If predictions come true it will be another year of deteriorating housing affordability, prices will rise at twice the rate of disposable income — something that that has been going on for 25 years and has created what we all see now as a crisis.
No, blaming immigration is just a racist scapegoat. The amount of housing being built far outstrips the number of new households due to immigration. The problem is that the number of houses being bought by investors (instead of first home buyers) is almost equal to the number of new houses being built. Which is a problem caused by our incredibly harmful policies that treat housing as a financial instrument more than a right that people need to have. There’s also a huge number of completely empty homes—again, a problem caused by pro-investor policies.
There are also issues with our council policies around what kinds of housing can be built where. Restrictive zoning laws that prevent more efficient medium-density housing, instead of most of our cities being made up of low density zoning that uses obscene amounts of land, and a preference to use the highest zoning possible in the smallest number of places possible, when low density is not sufficient (which is more expensive per capita due to the higher costs of materials, labour, and technical requirements associated with high rises compared to 2–4 storey row houses and apartments). And a severe lack of investment in public housing from our state governments.
Tax incentives. Public housing. Zoning laws. This is a problem created by all three levels of government. But immigration? Not a significant factor.
Immigration is a factor. The private- and government-sectors have not been building enough dwellings for the domestic market as is [i]and[/i] they’ve been increasing immigration. Immigration as it stands is government policy to dampen wage-growth. The domestic population’s decline is probably on the government’s mind too. An economy, apparently, can’t be run by geriatrics. It needs young, fresh labour to be bled dry.
Turning the tap off on immigration won’t fix the issue. It’s obvious nonsense to state that, but it’s likewise nonsense to state immigration is not a factor that affects the domestic market. If immigrants had no effect then why would a government import foreign labour? Again, it’s part of it, but it’s probably a very small part of it.
It’s also nonsense that the media harp on about potential rate-cuts. Going to near negative rates was an absurd experiment that won’t be repeated. (Rater, should not.) The result of that was a ballooning of fictional wealth in the value of assets held. Moderate to high rates will be with us for years, until wages increase and a more stable market emerges. Otherwise it’s back to clown town.
No, blaming immigration is just a racist scapegoat. The amount of housing being built far outstrips the number of new households due to immigration. The problem is that the number of houses being bought by investors (instead of first home buyers) is almost equal to the number of new houses being built. Which is a problem caused by our incredibly harmful policies that treat housing as a financial instrument more than a right that people need to have. There’s also a huge number of completely empty homes—again, a problem caused by pro-investor policies.
There are also issues with our council policies around what kinds of housing can be built where. Restrictive zoning laws that prevent more efficient medium-density housing, instead of most of our cities being made up of low density zoning that uses obscene amounts of land, and a preference to use the highest zoning possible in the smallest number of places possible, when low density is not sufficient (which is more expensive per capita due to the higher costs of materials, labour, and technical requirements associated with high rises compared to 2–4 storey row houses and apartments). And a severe lack of investment in public housing from our state governments.
Tax incentives. Public housing. Zoning laws. This is a problem created by all three levels of government. But immigration? Not a significant factor.
Immigration is a factor. The private- and government-sectors have not been building enough dwellings for the domestic market as is [i]and[/i] they’ve been increasing immigration. Immigration as it stands is government policy to dampen wage-growth. The domestic population’s decline is probably on the government’s mind too. An economy, apparently, can’t be run by geriatrics. It needs young, fresh labour to be bled dry.
Turning the tap off on immigration won’t fix the issue. It’s obvious nonsense to state that, but it’s likewise nonsense to state immigration is not a factor that affects the domestic market. If immigrants had no effect then why would a government import foreign labour? Again, it’s part of it, but it’s probably a very small part of it.
It’s also nonsense that the media harp on about potential rate-cuts. Going to near negative rates was an absurd experiment that won’t be repeated. (Rater, should not.) The result of that was a ballooning of fictional wealth in the value of assets held. Moderate to high rates will be with us for years, until wages increase and a more stable market emerges. Otherwise it’s back to clown town.