The South Australian Political Landscape

Labor, Liberal, Greens, Democrats? Here's the place to discuss.

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby morell » Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:14 pm

Trader wrote:Average income in 2017 is not 55k, it's $75,275 for South Australia.
You're not even close.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf ... num=&view=
Bzzzzt. Wrong. That's average full time earning. You think everyone works full time?

Cmon mate. Surely you've seen enough .6 and .9 contracts down your way.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf ... enDocument

Avg for Australia is 60k, SA is 55k. (I think this was 2011 census though, probs higher now)

In case you couldnt be naffed doing the calcs, here is something lifehacker prepared earlier:

https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2017/05/h ... in-a-year/

Trader wrote:As for what you pay over the life of the loan, you do realize that they end up with different assets. The 1990s purchaser ends up spending 513k and owns an average house, which you say is worth 480k. Any shock that those numbers are very similar?
Sure, but we're not talking about housing worth, we're talking about housing affordability. As in what is the cost when you're trying to buy at the start.

You wont get an argument out of me that having a property is great and the increases are well worth your time. Heck, I fought tooth and nail to keep my house and am about to buy my second, I know how the system works, believe me, I might be empathetic but I aint silly.

Trader wrote:Of course the 2017 guy pays more, and at the end of the life of the term, his 480k house is now worth 870k (2% inflation for 30 years), which is very similar to the 888k he's paid.
Again, different argument. Housing affordability <> housing market value.

Trader wrote:The cost of the house in different years $$$ is irrelevant.
Errr. No, its very relevant.

Trader wrote:You need to look at the purchasing power between the two groups.

Or explaining it another way, you've compared 513k in 1990 dollars to 888k in 2017 dollars. It's not the same thing.

Or a third way, based on the figures you've used.
The 1990 guy spends 21 times his average income (513/24) to acquire his home.
The 2017 guy spends 16 times his average income (888/55k) to acquire his home - and we know that 55 is actually 75, so its only 11 times.

Simply put, in 1990, you needed to devote 56% of the average wage to own an average house.
In 2017, you only need to stump up 39%.
Fair point, I'll pay you that one. However, the crux of that calculation was that it did not include wage growth over the term of the mortgage.

Factor that in, and it very quickly becomes apparent which scenariou is more sustainable. As Q mentioned, the lack of wage growth also makes it difficult to get to that 20%.

I agree that once you get a property, you're better off in 2017 than 1990, but getting to that tipping point where you can get one, is not
User avatar
morell
Coach
 
 
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:56 pm
Has liked: 2017 times
Been liked: 1138 times
Grassroots Team: Mitchell Park

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby morell » Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:22 pm

Trader wrote:I felt bad that my data from 1990 was cherry picked, so I plotted the entire 30 years for you Morgs.
Seems we are well within normal operating parameters.
Image
Nicely done.

Now instead of using nominal rates, use real rates. So take off inflation from the interest rate.

Actually genuinely interested to see that.
User avatar
morell
Coach
 
 
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:56 pm
Has liked: 2017 times
Been liked: 1138 times
Grassroots Team: Mitchell Park

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby bennymacca » Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:36 pm

Trader wrote:
Q. wrote:The main roadblock to becoming a homeowner is finding a deposit in a climate of wage stagnation and increased cost of living, which is the primary gripe about the current income to mortgage ratio.


I've got no issues with complaints about the cost of living. They are going up much quicker than they should.
But to then point at housing prices and blame them is mere deflection from the service authorities, councils, state and federal governments for mine.


i dont think its an issue in adelaide

in sydney and melbourne on the other hand? very possibly.
User avatar
bennymacca
Coach
 
 
Posts: 15028
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 12:22 pm
Has liked: 2253 times
Been liked: 1803 times
Grassroots Team: Freeling

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby bennymacca » Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:38 pm

