Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 612

Australian house prices close in on world record

The new Demographia International Housing Affordability report doesn’t pull punches when it comes to housing affordability in Australia and globally.

Launched 21 years ago, the report is considered a standard bearer when it comes to the cost of housing in developed markets. When Demographia released its first report, almost every major housing market (it covers 95 markets across eight countries) was deemed affordable. Now, not one of them falls into this category.

Australia is one of the least affordable for housing. The report says that we have one market, Perth, which falls into the 'severely unaffordable' category with a median house price to median household income ratio (median multiple) between 5.1x and 8.9x. And we have four other major markets – Sydney, Adelaide, Brisbane, and Melbourne – that are ‘impossibly unaffordable’, with median multiples of 9x or more.

Australia is the second most expensive nation for housing, only behind Hong Kong. Note that our housing is twice as expensive as that in the US, and it’s well above the UK’s multiple of 5.6x.

In 1987, the median multiple for housing in Australia was 2.8x. Since then, that multiple has more than trebled.

All five of our major housing markets have become considerably more expensive over time.

We have become a world leader in expensive housing

We have five cities ranked in the top 14 most expensive housing markets in the world.

Sydney is in second place with a median multiple of 13.8x. It’s likely to take the mantle of the world’s most expensive market by next year. That’s because Hong Kong’s affordability is rapidly improving thanks to a depressed housing market there. In 2021, the median multiple on Hong Kong housing peaked at an astonishing 23.2x. That’s declined to 14.4x today and is expected to fall further over the next 12 months.

Amazingly, Adelaide is ranked as the sixth most expensive housing market in the world. To put this into context, Adelaide housing is more expensive than several of the major global cities, including London, New York, and Chicago.

Meanwhile, Melbourne continues to slip down the rankings as house prices stagnate and affordability improves. Its median multiple peaked at 12.1x in 2021, when it was deemed the world fifth least affordable market. Now at a multiple of 9.7x, it comes in ninth spot.

Brisbane’s housing is becoming more expensive, as is Perth’s. That means both are moving up Demographia’s list of the least affordable markets.

Where can you find cheaper housing?

The US, UK, and Canada have markets with much cheaper housing. Pittsburgh in the US ranks as the most affordable, with a median multiple of 3.2x. It’s followed closely by Cleveland, St Louis, and Rochester in New York. The fifth most affordable market is Edmonton in Canada, which is tied with Middlesbrough and Durham in the UK.

Why are there no ‘affordable’ cities to live in?

Why do none of the 95 markets fall into the ‘affordable’ category with a median multiple of 3x or less? And what’s happened over the past 40 years that’s led to exponential rises in house prices around the world?

Demographia puts the blame squarely on planning policies. It lambasts the so-called urban containment strategies of the developed world. It says planners have built boundaries around cities beyond which housing isn’t being built. Instead, the focus has been on densifying housing within city boundaries. Demographia thinks increasing density limits land supply and this naturally increases both land and house prices.

It says all the severely unaffordable markets follow the same urban containment model. The model was developed from the UK’s Town and Country Planning Act in 1947 and has since spread around the globe.

The report suggests planners should concentrate instead on building new detached homes on the fringes of cities. Only by increased land supply can land prices fall, and house prices with them.

As an interesting aside, the report notes that middle-income households are increasingly leaving expensive markets for more affordable places – a trend especially visible in the US and UK. It says these moves reflect long-term structural problems, and without major reform, this migration seems likely to continue.

Should Australia follow New Zealand’s lead?

The report lauds the housing policies of two countries: Singapore and New Zealand.

With New Zealand, its major city of Auckland has had median multiples drop from 11.2x in 2021 to 7.7x now. The report says the fall is a combination of improved incomes coming out of the Covid period and Government reforms that have started to impact land prices.

The Coalition Government elected in 2023 in New Zealand is opening up a large amount of land for greenfield development, consistent with promises made during the election. The Housing Minister, Chris Bishop, has noted that “our housing crisis is holding New Zealand back socially and economically,” and “we need more houses, and we need more greenfield development.”

The New Zealand Government’s ‘Going for Housing Growth’ program is seeking to ensure abundant development land within and around urban areas.

Demographia says these moves should prevent the artificial scarcity that has driven house prices so high under previous planning strategies.

 

James Gruber is Editor of Firstlinks.

 

74 Comments
Peter
May 29, 2025

Great discussion. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the huge cost of construction in Australia. The base of the property market is the supply and cost of the house and land package. The cost of all housing stems from this. Between government taxes, labour and materials costs, we have one of, if not the most expensive, house and land package costs in the world.

There is no other country in the world where tradespeople are paid more than doctors. This is not an exaggeration! The big build infrastructure projects where unions have negotiated huge salaries for construction workers, has resulted in huge increases in the hourly rate charged by tradespeople domestically. I recently had a toilet replaced. Cost $2,000. The toilet and other materials could be bought at Bunnings for less than $1,000. Total time taken to install, 50 min.

