ABS Releases more useless Stats

From the SMH:

Quote:

---

On the day when a Reserve Bank meeting is expected to raise interest rates, new statistics reveal thousands are paying off loans on houses that are too big for them.

The ABS found that between 1994 and 2004, the average number people per household dropped from 2.7 to 2.5, but the average number of bedrooms had risen from 2.9 to 3.

In 2003-04, 77 per cent of households had one or more spare bedrooms and nearly all (97 per cent) of couple-only households had one or more spare bedrooms. At least 85 per cent of solo dwellers also had empty bedrooms in their homes.

---

By tying it to interest rates, what they are trying to say here is that people are foolishly paying off huge mortgages on bedrooms they don't need.

Don't any of these people have family or friends that live interstate/overseas who come to visit? Don't they have friends who like to come over for a few drinks and stay the night? Don't they have old computers/toys/boxes of junk to store?

I mean, if you took any notice of these pointy heads, where would the childless couple who don't want to live in an apartment block find a house with one bedroom? What about the young couple buying into the housing market and planning a family in a few year's time - are they supposed to live in a flat until the first baby comes along?

It's the weakest excuse for a story I've heard today!

Quote:

---

The ABS found that between 1994 and 2004, the average number people per household dropped from 2.7 to 2.5, but the average number of bedrooms had risen from 2.9 to 3.

---

Its 4 and 4, so the Wongs are above average.:cool:

Same here. Same with both my neighbours.

There must be some single rich dude living in a mansion here somewhere to make up the difference.

I'm not so sure... It seems to me that people want to buy bigger and better houses than their parents ever had, and yet they have smaller families, more, and newer, cars. Little wonder they are worried by interest rate rises.

I recall a story on 4 Corners about housing and McMansions. One comment was that first home buyers want to start where their parents finished (in terms of quality and size of housing).

Houses are bigger, no doubt. That's probably a valid observation. Bigger rooms, more family space - rumpus room, study, separate dining, home theatres etc.

I came from a family of 5 and we always lived in 3 or 4 bedroom houses. Families of that size are less common now, and most people I know have 1 or 2 kids, not 3 or 4. But I remember when we lived in a 2 bedroom house with one kid. It was an absolute pain when grandparents came to stay. Suitcases in the hall, mattresses on the lounge room floor. Hated it.

I suppose I'm not arguing that the houses are bigger, it's the 'too big for them' that I disagree with. Adding a spare bedroom to the cost of building a house is bugger all as a percentage, compared to what it costs to put in an ensuite.

I also wonder what they expect us to do with all the three bedroom houses now that we only have 2.5 people per house. Get in a boarder I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

What they are trying to say here is that people are foolishly paying off huge mortgages on bedrooms they don't need.

---

I do agree that there are a lot of people buying more then they can afford. As a result both mum and dad need to work, the children are sent to childcare or to the grandparents. In the end children are the losers.

Cars, same thing.

Why do people buy a newer car or a second car while struggling to pay off the mortgage is beyond me. Why?:doh:

Yes but the houses that a lot of Sydney-siders are buying were built in the 50's. The house is the same house that their grandparents bought - it's just that the price of real estate is so high. It's not because they have too many bedrooms.

If you're talking about McMansions, a house and land package is nothing like what it would cost for a 50 year old 3 bedroom house in Mosman and they get 4 or 5 beds, rumpus, double garage etc. etc. It cost me about $650 to build two houses, one 3 bed one 4 including the 1.1 Ha block they're built on. You would be lucky to buy a block of land for that in Sydney.

It is not just the size of the house that pushes up the prices of today's housing, but all the extras. When we started we had a basic 3 bedroom 12 square house. No carpets, no paving/concreting, no dishwasher and the list goes on. All that was built up over the years.

Now this generation, as someone else observed, wants to start where their parents finished, or preferably bigger and better. At the same time they want the holidays overseas, 2 new cars, a 42" plasma screen with all the other bits. All this goes on the mortgage!:oo:

Then when mortgage rates go up, it is all the governments fault that they are in the sh*t.

To those people I say, grow up and do the hard yards like our generation did.:doh:

(Spoken like a true old phart!)

I usually have two spare bedrooms. My two littlest kids always end up in bed with us.

Something I know something about! :D I'm right, the following is TRUE.

Houses ARE bigger, about twice the area on average.

