SA Footy

They were about 3 times the average income in the early 90's iirc

Psyber wrote:Apropos house prices, I read a recent report that average prices in Sydney are currently about 6 times average income, and in Melbourne 5.7 times and that this was evidence of a recent property bubble.

I recall that the 30 year old 2 bedroom house my parents bought in Adelaide's western suburbs in 1956 cost 5700 Pounds a little more than 5.7 times my father's annual income of 999 Pounds at the time. They then had to find the money to move the laundry into and enclose a back lobby to turn the laundry into a third bedroom for me.

So what has changed?

I guess the same houses today are a bit further out from the CBD...

The change is that household income is now from two people rather than one, in the main. So when one of those people have kids it becomes a whole lot more difficult.

bennymacca wrote:

Psyber wrote:Apropos house prices, I read a recent report that average prices in Sydney are currently about 6 times average income, and in Melbourne 5.7 times and that this was evidence of a recent property bubble.

I recall that the 30 year old 2 bedroom house my parents bought in Adelaide's western suburbs in 1956 cost 5700 Pounds a little more than 5.7 times my father's annual income of 999 Pounds at the time. They then had to find the money to move the laundry into and enclose a back lobby to turn the laundry into a third bedroom for me.

So what has changed?

I guess the same houses today are a bit further out from the CBD...

The change is that household income is now from two people rather than one, in the main. So when one of those people have kids it becomes a whole lot more difficult.

That's why Abbott introduced his PPL.... Wait

Q. wrote:They were about 3 times the average income in the early 90's iirc

In my lifetime, Adelaide house prices were fairly stable with gradual growth and no sudden spurts until about 1972-75 when the first sudden surge I recall happened and a house I'd built for $19K in 1971-72 sold for $45K in late 1975.

There was a sharp rise in house prices from about April/May 1984 after a slow growth phase from about 1978.
I know because I saw it coming and hung onto a house I wanted to sell in March and got a much better price in May 1984.
(It doubled in value in a few months.)

Prices fell over again in late`1987 and 1988, when interest rates were sky high, and stayed down until about 1997 or so, fluctuating only slightly in that time.
Then people in outer suburbs struggling with the interest rates could not sell because their houses were worth less`than they owed.
(The`AMA in SA was in trouble in 1988, too, because suddenly it owed the state bank more than the building they had`just put up in Ward`Street was worth.)

You have to look at the average relationship to wages, rather than pick out a low point (or a high point) that supports you point of view.
I accept the point about joint wages now, but people seem to be expecting to get newer and bigger houses as their first buy.

Median house prices vs average income is the statistic they compare. The ratio has been widening for some time now.

Did some googling. This is the average for Australia. Will try to find a stat just for Adelaide. Sorry if the screen cap turns out shitty I looked it up on my phone.

http://economics.hia.com.au/media/House ... 0FINAL.pdf

Some more stats, including for Adelaide.

http://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bull ... 1212-2.pdf

bennymacca wrote:Did some googling. This is the average for Australia. Will try to find a stat just for Adelaide. Sorry if the screen cap turns out shitty I looked it up on my phone.

http://economics.hia.com.au/media/House ... 0FINAL.pdf

This one shows the rise coming off the flat period from 1987 to after 1996 that I described above, and doesn't look back far enough to be meaningful about the overall trend. (Rather like the graph of temperature rises on meteorological records coming off the low from when the mini-Ice Age that ended about 1890.)

Some of the other statistics are at odds with real fluctuations and variations in local markets.
For example, I bought my home in 2009 for $50K under the council valuation, which was presumably based on current statistics, and in 2012 I bought a reasonably large 3 bedroom house on an 890 sq m block in Mt Barker for $380K - $15K under the council valuation at the time.

What intrigued me about the ratio of 5.7+ for the home my parents bought in 1956 was that it was:
1. 30 years old and in need of repair .
2. Only 2 bedrooms.
3. In Adelaide - not Sydney or Melbourne.
4. And assessed as a good buy by my older sister who was already doing well in real estate.

In contrast, however, the house my first wife and I bought in 1969 was less than 2.5x her income as a teacher, and less than our combined annual income.
(Though again it was a 2 bedroom 1 bathroom house and in Adelaide.)

PS: Here are the ABC Fact Check graphs for 2011onward, which show the percentage of income going on mortgage places reduced over that time.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-12/f ... 3f/6540832

Booney wrote:891 this morning said that federal pollies can legally use their travel allowance to pay off mortgages on their properties they have purchased in Canberra? W the actual F?

They're on 6 figure salaries with concessions and allowances galore, surely if they choose to buy a home in Canberra to live in then the travel allowance is no longer required?

His Mrs charges him $1000 a month to live with her.

If he can't afford to pay rent on his wage he should just get a better job that pays more money.

Booney wrote:If he can't afford to pay rent on his wage he should just get a better job that pays more money.

People smugglers are on the government payroll now, where do I send my application?

Q. wrote:

Booney wrote:If he can't afford to pay rent on his wage he should just get a better job that pays more money.

People smugglers are on the government payroll now, where do I send my application?

How big can this get?
I'm thinking big trouble for these clowns over this. Assisting people smuggling is a rather large offence isn't?

I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt on this one.
It has been restated that "the government would not discuss operational procedures" to provide aid to people smugglers.
Given those rather strong statements about aiding people smugglers, claims about paying people smugglers seem rather outlandish.
However, the changing story today and the refusal to answer questions, makes me think there's a bit more to this.

Or have we got it all wrong and the government were paying budgie smugglers?

The greatest concern is not whether any payment was made, but that information is withheld from the public. There is a similar and concerning veil of secrecy regarding the conditions of our asylum seeker prisons.

Although, the fact that this claim is being made, despite claims the government would not provide help to people smugglers, really torpedoes their credibility if it proves to be correct.

I wish they'd stop saying "we've stopped the boats". The government hasn't, they're still out there.

A further indictment of this government is that we've appeared on the Human Rights Watchlist for the second year running.

They are hiding behind this secrecy policy.....meanwhile their legal and p.r.teams are flat out looking for a facesaving strategy.
Operational secrecy my good man?

Dogwatcher wrote:Although, the fact that this claim is being made, despite claims the government would not provide help to people smugglers, really torpedoes their credibility if it proves to be correct.

I wish they'd stop saying "we've stopped the boats". The government hasn't, they're still out there.

Two days ago "Did you pay people smugglers to turn around?"

"No. But we have stopped the boats like we said we would"

Today "Did you pay people smugglers to turn around?"

"We can't confirm nor deny for operational issues. But we have stopped the boats like we said we would"

And, it would seem, Labor were also paying people smugglers - as they don't want to answer that question. Or are they making some perverse point to highlight the Lib's stance about "commentary of security matters"? If they are, it ain't working.

Between this cap and both sides getting there noses in the trough it's clear why this country is going to hell on a hand basket.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk