Here is one young woman with a $300,000 mortgage living on the edge. Owning a home is not for everyone.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/meet-the-rich-and-poor-of-generation-y-20150505-gguoxi.html


Quote:

Most members of Generation Y are 'fiscally conservative' and have more money than debt, a new study has found - but Alexandra Just is not of their number. The 27-year-old has more than $20,000 owning on credit cards and less than $2000 in the bank. And she blames her woes on a single decision she made six years ago. "I got in [to the Brisbane property market] by myself at the age of 21. Biggest regret and mistake of my life," she says. "I've spent my 20s slaving away for a mortgage on a place that hasn't gone up in value and missed out on so many experiences, like living overseas." With more than $300,000 in mortgage debt to add to her woes, Just places herself firmly among the have-nots of her generation, aged 18-29.

It's becoming an age in which kids are going to have to live at home until they're 30 then move out just in time to have their aged parents move in with them.

Ahh well, keep it in the family i suppose.

Svengali wrote on May 5^th, 2015 at 10:13pm:

Here is one young woman with a $300,000 mortgage living on the edge. Owning a home is not for everyone. http://www.smh.com.au/business/meet-the-rich-and-poor-of-generation-y-20150505-gguoxi.html Quote: Most members of Generation Y are 'fiscally conservative' and have more money than debt, a new study has found - but Alexandra Just is not of their number. The 27-year-old has more than $20,000 owning on credit cards and less than $2000 in the bank. And she blames her woes on a single decision she made six years ago. "I got in [to the Brisbane property market] by myself at the age of 21. Biggest regret and mistake of my life," she says. "I've spent my 20s slaving away for a mortgage on a place that hasn't gone up in value and missed out on so many experiences, like living overseas." With more than $300,000 in mortgage debt to add to her woes, Just places herself firmly among the have-nots of her generation, aged 18-29.

yeah, nothing to do with the $20,000 credit card bill at 27 percent interest. Its the house mortgage she should not have gone into, after all big screen tvs and designer clothes are much more important than a mortgage and a place to live for the rest of your life..  ::)

rhino wrote on May 5^th, 2015 at 10:39pm:

Svengali wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 10:13pm: Here is one young woman with a $300,000 mortgage living on the edge. Owning a home is not for everyone. http://www.smh.com.au/business/meet-the-rich-and-poor-of-generation-y-20150505-gguoxi.html Quote: Most members of Generation Y are 'fiscally conservative' and have more money than debt, a new study has found - but Alexandra Just is not of their number. The 27-year-old has more than $20,000 owning on credit cards and less than $2000 in the bank. And she blames her woes on a single decision she made six years ago. "I got in [to the Brisbane property market] by myself at the age of 21. Biggest regret and mistake of my life," she says. "I've spent my 20s slaving away for a mortgage on a place that hasn't gone up in value and missed out on so many experiences, like living overseas." With more than $300,000 in mortgage debt to add to her woes, Just places herself firmly among the have-nots of her generation, aged 18-29. yeah, nothing to do with the $20,000 credit card bill at 27 percent interest. Its the house mortgage she should not have gone into, after all big screen tvs and designer clothes are much more important than a mortgage and a place to live for the rest of your life..  ::)

The Rhino life philosophy. Scrimp and save and deprive yourself of luxuries for 40 years so you can own a house.

rhino wrote on May 5^th, 2015 at 10:39pm:

Svengali wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 10:13pm: Here is one young woman with a $300,000 mortgage living on the edge. Owning a home is not for everyone. http://www.smh.com.au/business/meet-the-rich-and-poor-of-generation-y-20150505-gguoxi.html Quote: Most members of Generation Y are 'fiscally conservative' and have more money than debt, a new study has found - but Alexandra Just is not of their number. The 27-year-old has more than $20,000 owning on credit cards and less than $2000 in the bank. And she blames her woes on a single decision she made six years ago. "I got in [to the Brisbane property market] by myself at the age of 21. Biggest regret and mistake of my life," she says. "I've spent my 20s slaving away for a mortgage on a place that hasn't gone up in value and missed out on so many experiences, like living overseas." With more than $300,000 in mortgage debt to add to her woes, Just places herself firmly among the have-nots of her generation, aged 18-29. yeah, nothing to do with the $20,000 credit card bill at 27 percent interest. Its the house mortgage she should not have gone into, after all big screen tvs and designer clothes are much more important than a mortgage and a place to live for the rest of your life..  ::)

How could you possibly know what she spends her money on or how she racked up debt on her card?

