Forum Replies Created
- sonyasal wrote:this would be helped even more if the governments and big business put a bit more thought and effort into decentralising some businesses. With technology today, emails, video teleconferencing etc. you do not have to have businesses set up in the middle of the city to be profitable and/or successful.
Moving to outer suburbs or even rural areas would also be cheaper as far as rent or purchase costs for commercial property is concerned. Travel time for staff would be shorter, therefore they may be more productive, have a better quality of life and be able to afford the type of home that they want.
This would probably be the fairest way to deal with (or fix) the issue of ever-rising property prices. Quite simply, working people would prefer to stay nearer to their workplace, and have schools and shops, transport etc around their area so they don't have to drive for ages to fetch their kids to school, the pool, or to music classes. Working class people are very time poor, so the shops and eating places also need to be within easy reach.
This, I think, is the key issue that drives the 'want it all' mentality. Most of us these days are just time-poor and can hardly even manage our own garden.
The issue with decentralising jobs however, is that the government would take at least a decade (if not two) to actually get this plan into action. After all, it took a massive shortage of water before discussions were made about building a desalination plant! The other thing that should be improved is public transport and the power grid. Provide excellent and affordable public transport, together with a grid that ensures we don't have brownouts (or complete blackouts) during the heat of summer would also encourage people to live further from the city.
johann22 wrote:Hi,
Thanks for the reply. I earn about 90k at the moment at the age of 25. I work 6 days a week and i usualy do 65 to 70 hours a week. Where i would be comfortable earning 70 to 90k in another job role. I have had sales experince since i was 18.
I think the reason why i am tired as well in just 4 months i have done this: Bought one IP and sold one IP, got engaged and also moved out of home. Maybe i have done so much in so little time.I think you could be satisfied in the knowledge that you're doing extremely well compared to the bulk of 25-year-olds. I'm 27, and wouldn't even mention what state I'm in because it'd look pretty sad alongside what you've achieved. Having ambition is good, and getting a lot done in the shortest possible time is a good thing. After all I think life is about doing what you want, not slaving for money. Given that, we should in fact be spending more time actually doing what we like and doing the hard yards quickly.
DWolfe wrote:By the way how is everyone in Perth going? Nice and slow over there pre-lunacy which will come in the next year or so? Everyone is very busy looking this side of the country.D
Hey D, how about Adelaide? Got a cousin that studies there and was looking briefly to see if anything was affordable.
The bubble is a strange thing. Honestly I wish the damn thing would blow wide open already, then I'd be inhaling huge blocks of land and building units on top of them! Hahaha!
Big question is, how much does your job currently pay? What do you perceive to be a high-paying job? Are you looking for $40K, 60K, 100K per annum?
The most common saying I hear is, 'Money is not everything.'
Well, I'd rather turn that on its head and say, 'Job satisfaction is not everything…either.' Not to mention if you actually have neither…heheh…
I personally think that if you're in a tough job that still pays well enough for you to live comfortably and invest a good amount on the sidelines, then rough it out for a couple more years and try to make it big before moving elsewhere.
mrproperty wrote:thanks for your advice , v8ghia there was an article in the paper a couple of weeks ago which was aparently done by Australian Property Monitors , it outlines future growth for most of melbourne over the next 3 , 5 and 10 years periods , I was just wondering how accurate it was that was all. cheersI read that article a short time ago. If what they say is right, we should be trying to buy a unit in Sandringham. Or, if you're looking at the budget segment, consider Tyabb(!) which from memory seems to triple in price in the next 10 years.
Bet the fixed interest rates of old are starting to look really attractive now. 3-year fix at 6.39% anyone? That was mere months ago. As families are forced to cut back their spending and put it instead into their mortgage, certainly retail sales will suffer. I too, believe that 8% would be the tipping point. Cross that by a margin and nasty things will start to happen.
Investors would be well-poised in this current environment. Competition with FHB would be much decreased. But again I feel that raising interest rates in this manner merely hurts the average working Australian. On the other hand it should reward those looking to retire on the interest on their bank savings.
Good luck, all FHB and other one-home owners!
Bet the fixed interest rates of old are starting to look really attractive now. 3-year fix at 6.39% anyone? That was mere months ago. As families are forced to cut back their spending and put it instead into their mortgage, certainly retail sales will suffer. I too, believe that 8% would be the tipping point. Cross that by a margin and nasty things will start to happen.
Investors would be well-poised in this current environment. Competition with FHB would be much decreased. But again I feel that raising interest rates in this manner merely hurts the average working Australian. On the other hand it should reward those looking to retire on the interest on their bank savings.
