the first Australian Politics March 2023 thread is like two pages down in the VBTopic.

It’s alright…if I can’t be bothered bookmarking threads I start, that’s my problem not yours.

But, DV has put the shortcut to the later thread in the ‘easy to find’ part of the Index, rather than the first iteration of the thread, which was started on the 10th of March.

First Aus Politics March 2023 thread starts here

dv said:

I suspect there’s no political solution that’s going to work in the short to medium term and it’s partly because the major parties know it is not in their current interests to address the issue. For forty years or more there’s been a program of treating housing primarily as a means to generate income without labouring rather than as fulfilling a fundamental human need. No one would tolerate a small number of individuals stockpiling all the food and fuel to keep the prices high but this is considered not just a natural market development with regard to shelter but as a good thing. There’s no housing shortage in Sydney. There is a perfectly appropriate number of residences compared to the number of people, and the rate at which they are being built is appropriate for the rate of increase in population. Rents and home ownership costs are too high for a lot of people because a small portion of the population is served by having prices high, because it generates unearned wealth for them. The solution would be to ban foreign ownership, ban financial institutions from owning residences, ban individuals from owning more than two residences: but there’s no chance that the major parties would do this because a) it would reduce the unearned income of so many upper middle class older voters and b) it would reduce the unearned income of so many individuals in government, elected or nay. I’m a bit jaded by articles and editorials treating this like some unsolvable mystery.

Yeah nah.

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

I suspect there’s no political solution that’s going to work in the short to medium term and it’s partly because the major parties know it is not in their current interests to address the issue. For forty years or more there’s been a program of treating housing primarily as a means to generate income without labouring rather than as fulfilling a fundamental human need. No one would tolerate a small number of individuals stockpiling all the food and fuel to keep the prices high but this is considered not just a natural market development with regard to shelter but as a good thing. There’s no housing shortage in Sydney. There is a perfectly appropriate number of residences compared to the number of people, and the rate at which they are being built is appropriate for the rate of increase in population. Rents and home ownership costs are too high for a lot of people because a small portion of the population is served by having prices high, because it generates unearned wealth for them. The solution would be to ban foreign ownership, ban financial institutions from owning residences, ban individuals from owning more than two residences: but there’s no chance that the major parties would do this because a) it would reduce the unearned income of so many upper middle class older voters and b) it would reduce the unearned income of so many individuals in government, elected or nay. I’m a bit jaded by articles and editorials treating this like some unsolvable mystery.

Yeah nah.

Could you state your objections more eloquently?

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

I suspect there’s no political solution that’s going to work in the short to medium term and it’s partly because the major parties know it is not in their current interests to address the issue. For forty years or more there’s been a program of treating housing primarily as a means to generate income without labouring rather than as fulfilling a fundamental human need. No one would tolerate a small number of individuals stockpiling all the food and fuel to keep the prices high but this is considered not just a natural market development with regard to shelter but as a good thing. There’s no housing shortage in Sydney. There is a perfectly appropriate number of residences compared to the number of people, and the rate at which they are being built is appropriate for the rate of increase in population. Rents and home ownership costs are too high for a lot of people because a small portion of the population is served by having prices high, because it generates unearned wealth for them. The solution would be to ban foreign ownership, ban financial institutions from owning residences, ban individuals from owning more than two residences: but there’s no chance that the major parties would do this because a) it would reduce the unearned income of so many upper middle class older voters and b) it would reduce the unearned income of so many individuals in government, elected or nay. I’m a bit jaded by articles and editorials treating this like some unsolvable mystery.

Yeah nah.

Could you state your objections more eloquently?

The reason houses cost 7 times median yearly incomes nowadays compared to 3 times 30 years ago is because by and large houses are twice as big. Couple that with lending practices that now allow people to borrow so much as opposed to far more conservative ones back then and you have most of the answer to why housing is so costly. Whether wealthy investors own two rental policies or ten they are still operating in a market where every new investment property built becomes part of the rental stock which contributes to the supply of housing.

The question of why so many properties are empty when there is such high demand for housing is a complex one but the rise of Airbnb taking housing out of the market and foreign investors who can wear making a loss are IMO pertinent ones and are far more likely than some quasi-Marxist spiel about a rentier class sticking it to the man.

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Yeah nah.

Could you state your objections more eloquently?

The reason houses cost 7 times median yearly incomes nowadays compared to 3 times 30 years ago is because by and large houses are twice as big. Couple that with lending practices that now allow people to borrow so much as opposed to far more conservative ones back then and you have most of the answer to why housing is so costly. Whether wealthy investors own two rental policies or ten they are still operating in a market where every new investment property built becomes part of the rental stock which contributes to the supply of housing.

The question of why so many properties are empty when there is such high demand for housing is a complex one but the rise of Airbnb taking housing out of the market and foreign investors who can wear making a loss are IMO pertinent ones and are far more likely than some quasi-Marxist spiel about a rentier class sticking it to the man.

I’ll bookmark this for a sober and considered post tomorrow…

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Yeah nah.

Could you state your objections more eloquently?

The reason houses cost 7 times median yearly incomes nowadays compared to 3 times 30 years ago is because by and large houses are twice as big. Couple that with lending practices that now allow people to borrow so much as opposed to far more conservative ones back then and you have most of the answer to why housing is so costly. Whether wealthy investors own two rental policies or ten they are still operating in a market where every new investment property built becomes part of the rental stock which contributes to the supply of housing.

The question of why so many properties are empty when there is such high demand for housing is a complex one but the rise of Airbnb taking housing out of the market and foreign investors who can wear making a loss are IMO pertinent ones and are far more likely than some quasi-Marxist spiel about a rentier class sticking it to the man.

The airbnb thing is a big part of Hobart’s probs according to surveys done.

Witty Rejoinder said:

The reason houses cost 7 times median yearly incomes nowadays compared to 3 times 30 years ago is because by and large houses are twice as big.

No, just plain wrong. Even tiny cottages are obscene prices in Sydney. House building prices, per se, haven’t increased that much. Indeed the costs to build a house have been pretty much stable since the turn of the millennium, scarcely beating inflation.
What’s increased greatly is the price of land.

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The reason houses cost 7 times median yearly incomes nowadays compared to 3 times 30 years ago is because by and large houses are twice as big.

No, just plain wrong. Even tiny cottages are obscene prices in Sydney. House building prices, per se, haven’t increased that much. Indeed the costs to build a house have been pretty much stable since the turn of the millennium, scarcely beating inflation.
What’s increased greatly is the price of land.

Note that house sizes in Australia have been in decline for ages. In 2018 the average new house size was at a 22 year low.

Homes built in Australia last year were smaller than they have been in more than two decades, and it’s part of a broader trend in which our houses are getting smaller.

https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/finance-news/2018/11/19/australia-average-home-size-decreasing/

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The reason houses cost 7 times median yearly incomes nowadays compared to 3 times 30 years ago is because by and large houses are twice as big.

No, just plain wrong. Even tiny cottages are obscene prices in Sydney. House building prices, per se, haven’t increased that much. Indeed the costs to build a house have been pretty much stable since the turn of the millennium, scarcely beating inflation.
What’s increased greatly is the price of land.

tiny duplex cottages on tiny plots of land.

sarahs mum said:

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The reason houses cost 7 times median yearly incomes nowadays compared to 3 times 30 years ago is because by and large houses are twice as big.

No, just plain wrong. Even tiny cottages are obscene prices in Sydney. House building prices, per se, haven’t increased that much. Indeed the costs to build a house have been pretty much stable since the turn of the millennium, scarcely beating inflation.
What’s increased greatly is the price of land.

tiny duplex cottages on tiny plots of land.

A friend of mine was a home builder and his houses were around 100 square metres, today the average house size is around twice that, plus the materials and amenities are vastly better these days. This is where our standard of living has improved immeasurably and no wonder an average house price has increased so much.

AussieDJ said:

(Reading in/catching up, so apologies if this has been covered later in the day. The index doesn’t seem to have been updated)

buffy said:

dv said:

In my defence though I made that page so that people could look through the dusty archives… the first Australian Politics March 2023 thread is like two pages down in the VBTopic.

It’s alright…if I can’t be bothered bookmarking threads I start, that’s my problem not yours.

But, DV has put the shortcut to the later thread in the ‘easy to find’ part of the Index, rather than the first iteration of the thread, which was started on the 10th of March.

First Aus Politics March 2023 thread starts here

I used the link at the top of the Holiday Forum (is that what you mean by the “easy to find” part?) and it took me to the February thread. It really is no big deal.

