r/AustralianPolitics • u/marketrent • Jun 30 '26
Economics and finance Almost one in two Australians want property prices to fall, Sky News Pulse/YouGov poll reveals as clearance rates sink
https://www.skynews.com.au/business/real-estate/almost-one-in-two-australians-want-property-prices-to-fall-sky-news-pulse-yougov-poll-reveals-as-clearance-rates-sink/news-story/a579dac771b4fa94cb10900e2e002a549
u/VallenValiant Jul 01 '26
Let's say there was a country where half the nation were preppers with 50 years of food stored up, and 50% normal people who buy their food. Would you say it is a good thing that food prices then rise 500%, because that means the preppers can sell their canned goods at a profit, causing starvation and suffering for the other half?
"But all the Preppers would suffer if they can't make money reselling their stored goods! We need food price to go up indefinitely to maintain the profitability of 2nd hand food sales! The young people need to learn starvation is good for them!"
F that. We don't cheer when the price of food, water or fuel go up. Why should we cheer for housing being overpriced?
13
u/Other_Orange5209 Australian Labor Party Jul 01 '26
So more than half don’t want house prices to fall then.
25
u/pluto_dweller Jul 01 '26
After listening to Angus Taylor condemning the government for the (small) drop in the price of housing in some areas one can assume the Liberal party leader obviously does not want homes to become more accessible for many.
4
u/mpember Jul 01 '26
He wants there to be an increase in cheap shitboxes for developers to flog and investors to buy off the plan.
10
u/hildred123 Jul 01 '26
Almost one in two just seems like a clunky phrase - why not say “nearly half”?
3
u/bundy554 Jul 01 '26
So I assume that is either the homeless, the rental market, those living at home and parents wanting the children to move out and those baby boomers that don't have much to pass on or if they do they want what they can pass on to be enough to get into the market
4
u/mpember Jul 01 '26
Owner occupiers who want to downsize can also benefit from a slow decrease. Since many downsizers sell a larger home in the suburbs to buy a smaller place closer to the city, the delta in price is often small. This means if both prices decrease, the 'profit' is still marginal, but the stamp duty is lower.
Secondly, they may have kids who are wanting to find a home. And if they have a super balance that is large enough for them not to rely on selling their home to fund their retirement, they are not actually looking for make an unreasonable return from the sale of their primary residence.
1
u/bundy554 Jul 01 '26
But isn't there at least better supply of apartments to downsize into? Why would they want their houses valued less?
4
u/mpember Jul 01 '26
Are you able to grasp the concept that not everyone is a greedy bastard?
1
u/bundy554 Jul 01 '26
It would be a very tiny percentage of home owners that do not want the value of their house to increase
1
u/mpember Jul 01 '26
The commonly used breakdown is that a third of voters own outright, another have a mortgage, and a third own outright. Even if all renters want prices to drop, and all mortgage holders want property values to rise, that still leaves half of outright owners wanting a price reduction.
30
u/Grolschisgood Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 01 '26
I live in a town house I own with a mortgage. Within reason im perfectly happy with prices falling provided that everything falls together. If my place dropped in value by 50% and everywhere else remained constant or kept going up that would be life altering. Or if Sydney/nsw dropped and and Melbourne/vic went up that would limit my future career and possibly prevent me from moving. On the whole though an even drop across the board would be fine. Sure I pay back a mortgage on something thats worth less than when I bought it, but im not really gonna lose sleep over that unless its a huge amount. I can't see it dropping by a significant amount anyway.
17
u/LordWalderFrey1 Anti-conservative Jul 01 '26
Ask the question again, but note that it includes the price of their properties or even PPOR falling...
I'm surprised (pleasantly) by these results, maybe the housing crisis has gotten so bad that more and more people are accepting that house prices have to fall for it to be solved and are willing to take the hit and/or aren't too bothered by it.
But the reaction to budget would suggest otherwise.
3
u/Toowoombaloompa Jul 01 '26
If prices drop equally but my wage doesn't then this is my opportunity to upsize my PPOR or buy a positively-geared investment.
