flag of convenience Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 unions do nothing for a sub contractor. They do nothing for wages in our industry either. Wages been set in stone here as long as I've been a tradesman with no trade influence. Commercial workers would appreciate it with all the extras on top of their wage. that's about it. I know your stance mate and I got mine . Life's no fun with everyone having same point of view. I just speak from my experience. Why I like this forum now and then . Can come here and help and share different point of views without us abusing each other. Like I said if my occupation was different I could understand favouring a union. In the uk I had a choice and even then I said no bloody way would I pay to be part of the union. The former Howard government's Individual Work Contracts, went a long way towards explaining the absolute need of the Union, to maintain a degree of fairness for the working man. As pointed out by Paul 1 Perth, Renhart articulated clearly what employers think. Without the Collective the worker sadly has little chance of getting a fair deal. Clearly another shade of Class War is forming from within the ranks. Self interest rules on all fronts but the employer has the whip hand at the end of the day. Thank goodness for the Unions who are hardly a reflection of the militant stance taken in the past.i Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graemsay Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 I don't think that there's anything that I can really add that Flag of Convenience hasn't already said. However it strikes me that house prices in Sydney and, to a lesser extent, Melbourne are off the scale with respect to wages, to the extent that the average house is getting to be a stretch for someone in the top 1% of earnings. (They Sydney median house price is around $820K according to one series, and a $210K salary will put you in Tue top 1%.) I'm not convinced that the Southeast of England is any better. In London you need £100K as a deposit and the same as a salary to afford a two bedroom house. In both cases I reckon the causes are low interest rates, investors and speculators recycling equity into new IPs, homeowners fearing missing out, government intervention, and foreign capital chasing safety and strong returns. As for warning signals, the yield on a property is less than the mortgage rate in much of Oz. Prime London has a similar yield, but might be positive due to the interest rate. I don't know what the outcome is going to be, but I wouldn't want to hold property in any of the above markets over the medium term. If it does go bang then it will trash the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 I don't think that there's anything that I can really add that Flag of Convenience hasn't already said. However it strikes me that house prices in Sydney and, to a lesser extent, Melbourne are off the scale with respect to wages, to the extent that the average house is getting to be a stretch for someone in the top 1% of earnings. (They Sydney median house price is around $820K according to one series, and a $210K salary will put you in Tue top 1%.) I'm not convinced that the Southeast of England is any better. In London you need £100K as a deposit and the same as a salary to afford a two bedroom house. In both cases I reckon the causes are low interest rates, investors and speculators recycling equity into new IPs, homeowners fearing missing out, government intervention, and foreign capital chasing safety and strong returns. As for warning signals, the yield on a property is less than the mortgage rate in much of Oz. Prime London has a similar yield, but might be positive due to the interest rate. I don't know what the outcome is going to be, but I wouldn't want to hold property in any of the above markets over the medium term. If it does go bang then it will trash the economy. It's close to criminal what has been allowed and encouraged to happen. Prices overinflated and what happens? In the case of Australia the big four banks flogging loans off shore to the Overseas Chinese market. In theory from the accounts I've read plus 60 million folk living there could potentially qualify. Obviously price adjustment will be deferred in that case leaving the mess to unfold further down the road. I suppose they could go for close on zero interest rates here as well. Don't want to think about the repercussions for the future in that case. Is this country going to be based on the buying of real estate and the movement of people in? I know the London market has been outrageously over priced for a long time. Saying that it is one of the top cities that attracts the very wealthy and elite. As such hardly surprising. Still feel for Londoners priced out of their own city largely. Looked around with the interest in purchasing in 2010. Some 75% of all real estate at that time was being sold to people living overseas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Watched the ABC breakfast news this morning and the first report I saw was Sydney median house price has gone over $800,000. The very next guy on was some financial guru who was saying that a lot of the banks have dropped their 5 year, starter loan interest rates to below 5%. He then came out with the statement that "houses have never been more affordable".:laugh: Made me wonder whether he'd seen the report just before he came on. Pity one of the interviewers didn't ask him why he thought that. I suppose he would have cited the interest rates. Being an economist they work on the "cash flow" argument. Doesn't really matter what you borrow, if you can make the repayments then you're OK. That works fine till interest rates go up, you lose your job or have to change jobs where you don't get as much, your car breaks down etc. