- ummester wrote:I want the old Australia back where each working family could get pissed at a barbie in their own back yard.
And I want to Lotto every week but that doesn't mean its going to happen.
Blame the BBs if that makes you feel better but who's fault is it that we have too many people squeezed in too little space ? The quarter acre block where you could have a barbie in your own backyard days are gone. Now you're lucky if you have enough room in the backyard for a clothesline, and I don't mean a rotary type. Who's to blame for that ? Yes I know, it the BBs fault for not dying early anymore. Short of culling the population like the do with the roos your dream is just not going to happen.
There is plenty of land and small towns out there that could become cities, if only the BBs would move there first to do the hard work and get everything ready for the poor helpless X & Ys. If there is something you can blame BBs for its raising their offspring to expect everything handed down to them on a plate.Quote:Just play really safe for the next couple of years, what have you got to lose?Of course you have nothing to lose if you play it safe and are not in it BUT you won't have anything to gain either if the market goes up and right now it looks like we're getting ready for a Happy New Year. As the Lotto ad says, You have to be in it to win it.
harb wrote:And I want to Lotto every week but that doesn't mean its going to happen.
Blame the BBs if that makes you feel better but who's fault is it that we have too many people squeezed in too little space ? The quarter acre block where you could have a barbie in your own backyard days are gone. Now you're lucky if you have enough room in the backyard for a clothesline, and I don't mean a rotary type. Who's to blame for that ? Yes I know, it the BBs fault for not dying early anymore. Short of culling the population like the do with the roos your dream is just not going to happen.
There is plenty of land and small towns out there that could become cities, if only the BBs would move there first to do the hard work and get everything ready for the poor helpless X & Ys. If there is something you can blame BBs for its raising their offspring to expect everything handed down to them on a plate.See how selfish your dreams are compared to mine? I want something for the country – you want something for yourself…
Basically you are aware that property resources are finite and that BBs got to entre the market first. Pretend there are only 2 people in the market. Logically, any property more than 1 that a BB owns is 1 the other person can't. And if the BB and the other person own a house then there is 1 house more than what is needed. See how that works?
Honestly, the BB generation had an ease of life that has never existed before and never will again. As long as you settle your debts with the bank before you die Harb, then nothing else about you matters.
I agree that the BBs spoit their offspring too much, only slightly less then what they spoil themselves.
ummester wrote:See how selfish your dreams are compared to mine? I want something for the country – you want something for yourself…
And how do you know I don't want to win so I can donate the lot to Red Cross ?
Quote:Basically you are aware that property resources are finite and that BBs got to entre the market first. Pretend there are only 2 people in the market. Logically, any property more than 1 that a BB owns is 1 the other person can't. And if the BB and the other person own a house then there is 1 house more than what is needed. See how that works?Only normal that BBs got in first since they were born first. How can property resources be finite when there are town out there dying because of the lack of young people ? As population expands the property closer to the "city center" will go up in price, no matter of who owns it . The obvious logical solution would be to start new cities, if the bloody ants can get it, bees can get it then why doesn't gen X & Y get it ? Is it stupidity or laziness ?
Quote:As long as you settle your debts with the bank before you die Harb, then nothing else about you matters.Why is that ? If the bank dies owning me money I have a problem , if I die owning them money then they have the problem.
harb wrote:Only normal that BBs got in first since they were born first. How can property resources be finite when there are town out there dying because of the lack of young people ? As population expands the property closer to the "city center" will go up in price, no matter of who owns it . The obvious logical solution would be to start new cities, if the bloody ants can get it, bees can get it then why doesn't gen X & Y get it ? Is it stupidity or laziness ?The BBs didn't make the cities we have now, they just stole what generations before them had created. Why should X or Y be any different then what we have been shown by our forefathers?
And anyways, if X & Y left to make cities elsewhere what the hell would happen to all the cities where the Boomers have property? They would would have no renters but that would hardly matter as there wouldn't be any workers anyway.
harb wrote:Why is that ? If the bank dies owning me money I have a problem , if I die owning them money then they have the problem.