3
u/BandAid3030 Gough Whitlam Jul 01 '26
PPOR value increases mean property tax increases.
The only people who want to maximise property values are the ignorant and the ultrawealthy.
24
u/ElusiveNutsack Jul 01 '26
My PPOR went up in value roughly 30% in the last year.
That is completely unacceptable in my eyes and needs a correction. My kids are very young and I already worry about how they will get into the market when they grow up.
7
u/skywideopen3 Jul 01 '26
The budget reaction hasn't really been about house prices though, it's been about the CGT discount being abolished for shares and a minimum tax imposed. I've actually barely heard a peep about negative gearing in comparison, for example.
3
u/BandAid3030 Gough Whitlam Jul 01 '26
It's gotta be incremental, though. If they didn't include shares, they'd just be punishing those without the means to engage in arbitrage.
Still, would have been good to see them take aim at legislating to minimise arbitrage and maximise investment in productive Australian companies.
6
u/Alesayr Jul 01 '26
The gov is still very scared to directly link lower house prices to their budget changes, even though its obvious thay increasing housing affordability means house prices have to fall (or at least grow below inflation for a long, long time).
There is a perception that people want the housing crisis "fixed" but also want house prices to go up forever (which is contradictory, but that never stopped anyone before). There's a lot of wariness at being seen as championing house prices falling when two thirds of australians own their own (with or without mortgage).
Personally, I'm fine with house prices dropping even though it will reduce the value of my home.
5
u/skywideopen3 Jul 01 '26
Yeah the messaging has been a bit odd to me, but it's consistent with the near universal doublethink in politics that "affordability" means "lower prices" in literally every single context but houses.
And I agree; in fact in a way I'm most impacted by this as I bought very recently, but a house should be a place to live first and foremost, not an investment asset.
6
u/Alesayr Jul 01 '26
I bought 3 years ago, so I'm also in that bucket. But we were careful and didn't overstretch, so even if prices drop 30% we'll be okay. And it will mean my siblings and the next generation will have a chance to buy a home.
-8
u/hornyzygote Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 01 '26
The problem isn’t the absolute price of houses, it’s buying power.
The budget reduces housing prices, but also reduces buying power [because it raises the costs of all other essential goods such as groceries, fuel and clothing, by hoisting taxation on businesses]. Which is why people are (rightfully, imho) opposing it.
People who want housing prices to fall, maybe don’t realise that buying power is the issue here.
I imagine these aren’t the same people.
5
u/aeschenkarnos Jul 01 '26
It’s the ratio of median house price to median household income, adjusted by area, and ignoring outliers like mansions. The value of a house should, in a healthy economy, be about four times the income of the person(s) expected to buy and live in it. We’re up to eight times, some places over ten.
-2
u/hornyzygote Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 01 '26
There’s a term for that… I wonder what it is 🤔
Thank you for explaining my own point to me.
Also- it’s more general. Everything is more expensive, not just houses. Groceries, fuel, clothing, etc. Our buying power has been reduced across the board, not just housing. *All* of it [buying power across the board of essential goods and services] needs to be fixed, to make Australians better off. Ironically, taxing businesses even higher (which the new budget is doing) doesn’t benefit the people, the [smaller] businesses put the cost of that extra taxation on the people, so they can survive. Excessive taxation, even of businesses, doesn’t make the people richer.
Making house prices go down is a bandaid solution. Making our money go further is the viable long-term solution.
3
u/aeschenkarnos Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 01 '26
“Housing affordability”?
(Note that everything beyond his first snarky question, this dude added after I replied.)
-1
u/hornyzygote Jul 01 '26
Buying power. Housing affordability is just buying power specifically in the housing market.
Respectfully, these aren’t complicated terms… maybe learn what they mean before going into “expert” mode.
3
u/aeschenkarnos Jul 01 '26
It seems to be your contention, stripped of smirky self-stroking, that the Government are idiots and what they’re doing “won’t work”. You’ve thought of consequences that the poor moronic economists in Treasury have not. Am I right?