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

dv said:

No, just plain wrong. Even tiny cottages are obscene prices in Sydney. House building prices, per se, haven’t increased that much. Indeed the costs to build a house have been pretty much stable since the turn of the millennium, scarcely beating inflation.
What’s increased greatly is the price of land.

tiny duplex cottages on tiny plots of land.

A friend of mine was a home builder and his houses were around 100 square metres, today the average house size is around twice that, plus the materials and amenities are vastly better these days. This is where our standard of living has improved immeasurably and no wonder an average house price has increased so much.

so what we’re saying is that the Free Market, like Free Speech or Free Democratic Governance is a fiction, and prices are not determined by supply and demand, but by area

dv said:

Indeed the costs to build a house have been pretty much stable since the turn of the millennium, scarcely beating inflation.

ah well lucky inflation is having a just watch this moment

ah yes

“With no criminal history, he is not a flight risk; it’s unnecessarily cruel to keep him in maximum.”

but he is a pilot so there boom argument over

LOL @ CHINA Stan

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-19/keating-wong-china-aukus-subs/102114304

shill be right mate

SCIENCE said:

determined by supply and demand, but

LOL

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/17/australia-the-second-thirstiest-country-for-bottled-water-despite-paying-the-highest-prices

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The reason houses cost 7 times median yearly incomes nowadays compared to 3 times 30 years ago is because by and large houses are twice as big.

No, just plain wrong. Even tiny cottages are obscene prices in Sydney. House building prices, per se, haven’t increased that much. Indeed the costs to build a house have been pretty much stable since the turn of the millennium, scarcely beating inflation.
What’s increased greatly is the price of land.

I’ll do some research and get back to you.

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The reason houses cost 7 times median yearly incomes nowadays compared to 3 times 30 years ago is because by and large houses are twice as big.

No, just plain wrong. Even tiny cottages are obscene prices in Sydney. House building prices, per se, haven’t increased that much. Indeed the costs to build a house have been pretty much stable since the turn of the millennium, scarcely beating inflation.
What’s increased greatly is the price of land.

I’ll do some research and get back to you.

LOL yous’re all barking mad, all of yous’re wrong

Over the last 20 years, the cost of building a new house has increased nearly fourfold. The increase can be partly explained by a 32.7% increase in the average size of new houses.

The average size of a new house has increased since 1987-88 but at a slower rate than the cost of building a new house.

https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/8752.0Feature+Article1Dec%202008

The cost of building has been pretty stable since the turn of the millennium? Bullshit. With covid and associated supply issues, building materials have skyrocketed. The introduction of GST was also a big driver with increased prices.

Anecdote: sister wants to build a pool. Pre-covid vs now, costs have literally doubled.

Costs are easing, but still expensive
Canary in the inflationary coal mine
Costs increased to record rate
Using a lot of big words and concepts I don’t understand

SCIENCE said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

No, just plain wrong. Even tiny cottages are obscene prices in Sydney. House building prices, per se, haven’t increased that much. Indeed the costs to build a house have been pretty much stable since the turn of the millennium, scarcely beating inflation.
What’s increased greatly is the price of land.

I’ll do some research and get back to you.

LOL yous’re all barking mad, all of yous’re wrong

Over the last 20 years, the cost of building a new house has increased nearly fourfold. The increase can be partly explained by a 32.7% increase in the average size of new houses.

The average size of a new house has increased since 1987-88 but at a slower rate than the cost of building a new house.

https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/8752.0Feature+Article1Dec%202008

Interesting, but that 20 years is 1987 to 2007, which includes a period of much higher inflation, and much higher wage growth.

The increase from 2003 to now would be much less than 4x (and much more than zero, even allowing for inflation).

SCIENCE said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

No, just plain wrong. Even tiny cottages are obscene prices in Sydney. House building prices, per se, haven’t increased that much. Indeed the costs to build a house have been pretty much stable since the turn of the millennium, scarcely beating inflation.
What’s increased greatly is the price of land.

I’ll do some research and get back to you.

LOL yous’re all barking mad, all of yous’re wrong

Over the last 20 years, the cost of building a new house has increased nearly fourfold. The increase can be partly explained by a 32.7% increase in the average size of new houses.

The average size of a new house has increased since 1987-88 but at a slower rate than the cost of building a new house.

https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/8752.0Feature+Article1Dec%202008

Has anyone considered the contribution of the race-track urgers who call themselves real-estate agents, always keen to encourage higher prices so as to increase their commissions?

Divine Angel said:

The cost of building has been pretty stable since the turn of the millennium? Bullshit. With covid and associated supply issues, building materials have skyrocketed. The introduction of GST was also a big driver with increased prices.

Anecdote: sister wants to build a pool. Pre-covid vs now, costs have literally doubled.

Costs are easing, but still expensive
Canary in the inflationary coal mine
Costs increased to record rate
Using a lot of big words and concepts I don’t understand

Fair comment, I was really thinking 2000-2019.

But the ratio of land cost to building cost has certainly risen substantially.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I’ll do some research and get back to you.

LOL yous’re all barking mad, all of yous’re wrong

Over the last 20 years, the cost of building a new house has increased nearly fourfold. The increase can be partly explained by a 32.7% increase in the average size of new houses.

The average size of a new house has increased since 1987-88 but at a slower rate than the cost of building a new house.

https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/8752.0Feature+Article1Dec%202008

Interesting, but that 20 years is 1987 to 2007, which includes a period of much higher inflation, and much higher wage growth.

The increase from 2003 to now would be much less than 4x (and much more than zero, even allowing for inflation).

yes we tried but couldn’t find any equivalent document for any more recent years, and not having built any houses in Sydney we can’t really speak from experience either

JudgeMental said:

becklefreckle said:

PermeateFree said:

This place becomes more like facebook and other tacky social media everyday.

What part of the thread inspires your critique?

lack of talk about population control.

you can’t control that, they fuck themselves silly.

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

This forum has a great deal in common with a political party.

in the sense that we’re all bitterly divided and can’t agree on anything?

No we aren’t!

I beg to differ.

JudgeMental said:

JudgeMental said:

becklefreckle said:

This is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says!

no it isn’t!

I hope this is only the five minute argument.

How much did you pay for?

SCIENCE said:

SCIENCE said:

determined by supply and demand, but

LOL

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/17/australia-the-second-thirstiest-country-for-bottled-water-despite-paying-the-highest-prices

It isn’t like we are buying water because the water quality available is shithouse.

sarahs mum said:

SCIENCE said:

SCIENCE said:

determined by supply and demand, but

LOL

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/17/australia-the-second-thirstiest-country-for-bottled-water-despite-paying-the-highest-prices

It isn’t like we are buying water because the water quality available is shithouse.

Indeed, Australian tap water is something you don’t really appreciate until you’ve been in places where what comes out of the taps can actually kill you.

captain_spalding said:

sarahs mum said:

SCIENCE said:

LOL

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/17/australia-the-second-thirstiest-country-for-bottled-water-despite-paying-the-highest-prices

It isn’t like we are buying water because the water quality available is shithouse.

Indeed, Australian tap water is something you don’t really appreciate until you’ve been in places where what comes out of the taps can actually kill you.

… but … the water that comes out of your tap really can kill you …

SCIENCE said:

captain_spalding said:

sarahs mum said:

It isn’t like we are buying water because the water quality available is shithouse.

Indeed, Australian tap water is something you don’t really appreciate until you’ve been in places where what comes out of the taps can actually kill you.

… but … the water that comes out of your tap really can kill you …

Ever heard of Bali Belly or Montezuma’s Curse?

Tamb said:

SCIENCE said:

captain_spalding said:

Indeed, Australian tap water is something you don’t really appreciate until you’ve been in places where what comes out of the taps can actually kill you.

… but … the water that comes out of your tap really can kill you …

Ever heard of Bali Belly or Montezuma’s Curse?

How many deaths per year in Australia are caused by water coming out of a tap?

Excluding drowning.

SCIENCE said:

captain_spalding said:

sarahs mum said:

It isn’t like we are buying water because the water quality available is shithouse.

Indeed, Australian tap water is something you don’t really appreciate until you’ve been in places where what comes out of the taps can actually kill you.

… but … the water that comes out of your tap really can kill you …

When i worked for a Council, which ran the local water supply, we’d get calls about the occasional smell of chlorine in the water.

