Australia's richest man apologises for supporting unemployment

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

More and more people today just don't want 30 year mortgages to their name.

Well I don't. But it's a literal price to pay for me not to rent.

Though you can't use me as an example. Unless you want to be an licensed aircraft mechanic that is very undermanned. Hint hint.

I think they meant that it shouldn't take thirty years to pay off a house. It really shouldn't, unless the place is very large and/or very opulent.

Though, let's be real, those mortgages are probably closer to FIFTY years, now.

Rising markets make for volatile living conditions for people who need to keep up with the rising tide. This actually mainly effects renters and people trying to join the housing market.

Housing prices have always been 20-30 years, mainly depending on the area. Now in days, a lot of areas turn to solely 30+ year houses, and it's a slew of economic factors mainly affecting demand to live in the area and its carrying capacity. In turn, it becomes a predominantly more bougie thing to pursue owning a house, depending on the area and its changing condition.

McAvoy, in turn, is correct in that's simply what you need to do. Nothing has changed in the market except for the size of your initial offering of the pie. The downturn however, has a lot to do with people simply not finding value in owning a house, partly due to developing standards that more and more live in spite of traditional customs like structuring your finances to buy a house. People get married later, which in turn directly means less people looking for long term living prospects and also more single handed incomes.

[McAvoy]

More and more people today just don't want 30 year mortgages to their name.

Well I don't. But it's a literal price to pay for me not to rent.

Though you can't use me as an example. Unless you want to be an licensed aircraft mechanic that is very undermanned. Hint hint.

I think they meant that it shouldn't take thirty years to pay off a house. It really shouldn't, unless the place is very large and/or very opulent.

Though, let's be real, those mortgages are probably closer to FIFTY years, now.

Rising markets make for volatile living conditions for people who need to keep up with the rising tide. This actually mainly effects renters and people trying to join the housing market.

Housing prices have always been 20-30 years, mainly depending on the area. Now in days, a lot of areas turn to solely 30+ year houses, and it's a slew of economic factors mainly affecting demand to live in the area and its carrying capacity. In turn, it becomes a predominantly more bougie thing to pursue owning a house, depending on the area and its changing condition.

McAvoy, in turn, is correct in that's simply what you need to do. Nothing has changed in the market except for the size of your initial offering of the pie. The downturn however, has a lot to do with people simply not finding value in owning a house, partly due to developing standards that more and more live in spite of traditional customs like structuring your finances to buy a house. People get married later, which in turn directly means less people looking for long term living prospects and also more single handed incomes.

Buying a house only makes sense if you plan on living and working in area for the foreseeable future. Bouncing place to place ain't going to help. In your typical 30 year mortgage you really aren't paying anything off in the beginning. I mean if you are constantly bouncing place to place every few years for whatever reason then you are better off renting.

[Deledrius]

Which is a really good point, when we're talking about job markets without long-term job security.

It's problems all the way down these days.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Which does complicate the pursuit of full proprietorship over land that's founding underneath a dwelling made of valuable resources.

[McAvoy]

Which is a really good point, when we're talking about job markets without long-term job security.

It's problems all the way down these days.

Gone are the days of working in the same place for 20-40 years.

In my line of work, the location of where I work can't be moved (airports) so I can be reasonably sure of the location of my next job. So I was able to buy my house with the idea I would be working close by. Not everyone has that luxury.

Also one of the benefits of renting is you don't pay for costs. Like if your air conditioner fails, you won't have to pay for it. Leaking roof? Nope. A chimney falling through your house? Well that sucks.

[Madner Kami]

Gone are the days of working in the same place for 20-40 years.

In my line of work, the location of where I work can't be moved (airports) so I can be reasonably sure of the location of my next job. So I was able to buy my house with the idea I would be working close by. Not everyone has that luxury.

At least for me, this is a direct result of employers failing to reward loyalty. I've been working essentially in the same company for 20 years, but frequently switched departements. What I experienced was a series of "threats" from my end to leave my station for greener pastures and only ever getting a better contract as a counter-offer from my current employer. Not once was my contract updated without me "threatening" to leave ("threat" because I never intended to stay here and whenever I requested my termination or transfer, I was offered an upgrade I could not refuse, though in one particular case I really should have refused, 4 years ago...) and that's the main problem. I got a myriad of co-workers who started at the same time as me. Competent people, who the company never bothered to retrain or put into a new environment and who are still stuck on their same contract from 20 years ago. Having a contractual obligation to work for 15 hours a week, but are constantly blessed by recieving overtime and essentially work a full-time job. Their overtime gets fully paid, but bonus payments (vacation-, christmas-and sick-leave-pay) are based on your contractual hours only, so they get shafted, while I am literally the only person in my workplace, that has a full-time contract, except for the leadership personnel.
And while the old personnel still struggles with their 15h low-time contracts, new personnel outright refuses to get hired for less than 25h and so gets 25h contracts from the get go, recieving more money than someone who's been a loyal and effective worker for 20 years...

Stories like that are the norm, rather than the exception here and I'm willing to bet, that it's the same everywhere.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Which is a really good point, when we're talking about job markets without long-term job security.

It's problems all the way down these days.

Gone are the days of working in the same place for 20-40 years.

In my line of work, the location of where I work can't be moved (airports) so I can be reasonably sure of the location of my next job. So I was able to buy my house with the idea I would be working close by. Not everyone has that luxury.

Also one of the benefits of renting is you don't pay for costs. Like if your air conditioner fails, you won't have to pay for it. Leaking roof? Nope. A chimney falling through your house? Well that sucks.

I don't believe there's much reason to worry about it. You're able to sell the house while you still have the mortgage and settle the remaining finance obligations. The servicing isn't free, but the market for the house is regularly appreciating relative to the rest of the economy.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

It feels like we are this close to having an army of the homeless, with rents skyrocketing and employers repressing wages.