Australians can't afford to buy what Australian workers make. That is why we buy cars, etc from overseas. If we could buy the infrastructure ready made overseas, we would.

Given that no Australian government is going to allow an overseas company to bring its own overseas workforce to construct infrastructure projects here, we need a large increase in the Australian trade workforce to make construction of infrastructure and housing affordable. I would suggest that a large proportion of the new immigrants should mandated to be trades people.

Unfortunately, I think the close ties between the labor party and the unions will make sure that never happens!

Dudley
May 29, 2025

"trades people are paid more than doctor": only if they intimidate.

Senior plumber salary in Sydney NSW, Average base salary $103,508 / y
General practitioner salary in Sydney NSW, Average base salary $249,180 / y
https://au.indeed.com/career/general-practitioner/salaries/Sydney-NSW?from=top_sb

Best to consult YouTube to learn the lingo before hiring help. Price is inversely correlated with knowledge.

"toilet replaced. Cost $2,000. ... materials ... less than $1,000 ... install, 50 min":
Finding and Waiting for tradesman often takes much longer than doing it oneself.

Dudley
May 27, 2025


Australia’s Spending Addiction: From Paycheck to Pay Later
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQViIbPOI68

Too close to the bone; few views, shocked commentless:

1.2K views 1 day ago
6 Comments

Ashado
May 25, 2025

Australia's obsession with home ownership is partly to blame. Young professionals are mobile locally, nationally, and internationally in terms of their employment unlike 20-30 years ago, and it does not make sense to buy a house and get stuck in one place. I know many do make compromised job choices because they have bought a house in one place. Government should recognise this and go all out to improve rental affordability rather than enourage home ownership. In fact, it might even improve productivity with the workforce making wiser employment choices. Maybe public-private partnership in providing affordable rentals is better than subsidising house deposits.

Peter
May 26, 2025

Residential property portfolios are held by mums and dads all the way through to international speculators.
Restricting residential portfolios is possibly the fastest way of launching new properties into the market.
Severely restricting international ownership in the residential market opens up Commercial and Industrial ownership as a better option while these entities also shed themselves of the residential sector.
Limiting Australian Mum and Dad investors to a set number of dwellings enables them to remain in the residential market however, not as some of my colleagues do, with up to ten houses in their portfolios.
Two should be the maximum before Negative Gearing subsides.
So, release these properties back to the first home buyer market while boosting Industrial and Commercial.

tom
May 25, 2025

Lyn your experience echoes across Australia's cities.

Criitical Infrasturucture to support new housing isnt a priority for councils or water autohories.

Pricing will only get worse when even more legislation goes through limiting embedded carbon in new homes.

add to it union interference and a highly militant building commisioner exponentiationg compliance/soft costs for any class 2 buildings and you have quite the proverbial sh%t sandwich.

Jimmy
May 23, 2025

Eight countries does not make up the world.

Former Treasury policy maker
May 24, 2025

So, Jimmy, you know of any with more expensive housing? Please reveal all.

Jimmy
May 24, 2025

In absolute price, try Monaco. Beijing and Shenzhen are close to HongKong.

Former Treasury policy maker
May 25, 2025

Wow, Jimmy, they're great comparisons. Not. If they'd been expensive on the same basis as the article's calculations then I'm sure they'd have shown up. The whole point of the article was that absolute price isn't the way to compare degrees of "expensive".

Dudley
May 25, 2025

"expensive on the same basis as the article's calculations":
'Property Prices in Monaco' ... 'Price to Income Ratio: 38.69'
https://www.numbeo.com/property-investment/country_result.jsp?country=Monaco

Workers sleep standing in broom closet: '2024, the median price per square meter in Monaco for resale properties reached €51,967.'
https://livinginmonaco.com/2025/04/03/the-real-estate-resales-market/

K
May 23, 2025

Use AI to fix the wages problem. The problem of better work and wages as especially young people won't put up with crappy jobs. Maximum wages for the ultra rich and a fairer spread of income so the only way to get ahead is NOT the real estate ponzi scheme. Life's a beach.

Geoff K
May 23, 2025

Can someone explain why there is no shortage of affordable housing in Singapore and they clearly have a land supply issue. I know there is a lot of Govt supplied housing but people there value it & look after it. Maybe get Singapore to take over an Australian State and bring some good governance to us.

James Gruber
May 23, 2025

Hi Geoff,

78% of Singaporeans live in public housing. Different market.

James

Norman
May 25, 2025

Singapore does not have nor encourage population growth. Their economy is doing fine, thank you, with migration to SGP not essential. Given that economic may be subject to population, control this until housing and services are already available instead of trying to build these too late. Also, if government policies reduced investor-owning and insisted on migrants living in the regions and not being ghettoised in cities, perhaps regions would gain and the main city prices drop: demand < supply. While there may be Visa types for migrants that require regional dwelling, is this really monitored and enforced? I know of one migrant family returning home because they had to live outside a major city, even if where they bought a house was Perth, a designated "region" in the DFAT website! Australia's migration system defines regional areas as areas outside of the major cities of Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane.

