acu----the median what is that ,is that where one is 220k and another is 750k,this whole median affordability ratio argument is an absolute joke,rubbish in fact under the scenario you paint affordable is an inner city home or country 5 to 40 acres.
the next part of this thread is a debate regarding dinks,women in the main became part of the workforce in the war years ,however this did not mean equality,women in reality did not begin receiving anything approaching equal pay until the 70s,and i would suggest that was the developed world.
as for banks,in reality its only been the past 25years where banks would accept a womens income as a real contribution to the ability to pay a mortgage.
while blame is laid on a debt fuelled economy,just remember what it has given us,the opportunity to develop individually and as a country at a tremendous rate,housing today does not compare in any way whatsoever with even 1970, is it proportionally more expensive ,probably,but you get a lot more for your money,building costs 20 years ago actually dropped compared to the previous 20years.
now the last bit i find really amusing the single income earner on only 65k p.a,well we have lots of income earners on less than 50k p.a get two like that who form a partnership to buy r/e and i am pretty sure mr 65k p.a will not be able to compete,thats part of the real issue real estate is affordable ,at 65k you can buy up to 250k ,there are lots to choose from, at dinks 100k+ they easily have a 100k buying advantage and there are lots and lots of 350k homes forsale all over australia,so what is a median,whats all the rubbish about affordability.
my humble little dwelling is under 200k and its as cheap as renting inclusive of rates etc.--so what is a nedian,so whats wrong with a competitive market if you cannot afford at 65k on a single income work harder,i do although i do earn more -----if not rent and make the investor happy