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Watched the ABC breakfast news this morning and the first report I saw was Sydney median house price has gone over $800,000. The very next guy on was some financial guru who was saying that a lot of the banks have dropped their 5 year, starter loan interest rates to below 5%. He then came out with the statement that "houses have never been more affordable".:laugh: Made me wonder whether he'd seen the report just before he came on. Pity one of the interviewers didn't ask him why he thought that. I suppose he would have cited the interest rates. Being an economist they work on the "cash flow" argument. Doesn't really matter what you borrow, if you can make the repayments then you're OK. That works fine till interest rates go up, you lose your job or have to change jobs where you don't get as much, your car breaks down etc. etc. Yes it is based on the interest rate. An average $400,000 mortgage fixed at 4.99% for 5 years is only about $380 per week in interest. Not this is probably quite affordable assuming you had another couple of hundred thousand as a deposit, and compared to renting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echidna66 Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 I think you will find the whole world is living in a big bubble ready to pop...not just Australia..The whole world is living in a big bubble which is going to pop big time very soon.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graemsay Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Watched the ABC breakfast news this morning and the first report I saw was Sydney median house price has gone over $800,000. The very next guy on was some financial guru who was saying that a lot of the banks have dropped their 5 year, starter loan interest rates to below 5%. He then came out with the statement that "houses have never been more affordable".:laugh: Ah, economists... They've got a tendency to view interest as the only cost, since repayments of the principle count as forced savings. Thus a house at $500K with interest rates at 8% would be considered to be as affordable as a house at $800K with interest rates at 5%. The thing is that the repayments on a thirty year loan would be cheaper for the former, $3700 per month versus $4300, meaning that the lifetime repayment of the $500K house would be $1.3 million, versus $1.6 million for the more expensive one. Though I'll concede that at the end of the thirty year mortgage, the $800K property would be worth a bit more, and that should put it ahead by a nose. Plus the current RBA base rate is at emergency levels. That means your cheap mortgage payments would get substantially more expensive when it normalises to 7% or 8% in a few years... Two other things to bear in mind, the Dublin bubble peaked at a median price of €470K in 2007. Depending on exchange rates and inflation, that works out somewhere between $800K and $900K, which puts Sydney in the same ballpark. And secondly, long term studies of property prices have shown that they tend to track inflation, so the 20% bump in Sydney over the last 12 months is equivalent to seven years' growth. (I could have a go at Dr Wilson claiming that prices not rising by 2.5% over inflation is a "heroic assumption", but that would be an easy target...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 But you can get a 5 year fixed rate of 4.99% currently which is a great deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Ah, economists... They've got a tendency to view interest as the only cost, since repayments of the principle count as forced savings. Thus a house at $500K with interest rates at 8% would be considered to be as affordable as a house at $800K with interest rates at 5%. The thing is that the repayments on a thirty year loan would be cheaper for the former, $3700 per month versus $4300, meaning that the lifetime repayment of the $500K house would be $1.3 million, versus $1.6 million for the more expensive one. Though I'll concede that at the end of the thirty year mortgage, the $800K property would be worth a bit more, and that should put it ahead by a nose. Plus the current RBA base rate is at emergency levels. That means your cheap mortgage payments would get substantially more expensive when it normalises to 7% or 8% in a few years... Two other things to bear in mind, the Dublin bubble peaked at a median price of €470K in 2007. Depending on exchange rates and inflation, that works out somewhere between $800K and $900K, which puts Sydney in the same ballpark. And secondly, long term studies of property prices have shown that they tend to track inflation, so the 20% bump in Sydney over the last 12 months is equivalent to seven years' growth. (I could have a go at Dr Wilson claiming that prices not rising by 2.5% over inflation is a "heroic assumption", but that would be an easy target...) Dublin was a bit of a basket case though in that the EU paid lots of companies to go there and set up business, to create jobs, to get the vote. When the **** hit the fan they all bailed and left Dublin in the lurch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunbury61 Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Yes it is based on the interest rate.An average $400,000 mortgage fixed at 4.99% for 5 years is only about $380 per week in interest. Not this is probably quite affordable assuming you had another couple of hundred thousand as a deposit, and compared to renting. did I just read that right ......