Far from this being too much chlorine in the water, the water treatment people told us that it’s a sign that more chlorine may be needed, as some bacteria will produce chlorates or chlorides (i forget which, it was a while back) in water, so a tweak to the chlorine levels might be needed to ensure every last little bug was zapped.

Other causes were a deliberate ‘surge’ in the chlorine added to the water system after flooding or severe pipe leaks, so as to overwhelm any contamination by floodwater or other outside sources.

Chlorination of public water supplies is the single greatest public health innovation ever. It has saved millions of lives by preventing water-borne diseases.

Chlorine in the water disappears very quickly if you let it stand for a few minutes. Outside of the pressurised environment in the pipes, the gas dissipates naturally and quickly, usually 5-10 minutes.

I’ve seen the water supply when it arrived at the treatment plant via open channel/canal, and when it left for the public supply, after filtration and treatment. If more people could see that, there’d be many fewer complaints about the standard of water that they get.

There was one occasion when a school phoned and asked if the water supply could possibly explain a sudden wave of students complaining of ‘feeling sick’.

Well, the response that got! The whole water supply and health depts in the Council mobilised immediately and descended on the school, taking water samples, rushing them for analysis, swabbing taps and bubblers, hunting for leaks and breaches, interviewing staff, pupils, cleaners, and anyone else they could tackle.

Water supply is no trivial matter.

captain_spalding said:

SCIENCE said:

captain_spalding said:

Indeed, Australian tap water is something you don’t really appreciate until you’ve been in places where what comes out of the taps can actually kill you.

… but … the water that comes out of your tap really can kill you …

When i worked for a Council, which ran the local water supply, we’d get calls about the occasional smell of chlorine in the water.

Far from this being too much chlorine in the water, the water treatment people told us that it’s a sign that more chlorine may be needed, as some bacteria will produce chlorates or chlorides (i forget which, it was a while back) in water, so a tweak to the chlorine levels might be needed to ensure every last little bug was zapped.

Other causes were a deliberate ‘surge’ in the chlorine added to the water system after flooding or severe pipe leaks, so as to overwhelm any contamination by floodwater or other outside sources.

Chlorination of public water supplies is the single greatest public health innovation ever. It has saved millions of lives by preventing water-borne diseases.

Chlorine in the water disappears very quickly if you let it stand for a few minutes. Outside of the pressurised environment in the pipes, the gas dissipates naturally and quickly, usually 5-10 minutes.

I’ve seen the water supply when it arrived at the treatment plant via open channel/canal, and when it left for the public supply, after filtration and treatment. If more people could see that, there’d be many fewer complaints about the standard of water that they get.

There was one occasion when a school phoned and asked if the water supply could possibly explain a sudden wave of students complaining of ‘feeling sick’.

Well, the response that got! The whole water supply and health depts in the Council mobilised immediately and descended on the school, taking water samples, rushing them for analysis, swabbing taps and bubblers, hunting for leaks and breaches, interviewing staff, pupils, cleaners, and anyone else they could tackle.

Water supply is no trivial matter.

For years I collected & tested water samples for Waterwatch Australia.
Only once was there a problem.
A sample from downstream of the sewage treatment plant showed abnormally high readings of (I forget what but it may have been nitrates) A phone call to the authorities and half the chemists & engineers in North Queensland descended on me.

Tamb said:

captain_spalding said:

SCIENCE said:

… but … the water that comes out of your tap really can kill you …

When i worked for a Council, which ran the local water supply, we’d get calls about the occasional smell of chlorine in the water.

Far from this being too much chlorine in the water, the water treatment people told us that it’s a sign that more chlorine may be needed, as some bacteria will produce chlorates or chlorides (i forget which, it was a while back) in water, so a tweak to the chlorine levels might be needed to ensure every last little bug was zapped.

Other causes were a deliberate ‘surge’ in the chlorine added to the water system after flooding or severe pipe leaks, so as to overwhelm any contamination by floodwater or other outside sources.

Chlorination of public water supplies is the single greatest public health innovation ever. It has saved millions of lives by preventing water-borne diseases.

Chlorine in the water disappears very quickly if you let it stand for a few minutes. Outside of the pressurised environment in the pipes, the gas dissipates naturally and quickly, usually 5-10 minutes.

I’ve seen the water supply when it arrived at the treatment plant via open channel/canal, and when it left for the public supply, after filtration and treatment. If more people could see that, there’d be many fewer complaints about the standard of water that they get.

There was one occasion when a school phoned and asked if the water supply could possibly explain a sudden wave of students complaining of ‘feeling sick’.

Well, the response that got! The whole water supply and health depts in the Council mobilised immediately and descended on the school, taking water samples, rushing them for analysis, swabbing taps and bubblers, hunting for leaks and breaches, interviewing staff, pupils, cleaners, and anyone else they could tackle.

Water supply is no trivial matter.

For years I collected & tested water samples for Waterwatch Australia.
Only once was there a problem.
A sample from downstream of the sewage treatment plant showed abnormally high readings of (I forget what but it may have been nitrates) A phone call to the authorities and half the chemists & engineers in North Queensland descended on me.

Tassie has water problems.At times most of the midlands has been on boil your water watch. Having said indonesia needs bottled water more than we do.

sarahs mum said:

Tamb said:

captain_spalding said:

When i worked for a Council, which ran the local water supply, we’d get calls about the occasional smell of chlorine in the water.

Far from this being too much chlorine in the water, the water treatment people told us that it’s a sign that more chlorine may be needed, as some bacteria will produce chlorates or chlorides (i forget which, it was a while back) in water, so a tweak to the chlorine levels might be needed to ensure every last little bug was zapped.

Other causes were a deliberate ‘surge’ in the chlorine added to the water system after flooding or severe pipe leaks, so as to overwhelm any contamination by floodwater or other outside sources.

Chlorination of public water supplies is the single greatest public health innovation ever. It has saved millions of lives by preventing water-borne diseases.

Chlorine in the water disappears very quickly if you let it stand for a few minutes. Outside of the pressurised environment in the pipes, the gas dissipates naturally and quickly, usually 5-10 minutes.

I’ve seen the water supply when it arrived at the treatment plant via open channel/canal, and when it left for the public supply, after filtration and treatment. If more people could see that, there’d be many fewer complaints about the standard of water that they get.

There was one occasion when a school phoned and asked if the water supply could possibly explain a sudden wave of students complaining of ‘feeling sick’.

Well, the response that got! The whole water supply and health depts in the Council mobilised immediately and descended on the school, taking water samples, rushing them for analysis, swabbing taps and bubblers, hunting for leaks and breaches, interviewing staff, pupils, cleaners, and anyone else they could tackle.

Water supply is no trivial matter.

For years I collected & tested water samples for Waterwatch Australia.
Only once was there a problem.
A sample from downstream of the sewage treatment plant showed abnormally high readings of (I forget what but it may have been nitrates) A phone call to the authorities and half the chemists & engineers in North Queensland descended on me.

Tassie has water problems.At times most of the midlands has been on boil your water watch. Having said indonesia needs bottled water more than we do.

We also have almost constant boil water notices but there is a suspicion that it is mainly arse-covering.

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

dv said:

No, just plain wrong. Even tiny cottages are obscene prices in Sydney. House building prices, per se, haven’t increased that much. Indeed the costs to build a house have been pretty much stable since the turn of the millennium, scarcely beating inflation.
What’s increased greatly is the price of land.

tiny duplex cottages on tiny plots of land.

A friend of mine was a home builder and his houses were around 100 square metres, today the average house size is around twice that, plus the materials and amenities are vastly better these days. This is where our standard of living has improved immeasurably and no wonder an average house price has increased so much.

I mean at this point I’m just repeating myself and presenting the same evidence but whatever.
Your statement is wrong, it’s against the evidence.
The major increase in house sizes occurred between the mid 1980s and late 1990s.

Average new house prices in Australia have been in decline for ages

Average new house now is smaller than those in the late 1990s, but that’s the period that has seen the serious increases in the total home prices.
https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/finance-news/2018/11/19/australia-average-home-size-decreasing/

Tiny cottages, less than 100 m^2, have obscene prices in Sydney. House building prices, per se, haven’t increased that much. Indeed the costs to build a house have been pretty much stable since the turn of the millennium, only beating inflation by about 12% since 2000.
What’s increased greatly is the price of land.

Note that house sizes in Australia have been in decline for ages. In 2018 the average new house size was at a 22 year low.

Homes built in Australia last year were smaller than they have been in more than two decades, and it’s part of a broader trend in which our houses are getting smaller.