Steve
May 23, 2025

Open question here as I don't know the answer. Immigration/population growth is clearly a driver of the demand side of the equation. Now my stereotype view of things is that migrants tend to gravitate to the large cities, which just exacerbates the issue. First up would that be accurate? If so, are there any means to encourage migrants to move to the regions to spread the load? Where we live immigrant doctors get priority if they work in a regional hospital for example. Governments (State govts I expect) could favour the regional universities for international students as well? I can easily see a situation in 20 years or so where the mobile young families "discover" the massive benefits of living and raising their kids in smaller communities, so long as they can find a good job, which with the modern connected world could be much easier than today.

Steve
May 23, 2025

The focus on large cities has a simple problem - supply is essentially fixed. There are no more blocks available within many of these boundaries so we get basic supply and demand economics pushing up prices. Of course more supply will lower overall prices, but the new supply perhaps by definition will have to come outside the big cities if they have no more land available? Which begs the basic question - how do they define "Sydney", "Melbourne", "London" etc. Are the boundaries used the same between the mid 80's and today? But economics says price is the mechanism that balances supply and demand, so even at these prices the demand is there, so by definition it is not yet "unaffordable". I realise there is some support for the metric used here - median house price/median income but I really think these are just too too simplistic. For borrowers (the vast majority) the true cost is the monthly repayment, the bulk of which is interest in the early years, and its paid with after-tax dollars. So ignoring tax rates and interest rates is just such a gross over-simplification to render comparisons dubious. Perhaps at least use median after tax income as a first leveller (this is not hard to calculate). Throw in other costs of ownership (property rates etc) and you will get a more granular comparison. Property taxes where we lived in the US were much higher than the rates we pay here for example (and property taxes, along with insurance were included in the mortgage repayments using escrow accounts, so the monthly mortgage has 4 components - principal, interest, property tax and home insurance). This repayment is what is used to determine your borrowing limit. It may sound like nit-picking but I really dislike the gross over-simplification of this issue by the media who I distrust to have any interest in factual analysis if it gets in the way of their latest scare campaign - everything has to be exaggerated to crisis level these days. All of this information is easily available - median incomes, tax rates, interest rates, property tax rates etc and to be too lazy to include these to get a clearer picture of the true cost is frankly not acceptable. Housing has never been "cheap", the price moves to what people can afford. It was common 50 years ago for someone retiring in Sydney to sell up and buy a nice big house for half the money somewhere up the coast.

Paul R
May 23, 2025

Disagree on this, Steve. Sydney has natural boundaries which limit supply, but the likes of Adelaide, Melbourne, Perth do not.

Dudley
May 23, 2025

"ignoring tax rates and interest rates is just such a gross over-simplification to render comparisons dubious":

Does. Add inflation:

2025:

For savings, inflation reduces rate;
= (1 + (1 - TaxRate) * NominalSavingsInterestRate) / (1 + InflationRate)
= (1 + (1 - 47%) * 5%) / (1 + 2.5%) - 1
= 0.15%

For mort-gage, 100% LTV (Principal = Value), interest only, inflation reduces principal and increases property value without tax for home;
= Principal * -(1 / (1 + InflationRate) - 1) + Value * InflationRate
= 1 * -(1 / (1 + 2.5%) - 1) + 1 * 2.5%
= 4.94%
Mort-gagee pays interest with after tax cash.

Michael
May 25, 2025

Mortgagor pays interest Dudley not mortgagee. Love all your brilliant analysis.

Dudley
May 25, 2025

"Mortgagor pays interest": Yes, 'post-haste'.

Stephen
May 23, 2025

It's simple. People who are not Australian Citizens should NOT have the ability to own Australian property.

James
May 23, 2025

Roughly, 1/3 own their homes outright, 1/3 have a mortgage and 1/3 rent. So 2/3 have a heavily vested interest in real estate maintaining higher prices and getting more & more expensive. Roughly, 2 out of 3 will cast their vote to the political party that protects their vested interest (the relatively few altruistic aside). Add in the obsession Australian's have with renovating property to be upwardly mobile, incentivised by negative gearing and generous capital gains tax breaks and there you have it, a political problem of epic proportions!

Liam
May 23, 2025

Exactly

Steve
May 24, 2025

I still don't get the obsession with negative gearing. It means the cost of ownership exceeds the income produced (ie negative cashflow). You only get the taxable component at your marginal rate written off your total tax bill. But it still means the landlord is subsidising the tenant. I would much prefer capital gains tax to be inflation adjusted as it used to be, but you still have a problem of a lumpy income. You may get 5 or 10 years of gain thrown into just one years tax return, potentially at a much higher marginal tax rate than your normal income. No one complains about this? Better to divide the Real gain by the number of years the property was owned, calculate the marginal tax due and then multiply this by the number of years. Kind of like the old 1/5th factor, but more accurate. It should not be that hard a sell if the tax treatment was seen to be simply fair. I am always surprised such "fair" changes are not jumped on by any government to remove the stigma that governments of all persuasions seem to be overly generous to landlords.