$ 380 A WEEK IN INTEREST ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunbury61 Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Dublin was a bit of a basket case though in that the EU paid lots of companies to go there and set up business, to create jobs, to get the vote. When the **** hit the fan they all bailed and left Dublin in the lurch. What happened in Ireland was unreal ....on the programme I watched about the crisis , it was like monopoly money .....people were meeting their bank manager , in the shelbourne hotel in Dublin and asking for 2 million euros to buy 10 houses , as an example ....and getting it .....not many questions asked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 did I just read that right ......$ 380 A WEEK IN INTEREST ? Yes. Unless my maths is wrong. $400000 at 4.99% is around $20000 per year in interest. It is a lot. I wouldn't like to pay it but the other alternative is to rent a similar property would probably still be $400 a week at least. You really do need 2 incomes these days to buy a house, but as I said renting may not be that much cheaper anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VERYSTORMY Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Oz is creating a massive future problem with it's mortgages. I can't understand the logic. In the UK and many other countries the lesson was learned about interest only mortgages that were usually an endowment system. We all know how this turned out when endowments failed to cover the debt. Here they don't even insist on the endowment policy and just leave it up to the borrower to save the money. Even though the fact it is obvious the reason the borrower has opted for the lower repayment of interest only is because they don't have funds to cover a repayment mortgage. Big problems building. Then there is what is total recklessness of the banks. When we were recently looking at mortgages several of the banks were willing to lend an amount based on my net income. But they were willing to lend an amount that would have been 100% of my net income. If anyone thinks that is sustainable then they are gaga. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graemsay Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Dublin was a bit of a basket case though in that the EU paid lots of companies to go there and set up business, to create jobs, to get the vote. When the **** hit the fan they all bailed and left Dublin in the lurch. OK, how about Japan, which had what is widely considered to be the biggest property bubble in recent years, or the USA. In 1991, Japanese real estate peaked at being worth around $18 trillion in total, or $31 trillion in current (US) dollars. Their population is 128 million, versus 23 million, so it'd be the equivalent of Aussie real estate being worth about $5.8 trillion (Australian). In 2006, US real estate peaked at being worth $24.3 trillion, or about $29 trillion in current money. With 317 million people, it'd be equivalent to Aussie real estate being worth $2.2 trillion (Australian). Australian real estate was claimed to be worth more than $5 trillion in February. That's not far off Japan, and given price rises over the last six months, the gap could have closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunbury61 Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Yes. Unless my maths is wrong.$400000 at 4.99% is around $20000 per year in interest. It is a lot. I wouldn't like to pay it but the other alternative is to rent a similar property would probably still be $400 a week at least. You really do need 2 incomes these days to buy a house, but as I said renting may not be that much cheaper anyway. That's obscene .....so technically......you could be paying a huge chunk of a wage ...just on mortgage interest ...that's BS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 That's obscene .....so technically......you could be paying a huge chunk of a wage ...just on mortgage interest ...that's BS As far back as I can remember bunbury it's never been any different if you want a house. My Dad was a fitter for ICI when I was young and my Mum was working part time. We didn't have a car, neither of them could drive, we lived in a pokey terrace in the middle of Chesterfield, with a shower in the kitchen and an outside toilet. Holidays were to Skegness and Rhyll. Later on he changed jobs to the coalboard and we moved about 4 miles away as it was closer to work for him and easier to get there on public transport. We moved into a semi detached 3 bed with a bathroom, garden and thought it was a mansion. Holidays were miners camps in Rhyll and