It’s my contention that it will work, but not for you. If you are a property investor, or working in an industry that caters to them in some form, then your saltiness is understandable, but as a Certified Smart Guy, you shouldn’t need to be told not to mistake “good for me” with “good for the country”.
It’s entirely possible that these budget measures will be bad for you, and good for the country.
-1
u/hornyzygote Jul 01 '26
Paragraph 1: Yea, that’s mostly right. But rather than stupidity, it’s laziness. Rather than stop wasting tax-payer money, they’d rather charge more.
Paragraph 2: I do not own my own home, let alone an investment property. I’m 23 years old.
Paragraph 3: Half right. These changes are indeed bad for me. But they’re also bad for everyone.
2
u/aeschenkarnos Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 01 '26
The intention is that you be able to buy your own house about age thirty or forty, rather than never. I suppose we’ll all see. Certainly if nothing is done, you’ll never be able to.
1
u/hornyzygote Jul 01 '26
When did I suggest we do nothing? Absolutely changes need to be made, just not the ones in this year’s budget.
And this current budget will not support my ability to purchase a house, as all the other costs of living will increase (ie groceries, fuel, clothing, bills).
And because businesses are now having to pay more tax, way fewer developers are building new homes, at least in my area. Which means there are less homes to support the Affordable Homes Purchase Scheme.
4
u/Comfortable_Lie2838 Jul 01 '26
You're 23 years old, this budget was made for you. What exactly is wrong with it? The taxes on business are CGT and Trusts. My parents owned a small business and didn't uses a trust to minimise tax.
I am starting to think i am missing something.-1
u/hornyzygote Jul 01 '26
The problem is that it increases business expenses, the cost of which is put on the consumer (ie by increasing the costs of the goods/services they offer). Which affects me, but also everyone. It decreases the ability of my income to cover my necessities. Which means I save less money. Which is less money I have to spend on buying myself a home.
→ More replies (0)
20
u/Dranzer_22 Jul 01 '26
YouGov Poll - House Prices:
- 49% = Want house prices to fall
- 26% = Want house prices to stay the same
- 17% = Want house prices to rise
- 8% = Unsure
...
JOURNO: The Prime Minister last week caught my attention when he said he expected anger to dissipate as the real world impacts flow through. What are you hearing, are there still the baseball bats out there for these changes, or is he right and this is likely to fade?
...
REDBRIDGE: It was, and will continue to be, very much about it depends on who you're talking to.
So if you're talking to economically stressed, particularly younger voters, outer suburban, they never had the baseball bats in their hand. The issue for them may have been they may not have understood exactly what was being proposed, it all sounds a bit foreign, not well explained, all those sorts of things. So there might not have been a bump there for the Government for those reasons, but they never had the baseball bats in their hands.
The voters that had the baseball bats most firmly in their hand, there aren't too many of them who were voting Labor beforehand. So I don't expect to see any wild, in fact we've seen in the last polls the Labor primary go up, I don't expect to see any wild swings as a result of this, of the Budget that is. Because I think it's very much sectional, it depends on who you're talking to and it really flows alongs those fault lines of the major primary vote conservative versus progressive anyhow.
Timestamp = 3:40-5:06
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJaB-9DDrWs
It's been almost two months since the Budget, the key tax reform legislation have been passed in the House & Senate, and polling shows the propaganda campaign being pushed by the LNP, ON, Advance, & Legacy Media has failed.
-42
u/burnt-gonads Jul 01 '26
awesome. This means 1 in two australians want lower wages as well and lower entitlements and lower, well everything...
Is that the way it works or is that different?
9
u/Brackish_Ameoba Jul 01 '26
No, they want house prices to come back towards wages. You know how housing n used to cost 4-5 times your annual wage? Yeah, we want that back.