Good luck, all FHB and other one-home owners!
sonyasal wrote:Their set up costs, rent etc are heaps cheaper here than what they would be in any major city..Which is probably why people don't understand why businesses need to have their hub in the heart of a CBD when a small branch there would do. Some businesses however, appreciably will take some effort to get working in a rural setting. For example, veterinary clinics. They have difficulty finding new grads willing to work for them, and most invariably work for a year or two and transfer to something else in the city or otherwise a surrounding suburb.
Rural clinics may pay well, but they can't keep their vets. This is just speaking from personal experience in the business.
sonyasal wrote:Hey, come to regional areas, my block is 975sqm, and don't i know it when i have to mow the lawn!!! I live 7 minutes from work 3 minutes for two shopping malls, cinema, bowling alley, numerous restaurants and free parking!Haha, I bet you wish there were a couple of sheep you could rent to clean up all the green waste in your backyard!
I think your situation is a fine example of how the government could move forward in their bid to cool the market, or prevent a bubble from developing: they need to create mini-hubs in multiple areas, bring the infrastructure there, and convince people to move. There's obviously heaps of land in Australia, but the difficulty as always would be convincing people to move and fill those spots.
Investors Zorba wrote:The property market in certain states is over heating because of simple supply/demand scenario. it's not the investors driving up prices but the in action of state govts not cutting enough red tape top release more land. also the huge amount of various taxes charged allong the way.
While no expert, I suspect that release of land by the government, especially at urban fringes, as suggested by some, will do little to cool the market. What we need is more land and housing close to infrastructure and close to work, not just more land on its own.
They could release a lot of land at an affordable price but the deciding factor for buyers would be whether they're happy commuting for hours one-way to get to work, and whether they would like to stay in a place where the nearest sizable shopping center, school or eatery is still a time-consuming drive away.
Some have talked about decentralising jobs out of the CBD to create mini CBDs in outer areas, which is a great idea. After all, people don't just want a shack to live in. They want a place that's close to the things they need, things they want to see, and things they want to do.
DWolfe wrote:BTW I got a great bit of opinion through from Brutal Art's (go Christianb) newsletter which said that not only had prices gone up the average block size had shrunk. Pay more for less.And the size of the average house has grown, which means even less of the 'Aussie Backyard'.
I think it's only a matter of time before those of us still holding on to blocks of land 700sqm and above are going to be sitting very pretty.
sonyasal wrote:Matt, my mum used to make the same comment that you have regarding 'younger people of today' They do wnat what their parent's have, but don't appreciate that it may have taken twenty or thirty years to get to that particular property and the features it has.
It appears the Gen Y (of which I am one) and Gen Z cop quite a bit of fleck from older generations who blame these kids as being impulsive, lacking in foresight, lacking patience etc. But I'm going to stick my neck out and defend them.
My belief is that society makes the person, not the other way around. I think that society and its expectations are the reason why we're seeing supposed 'flaws' in the Gen Y and Z people. These days the only three words I know are 'Faster, Faster, Faster!!!' Other suggestive connotations aside, I think this is a true representation of today's society. The younger people are getting this lobotomized into their brains from day one.
There's only 24 hours in a day, but people are cramming ever more things into their schedule. Speed is a necessity, not an optional extra. Slow boat is a dead boat. Gone are the days of handmade quality. Gone are the days of relaxed coffee sipping and newspaper reading. In comes human 'robots' working at the fastest possible speed, teeth bared and climbing over each other's shoulders to gain the boss's favour just so that they can keep their job!
Let's consider how most of the spending in our lives actually occurs. *Swipe* And the money is transferred. We can 'rock up' to an Ebay auction mere seconds before it ends, place a bid in a flash and buy it sight unseen. We pay electronically, again a transaction taking only seconds. Facebook and email exists and is popular because people want real-time updates, not snail mail that's days in coming. What about the toll roads? We drive under the gantry point, and *beep*, we've just spend $5.
I work as a veterinarian in a large clinic at RSPCA in Burwood, and we have hundreds of procedures to perform everyday with emergencies coming in all the time that need immediate attention. We have owners that call us literally just a couple of hours after they have dropped an animal off, wondering if the animal is ready for pick up.
Geez, it's surgery mate, not a fast food restaurant!
Personally I think Gen Y and Gen Z people appear to lack patience and want everything quickly because the same is expected of them.
Oops…sorry again, just my thoughts.
Matt_Arnold wrote:Fair call… Plateau may have been a bit of a strong word. Probably a better way of putting it would be that i feel the % growth will be better at the lower end unit / town house than the higher end '3 Bed House and Land'.