Q. wrote:
Trader wrote:For mine its costs like stamp duty that need to be significantly reduced. These costs eat up deposits and also decrease the liquidity within the housing market.
That will just inflate house prices further


it allows people to move easier though. And moving closer to work would have huge benefits for everyone. but nobody would move half an hour closer to work currently due to the changeover costs
User avatar
bennymacca
Coach
 
 
Posts: 15028
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 12:22 pm
Has liked: 2253 times
Been liked: 1803 times
Grassroots Team: Freeling

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby Trader » Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:01 pm

morell wrote:
Trader wrote:Average income in 2017 is not 55k, it's $75,275 for South Australia.
You're not even close.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf ... num=&view=
Bzzzzt. Wrong. That's average full time earning. You think everyone works full time?

Cmon mate. Surely you've seen enough .6 and .9 contracts down your way.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf ... enDocument

Avg for Australia is 60k, SA is 55k. (I think this was 2011 census though, probs higher now)

In case you couldnt be naffed doing the calcs, here is something lifehacker prepared earlier:

https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2017/05/h ... in-a-year/


My bad, I assumed that if you're working less than full time you don't have a right to complain about any affordability issues.
Probably naive of me to do so.

I would be interested to see the difference in the number of breadwinners in a household between 1990 and 2017.
IE: I'd assume in 1990 less people worked, but those that did worked closer to full time.

As you say, now days there are a hell of a lot more .6 type roles available as workplaces become more flexable, but these are generally the second breadwinner in the household.
So before mum stayed home and dad worked 1.0, now days dad say works 0.8 and mum 0.6 and overall they are actually better off with 1.4 vs 1.0???
(I haven't looked for data to back that up, just a gut feel).
Danny Southern telling Plugga he's fat, I'd like to see that!
User avatar
Trader
Assistant Coach
 
Posts: 4202
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 1:19 pm
Has liked: 60 times
Been liked: 794 times

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby Trader » Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:10 pm

morell wrote:
Trader wrote:I felt bad that my data from 1990 was cherry picked, so I plotted the entire 30 years for you Morgs.
Seems we are well within normal operating parameters.
Image
Nicely done.

Now instead of using nominal rates, use real rates. So take off inflation from the interest rate.

Actually genuinely interested to see that.


Will potentially have a look at this tomorrow.


Looking quickly though using https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/inflation-cpi, in 1990 for example, we are looking at 6% inflation (out of 17% interest rates), where as in 2001 it was also 6% out of 7%.
The 1990 multiplier of 3.3 and the 2001 multiplier of 3.7 isn't worlds apart, but the "real" interest rate of 11% vs 1% is a huge difference, suggesting those that bought in 2001 are miles better off than the 1990 crowd.

Similarly, 2017 has a real rate of 3% on a multiplier of 6, vs say 1987 with a real rate of 6% and a multiplier of 2.5 - suggesting the cost of the loan isn't too far apart.

I'll try and find time to play around with it a little more tomorrow. The problem will be reading off graphs when the inflation and nominal rates get close together, rounding becomes a big factor, as a real rate of 1 or 1.5% makes a 50% difference to the "cost" calculated.
Danny Southern telling Plugga he's fat, I'd like to see that!
User avatar
Trader
Assistant Coach
 
Posts: 4202
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 1:19 pm
Has liked: 60 times
Been liked: 794 times

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby Psyber » Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:08 am

I was lucky getting my house in Vale Park for 3.3 times my wage - at the time there was one of the periodic slumps in the Adelaide housing market. Interest rates were at 12.5% and there were a lot of properties on the market. That allowed bargaining, and my annual salary for that year was above average even if I had worked 90 hours a week for it.

My parents experience in 1956 at around 5.7 times my father's average wage as clerical assistant in the railways was more typical of the era before the late 1960s, and they had rented all the time from their marriage in 1928 until 1956.

The housing price graphs dated from 1987 used here are deceptive.