No, your children have a problem. And if you have no childgren because you are too ugly or miserable to find some-one stupid enough to reproduce with you, then society inherrits your problem. Either way, that attitude is totally self serving.ummester wrote:No, your children have a problem. And if you have no childgren because you are too ugly or miserable to find some-one stupid enough to reproduce with you, then society inherrits your problem. Either way, that attitude is totally self serving.worked well for our forefathers, why change it now ? This is exactly why most X & Y are such spineless individuals that wouldn't make it in the real world without their parents. And no, your children can not inherit your debt, they may not end up inheriting anything but that's a different story.
harb wrote:This is exactly why most X & Y are such spineless individuals that wouldn't make it in the real world without their parents.And the boomers were different? Please. They may have gone to work younger and been given a slightly higher moral standard in thier upbringing but they were afforded more financial shelter and statistically all live closer to where the homes of their parents than either X or Y.
The parents of the boomers were the last hardworking Aussies. Don't try and sell the boomers themsleves as being anything close to that. I know many, many Australians over 50 and not a single one of them would come close to the honesty, integrity and overall fairness displayed by their parents. The one thing boomers parents forgot to teach them was not to be greedy, a lesson this whole country has to learn all over again…
my theory is that almost all generations have thought the next one doesn't work hard enough… and are lazy.!!
I could quote a monty python sketch here… but if I told you which one,….."they wouldn't believe me"!!
maybe the older generations are right though, we invent smarter, quicker & easier ways to wash clothes, dishes, communicate & travel etc… which in turn affords us more free time to spend with our children, hopefully to instill the morals & boundaries we crave. …unfortunately for some, though it's easier to dump them in front of the flat screen babysitter in the lounge.
the reality is, that Y generation will dismiss the next generation with the same old lines now used by previous 'bah humbug' generations when they attain a ripe old age also…. we all want, (or at least I do) our childrens lives to be just that little bit better than ours was.
but we are digressing from the topic of this thread.."boom or not". I still don't really aspire to the 'big bust theory' (at this time), but always enjoy listening to both sides of peoples debate as I may learn something, …possibly my theory has a lean, because i have properties that i want to go up in value, the same as people that don't have properties have a leaning to want them to go down in price & sometimes we may all have a tendency to listen only to what we want to hear.
It's only my theory though & maybe we should all have a 'disclaimer' under our comments
mackar wrote:but we are digressing from the topic of this thread.."boom or not". I still don't really aspire to the 'big bust theory' (at this time), but always enjoy listening to both sides of peoples debate as I may learn something, …possibly my theory has a lean, because i have properties that i want to go up in value, the same as people that don't have properties have a leaning to want them to go down in price & sometimes we may all have a tendency to listen only to what we want to hear.That's very astute and more or less true. So the only real question is, what does the majority in this country want? Higher or lower house prices?
what you get… can be very different to what you want….
As only 30+ % of Aussies own property I believe, the majority would want lower house prices… they may get it too, for a while at least, as I feel there may be a "Puddling of property prices for next 6 – 12 Months before a growth cycle again will drive prices up… maybe not by 20 -25% as predicted by the "experts" by 2011across the board… but possibly up to that much in some areas like Adelaide, SE Qld, mining towns in North Qld, etc… (There's that investor lean again??)
ErikH wrote:Mackar,I don't think we'll see a boom anytime soon but I do believe Australia will ride this global downturn out much better than most.
