Some people seem perplexed as to how people can keep paying more and more for homes but with how much equity most borrowers have, it is not difficult to push prices higher.
Thanks, very interesting analysis, and I agree that land price escalation is the key issue. I understand that in the 1950s, land cost was c10% of the value of house + land, and now it is c50-50%. The cost base of land has increased due to planning induced restrictions and cost shifting of infrastructure onto home buyers, as well as higher minimum standards. They are areas that governments could address. Time to revisit the classic text: “A Mansion or No House”.
"If home ownership is a policy goal, cost of living indexes should treat home buying and renting households separately. This will ensure that any policy aimed at making home owning more attractive can be evaluated by comparing these metrics."
Thanks for the article Cameron. I accept the main theme that as price growth occurs, increased equity for existing home owners contributes to sustaining prices and price growth. I also have no doubt that the main vehicle for increased property prices over time is the effective increase in land values, because that is the only avenue for rapid price escalation - underlying land value is always the 'unearned increment' of rising property values.
However, if it is be more than just a statement of faith, I think you at least need to provide some reasons/logic for the view that 'Restricting the availability of land has been the primary driver of the increase in overall home values since the turn of the century.' A few initial questions I have in that regard that you may seek to answer are:
# What have been the various restrictions on the availability of land that have applied across different parts of the country from the turn-of-the-century?
#How 'primary' is that driver in the context of the demand incentives of generally lower interest rates and taxation incentives for investment?
# If the availability of land, and by extension dwellings on that land, relative to demand was truly the main driver, why have rents generally remained at about the same percentage of incomes (overall - with some increase for the lowest income quintile) over the long term , with some fluctuations up and down in the short term (for example, refer to Chart 5.15 of the NHSAC State of the Housing System 2024)?
Thanks, very interesting analysis, and I agree that land price escalation is the key issue. I understand that in the 1950s, land cost was c10% of the value of house + land, and now it is c50-50%. The cost base of land has increased due to planning induced restrictions and cost shifting of infrastructure onto home buyers, as well as higher minimum standards. They are areas that governments could address. Time to revisit the classic text: “A Mansion or No House”.
Hey Cameron - check this link out re land values climbing from the late 1990's...
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2011/09/how-the-cpi-hid-the-housing-bubble-2/
"If home ownership is a policy goal, cost of living indexes should treat home buying and renting households separately. This will ensure that any policy aimed at making home owning more attractive can be evaluated by comparing these metrics."
Thanks for the article Cameron. I accept the main theme that as price growth occurs, increased equity for existing home owners contributes to sustaining prices and price growth. I also have no doubt that the main vehicle for increased property prices over time is the effective increase in land values, because that is the only avenue for rapid price escalation - underlying land value is always the 'unearned increment' of rising property values.
However, if it is be more than just a statement of faith, I think you at least need to provide some reasons/logic for the view that 'Restricting the availability of land has been the primary driver of the increase in overall home values since the turn of the century.' A few initial questions I have in that regard that you may seek to answer are:
# What have been the various restrictions on the availability of land that have applied across different parts of the country from the turn-of-the-century?
#How 'primary' is that driver in the context of the demand incentives of generally lower interest rates and taxation incentives for investment?
# If the availability of land, and by extension dwellings on that land, relative to demand was truly the main driver, why have rents generally remained at about the same percentage of incomes (overall - with some increase for the lowest income quintile) over the long term , with some fluctuations up and down in the short term (for example, refer to Chart 5.15 of the NHSAC State of the Housing System 2024)?