Pete
May 24, 2025

Welll said James & agree with all. It is in the majorities best interest not to resolve….Austalians are obsessed with property & it has come to bite.

Peter Taylor
May 26, 2025

Yes a lot of people enjoying a rise in wealth with little to no effort. The goverment benefits from rising stamp duty as do others involved in real estate
No sure why they use multiples of income solely to guage affordability without a comparison of interest rates.

Apart from prices the standard of housing is rising. Single driveways have become double and one bathroom has become two. Pergolas have become colourbong gable patios along with electric garage doors to replace wooden gates etc.

Unfortunately in a big australia not everyone wins but the winners are big winners. It's yet to be seen how far the industry of spiraling house prices takes us and whether after the big party there will be a big hangovet

Jek
May 23, 2025

System allowing investors and those with money to go ahead and buy their 6th, 7th, or 20th property aka property hoarding. Restrict this? Real estate shouldn't be a business model. So many ads about how to 'grow your property portfolio'. Are we playing monopoly here? Seriously, put a cap on this. Make it so that after X amount of assets, it's not worth getting more because you'll actually lose money instead of make money. If people have extra money, maybe it should be used on other types of investments such as stocks, businesses etc..

Prices are through the roof yet sales are still happening. Who's buying??? So mind boggling. Government is slapping it on supply issues. Even if supply increases, it's going to be the same ol investors snapping them up, not first home buyers.

Trevor
May 23, 2025

With stamp duty, land tax and capital gains tax along with the hassles of dealing with tenants I’m not sure why anyone would invest in residential realestate.

John G
June 06, 2025

Because even with those things people can make more flipping a house in 2 years than they can working for 10. No wonder every second person on social media is a "property investor"

Bob
May 23, 2025

Mass immigration is to blame.

Ben
May 23, 2025

Absolutely

Michael G
May 23, 2025

There are a number of reasons why Sydney is so expensive. First it is a beautiful harbour city that attracts aspiring professionals. Second, over the years old properties have been extensively renovated , increasing their value. Third, the population growth has outstripped supply putting pressure on inner suburbs and infrastructure capacity.

gene
May 26, 2025

Compare prices for apartments and townhouses in Sydney and New York and you may be surprised that Sydney is quite cheap if one's paying with green buck!

Guy
May 23, 2025

You really have to wonder how this issue is going to evolve in the next decade.
Young people with good jobs are being locked out of the housing market and are forced to pay high rents in order to get a roof over their heads. Others are destined to live with their parents for much longer that they or their parents would prefer.
House prices are rising faster than people can save. The lucky ones have parents or grandparents who can help them with hefty deposits. The gap between the haves and have nots continues to widen.
What a shocking indictment on our country that we have allowed this scenario to develop.

Dudley
May 23, 2025

Make Saving Great Again.

The reduction in demand for mort-gages will slow prices.

GeorgeB
May 23, 2025

One sure way to make saving great and reduce demand for mortgages is to jack up interest rates or at least not drop them to negative real levels as has occurred many times in the past for various short term reasons

Dudley
May 23, 2025

"jack up interest rates or at least not drop them to negative real levels":

Have to have telescope to blind eye to not see it.

Young slow savers mostly don't see it, older don't want to see it, so no one gets it.

Interest rate has little effect on young fast savers due to short time.

When mort-gaged homes become widely unaffordable to a cohort, perhaps then that cohort will see it.

Christian
May 23, 2025

Easy answers. Regulate the housing market and stop bush blocks begin put up for sale at ridiculous prices. Blocks that were $12k ten years ago are now selling for $300k... Then remote workers can start distributing the population outside of densely populated areas and achieve affordability.

Wildcat
May 25, 2025

Government deciding what land is worth. OMG not even CCP is this socialist.

This is the Soutar suggestion I’ve ever heard on any subject.

Chris
May 23, 2025

I’m the CEO of a mid sized tech business in Sydney. We pay internationally competitive wages and we are losing staff at an accelerating rate due to Sydney’s unaffordability, a problem which I fear is metastasising nationally.

Yes, SF was notoriously expensive during the tech run up but the US has so many other cities for businesses/employees to choose.

You can cite the exclusion of interest rates, the lack of reporting within cities themselves, and all means of parsing the data but house prices are making Sydney inhospitable for local young, skilled workers.

The math is simple. If a young software engineer earning $135k needs $167k for a 20% deposit (using the median price of a UNIT in the inner west - where a young engineer might want to live) this would take 7.5 years of saving 20%. That’s not impossible but prohibitive given they can live anywhere in the world and be a software engineer.

(Oh and that would require this person to save 20% of their income for 16.5 years to afford a house in the same area).

This is what people are actually talking about. Anyone arguing otherwise likely hasn’t been in these conversations.