1987 was the BIG slump in both property and stock market values, and so the rises shown starting from then come off an artificial low. That slump's effect lasted well into the late 1990s. Interest rates on housing loans in 1987 were around 17% - I was pleased then to be getting though at 14% by buying quarterly bank bills instead of using mortgage finance.

The deceptiveness of that low starting base is comparable with the artificial low base of climate statistics starting from around 1890 to 1910 in various countries - the average temperatures they indicate as a base line come off an artificial low due the last mini-Ice Age having just ended when meteorological records started being collected.

It is not hard to create charts to support your socio-political stance if you use charts created by like-minded people who choose the starting base that suits their argument.
EPIGENETICS - Lamarck was right!
User avatar
Psyber
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12213
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:43 pm
Location: Now back in the Adelaide Hills.
Has liked: 103 times
Been liked: 389 times
Grassroots Team: Hahndorf

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby cracka » Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:16 am

The Guardian has done a poll, Xenephon is the preferred premier & his party is the most popular. Next election will be interesting
cracka
Veteran
 
 
Posts: 3651
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:41 am
Has liked: 458 times
Been liked: 560 times
Grassroots Team: Onkaparinga Valley

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby morell » Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:20 am

Psyber wrote:I was lucky getting my house in Vale Park for 3.3 times my wage - at the time there was one of the periodic slumps in the Adelaide housing market. Interest rates were at 12.5% and there were a lot of properties on the market. That allowed bargaining, and my annual salary for that year was above average even if I had worked 90 hours a week for it.

My parents experience in 1956 at around 5.7 times my father's average wage as clerical assistant in the railways was more typical of the era before the late 1960s, and they had rented all the time from their marriage in 1928 until 1956.

The housing price graphs dated from 1987 used here are deceptive.

1987 was the BIG slump in both property and stock market values, and so the rises shown starting from then come off an artificial low. That slump's effect lasted well into the late 1990s. Interest rates on housing loans in 1987 were around 17% - I was pleased then to be getting though at 14% by buying quarterly bank bills instead of using mortgage finance.

The deceptiveness of that low starting base is comparable with the artificial low base of climate statistics starting from around 1890 to 1910 in various countries - the average temperatures they indicate as a base line come off an artificial low due the last mini-Ice Age having just ended when meteorological records started being collected.

It is not hard to create charts to support your socio-political stance if you use charts created by like-minded people who choose the starting base that suits their argument.

*******. Lol. A house for 3.3x your salary 6km from the city.

Nahhhhhhh your generation didn't have an advantage when it comes to property at all.... you just worked harder.



Not a criticism on you though and thank you for being straight forward and honest Psyber.

As for housing prices being in a slump, perhaps you're right, but that can be manipulated by monetary and planning policy. At the moment those policies are inflating the Market. Myself, and I would say the majority of people, think those policies should be mitigated. Not necessarily to pop the balloon, but just to quit blowing it up for a while to allow wages to catch up.
User avatar
morell
Coach
 
 
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:56 pm
Has liked: 2017 times
Been liked: 1138 times
Grassroots Team: Mitchell Park

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby tipper » Fri Oct 20, 2017 10:59 am

morell wrote:*******. Lol. A house for 3.3x your salary 6km from the city.

Nahhhhhhh your generation didn't have an advantage when it comes to property at all.... you just worked harder.



Not a criticism on you though and thank you for being straight forward and honest Psyber.

As for housing prices being in a slump, perhaps you're right, but that can be manipulated by monetary and planning policy. At the moment those policies are inflating the Market. Myself, and I would say the majority of people, think those policies should be mitigated. Not necessarily to pop the balloon, but just to quit blowing it up for a while to allow wages to catch up.


moving the goal posts again Morrell. your previous statements were based on 3.3 times the AVERAGE wage. now, check the numbers again for a doctor working 90 hours a week (which is what Psyber was) and lets see what sort of suburb we can buy a house in then. whats the bet that someone in that situation can also afford to live that close to the city? you are comparing apples and oranges.
tipper
League - Top 5
 
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:45 am
Has liked: 359 times
Been liked: 531 times
Grassroots Team: Peake

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby Jimmy_041 » Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:17 am

morell wrote:
Jimmy_041 wrote:Yep, but think of all that time you can spend on your phone
AND they have built a new extension of the O Bahn for you
Ahhh sarcasm, The lowest form of wit.

