Who’s excuses? You mean for immigration? I’m not for excessive, nor no immigration. I’m for a manageable number. Just that I think it’s wrong to say it’s the cause of the housing crisis.
Where did I mention crime?
From your child comment
Example:
The housing crisis is caused by supply and demand. Importing over 1000 people a day while building no houses will do that.
That’s the thing, we’ve been building houses like crazy, and somewhat keeping up with demand, evidenced by the fact there are THOUSANDS EMPTY PROPERTIES. The price inflation no where near matches the utility of houses or demand if it were for living in only. People are expecting to make returns on the house. It’s been commodified and tax incentivised and thus prices have gone way up. You’re also ignoring the extremely obvious fact that the more people who are here, the more labour there is to produce houses. Having more or less people makes practically no difference to the rate we can build houses (all else being equal).
Funnily enough, Singapore is way, way more constrained with land for housing, but have an extremely strong public housing system, preventing most people from living in properties that have been made into investment vehicles.
Billionaires are not the problem.
Yes. Yes they are. They lobby for lower taxes (for them), avoid the taxes that already exist, making billions off the backs of other people’s labour (you can’t seriously suggest Gina Rhinehart has put in enough effort to warrant her billions). They own practically 80% of the politicians in parliament. And it’s hilarious (and very upsetting) how many people are believing the bullshit they’ve been feeding us since forever.
The only solution to the housing crisis is making house investment less profitable, and make them somewhere to live, not somewhere to make a profit.
Good luck making your billions mate. It’s DEFINITELY within most people’s reach… lol /s
Immigration didn’t cause the housing crisis, but it’s now the biggest thing making it worse every single day.
We aren’t building enough houses. There being thousands of empty houses is irrelevant because people own them. They’re not on the market. They were empty before the mass immigration started.
There being more people here doesn’t mean more labour to build houses, because we’re not importing builders or even people that are considered “skilled”. Something like 10% of all the immigrants coming here now are “skilled workers”, the rest are their families and students and unskilled workers.
People can buy whatever they want to. They’re under no obligation to rent a house out, nor are they not allowed to buy more houses.
We have a supply problem. We aren’t building enough houses. This is fact. We are importing over 7000 people per week, all of who need housing. Are we building 7000 new houses per week in the places these immigrants want to live - inner city? No.
We have more houses per person, so it is not a fact. We do have a supply problem, because we’re not utilising our existing housing stock.
We do have a supply problem, but it’s wild you think it’s okay for wealthy people to screw the rest of us over. The supply problem is because houses are sitting empty, and tax incentives are such that profiting off of housing makes it an asset class people are pouring money into.
We could just decide tomorrow we’re going to keep housing prices nominally stable, make hoarding empty houses illegal (like, someone’s “freedom” to profit doesn’t trump the rest of our freedom of having somewhere affordable to live… we live in a society, not an anarcho-capitalist hellscape), and remove tax incentives that make housing such an attractive asset class.
We could be using these piles of money invested into unproductive assets (the house just sits there, the actual value from living there is far, far exceeded by the current price) and invest them in actual productive assets like companies and research.
Housing needs to be for people to live, not to profit.
We are building enough housing per person, that’s a fact, and I’ve given you the data to prove it. Yes, even with how many people were bringing in (which I agree, we ought not just aimlessly do).
But it’s plainly obvious that the reason housing is expensive is not because of the number of houses we have.
To be clear we have more housing per person than before, so the 7000 per week figure (also, is that net?), doesn’t really prove your point at all.
Where are these empty houses? Not where people want to live, and they’re not for sale or rent so they’re irrelevant.
Are we building 7000 new homes per week? No. We are factually not building enough homes.
You are not owes someone else giving you their house to live in. If they choose to buy it and keep it empty that’s up to them, and they shouldn’t be forced to do otherwise. Thinking they should is just jealousy.
Clearly we must be, otherwise how would the number of houses per person be increasing…?
Something tells me the 7000 per week number isn’t correct or otherwise misconstrued. Please link to the relevant study or ABS data page. (There may be some confusion between net migration, and number of ARRIVALS per week, which includes tourists and other temporary visa holders)
they’re not for sale or rent so they’re irrelevant
You are not owes someone else giving you their house to live in. If they choose to buy it and keep it empty that’s up to them, and they shouldn’t be forced to do otherwise. Thinking they should is just jealousy.
Sorry, but I think this take isn’t sensible. We regulate a lot of our society. We don’t let people do whatever they want, where we draw the line in different areas comes down to what we value as a society.
You seem to value ownership above all else. Never mind the extremely damaging externalities, in your point of view.
If you own a house, and you’re not living in it, and you’re not renting it out, especially if you own more than 2 (I think holiday houses aren’t some sacred thing people NEED, but fine, have A holiday house), then sorry, yes, you should be forced to sell or rent it out. Thinking it’s okay to just keep it empty as your personal choice, is anti-social behaviour, and we as a society can choose to disallow it like we do with many other anti-social behaviours.
It’s not jealously, it’s empathy for your fellow human beings who need somewhere affordable to live. We as a society do get to decide when someone’s behaviour is unacceptable. Unless you’re not a fan of democracy?
We balance freedoms for the individual with what’s best for the collective. Both extremes of hyper-individualism (what you seem to think “FreedomAdvocacy” means) or no personal rights whatsoever are dumb. There’s a debate to be had about where exactly we should fall for any given topic, but the extremes seem a terrible way to run society.
Where did I mention crime?
The housing crisis is caused by supply and demand. Importing over 1000 people a day while building no houses will do that.
You’re the one who is being duped by the looks of it, eating up all their excuses for why supply and demand isn’t the issue.