.. or what her interest rate is for that matter.

*yawn*
Most members of Generation Y are 'fiscally conservative' and have more money than debt, a new study has found - but Alexandra Just is not of their number.

That's not an answer as to how you know what she spends her money on or what has contributed to her debt.

How on earth did you think it was?

I will leave you to work out what the opposite of fiscally conservative is.

rhino wrote on May 5^th, 2015 at 10:51pm:

I will leave you to work out what the opposite of fiscally conservative is.

How do you know her credit card debt isn't from trying to make ends meet? Or to make mortgage repayments?

You're the one talking about big screen tvs. Go on, justify it. How do you know?

.. and designer clothes mind you.

Svengali wrote on May 5^th, 2015 at 10:42pm:

rhino wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 10:39pm: Svengali wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 10:13pm: Here is one young woman with a $300,000 mortgage living on the edge. Owning a home is not for everyone. http://www.smh.com.au/business/meet-the-rich-and-poor-of-generation-y-20150505-gguoxi.html Quote: Most members of Generation Y are 'fiscally conservative' and have more money than debt, a new study has found - but Alexandra Just is not of their number. The 27-year-old has more than $20,000 owning on credit cards and less than $2000 in the bank. And she blames her woes on a single decision she made six years ago. "I got in [to the Brisbane property market] by myself at the age of 21. Biggest regret and mistake of my life," she says. "I've spent my 20s slaving away for a mortgage on a place that hasn't gone up in value and missed out on so many experiences, like living overseas." With more than $300,000 in mortgage debt to add to her woes, Just places herself firmly among the have-nots of her generation, aged 18-29. yeah, nothing to do with the $20,000 credit card bill at 27 percent interest. Its the house mortgage she should not have gone into, after all big screen tvs and designer clothes are much more important than a mortgage and a place to live for the rest of your life..  ::) The Rhino life philosophy. Scrimp and save and deprive yourself of luxuries for 40 years so you can own a house.

If you have to, sick of whingers. Home ownership isnt a "right". work hard and sacrifice , you get somewhere. This hasnt changed, home ownership is as affordable as it was 25 years ago, the difference is expectations and work ethics.

rhino wrote on May 5^th, 2015 at 10:58pm:

Svengali wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 10:42pm: rhino wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 10:39pm: Svengali wrote on May 5th, 2015 at 10:13pm: Here is one young woman with a $300,000 mortgage living on the edge. Owning a home is not for everyone. http://www.smh.com.au/business/meet-the-rich-and-poor-of-generation-y-20150505-gguoxi.html Quote: Most members of Generation Y are 'fiscally conservative' and have more money than debt, a new study has found - but Alexandra Just is not of their number. The 27-year-old has more than $20,000 owning on credit cards and less than $2000 in the bank. And she blames her woes on a single decision she made six years ago. "I got in [to the Brisbane property market] by myself at the age of 21. Biggest regret and mistake of my life," she says. "I've spent my 20s slaving away for a mortgage on a place that hasn't gone up in value and missed out on so many experiences, like living overseas." With more than $300,000 in mortgage debt to add to her woes, Just places herself firmly among the have-nots of her generation, aged 18-29. yeah, nothing to do with the $20,000 credit card bill at 27 percent interest. Its the house mortgage she should not have gone into, after all big screen tvs and designer clothes are much more important than a mortgage and a place to live for the rest of your life..  ::) The Rhino life philosophy. Scrimp and save and deprive yourself of luxuries for 40 years so you can own a house. If you have to, sick of whingers. Home ownership isnt a "right". work hard and sacrifice , you get somewhere. This hasnt changed, home ownership is as affordable as it was 25 years ago, the difference is expectations and work ethics.

Home ownership is more expensive than it was 10 years ago let alone 25. What are you smoking?

rubbish. actually cheaper.

You can't honestly believe that.

2 percent interest rate. Lowest in history.

rhino wrote on May 5^th, 2015 at 11:45pm:

2 percent interest rate. Lowest in history.

And if you follow the market, that has pushed house prices up.

How can you honestly claim that a house is affordable as it was 25 years ago? Since i moved into the house i am living in, it's worth has gone up by nearly 100% in the last 10 years alone.