Reply Quote View full thread

Sorry, my formatting there was lousy due to a copy and paste.

I would posit that the physical size of houses is not the dominant factor in house pricing for established homes. It all comes down to the value of the land – location, location, location. This is driven by the proximity to infrastructure (transport in particular) and social/cultural amenities. Car-dependent urban sprawl makes the inner parts of the city more desirable, driving up prices. The inner cities are where all the culture and social amenities are, and they have the best (non-car) transport networks.

Witty Rejoinder said:

LOL yous’re all barking mad, all of yous’re wrong

Over the last 20 years, the cost of building a new house has increased nearly fourfold. The increase can be partly explained by a 32.7% increase in the average size of new houses.

The average size of a new house has increased since 1987-88 but at a slower rate than the cost of building a new house.

https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/8752.0Feature+Article1Dec%202008

ROFLM LITERAL FAO Witty

That data is from 2007.

Sixteen years ago

Average new house builds are now smaller than they were in 1997.

party_pants said:

I would posit that the physical size of houses is not the dominant factor in house pricing for established homes. It all comes down to the value of the land –

I mean… yeah. That’s what I’ve been saying.

dv said:

party_pants said:

I would posit that the physical size of houses is not the dominant factor in house pricing for established homes. It all comes down to the value of the land –

I mean… yeah. That’s what I’ve been saying.

Yes, I should have posted that as a reply to one of your posts

party_pants said:

I would posit that the physical size of houses is not the dominant factor in house pricing for established homes. It all comes down to the value of the land – location, location, location. This is driven by the proximity to infrastructure (transport in particular) and social/cultural amenities. Car-dependent urban sprawl makes the inner parts of the city more desirable, driving up prices. The inner cities are where all the culture and social amenities are, and they have the best (non-car) transport networks.

If only that flash-in-the-pan urge for decentralisation some fifty years ago had produced some governments that had a commitment to investing in and developing infrastructure so as to encourage the population to distribute more evenly with incentives to live somewhere other than the same few population centres…

i think some of the building costs have gone up. concrete and steel come to mind.

captain_spalding said:

party_pants said:

I would posit that the physical size of houses is not the dominant factor in house pricing for established homes. It all comes down to the value of the land – location, location, location. This is driven by the proximity to infrastructure (transport in particular) and social/cultural amenities. Car-dependent urban sprawl makes the inner parts of the city more desirable, driving up prices. The inner cities are where all the culture and social amenities are, and they have the best (non-car) transport networks.

If only that flash-in-the-pan urge for decentralisation some fifty years ago had produced some governments that had a commitment to investing in and developing infrastructure so as to encourage the population to distribute more evenly with incentives to live somewhere other than the same few population centres…

Tim Flanery addresses this in one of his fireside chats, well I think it was fireside, there was a lot of smoke about.
Tim was quite wide eyed as he told us about ants and how they lived in colonies and that we are like ants……..something………..something..

captain_spalding said:

party_pants said:

I would posit that the physical size of houses is not the dominant factor in house pricing for established homes. It all comes down to the value of the land – location, location, location. This is driven by the proximity to infrastructure (transport in particular) and social/cultural amenities. Car-dependent urban sprawl makes the inner parts of the city more desirable, driving up prices. The inner cities are where all the culture and social amenities are, and they have the best (non-car) transport networks.

If only that flash-in-the-pan urge for decentralisation some fifty years ago had produced some governments that had a commitment to investing in and developing infrastructure so as to encourage the population to distribute more evenly with incentives to live somewhere other than the same few population centres…

Ah yes, whatever happened to the Multi-Function Polis? Did it ever get built?

sarahs mum said:

i think some of the building costs have gone up. concrete and steel come to mind.

We still choose to build housing in the least efficient way. On site, assembled piece by piece, mostly by hand, by very expensive labour. The technology exists to improve on this: factory assembly of modular components that can be cut with CNC machinery, have all the wiring and plumbing pre-installed; to be trucked to site and assembled by a small team using a crane. Faster, cheaper, and with less waste.

ABS’s most recently report on this topic was published in 2020 which, in fairness, doesn’t include Covid related shortages etc, but nonetheless does include a period major increase in overall home (ie house and land) prices.

During the survey period from 2005 to 2019, house construction prices increased in NSW from $228000 to $350000 (53% increase).

During the same period (again per the RBA website) there was a 39% general inflation.

On the RBA’s study interval, then, the house construction prices beat inflation by 14%. It’s not nothing, especially considering the hiuse size reduction in that epoch, but it’s not the big story, given that during that period, av house and land prices in Sydney more than doubled, increased by 108%, beating inflation by
69%.

https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/characteristics-new-residential-dwellings-15-year-summary

captain_spalding said:

party_pants said:

I would posit that the physical size of houses is not the dominant factor in house pricing for established homes. It all comes down to the value of the land – location, location, location. This is driven by the proximity to infrastructure (transport in particular) and social/cultural amenities. Car-dependent urban sprawl makes the inner parts of the city more desirable, driving up prices. The inner cities are where all the culture and social amenities are, and they have the best (non-car) transport networks.

If only that flash-in-the-pan urge for decentralisation some fifty years ago had produced some governments that had a commitment to investing in and developing infrastructure so as to encourage the population to distribute more evenly with incentives to live somewhere other than the same few population centres…

They’ll just take more water out of the rivers and upset all the foreign owned farms.

party_pants said:

sarahs mum said:

i think some of the building costs have gone up. concrete and steel come to mind.

We still choose to build housing in the least efficient way. On site, assembled piece by piece, mostly by hand, by very expensive labour. The technology exists to improve on this: factory assembly of modular components that can be cut with CNC machinery, have all the wiring and plumbing pre-installed; to be trucked to site and assembled by a small team using a crane. Faster, cheaper, and with less waste.

also we are using more manufactured wood product rather than A grade timbers.

sarahs mum said:

i think some of the building costs have gone up. concrete and steel come to mind.

Wood, why can’t people see the wood for the trees? Because it’s nearly all gone and the stuff that’s left is in dire trouble.

party_pants said:

captain_spalding said:

party_pants said:

I would posit that the physical size of houses is not the dominant factor in house pricing for established homes. It all comes down to the value of the land – location, location, location. This is driven by the proximity to infrastructure (transport in particular) and social/cultural amenities. Car-dependent urban sprawl makes the inner parts of the city more desirable, driving up prices. The inner cities are where all the culture and social amenities are, and they have the best (non-car) transport networks.

If only that flash-in-the-pan urge for decentralisation some fifty years ago had produced some governments that had a commitment to investing in and developing infrastructure so as to encourage the population to distribute more evenly with incentives to live somewhere other than the same few population centres…

Ah yes, whatever happened to the Multi-Function Polis? Did it ever get built?

Albury-Wodonga is still separated by a border.

sarahs mum said:

party_pants said:

sarahs mum said:

i think some of the building costs have gone up. concrete and steel come to mind.

We still choose to build housing in the least efficient way. On site, assembled piece by piece, mostly by hand, by very expensive labour. The technology exists to improve on this: factory assembly of modular components that can be cut with CNC machinery, have all the wiring and plumbing pre-installed; to be trucked to site and assembled by a small team using a crane. Faster, cheaper, and with less waste.

also we are using more manufactured wood product rather than A grade timbers.

Yes, we need to buy more timber from Indonesia.

sarahs mum said:

party_pants said:

sarahs mum said:

i think some of the building costs have gone up. concrete and steel come to mind.

We still choose to build housing in the least efficient way. On site, assembled piece by piece, mostly by hand, by very expensive labour. The technology exists to improve on this: factory assembly of modular components that can be cut with CNC machinery, have all the wiring and plumbing pre-installed; to be trucked to site and assembled by a small team using a crane. Faster, cheaper, and with less waste.

also we are using more manufactured wood product rather than A grade timbers.

There is scarcely any A grade timber left to cut down.

party_pants said:

sarahs mum said:

party_pants said:

We still choose to build housing in the least efficient way. On site, assembled piece by piece, mostly by hand, by very expensive labour. The technology exists to improve on this: factory assembly of modular components that can be cut with CNC machinery, have all the wiring and plumbing pre-installed; to be trucked to site and assembled by a small team using a crane. Faster, cheaper, and with less waste.

also we are using more manufactured wood product rather than A grade timbers.

Yes, we need to buy more timber from Indonesia.