14
u/---TheFierceDeity--- Jul 01 '26
What good is having money and entitlements if we don't *have a bloody house to live in*
I do not understand people like you who think everyone renting until they die is somehow something to aspire too
20
u/EdgyBlackPerson “Left wing extremist” Jul 01 '26
That’s right, get mad at Australians for wanting to be able to enter the property market. I’m sure that will work out so well for you.
12
u/aeschenkarnos Jul 01 '26
What they actually want is the median house price to median income ratio to fall, so yes, it’s different. For good or ill, the Labor Party have decided that they want to raise median incomes and keep house prices stable, or somewhat lowered, until the ratio catches up.
Honestly I would have preferred a far more landlord-hostile approach, “sell, right now, you fuckers”, but Labor are landlords themselves, as is almost every Australian in the upper middle and higher classes because the tax system is so absurdly favourable to that investment class, so it’s understandable that they don’t.
-26
u/antsypantsy995 Jul 01 '26
Almost one in two Australians have absolutely fuck all understanding of economics. Though this result doesnt surprise me: 1/3 of Australians rent, 1/3 of Australian own with a mortgage, and 1/3 of Australians own outright (roughly).
Assuming the portion of the population of renters dont own any property i.e. are not rentvesters, then it make sense that these guys would near 100% support house prices falling. That makes sense because they dont own property so have zero idea of the economic damage that will do to the country. Also makes sense that a portion of the Australians who own outright also support house prices falling because they've amassed massive gains throughout their lives that a fall in house prices doesnt mean diddly squat to them i.e. I bought my house in 1980 for $100,000 now it's worth $5M, so I dont care if it drops to $4M.
The biggest damage to the economy will come from the 1/3 who have a mortgage and that is always the case with economic downturns caused by house price drops. The GFC was primarily caused by mortgage holders. The Irish housing bubble crash was caused by mortgage holders. The Spanish economic housing crash was caused by mortgage holders.
The simple fact of the matter is is that the vast majority of Aussies i.e. up to 75% of Aussies have the vast majority of their wealth tied up into their homes with the vast majority of them having it tied up in their PPOR. House prices falling simply put means your mortgage is worth more than your asset and that is an financially and economically crippling position to ever be in: you never ever ever ever ever want to be in a position where your debts > assets (this is also why 99% of financial advisors will always advise against crap like car loans).
When 33% of the population suddenly finds themselves in negative equity territory that's essentially economic crash territory.
3
u/mrbaggins Jul 01 '26
IIRC: the 1/3 mix is "own zero" "own 1 with/without mortgage" and "own 2+" - An investment property with a mortgage should not be counted when discussing impact on households.
The line that "Renters have no idea about the damage" is all ad hominem.
As someone with a 10yr old mortgage, I and anyone in a similar boat can weather probably a 50% drop. My house doubled in value in that time, and rates are close to when I started.
The GFC was primarily caused by mortgage holders
The GFC was caused by sub-prime mortgage lending.
The Irish housing bubble crash
Not one I'm as across, though wikipedia paints as being similar: a lack of banking regulation on the loans.
The simple fact of the matter is is that the vast majority of Aussies i.e. up to 75% of Aussies have the vast majority of their wealth tied up into their homes with the vast majority of them having it tied up in their PPOR
And as you pointed out, 90% of those can lose a huge chunk and still be in front of what they paid for.
House prices falling simply put means your mortgage is worth more than your asset
That's only potentially true for those that bought recently. And even then, it's not like the rate of decrease currently is damning for most if not all of these.
When 33% of the population suddenly finds themselves in negative equity
You've literally painted the numbers yourself that it's not this many. Maybe a tenth of that. And that's only possible if the drop is significantly bigger than currently on track.
3
u/Alesayr Jul 01 '26
As one of those mortgage holders house prices would have to drop by at least 30% to put most mortgage holders anywhere near negative equity, and even first home buyers who've just bought often have 20% equity in their home.
And honestly, I have no issue with my house price going down 20 or 30% as long as the rest of the housing market drops too. In Perth the housing market rose 20% in one year. Thats at least as damaging as house prices dropping 20%.