Skeggy, if we could afford them. The house kept them just as broke as these days, maybe even more. My Dad didn't learn to drive till after me and my Mum never did. They didn't have mobile, internet, computer costs that everyone seems to think is a necessity these days either. These days first time buyers expect to be moving into a new, 4 bed detached, with all modern fittings, as a first time buy. We have friends with a married son with a young baby, they have their own house (new build 4 bed detached) and an investment property, He's late 20's. He used to work for the bank but managed to do his truck driving course and now works FIFO 2 on one off. He would love to get a job back here but can't afford to do it. His wife doesn't work. I couldn't have dreamed of doing that when I was that age and my parents thought they were lucky to get what they had. I think our expectations have just gotten out of control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToowoombaBlue Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 Holidays were to Skegness and Rhyll. Skegness AND Rhyll, could only ever afford Skeggy, every other year whether we needed it or not! :smile: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 Skegness AND Rhyll, could only ever afford Skeggy, every other year whether we needed it or not! :smile: The miners camps at Skeggy and Rhyll were very cheap and great fun. I can only remember great times as kids. A bus used to pick us up at the welfare. The idea was the pits around areas would shut at different times of the year so you would be getting on the bus with your mates from the same village, same school. Get to the miners camp and all the kids would be in dorms for 2 weeks and parents would be in their own chalet. Most kids would hardly see their parents for the 2 weeks. Suited kids and parents. Looking back on it the people that looked after the kids (used to call them Aunty and Uncle for the fortnight) could have been child abusers for all I know. Not that I ever had any reports of it but there were never any checks done on people that wanted to look after kids in those days.:eek: It was Rhyll one year and Skeggy the next btw, couldn't afford two in one year.:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenon4017 Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 That's obscene .....so technically......you could be paying a huge chunk of a wage ...just on mortgage interest ...that's BS Well, if you have money in the bank in a savings account, you expect to get interest, don't you? It's the same equation. And if you think it's BS now, wait til interest rates go back up. It might be BS, but at least it's cheap BS. [Didn't always used to be this way though. Charging interest on loans was outlawed by the Christian church for quite a while. Still is in strict Islamic cultures.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fletchaman Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 Well, if you have money in the bank in a savings account, you expect to get interest, don't you? It's the same equation. And if you think it's BS now, wait til interest rates go back up. It might be BS, but at least it's cheap BS. [Didn't always used to be this way though. Charging interest on loans was outlawed by the Christian church for quite a while. Still is in strict Islamic cultures.] I remember my parents paying 14% interest in the UK in the 80's imagine how crippling that was!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 I remember my parents paying 14% interest in the UK in the 80's imagine how crippling that was!! Same interest rates here, about the same time fletchaman. If global interest rates stay low and I can't see them going anywhere soon, as the global growth forecast has been reduced yet again, then it might be worth taking the risk of a big mortgage, especially if you are earning good money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 I remember my parents paying 14% interest in the UK in the 80's imagine how crippling that was!! Depends how fast wages were rising Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fletchaman Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 Depends how fast wages were rising They weren't, lots of people lost their houses the interest rates doubled we were lucky as we bought our council house so mortgage was small but people who bought private were crippled think it, was around black Wednesday in 92 not 80's. Imagine that now!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 Trying to pick the optimum time to come to Australia (or any other country) is a waste of time, akin to trying to decide the best time to invest in the stock market. If you are worried about this, best not to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith and Linda Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 They weren't, lots of people lost their houses the interest rates doubled we were lucky as we bought our council house so mortgage was small but people who bought private were crippled think it, was around black Wednesday in 92 not 80's. Imagine that now!!!! We did too! was just about the only way we could get our own house, even then had to borrow more to pay for solicitor's and other fees and charges. Thankyou Maggie Thatcher! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.