I believe:
– that the US, UK and continental Europe will suffer pretty strong downturns / recessions
– that BRICs and other emerging markets are decoupled enough from the US to continue to grow but at a slower pace
– that commodities will stay high for many years to come due to the growth in emerging markets
– that even though prices will recede from their recent peaks they will stay high (e.g. oil is down from its recent $140+ peak but I believe it will stay in the $70 to $100 range which is much more than most would have believed only a short while ago)
– that robust commodity demand and commodity prices will keep Australia afloat, i.e. not suffer as badly as the US and UK
– that migration will stay high, as recession sets in in the UK there are plenty of people with equity who may well decide that this is now the time to go down under
– that inflation will stay above target so interest rates will only decrease slowly in Australia
– that the census data stating 900,000 houses are empty is misleading and that a very limited amount of this will actually get onto the residential market
– that commodity states like WA and QLD will not suffer a great rise in unemployment but this may well be different in say areas around say Sydney
– that local variations in unemployment, will further increase interstate migration towards QLD
– that some areas may well suffer severe declines in property price, i.e. those areas with higher unemployment where people bought too high and leveraged themselves too far. Some areas like SE QLD and other selected areas may well actually continue to increase slowly.Oh, and as always, when the inevitable correction in the cycle comes all the media and the public declare property prices lost forever, that prices will drop by 30%, 40%, 50% or more, typically the corections are much smaller and after 7-10 yrs or maybe even 12 yrs we'll have had another cycle… I read an interesting article a few years ago that actually summed up all the popular reasons why people shouldn't invest in property in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and so on. If you had followed these common reasons why "now isn't the time to buy" you'd never buy anything …
I'm with Erik on this one.
Also dont like the use of the terms boom and bust prefer the use of cycle.
Mackar,
One must also consider what the majority can afford and how keeping prices above that is not good for the country. Not enough of us consider how much what we do effects other Australians any more. 30% property ownership represents a large social problem. The UN drafted a report on the crisis that was looming in Australia and addressed it to the Howard government years ago.
I've spent some time in Northern Territory areas & unfortunately its hard to talk about home ownership in indigenous areas as part of the way the white man thinks about it as Aboriginals have a different culture when it comes to ownership of all things inc. housing… they have a kind of communal ownership of things… this leads to no real sense of self ownership.. rather get what you can from the pot whilst its there, plus no real responibility that comes with personal ownership & even less regard for upkeep. There are of course a minority that don't conform to this & they lead what the 'white man' would see as a good quality of life. you can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
There also was a government body up until recently called ATSIC, which was involved in looking after its indigenous people, which was plundered & mismanaged by the very people it was set up to look after, to the point that it had to be closed down.In London where some of the most expensive properties are to be found… but young 1st home buyers, buy a bedsit as their 1st home, then maybe a 2bed unit, then a townhouse & eventually work their way up to the house they want…
I feel the quality of life here in Aus is great & I agree we've had it too good for too long… but i feel we will mirror the UK & 1st home buyers will have to work their way up the property market. To think that your 1st home in life should be a detached home on your own parcel of land is not the reality of the future.
I believe in the theory of giving people a "hand up" not "hand out" …
I also believe that some people will never own their own home no matter what you did, even if it were given to them, some people would owe more than the house is worth within a period of time & lose it.
I agree with the hand up rather than hand out POV totally.
That said, though indigenous and low social economic groups are minorities, the report also talks about the working middle class with unreasonable debt due to overpricing.
The model in London is failing as we post, the reallity of the future is what we make it. I can't map exactly where all of this is going, but there is a social shift in Australia at the moment.
You talk about all of us wanting a better future for our kids, perhaps we a finally starting to re-realize that is a future with far more than financial wellbeing. Perhaps we are now looking towards reasonable and fair education, medicine, law enforcement and yes – house prices. I think socialism is making a comeback…
to be able to be charitable you must first have the capacity… whether it be financially,
socially or emotionally.