Nay, let’s clear all of Papua New Guinea first.

captain_spalding said:

party_pants said:

I would posit that the physical size of houses is not the dominant factor in house pricing for established homes. It all comes down to the value of the land – location, location, location. This is driven by the proximity to infrastructure (transport in particular) and social/cultural amenities. Car-dependent urban sprawl makes the inner parts of the city more desirable, driving up prices. The inner cities are where all the culture and social amenities are, and they have the best (non-car) transport networks.

If only that flash-in-the-pan urge for decentralisation some fifty years ago had produced some governments that had a commitment to investing in and developing infrastructure so as to encourage the population to distribute more evenly with incentives to live somewhere other than the same few population centres…

I don’t think that’s the problem. It’s “a” problem, but not the main driver of price rises. That’s mostly the speculative nature of the property industry.

roughbarked said:

sarahs mum said:

i think some of the building costs have gone up. concrete and steel come to mind.

Wood, why can’t people see the wood for the trees? Because it’s nearly all gone and the stuff that’s left is in dire trouble.

That’s why I built a brick house.

roughbarked said:

sarahs mum said:

i think some of the building costs have gone up. concrete and steel come to mind.

Wood, why can’t people see the wood for the trees? Because it’s nearly all gone and the stuff that’s left is in dire trouble.

Return on investment takes a long time, probably 10 years for a pine plantation, dunno.

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

sarahs mum said:

also we are using more manufactured wood product rather than A grade timbers.

Yes, we need to buy more timber from Indonesia.

Nay, let’s clear all of Papua New Guinea first.

Nsw seems to be doing an ace job of ridding itself of koala habitat.

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

sarahs mum said:

also we are using more manufactured wood product rather than A grade timbers.

Yes, we need to buy more timber from Indonesia.

Nay, let’s clear all of Papua New Guinea first.

Meybe we should buy the western half of NG off the Indons.

party_pants said:

captain_spalding said:

party_pants said:

I would posit that the physical size of houses is not the dominant factor in house pricing for established homes. It all comes down to the value of the land – location, location, location. This is driven by the proximity to infrastructure (transport in particular) and social/cultural amenities. Car-dependent urban sprawl makes the inner parts of the city more desirable, driving up prices. The inner cities are where all the culture and social amenities are, and they have the best (non-car) transport networks.

If only that flash-in-the-pan urge for decentralisation some fifty years ago had produced some governments that had a commitment to investing in and developing infrastructure so as to encourage the population to distribute more evenly with incentives to live somewhere other than the same few population centres…

Ah yes, whatever happened to the Multi-Function Polis? Did it ever get built?

No.

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

Yes, we need to buy more timber from Indonesia.

Nay, let’s clear all of Papua New Guinea first.

Meybe we should buy the western half of NG off the Indons.

It’s not theirs to sell. Thieving bastards.

party_pants said:

sarahs mum said:

party_pants said:

We still choose to build housing in the least efficient way. On site, assembled piece by piece, mostly by hand, by very expensive labour. The technology exists to improve on this: factory assembly of modular components that can be cut with CNC machinery, have all the wiring and plumbing pre-installed; to be trucked to site and assembled by a small team using a crane. Faster, cheaper, and with less waste.

also we are using more manufactured wood product rather than A grade timbers.

Yes, we need to buy more timber from Indonesia.

Won’t that kill the orangutans?

party_pants said:

captain_spalding said:

party_pants said:

I would posit that the physical size of houses is not the dominant factor in house pricing for established homes. It all comes down to the value of the land – location, location, location. This is driven by the proximity to infrastructure (transport in particular) and social/cultural amenities. Car-dependent urban sprawl makes the inner parts of the city more desirable, driving up prices. The inner cities are where all the culture and social amenities are, and they have the best (non-car) transport networks.

If only that flash-in-the-pan urge for decentralisation some fifty years ago had produced some governments that had a commitment to investing in and developing infrastructure so as to encourage the population to distribute more evenly with incentives to live somewhere other than the same few population centres…

Ah yes, whatever happened to the Multi-Function Polis? Did it ever get built?

Turned out to have only one function: generated some consultancy/concept study fees.

Kothos said:

party_pants said:

captain_spalding said:

If only that flash-in-the-pan urge for decentralisation some fifty years ago had produced some governments that had a commitment to investing in and developing infrastructure so as to encourage the population to distribute more evenly with incentives to live somewhere other than the same few population centres…

Ah yes, whatever happened to the Multi-Function Polis? Did it ever get built?

No.

The politicians thought it was Multi Function Police.

most wood framed houses use plantation pine, treated.

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

captain_spalding said:

If only that flash-in-the-pan urge for decentralisation some fifty years ago had produced some governments that had a commitment to investing in and developing infrastructure so as to encourage the population to distribute more evenly with incentives to live somewhere other than the same few population centres…

Ah yes, whatever happened to the Multi-Function Polis? Did it ever get built?

Albury-Wodonga is still separated by a border.

Yes, a stroke of brilliance that. Let’s think of a project that’s ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN to get bogged down in bickering between two State governments.

Kothos said:

captain_spalding said:

party_pants said:

I would posit that the physical size of houses is not the dominant factor in house pricing for established homes. It all comes down to the value of the land – location, location, location. This is driven by the proximity to infrastructure (transport in particular) and social/cultural amenities. Car-dependent urban sprawl makes the inner parts of the city more desirable, driving up prices. The inner cities are where all the culture and social amenities are, and they have the best (non-car) transport networks.

If only that flash-in-the-pan urge for decentralisation some fifty years ago had produced some governments that had a commitment to investing in and developing infrastructure so as to encourage the population to distribute more evenly with incentives to live somewhere other than the same few population centres…

I don’t think that’s the problem. It’s “a” problem, but not the main driver of price rises. That’s mostly the speculative nature of the property industry.

The people of Sydney are all trying to buy land at Byron Bay, so that’s why they want so much for their Sydney properties.

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

sarahs mum said:

i think some of the building costs have gone up. concrete and steel come to mind.

Wood, why can’t people see the wood for the trees? Because it’s nearly all gone and the stuff that’s left is in dire trouble.

That’s why I built a brick house.

Double brick?

sarahs mum said:

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

Yes, we need to buy more timber from Indonesia.

Nay, let’s clear all of Papua New Guinea first.

Nsw seems to be doing an ace job of ridding itself of koala habitat.

Barillaro was a dab hand in that. Probably still is.

Kothos said:

captain_spalding said:

party_pants said:

I would posit that the physical size of houses is not the dominant factor in house pricing for established homes. It all comes down to the value of the land – location, location, location. This is driven by the proximity to infrastructure (transport in particular) and social/cultural amenities. Car-dependent urban sprawl makes the inner parts of the city more desirable, driving up prices. The inner cities are where all the culture and social amenities are, and they have the best (non-car) transport networks.

If only that flash-in-the-pan urge for decentralisation some fifty years ago had produced some governments that had a commitment to investing in and developing infrastructure so as to encourage the population to distribute more evenly with incentives to live somewhere other than the same few population centres…

I don’t think that’s the problem. It’s “a” problem, but not the main driver of price rises. That’s mostly the speculative nature of the property industry.

That is a problem too. Investing in housing is a very low risk and low effort investment strategy. But it is overall a fairly unproductive investment from a macroeconomic point of view. We are very good at turning commodity price booms into higher property prices in this country, and not using that money to drive more productive investments. In the long term it is probably not a good idea to have property prices going up faster than inflation while wages go up slower than inflation – after a couple of decades with the illusion of prosperity we get a situation like we have now where people can’t afford to buy and are stuck renting.

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

Nay, let’s clear all of Papua New Guinea first.

Meybe we should buy the western half of NG off the Indons.

It’s not theirs to sell. Thieving bastards.

Yeah and we stood idly by and allowed them to do that.

Kothos said:

party_pants said:

sarahs mum said:

also we are using more manufactured wood product rather than A grade timbers.

Yes, we need to buy more timber from Indonesia.

Won’t that kill the orangutans?

The Indonesians are already working hard on that.

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

Nay, let’s clear all of Papua New Guinea first.

Meybe we should buy the western half of NG off the Indons.

It’s not theirs to sell. Thieving bastards.

Yeah, they took it from the Dutch!

JudgeMental said:

most wood framed houses use plantation pine, treated.

These days, yes.

roughbarked said:

JudgeMental said:

most wood framed houses use plantation pine, treated.

These days, yes.

and for a few decades.

party_pants said:

Kothos said:

captain_spalding said:

If only that flash-in-the-pan urge for decentralisation some fifty years ago had produced some governments that had a commitment to investing in and developing infrastructure so as to encourage the population to distribute more evenly with incentives to live somewhere other than the same few population centres…

I don’t think that’s the problem. It’s “a” problem, but not the main driver of price rises. That’s mostly the speculative nature of the property industry.