And yes, this assumes young, skilled workers actually want to live in a vibrant city, somewhat close to their office and entertainment

Davidy
May 23, 2025

Agree completely (with a daughter trying to buy her first apartment in Sydney).

Chris
May 23, 2025

Absolutely. No one ever talks about what house prices are doing to young (mostly locally born) professionals on $100k - $300k…it’s not headline grabbing and these people don’t tend to garner sympathy but it will wreck Sydney’s IT/services/finance sectors, not to mention kill off what remains of the city’s nightlife

Dudley
May 23, 2025

Lots of young have very little idea about money; even bright software workers. They see an unlimited future of good income ahead for more years than they have been alive.

I suggest checking if there is any interest in the "Bunk of Dad&Mum", or the employer sponsored version.

Employee saves 80% for 4 years to buy a home, such as a two bedroom flat, and pays cash on the knocker.

Once they have the cash in pocket to buy a home outright they are liberated from the financial drag of rent and mort-gage forever.

How could an employer help, considering fringe benefits tax:
https://www.ato.gov.au/businesses-and-organisations/hiring-and-paying-your-workers/fringe-benefits-tax/types-of-fringe-benefits/accommodation-and-location-related-fringe-benefits/housing-fringe-benefits

Angry Mum of Three
May 23, 2025

Lots of young are skilled at handling money, especially bright software workers (and teachers etc). They see an unlimited future ahead of being shut out of the housing market, not being able to afford a child.

I suggest thinking about tax reform and inter generational equity, and what we can take away from the aged (yes, that bank of mum and dad has had a good run)

Dudley
May 23, 2025

"that bank of mum and dad has had a good run":

'Bunk of Dad&Mum' is a different 'institution' to "bank of mum and dad".

'Dad&Mum' are pragmatic, willing to show that a few early hard yards pays many times over later.

I suggest thinking about saving reform.

Liam
May 23, 2025

The problem in Australia is exacerbated by the tax system. It's completely normalised for people to pile any spare cash into an "investment property" that incurs rental losses, purely on the expectation that an asset which is already heavily overpriced on a price/earnings basis will become more overpriced as time goes on. And of course it will. At the recent election labour and the liberals were fighting to see who could come up with the most inflationary policy, in the name of helping first time buyers. What first time buyers really need is for property investment to be discouraged rather than encouraged and have someone pour cold water on the market, not more fuel. Alas a country that could once upon a time be admired for its egalitarianism is growing into one of the most wealth-unequal places on earth.

Trevor
May 24, 2025

Maybe you need to pay them more?

Dudley
May 24, 2025

"I’m the CEO of a mid sized tech business in Sydney":

Presuming tech means computer programming, employees should be able to copy and operate this model of the 'Bunk of Dad&Mum' in a couple of minutes:

[ Tidying up: https://www.firstlinks.com.au/australian-stocks-will-crush-housing-over-the-next-decade-one-year-on ]

Spreadsheet formula for calculating time to save price of home - without mortgage - with growing price and income.

Key variable / parameter is Time [nper] : 3.86 y

Home price:
growth 6% / y, inflation 0% (for nominal rate), growing for 3.86 y, initial price / single average disposable income 6:
= FV((1 + 6%) / (1 + 0%) - 1, 3.86, 0, -6)
= 7.55 times initial single average disposable income after 3.86 y.

Savings:
Net nominal savings interest rate 3.5% / y, inflation 0% (for nominal rate), saving for 3.86 y, disposable income growth rate 4% / y, couple disposable income saving rate 2 * 90% = 180%:
= FV((1 + 3.5%) / (1 + 0%) - 1, 3.86, 0, PV((1 + 4%) / (1 + 0%) - 1, 3.86, 2 * 90%, 0, 1))
= 7.55 times initial single average disposable income after 3.86 y.

Vary Time until both 'times initial single average disposable income' are equal (difference = 0).
Change key variable / parameter Time manually or using 'Solver' or 'Goal Seek'.

No "Bank of Dad&Mum", seek free / low cost rent. Rent or mortgage are drags that severely slow savings.

Ben
June 02, 2025

“No Bank of Dad & Mum, seek free/low cost rent”.

Dudley, please visit realestate.com and point me to anywhere in Sydney with cheap rent. This is not an option for people.

Dudley
June 02, 2025

"Dudley, please visit realestate.com and point me to anywhere in Sydney with cheap rent.":

Many homes in Sydney house families consisting of parents and their young adult worker progeny where the parents will allow said progeny to use the spare room or cabin or caravan BUNK, often free or for a share of utilities, while said progeny saves diligently:

https://www.realestate.com.au/buy/property-house-with-3-bedrooms-in-south+western+sydney,+nsw/list-1?activeSort=price-asc

It is true that non-family rent is both expensive and scarce in Sydney. Often has been.

If can not find cheap accommodation in Sydney then either resign to a life of rent or mort-gage servitude or look elsewhere for a better ratio of cost : income. Preferably less than 20% : 100%. Possibly employer supplied or in the shade of a Coolibah tree.

