As CEO of Rismark International, which is a real estate investment busines, the author naturally sees renting (other people's investment properties) as the way to go. Home ownership offers a unique sense of security and belonging, which can never be matched by renting. The current situation where home ownership is becoming an impossibility for more and more people while Rismark's clients are no doubt laughing all the way to the bank, may be great for investors but is damaging for society as a whole.

Candide
Many people have the opportunity to buy their own house, it is just that they have a 'spending crisis' rather than a 'housing crisis' as it is classed as.

I purchased my first home in the early 80' and, the government has a first home buyers scheem back then as well, it was called a 'home savers grant' and, the gov matched dollar for dollar your savings up to a max of I think $2500. No hand outs like today.

The fact remains that there has never been an easier time for most people to buy their first house, as the amount of disposal income has never been higher, it is just that they get their 'needs and wants' mixed up.

Most have mobile phones, many have plasma's on tick and very few eat in 5 or 6 nights. They just waste far to much money to afford a home of their own.

If you don't beleive me, just take a look at the numbers at the bars, cafees and restaurants these days.

While rehctub may be correct in stating that many people are spending much more than they should, the fact still remains that many people buy houses as investment properties, causing prices to increase. These investors rely on renters to pay off their mortgage with many people I know charging rental based on the morgage repayments.

This is good news for people who are able to get large loans, and/or use other property as capital, however for people like myself, saving isn't an option as I am basically paying off somebody else's house at inflated prices. If I'm late in paying rent my landlord is late in paying his mortgage, the only difference between us is our initial wealth.

Rehctub, affordability is usually measured as a multiple of annual earnings. When I bought my house in the mid eighties, without a government grant, it cost less than 3 times average annual earnings, but interest rates were 13% (pegged by the government on home loans, otherwise they were 17-18%). Now average house prices are about eight times that, which I think is regarded as excessive, on top of which interest rates have only one way to go - up. These days employment is much more casualised, too, which makes it harder to support mortgage repayments.

I don't think we can make assumptions based on those who are seen out and about spending like there's no tomorrow - perhaps they know a house is out of reach and are living for the moment

Candide,

Yeah but the houses are much more luxurious and have more bedrooms. Also families more often have more than one income.

10 points for the first mention of McMansions!

I think Housing affordability is really only a problem in Sydney and maybe Melbourne. This guy quotes Australia wide figures. In the US people seem more likely to move states to get cheaper housing, in Sydney people don't even want to move suburbs.

Fix transport and the housing will become more affordable, or maybe de-centralise away from the CBD. There's a 'raft' of town planning issues that have an effect on housing 'affordability'. All the problems of the world can be traced back to NSW labour.

There are many issues involved in house pricing and affordabillity.

If one buys land, then pays a builder to build a house, they will generally save money. Problem is, where do they live while the house is being built. This is what a bank looks at when lending money and, that's why it i easier to gain finance on a house, as oppossed to land.

As for attracting people out of cities, there are a few ideas that should be considered and, reliable transport is an essential part of the fix.

Land in outer areas is generally cheaper, so what if governments were to 're-zone' large pacels of 'crown land', have them developed then porvide opportunities for 'first home owners' to build their home without having to buy the land. The land portion of their home always belongs to the crown and a minimal rental is paid each year.

$200K builds a pretty decent house, allow say $70K to furnish and presto, you have your home, in the suburbs for under $300K.

Then, if you sell your home, the next buyer gets a bargain as they don't have to buy the land.

Maybe the failed traverston dam site would be a good place to start.