I could not now afford to buy the house i am living in, that i could afford easily 10 years ago.

Low interest rates do not translate to low house prices. The converse is true.

Its the median price which is rising, in some areas the price has gone backwards. Im sure we would all like to live in inner city sydney or any capital city which is what first home owners seem to expect these days, or a big 4 x 2 in a nice area. Step outside these restrictions and you can find many easily affordable properties. Housing not being affordable is a big con trick because it is based on the median price, not the actual price.

o the urban sprawl is defeating your argument of all wanting to live inner city.

Hose prices are still about 100% on what they were 10 years ago.

Makes saving for a deposit or paying even 2% interest dificult for most.

Mind you, you still haven't qualified how you know the woman at the heart of the OP spends all her money on big screen tvs and designer clothes. Shall we just step over that as though you ever said it?

mothra wrote on May 6^th, 2015 at 12:02am:

o the urban sprawl is defeating your argument of all wanting to live inner city.

Doesnt do anything to my arguement.


Quote:

Hose prices are still about 100% on what they were 10 years ago.

  par with wages growth.


Quote:

Mind you, you still haven't qualified how you know the woman at the heart of the OP spends all her money on big screen tvs and designer clothes. Shall we just step over that as though you ever said it?

the op states she was not fiscally responsible. I made my point. Meanwhile you may wish to seek treatment for your anal retentiveness.

So
rhino wrote on May 6^th, 2015 at 12:12am:

mothra wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 12:02am: o the urban sprawl is defeating your argument of all wanting to live inner city. Doesnt do anything to my arguement. Quote: Hose prices are still about 100% on what they were 10 years ago.   par with wages growth. [quote]Mind you, you still haven't qualified how you know the woman at the heart of the OP spends all her money on big screen tvs and designer clothes. Shall we just step over that as though you ever said it?

the op states she was not fiscally responsible. I made my point. Meanwhile you may wish to seek treatment for your anal retentiveness.
[/quote]


So wages have gone up as much as house prices? Are you kidding?

You are alone on your limb.

And reference to 'her' being not fiscally responsible was in direct correlation to her buying a home. Not because she is doing any of the things you allege. It's easy to pass the buck and say i am being 'anally retentive' to avoid qualifying your own ill-considered speculation isn't it? The truth is you just shot your mouth off without thinking.

You do that a lot.

Sure, wages have doubled in the last 10 years. you arent aware of this? obviously you havent had gainful employment in that time. What were interest rates 10 years ago?  lol. i guess i did ask the question what else you wanted to be wrong about.

rhino wrote on May 6^th, 2015 at 12:23am:

Sure, wages have doubled in the last 10 years. you arent aware of this? obviously you havent had gainful employment in that time. What were interest rates 10 years ago?  lol. i guess i did ask the question what else you wanted to be wrong about.

No they haven't. What fantasy world are you living in?

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/wages
You like to be kicked dont you/ Lol.

rhino wrote on May 6^th, 2015 at 12:32am:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/wages You like to be kicked dont you/ Lol.

According to your kink:

"Wages in Australia averaged 495.20 AUD/Week from 1969 until 2014, reaching an all time high of 1128.70 AUD/Week in the fourth quarter of 2014 and a record low of 59.10 AUD/Week in the third quarter of 1969. Wages in Australia is reported by the Australian Bureau of Statistics."


Back to 1969 Rhino? Really?

the chart can be adjusted to select any years, just adjust it from 2010 to 2015 and all will be revealed, theres a good girl.

rhino wrote on May 6^th, 2015 at 12:40am:

the chart can be adjusted to select any years, just adjust it from 2010 to 2015 and all will be revealed, theres a good girl.

Then the chart is merely speculation trying to estimate by a rule of averages.

Meanwhile, i know for a fact that pay has not risen by 100% in the past 10 years..

mothra wrote on May 6^th, 2015 at 12:45am:

rhino wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 12:40am: the chart can be adjusted to select any years, just adjust it from 2010 to 2015 and all will be revealed, theres a good girl. Then the chart is merely speculation trying to estimate by a rule of averages. Meanwhile, i know for a fact that pay has not risen by 100% in the past 10 years..

yet i have shown factual information that it has. Not my fault hubby has been hiding his pay packet from you.