Sydney is nasty to young unskilled but more lucrative if more stressful to the older more skilled.

Go find a better place. Hunt up some skill:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ps8g0Y89An0

Dudley
June 02, 2025

I see the source of confusion:
'No "Bank of Dad&Mum"' should be 'No "Bunk of Dad&Mum"'.
My typo.

Randall
May 23, 2025

Think it depends on the political drivers that these so called reports are aimed at. As per the Chapman Report introduction.

Ultimately, as the report suggests, these high prices are largely the product of policies that seek to
limit growth on the periphery, which has been the usual way that cities have grown. The Demographia report has shown that where such policies predominate, for example in the United Kingdom, California, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, New Zealand, Australia and much of Canada, the results are disastrous, at least for potential homebuyers.

For us at the Chapman Center for Demographics and Policy, the study also has grave implications
on the prospects for upward mobility. High housing prices, relative to incomes, are having a distinctly feudalizing impact on our home state of California, where the primary victims are young people, minorities and immigrants. Restrictive housing policies may be packaged as progressive, but in social terms their impact could better be characterized as regressive.

So perhaps the report becomes biased towards a desired outcome push, rather than a vehicle to deliver facts.

As with other comments here, comparisons to times past and between markets may not be valid. Further, the Property Council of Australia tells me that up to 43% of the cost of a new home in Victoria goes on Government taxes, fees and levies. So perhaps that if these fees were lower homes would be more affordable. We recently sold our home in the ACT where the so called land value, which the ACT use to charge very high rates, formed over 65% of the house sale price and even older ex Government homes in our area the land value is over 80% of market value.

In other words, I do not think this report is useful.

Susan
May 23, 2025

Randall,

I don't think your comment makes sense. The question that the report is trying to get to the bottom of is: WHY are land values so high?

Your points don't address this.



Randall
May 23, 2025

Thanks Susan
No. For me, I think the report has started with a political/social desire/outcome to provide housing that younger people/poorer people/immigrants can afford compared to the salaries they are paid. They conclude that it comes from policies to limit the size/spread of cities. Then they look for data to support their aims. Somewhat backwards as far I am concerned.
Maybe it is more supply and demand. If we all 26 million want to squeeze into 3 cities and 2 towns, if French people want to live in Paris, if Americans want to live in New York etc, then you must pay.
Another thing I was trying to point to is that in Australia, the collective people via taxes/Government used to clear the land, put in the infrastructure and the rest whilst many Government businesses used to provide some housing for employees also. But not now: these expenses are loaded via the developer whilst Governments have increased their take more directly without paying out more up front.

GeorgeB
May 22, 2025

“In 1987, the median multiple for housing in Australia was 2.8x. Since then, that multiple has more than trebled.”

In 1987, the standard variable rate on a housing loan in Australia was 13-17%. In 2024 that number was closer to 6-7% or a multiple of 2.4 less at the high end. Add to that the spurts in house prices created when real interest rates became negative as the Reserve bank undertook emergency measures during the GFC and Covid and you can easily arrive at an explanation for a multiple that "has more than trebled”. The Reserve Bank does not take into consideration the impact of its interest rate decisions on housing affordability and has recently stated that it expects state and federal governments to do the heavy lifting on housing affordability.

Dudley
May 22, 2025

"variable rate on a housing loan", "Reserve Bank does not take into consideration the impact of its interest rate decisions on housing affordability":

Also after tax, after inflation savings interest rate largely ignored.

1987:
= (1 + (1 - TaxRate) * NominalSavingsInterestRate) / (1 + InflationRate)
= (1 + (1 - 49%) * 13%) / (1 + 8.5%) - 1
= -1.72% / y

Christian
May 23, 2025

Part of it is also due to foreign investment driving prices up, and coversly the driving force behind keeping wages down is partly due to immigrants being willing to work for less. e.g. The IT industry and immigrants willing to do the same job as local IT professionals for a fifth of the price. Maybe part of the solution is to allow the use of superannuation to buy your first property and use it as an offset against your primary asset. Otherwise you might never even get to spend your retirement funds anyway, since the financial stress will likely have killed you anyway... The government can also release a lot of Crown land like it used to and auction it off, though they're not doing that, which would help regulate the land prices (i.e. If you can buy released crown land from the government for peanuts, and the government is in direct competition to the real estate markets, at reasonable prices the real estate markets have no choice but to stagnate and reach a more affordable level).

Greig
June 07, 2025

"The government can also release a lot of Crown land like it used to and auction it off"
Why do that when they can sell it to their mates who can have it rezoned and privatize the profits!

Derk
May 22, 2025

The generality of this report is clearly flawed. Even within major cities, there are housing and affordability sectors. For instance, the three bedroom home unit market is very different from the two bedroom market, houses are different from apartments. There are many sub-categories that appear in any market, to bundle it all up and call it "the market" has long been used by the lazy media as a sleight of hand, intended to create concern and boost readership. I've been in this industry for 50 years. Affordability, today, might also be measured by what you spend on apps and daily $7 coffees.