That is a problem too. Investing in housing is a very low risk and low effort investment strategy. But it is overall a fairly unproductive investment from a macroeconomic point of view. We are very good at turning commodity price booms into higher property prices in this country, and not using that money to drive more productive investments. In the long term it is probably not a good idea to have property prices going up faster than inflation while wages go up slower than inflation – after a couple of decades with the illusion of prosperity we get a situation like we have now where people can’t afford to buy and are stuck renting.

Pretty much precisely.

JudgeMental said:

roughbarked said:

JudgeMental said:

most wood framed houses use plantation pine, treated.

These days, yes.

and for a few decades.

I keep forgetting we are in a new century for two decades.
My house was built in 1980 and the frame and trusses are made from short pieces of Kiln Dried Ash (Eucalyptus regnans), joined together with metal plates. Alll the interior wood(skirting boards door jambs) are made from Maranti which comes from PNG. It was after about 1983 when I started to see the green treated pine frames going up.

I think I got confused by all our quote marks are ROFLMFAO at Witty when it was SCIENCE who rolled in with the antique data.

If so, I apologise.

And now redirect my ROFLMFAO squarely at SCIENCE.

roughbarked said:

JudgeMental said:

roughbarked said:

These days, yes.

and for a few decades.

I keep forgetting we are in a new century for two decades.
My house was built in 1980 and the frame and trusses are made from short pieces of Kiln Dried Ash (Eucalyptus regnans), joined together with metal plates. Alll the interior wood(skirting boards door jambs) are made from Maranti which comes from PNG. It was after about 1983 when I started to see the green treated pine frames going up.

I built in 2004. Because I am in a rainforest I chose a slab. Had enough of rotting foundations on the old cabin. pine framing. profiled cement weather boards that are convincingly like wooden ones when painted…which i figured lowered bush fire risk.

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

LOL yous’re all barking mad, all of yous’re wrong

Over the last 20 years, the cost of building a new house has increased nearly fourfold. The increase can be partly explained by a 32.7% increase in the average size of new houses.

The average size of a new house has increased since 1987-88 but at a slower rate than the cost of building a new house.

https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/8752.0Feature+Article1Dec%202008

ROFLM LITERAL FAO Witty

That data is from 2007.

Sixteen years ago

Average new house builds are now smaller than they were in 1997.

That wasn’t me.

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

LOL yous’re all barking mad, all of yous’re wrong

Over the last 20 years, the cost of building a new house has increased nearly fourfold. The increase can be partly explained by a 32.7% increase in the average size of new houses.

The average size of a new house has increased since 1987-88 but at a slower rate than the cost of building a new house.

https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/8752.0Feature+Article1Dec%202008

ROFLM LITERAL FAO Witty

That data is from 2007.

Sixteen years ago

Average new house builds are now smaller than they were in 1997.

That wasn’t me.

steady lad. the error has already been noted and a correction issued.

dv said:

I think I got confused by all our quote marks are ROFLMFAO at Witty when it was SCIENCE who rolled in with the antique data.

If so, I apologise.

And now redirect my ROFLMFAO squarely at SCIENCE.

what show us the current data, we demonstrated that there were price increases and that they were well intermediate between size and work considerations, everyone else was invited to update them

party_pants said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

ROFLM LITERAL FAO Witty

That data is from 2007.

Sixteen years ago

Average new house builds are now smaller than they were in 1997.

That wasn’t me.

steady lad. the error has already been noted and a correction issued.

Do you expect me to catch up with the forum backwards?

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

That wasn’t me.

steady lad. the error has already been noted and a correction issued.

Do you expect me to catch up with the forum backwards?

You start at the place you left off and read from the bottom up. Paying partcular attention to dv posts in this thread.

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

steady lad. the error has already been noted and a correction issued.

Do you expect me to catch up with the forum backwards?

You start at the place you left off and read from the bottom up. Paying partcular attention to dv posts in this thread.

oh we just click at random and if it looks funny we click more

party_pants said:

sarahs mum said:

i think some of the building costs have gone up. concrete and steel come to mind.

We still choose to build housing in the least efficient way. On site, assembled piece by piece, mostly by hand, by very expensive labour. The technology exists to improve on this: factory assembly of modular components that can be cut with CNC machinery, have all the wiring and plumbing pre-installed; to be trucked to site and assembled by a small team using a crane. Faster, cheaper, and with less waste.

Since some buildings are built this way, but only a small minority, I’d suggest that it probably isn’t cheaper.

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

sarahs mum said:

i think some of the building costs have gone up. concrete and steel come to mind.

We still choose to build housing in the least efficient way. On site, assembled piece by piece, mostly by hand, by very expensive labour. The technology exists to improve on this: factory assembly of modular components that can be cut with CNC machinery, have all the wiring and plumbing pre-installed; to be trucked to site and assembled by a small team using a crane. Faster, cheaper, and with less waste.

Since some buildings are built this way, but only a small minority, I’d suggest that it probably isn’t cheaper.

Maybe it’s just not the kind of house many people want.

Kothos said:

party_pants said:

Kothos said:

I don’t think that’s the problem. It’s “a” problem, but not the main driver of price rises. That’s mostly the speculative nature of the property industry.

That is a problem too. Investing in housing is a very low risk and low effort investment strategy. But it is overall a fairly unproductive investment from a macroeconomic point of view. We are very good at turning commodity price booms into higher property prices in this country, and not using that money to drive more productive investments. In the long term it is probably not a good idea to have property prices going up faster than inflation while wages go up slower than inflation – after a couple of decades with the illusion of prosperity we get a situation like we have now where people can’t afford to buy and are stuck renting.

Pretty much precisely.

The idea that housing is “unproductive” is nonsense.

It continues to provide an essential service, for so long as it is occupied.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The idea that housing is “unproductive” is nonsense.

It continues to provide an essential service, for so long as it is occupied.

For one thing, it provides banks with a vast amount of money which does not exist in reality, which they can lend out to make more money which does not exist in reality.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

We still choose to build housing in the least efficient way. On site, assembled piece by piece, mostly by hand, by very expensive labour. The technology exists to improve on this: factory assembly of modular components that can be cut with CNC machinery, have all the wiring and plumbing pre-installed; to be trucked to site and assembled by a small team using a crane. Faster, cheaper, and with less waste.

Since some buildings are built this way, but only a small minority, I’d suggest that it probably isn’t cheaper.

Maybe it’s just not the kind of house many people want.

https://www.huf-haus.com/en-uk/home-ideas/

Link

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

We still choose to build housing in the least efficient way. On site, assembled piece by piece, mostly by hand, by very expensive labour. The technology exists to improve on this: factory assembly of modular components that can be cut with CNC machinery, have all the wiring and plumbing pre-installed; to be trucked to site and assembled by a small team using a crane. Faster, cheaper, and with less waste.

Since some buildings are built this way, but only a small minority, I’d suggest that it probably isn’t cheaper.

Maybe it’s just not the kind of house many people want.

If they were significantly cheaper I’m pretty sure there would be people happy to buy them.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Kothos said:

party_pants said:

That is a problem too. Investing in housing is a very low risk and low effort investment strategy. But it is overall a fairly unproductive investment from a macroeconomic point of view. We are very good at turning commodity price booms into higher property prices in this country, and not using that money to drive more productive investments. In the long term it is probably not a good idea to have property prices going up faster than inflation while wages go up slower than inflation – after a couple of decades with the illusion of prosperity we get a situation like we have now where people can’t afford to buy and are stuck renting.

Pretty much precisely.

The idea that housing is “unproductive” is nonsense.

It continues to provide an essential service, for so long as it is occupied.

Lots of economists would disagree. There is productive and unproductive real estate investment. Productive real estate investment is building homes to be lived in. Unproductive real estate investment is when speculators flock to the market looking for capital gains on the asset value. Particularly when the speculators buy existing homes rather than new homes, they are not adding to the stock of housing, they are just driving up the prices and crowding out the lending market.

JudgeMental said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Since some buildings are built this way, but only a small minority, I’d suggest that it probably isn’t cheaper.