You are out of your depth.

rhino wrote on May 6^th, 2015 at 12:53am:

mothra wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 12:45am: rhino wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 12:40am: the chart can be adjusted to select any years, just adjust it from 2010 to 2015 and all will be revealed, theres a good girl. Then the chart is merely speculation trying to estimate by a rule of averages. Meanwhile, i know for a fact that pay has not risen by 100% in the past 10 years.. yet i have shown factual information that it has. Not my fault hubby has been hiding his pay packet from you.

And you assume because i am a woman that i am dependent on a man's pay packet?

You and your assumptions Rhino. I know you are trying to be clever but you are just making a tit of yourself.

I do not get paid (is that clearer for you) 100% on what i was paid 10 years ago.

rhino wrote on May 6^th, 2015 at 12:53am:

You are out of your depth.

Not even holding my breath.

mothra wrote on May 6^th, 2015 at 12:56am:

rhino wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 12:53am: mothra wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 12:45am: rhino wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 12:40am: the chart can be adjusted to select any years, just adjust it from 2010 to 2015 and all will be revealed, theres a good girl. Then the chart is merely speculation trying to estimate by a rule of averages. Meanwhile, i know for a fact that pay has not risen by 100% in the past 10 years.. yet i have shown factual information that it has. Not my fault hubby has been hiding his pay packet from you. And you assume because i am a woman that i am dependent on a man's pay packet? You and your assumptions Rhino. I know you are trying to be clever but you are just making a tit of yourself. I do not get paid (is that clearer for you) 100% on what i was paid 10 years ago.

Lol. in this case, nothing to do with being a woman, everything to do with you dont know what you are talking about. I never 'try" to be clever. i simply know what I am talking about before i open my mouth, try it some time. You might not get so humiliated.

mothra wrote on May 6^th, 2015 at 12:56am:

rhino wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 12:53am: You are out of your depth. Not even holding my breath.

correct. you are drowning.

And just in case you haven't done the math ... even a 100% wage growth in the past 10 years would not ease the buying of property now. The deposit and the repayments ... despite the low interest rate.

Not in the market are you Rhino?

rhino wrote on May 6^th, 2015 at 1:01am:

mothra wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 12:56am: rhino wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 12:53am: mothra wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 12:45am: rhino wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 12:40am: the chart can be adjusted to select any years, just adjust it from 2010 to 2015 and all will be revealed, theres a good girl. Then the chart is merely speculation trying to estimate by a rule of averages. Meanwhile, i know for a fact that pay has not risen by 100% in the past 10 years.. yet i have shown factual information that it has. Not my fault hubby has been hiding his pay packet from you. And you assume because i am a woman that i am dependent on a man's pay packet? You and your assumptions Rhino. I know you are trying to be clever but you are just making a tit of yourself. I do not get paid (is that clearer for you) 100% on what i was paid 10 years ago. Lol. in this case, nothing to do with being a woman, everything to do with you dont know what you are talking about. I never 'try" to be clever. i simply know what I am talking about before i open my mouth, try it some time. You might not get so humiliated.

Hilarious. You make a tit of yourself yet offer me advice?

No. I don't think so.

THink of it this way.

Rhino, do you make 100% more than you did 10 years ago?

mothra wrote on May 6^th, 2015 at 1:02am:

And just in case you haven't done the math ... even a 100% wage growth in the past 10 years would not ease the buying of property now. The deposit and the repayments ... despite the low interest rate.

link thanks.


Quote:

Not in the market are you Rhino?

own 2 properties, just sold one.

mothra wrote on May 6^th, 2015 at 1:04am:

THink of it this way. Rhino, do you make 100% more than you did 10 years ago?

yes. My income has more than doubled.

rhino wrote on May 6^th, 2015 at 1:06am:

mothra wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 1:04am: THink of it this way. Rhino, do you make 100% more than you did 10 years ago? yes. My income has more than doubled.

Has its purchasing power more than doubled?  Case getting fat from resting...

In 1984 I could buy a house in Marrickville for $40-50k - in in 1992 $180-200k - today... the sky's the limit. (bought one in Canada Bay across the park from the Waratahs home ground for $185k in 1994 - try that now).

In 1984 AWE was around $3-400 a week.... in 1992 $5-600 a week.... (I was EARNING $2k a week then...)

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/wages

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/australia-wages.png

You see my drift?  House prices started to accelerate away from the ordinary worker's reach from the moment the MADIF was introduced via the introduction of masses of women to the workforce rather than home duties, on the basis that somehow suddenly everyone could afford to pay more since the myth was that 'every home has a double income'....