They ARE infinitely more complex, with wiring, bathrooms and even built-in kitchens now!

They ARE burdened by redtape, with the cost of compliance with bushfire, structural codes, and climatic requirements pushing up the base price, to say nothing of the cost of the beaurocracy that administers them.

Land costs are artificially inflated by the extreme headworks charges and holding costs while developers battle with layer apon layer of red tape. The Qld government has recently recognised this, and is apparently going to release some land which will enable a direct approval process. They are responding to the red tape problem by establishing a new government department! :oo:

So, get back to basics. Stop buying stuff that needs space to keep it. Build small and simple, and you could EASILY knock 30% of the cost of housing. (another 20% too if you ignore manufacturer's instructions BTW! :p )

I've a feeling I'll say more on this one!

Cheers,

P (2 people, 2 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 2 "studies", 2 car garage, 2 sheds, 1 television)

:D :D :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

.... (2 people, 2 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 2 "studies", 2 car garage, 2 sheds, 1 television).....

---

At the risk of wearing out the joke, how many dust extractors systems? :p

Only one, but it's got a twin outlet! :D :D :D

P (no ducting though!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wongo

Cars, same thing.

Why do people buy a newer car or a second car while struggling to pay off the mortgage is beyond me. Why?:doh:

---

It is so they can show their friends that they can as least do the same as them or even better:wink: but we know if the rates go up substantially they will be the one's most likely with egg on their faces.

I lived in 0.9 of a room once, boy was I glad when the others moved out......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Shed

Now this generation, as someone else observed, wants to start where their parents finished, or preferably bigger and better. At the same time they want the holidays overseas, 2 new cars, a 42" plasma screen with all the other bits. All this goes on the mortgage!:oo:

So who's fault is that? Their's because they are pressured into it, are they naive to believe that interest rates never go up:doh:? They want to keep up with their friends and family?

Like all responsible people "they should live within their means"


Then when mortgage rates go up, it is all the governments fault that they are in the sh*t.

This logic really gets up my back how naive are people:no: the WORLD BANKS determine how much the interest rates will be not necessarily our government. Australian rates have at least over the past 2 decades have been higher than most of the World because we are a small country (economy), so in order to attract foreign money to come here the rates have too be higher.

To those people I say, grow up and do the hard yards like our generation did.:doh:

Too bloody right

(Spoken like a true old phart!)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gingermick

I usually have two spare bedrooms. My two littlest kids always end up in bed with us.

---

And then they lay crossways :p

Hey Metal head

Dont forget you havent finished your discussions on the other thread yet :D

http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...ad.php?t=53327

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dazzler

Hey Metal head

Dont forget you havent finished your discussions on the other thread yet :D

http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...ad.php?t=53327

---

Yesterdays news Dazzler - life moves on:wink:. However, I am not one generally one for saying -

" I told you so"

Btw, I got pulled up at Brisbane last year @ Maroochydore as they thought I was carrying drugs in my "carry on bag":o. Only to be told everything was OK after further tests. Fortunately I didn't miss the plane but I got some stern looks of fellow passengers:q.

[quote/]This logic really gets up my back how naive are people:no: the WORLD BANKS determine how much the interest rates will be not necessarily our government. [/quote]

I will step in at this point, this is something I know a little about. The world banks have no say in what the interest rates are, they are set by either the government or an authority appointed by said Government In this country it is the reserve bank board (Whose members are appointed by guess who).

The Reserve bank in Australia has distanced itself from the Goverment as much as it can, but the government can still influence it decisions (To what degree is always debatable) .

As a postcript the unofficial word I am getting is rates wont rise, as the market in the US is too unstable and as we are heading into an election cycle, the RBA dont want to influence the outcome (Or be seen to) in any way at all. So my tip will be no rate rises till after the election unless something goes completly nuts with the numbers (There are some numbers coming out soon, they will be the big test)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gra

As a postcript the unofficial word I am getting is rates wont rise, as the market in the US is too unstable and as we are heading into an election cycle, the RBA dont want to influence the outcome (Or be seen to) in any way at all.

---

Because we are already in election mode any decision either way is a factor in the election so it should be based solely on our economy.

The RBA will be damned if they do or damned if they don't, but using the US unstable economy as an excuse is unacceptable.