I'll accept that as your admission that I am right. :D


Thank you for the compliment mate :YMHUG:

(Actually, he looks a bit like you)

Image
User avatar
Jimmy_041
Coach
 
 
Posts: 13981
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 5:30 pm
Has liked: 718 times
Been liked: 1071 times
Grassroots Team: Prince Alfred OC

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby morell » Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:51 pm

Thats interesting I got a different result:

Image
User avatar
morell
Coach
 
 
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:56 pm
Has liked: 2017 times
Been liked: 1138 times
Grassroots Team: Mitchell Park

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby morell » Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:00 pm

tipper wrote:moving the goal posts again Morrell. your previous statements were based on 3.3 times the AVERAGE wage. now, check the numbers again for a doctor working 90 hours a week (which is what Psyber was) and lets see what sort of suburb we can buy a house in then. whats the bet that someone in that situation can also afford to live that close to the city? you are comparing apples and oranges.


Read it again:

Psyber wrote:all on fixed salaries and no overtime payments. (That first year worked out to about 57 cents and hour!)


A first or second year doctor wouldn't be earning too much more than the average wicket. The current average for a full time first year resident is 60-75k. Smack on the average as per Traders post. My understanding is (happy to be corrected Psyber) docs start earning much more when they either specialise or get ownership within a practice.

https://www.astermedical.com.au/outside ... australia/

It's time to let it go You've misunderstood my point, perhaps my fault for not communicating accurately, but in reality you're not making a lick of sense.
User avatar
morell
Coach
 
 
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:56 pm
Has liked: 2017 times
Been liked: 1138 times
Grassroots Team: Mitchell Park

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby tipper » Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:12 pm

according to your own link, after 38 hours in a week, they get overtime (first sentence under that first table). may not have happened back in the day, but today, they would be getting 42 hours overtime if working 90 hours like Psyb was. which would triple that amount (if like your link says, they get double time for overtime). nice of you to leave out the amounts for overtime and salary packaging since they dont agree with your point.

also, using first year resident salaries today, to compare to the average, today, doesnt tell us anything about the comparison back in the sixties does it? was it the same back then?

even going off the base rate on that link, with no overtime, it is still nearly half again more than the numbers you are using. apples and oranges.
tipper
League - Top 5
 
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:45 am
Has liked: 359 times
Been liked: 531 times
Grassroots Team: Peake

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby Grenville » Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:46 pm

cracka wrote:The Guardian has done a poll, Xenephon is the preferred premier & his party is the most popular. Next election will be interesting


It will be the NZ election all over again, both major parties kissing the kingmaker's arse.
User avatar
Grenville
Veteran
 
 
Posts: 3709
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 5:53 pm
Has liked: 262 times
Been liked: 761 times

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby morell » Fri Oct 20, 2017 4:27 pm

tipper wrote:according to your own link, after 38 hours in a week, they get overtime (first sentence under that first table). may not have happened back in the day, but today, they would be getting 42 hours overtime if working 90 hours like Psyb was. which would triple that amount (if like your link says, they get double time for overtime). nice of you to leave out the amounts for overtime and salary packaging since they dont agree with your point.

also, using first year resident salaries today, to compare to the average, today, doesnt tell us anything about the comparison back in the sixties does it? was it the same back then?

even going off the base rate on that link, with no overtime, it is still nearly half again more than the numbers you are using. apples and oranges.

This is my last post to you as I have had enough of your scrambling.

Psyber gave his rate.