Maybe it’s just not the kind of house many people want.

https://www.huf-haus.com/en-uk/home-ideas/

Link

Kit homes certainly can be cheap but those Huf hauses appear not to be. They say they “start” around 300 GBP per sq ft which is around $6000 per sq m.

dv said:

JudgeMental said:

dv said:

Maybe it’s just not the kind of house many people want.

https://www.huf-haus.com/en-uk/home-ideas/

Link

Kit homes certainly can be cheap but those Huf hauses appear not to be. They say they “start” around 300 GBP per sq ft which is around $6000 per sq m.

but they are nice looking.

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

sarahs mum said:

i think some of the building costs have gone up. concrete and steel come to mind.

We still choose to build housing in the least efficient way. On site, assembled piece by piece, mostly by hand, by very expensive labour. The technology exists to improve on this: factory assembly of modular components that can be cut with CNC machinery, have all the wiring and plumbing pre-installed; to be trucked to site and assembled by a small team using a crane. Faster, cheaper, and with less waste.

Since some buildings are built this way, but only a small minority, I’d suggest that it probably isn’t cheaper.

One of these houses was featured on a recent “Grand Designs”. It was indeed noticeably cheaper (less than half the price) than another similar-sized house also featured on the same program. It appeared to be very well made. It was erected very quickly – a few days. Made in Poland and shipped to UK along with the Polish assembly team.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Kothos said:

party_pants said:

That is a problem too. Investing in housing is a very low risk and low effort investment strategy. But it is overall a fairly unproductive investment from a macroeconomic point of view. We are very good at turning commodity price booms into higher property prices in this country, and not using that money to drive more productive investments. In the long term it is probably not a good idea to have property prices going up faster than inflation while wages go up slower than inflation – after a couple of decades with the illusion of prosperity we get a situation like we have now where people can’t afford to buy and are stuck renting.

Pretty much precisely.

The idea that housing is “unproductive” is nonsense.

It continues to provide an essential service, for so long as it is occupied.

That’s not the point. The increase in sale value of a second house doesn’t provide any benefit to the real economy. There’s an extra half a million on a ledger but nothing real has improved. An investment in research or production that provides a return has achieved something that has added something to the community/nation/world.

JudgeMental said:

dv said:

JudgeMental said:

https://www.huf-haus.com/en-uk/home-ideas/

Link

Kit homes certainly can be cheap but those Huf hauses appear not to be. They say they “start” around 300 GBP per sq ft which is around $6000 per sq m.

but they are nice looking.

Quite.

next someone will tell everyone that GDP or any of its other bastard siblings aren’t measures of Real Economy, no Real Economy would be measured that way

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

We still choose to build housing in the least efficient way. On site, assembled piece by piece, mostly by hand, by very expensive labour. The technology exists to improve on this: factory assembly of modular components that can be cut with CNC machinery, have all the wiring and plumbing pre-installed; to be trucked to site and assembled by a small team using a crane. Faster, cheaper, and with less waste.

Since some buildings are built this way, but only a small minority, I’d suggest that it probably isn’t cheaper.

Maybe it’s just not the kind of house many people want.

Having watched a recent TV program about one (and indeed lived on one at Blackwater), I’d certainly be happy to use that system. I’d use different materials for the Structural Insulated panels. Flat Colorbond inside, corrugated outside.

The Blackwater house was not well designed for the climate, but was respectably warm in winter and cool in summer. The Sips there used flat Colorbond inside and rendered manufactured wood outside.

When I were lad there was no incentive to live inside the house, mum would be listening to Portia Faces Life and Blue Hills, there was no TV or Internet.
As kids we lived outside and only went inside for tea and to sleep and by the end of the day we were ready to sleep.
A basic no frills three bedroom house was all you needed.
There was no borg human ant colony where individual freedoms were sacrificed at the altar of greater good.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Kothos said:

Pretty much precisely.

The idea that housing is “unproductive” is nonsense.

It continues to provide an essential service, for so long as it is occupied.

That’s not the point. The increase in sale value of a second house doesn’t provide any benefit to the real economy. There’s an extra half a million on a ledger but nothing real has improved. An investment in research or production that provides a return has achieved something that has added something to the community/nation/world.

The increase in sale value of anything doesn’t provide any benefit to the real economy, it is a result of demand exceeding supply.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The idea that housing is “unproductive” is nonsense.

It continues to provide an essential service, for so long as it is occupied.

That’s not the point. The increase in sale value of a second house doesn’t provide any benefit to the real economy. There’s an extra half a million on a ledger but nothing real has improved. An investment in research or production that provides a return has achieved something that has added something to the community/nation/world.

The increase in sale value of anything doesn’t provide any benefit to the real economy, it is a result of demand exceeding supply.

ah but maybe sometimes the phenomena of demand andor supply are themselves good or bad, and deserving of having value assigned

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

tiny duplex cottages on tiny plots of land.

A friend of mine was a home builder and his houses were around 100 square metres, today the average house size is around twice that, plus the materials and amenities are vastly better these days. This is where our standard of living has improved immeasurably and no wonder an average house price has increased so much.

I mean at this point I’m just repeating myself and presenting the same evidence but whatever.
Your statement is wrong, it’s against the evidence.
The major increase in house sizes occurred between the mid 1980s and late 1990s.

Average new house prices in Australia have been in decline for ages

Average new house now is smaller than those in the late 1990s, but that’s the period that has seen the serious increases in the total home prices.
https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/finance-news/2018/11/19/australia-average-home-size-decreasing/

Tiny cottages, less than 100 m^2, have obscene prices in Sydney. House building prices, per se, haven’t increased that much. Indeed the costs to build a house have been pretty much stable since the turn of the millennium, only beating inflation by about 12% since 2000.
What’s increased greatly is the price of land.

Note that house sizes in Australia have been in decline for ages. In 2018 the average new house size was at a 22 year low.

Homes built in Australia last year were smaller than they have been in more than two decades, and it’s part of a broader trend in which our houses are getting smaller.

Reply Quote View full thread

Sounds like you missed the McMansion phase when houses filled every available space on the housing block. DV there are many reasons why prices for housing is astronomically high, including fashion, government costs, inflation, building materials, etc., etc. and to try and tie it down to land costs is just daft. You will get little disagreement however, because house owners make a fortune as their house values rise and have risen over the years. A house in Australia is not just a home, but an investment that new home buyers must pay to those who likely paid only a fraction of the current asking price.

And my statement is NOT wrong, but being a fair bit older than you, I probably have more experience. Plus, the current average house size according to government statistics is around 200 square metres. And don’t forget, people started off in the housing market years ago by buying a SMALL house that they gradually traded up.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

A friend of mine was a home builder and his houses were around 100 square metres, today the average house size is around twice that, plus the materials and amenities are vastly better these days. This is where our standard of living has improved immeasurably and no wonder an average house price has increased so much.

I mean at this point I’m just repeating myself and presenting the same evidence but whatever.
Your statement is wrong, it’s against the evidence.
The major increase in house sizes occurred between the mid 1980s and late 1990s.

Average new house prices in Australia have been in decline for ages

Average new house now is smaller than those in the late 1990s, but that’s the period that has seen the serious increases in the total home prices.
https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/finance-news/2018/11/19/australia-average-home-size-decreasing/

Tiny cottages, less than 100 m^2, have obscene prices in Sydney. House building prices, per se, haven’t increased that much. Indeed the costs to build a house have been pretty much stable since the turn of the millennium, only beating inflation by about 12% since 2000.
What’s increased greatly is the price of land.

Note that house sizes in Australia have been in decline for ages. In 2018 the average new house size was at a 22 year low.

Homes built in Australia last year were smaller than they have been in more than two decades, and it’s part of a broader trend in which our houses are getting smaller.

Reply Quote View full thread

Sounds like you missed the McMansion phase when houses filled every available space on the housing block. DV there are many reasons why prices for housing is astronomically high, including fashion, government costs, inflation, building materials, etc., etc. and to try and tie it down to land costs is just daft. You will get little disagreement however, because house owners make a fortune as their house values rise and have risen over the years. A house in Australia is not just a home, but an investment that new home buyers must pay to those who likely paid only a fraction of the current asking price.

And my statement is NOT wrong, but being a fair bit older than you, I probably have more experience. Plus, the current average house size according to government statistics is around 200 square metres. And don’t forget, people started off in the housing market years ago by buying a SMALL house that they gradually traded up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMansion

Link

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The idea that housing is “unproductive” is nonsense.

It continues to provide an essential service, for so long as it is occupied.

That’s not the point. The increase in sale value of a second house doesn’t provide any benefit to the real economy. There’s an extra half a million on a ledger but nothing real has improved. An investment in research or production that provides a return has achieved something that has added something to the community/nation/world.