Peter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gra

This logic really gets up my back how naive are people:no: the WORLD BANKS determine how much the interest rates will be not necessarily our government.

I will step in at this point, this is something I know a little about. The world banks have no say in what the interest rates are, they are set by either the government or an authority appointed by said Government In this country it is the reserve bank board (Whose members are appointed by guess who).

The Reserve bank in Australia has distanced itself from the Goverment as much as it can, but the government can still influence it decisions (To what degree is always debatable) .

As a postcript the unofficial word I am getting is rates wont rise, as the market in the US is too unstable and as we are heading into an election cycle, the RBA dont want to influence the outcome (Or be seen to) in any way at all. So my tip will be no rate rises till after the election unless something goes completly nuts with the numbers (There are some numbers coming out soon, they will be the big test)

---

Yum Yum - I didn't know humble pie tasted so good:rolleyes: :). So there we have it I, was wrong - again:(. I suppose I would never be any good as a politician as I admit I make mistakes. So lets say GRA that interest rates went either up or down by let's say 2% in as many months in the US, then you are saying ours wouldn't move?

What I find strange though there is all this talk of interest rises, yet a Sydney home smashed the record for the most expensive home in Australia the other day for nearly $30 million.

It appears Gra, a few economists disagree with your unofficial word.

Rates set to rise to 10-year high:o

By staff writers and AAP
August 07, 2007 18:30


INTEREST rates are expected to rise to a 10-year high tomorrow, adding about $50 to the average monthly mortgage. Economists expect the Reserve Bank to raise rates by 25 basis points to 6.5 per cent, stretching household budgets and forcing some people to the wall.

The last time rates were this high was in November 1996, shortly after Prime Minister John Howard took over management of the economy from the Labor Party. It would be the fifth interest rate rise since the Prime Minister’s 2004 election promise that rates would remain low under a Coalition government.

The Howard Government this week sought to shift the blame to the states, starting an advertising campaign which blames state government debt for putting upward pressure on rates.

Strong Data Pressures RBA - The central bank sets interest rates to keep inflation between 2 and 3 per cent. But months of firm economic data – including strong business conditions, high consumer sentiment, low unemployment and robust economic growth – have put upward pressure on rates.

Private debt is also growing faster than at any time since the late 1980s. The country's housing sector has been the stand out exception, with building and home sales muted following the industry's boom years.

On the world stage, a sharply rising global oil price is putting pressure on petrol prices at the bowser and, back home, Australians are being forced to fork out more money for soaring food costs and rent. The biggest contributors to inflation during the month of July were increases in the price of fruit and vegetables, bread and cereal products, and alcohol and tobacco, the TD Securities-Melbourne institute monthly inflation gauge showed.

The cost of staples has risen by more than three times the rate of inflation over the past three years. And over the June quarter, the consumer price index (CPI) rose well above economists' expectations.

Bank Repossessions Rising - Bank repossessions of properties are rising around Australia, particularly in the mortgage belts of Sydney and Melbourne, as some people fall behind on mortgage repayments. While higher income earners have been insulated from rate rises through tax cuts, lower income earners and those heavily in debt are struggling to keep up with higher living costs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metal Head

Yesterdays news Dazzler - life moves on:wink:. However, I am not one generally one for saying -

" I told you so"

Btw, I got pulled up at Brisbane last year @ Maroochydore as they thought I was carrying drugs in my "carry on bag":o. Only to be told everything was OK after further tests. Fortunately I didn't miss the plane but I got some stern looks of fellow passengers:q.

---

Sadly I would still like you to explain how I sounded like a racist before nicking off from the other thread.

Sorry everyone, but courage of our convictions. :wink:

Oh well there we are another 0.25% rise - Gra I wouldn't always believe what your told.



Aussies richer, older, fatter and unwed

Australia has become a country of fat, single gluttons who each generate two tonnes of waste a year and live in houses that are unnecessarily large. A snapshot of Australian life shows that consumption of almost every kind is up, as are divorce rates and life expectancy - which is among the highest in the world.

The Australian Bureau Of Statistics (ABS) report Australian Social Trends 2007 paints a picture of a prosperous, well-educated nation, but one which is falling behind in health care and spending an extraordinary amount on mobile phones.