0.57*90*52 = $2,667.60

the average wage in the 1967 was $2,964.00
User avatar
morell
Coach
 
 
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:56 pm
Has liked: 2017 times
Been liked: 1138 times
Grassroots Team: Mitchell Park

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby Jimmy_041 » Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:10 pm

morell wrote:Thats interesting I got a different result:


Weak comeback mate
User avatar
Jimmy_041
Coach
 
 
Posts: 13981
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 5:30 pm
Has liked: 718 times
Been liked: 1071 times
Grassroots Team: Prince Alfred OC

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby morell » Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:19 pm

carn that took me like 30 seconds to make! Points for effort surely
User avatar
morell
Coach
 
 
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:56 pm
Has liked: 2017 times
Been liked: 1138 times
Grassroots Team: Mitchell Park

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby Psyber » Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:09 pm

morell wrote: .....
A first or second year doctor wouldn't be earning too much more than the average wicket. The current average for a full time first year resident is 60-75k. Smack on the average as per Traders post. My understanding is (happy to be corrected Psyber) docs start earning much more when they either specialise or get ownership within a practice.

https://www.astermedical.com.au/outside ... australia/

It's time to let it go You've misunderstood my point, perhaps my fault for not communicating accurately, but in reality you're not making a lick of sense.

Basically correct Morell.

To give you perspective, my starting salary was about $3700 per year as a first year RMO in 1968 and my fourth year teaching wife was on about $5400 at the time.
(So we were in a good position to buy a house and bargain the price at the time.)

I'd have stepped up to about the same next year but chose a field the SA government was trying to build up at the time and did a little better. My group, actually went to the Industrial Court late in 1968 and got a ban on rostering doctors on more than 84 hours a week, and time and a quarter after 54 hours a week. That came into effect he next year. By 1975 I was on just over $16500 as a junior specialist in a state hospital and in the next year grossed $60k in private practice - net earning was about 40% of that.

However, that has changed. The Medicare rebate has annually risen by about 62% of the CPI/AWE formula the AMA recommends since 1973, and now I can earn twice what a private practice in my field would currently gross for me by doing locum work in public health services around the country - and no expenses.! 8)

However only those who are free to travel a lot get into that...

These days if you want to do well in private practice you need to be a procedural (surgical) sub-specialist, which I'm not.


Apropos the property rises and falls - houses are cheaper ( or at least rise more slowly) when interest rates are higher and vice versa. In the 1987 slump people in the Elizabeth area and points north found found their houses were down about 10 to 15% on what they had paid for them a few years earlier. The problem now is that interest rate rises hit hardest those who are already scratching to make ends meet, as we saw demonstrated in the Whitlam and Keating eras when they hit 17%. So no government is keen to take that route any more...

The bigger property slumps I recall in SA were 1976 to 1983, and 1987 to 1996 or so. There had been rapid rises in house prices in 1974-75 and just pre 1987, and they were only that you may get back a little less than you had paid not massive drops.

I did well in Melbourne selling in 2002 and 2003, but then it fell over for a short time. I did well again buying in 2004 while the market was still down a bit, and selling in 2009 there and when I hit Adelaide in 2009 bought well here because SA had not recovered as well as Victoria had yet.

(I've always had an interest in the property market because my much older sister worked in the real estate industry and I used to help out in the office when I was about 12 or so when she was putting in extra time at weekends.)
I
EPIGENETICS - Lamarck was right!
User avatar
Psyber
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12213
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:43 pm
Location: Now back in the Adelaide Hills.
Has liked: 103 times
Been liked: 389 times
Grassroots Team: Hahndorf

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby Jimmy_041 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:39 am

The State Govt getting ready for the opening ceremonies for the March election
Attachments
$hitAdelaide.png
$hitAdelaide.png (291.73 KiB) Viewed 470 times
User avatar
Jimmy_041
Coach
 
 
Posts: 13981
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 5:30 pm
Has liked: 718 times
Been liked: 1071 times
Grassroots Team: Prince Alfred OC

PreviousNext

Board index   General Talk  Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Around the place

Competitions   SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums   Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |