There must be some agenda here, because on its own the statement "home ownership is less affordable" is meaningless.

The sale of a plasma TV indicates that someone can afford it. But there are many people who do not buy plasma TVs, because i) they can afford one but do not want one, ii) cannot afford one but do not want one, iii) cannot afford one but would really like one or iv) can afford one, do want one, but not as much as they want an SUV.

The actual plasma TV does not feature in the discussion except as the object of the buy/not buy matrix. It has no abstract attribute of affordability; its affordability is a factor of the potential purchaser, not of itself.

Different countries, different cultures, different generations, all have differing attitudes towards house (or plasma TV) purchase. If house purchase really did become difficult, then buyers would be scarce and the price would fall. Japan has had some experience of this.

The reality, although the "dark side of the boom" bleaters hate to admit it, is that housing has become a lifestyle choice, and has moved way beyond the concept of simply a roof over ones head. If it is simply shelter you want, purchasing a house is quite a long way down the list of options.

As it always has been.

There was a time when the amount which could be borrowed to buy a home was determined by just one income. This tended to keep prices in check. I remember when the rules were changed to the combined income of both partners being the determining factor of the loan. I thought that this was a bad move and that the extra borrowing power would just be gobbled up in price increases. And this is exactly what happened, with the average price of single residential blocks quickly tripling.

I certainly agree that expectations on the size and amenity of the house [but not the size of the block] have increased dramatically, but maybe this is also related to the huge mortgage which is theoretically repayable if two incomes are combined.

The Howard Government is a feudalist government. One only has to look at the rapidly changing spectrum of Australia where the wealthy have everything and the rest can bugger off.

Homelessness is on the rise with disabled and young families joining the mentally ill who sleep on concrete and camber.

The ALP is equally guilty. We need fascist policy to put people on track.

Listen to you lot. You have absolutely no idea at all and couldn't give a rats behind, so is the greed of your generation.

Yes, people do look too high but wasn't that created by the Baby Boomer's? Isn't this generation that gave us credit cards that has given society nothing but trouble? Just ask the Salvation Army.

I'd love to buy my first home. Where I live, the average house that are old three bedrooms sold for about $90,000 - $180,000. Due to the baby boomer's in the southern states offering $50,000 on top of the going price, locals have been pushed right out of the market as sellers demand what the southerner's offer. This and policies of the Federal and State governments has made the average house here sell from $300,000 plus in only two years.

This is not healthy for the nation. Rents are sky rocketing which is seeing aged people now being pushed out of the rental market because they can't afford the rent.

But Australian's are too selfish and too short sighted to see the damage being done to Australia.

No Spider. Australians are the victims of a century of very, very, skilful electoral fraud which has driven real talent, and more important, integrity, from the field of public life. Federation was an intended sham and fraud from the get-go. The only good thing to come out of it was the Constitution. If you have ears to hear, then hear. The heirs to this system are telling you, for example, that the present drought doesn't really exist; that it can all be fixed by a bit of constitutional sleight of hand. Do your own thinking. It might, no, will, be painful, but in the end it will be worthwhile.

Spider

Don't buy that intergenerational jealousy line peddled by the federal government. Some have a vested interest in having us blame one another.

I worked and saved for many years to buy an old house in the wrong area. Not much in the way of furniture for years. I lived hand to mouth in a continuing renovation project working nights and weekends to improve it. I still lead a thrifty existence.

When I moved to my next and slightly better house, again mortgaged to the hilt, the previous house I renovated with love and care was trashed in six months by tenants.

I rented for years and saved for even longer. I can tell that houses always were dear and they were never easy to buy or maintain. I remember that most couples scrimped and saved for a deposit for down and out flats because they had to start somewhere.

You commit to making your own food (not reheating pre-cooked) and making sandwiches for lunch. Buy cheaper clothes when clothes wear out, not for fashion reasons. Use public transport and walk. Go to the Public Library. There are plenty of ways to save and I know because I had to do it as did everyone else.

There were days when people did not think they had to own a car, heaps of electronics, mobile phones, entertainment units and nor did they go to the pub.

There are things young people take as givens that would have been seen as extravagant luxuries only a few decades ago. What is wrong with people that they have been so easily persuaded into endless consumption in an effort to make themselves happy? Do people really need all of the stuff they buy?

Many people could own their own pads if they were prepared to so without for a long time and start low in the market. That is what inyending buyers have always had to do. Have a look around, there are young people doing that right now and near you.