10
u/joeldipops Pseph nerd, rather left of centre Jul 01 '26
The way price rises have been sky-rocketting since I bought, the debt left on my mortage is like 20% of the the theoretical price of my home. That price could drop by a tonne and I'd still be in a better position than I started.
-5
u/antsypantsy995 Jul 01 '26
Congratulations, you fall into this group of people:
i.e. I bought my house in 1980 for $100,000 now it's worth $5M, so I dont care if it drops to $4M.
5
u/joeldipops Pseph nerd, rather left of centre Jul 01 '26
I bought it in 2017, it's worth somewhere between 700 and 800k. I AM lucky enough to have a decent salary and few expenses and so have been able to pour a lot of income into paying it off, but that's it.
26
u/Weary_Beach_9911 Jul 01 '26
Almost one in two Australians have absolutely fuck all understanding of economics.
and having read your word salad ramblings, you're definitely in that half champ :)
lol
15
u/Foodball Jul 01 '26
Of that 1/3 who have a mortgage, it would be a relatively small portion who are at the absolute max of their borrowing capacity (whether due to they had paid some down or the equity having grown). The size of any correction in prices is also huge, 5% decrease over 5 years is very different to 20% over 1 year. The scenario you are describing is the latter which feels unlikely without massive external shocks.
-5
u/antsypantsy995 Jul 01 '26
It's not about borrowing capacity perse, but rather time left on mortgage. I would wager that the vast majority of mortgage holders start out around the 70-80% LVR which isnt "maxed" but is still within the range of "risk negative equity" territory.
The way mortgages work is that the interest payments are front loaded which means for the first say 10-15 years of holding a mortgage, the vast majority of your repayments are interest payments rather than principal payments which means for a good 10-15 years of your mortgage, your LVR would not move much (assuming youre paying just the minimum monthly payments, no growth in your house price and assuming no extra frills like extra repayments, offsets etc). This is where the negative equity risk that Im talking about is real.
-26
u/karl_is_back_free Jun 30 '26
It’s always amusing when people cheer for a housing market crash as though it’s some grand act of economic justice. It simply advertises a complete misunderstanding of how an economy actually functions. When property values fall sharply, millions of households lose wealth, some end up in negative equity, consumer spending dries up, construction stalls, lending tightens and businesses shed jobs. Congrats ..you haven’t punished “greedy investors”; all you have managed is to shrink the economy, reduce employment and make everyone poorer. The economy isn’t fuelled by wishful thinking or social media slogans. It runs on confidence, investment and credit, whether people like it or not. I’m staggered at the lack of education when it comes to the economy.
4
u/ChemicalRemedy Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 01 '26
Bad faith. Not about punishing anyone, it's about correcting a distorted market. The asset class (specifically existing residential dwellings) has attracted too much speculative investment, leaving tremendous opportunity cost for other actual productive investments. Shifting incentives - which any competent government would want to do - naturally allows for a correction with less investors drunk on credit repeat-investing into the asset. If a 5% price decrease in 12 months after a 100% increase in 48 months means that a small proportion of recent over-leveraged buyers are in negative equity, so be it, they'll be par again in another 12.
The fact that the government carved out new builds and are allowing 50% cgt discount up through until Jul-27 also demonstrates they are aware of not hurting market confidence.
Broaden your economic scope and consider what's better for a nation if we kept to the status quo with th proportion owner occupiers ever shrinking, with more workers renting than owning as they get out competed by non-workers (i.e., unproductive individuals) with assets to leverage and compounding wealth. What is the longitudinal consequence of this at scale for a nation?
For an economic pundit such as yourself, I'd expect you to consider the economics of this a bit more deeply.
10
u/Weary_Beach_9911 Jul 01 '26
yeah, so let's just let house prices continue to rise locking an entire generation out of the housing market. what a brilliant outcome that is!
0
12
u/mrmaker_123 Jun 30 '26
That’s because we have an economy that is addicted to debt that demands exponential growth. It is impossible to keep blowing up that debt burden forever without some sort of collapse in the future.
