"The current generation is just going through what previous generations did."

Untrue. Housing has never been less affordable in Australia's history. I can relate stories from my Grandmother growing up in Sydney. Home ownership was not a big deal; not even beyond the tram driver.

"Perhaps you can spell out just what the government is supposed to have done?"

Who controls immigration? Who regulates development? Is the development process a transparent process? How many councils have been sacked because of corruption relating to dealings with developers? The frequency of failure of local government is cause for concern. Enough for a Royal Commission I believe. I would like to see more competition introduced to the market by relaxing some of the restrictions, and by making the development process more transparent.

"I certainly will not accept the high immigration bit because every time I mention that Austalia's immigration is too high, the same people who now bellyache about the unnaffordability of housing are the first to scream 'racism'."

So you find screaming a convincing argument do you?

I didn’t ask for your comments, Fester, but the ones you have offered up prove something to me.

“Untrue. Housing has never been less affordable in Australia's history”, you say. As far as I’m aware, only the media and the housing industry keep this one going. Housing is not ‘affordable’ only to those who want a house, but who will not go without other things to get that house. In your grandmother’s day, people did go without other things to attain something they really wanted. There was no ‘instant gratification’ those days.

As for what governments control. So what? Governments have to control certain areas of everyday life, and there is absolutely no evidence that this control has a bearing on housing affordability; and it is obvious controls have to be in place for the economic good of the country and people who would get themselves into ever more financial trouble without any controls.

What do you comments prove to me? They prove that you and your fellow ‘victims’ like to blame everybody and everything else for your own failings.

Fine, if that’s makes you feel better. Just be aware that you are never going to get what you want simply by believing what you chose to believe

Mr Right,
As Boaz said, I think you are being a bit too tough. I can see good points in both your and Festers argument.

Firstly, home ownership never was easy. Post war many young couples lived in a couple of rooms in a parents house or an addition. Also many, includung migrants, got a block and built a garage and lived in that and built the house as funds became available. Sure people were happy with a modest dwelling but you can't do the same on a block now days. Restrictions mean that blocks are only available fully serviced and they have to have a home constructed in X time. Even on rural blocks the cost of power/ phone and septic can cost large ammounts even before you build. So government regulations make things more difficult these days.

I know that many young people want "it" all at once and many don't want to sacrifice their life style, like we did, to get that. No working couple ever were able to get a house if they dined out a lot, paid for entertainment and recreation or entertained others. It is a matter of priorities. I am astounded at the palacial homes now being built and shudder at the cost of cleaning, heating and cooling. I also recall,post war, there were vast areas of public housing constructed, so Governments did help people to get a roof over their head and some bought the housing commision house.

I have no doubt that high immigration has contributed to an increase in house/land prices. When China was to take over Hong Kong, there was an influx of wealthy business immigrants whom pushed up house prices dramatically in the larger cities and this flowed through.

So I think you both have made some good points and maybe both could be a little more concilitary.

Fester's comments, both the initial ones to the topic, and those in response to Mr Right's assertions seeking to contradict the plain facts established in the opening post, have gone right to the nub of the matter: the role of government. Let all note, it was neither Fester nor B_D who made any request or suggestion as to government or taxpayer assistance being part of any solution: such had only been barely hinted at by Gibo in the context of alleviating the distress of foreclosures in certain circumstances. It was Mr Right that introduced the red herring of general taxpayer-funded assistance into this otherwise most productive and promising discussion.

Note particularly that it was not really B_D who defined unaffordability, but a large and experienced financial institution, the CBA, via the medium of its loan calculator. What B_D did was to show the likely EXTENT to which this objectively determined unaffordability has come to affect the upcoming generation who do not yet own a home.

A mystery exists as to why, in a land of relative plenty, home ownership has never been less affordable.

Fester identified the first half of a complementary key set that can unlock this mystery, when he put the spotlight on government as being the major contributor to the problem. His simple suggestion promises to be an excellent vehicle for demonstrating in specific detail just exactly why and how it is that government is itself the obstacle to a solution.

The second half of the complementary key set is found within B_D's words in his third post to this topic: "but why don't we give a leg up to those struggling, through our government?" It lies in the use of the word 'our'. Its the wrong word. I don't think its any longer correct to regard any tier of government in Australia as 'ours'. Nor do I think that any tier of government any longer really acknowledges any primary obligation to 'us'.

This disconnection is the as yet unnoticed 'elephant in the room' in this discussion.

The price of a house as a proportion of income has risen dramatically since the 50s. Even in the last decade. See here: http://www.cnet.ngo.net.au/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=32738
and here: http://www.earthsharing.org.au/node/6 (scroll down to Figure 2).

On the other hand, it's true that people no longer want to sacrifice lifestyle in order to own a house. An elderly mate of mine remembers when he and his wife bought their first lounge suite — they already had the beginnings of their large Catholic family, which they packed in to a two-bedroom weatherboard shack. They did without for years.

On the other other hand, older generations could expect to pay off their mortgages within a couple of decades. This is less likely now.

According to that most trustworthy of sources Wikipedia, Australia has the highest rate of home ownership in the world ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_ownership_in_Australia ). I think creative alternatives to home ownership are the missing but vital piece in this jigsaw.

Know I said it before, but, you know, just saying.

BOAZ_David,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
....
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
....
If you can dream--and not make dreams your master,
.....
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
......
When you set out for Ithaka
Ask that your way be long,
Full of adventure, full of instruction
......

Always keep Ithaka fixed in your mind;
Your arrival there is what you are destined for.
...

And if you find her poor,
Ithaka has not deceived you.
So wise have you become, of such experience,
That already you will have understood
What these Ithakas mean.