It is also a country in which Aborigines remain severely disadvantaged in almost every area. The ABS data shows that perhaps the most alarming and obvious changes in the Australian social landscape over the past decade is in the number of obese and overweight adults in the population. Around 7.4 million, or 54 per cent, of Australian men and women have serious weight problems, up from around two million in 1995. It is estimated that weight-related illness cost the nation as much as $21 billion in 2005.

One of the flow-on effects of obesity is diabetes, which is disproportionately high among Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are more than three times as likely as non-indigenous people to have diabetes and more than 10 times as likely to have kidney disease.

The ABS figures also suggest the education system is failing Aboriginal children with only 40 per cent staying at school until year 12, compared to a rate of almost 76 per cent among non-indigenous children. The social trends report points to a continuation of the trend away from marriage, concluding 31 per cent of currently single men and 26 per cent of women will never be married.

And those that do are less likely than ever to stay that way. One-third of marriages in 2000/02 could be expected to end in divorce, compared with 28 per cent in 1985/87.

The combination of more divorces and less marriages seems to also be having a negative economic impact on more and more homes. In 2003/04, 49 per cent of one-parent families with children under 15 endured both low income and low wealth, compared with 11 per cent of two-parent families with children of the same age.

One social measure that has improved is the national fertility rate which has steadily increased since 2001 to stand at 1.81 babies per woman in 2005.

Women are also remaining in the workforce in increasing numbers, the participation rate up from 74 per cent in 1990 to 76 per cent in 2005 for people aged 15-64 years.

In conjunction, perhaps not surprisingly, with the rise in the weight of the population is the leap in consumption, which in turn is linked to a steady rise in average incomes.

Real net national disposable income per capita - purchasing power - has risen by 50 per cent since 1991-92, while real net national worth - national wealth - has risen from around $215,000 per person in 1992 to more than $236,000 in 2006.

At a time when interest rates and housing affordability are high on the national agenda, the ABS has revealed that thousands are paying off houses that are too big for them.

The average Australian home has more bedrooms on average than 10 years ago, a trend which is at odds with the shrinking size of families. The ABS found that between 1994 and 2004, the average number of people per household dropped from 2.7 to 2.5, but the average number of bedrooms had risen from 2.9 to 3.

Couple-only households comprised 26 per cent of the total in 2003-04 and lone persons accounted for 25 per cent, up from 24 per cent and 23 per cent respectively in 1994-95, the report found.

While the social trends report paints a picture of a profligate and excessive population, there is one area where warnings seem to be getting through.

In 1986 Australians spent $855 a head on cigarettes and other tobacco products. In 2006 they spent only $473.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metal Head

It appears Gra, a few economists disagree with your unofficial word.

---

They are economists show me two that agree on anything.....:; I guess we will find out later this morning :shrug:

[quote/] So lets say GRA that interest rates went either up or down by let's say 2% in as many months in the US, then you are saying ours wouldn't move?
[/quote]

No I am saying that the banks don't dictate those rate. Those rates are driven from the official rate set by the central authority (In the states it is the Federal Reserve, here it is the RBA).

Looks like they announces an increase, I guess they figured they would get in in case the US market faltered during the election (As I said it is f lackey, could go either way at present).. What can I say, my boys were on the wrong side of the market today. Happens all the time :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dazzler

Sadly I would still like you to explain how I sounded like a racist before nicking off from the other thread.

Sorry everyone, but courage of our convictions. :wink:

---

Gee Dazzler it's about time you got yourself a real life and grow up in it. As it was proven by all the government people covering their bums hoping it will blow over that this was another porky pie. I said the fact was even given the lies you were still keen to see this guy go. Why would anyone in there right mind want an excellent Doctor to leave this country when there is a shortage. Thus it comes across to me (and maybe others) that you don't like this guy because of his colour, or is it you don't like Indians?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gra

They are economists show me two that agree on anything.....:; I guess we will find out later this morning :shrug:

Sorry Gra but you stated that the rate was going to stay as it was and it hasn't, so don't blame economists blame the person(s) who told you the porkie pie:wink:

[quote/] So lets say GRA that interest rates went either up or down by let's say 2% in as many months in the US, then you are saying ours wouldn't move?

---

No I am saying that the banks don't dictate those rate. Those rates are driven from the official rate set by the central authority (In the states it is the Federal Reserve, here it is the RBA).