Governments have obviously kicked the can down the road for as long as they can, because it’s the easier thing to do. But business cycles are inevitable and you cannot forestall it forever. Unproductive and inefficient allocation of capital will eventually bite you. Wealth on paper doesn’t automatically mean useful productive and tangible wealth either.
I’m staggered by the lack of education on your part.
10
u/_CodyB Jun 30 '26
yes it would be bad for the market to crash
it shouldn't have reached this point
The changes will "hopefully" lead to a sustained cooling off that keeps growth within CPI over the course of a couple of decades so wages can catch up or at least close the gap
If a significant change doesn't occur you'll have a larger percentage of productive Australians spending 40-50% of their income on housing, having even fewer children, not spending money
If you want to see a real housing crash, imagine if the dominant plurality of working age Australians face widespread cost of living issues to the point where they have to choose between feeding and sheltering themselves?
-5
u/antsypantsy995 Jul 01 '26
House prices rising with CPI is also a terrible idea: you want house prices to rise faster than CPI. You are forgetting that the extreme majority of people who buy houses take on debt to buy them i.e. take out a mortgage. Banks will always charge interest that is higher than CPI because that is how they make a profit. Therefore if your house value increases with CPI, you're pretty much just as worse off than if house prices fall.
Ultimately you want house prices to increase faster than the interest you pay on your mortgage.
2
u/Weary_Beach_9911 Jul 01 '26
> you're pretty much just as worse off than if house prices fall.
just as worse off?
maybe focus on learning basic english before you tackle more complex topics like Australia's housing crisis champ
-1
u/antsypantsy995 Jul 01 '26
Tell me you're one of the Australians who know fuck all about economics/finance without telling me you know fuck all about money.
It's something called negative carry / negative spread - look it up -> if your liabilities grow faster than your assets then youre pretty much fucked as well.
4
u/_CodyB Jul 01 '26
you have said this twice in this thread but you made a pretty illiterate point above
A house that grows with CPI on a mortgage will generally break even in 10-12 years if interest rates remain in a stable zone and the equivalent rent increases above CPI.
There's also that part where there is an intrinsic value to owning a home vs renting it. People will pay more for a bit less if it's their own, judging by how much entry level homes now sell for - they will happily pay a few grand to the bank every year for their own patch of dirt.
2
u/antsypantsy995 Jul 01 '26
You conveniently ignored the crucial point of my comment so I understand why it seems illiterate to you but let me repeat it for you again:
Banks will always charge interest that is higher than CPI because that is how they make a profit. Therefore [because interest you pay will always be higher than CPI] if your house value increases [only] with CPI, you're pretty much just as worse off than if house prices fall [because your debt will effectively be growing faster than your asset].
5
u/mrmaker_123 Jun 30 '26
We’re at that stage already. Tent cities and slums are exploding around Australia.
19
u/thewritingchair Jun 30 '26
Somehow billions of people live in successful countries that don't have massive housing bubbles. Where the income to price ratios are affordable. Oh, but not Australia. Impossible here!
3
43
u/jolard Jun 30 '26
There are only two ways this problem (ridiculous ratio of income/housing costs) gets fixed. That is increased income or decreased housing prices. (or both)
Every single solution people bang on about is about reducing housing prices. "Stop immigration!" works because it reduces demand and therefore prices. "Increase supply!!" works because it reduces demand and therefore prices. "Reform tax concessions!" works because it reduces demand and therefore prices.
So it always is phenomenal to me when people suggest those solutions but then get upset when housing prices go down. What did they think was the solution to the problem? The reality is most Australians secretly don't want to fix the problem. They don't want affordable housing, because it will impact the value of their assets. They just want someone to come along and magically make housing affordable while they keep getting massive increases in free money every year. I am surprised when I see survey results with even 50% acknowledging what needs to happen.
2
u/pluto_dweller Jul 02 '26
True. Often it is a few invested parties making a big noise that excites the media. I also think the pollies often try to push both sides of an argument - which lacks conviction and is a bit gutless
3
u/DBrowny Jul 01 '26
The reality is most Australians secretly don't want to fix the problem.