That's how we could give Indonesia $1Billion worth of socialism after the Tsunami… because we were viable as a nation.Same goes for family… I found out over the weekend I'm going to be a Grandparent for the 1st time… & one of my 1st thoughts was… how can I help (without taking away their opportuniies & experiences to make it for themselves) my kids.?? & you're right not just financially… but financial security can often prelude emotional security
ummester wrote:The one thing boomers parents forgot to teach them was not to be greedy, a lesson this whole country has to learn all over again…Sorry to disagree with you on this but greed IS good. Without GREED human evolution would not have happened and we'd still be hanging from a tree branch. For confirmation of that just look at human tribes where greed did not play an important part in their culture and how they fared through the ages. A socialist oriented market economy does not work and the fact that most communist country have dropped it in favor of the capitalist system proves it. As Deng Xiaoping said : To Get Rich Is Glorious
It goes in cycles and the greed cycle is ending is the western world. Human evolution needs cycles of both greed and understanding to evolve with stability. How glorious was being rich during the French revolution?
ummester wrote:It goes in cycles and the greed cycle is ending is the western world. Human evolution needs cycles of both greed and understanding to evolve with stability. How glorious was being rich during the French revolution?
And just how glorious was being a peasant for the 40 years before that ? Not that it got much better after…. I know which one I'd rather be.
ummester wrote:See how selfish your dreams are compared to mine? I want something for the country – you want something for yourself…
Basically you are aware that property resources are finite and that BBs got to entre the market first. Pretend there are only 2 people in the market. Logically, any property more than 1 that a BB owns is 1 the other person can't. And if the BB and the other person own a house then there is 1 house more than what is needed. See how that works?
Honestly, the BB generation had an ease of life that has never existed before and never will again. As long as you settle your debts with the bank before you die Harb, then nothing else about you matters.
I agree that the BBs spoit their offspring too much, only slightly less then what they spoil themselves.
This is the typical view of someone relatively young – less than 30 I'm guessing?
We have had this whole argument before on this forum some months ago:
https://www.propertyinvesting.com/forums/property-investing/help-needed/25921The reality is, every generation before you has had it tough in various ways, and every generation after you will be seen to be "getting it easy" compared to you.
Think about this; people who are extremely rich can do more for society through their wealth than someone who is poor.
And, they often do.
Here's just 2 examples;
1. Bill Gates – gives away over $1 mill to charity EVERY DAY.
2. Greg Norman – is one THE biggest contributors to the McDonalds Foundation.Now, which group of people would you rather be in?
Keep in kind that many of these types of people are Baby Boomers.
You can do far more for your country by becoming the "greedy rich" (which is a myth by the way) than you can do by being the socialist poor.
"See how selfish your dreams are compared to mine? I want something for the country – you want something for yourself…
Basically you are aware that property resources are finite and that BBs got to entre the market first. Pretend there are only 2 people in the market. Logically, any property more than 1 that a BB owns is 1 the other person can't. And if the BB and the other person own a house then there is 1 house more than what is needed. See how that works?"
but don't you see also that the 'second house' becomes somewhere to rent for people that haven't managed to acquire their own home yet…
I remember when I was i my twenties & tried to purchase my 1st property & wished I had been able to buy 10 years earlier as they had all more than doubled some maybe tripled… it was very hard to get finance too as banks did not have all the facilities they have now like lo -doc & no- doc loans.another reason, along with all the others… for the r/e ' growth cycle' over last 8 years or so is the fact that the banks have loosened their requirements on lending… it's a lot easier to get finance now, than 12 or 13 years ago. I couldn't purchase the home i wanted to back then as I couldn't get finance… even though I had close to 30% deposit.
mackar wrote:In London where some of the most expensive properties are to be found… but young 1st home buyers, buy a bedsit as their 1st home, then maybe a 2bed unit, then a townhouse & eventually work their way up to the house they want…
I feel the quality of life here in Aus is great & I agree we've had it too good for too long… but i feel we will mirror the UK & 1st home buyers will have to work their way up the property market. To think that your 1st home in life should be a detached home on your own parcel of land is not the reality of the future.
FYI it was not the reality of the past for most people either.
Most BBers started small / cheap and worked their way up.Elka
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. If you don't have an account, you can register here.