That is something that could conceivably happen in the future. There might have been some recent articles suggesting that detached houses on land experienced greater % growth compared to units, but I won't be surprised to see this reverse in time to come. It's back to the point of people working longer hours I suppose, and them wanting something that is lower maintenance. On the other hand, a family with young kids will probably still want a backyard for their kids to play in.
If we see an increasing proportion of DINKS in the future, or young professionals who stay single for an extended period of their working life (or perhaps all their life), then maybe even apartments will become the mainstay property. I can't imagine though, how many blocks of apartments will actually be built. Most folk would want to preserve their suburb's heritage and will campaign till doom's day against apartments on their street.
Matt_Arnold wrote:Add to that a Gen Y, Gen Z generation that doesn't want to mow lawns, rather just wants to rent and remain fairly mobile… and my view is that big houses at the top end of town will plateau whilst the smaller, unit or townhouse will prosper.
This makes sense to some degree. However once we factor in the 'record immigration rates' or 'population growth' that some pundits talk so often about, and these immigrants having some serious cash to boot, I don't think the big houses in blue ribbon suburbs will plateau in terms of value. Furthermore, these houses apparently change hands quietly, never seen on the market, never reported to the REIV.
On the topic of units or townhouses getting popular however, what do you think of apartments in the inner ring? I understand there's talk of 'oversupply' of apartments in the inner city, but is that the same for apartments further out, say 7kms from the CBD?
DWolfe wrote:Ps you wont be dismembered!Haha, after nearly getting involved in that road rage incident, I've just become a little hypervigilant!
DWolfe wrote:When you think about it, how many other people are whinging and whining about affordability purely because they want to live in the middle of town, or the blue chip suburb with limited houses and nice trees.Agreed. Lofty ambitions can be a problem, especially in a society that 'wants it all' and 'wants it now'. Once at this forum I read a comment about why people preferred to live nearer the CBD even if they didn't actually work there. The comment was that some people need the comfort of lights and activity which is generally associated with the CBD. Of course you're also more likely to be able to eat or shop till later in the CBD, or at least there would be a good reason to be out of the house.
However, livability is a very real issue. People buy/ rent houses to live in, so shouldn't they be comfortable with where they live?
Everyone's definition of 'livability' will be different, but there is a general trend. It defines why people would rather be in St Kilda than Coober Pedy, for example, otherwise the prices might as well be the same and so would the demographics. The presence of shops, transport, restaurants, education, cinemas, or other things that support the 'lifestyle' of today's people. Not to mention that, today's people want these things (and their workplace) to be within easy walking/ commuting distance.
They work longer hours. They start work when it's dark and finish work when it's dark. Time is precious. They want to be able to catch up with friends at a trendy pub or restaurant, or visit a popular shopping center without having to deal with a hour of crazy traffic to get there. They want to spend more quality time with family, or the people that mean the most to them.
Prices are in turn dependent, at least in part, on livability, and/ or proximity to the CBD. People want their house to be in a livable suburb, a place where they actually feel relatively stress-free, rather than a dangerous isolated hole out there where you would be found dead and dismembered within 2 weeks of moving in, or to be living in a place amongst a throng of deros.
When looking at houses or suburbs in which to buy, I sometimes think we should go back to the basics: A house is a roof over your head. It is supposed to give you shelter, comfort, convenience, allow you to relax, hang loose, be with family…good neighbourly spirit. It is supposed to be near where your friends are, and where you work. So, where would you like to live? Just my thought.
IMHO, the only significance of a presumed 'bubble' is whether it bursts eventually or keeps growing. The price rises are worrying for those trying to get into the market. A short few months has made a lot of money for lucky investors while the poor FHB are forced further out, having to buy in a hole somewhere and driving many, many miles to work, or doomed to rent for an extended period of time.
As my friend once remarked, 'Affordable housing? Yeah, I know of a shack in a slum that's affordable.'
Perhaps in this case, the chance of a market collapsing as a result of bursting of that bubble is probably inversely proportional to the number of people thinking that a bubble exists. The more people talk about a property 'bubble', the hotter the market gets and the gains become greater.
Same goes with interest rates. The number of people deciding to fix is inversely proportional to how high the interest rates are. People seem to fix when they're at a high and then not fix when they are at an all-time low.
Not sure what others think here, but I'd like to be taught why the property market, and even the stock market went from complete doom and gloom early last year and reverse immediately into a boom over what seemed to be just overnight, with no change in global conditions. This is how some seemed to get caught out. People were standing on the sidelines thinking the market would crash further, only to see it reverse and head north for no apparent reason.