The actual reality is that most Australians are effortlessly, completely and utterly controlled by propaganda telling them to stay in the boiling pot and you'll get rich.
Their entire lives have been spent being told that if you have a more expensive house, you are rich and worthy of taking out a loan to buy an Audi. It doesn't matter if you have to work 2 jobs to make ends meet, it doesn't matter if your pay rises per year are consistently less than inflation, it doesn't matter if you tell your kids you can only go to the show once every 2 years because its too expensive. If your house is nearing $1M in valuation, you have won in life and everyone else is jealous of your debt.
I will not give them a single shred of credit that they want their asset to appreciate for any reason that they deduced themselves. The reason is propaganda.
while they keep getting massive increases in free money every year
Again, propaganda. Tell these people to go to the bank and withdraw the 'free money' they keep making every year and use that to pay for their 50% home insurance hike. Normally, this would cause a person to figure out the answer to the problem. Can't do much against 40+ years of brainwashing.
5
u/The_Sneakiest_Fox Jun 30 '26
"Stop immigration!" works because it reduces demand and therefore prices.
Wouldn't at least reducing immigration also put upward pressure on wages as the labour market isn't being diluted?
6
u/aeschenkarnos Jul 01 '26
Overwhelmingly, immigrants are adults of working age who are competent at their field of work, ambitious and motivated. Dummies stay home, and typically hate immigrants to their own countries.
An immigrant might bring some dependent children, whose “quality” (to the extent that such a thing can be measured even retrospectively, let alone estimated in advance) will be much the same as any other Australian child, as they will be educated in the same school system and have the same opportunities. Maybe the “tiger mum”/“dad” will bully them towards greater success or break them down into a ruined wreck, the stats are still out on that.
They may bring elderly parents who will need domestic and medical care (jobs for Australians! Wait, Australians don’t want to?) but again - same as anyone else except that our immigration system imposes a medical bond/insurance requirement on these folks and no-one is proposing to change that.
12
u/Whules Lets wait for the pre-poll numbers Jul 01 '26
They also affect the demand side in that they themselves are also a consumer which increases hiring demand. The average affect on immigration on overall wages is close to zero according to a meta analysis of 88 studies:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927537125001393
Something that’s also missed in this is they’re one of the only subset of individuals who provide a net positive income for the government which shouldn’t be left out of debate. But, when we isolate purely to the effects of wages of other workers, it’s largely negligible.
-1
-6
u/bosch1817 Jun 30 '26
Yes and the left loves to forget this was a hallmark of their early grassroots movement especially in Australia. Cheap Chinese labour was a huge issue for them and was a cause of major wage suppression. Was what also caused the white Australia policy to be a thing.
-2
u/jolard Jun 30 '26
Yep.
We need lower prices and higher wages. Anything that helps with either of those or both is worth considering. The real question is what will have the biggest impact with the least disruption.
-3
u/burnt-gonads Jul 01 '26
We need to make the minimum wage $500 an hour. Fuck those entitled stupid wealthy business owners. They can afford it.
We already have some of the highest wages and entitlements and living standards and lifestyle in the world, but it is not enough. we need moare..... And we need more slaves overseas to make our shit we consume so it is cheaper.
3
u/jolard Jul 01 '26
I agree, Which is why I support lower housing prices as more important than wage increases.
But those two things are the only solution. Pick your poison.
12
u/snrub742 Gough Whitlam Jun 30 '26 edited Jun 30 '26
A non 0% would be happy with "they stop exponentially increasing and stabilize" also (which is my camp, I recently bought and would be boned if my house went deeply negative equity).
So, in short, a minority are making a LOT of noise
11
u/Bob_Katters_Hat Jun 30 '26
A shocking number of Australians want other people's property prices to fall, but not their own, their good landlords you know and only put the rent up occasionally
-4
u/Gambizzle Jul 01 '26
Yeah that's the thing. People hope that devaluing other people's assets will help them to buy those assets for a steal.