Looks like they announces an increase, I guess they figured they would get in in case the US market faltered during the election (As I said it is f lackey, could go either way at present).. What can I say, my boys were on the wrong side of the market today. Happens all the time :shrug:[/quote]

Metal Head, dammit,

If you keep on pushing me to agree with Dazzler, it will be too bad. :D That hurts. :wink: Perhaps I can provoke you to pick on me for a while, because I'm going to have a lie down anyway. I can take it. And watch what generalisations you make about the States, because I am no sooky la la. Best have facts, my friend. Dazzler is no racist. I actually read his posts. Suggest you do the same. :cool:

[quote/]Sorry Gra but you stated that the rate was going to stay as it was and it hasn't, so don't blame economists blame the person(s) who told you the porkie pie[\quote]

No porkie, just the tea leaves fell the wrong way:U

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Honorary Bloke

Dazzler is no racist. I actually read his posts. Suggest you do the same. :cool:

---

I did HB and for that reason I said what I did:wink:. remember we are fortunate to be in a country that allows us free speech and I will ALWAYS say it the way I see it:2tsup:.

He, you & I are entiltled to say what we think. Just ask Jason A what it is like going around accusing fellow players are drug cheats.

I NEVER said Dazzler was a racist - how could I. I have never met the guy. I said I felt he came across (through his words) as a racist:wink:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metal Head

Just ask Jason A what it is like going around accusing fellow players are drug cheats.

---

Brilliant analogy... I hardly know what you mean by that, I recon you may have Bob scratching his head.

Is that Jason and the Argonauts? So Golden Fleece was a euphemism for Anabolic steroid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metal Head

I did HB and for that reason I said what I did:wink:. remember we are fortunate to be in a country that allows us free speech and I will ALWAYS say it the way I see it:2tsup:.

He, you & I are entiltled to say what we think. Just ask Jason A what it is like going around accusing fellow players are drug cheats.

I NEVER said Dazzler was a racist - how could I. I have never met the guy. I said I felt he came across (through his words) as a racist:wink:.

---

That's fair dinkum. :) But I still think he is right. Of course, that's why we value free speech, as you say. But I really don't think he even comes across as a racist. Horses for courses. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metal Head

Just ask Jason A what it is like going around accusing fellow players are drug cheats.

---

Now there is a walking useless statistic if ever there was one!

P
:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bleedin Thumb

Brilliant analogy... I hardly know what you mean by that, I recon you may have Bob scratching his head.

---

True. So true. :? :?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gra

[quote/]Sorry Gra but you stated that the rate was going to stay as it was and it hasn't, so don't blame economists blame the person(s) who told you the porkie pie[\quote]

No porkie, just the tea leaves fell the wrong way:U

---

Tea leaves? :no: That's where you're going wrong :doh: . Tea leaves are only good for the weather, you need goat's entrails for fiscal forecasts.:D

Mick

I dunno I'm black as the ace of spades and Dazzler was very nice to me:rolleyes: :U

HH.

As far as the original post is concerned....

We have one spare room:q

Some current first home buyers and new car buyers seem to have a bling culture, where they can't afford to be seen buying a doer upper because their friend bought a McMansion they can't afford either.

I think the kids are playing keeping up with the Jones's except and they can't afford it. The kids who approach house buying and car finance with some room for manouvre financially will probably be better off in the short term, able to go out still, and in the long term as they are able to save, make improvements or pay lumps off the mortgage, equity is the key not the size of the house.

BTW my mum is one of 19 children and at any one time there were 10 of them in the family home which was a 3 bedroom terrace. Parents one room, boys another, girls the other.:oo: Luckily the boy / girl ratio is about 50/50.

HH.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by journeyman Mick

Tea leaves? :no: That's where you're going wrong :doh: . Tea leaves are only good for the weather, you need goat's entrails for fiscal forecasts.:D

Mick

---

Was going to say chicken entrails but it didnt sound right...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HappyHammer

I think the kids are playing keeping up with the Jones's except and they can't afford it.

---

You're right, of course, but there's nothing new about the phenomenon of materialism and status-consciousness. I can clearly recall asking my Dad what he meant when he used the expression "keeping up with the Jones's". I would have been about seven or eight years old at the time. I'm 60 now.

(Incidentally, the reason the expression had puzzled me so much was that we had neighbours whose surname was Jones and, mate, I couldn't work out why the hell anyone would want to try to keep up with them :oo:)