CC
May 22, 2025

Sounds like burying your head in the sand.
Perhaps influence by vested interest, like most of our politicians who do nothing.
We have a massive problem created by many years of gross failures of government policies on many levels. It's a national disgrace.

Noel Whittaker
May 22, 2025

Well put – many people don't understand there are many housing markets all doing different things. For example, you can't compare Brisbane to Mount Isa.

Neil R
May 22, 2025

Noel,

The study doesn't compare Brisbane to Mount Isa, or any other country area.

It compares cities.

And I get there are generalisations within that, but it doesn't make them invalid.

Former Treasury policy maker
May 22, 2025

So, Derk, what would you do for such a study? Compare every individual house in the world and say that this one is more expensive than that one?
Come on, mate, analysis like this has to be done using medians, at least to make the sort of big picture points that it's examining. Once an issue like relative value has been established for a broad market, then you can go into individual suburbs, streets or houses if you want to.
But 'the generality of this report' is NOT FLAWED by its use of median data.

Ben
May 23, 2025

Derk,

The generality of your “apps and daily $7 coffees” statement is considerably more flawed than this report’s use of median data (statistics 101) to compare affordability across cities. Who cares if there’s pockets of affordability in outer suburbs? Why should we expect young, ambitious and talented people to live in fringe suburbs with zero connectivity and 2hr commute times? Do you know the long-term effects this will have on productivity? And as young people exile en masse because they can’t afford to raise a family, who fills that gap? You guessed it - immigrants. The social fabric of Australia changes, and we’re forced to choose between fertility collapse or deep recession. This is bigger than your generational qualms and biases. I think you’ll actually find financial media in Australia (AFR in particular) has a thirst for higher property prices and property porn, so I don’t think your point about “creating concern” makes any sense. Most of Australia has a vested interest in keeping property prices high. Talk about missing the bigger picture…

Young professionals - those that drive productivity, pay the highest taxes and ultimately improve quality of life for everyone - will absolutely look elsewhere if they cannot afford basic shelter in a major city. This is especially true for those that don’t have access to the bank of Mum and Dad. That Sydney (12.4t sq km) will soon outrank Hong Kong (1.1t sq km) as the World’s most unaffordable city is disgraceful. If Australians weren’t so laid back, there’d be riots in the streets.

Policy failure is to blame, but it’s entrenched mentalities like yours that empower politicians to propagate the ponzi further.

lyn
May 23, 2025

Ben, I liked a lot of what you said but I'd like to tell you I had about 100 'lower-income' staff doing 'ordinary' lower paid jobs in 1970- 90's who lived in outer suburbs and as far as Gosford, who got up to be at work every day at 6.30a.m. for which I admired them ( yes the trains ran well enough to do that) and they rarely missed a day unless sick unto death. They loved they could afford to buy home where they chose to live, sometimes what they could afford but more often by choice for the way of life and/or family closeby who could care for kids when they were offered overtime at short notice which it often was. There was not one of them who thought they had a hard lot. They were inspiring employees who made us city-dwellers work as hard as they did.

Ben
May 23, 2025

Hi Lyn, thanks for your comments but I think the broader point is that back in the 70’s and 80’s, professionals (i.e those who committed significant money and time into education) could afford to live close to their work and purchase a home to raise a family. Now, they can’t. If professional workers cannot afford that, how do you think ‘lower skilled’ workers can? First responders, nurses, police officers etc. are in rental stress and it’s taking them 10+ years to save for a 20% deposit. This is unfair and unhealthy for society.

I know countless examples of people who get up earlier than 6:30am, work long hours, and who still can’t afford to buy a home. Take Mt Druitt as an example:

Average home value: $1m
Average salary: ~$90k
$/% of income saved p.a: $27k/30%
Number of years to save 20%: 7 yrs

It takes 7 years for an average full-time worker , saving 30% of their pay, to save 20% to live in one of the most undesirable suburbs in Sydney. Now replace replace $1m with $2m (median Sydney house price).

I’m sure you worked hard for your spoils, but you’ve likely also benefited from one of the sharpest growing housing markets in human history. Even if a young person were lucky enough to buy a home today, what kind of capital growth can they enjoy if wages growth doesnt catch up? Should we expect 20x or 30x salary/house price multiple as the norm? Where does it end?

The reality is that young buyers will probably see moderate or even stagnate capital growth all while shackled to a multi-million dollar mortgage. All so CBA and NAB can distribute juicy franked dividends, the proceeds of which probably go back into housing anyway. And everyone - their parents, banks, RE agents, mortgage brokers, financial media - are cramming down their throats that they *have* to enter the property ladder at *any cost*.

Again, where does this end?

Dudley
May 23, 2025

"Number of years to save 20%: 7 yrs":

For simplicity, assume home price and wages inflate at same rate.