Billionaires are not the problem.
Who’s excuses? You mean for immigration? I’m not for excessive, nor no immigration. I’m for a manageable number. Just that I think it’s wrong to say it’s the cause of the housing crisis.
From your child comment
That’s the thing, we’ve been building houses like crazy, and somewhat keeping up with demand, evidenced by the fact there are THOUSANDS EMPTY PROPERTIES. The price inflation no where near matches the utility of houses or demand if it were for living in only. People are expecting to make returns on the house. It’s been commodified and tax incentivised and thus prices have gone way up. You’re also ignoring the extremely obvious fact that the more people who are here, the more labour there is to produce houses. Having more or less people makes practically no difference to the rate we can build houses (all else being equal).
Funnily enough, Singapore is way, way more constrained with land for housing, but have an extremely strong public housing system, preventing most people from living in properties that have been made into investment vehicles.
Yes. Yes they are. They lobby for lower taxes (for them), avoid the taxes that already exist, making billions off the backs of other people’s labour (you can’t seriously suggest Gina Rhinehart has put in enough effort to warrant her billions). They own practically 80% of the politicians in parliament. And it’s hilarious (and very upsetting) how many people are believing the bullshit they’ve been feeding us since forever.
The only solution to the housing crisis is making house investment less profitable, and make them somewhere to live, not somewhere to make a profit.
Good luck making your billions mate. It’s DEFINITELY within most people’s reach… lol /s
Also you missed the point of my screenshot there. It wasn’t about the crime, it was about the fact that that person wasn’t even deported.
Immigration didn’t cause the housing crisis, but it’s now the biggest thing making it worse every single day.
We aren’t building enough houses. There being thousands of empty houses is irrelevant because people own them. They’re not on the market. They were empty before the mass immigration started.
There being more people here doesn’t mean more labour to build houses, because we’re not importing builders or even people that are considered “skilled”. Something like 10% of all the immigrants coming here now are “skilled workers”, the rest are their families and students and unskilled workers.
So, let me get this straight. We have more housing per person than any time in the last 30 years, and you’re saying we’re not building enough houses?
How is more demand from more immigrants a problem, but low supply from people literally hoarding houses, a human need, not a problem?
It’s crazy how people, including you, don’t have a problem with people hoarding, and will let the elites convince you it’s foreigners.
Like???
People can buy whatever they want to. They’re under no obligation to rent a house out, nor are they not allowed to buy more houses.
We have a supply problem. We aren’t building enough houses. This is fact. We are importing over 7000 people per week, all of who need housing. Are we building 7000 new houses per week in the places these immigrants want to live - inner city? No.
We have more houses per person, so it is not a fact. We do have a supply problem, because we’re not utilising our existing housing stock.
We do have a supply problem, but it’s wild you think it’s okay for wealthy people to screw the rest of us over. The supply problem is because houses are sitting empty, and tax incentives are such that profiting off of housing makes it an asset class people are pouring money into.
We could just decide tomorrow we’re going to keep housing prices nominally stable, make hoarding empty houses illegal (like, someone’s “freedom” to profit doesn’t trump the rest of our freedom of having somewhere affordable to live… we live in a society, not an anarcho-capitalist hellscape), and remove tax incentives that make housing such an attractive asset class.
We could be using these piles of money invested into unproductive assets (the house just sits there, the actual value from living there is far, far exceeded by the current price) and invest them in actual productive assets like companies and research.
Housing needs to be for people to live, not to profit.
We are building enough housing per person, that’s a fact, and I’ve given you the data to prove it. Yes, even with how many people were bringing in (which I agree, we ought not just aimlessly do).
But it’s plainly obvious that the reason housing is expensive is not because of the number of houses we have.
To be clear we have more housing per person than before, so the 7000 per week figure (also, is that net?), doesn’t really prove your point at all.
Where are these empty houses? Not where people want to live, and they’re not for sale or rent so they’re irrelevant.
Are we building 7000 new homes per week? No. We are factually not building enough homes.
You are not owes someone else giving you their house to live in. If they choose to buy it and keep it empty that’s up to them, and they shouldn’t be forced to do otherwise. Thinking they should is just jealousy.
Clearly we must be, otherwise how would the number of houses per person be increasing…?
Something tells me the 7000 per week number isn’t correct or otherwise misconstrued. Please link to the relevant study or ABS data page. (There may be some confusion between net migration, and number of ARRIVALS per week, which includes tourists and other temporary visa holders)
Sorry, but I think this take isn’t sensible. We regulate a lot of our society. We don’t let people do whatever they want, where we draw the line in different areas comes down to what we value as a society.
You seem to value ownership above all else. Never mind the extremely damaging externalities, in your point of view.
If you own a house, and you’re not living in it, and you’re not renting it out, especially if you own more than 2 (I think holiday houses aren’t some sacred thing people NEED, but fine, have A holiday house), then sorry, yes, you should be forced to sell or rent it out. Thinking it’s okay to just keep it empty as your personal choice, is anti-social behaviour, and we as a society can choose to disallow it like we do with many other anti-social behaviours.
It’s not jealously, it’s empathy for your fellow human beings who need somewhere affordable to live. We as a society do get to decide when someone’s behaviour is unacceptable. Unless you’re not a fan of democracy?
We balance freedoms for the individual with what’s best for the collective. Both extremes of hyper-individualism (what you seem to think “FreedomAdvocacy” means) or no personal rights whatsoever are dumb. There’s a debate to be had about where exactly we should fall for any given topic, but the extremes seem a terrible way to run society.
You need to get an adult to explain your houses per 1000 people graph to you lol