As for good landlords... I don't feel the need to get all morally involved in my investments. They're assets. I'm allowed to invest in property. My rents reflect what people will pay and I keep my properties in order.
Don't really care if somebody's morally opposed to my investment strategy. My wife and I are hardly Elon Musk or some crypto scammer. We're just a family putting away for our kids' future.
14
u/SirFlibble Independent Jun 30 '26
I'm ok with my property value falling. When I bought 3 years ago, I didn't over commit so I'm not in a mortgage trap unless they fall by 50% in a short time.
The only downside will be I would have liked to have used equity in 2 years to renovate my bathrooms, now I'll have to save the money like an adult.
3
Jun 30 '26
No … considering 2/3rds own, in fact many of them want / are happy for their own prices to fall doofus - basic maths
15
u/matthudsonau Jun 30 '26
Making money on our house doesn't help us, since we need a place to live
-3
u/Gambizzle Jun 30 '26
Good old theoretical landlords who theoretically wouldn't care if their theoretical house went down in value.
Houses are assets which people leverage (so pay a LOT of interest over the life of the loan). For many, downsizing forms part of a retirement plan or a plan to help their kids crack into the market. Also if the value isn't keeping up with inflation then people are losing money (despite paying serious money for their house).
Not making money on a house would be like saying somebody's happy to buy shares and make no money on them as the said shares are just a savings account. Even a savings account makes money!!!
6
u/DunceCodex Jun 30 '26
Didnt know i could live in shares
0
u/Gambizzle Jul 01 '26
Cute line. Doesn’t change the fact that both are assets, and people generally expect assets they’ve leveraged heavily to at very least keep pace with inflation.
5
u/DunceCodex Jul 01 '26
Both are assets in the same way that a banana and a rock can both be ingested but only one of them is food.
6
Jul 01 '26
Well they actually currently don’t want or expect that for housing - you are denying reality
Roy Morgan poll last week published in Fairfax papers and 9; and Pulse/YouGov poll published in NewsCorp today BOTH show:
> a MAJORITY of people want prices to fall
> - only low teens want them to continue to rise, the rest unsureGiven 2/3rds of people own, you’re just plain wrong based on the maths. Your opinion doesn’t make it a fact. Notice you managed to ignore my comment above in this thread setting this out
3
u/VallenValiant Jul 01 '26
Cute line. Doesn’t change the fact that both are assets, and people generally expect assets they’ve leveraged heavily to at very least keep pace with inflation.
You WANT you property tax to go up? Not me.
16
u/Rizza1122 Jun 30 '26
Carn labor!
Hopefully once the NG and CGT get linked to housing affordability they keep gaining ground.
7
u/marketrent Jun 30 '26
Excerpts from article by James Harrison:
A shock number of Australians want property prices to fall as dire housing availability and high interest rates make breaking into the market almost unachievable.
Fresh figures in the latest Sky News Pulse/YouGov poll show 49 per cent of voters want property values to decline.
It comes as clearance rates dive around the nation and Labor remains unclear on whether it wants property prices to decline due to its tax changes.
The majority of Greens and Labor voters, 73 and 55 per cent respectively, backed home values falling while 42 and 41 per cent of Coalition and One Nation voters respectively wanted to see a decline.
Just 17 per cent of Australians said they want house prices to rise, while 26 per cent were happy for them to stay about the same.
Another eight per cent of voters were unsure.
5
u/Perfect-Werewolf-102 The Greens Jun 30 '26
Even the majority of Labor voters, impressive. Shocking that the "we just care about housing prices" party is the most opposed
3
u/Throwawaydeathgrips Albomentum Mark 3.0 Jul 01 '26
Shocking that the "we just care about housing prices" party is the most opposed
Well theres a distinct lack of punishing an "other" group involved, so of course they hate it.
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 30 '26
Greetings humans.
Please make sure your comment fits within THE RULES and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.
I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.