Market forces.... and oddly enough the very women most 'oppressed' in feminist mythology - those 'trapped' in 'patriarchal' marriages who had jobs and who received affirmative action etc as well on two or three counts - are the winners in the game of dog eat dog in the MADIF (Mandatory Dual Income Family) world of today.  It is they, at 60+, who you will see playing the pokies when on holidays at $5 a shot while their non-patriarchal 'sisters' are working Woolies and Coles and behind the bar for an insufficient income to build a deposit with escalating prices, unless their old man - if they've retained an 'old man' in this dog eat dog world of easy come, easy go throwaway relationships with takeaway kids (unlike their patriarchal sisters trapped for life) - is a contractor somewhere earning big bucks and copping tax dodges.

Thus 'feminism' has had the very real effect of inducing poverty in many while helping some to riches, and rather than being a force for equality, is and always was a force for division and inequality in Western society, and not only through enforced affirmative action and so forth but in its deepest failing which was addressing 'equality' on a gender group basis rather than an individual one, in the past three decades or more.

Another social science failure - as piss poor an ideology as 'economics', a demonstrably failed concept with more changes to it than any chameleon.

On that proven historical basis - would you trust any  politicians with running your country who was addicted to any of these ideologies?

I don't and I won't.

Oh - some boats go under in a rising tide because they are too heavily tied to the bottom......

Make of that what you wish....

Bloody hell i'm glad i don't live in the city, paying way too much for some crappy house.

I can see the Murray River from my front door, i can almost carry my boat to the boat ramp, less then a minutes walk for a swim on a hot day. There is an excellent walking/cycling track along the river. A lovely grassed park, play ground, BBQ facilities, tennis courts.

The child has a 100 meter walk to school.

The roads are wide and quiet. Lots of fresh fruit and veggie stalls.

And it's about 500 meters to one of the best country pubs in NSW, local store and mechanic and a BP servo/supermarket 3k's down the road.

3 BR brick, 1/4 acre, big shed, weekly repayments $210.

Too smacking easy.... 8-)

rhino wrote on May 6^th, 2015 at 12:32am:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/wages You like to be kicked dont you/ Lol.

Rhino's own reference shows around 45% change in 10 years.

Svengali wrote on May 6^th, 2015 at 10:53am:

rhino wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 12:32am: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/wages You like to be kicked dont you/ Lol. Rhino's own reference shows around 45% change in 10 years.

try again.

yes that is a conservative ronald reagan lie americans can tell you the rising tide only lifts the rich the poor and middle class drown

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on May 6^th, 2015 at 5:00am:

rhino wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 1:06am: mothra wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 1:04am: THink of it this way. Rhino, do you make 100% more than you did 10 years ago? yes. My income has more than doubled. Has its purchasing power more than doubled?  Case getting fat from resting... In 1984 I could buy a house in Marrickville for $40-50k - in in 1992 $180-200k - today... the sky's the limit. (bought one in Canada Bay across the park from the Waratahs home ground for $185k in 1994 - try that now). In 1984 AWE was around $3-400 a week.... in 1992 $5-600 a week.... (I was EARNING $2k a week then...) http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/wages http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/australia-wages.png You see my drift?  House prices started to accelerate away from the ordinary worker's reach from the moment the MADIF was introduced via the introduction of masses of women to the workforce rather than home duties, on the basis that somehow suddenly everyone could afford to pay more since the myth was that 'every home has a double income'.... Market forces.... and oddly enough the very women most 'oppressed' in feminist mythology - those 'trapped' in 'patriarchal' marriages who had jobs and who received affirmative action etc as well on two or three counts - are the winners in the game of dog eat dog in the MADIF (Mandatory Dual Income Family) world of today.  It is they, at 60+, who you will see playing the pokies when on holidays at $5 a shot while their non-patriarchal 'sisters' are working Woolies and Coles and behind the bar for an insufficient income to build a deposit with escalating prices, unless their old man - if they've retained an 'old man' in this dog eat dog world of easy come, easy go throwaway relationships with takeaway kids (unlike their patriarchal sisters trapped for life) - is a contractor somewhere earning big bucks and copping tax dodges. Thus 'feminism' has had the very real effect of inducing poverty in many while helping some to riches, and rather than being a force for equality, is and always was a force for division and inequality in Western society, and not only through enforced affirmative action and so forth but in its deepest failing which was addressing 'equality' on a gender group basis rather than an individual one, in the past three decades or more. Another social science failure - as piss poor an ideology as 'economics', a demonstrably failed concept with more changes to it than any chameleon. On that proven historical basis - would you trust any  politicians with running your country who was addicted to any of these ideologies? I don't and I won't.