It is often cited that low interest rates and high demand are the reason for property prices heading upwards in today's market. I'm pretty sure that demand has been pretty good all along, and the cash rate was already very low (just 25 basis points above that of today) back in Dec 2008. So what exactly changed in Feb/ Mar 2009?
Sometimes I hear of people of my parents' generation talking about having bought a house perhaps 10-15 years ago for $70K in some middle Melbourne suburb that is now worth easily over $1 mil. Personally I think such gains will be unheard of in the future. I cannot imagine a $700K middle suburb house today being worth $10 mil in 10-15 years time! What about those $25 mil mansions in blue-ribbon suburbs? Would they then be worth over $250 million??! If our groceries inflated at a similar rate we'd be looking at boxes of cereal selling at $100 a pack!
It would appear that buying a house is just going to get harder for the average working Aussie.
Instead of encouraging forum moderation, perhaps we should be encouraging 'self-moderation'. Take everything with a pinch of salt, take only what you perceive to be the cream of the crop, mix it up well and let simmer to create your own soup of knowledge.
If something sounds too good to be true, get closer to investigate. If it smells a little 'off', run the other way!
I would read all property-related posts at this forum, even those revolving around the promotion of a service, but subsequently not visit the website or check up the service as mentioned if I'm not comfortable with it, or don't require the service.
ryan mclean wrote:There seems to be a fine line you need to tread between helping teach them and being overbearing. I fear that if I go too far then they will rebel against the idea of investing and end up not having enough money later in life. With so many drugs and other problems in society I guess this is the least of my worries.This would indeed be a genuine concern. I'm not a parent yet and only 27 this year, but my assumption is that in general, parents want the best for their kids and have their best intentions at heart. But as you say there's a fine line between 'trying to help them' and 'trying too hard'. I used to despise all the extra tuition and homework my parents put on me when younger, but I gradually accepted it was for my own good, even if it ultimately did no good (ie. my results never improved despite tuition), if you get what I mean.
Some time ago I read a book/ article that described the feelings people generally had towards their parents and how it changed throughout their life, and I'm just roughly putting it down as follows:
Stage 1- "I love my Mum and Dad very much and they are the best in the world!"
Stage 2- "My parents sometimes disallow me from doing things as I please."
Stage 3- "I hate my parents. They don't understand and they never listen."
Stage 4- "It appears my parents have lots of experience and what they say and did makes sense."
Stage 5- "I miss my parents. I wish I had spent more time with them."The tricky bit I'm guessing, is catching a kid in Stage 1-2 and spending enough time with them and teaching them as they go along. The reasoning is that if you get a kid that hits Stage 3 they could be a little less receptive, and if you catch them only in Stage 4 it might be a little late. Naturally it's better late than never. The difficulty of course, is that parents do need to make a living, which keeps them away from their kids. The trend towards working longer hours and increasing competition amongst co-workers is a grave concern. But hey, we can only do what we can do.
Anyway, I'm no psychologist. Just penning down some thoughts. It's real hard being a parent, thank goodness I'm not in that position yet.
While I don't have kids of my own, and appreciate that every kid will react differently to the same experiences and teachings, I could at least share my experience when younger.
As a kid, 'Rich Dad, Poor Dad' and the Cashflow game were probably the most influential things for me, both of which were introduced by my Dad. But before that I already had some early experience. I got a little pocket money each time for daily expenses, an exam well done etc. In essence I learned to 'earn' money off my parents, but I also had to spend my own money on the toys and luxuries I desired.
It didn't take me long to realize that money could be easily spent in greater sums than it could be earned and my parents weren't going to give me anymore unless I absolutely earned it, so I had to save and learn delayed gratification, but I needed some other ways to make money quicker, otherwise it'd be years before I could buy a desired toy.
My Mum quit her job and spent much time at home to ensure my brother and I were studying. And during that time I would frequently see her watching the stock market. I was curious about all the numbers and my Mum taught me how to interpret that, which got me started with a fairly small amount of money. My parents also taught me that while saving money, that the bank would pay me interest, or shares would pay dividends. In essence this appeared to me that money makes more money. If I saved or invested more, I would earn more even when I wasn't physically working for it, whereas that toy I just bought wouldn't earn me any money and I couldn't sell it either.
And many years later both my parents encouraged me to buy a house, rent it out and move back with them, which I did, and now I'm looking to acquire a second one…the rest will depend on what happens in the future.
There's no 'best way' to teach kids I suppose, but even from the responses in this thread thus far it appears there are some similarities. The key things appear to be early experience, stimulating and easy to understand games/ books on the concepts of money, and support from parents. Naturally, a little ambition helps. If someone wants something badly enough and is willing to earn it morally, they will surely get it eventually.