Time to save with 1 wage:
Tax rate 30%, savings return 5% / y, portion of wage saved 30% / y, savings PresentValue $0, 'deposit' 20%, home price $1,000,000, wages $90,000 / y:
= NPER((1 - 30%) * 5%, 30%, 0, 20% * (-1000000 / 90000))
= 6.70 y

Time to save with 2 wages:
= NPER((1 - 30%) * 5%, 2 * 30%, 0, 20% * (-1000000 / 90000))
= 3.54 y

Time to save "Bunk of Dad&Mum":
= NPER((1 - 30%) * 5%, 2 * 80%, 0, 20% * (-1000000 / 90000))
= 1.38 y

Time to save "Cash on Knocker":
= NPER((1 - 30%) * 5%, 2 * 80%, 0, 100% * (-1000000 / 90000))
= 6.32 y

Time to save "2 bed flat":
= NPER((1 - 30%) * 5%, 2 * 80%, 0, 100% * (-500000 / 90000))
= 3.33 y

sandgroper
May 22, 2025

It's a major problem and no political will to fix it.

But ... I wish Demographia et al published these stats and rankings considering interest rates. The vast majority of homeowners in any given country need to borrow to acquire a home so assuming a 60% LVR it's not hard to get a proper measure of affordability.

As a less significant point comparing the average house in Australia with an average house (apartment) in Hong Kong is a bit apples/oranges. Same could be said for Perth (1000 sqm blocks)/Sydney (400sqm blocks). But I suppose regardless of dwelling quality and size the average house is the average house so a reasonable benchmark.

James Gruber
May 22, 2025

Sandgroper,

Agree on space issues. It's hard to get apple to apples comparisons.

James

jeff triplett
May 22, 2025

I would dispute that we have an "urban containment model", since we have world-leading urban sprawl. The Demographia report is probably written by property developers, since it only covers 8 countries and most of them have massive immigration, which is the real reason for high prices.

James Gruber
May 22, 2025

Jeff,

Demograhia is an international public policy firm based in the US.

James

Pete K
May 22, 2025

Quite agree with you Jeff. Our cities are some of the world's largest already in terms of area. So called Greenfields developments sprawl endlessly out over valuable farm or nature land. Costs of servicing spiral while quality of life is questionable. (Lots of similar houses squashed together on small blocks, a very long way from anything) Where does it stop?

Lyn
May 23, 2025

As a part owner last 25yrs of acres & acres of land with outstanding natural beauty & views which could provide 100 homes minimum if designed with a decent garden and not terraced homes with barely a garden, within 40mins drive of a major capial city covered by the table above, in an area which needs homes of any type despite being a depressed area, I can say that none of you have any idea how hard it is to bring private, pure Greenfield land to sale. There is a major road just 3K's away to a capital city with loads of jobs in that capital city if houses can match need. Council will not fund a minor lane required for access even to a road we own across the land for the public to enjoy freely & has done for 95yrs. There is Greenie interference. I can go one better as friend identified a very very rare orchid which I would protect. Councils take stance a person would never protect something precious, there lays the impasse.

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

A housing market that I'd like to see

Why tapping super for housing is a bad idea

What's left unsaid in Australia's housing bubble

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Australian house prices close in on world record

Sydney is set to become the world’s most expensive city for housing over the next 12 months, a new report shows. Our other major cities aren’t far behind unless there are major changes to improve housing affordability.

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

Tariffs are a smokescreen to Trump's real endgame

Behind market volatility and tariff threats lies a deeper strategy. Trump’s real goal isn’t trade reform but managing America's massive debts, preserving bond market confidence, and preparing for potential QE.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Getting rich vs staying rich

Strategies to get rich versus stay rich are markedly different. Here is a look at the five main ways to get rich, including through work, business, investing and luck, as well as those that preserve wealth.

Latest Updates

SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

Superannuation

The huge cost of super tax concessions

The current net annual cost of superannuation tax subsidies is around $40 billion, growing to more than $110 billion by 2060. These subsidies have always been bad policy, representing a waste of taxpayers' money.

Planning

How to avoid inheritance fights

Inspired by the papal conclave, this explores how families can avoid post-death drama through honest conversations, better planning, and trial runs - so there are no surprises when it really matters.

Superannuation

Super contribution splitting

Super contribution splitting allows couples to divide before-tax contributions to super between spouses, maximizing savings. It’s not for everyone, but in the right circumstances, it can be a smart strategy worth exploring.

Economy

Trump vs Powell: Who will blink first?

The US economy faces an unprecedented clash in leadership styles, but the President and Fed Chair could both take a lesson from the other. Not least because the fiscal and monetary authorities need to work together.

Gold

Credit cuts, rising risks, and the case for gold

Shares trade at steep valuations despite higher risks of a recession. Amid doubts that a 60/40 portfolio can still provide enough protection through times of market stress, gold's record shines bright.

Investment strategies

Buffett acolyte warns passive investors of mediocre future returns

While Chris Bloomstan doesn't have the track record of his hero, it's impressive nonetheless. And he's recently warned that today has uncanny resemblances to the 1990s tech bubble and US returns are likely to be disappointing.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.