The increase in sale value of anything doesn’t provide any benefit to the real economy, it is a result of demand exceeding supply.

I kind of think we are mostly in agreement except fundamentally supply is fine. Indeed there is a surplus of homes in Sydney, as demonstrated by the fact that so many of them are empty. It’s not like some circumstance where the phosphate price goes up because all the easily mined phosphate runs out. There’s an abundance of homes compared to the number of people. The sale values are just pumped up because of investment in established properties by insitutions, overseas buyers, wealthy Australians with property portfolios in the double digits, and if that were halted, the investment would go towards things that actually produce real value rather than just quadrupling the paper value of a house built a hundred years ago. The building of the house added real value: even renovating it did. Massively inflating the sale value without any physical change doesn’t.

And I don’t want to be a hypocrite, like Chesterton, the problem is me, I’ve benefited from all this nonsense as well. If the changes I’m suggested were enacted I’d take a hit in my on-paper net worth, but it’s not as though real estate is the only possible investment. Like I say: it would be better if people were encouraged to invest in R&D or production rather than something that’s worth more because people think it’s worth more.

Sounds like you missed the McMansion phase when houses filled every available space on the housing block

I didn’t miss it, PermeateFree, I alluded to it.

But
A) that change was a long time ago, with the big increase in size from the mid 80s to the late 90s. Over the last 17 years the houses have shrunk

And
B) the era of house size blowing up was not the era of major home price increase.

Why house prices are set to recover quickly once interest rate rises stop

House prices are set to recover once interest rates stop rising and some new immigrants opt to buy homes, as the influx fuels a rental crisis, experts say.

Australia’s net annual immigration in the year up to September 2022 stood at 303,700 people – a 15-year high – taking the overall population above 26.1 million.

This was the biggest overseas increase since late 2008, and includes skilled migrants, family reunions and international students.

The number of immigrants was also significantly higher than the October budget forecast of 180,000 for 2022-23, and the 235,000 level projected for 2024-25.

Tim Lawless, head of research with real estate data group CoreLogic, said higher immigration was likely to help housing values recover once the Reserve Bank of Australia stopped raising interest rates.

An overall population growth of 1.6 per cent was back to pre-pandemic levels, new Australian Bureau of Statistics data showed.

Australia’s population growth among world’s fastest
Australia’s population growth pace of 1.6 per cent in the year to September was significantly higher than New Zealand’s 0.2 per cent pace and the United State’s 0.4 per cent increase.

The net annual immigration pace of 303,700 was above the 180,000 forecast in the October budget and the 235,000 projected for 2024-25.

Mr Lawless explained that despite the issues an influx of immigrants could be causing, it may also help house prices recover as new migrants look to buy instead of entering the tough rental market.

‘The surge in permanent and long-term migrants could be another factor supporting the stronger market conditions,’ he said.

‘While most of the housing demand from overseas migration is likely to flow into the rental market, with vacancy rates so tight, we may be seeing a higher than normal portion of long-term or permanent migrants choosing to buy rather than rent.’

Westpac is now expecting the Reserve Bank of Australia to pause rate rises in April.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/others/why-house-prices-are-set-to-recover-quickly-once-interest-rate-rises-stop/ar-AA18JiAO

MEDIAN HOUSE PRICES SYDNEY MELBOURNE BRISBANE

https://investpartners.com.au/median-house-prices-1970-to-today/median-house-prices-sydney-melbourne-brisbane/

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-19/ken-henry-australian-economy-mining-tax-system-inequity/102115172

The Rev Dodgson said:

Kothos said:

party_pants said:

That is a problem too. Investing in housing is a very low risk and low effort investment strategy. But it is overall a fairly unproductive investment from a macroeconomic point of view. We are very good at turning commodity price booms into higher property prices in this country, and not using that money to drive more productive investments. In the long term it is probably not a good idea to have property prices going up faster than inflation while wages go up slower than inflation – after a couple of decades with the illusion of prosperity we get a situation like we have now where people can’t afford to buy and are stuck renting.

Pretty much precisely.

The idea that housing is “unproductive” is nonsense.

It continues to provide an essential service, for so long as it is occupied.

Everything can have an unproductive component.

A banana is productive. It gives me calories to live. If I spent a million dollars on a banana in the hope that I’d double my investment in a year due to rising demand, that banana would be almost completely an unproductive investment.

Michael V said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-19/ken-henry-australian-economy-mining-tax-system-inequity/102115172

Yeah.

I’m also a bit over people around my age saying the problem is that young people want everything and don’t want to work for it…

They’re all working two or three gigs, from what I can see. The weekday booze and sickie mentality of our generation seems to have disappeared.

Michael V said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-19/ken-henry-australian-economy-mining-tax-system-inequity/102115172

It highlights the weakness of our political system, especially when you compare the way Denmark handled their oil resource, it is pitiful and the pollies should hang their heads in shame.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

A friend of mine was a home builder and his houses were around 100 square metres, today the average house size is around twice that, plus the materials and amenities are vastly better these days. This is where our standard of living has improved immeasurably and no wonder an average house price has increased so much.

I mean at this point I’m just repeating myself and presenting the same evidence but whatever.
Your statement is wrong, it’s against the evidence.
The major increase in house sizes occurred between the mid 1980s and late 1990s.

Average new house prices in Australia have been in decline for ages

Average new house now is smaller than those in the late 1990s, but that’s the period that has seen the serious increases in the total home prices.
https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/finance-news/2018/11/19/australia-average-home-size-decreasing/

Tiny cottages, less than 100 m^2, have obscene prices in Sydney. House building prices, per se, haven’t increased that much. Indeed the costs to build a house have been pretty much stable since the turn of the millennium, only beating inflation by about 12% since 2000.
What’s increased greatly is the price of land.

Note that house sizes in Australia have been in decline for ages. In 2018 the average new house size was at a 22 year low.

Homes built in Australia last year were smaller than they have been in more than two decades, and it’s part of a broader trend in which our houses are getting smaller.

Reply Quote View full thread

Sounds like you missed the McMansion phase when houses filled every available space on the housing block. DV there are many reasons why prices for housing is astronomically high, including fashion, government costs, inflation, building materials, etc., etc. and to try and tie it down to land costs is just daft. You will get little disagreement however, because house owners make a fortune as their house values rise and have risen over the years. A house in Australia is not just a home, but an investment that new home buyers must pay to those who likely paid only a fraction of the current asking price.

And my statement is NOT wrong, but being a fair bit older than you, I probably have more experience. Plus, the current average house size according to government statistics is around 200 square metres. And don’t forget, people started off in the housing market years ago by buying a SMALL house that they gradually traded up.

You just said that house prices are expensive because they’re used as investment vehicles. That extra inflated value is tired to the land.

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

I mean at this point I’m just repeating myself and presenting the same evidence but whatever.
Your statement is wrong, it’s against the evidence.
The major increase in house sizes occurred between the mid 1980s and late 1990s.

Average new house prices in Australia have been in decline for ages

Average new house now is smaller than those in the late 1990s, but that’s the period that has seen the serious increases in the total home prices.
https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/finance-news/2018/11/19/australia-average-home-size-decreasing/

Tiny cottages, less than 100 m^2, have obscene prices in Sydney. House building prices, per se, haven’t increased that much. Indeed the costs to build a house have been pretty much stable since the turn of the millennium, only beating inflation by about 12% since 2000.
What’s increased greatly is the price of land.

Note that house sizes in Australia have been in decline for ages. In 2018 the average new house size was at a 22 year low.

Homes built in Australia last year were smaller than they have been in more than two decades, and it’s part of a broader trend in which our houses are getting smaller.

Reply Quote View full thread

Sounds like you missed the McMansion phase when houses filled every available space on the housing block. DV there are many reasons why prices for housing is astronomically high, including fashion, government costs, inflation, building materials, etc., etc. and to try and tie it down to land costs is just daft. You will get little disagreement however, because house owners make a fortune as their house values rise and have risen over the years. A house in Australia is not just a home, but an investment that new home buyers must pay to those who likely paid only a fraction of the current asking price.

And my statement is NOT wrong, but being a fair bit older than you, I probably have more experience. Plus, the current average house size according to government statistics is around 200 square metres. And don’t forget, people started off in the housing market years ago by buying a SMALL house that they gradually traded up.

You just said that house prices are expensive because they’re used as investment vehicles. That extra inflated value is tired to the land.

As I said, there are many reasons other than land values that contribute the housing costs.