you need to stop thinking median prices, some houses in desirable areas have risen exponentially, yes. Other areas have seen rises below CPI. people like Toenail carry on about asbestos dumps at high prices but people are buying the land in these cases because the area is desirable. Soem one told me the other day there was nothing on the market for under $300,000 in Perth. When i showed him the thousand or so properties in this price range the answer was they were all in areas that no one would want to live in or they werent houses on large enough blocks of land. Expectations have become too high in this country, compare Sydney prices to just about any capital city in any relatively affluent country and Sydney looks cheap by comparison.

rhino wrote on May 5^th, 2015 at 11:45pm:

2 percent interest rate. Lowest in history.

And the highest house prices in history as well as 27% interest on credit cards !! Why ??

rhino wrote on May 6^th, 2015 at 11:03am:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 5:00am: rhino wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 1:06am: mothra wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 1:04am: THink of it this way. Rhino, do you make 100% more than you did 10 years ago? yes. My income has more than doubled. Has its purchasing power more than doubled?  Case getting fat from resting... In 1984 I could buy a house in Marrickville for $40-50k - in in 1992 $180-200k - today... the sky's the limit. (bought one in Canada Bay across the park from the Waratahs home ground for $185k in 1994 - try that now). In 1984 AWE was around $3-400 a week.... in 1992 $5-600 a week.... (I was EARNING $2k a week then...) http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/wages http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/australia-wages.png You see my drift?  House prices started to accelerate away from the ordinary worker's reach from the moment the MADIF was introduced via the introduction of masses of women to the workforce rather than home duties, on the basis that somehow suddenly everyone could afford to pay more since the myth was that 'every home has a double income'.... Market forces.... and oddly enough the very women most 'oppressed' in feminist mythology - those 'trapped' in 'patriarchal' marriages who had jobs and who received affirmative action etc as well on two or three counts - are the winners in the game of dog eat dog in the MADIF (Mandatory Dual Income Family) world of today.  It is they, at 60+, who you will see playing the pokies when on holidays at $5 a shot while their non-patriarchal 'sisters' are working Woolies and Coles and behind the bar for an insufficient income to build a deposit with escalating prices, unless their old man - if they've retained an 'old man' in this dog eat dog world of easy come, easy go throwaway relationships with takeaway kids (unlike their patriarchal sisters trapped for life) - is a contractor somewhere earning big bucks and copping tax dodges. Thus 'feminism' has had the very real effect of inducing poverty in many while helping some to riches, and rather than being a force for equality, is and always was a force for division and inequality in Western society, and not only through enforced affirmative action and so forth but in its deepest failing which was addressing 'equality' on a gender group basis rather than an individual one, in the past three decades or more. Another social science failure - as piss poor an ideology as 'economics', a demonstrably failed concept with more changes to it than any chameleon. On that proven historical basis - would you trust any  politicians with running your country who was addicted to any of these ideologies? I don't and I won't. you need to stop thinking median prices, some houses in desirable areas have risen exponentially, yes. Other areas have seen rises below CPI. people like Toenail carry on about asbestos dumps at high prices but people are buying the land in these cases because the area is desirable. Soem one told me the other day there was nothing on the market for under $300,000 in Perth. When i showed him the thousand or so properties in this price range the answer was they were all in areas that no one would want to live in or they werent houses on large enough blocks of land. Expectations have become too high in this country, compare Sydney prices to just about any capital city in any relatively affluent country and Sydney looks cheap by comparison.

And the housing debt has increased exponentially as well !! 40 billion in 4 months !!

One solution is to force investors to buy in these areas that nobody wants to live in because there are no job opportunities. Let them use their expertise to create wealth out of thin air. :D LOL

rhino wrote on May 6^th, 2015 at 1:06am:

mothra wrote on May 6th, 2015 at 1:04am: THink of it this way. Rhino, do you make 100% more than you did 10 years ago? yes. My income has more than doubled.

Must be a real estate agent. :(